What does one do when one is born but doesn't want to do what is required of being alive? — schopenhauer1

Drop dead? No, just a snarky comment -- not a serious suggestion.

Since you do exist, as unfortunate as that might be, it would seem that you could do whatever you wanted to do to make life as pleasant for yourself as possible. Of course there are downsides to existence. Gravity, for instance. It's a drag. Life sucks.

At times, we all can feel the futility of soldiering on through the swamp of existence. You are not the first person to lament it. You do seem unusually immobile, however. I don't know what idea or drug or strategic shove would get you moving again. Here in the northland winter people are forever getting stuck, spinning their wheels on ice. Sometimes pushing doesn't help. It's tough to get out of an ice rut. But... eventually they do, else they are found in the spring, frozen, clutching a nihilist anti-natalist tract in their dead hands. Figuratively, of course.

You have an idée fixe. You could dislodge it with a little effort and that might help.

I don't know what idea or drug or strategic shove would get you moving again. — Bitter Crank

Magic mushrooms. Seriously. They’re doing research on it for depression (at Harvard I think) and it seems to work wonders.

What is this something? Usually it is society's need for production, — schopenhauer1

That's a tediously modern, materialist answer to your question, and I agree it is inadequate and simply false. Plato's way out of the cave is through contemplation of the form of the good, and there are Buddhist and Christian responses that you are well enough aware of, that cannot be so facilely dismissed. I think there is a common thread, which is 'love' that answers your question. I would guess that the Christian response - of a salvation that is not a choice, and does not have its origin in the self, would most fully answer your complaint.

What am Insaving and why? The materialist conception seems to be the social reality. Charity is just one part of it if that’s what you’re referring to. But that is a symptom and not part of the structure.

You have an idée fixe. You could dislodge it with a little effort and that might help. — Bitter Crank

But that’s the attitude change. If it’s a choice, what does it mean to choose society’s need for production? At the end of the day that’s what I’m choosing. There is no rebellion outside of the abstract notions which are just talk around the behemoth material social reality that is to be accepted with joy.

But that’s the attitude change. If it’s a choice, what does it mean to choose society’s need for production? At the end of the day that’s what I’m choosing. — schopenhauer1

You don't have to choose "society's need for production". There is over production as it is.

There is no rebellion outside of the abstract notions which are just talk around the behemoth material social reality that is to be accepted with joy. — schopenhauer1

I know people who didn't, who haven't accepted the behemoth material society reality with joy. I didn't accept it with job. To paraphrase the liturgy of baptism, "...behemoth material society reality, I reject you" (instead of "Satan, I reject you").

I, and others, like you may have to put up with social crap, but we don't have to rejoice in it. You can be as nonconforming as you can manage, and have as little as you can to do with the toilet full of social crap. Granted, it isn't easy. If you have to work (for daily bread) then you are likely to be dealing with at least some social crap. But you don't have to soak in it up to your eyeballs like some people do.

Keep complaining -- it's good for people to hear dissenting voices. But for your own happiness, carve out a little niche where you can feel OK at least sometimes.

What am Insaving and why? The materialist conception seems to be the social reality. Charity is just one part of it if that’s what you’re referring to. But that is a symptom and not part of the structure. — schopenhauer1

Schop, I cannot go much further, alas; I am not a Christian, or any kind of expert here, but charity as do-good-ery is the opposite of what I am talking about.

It's all a question of motivation. I might be charitable in order to feel superior, powerful, or to impress others, or to conform, or because Guru un tells me it will make me happy, and in any such case, and many other variants, it is all about me. And as long as it's all about me, it's the endless round of dissatisfaction and suffering you describe.

What am I saving and why? — schopenhauer1

The life you save may be your own?

I think what Un is talking about, and he can speak for himself, is something called "grace". Grace is freely given and unearned. You probably are suspicious of grace, or unfamiliar with the idea. It's not charity and it's not materialistic. Suppose you don't like, don't believe in God? Is there then no grace for you? Grace isn't a deal: We don't -- we can't -- do anything for it. It's a gift. "I believe in God the father, almighty" isn't an incantation that forces god to shell out grace. I haven't audited god's accounts, but as far as I know, god can give grace to whoever--believers and nonbelievers, Hindus and atheistic communists.

Is there a secular, non-christian, non-religious version of grace? Yes, and it is elusive. It's a paradox that you can not struggle to get grace. You can't force even godless grace to just appear. You can prepare yourself but you have to let grace happen to you. (At least, that's the way I understand it.) It's like love -- you can't make yourself love somebody, and you can't force somebody to love you. But what you can do is let it happen.

You have to "let go".

Meditation would probably help you, if you were directed toward the right goal.

Magic mushrooms. Seriously. They’re doing research on it for depression (at Harvard I think) and it seems to work wonders. — Noah Te Stroete

So I've heard. I have no experience with the drug.

I know people who didn't, who haven't accepted the behemoth material society reality with joy. I didn't accept it with job. To paraphrase the liturgy of baptism, "...behemoth material society reality, I reject you" (instead of "Satan, I reject you").

I, and others, like you may have to put up with social crap, but we don't have to rejoice in it. You can be as nonconforming as you can manage, and have as little as you can to do with the toilet full of social crap. Granted, it isn't easy. If you have to work (for daily bread) then you are likely to be dealing with at least some social crap. But you don't have to soak in it up to your eyeballs like some people do.

Keep complaining -- it's good for people to hear dissenting voices. But for your own happiness, carve out a little niche where you can feel OK at least sometimes. — Bitter Crank

I like this. Well said. :up:

And as long as it's all about me, it's the endless round of dissatisfaction and suffering you describe. — unenlightened

Is there a secular, non-christian, non-religious version of grace? Yes, and it is elusive. It's a paradox that you can not struggle to get grace. You can't force even godless grace to just appear. You can prepare yourself but you have to let grace happen to you. (At least, that's the way I understand it.) It's like love -- you can't make yourself love somebody, and you can't force somebody to love you. But what you can do is let it happen.

You have to "let go". — Bitter Crank

No doubt, giving to fellow humans out of pure compassion is something. Schopenhauer discussed it as the root of true morality. What you describe is almost exactly what Schop says about compassion. It cannot be cultivated as much as just "happens" to an individual (though his conception seems to be tied up in someone's character).

However, my comment was to the broader point- charity is within the larger framework that people even need charity. It is all a part of the material social circumstances. So what of the structure itself that creates work, that creates the need for charity. I don't see giving charity as an exercise in me displaying grace, surely you don't either. So, what exactly do we do with this whole structure, work, charity and all?

I don't see giving charity as an exercise in me displaying grace, surely you don't either. — schopenhauer1

No, I don't see it that way either. Grace isn't something one displays or does.

So, what exactly do we do with this whole structure, work, charity and all? — schopenhauer1

Are you familiar with the religious idea of being "in the world" but not "of the world"?

Not being "of the world" represents one separating and distinguishing one's self from "the world" (structure, work, charity, social media, all that stuff) to the extent that one is able. It means identifying what in the world "is not for me" and what in the world "is for me". Philosophers have observed that people are driven like slaves by the demands of the world--not just that you work, but that you have a weed free lawn, drive a nice car, keep the monetary value of your property up, and so on. Strivers are all about achieving maximum rewards and displaying them to best effect.

You don't have to associate yourself with all that. Do you have to work for your daily bread? So you do because you don't want to starve. But you don't have to be a striver; you don't have to be the fastest worker, the top salesman, the largest grossing real estate agent, etc. You can arrange your life to get by with as little as possible -- thus requiring the least amount of effort possible, and least possible commitment to "the system".

How well does that work? At best, I'd say "so-so". At worst it is just another existential shit pile.

Have you considered becoming a monk on Mt. Athos? Or becoming a holy hermit living in a cave? Something like that? After a few years of that the wretched world might start to look good.

Do you have any pets? If not, I might recommend getting a six week-old kitten. It would rely on you for all of its needs would grow to love you and you it. Caring for the kitty would get your mind off of yourself, and you would have a companion for 15 to 20 years.

Do you have any pets? If not, I might recommend getting a six week-old kitten. It would rely on you for all of its needs would grow to love you and you it. Caring for the kitty would get your mind off of yourself, and you would have a companion for 15 to 20 years. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I guess if Schopenhauer had his cherished poodle...

Are you familiar with the religious idea of being "in the world" but not "of the world"?

Not being "of the world" represents one separating and distinguishing one's self from "the world" (structure, work, charity, social media, all that stuff) to the extent that one is able. It means identifying what in the world "is not for me" and what in the world "is for me". Philosophers have observed that people are driven like slaves by the demands of the world--not just that you work, but that you have a weed free lawn, drive a nice car, keep the monetary value of your property up, and so on. Strivers are all about achieving maximum rewards and displaying them to best effect.

You don't have to associate yourself with all that. Do you have to work for your daily bread? So you do because you don't want to starve. But you don't have to be a striver; you don't have to be the fastest worker, the top salesman, the largest grossing real estate agent, etc. You can arrange your life to get by with as little as possible -- thus requiring the least amount of effort possible, and least possible commitment to "the system".

How well does that work? At best, I'd say "so-so". At worst it is just another existential shit pile. — Bitter Crank

Procreation is ultimately the arbiter of the existential pile, hence my focus on it. Everything else is stemming the damage done. Now comes this organism. This organism is impinged upon by the complex factors of its interaction with the environment and its own dealing-with its genetic blueprint (and epigenetic working-out-in-the-environment). The organism is impinged upon by contingencies of history and circumstances- ranging from deep mental and physical disadvantages to minor annoyances of life.

The organism is forced to keep itself alive. Language, social learning, memory, problem solving, and other cognitive functions enable the organism to be socialized into navigating the socio-economic realm that will be key to its survival.

A system is in place since the organism first evolved- the need to socially organize. This forced the individual into ever more focused cognitive tasks. At first they were hunter-gatherer based. Many societies moved to agricultural based, then industrial, then post-industrial. The specialization and focus went further and further. The organism with all its contingent disadvantages (of various distribution), interacting with others who will need production. Interacting with others who simply need. The need forces us to deal with the needs of others.. And on and on and on.

In the end it is all about our complex needs and wants forcing others to deal with those needs and wants. Why do we force others in this system? What to do once in the system? We simply try to strengthen people's resilience.

What is the framework of the "rebel" type? How does one circumnavigate the very systematic structure that creates the very ability to survive for the individual (in a society)? The longing for the spiritual and religious is just the longing for this rebellion.. It gets coopted time and again by the needs of the community to perpetuate itself (thus its natural codification). But perhaps its function is to transcend one's own very mundane material reality.

Well, then to do? What does the rebel type do? Your suggestion is live the austere life being in, but not of the world. At the end, the cynic might be right. Make a garden for food, shit in the hole in the outskirts of your little hovel (not too close to your food..but make sure to get shit from other animals to help fertilize..though your own might do). Take the seeds, grow some more, store some in the form of pickled vegetables for the hard times... Create a Robinson Crusoe economy?

One has nowhere to go, but always something to do.

I might give them this book https://qprinstitute.com/uploads/Forever_Decision.pdf

Hear hear. This is good. Why do you think the answer of impermanence and the foolishness of craving produce paradoxically contentment and satisfaction? — Wallows

Why want the impossible? It would be foolish and so the wise are satsfied/happy with what they have and even if they desire for more they only do for things that are possible.

The question that ought to be asked is whether there are sufficient resources to alleviate suffering people's pain so much that THEY, (not those of us judging from the outside), would want to continue living. There's a deeper question of self ownership, but the immediately salient question is whether we realistically have the resources to take others' pain away reliably and sufficiently. If we don't... then we have no business preventing others from doing what they feel they must to end their suffering.

It's stunning that so many in the lay and professionals assume that the medical, public health, and community (not to mention the financial) resources as they exist are enough to address suffering globally that we, arrogantly, can dismiss others' evaluation of their own moment-by-moment existence. Suicide hotlines, are very often overstaffed by volunteers. They're overworked and uncompensated (financially), and as a result they often can't or are disinclined to help. Nor is it any guarantee that mere words or concepts can cure what ails someone suffering.

There are associations among biological and social variables in depression, but no precise cause-effect relationship. Depression may even be a natural response to certain experiences one cannot control, and genetics reveals there's a mood "set-point" that may predispose some to becoming depressed. Predilection to certain moods may be a matter of variation. Consequently, the therapies — drug, CBT, DBT — may work well enough for some, but can't guarantee relief for sufferers in general. Worse, it's anathema just to admit this in professional circles that have reputations and financial investments to protect, creating a significant intellectual and social bias on a subject we all should own and share in talking about.

And just to mention one more area in which assumed resources may be sorely lacking, community members — family, coworkers, employers, acquaintances — are under no obligation to be understanding or supportive. Many deeply depressed human beings are abandoned for being "burdens" to others — the same others who, ironically, then refuse to allow these burdensome individuals the dignity of choosing a way out of life and suffering. Add to this the financial pressures inherent in surviving in a capitalist culture that asserts no one has a "right" to a job or general entitlement to money, which is a prerequisite of modern survival; and the additional challenges *different* people may face — minorities, those judged aesthetically unappealing, older citizens, etc — and the mere practicalities of surviving become more and more challenging even without factoring in the emotional elements of surviving. That the rest of us "do it" shouldn't be a mandate for every other human.... If we cannot take others' pain away, then it is cruel and presumptuous of us to demand they stay alive.

I am confident that, if humanity survives long enough, psychology and psychiatry will cease to be valid disciplines or will be wholly subsumed into cognitive neuroscience. Without physical biological causation, these so-called disciplines have no credible justification for claims of "illness." Besides, that globally the per capita suicide rates continue rising is incompatible with the position that these fields are a net help to society. More research articles by true scientists over the past five years have called the body of "psychological research" into serious question, with random samples of published studies in psychology proving not to be reproducible, to suffer from a poverty of statistical rigor, to be confounded by imprecise, poorly defined verbiage, and to suffer from what members of the international scientific community increasingly find to be the lethal confounding of cultural, professional, and even individual biases that distort so-called research in psychology and psychiatry from the design of studies to the interpretation of data.

You might fuck it up.

Also it's a terribly sad thing to do.

But really, the best argument against suicide is that you're not sure if suicide is the best course of action (otherwise you would not be making this thread). If you aren't sure about dying, then don't. There's plenty of time to make up your mind.

You'd miss too many new movies/TV shows, albums, video games, books, etc.