I take credit for nothing. On the contrary, I'm well aware that being alive is a privilege and I intend to fully exploit it. — Kenosha Kid

You intend to fully exploit a privilege? Interesting choice of words.

If you're not only not enjoying life atm but cannot imagine anyone else enjoying their life, to the point where you suspect they're lying about enjoying life, yes, it probably is depression.

Or seeing the true nature of enjoyment.

You intend to fully exploit a privilege? Interesting choice of words. — baker

Damn straight I do.

Or seeing the true nature of enjoyment. — baker

Sounds more like missing the nature of it entirely. It's not a distraction; it's a project.

Sounds more like missing the nature of it entirely. It's not a distraction; it's a project. — Kenosha Kid

You speak like someone intent on fully exploiting things ...

I wish I could do an experiment with you and drag you into the pits of early Buddhist thought. I wonder how long you'd still enjoy life.
Too bad it's ethically prohibitive to do so.

I wish I could do an experiment with you and drag you into the pits of early Buddhist thought. I wonder how long you'd still enjoy life. — baker

Probably not a lot, since I will have been kidnapped and deprived of the things I love about life.

I have heard and experienced that people who don't get much out of life are extremely selfish. Did not realise they were so vindictive and petty though.

Probably not a lot, since I will have been kidnapped and deprived of the things I love about life. — Kenosha Kid

Which just goes to show that your enjoyment of life is not under your control.

If a person can't be happy when external conveniences are taken from them, then their happiness with those conveniences in place is weak, fragile, a liability.

For every human, it's just a matter of time when those external conveniences are taken from them -- by disease, injury, accident, economic collapse, natural catastrophe. Thousands of people are facing this every day. It behooves a person to prepare for such a contingency. And focusing on enjoying those external conveniences to the hilt doesn't prepare them for it.

I have heard and experienced that people who don't get much out of life are extremely selfish. Did not realise they were so vindictive and petty though.

Lol!

I want to test the Buddha's teachings, and for this, subjects who declare to "enjoy life" are necessary.

Which just goes to show that your enjoyment of life is not under your control. — baker

It's not entirely under my control: I cannot stop someone from murdering me, for instance, if their heart is set on it. But it's not entirely outside my control either: even without malicious actors, I could deprive myself of enjoyment, for instance by bad faith.

If a person can't be happy when external conveniences are taken from them, then their happiness with those conveniences in place is weak, fragile, a liability. — baker

A negligible one for the most part since, fortunately, few people dedicate themselves to making others unhappy.

For every human, it's just a matter of time when those external conveniences are taken from them -- by disease, injury, accident, economic collapse, natural catastrophe. — baker

That seems to me a good argument for making the most of it. Btw your presumption that happy people will become unhappy after an accident is not valid. A miserable person who wins the lottery will enjoy temporary happiness but become a rich miserable person in the end. A happy person who becomes paralysed will suffer for some time but become a happy person in a wheelchair in the end.

Generally one's happiness comes from within, be it their biology or their acting in good faith.

I want to test the Buddha's teachings, and for this, subjects who declare to "enjoy life" are necessary. — baker

It's interesting though that your instinct upon meeting a happy person is to want to change their environment in order to:

wonder how long you'd still enjoy life — baker

rather than just let them enjoy life.

If you're not only not enjoying life atm but cannot imagine anyone else enjoying their life, to the point where you suspect they're lying about enjoying life, yes, it probably is depression. — Kenosha Kid

The issue I take with your outlook is that it is an upper-middle class/elite outlook, based on their privileges. You tie in with the old tradition where poor people were routinely considered mad.

Your idea of happiness (and normalcy, mental health) is one that is contingent on material wellbeing. Material wellbeing that the majority of the human population simply doesn't have and cannot hope to have. So per an outlook like yours, they are destined to be depressed, classified as mentally ill -- and written off.

If a person can't be happy when external conveniences are taken from them, then their happiness with those conveniences in place is weak, fragile, a liability.
— baker
A negligible one for the most part since, fortunately, — Kenosha Kid

Global socio-economic covid crisis, anyone? Hardly negligible.

For every human, it's just a matter of time when those external conveniences are taken from them -- by disease, injury, accident, economic collapse, natural catastrophe.
— baker
That seems to me a good argument for making the most of it.

Yes, a frequent argument, nevertheless a problematic one.

If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"?

Btw your presumption that happy people will become unhappy after an accident is not valid.

No, that is not my presumption.
I'm assuming that a happy person whose happiness depends on material wellbeing will become unhappy after they experience a critical measure of loss of material wellbeing (what that critical measure is can vary from person to person).

It's interesting though that your instinct upon meeting a happy person is to want to change their environment in order to:
wonder how long you'd still enjoy life
— baker
rather than just let them enjoy life.

I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them, shouldn't those others have the right to test that happiness, as opposed to just accepting and internalizing the stigma?

Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

The issue I take with your outlook is that it is an upper-middle class/elite outlook, based on their privileges. You tie in with the old tradition where poor people were routinely considered mad. — baker

I've been like this since I was a child. I grew up with a single parent in council housing at a time when that was considered immoral. Your equating of wealth and happiness is false.

Your idea of happiness (and normalcy, mental health) is one that is contingent on material wellbeing. — baker

It depends on being interested in the world around you. It's quite fortunate that we've evolved brains that are interested in the universe they evolved in. Second-hand books are cheap. Pen and paper for writing and drawing is cheap. Radio is free. (When I was a child, we all used to tape the top 40 and DJ our own sessions.) Again, you falsely equate wealth and happiness. I don't dream of partying with models in a $40M yacht. I don't feel bad about this. You do what you can with what you've got.

So per an outlook like yours, they are destined to be depressed, classified as mentally ill -- and written off. — baker

Again, nothing to do with it. Darkneos' objection was not that he couldn't afford to go scuba diving: there are other fun things to do. His objection is that doing anything for enjoyment sounds like a "chore". That is not a financial issue. It sounds like depression, which is probably why he keeps hitting that wall in conversations.

Depression is not a traditional means of the wealthy to oppress the poor. Its recognition is relatively recent, and getting people to take it seriously is an uphill struggle. Rather than using it to box away difference, it is still largely brushed off as being too mopey, like the depressed person has a choice. You are not only misrepresenting my economic status, you are misrepresenting societal inertia in recognising depression as a physical illness.

Global socio-economic covid crisis, anyone? Hardly negligible. — baker

Well, I was referring to malicious actors. A virus is not a moral agent. Accidents, including pandemics, can also impact our happiness, yes. Again, all the more reason to enjoy life while you can, and a terrible reason to be wilfully miserable.

If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"? — baker

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.

I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them — baker

That is hysterical and paranoid.

That is hysterical and paranoid. — Kenosha Kid

And people should just quietly accept the verdict that official psychology charges them with ...

And people should just quietly accept the verdict that official psychology charges them with ... — baker

They should quietly accept that making stuff up is invalid.

Your Ego can die, there are meds for that and not to mention dozens or religions that do it too. Also you will perish. Your legacy won’t live on, you’ll be quickly forgotten in about 100 years. Nothing that is you will live on.

Also for the record I found Neitzsche to be an idiot who could not cope with issue of death. All that you listed aren’t reasons to live but rather are consequences of living. That said neitzsche couldn’t deal with nihilism and ended up with a cop out just like the rest of the existential philosophers. None of them could take nihilism head on and just danced around it. — Darkneos

Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand. My participation in this discussion is finished.

Your equating of wealth and happiness is false. — Kenosha Kid

Of course it's false, because I'm not doing it.
I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.

Again, nothing to do with it. Darkneos' objection was not that he couldn't afford to go scuba diving: there are other fun things to do.

And I'm not talking only about what he's saying.

His objection is that doing anything for enjoyment sounds like a "chore". That is not a financial issue. It sounds like depression, which is probably why he keeps hitting that wall in conversations.

Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.

Depression is not a traditional means of the wealthy to oppress the poor.

And noone said it was ...

You are not only misrepresenting my economic status

No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
Mainstream psychology and mainstream education are, essentially (upper)middle class mentality.

you are misrepresenting societal inertia in recognising depression as a physical illness.

For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.

If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"?
— baker
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.

It's a testing point for you: You keep talking about "all the more reason to enjoy life while you can". I'm giving you an example that puts your attitude to the test.

I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them
— baker
That is hysterical and paranoid.

And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?



In short, I maintain that it is possible to become fed up with the pursuit of pleasure, and that this is not necessarily due to an illness. This is not a popular view in modern culture. But it is the starting point in some religious/spiritual traditions.

It's a tabooed topic. — baker

No it isn't. There is an endless supply of people complaining that life is all meaningless suffering. This thread gets repeated every few weeks with variations. What's worse though, is that the same people come back again and again to the point where one has to wonder if they don't enjoy their misery, and think themselves fine, wise and brave philosophers for facing the unpleasant truth.

A few actually succumb to this nonsense, but most grow out of it. What you don't see so much, is people who really live precarious and materially limited lives raising any question about the significance of life. On the contrary, when they are not actually starving or dying, they tend to be full of joy. Happiness is not at all a middle class privilege, but rather depression is.

It's a tabooed topic.
— baker

No it isn't. — unenlightened

I'm talking about the limits of discussing such topics in open forums, or in "polite society" in general -- I took that this is what you were referring to when you said:

It's odd how people speculate about why people go on living as if it is something that they wouldn't consider for themselves, but surely there must be some reason such a lot of THEM do?

It doesn't seem like ...
An honest discussion ...
— Darkneos
... to me. If you are a person, and you go on living, its personal isn't it? — unenlightened

I know a case where a forum poster was talking about "the meaning of life" rather candidly, and the moderator called the police, gave them the poster's IP address, and the police actually went to that poster's home to check on them.

Knowing that you could have the police called on you if you're too candid online is quite a deterrent from discussing existential issues "honestly".

Happiness is not at all a middle class privilege, but rather depression is.

Some conceptions of happiness are an (upper)middle class privilege. It's those conceptions that I criticize.

I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people. — baker

Of which you counted me among. So yes, that is what you did.

Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak. — baker

I think it's because, as Gus has pointed out, he doesn't field answers he's not predisposed to agree with. Other people's happiness appears to be a big problem for him.

No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there. — baker

I didn't go to a public school. Stop making stuff up, it's pointless.

For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't. — baker

That's the problem. People can and successfully do get medical assistance in dealing with depression. It is scientifically quite well understood. It is harmful to peddle nonsense about it being merely a projection of a power structure as it ignores the actual causes. Depression is not madness. We're not in Foucault territory here. It is a biological concern (e.g. Strawbridge R, Young AH, Cleare AJ. Biomarkers for depression: recent insights, current challenges and future prospects. Neuropsychiatry Dis Treat. 2017;13:1245-1262. Published 2017 May 10. doi:10.2147/NDT.S114542)

It's a testing point for you: You keep talking about "all the more reason to enjoy life while you can". I'm giving you an example that puts your attitude to the test. — baker

The attitude is not tested by offering someone something that's irrelevant to them. I'm not homeless and I still don't want chocolate. I don't know if chocolate is anyone's reason for living. Not relevant.

And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma? — baker

Because evidence-based reasoning is a good way to avoid bad faith activity. Stops you joining weird cults or supporting Trump.

In short, I maintain that it is possible to become fed up with the pursuit of pleasure, and that this is not necessarily due to an illness. — baker

It's certainly possible to become fed up with anything you do in bad faith. Overeating, binge-watching TV, crawling Tinder for one-night stands, chasing fashions. I don't know if it's possible for someone who enjoys life generally to get fed up with it; I suspect there are edge cases, but on the whole happy people, barring accidents and even in spite of them, seem pretty happy forever in my experience.

Again, none of that is relevant. The question was:

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos

My response is why I choose to go on. It would no more occur to me to end my own life than it would to walk out half an hour before the end of a film I'm enjoying. It's just an illogical thing to do when you're enjoying it.

There is an endless supply of people complaining that life is all meaningless suffering. This thread gets repeated every few weeks with variations. What's worse though, is that the same people come back again and again to the point where one has to wonder if they don't enjoy their misery, and think themselves fine, wise and brave philosophers for facing the unpleasant truth. — unenlightened

A person in pain can search for an answer, a way out. But because of the pain, they can also become bewildered.
If the bewilderment guides the search, this just exacerbates the problem.

I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.
— baker
Of which you counted me among. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, based on what you said about yourself.

Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.
— baker
I think it's because, as Gus has pointed out, he doesn't field answers he's not predisposed to agree with.

That's bad faith on your part.

Other people's happiness appears to be a big problem for him.

I yet have to see proof of that.

No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
— baker
I didn't go to a public school. Stop making stuff up, it's pointless.

Start reading what I write, it'll help.

For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.
— baker
That's the problem. People can and successfully do get medical assistance in dealing with depression. It is scientifically quite well understood. It is harmful to peddle nonsense about it being merely a projection of a power structure as it ignores the actual causes. Depression is not madness. We're not in Foucault territory here. It is a biological concern (e.g. Strawbridge R, Young AH, Cleare AJ. Biomarkers for depression: recent insights, current challenges and future prospects. Neuropsychiatry Dis Treat. 2017;13:1245-1262. Published 2017 May 10. doi:10.2147/NDT.S114542)

*sigh*
Oh, the irony ...

And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?
— baker
Because evidence-based reasoning is a good way to avoid bad faith activity.

While ignoring how psychological definitions and diagnoses come about, of course.

I don't know if it's possible for someone who enjoys life generally to get fed up with it; I suspect there are edge cases, but on the whole happy people, barring accidents and even in spite of them, seem pretty happy forever in my experience.

The thing is that neither you, nor mainstream psychologists can give actionable instructions on how to enjoy life. You just dismiss that person as "depressed", and that's it for you.

Well, there's a lesson in this: One should not expect that other people will care about one's happiness.

Again, none of that is relevant. The question was:

I want to know WHY people choose to go on.
— Darkneos

Has it ever occured to you that this was a somewhat clumsy attempt to formulate an existential problem, rather than an attack on other people's happiness?

I want to know WHY people choose to go on — Darkneos

Take complete responsibility for yourself through constructive activity (proper diet, regular exercise, work hard, pray/meditate, and sleep well) and your life's meaning will reveal itself in time.

These are the words of the sages passed down through the millennia.

Yes, based on what you said about yourself. — baker

A misreading, then, as ANDs instead of ORs. There are lots of things I love. Travelling and scuba diving are quite expensive. Reading is quite cheap. I write too. Music took some investment (instruments, recording equipment) but is free after that.

It also helps to take an interest in other people. The first thing I recorded that I was happy with was at a friend's house. Didn't cost a penny. Friendship can alleviate poverty some.

Until recently, I have rarely been in the black, but I don't waste money on bullshit. Again, it's about making the most of what you've got.

That's bad faith on your part. — baker

No, on his. To ask someone a question but disbelieve them if the answer isn't what you want is the quintessence of bad faith.

While ignoring how psychological definitions and diagnoses come about, of course. — baker

Through actually taking it seriously, rather than inventing hair-brained theories that don't match the facts.

The thing is that neither you, nor mainstream psychologists can give actionable instructions on how to enjoy life. — baker

Once again, the question was not "How should I live my life?" but "Why do YOU choose to go on."

Has it ever occured to you that this was a somewhat clumsy attempt to formulate an existential problem, rather than an attack on other people's happiness? — baker

I think he wants people to give him the answer he already knows he wants.

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. It's something I wondered about, why do we take life as a good thing or a given but when someone wishes to die they are "sick". What if they just don't want to do this dance anymore and are just tired. Tired of faking it just so they don't get locked up in some hospital or whatever. — Darkneos

I wish to go on for what is perhaps a very Logical and statistical basis leaving meaning nd purpose and sentiment aside. I wish to live my life because it is a rare occurrence. In the 14 billion years of the universes existence it had not yet seen a “me” occur. Even life is relatively short lived in the total existence of the universe- a blink in the eye.

So if you ask a person who has never blinked do they want to try a blink to see what it’s like - it’s only going to happen once and it won’t last very long — they would likely be like why not? Whether the blink is uncomfortable/ bad or pleasant... at the end of the day it is a singular one time thing and it will be over - why die sooner when you will be dead for the rest of existence? That to me is illogical if you wish to experience as much as possible before going back to absolutely nothing

IMO sages that were too much of a coward to choose death. As I mentioned before, I don't have to do those things and in death there would be no need. Next.

Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand. My participation in this discussion is finished. — Gus Lamarch

More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void.

My response is why I choose to go on. It would no more occur to me to end my own life than it would to walk out half an hour before the end of a film I'm enjoying. It's just an illogical thing to do when you're enjoying it. — Kenosha Kid

Is it? If I am enjoying a film where is the logic in staying? That's not logic that is emotion. I don't have to see the movie until it ends. I've quit many series I liked and had no regrets. I was enjoying my life one day when I came to the realization that I don't have to be here. Suddenly things lost their enjoyment. As I mentioned such arguments only hold water if you have to be here.

I wish to go on for what is perhaps a very Logical and statistical basis leaving meaning nd purpose and sentiment aside. I wish to live my life because it is a rare occurrence. In the 14 billion years of the universes existence it had not yet seen a “me” occur. Even life is relatively short lived in the total existence of the universe- a blink in the eye. — Benj96

Doesn't sound like a good reason to be honest. The "rarity of something" is not grounds for staying.

Is it? If I am enjoying a film where is the logic in staying? That's not logic that is emotion. — Darkneos

That is incorrect. Enjoyment of the film may be emotional or intellectual, but the decision to stop watching half an hour before the end is illogical, and the decision to watch to the end logical (other factors aside... if the cinema is on fire, leave).

Enjoyment is never intellectual since we don't choose what we like or don't like. Some even say that it is not you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kX62n6yNXA&t=1s

The decision to stop is logical as is to stay, the enjoyment is not. Actually if you are basing the decision on emotions then I guess nothing about it is logical. I mean why do you enjoy it? There is no reason, no logic.

The decision to stop is logical as is to stay — Darkneos

Logic is just a method to get from true premises to true conclusions. It can't deliver instructions without premises. Your believing it can is the error you're making. You're waiting for a premise to be derived by logic and it's simply not capable of doing that, it can only derive conclusions.

Enjoyment is never intellectual since we don't choose what we like or don't like. — Darkneos

That is incorrect on two fronts. It is perfectly reasonable to enjoy something on an intellectual level: that is called interest. And one certainly can impact what one enjoys, e.g. habit-forming. But more importantly, the latter has nothing to do with the former.

The decision to stop is logical as is to stay, the enjoyment is not. Actually if you are basing the decision on emotions then I guess nothing about it is logical. I mean why do you enjoy it? There is no reason, no logic. — Darkneos

This is illogical. It doesn't follow from the nature of logic that the object of a decision needs to be logical. If you enjoy something and you're at liberty to do it, it is perfectly logical to do it. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between objects and reasoning about them. Both the above points concern the same error.

Irrespective, ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is illogical.

Doesn't sound like a good reason to be honest. The "rarity of something" is not grounds for staying. — Darkneos

It seems no ones opinion satisfies your “curiosity” regarding the subject. Are you here to explore other people’s ideas or simply reaffirm that yours is correct or that you need not ask in the first place - considering you say that most of ours are “not good enough reasons”.

Rarity of something is not grounds for staying any more than abundance of something is grounds for staying. If I can use the opposite to the same end is it logically sound to point it out? I don’t really get your point. You either want someone’s cause for desire (which is often emotional or illogical) or you want someone’s logical reasoning (desire removed and speaking Objectively/ of only probabilities and statistics).

Let me put it this way. If living requires energy and energy must always change and if it has already been the 99% of things that are dead then it stands to reason that the last 1% is that which is living energy systems. In this case to even ask whether one should have a reason to live or not is pointless because it was bound to happen and it is finite. Whether it’s finite by the span of 80 years or 20 isn’t going to impact the entirety of the system a whole lot.

One lives either because they have to (logical), or they want to (emotional). Most people live for a mix of these things with overlap between necessity and desire on multiple levels. But you could simply remove both need and desire and say “I live because it is happening to me. i exist because I exist. I have no control ultimately” - a predeterministic view

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos

Because they evolved to do so.

I hear that the good things in life make people stay but aren't those just to make life bearable? — Darkneos

I wouldn’t describe the best moments of my life as “bearable”. I’d give a bit more than that.

To me it seems like that is an argument only if you HAVE to live but from what I see it's optional. So why do it if it isn't mandatory. In death one doesn't have to seek good things or anything like that. Granted you don't feel anything else but still.... — Darkneos

Why do you do anything? Everything you do is optional.

More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void. — Darkneos

Until you notice that he has literally said you, the person alive, will perish. But your ego, your hopes and dreams and all the other jazz will live on in others, for example.

This goes to show that you are locked into a worldview and assert that everyone behaves the way your, rather dark and close minded, worldview dictates. Countless of people here are giving their reasons for why they keep on living but you seem unable to accept that other people do find meaning in life even if there is no ultimate purpose or afterlife. You musn't simply charge them with wishful thinking.

I for one believe that "being" is the most precious thing I have. To paraphrase the bible: What is a man without his soul? What am I if I cannot even be?? I wouldnt be able to laugh, cry. I wouldn't be able to participate in the drama that is called life. Even when I am going through terrible things, which I have, I can console myself with the fact that it will not kill me. And better times are coming.

So no, I don't view life as a chore that is best skipped forward in order to simply get to the end. Why would I want to get to the end if there was nothing there for me? Its just nonsensical in my eyes.

Edit: I also believe its a mistake to wish to view life through a purely logical lens. We are humans, not robots. We work rationally and also emotionally. So perhaps wanting to keep living is a purely emotional response but so what? It doesnt make it any less valid.

Knowing that you could have the police called on you if you're too candid online is quite a deterrent from discussing existential issues "honestly". — baker

Everyone who responds has chosen to go on living for the time being. I fail to see why any explanation of this choice would be a police matter; plans not to, or advice not to are another matter of course, but that was not asked for and would be off-topic.