I fail to see why any explanation of this choice would be a police matter — unenlightened

It's the opposite choice. If a mod passed the OP's IP to the relevant authorities, they might stick him on a watchlist I guess.

Dead men don't post. They don't fear arrest either.

Dead men don't post. — unenlightened

We've taken a turn for the noir! Suicidal men (and dames) might post. I'm not genuinely worried about this btw.

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. — DoppyTheElv

You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes.

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 — Benj96

There is no have to for living. You don’t “have to” do anything. I would consider living illogical to a point because you will eventually die and after a certain peak your body breaks down till the point where you wish you were dead in old age. Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living. You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die. We’re it something that just happened to you there wouldn’t be a need to do anything to maintain it. Death happens, living not so much.



Enjoyment is never intellectual, that is rationalization. The reality is that we don’t choose why we like something or how. We make up reasons but in the end it just is. You can say you like a song because of the rhythm but then the follow up is why do you like the rhythm? You just do, you don’t control it. Rationalize it all you want but there is no intellect behind enjoyment. It’s the same with food. If you think you can impact what you enjoy you are delusional. As I said, we don’t choose what we enjoy or dislike it just happens. We have no conscious control over it.

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. — Kenosha Kid

It actually does have to be logical otherwise the reasoning becomes absurd. If you enjoy something and are at liberty to so so it does not logically follow to do it. That is again still emotion. Why should your emotions matter? I mean people like ice cream and are at liberty to do so but they choose to ignore it in favor of diets. Still not saying that is logical but it blows a hole in your reasoning. Liking something isn’t a reason to do it because that is rooted in emotion. Then again I guess at the foundation of all reasoning is emotion, so I guess there is no reason to do anything. If you go back enough logic breaks down.

But ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is not illogical. That is just your personal opinion and just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical.

If logic can’t derive premises then what is it good for? If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? It derives conclusions from something it can’t prove, that sounds like absurdity to me.

If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? — Darkneos

Deriving true conclusions from true premises.

It derives conclusions from something it can’t prove, that sounds like absurdity to me. — Darkneos

Yes, many have concluded that the meaninglessness of life's premises makes it absurd. But absurd is not pointless. Monty Python is absurd, but certainly not pointless.

You may well have all sorts of feelings in response to the circumstances you find yourself in, but it's simply a category error to think that logic can tell you whether you ought or ought not have them in toto.

We've taken a turn for the noir! Suicidal men (and dames) might post. I'm not genuinely worried about this btw. — Kenosha Kid

I am concerned, and it is something mods have to consider. Which is why I emphasise the logic that anyone who commends suicide is not speaking from experience and has not practiced what they preach.

If logic can derive premises then what is it good for? If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? — Darkneos

No, it is not absurdity. Logic applies to thought and language. But our relation to the world is one of sensation and emotion. One senses that shit smells, one has a feeling about the smell of liking or disliking, and logic tells one that if one dislikes the smell of shit one ought to build a flushing toilet.

Absurd may as well be synonymous with pointless considering how many people live with purpose and in the belief they are correct in how to live. I would argue Monty Python is pointless because it’s absurd. Even Sisyphus rolling a boulder is pointless not to mention absurd. Most instances that can be called absurd are also pointless.

Also I don’t know, logic tries to do that with ethics when it comes to ought and ought not.

No, it is not absurdity. Logic applies to thought and language. But our relation to the world is one of sensation and emotion. One senses that shit smells, one has a feeling about the smell of liking or disliking, and logic tells one that if one dislikes the smell of shit one ought to build a flushing toilet. — unenlightened

Incorrect. Emotion tells you to do that not logic. It doesn’t apply to thought and language. Like and dislike are just states of affairs, any action that results from that is emotion. Avoidance and seeking are emotion, not logic. I like ice cream, however logic doesn’t say I should eat it. All it says is that I like ice cream.

You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes. — Darkneos

I have said nothing about my personal beliefs so once again you have shown that you assume the worldviews of others without actually asking anything.

As for the ego stuff. I don't know much about it but I do feel as though you barely took the time to discuss this with the person who did advance this view. For further reading I would recommend Parfits work on personal identity and Mark Johnston's secular afterlife which seems to be quite close to what Gus is arguing.

And I have yet to see why the "reasons for living" that have been offered are "rooted in fallacies" and I am even more puzzled why hope is "illogical and privileged." And as I said, I believe its a mistake to think people purely operate on logic in life. Humans are emotional beings and thus it wouldnt surprise me that someones reason for life might be love or fun,... Who are you to say that this is an incorrect reason to want to live? What would a correct reason look like?

would argue Monty Python is pointless because it’s absurd. Even Sisyphus rolling a boulder is pointless not to mention absurd. Most instances that can be called absurd are also pointless. — Darkneos

They could possibly be, but to be compelling you'd have to give me more than just your ad hoc opinion that they are.

logic tries to do that with ethics when it comes to ought and ought not. — Darkneos

That's why I qualified it with in toto. Given some premise, one might use logic to determine what one ought do "if you want to build a strong wall, you ought to provide it foundations"... but a premise is always required.

Things like logic, reasons, absurdity, purpose... these are all human attitudes toward the world we find ourselves in. We have them as a result of living. To ask if there's a purpose to living is to ask if there's a step in a flight of stairs, purpose doesn't mean anything outside of the context of a living thing.

But ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is not illogical. That is just your personal opinion and just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical. — Darkneos

Okay I'm sensing you're a bit of a brick wall. You have no ability to lend insight, and no ability to learn.

Here's a question, though: why do you keep going? I mean... this isn't worthwhile, it's dumb and pointless, but you keep doing it. Why?

And I have yet to see why the "reasons for living" that have been offered are "rooted in fallacies" and I am even more puzzled why hope is "illogical and privileged." And as I said, I believe its a mistake to think people purely operate on logic in life. Humans are emotional beings and thus it wouldnt surprise me that someones reason for life might be love or fun,... Who are you to say that this is an incorrect reason to want to live? What would a correct reason look like? — DoppyTheElv

Hope is illogical because it assumes things will work out without evidence and is privileged because it usually is adopted by those who can stand to lose. It's incorrect because it's not reason that moves them, just rationalization of the survival drive. Death seems more logical than living TBH. Humans can't live by emotion yet claim reason and greater purpose at the same time. Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it too. There is no "correct" reason to live. That said his claims are still wrong. Everything dies eventually and that is the case for I would wager 90% of people, maybe a bit more. They don't have a legacy, they will be forgotten. Look upon the nameless statistics of those who starved to death, died to some illness, or died in wars. There is no legacy or immortality there, just a tic mark.

Okay I'm sensing you're a bit of a brick wall. You have no ability to lend insight, and no ability to learn.

Here's a question, though: why do you keep going? I mean... this isn't worthwhile, it's dumb and pointless, but you keep doing it. Why? — Kenosha Kid

Merely showing how your reasoning doesn't follow. Me liking something therefor I should do it is not a statement that logically follows. It's simply a fact as it is. I'm trying to lend insight but people insist there is reason for living. As for why I keep going, so far there is no painless way to die. Well, not one that someone will help you with. Suicide is considered a "problem" by society.

Things like logic, reasons, absurdity, purpose... these are all human attitudes toward the world we find ourselves in. We have them as a result of living. To ask if there's a purpose to living is to ask if there's a step in a flight of stairs, purpose doesn't mean anything outside of the context of a living thing. — Isaac

Not exactly. I would argue that our ancestors didn't really have logic or reason as much as we do or even purpose. But those are not a result of living. It's not the same to ask if there is a step in a flight of stairs as there is to asking a purpose for living. One simply is and the other is a choice that we attempt to rationalize. So far there doesn't seem to be a good reason to choose life over death.

"good things" is not a reason because that only counts if you have to stay alive where as in death there is no good or bad things anymore and no concern over what will happen. In terms of net "good" it's the only choice for a living thing, to live seems absurd and illogical.

You don’t “have to” do anything. — Darkneos

Tell that to a parent of young children. Whether mental or biological there is a generally accepted compulsion to survive until they can survive themselves (Exceptions don’t prove the rule)

I'm trying to lend insight but people insist there is reason for living. — Darkneos

Then you have a reason for living right now, which is to lend insight, even though you can't really succeed at that as you're confused.

There is no have to for living. You don’t “have to” do anything. I would consider living illogical to a point because you will eventually die and after a certain peak your body breaks down till the point where you wish you were dead in old age. Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living. You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die. We’re it something that just happened to you there wouldn’t be a need to do anything to maintain it. Death happens, living not so much. — Darkneos

Only living things can think living is illogical. Dead things can’t think. There is no control test for this.

If there are endless justifications to live both practically and emotionally and there are equally just as many justifications to die both practically and emotionally then all there is left is your actions/ decisions. If it is a choice the answer is already clear - you’ve formulated the answer yourself.

“Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living”

Correction. Survival instinct is logical and useful to those that desire to live, it is illogical and useless to those who do not.

“You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die.”

Correction. I didn’t do/ perform my own conception and birth and infantile years - they happen to us not through anything we can consider our choice or consent. What you do when you have capacity to consider death or be able to self inflict it is then your choice... something you can actively do. (Though I wouldn’t recommend it personally). So it’s not as cut and dry as living is something we do actively it is also passively passed onto us when we are created by our parents.

Actually those exceptions aren’t that uncommon. There are many examples of parents who don’t do that. Of course they get reported and you can ask a social worker how that works out. But the “not have to” when raising kids isn’t really much of an exception as people think.

Then you have a reason for living right now, which is to lend insight, even though you can't really succeed at that as you're confused. — Kenosha Kid

Incorrect. Unable to take my own life (because survival instincts are very strong) this is the alternative. If I had the strength to I would not be here right now. This is not a reason for living.

No. Survival instinct is not logical to those who live it just is. Life propagates itself despite the absurdity. There is also no justification for living either. Asking the death if living is preferable is a non starter and not a counterpoint. The only emotional and practical justifications are for death. Because in death all concern, hope, etc is wiped away. Staying alive for others is moot when you no longer would have worry once you die.

Correction. I didn’t do/ perform my own conception and birth and infantile years - they happen to us not through anything we can consider our choice or consent. What you do when you have capacity to consider death or be able to self inflict it is then your choice... something you can actively do. (Though I wouldn’t recommend it personally). So it’s not as cut and dry as living is something we do actively it is also passively passed onto us when we are created by our parents. — Benj96

It’s not though. Living is something you do. If you did nothing you would eventually die. Hence living is what you do and death is something that happens. It is that cut and dry.

Incorrect. Unable to take my own life (because survival instincts are very strong) this is the alternative. If I had the strength to I would not be here right now. This is not a reason for living. — Darkneos

Then why do it. How can you simultaneously muster a reason for posting and no reason for living? You understand that living is kind of a necessary condition for posting, right?

It’s not though. Living is something you do. If you did nothing you would eventually die. — Darkneos

Then i suppose a baby can simply just not cry for food protection and comfort an simply resign itself to dying? Um this Just doesn’t happen. They most definitely live not by choice but because they don’t know of any other way.

Survival instinct is logical to those who wish to live. Ask someone who wants to survive if their instinctual fight or flight response in the face of a dangerous predator was logical and they will say of course it was I was about to be eaten by a tiger! Ask someone suicidal and they will say well No it wasn’t logical because i wanted to die and here was a way by which that could have happened.

However in both cases the person who wishes to survive and he who didn’t likely had the same fight of flight response ... because you don’t control it it controls you that is the nature of an instinct... it is extremely difficult not to allow your heart to race, you sweat to pour or the adrenaline to pump. Who is ever completely apathetic to a vicious predator about to attack them?

There is also no justification for living either. — Darkneos

Well there is... as a living person I have more choice then the dead. I have more freedom than dead. I have more power and control then the dead simply for the reason that I have two choices and the dead only have one choice.

I as a living person can choose a). To live or b). To die. The dead can only follow one of those options b) to be dead. And it’s not even their choice really as there is no them to consider the options anymore, so they don’t even get ownership over that - their own death. The dead are utterly powerless and ineffectual.

So a justification for living is that I can continue to live if I feel like it and the dead cannot. So I am at a distinct advantage because I have options. Not only can I choose to live but I can take pleasure from knowing that I chose to and enjoy the continued process of living knowing that should I ever get bored of it I can always choose option b).

I haven’t got bored of it yet and I doubt that I should ever in the future because as I said ... I’m powerful and in control of my environment - I am living.

I know that but as I said, survival instincts are hard to overcome. So, unable to do it I do this.

You can overcome that instinct and let death take you, plenty have done it. The trouble with suicide though is that it’s not always successful and then you get placed on watch. You say you don’t control it but you do. You choose to listen to it. If you did nothing then death would just take you, you’d starve eventually. It’s hard to overcome but not impossible.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that.

I know that but as I said, survival instincts are hard to overcome. So, unable to do it I do this. — Darkneos

That's not what I'm asking. Logically you cannot have reason to do anything that depends on living and have no reason for living. You cannot have reason to buy a pumpkin from the grocer and yet have no reason to go grocery shopping.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that. — Darkneos

Rather than call those who have died as "the dead" think of them as the non existent. Basically in the last 13 billion years you were nonexistent, but you may exist here for about 80 years. A relatively insignificant amount of time. If you decide at age 19 to end it all instead of existing until the age of 80, that seems like a big difference, and it is to your parents, but if you eschew them and want to look at the issue philosophically (here on the Philosophy Forum), as a statistician will point out, your time of non existence of 13 billion years plus or minus 30 years is nothing whereas your time of existence of 19 vs 80 years is statistically significant.

It is near-universal that people want to live. I do not think people want to live due to "the good things", it's just normal, healthy psychology to want to live. People no more "choose" than they "choose" to be attracted to the gender they're attracted to. It's just one of those things that nature takes care of, we don't need to make a choice.

Even if I gave you all my reasons for wanting to live and you shot them all down, proving they were all poor - I'd still want to live, even if I decided I didn't want to live - I'd still want to live. Just like I can't decide who I'm attracted to.

I really don't think it's anything more than that.

Exactly there is no logical reason to and yet I do failing to be able to off myself.

I'd still choose nonexistence.

It is near-universal that people want to live. I do not think people want to live due to "the good things", it's just normal, healthy psychology to want to live. People no more "choose" than they "choose" to be attracted to the gender they're attracted to. It's just one of those things that nature takes care of, we don't need to make a choice.

Even if I gave you all my reasons for wanting to live and you shot them all down, proving they were all poor - I'd still want to live, even if I decided I didn't want to live - I'd still want to live. Just like I can't decide who I'm attracted to.

I really don't think it's anything more than that. — Judaka

Normal and healthy psychology has changed with the seasons. Nature doesn't really take care of it, we do. Nature also causes death as well so your points are moot. You can't decide who you're attracted to but you can decide to live or not. You're proving there isn't a good reason to live. If you were to die you'd be done with this whole dance. People talk about the struggle as if it's noble but why? That just sounds like death anxiety trying to rationalize sticking around.

Others earlier have mentioned evolution.

Consider how the drive to live and reproduce might have evolved from the simplest microbes. Those that responded in certain ways towards opportunities and threats would be more likely to reproduce than those that did not muster the same intensity of acquisitive or avoidant behaviours.

Since that time, survival instincts have amplified, with generation after generation being ever more desperate to compete and survive (barring colonial species with homogenous genetics). Survival of a desperate and ruthless. Now an overwhelming fear of death is almost ubiquitous amongst humans.

Our survival instinct is so great that many find it difficult to accept the idea that death might really be the end of our adventure. Ever on the lookout for an escape. Survival instincts may improve reproduction rates (noting that health prospective partners tend to be repelled by overt depressives) but they surely do not bring a more peaceful life.

It's ironic that that which increases our longevity and fecundity makes that life less worth living. Hopefully genetic and memetic evolution will sort out this problem for humanity's successors.

Disclaimer: I haven't been reading this thread so far.

Sometimes life feels like it has negative value: like there's an emotional hole, and you just feel bad, intrinsically, not for any reason, unless maybe you can find something to fill that hole with, some reason to live; and the possibility that the hole might be infinitely deep and never be filled brings on a terrifying despair, like it could never have been worth anyone ever living in the first place and it's unfortunate that the universe exists at all.

On the other hands, sometimes life feels like it has a positive value: like you have the emotional opposite of a hole, you're just overflowing, and you just feel good, intrinsically, not for any reason, unless something is happening to run your wellspring of joy dry and wear you down, but that of course like all things will be finite so you can bear through it and maintain hope of things inevitably getting better eventually, even if it's going to take a long time.

Neither of these are the "correct" view of the world. They are both just states of mind. But the latter is obviously the more enjoyable state of mind. And the question, "why live", only makes sense at all in the former state of mind.

So don't bother trying to answer the question "why live?" It can't be answered, because the question is meaningless. Instead just try to get into the state of mind where you see how the question is meaningless, and where there instead seems to be the (equally meaningless, but much easier to ignore and move past) question "why not live?"

The burdens of choice are removed. — Darkneos

That’s assuming choice is inherently a burden. Which is a matter of opinion. Many would opt for the view that they enjoy choice and that it is not a burden.

I know that but as I said, survival instincts are hard to overcome. So, unable to do it I do this. — Darkneos

Why do you set it up so that your survival instincts are not part of “you”? Why do you consider it an external thing that is burdensome instead of part and parcel of your identity? I can do that with anything and make it seem like a problem. I enjoy drawing, but the second I make it “The Drawing Instinct” it suddenly feels like I’m getting controlled and my enjoyment is not legitimate. That’s what you’re doing.

But still, as Kenosha kid said, unable to do it, you’d still have no reason to do this, specifically. I think you’re looking for someone to change your mind.

If logic can’t derive premises then what is it good for? If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? — Darkneos

You think this is what logic is used for? If so, what is the process by which you can determine if a premise is true? You claim it’s possible to do that, so how?

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. — Darkneos

You can overcome that instinct and let death take you, plenty have done it. — Darkneos

You contradict yourself. If the living is not ultimately any freer and have no true choice beyond what you would have if dead then by that logic you have no choice in whether to live or die. But then you say you can overcome instinct and allow death t take you. This sounds like a conscious choice to me. Suicide is active (the self attempts it, beckons on their own death) Dying is passive (caused by your environment/ natural failing of the organism).

So which is it? The living don’t have real choice and therefore cannot consciously decided to kill themselves or they do and therefore have more choice than the dead because the dead cannot choose to come back to life.

Exactly there is no logical reason to and yet I do failing to be able to off myself. — Darkneos

The same necessarily follows for every non-urgent thing you do. The logical conclusion is that you're a deeply illogical person living a deeply illogical life, which goes some way to explain your deeply illogical comments about what is and isn't logical.

I would argue that our ancestors didn't really have logic or reason as much as we do or even purpose. But those are not a result of living. — Darkneos

Well then do so. Putting "I would argue..." before an assertion doesn't make it an argument. What would your argument be that logic and reason pre-exist living? In what would they reside? What form would they take? What cause or effect would they have, and upon what substance?