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. — Darkneos

You logically justify your depression like others logically justify their happiness, truthfully, neither of you are correct. It's just that you can't possibly account for the hormones and genetics which govern how you think and feel. Humans aren't just the sum of their choices, there's an underlying biological reality which affects how we think and interpret. I'm not afraid to die, I see death through the lens of the dead, no fear, no regrets, no anything. If one does choose to die, that's their choice but their thinking was likely a result of some underlying problems, that person was likely in need of help. I'm not going to treat it like a logical choice made by a clear-thinking person unless there are special circumstances.

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

From an atheist point of view, there's only selfish reasons, most are posted above. But the reason we are here in the first place, is because evolution wants us to spread our seeds, in the hopes that the weak will die off, and the strong will condition themselves for things like covid, eye sight issues and other diseases.

But we are now too smart for evolution. We have exceeded our need to live. In fact, with all our medical aid, we have destroyed evolution. Now we are all spreading faulty genes and choosing to make ourselves weaker over all.

At least, that's an objective position I could argue if I were an atheist... glad I'm not an atheist.

That's not what evolution is nor how it works. There are no strong or weak genes, there is only what works at the time.

You logically justify your depression like others logically justify their happiness, truthfully, neither of you are correct. It's just that you can't possibly account for the hormones and genetics which govern how you think and feel. Humans aren't just the sum of their choices, there's an underlying biological reality which affects how we think and interpret. I'm not afraid to die, I see death through the lens of the dead, no fear, no regrets, no anything. If one does choose to die, that's their choice but their thinking was likely a result of some underlying problems, that person was likely in need of help. I'm not going to treat it like a logical choice made by a clear-thinking person unless there are special circumstances. — Judaka

Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical.

That fact that you don't treat someone seeking death as logical choice with clear thinking says more about you than them. I think some of the people who think about suicide are thinking clearly and see the big picture. But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. We assume something is wrong just like with school shooters, because our brains can't think of any other reason. It doesn't fit the narrative. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

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

From what I've seen in online forums, much of the time when people ask the latter, they mean the former.

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

Obviously, a person can only understand things that are already within their scope of understanding.
Everyone is like that.

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). — Kenosha Kid

It's not illogical if one wishes to train oneself to come to terms with the fact that not everything in life has closure:

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?" — Pfhorrest

Why not live seems to have more reasonable answers than living itself. Bear in mind that a good deal of the population don't have the privilege most have of internet, therapy, food, etc. Lots of people starve to death or suffer illness and often times (at least from what I gather) our comfort is at the expense of others.

The question itself is not meaningless as you seem to think, because living is something we do and we tend to have reasons for doing things. Not logical ones per se but still reasons. NO human does something just because. In fact nothing does. But living generally requires a reason for being capable of thought as we are. Most animals likely don't question it, or much.

In short, there are several reasons to not live and no real good ones to live (well not ones that death would not be a better solution for). In short, why do all this when you don't have to and when in death you need not concern yourself with any of it?

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). — Benj96

Death is freedom. From all the constraints of life. What you call freedom are really just chains. Yes we do have choices but that doesn't equate to freedom. Reread it.

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. — Kenosha Kid

No, I'm perfectly logical. You just seem to think that emotions factor into what logically one should do. You Illogically state that if you enjoy something you should keep doing it, why? Just because you like it? Why does that matter? You want to use logic but logic can't really tell you what to do. As I said with ice cream, I like it. Does that mean I should eat it? No. All that means is that I like ice cream.

Obviously, a person can only understand things that are already within their scope of understanding.
Everyone is like that. — baker

This isn't really getting the answer I want but more like trying to see what a philosophy forum would say and see if their answers were better than anywhere else I have asked this question. At least people don't jump to depression, therapy, or the suicide hotline.

In regards to your point that's what I'm getting at by people assuming that wanting to die is some sickness.

The thing is that you chose a hot topic, one of the worst hot topics on the internet.

There are ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet that get a police officer sent to your door.

Then there are other ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet, ways which are more profitable.


My suggestion is that you get serious about this, and do some serious studying about this.

I think a good point to start is the work of Matthew Ratcliffe.

I believe our past experiences have a significant influence in how we shape our views related to existence, and our lives in general.

Depending on whether you were raised in a functional or dysfunctional household, you can be more or less prone to having a positive outlook on life. Having confidence and self-esteem also go a long way in motivating yourself to make goals and plans that you find worthy of achieving.

In essence, I think mental health is one of the most important factors that determine one's outlook on life, and fortunately, there is a lot of scientific research that shows what impacts our mental health, and what can safeguard and improve it.

I suppose I can agree that hope usually is an emotional desire for something that isn't usually thought out very much. But it can be. I can hope that my grandmother gives me 50 euros next time I visit her based on my past experiences with her. She always gives me a gift but I can't be sure. So it's both emotional and rational, they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't share your opinion that death is more logical that life. I don't really know what you're expecting people to tell you. People want to continue to live because life is just so damn fun. As I keep repeating over again, being is much nicer than not being. Yes an argument can be made about life becoming so agonizing that you would desire it to end because life is only suffering. But the truth is that for many people life isn't only non stop suffering.

I haven't been keeping up with the whole thread but I'm honestly just puzzled about what you're trying to find out. Why do people keep living? They don't share the same worldview. It's that simple. They don't agree with you that life is a chore and that the small good things are what make it bearable. And I get it, sometimes things don't go your way and shit gets really hard but I never think "Oh well, I might just save myself the trouble and off myself because I'm going to die anyway." Perhaps you're expecting reasons like "I want to see my child grow up happily." or "I want to make it to the big leagues." Or is that also not a good reason? What are you actually looking for?

Sorry if I'm not getting it. But my main answer to "why don't we just end it now" is "It's just not worth it."
I seem to have a deep aversion to this type of thinking because if this were the case and every person thought "I'm not going to do any work, avoid all hardships and step out soon" then all of the beauty that the human race has created would never have existed. Our culture, language, music,... All that awesome stuff would just cease to be. And I find it to be extremely disturbing to even suggest that. But I admit that is more of an emotional response.

Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical. — Darkneos

How on earth is happiness illogical? Happiness feels good -> Going out walking with friends and messing around makes me happy. -> It doesn't harm me. -> Since happiness improves my overall well being and has beneficial effects there is no reason to not do what makes me happy as long as the good outweighs the bad. This is a deeply personal thing because different things make different people happy, and they're not all healthy. But I sincerely fail to see how the above form of happiness is not logically justified. How??

But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. — Darkneos

That is because people operate from the basic axiom that life in general is a good thing. People are genuinely able to enjoy life because it's so basic to human experience to want to live. And when someone doesn't have that very basic feeling then we cannot help but to think something is wrong with them. Because it's the exact opposite of what people usually want. Saying that it is nothing but a chore and is entirely illogical is a super fringe view in both philosophy(that I know of) and not to mention in normal folks idea's.

I'm not as good as the rest here in turning thoughts to coherent texts like my fellow posters here, they have a finesse with words. So you'll have to excuse me for that. But it feels like I'm missing what you're actually arguing for.

Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement.

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

You know that people can lack material wealth, friends, love etc and still enjoy life. What makes life unbearable is depression, pain, fear, anxiety, extreme stress and usually a combination of these things. So I think it is warranted to question whether such a person is in a state of mind to make such a decision. I would deal with it case-by-case but as I said, healthy, happy people do not contemplate suicide because the balance is tilted in favour of living by default.

Even if someone appears to be clear thinking, they're nonetheless tormented by negative emotions and it's only natural that people would want to help them. Many people who don't know you would like you to enjoy life, that's just how they are. Friends and family don't want to lose a loved one to suicide. Death anxiety, lol, that's what you really think? How convenient.

The reasons people are giving for "why I choose to live" are complete bullshit because even if we took all those things away, they'd still want to live. That's how living things are, they want to keep living and don't give humans too much credit, they're animals not computers.

Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement. — Judaka

:up: :fire:

If it is not innate, genetic predisposition I would be shocked.

I've been banging around a few philosophy forums here and there over the last some weeks looking for some intellectually challenging concepts. I've read umpteen posts. I am amazed by what appears to me to be people's overwhelming tendency to posit their notions in tremendously ethereal wisps of fancy.

Humans are just creatures with an amazing voice box and a brain complex enough to formulate speech. For the most part it seems that we overlook the fundamentally mundane nature of our existence, even our wonderfully complex cognitive existence. It is simply a physical manifestation in the Universe, this human creature. Much of its cognitive relationship with the all else that exists can be explained in physical terms.

Why do we persevere? Hard wired.
What is the meaning of life? Staying alive.

I could be wrong.

The world has changed a lot since I was born and frankly I think it’s a pretty shit version of what humans are capable of creating. I’ve been depressed, suicidal, in existential anguish at times in my life. The reason I go on is to observe and collect thoughts on the world. I document some of my life in journals, maybe someone will read them years after I die and understand their world by my history of it.

I agree to some extent. There is a philosophical tendency to want to decorate the existential Christmas tree with esoteric tinsel and metaphysical fairy lights, but there are genuine philosophical problems - that for my money, begin with epistemology. Two seemingly simple questions:

What can we know? and,
How can we know it?

Open the door on a vast and complex series of interrelated problems. Because I understand the depth of these problems, it's somewhat amusing to see you skating over the surface, yelling "look how easy it is!" - blissfully unaware that the ice gets real thin in places, and that there are fathomless frigid depths beneath!

Well, it's nice to be able to entertain some people in mirth.

I don't see a philosophical problem with "what can we know?"
Once one accepts the mundanely obvious evidence that we can know nothing, then the door is open to begin the real exploration of intellectual existence. Unfortunately, it is not an exploration that can be pursued alone. I've seen just of late that Socrates ventured there. We're patiently waiting for y'all.

I could be wrong.

You can't bypass the problem that easily.

What can we know?
Nothing!
Job done. Wanna grab a pizza!
What's a pizza?

That's not a bypass.

That is a SOLUTION, a rational, logical explanation, a very plausible story to explain what might be real.

I could be wrong, but I have mountains of evidence to support my opinion that nobody wants to hear.

A solution in what sense?

You are making a claim to know - that we know nothing!

You are claiming you have mountains of evidence - so presume an answer to question number two, about how we know what we know.

Which in your case, really is nothing!

oops there.
I claim to know nothing.
I'm offering you an opinion and whole new way of looking at the world.
Do, PLEASE, notice that I admit and submit that "I could be wrong."

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I prefer intellectual honesty. I prefer to have good reasons for my views, and so be able to stand by them, rather than opine wildly - and then add "I could be wrong" and think myself wise for admitting it.

I suppose you didn't know that Socrates never said, "the only thing I know is that I know nothing." It's somewhat mistranslated from Plato's account of Socrates, but it wasn't Socrates that said it. The popularisation of the misquote is from Tolstoy's - War and Peace.

Of course, I could be wrong. We could all be brains in jars being fed a simulation of reality. Hence the significance of the questions:

What can we know? and,
How can we know it?

Amid the flurry of accusations, derogatory epithets, and dismissive banalities, I heard no a whisper of any interest in evidence or exploration of possibilities. I get that a lot. I'm okay with it. It's not my loss. My only loss is in finding solidly logical observations that I have not yet considered.

By the way, I have no solid clues about what Socrates actually "said". I merely have been apprised lately that he may have been of the opinion as I am that knowledge is an illusion. I find that to be an interesting prospect, another "maybe", a possible pixel for the internal world picture in the vast sea of maybe's that may be me.

One last offering and I'm done.
Rather than "what can we know?" start with something a little simpler, "what can we hear?" or more to the point, "what can or does the brain 'hear'?". There's a nice youtube video that illustrates it quite convincingly ["Auditory Transduction"] or so I would offer.

Good luck and fair sailing to you, sincerely.
But don't ever come at me with meanness in your heart again.

I was just trying to interest you in epistemology!

assuming that wanting to die is some sickness. — Darkneos

Isn’t that something that’s unpleasant to feel? Is not an unpleasant condition the very definition of a sickness?

Consider also: if you want to live, then whenever you’re alive, you’ve at least got something good going for you, and so something worth living for. So “wanting to live” is in itself something to live for.

Isn’t that something that’s unpleasant to feel? Is not an unpleasant condition the very definition of a sickness?

Consider also: if you want to live, then whenever you’re alive, you’ve at least got something good going for you, and so something worth living for. So “wanting to live” is in itself something to live for. — Pfhorrest

Wanting to live isn't something to live for it's what you do. The reason behind it is what is to live for. Being alive doesn't exactly mean you have something good going for you. Wanting to live is that biological drive. It isn't you.

Staying alive is not the meaning of life, that's just what life does.

You know that people can lack material wealth, friends, love etc and still enjoy life — Judaka

Those are only a small handful of people and that is more cases of extreme denial or hope. Those stuck in their lives don't have that.

How on earth is happiness illogical? Happiness feels good -> Going out walking with friends and messing around makes me happy. -> It doesn't harm me. -> Since happiness improves my overall well being and has beneficial effects there is no reason to not do what makes me happy as long as the good outweighs the bad. This is a deeply personal thing because different things make different people happy, and they're not all healthy. But I sincerely fail to see how the above form of happiness is not logically justified. How?? — DoppyTheElv

Because it does not follow. Your chain of reasoning does not compute. You need to stop at "happiness feels good", that's all logic can tell you. None of that is logically justified. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Come on I already shut this part down.

Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement. — Judaka

No it's not. It's honestly the only sane choice to make when it comes to life. Saying it's motivated by negative feelings that cloud judgment is what the narrative is because we HAVE to believe that. Otherwise if someone chose death over life it would have to involve us questioning our own framework of meaning and existence.

Being alive doesn't exactly mean you have something good going for you. — Darkneos

If being alive is in and of itself something you want, something you value intrinsically rather than just instrumentally, then every moment you’re alive you have something you want, and so something good going for you.

Which isn’t to say that life is great for everyone, far from it, I know. Just that when you value life intrinsically, hardships are just obstacles to be overcome on the path back to feeling good intrinsically just to be alive. Whereas otherwise, you require some positive thing, and endless supply of positive things, to justify the work that it takes to live.

You’re asking for the latter, which makes it clear that you feel the latter way. But to someone who feels the other way, that question doesn’t make any sense. You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself.

Sometimes to some people life feels like that: it’s just something they want for its own sake. Other times and to other people it doesn’t feel like that. I’ve felt both ways in my life, and feeling the way that makes sense of your question was the worst I’ve ever felt — not because anything in particular was bad in my life either, just because, for reasons I never figured out, I started feeling that way, and suddenly everything was pointlessness and despair unless I could find something to temporarily distract me.

Again, I’m not saying that either of those ways of feeing is or isn’t the factually correct way of looking at the world. They’re just different ways one might feel about the world. And one of them obviously feels better than the other. Realizing that is what saved me from feeling the other way, freed me to stop looking for a reason to justify living, and allowed me to instead focus on changing the way I felt to a state where life didn’t need any justification.

Because it does not follow. Your chain of reasoning does not compute. You need to stop at "happiness feels good", that's all logic can tell you. None of that is logically justified. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Come on I already shut this part down. — Darkneos

No you haven't shut anything down at all. You simply assert it does not follow. I have given a reason why its logical to continue doing something that makes me happy iff its beneficial and harmless.

Youre expected to argue for positions you have over here. You cant simply assert something and get upset when someone disagrees with you. I am terrible at philosophy because I'm young and inexperienced. So I am not locked to any position. Show me why what I said does not logically follow. In what step did I miss something? Is it the part where I bring up harm? Should I also recognize the harm I do to others?

You cant come here expecting that people give you a fair philosophical treatment if youre not interested in doing it yourself.

You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

I wish I could come up with this, man.
:up:

:grin:

You just seem to think that emotions factor into what logically one should do. — Darkneos

Of course they factor in. That doesn't make the decision "emotional".

If I wish to put a nail in the wall, it is perfectly logical to use a hammer.

Enjoying something is the state of wishing to be doing it. It is illogical to simultaneously enjoy something and not wish to do it. Conversely it is perfectly logical to wish for something and to act to realise that thing. Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise.