Yes, the Stoics, would have advocated suicide in strict conditions. Such mandates were imposed to prevent the needless loss of life at your very own hands. — Posty McPostface

The stoics are a good example. Suicide was appropriate in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, it was one more manly facing of death.

Had Marcus Aurelius committed suicide, he would have been remembered as a proto-Jesus, above and beyond that of Socrates. — Posty McPostface

Well you do bring up a point that has always interested me. Two of our primary cultural heroes (Jesus and Socrates) were [complicated] suicides. So facing death is at the very heart of the heroic, at least in these figures. I think death connects to the small self as opposed to the big self, or the 'petty' self as opposed to the 'transcendent' self.

The stoics are a good example. Suicide was appropriate in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, it was one more manly facing of death. — macrosoft

I don't think it's a matter of manliness as you portray it. After all, Stoicism appealed to women also.

I think death connects to the small self as opposed to the big self, or the 'petty' self as opposed to the 'transcendent' self. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

I don't think it's a matter of manliness as you portray it. After all, Stoicism appealed to women also. — Posty McPostface

Well, sure, it's not really about genitals. But traditionally it's men who go to war and women and children who get the first lifeboats. I may be a little bit old-fashioned for 2018 in this regard. On the other hand, I don't think my wife could love and respect me quite the same way if she didn't know in her uterus that I would jump between her and danger with a willingness to die and/or kill if necessary.

It's natural that a peaceful society wouldn't emphasize these old-fashioned notions much. But I suspect they would be back in a flash if things became universally dangerous again.

It's natural that a peaceful society wouldn't emphasize these old-fashioned notions much. But I suspect they would be back in a flash if things became universally dangerous again. — macrosoft

True, I meant to just highlight the fact that egalitarianism commands otherwise.

What do you mean by that? — Posty McPostface

What is it that dies? Who is it that dies? And who is it that is died for? For whom does the soldier die? For whom or what did Socrates die? For whom or what do we die in lots of little ways when not completely?

What is it that dies? Who is it that dies? And who is it that is died for? For whom does the soldier die? For whom or what did Socrates die? For whom or what do we die in lots of little ways when not completely? — macrosoft

A memory dies. That's unacceptable. But, true, people commit suicide, and then the world keeps on turning. It's just such a futile act though.

True, I meant to just highlight the fact that egalitarianism commands otherwise. — Posty McPostface

Sure, and I'm a 'blue' guy in a 'blue' city. But as a philosopher, I don't take on the moral fads without criticism or reservation. [Which is not to say that you do, but only to clarify my position.]

A memory dies. That's unacceptable. But, true, people commit suicide, and then the world keeps on turning. It's just such a futile act though. — Posty McPostface

I'm not thinking of suicide in the above quote. I'm talking about the things we die for and why.

Sure, and I'm a 'blue' guy in a 'blue' city. But as a philosopher, I don't take on the moral fads without criticism or reservation. [Which is not to say that you are and do, but only to clarify my position.] — macrosoft

What would Wittgenstein say about suicide? I know he was plagued by such thoughts as he was developing and in his life too. I see the committing of suicide as an act of rebellion against life. Same with abortion.

I'm not thinking of suicide in the above quote. I'm talking about the things we die for and why. — macrosoft

I just fail to see the merit to martyrdom with suicide. Sure, people get remembered for it; but, so what?

What in me dies when I die? My particular memories? Yeah. But what was the best part of me all along? What it my little particular face? Was it my little habits?

Or was the virtue that lit up my life the same virtue that lit up other people's lives? Is essential virtue a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle? I'd say so. So death loses some of its sting as we sincerely find ourselves in the flame and not the candle.

What in me dies when I die? My particular memories? Yeah. But what was the best part of me all along? What it my little particular face? Was it my little habits?

Or was the virtue that lit up my life the same virtue that lit up other people's lives? Is essential virtue a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle? I'd say so. So death loses some of its sting as we sincerely find ourselves in the flame and not the candle. — macrosoft

Well, I can respect the desire for death in those who face gratuitous suffering. But, what is life without suffering? Again, where does one draw the line between merited suicide and unwarranted suicide?

I just fail to see the merit to martyrdom with suicide. Sure, people get remembered for it; but, so what? — Posty McPostface

Again, I'm not talking about suicide anymore, except maybe self-sacrifice that saves others or for some cause. My focus is on facing death more generally. We are all mortal. So the question is how we face this death and how this mortality might encourage us to think philosophically and make peace with death. And the question is also how the knowledge of mortality is integrated within our grasp of existence as a whole, perhaps making that grasping-as-a-hole more possible or profound.

So, you're talking about death in general. One doesn't always have the opportunity to pick what circumstances they die under. Is that what you're talking about, the circumstances which one might be able to choose to die under?

But, what is life without suffering? — Posty McPostface

I agree. And most people don't want to die, so much so that they will believe unlikely stories to fend off the notion of being erased as particular persons. My point would be that facing death 'forces' the lit candle to identify more with the flame than the wax.

I agree. And most people don't want to die, so much so that they will believe unlikely stories to fend off the notion of being erased as particular persons. My point would be that facing death 'forces' the lit candle to identify more with the flame than the wax. — macrosoft

Hmm. You drive a hard bargain. I'm a fan of logotherapy and have read Viktor Frankl's, Man's Sear for Meaning. We always have the chance to choose our attitudes; but, not circumstances towards death.

You asked me how facing death connects to the petty versus the transcendent self. The petty self is the wax, the little details of a life that are erased. The transcendent self is the flame. Sometimes the 'wax' is sacrificed to the flame. Schopenhauer writes about this kind of thing. Let's say I jump in front of a bus to save an absentminded child. I have a sense that the child and I are one, that our individuality is a kind of 'illusion' or at least inessential. I manifest a sense of profound connection by truly risking my flesh (and not by merely talking about it, which would be less convincing.)

Understood. I was unsure what you meant by that analogy. But, thanks for clarifying.

Hmm. You drive a hard bargain. I'm a fan of logotherapy and have read Viktor's Man's Sear for Meaning. We always have the chance to choose our attitudes; but, not circumstances towards death. — Posty McPostface

Right. We don't choose our death. But most of us live knowing that it will come for us eventually, probably when we aren't expecting it. Or at least the cancer diagnosis will be a surprise.

So we live with this knowledge in the back of our minds, like a kind of dark laughter that puts the long-range importance of the projects we take so seriously into question.

Understood. I was unsure what you meant by that analogy. But, thanks for clarifying. — Posty McPostface

My pleasure. I really like the candle analogy. As far as I know, that one is all mine. Thought someone out there probably also used it, given that candles are such old technology.

Yes, this sounds like something Wittgenstein would say. I agree. What is life without death? Just something? Not really.

So, what are your thought's about Buddhism, and the cessation of suffering? Is it all mumbo-jumbo or is there some truth to all of it?

Yes, this sounds like something Wittgenstein would say. I agree. What is life without death? Just something? Not really. — Posty McPostface

If I use my imagination, I'd say that life without death would be very different. There would always be time to procrastinate. You could always go back to take the right path having at first taken the wrong path. In some ways it would be nice. But it would also reduce life to a flat kind of video game. Decisions would have no real weight.

If I use my imagination, I'd say that life without death would be very different. There would always be time to procrastinate. You could always go back to take the right path having at first taken the wrong path. In some ways it would be nice. But it would also reduce life to a flat kind of video game. Decisions would have no real weight. — macrosoft

Yes, this is the moral dilemma that the simulation hypothesis faces. It's a path that one can always take, but, would you be willing to forsake death, which is going to become a reality sooner or later?

So, what are your thought's about Buddhism, and the cessation of suffering? Is it all mumbo-jumbo or is there some truth to all of it? — Posty McPostface

I'm no expert, but I have dabbled. I'd say that there is some truth to it and some mumbo-jumbo. My main response would that what the individual makes of it is primary. Every tradition, let's say, has a profound face and shallow face. Or maybe a continuum that runs from depth to triviality. Anyone can gossip with no real understanding about anything. Language allows that.

Even crappy philosophers can be transformed into gold by the right kind of seriousness. And truly great philosophers can be interpreted into bumper stickers in the other direction. Traditions are nice, but show me the individual.

If one adopts the Buddhist attitude, then suffering becomes something transformative. It makes suffering the primary goal of reduction. There becomes some truth to suffering having an inherent value, then. What do you think, macro?

I'm no expert, but I have dabbled. I'd say that there is some truth to it and some mumbo-jumbo. — macrosoft

More truth than mumbo-jumbo, or otherwise?

Even crappy philosophers can be transformed into gold by the right kind of seriousness. — macrosoft

I think it's sincerity.

Traditions are nice, but show me the individual. — macrosoft

What do you mean?

Yes, this is the moral dilemma that the simulation hypothesis faces. It's a path that one can always take, but, would you be willing to forsake death, which is going to become a reality sooner or later? — Posty McPostface

This reminds me of vampire fiction, which I think is pretty suggestive. Would I become immortal? Would I choose to become a vampire? I really might. But vampires can be destroyed. So let's imagine vampires that can't be destroyed, so that one is stuck with immortality. Now the question is heavy. I'd now say that one should be very careful here. Old fashioned religious notions of hell are entering the picture along with absolutely irreversible decisions. Death adds a certain lightness to existence. However bad you mess it up, you eventually get to go home.