But again, those are not reasons to not do it. To repeat plenty of people do thinks they don’t like for years. Most jobs tend to be like that for the population as a whole.

Besides the parts of your arguments which are demonstrably incorrect, which you did not even try to defend further, you've got "perhaps" and "think about it" to challenge decades of science and study. Your worldview is not based on logic and honesty as you claim, it's created through a unique interpretation which selectively acknowledges and emphasises pieces of information to create a particular narrative. When in doubt, assume whatever suits you, that's pretty much your argument summed up, we both know you can't back up your claims, that's why it's "perhaps" and such. — Judaka

Except they aren’t incorrect. I’ve told you that society has a stigma against suicide and that is not made up. It’s literally something I was taught in my sociology courses.

If anyone is not using logic it’s you, trying to argue that desire and liking something are reasons to do something when they aren’t. As was mentioned logic can’t tell you what to do. To be it just sounds like you hit a wall because appeals to emotion no longer work. I have backed up my claims, you however have not.

You've got an excuse for everything, it's a whole conspiracy against suicide and the evidence or arguments don't matter because of "death anxiety". My last comment, you chose to address only what you thought could be ignored by "death anxiety" yet again, even though your main argument is demonstrably invalid and false. I don't know why you're intent on promoting suicide but I imagine it's a personal story. Anyway, I don't think you have anything left to do but insist on things you can't back up and dismiss facts with wishful thinking, I'm out. — Judaka

Because suicide is the only logical choice by metrics of living, meaning maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain. I’ve already explained why pleasure is not a reason to live. You refuse to accept it. You cling to your illogical views that life is worth it. When you get rid of your attachment to life you see it’s not “worth it”. Every one of your arguments is biased by survival instinct. You don’t have facts. You have a the narrative that suicide is the result of depression when it isn’t always but that’s the story we tell. Similar to how shooters are mentally disturbed even without a history, because that makes sense when some of them had no history. The facts aren’t on your side. But it is fitting you should leave. That tends to be the attitude of most when the truth gets too close.

It is hard to grasp because it speaks against my personal experience. If I'm hungry, then I will eat. If I am in love with a person, then I will try my best to be with them. Reason being? Hunger and Love.

These are valid reasons to pursue my wants in my eyes. But according to you they aren't. And that's why I have asked you multiple times before, what would count as a valid reason?

If something feels good then it's only natural to want to pursue it just for the sake of it feeling good. Setting aside all arguments one can make about chasing feelings at the expense of others, etc. — DoppyTheElv

Appeal to nature argument. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it good to follow. And I have already explained why not. As I said if you take it further then there is no reason to do anything at all.

So you deny that there can be a reason to do anything and then go on to say that life needs a reason to continue which by implication means that death is the only option. This seems fallacious at worst and requiring justification at best. Or did I misunderstand? If so, sorry. — DoppyTheElv

It’s not. It just shows that death is the only option left. Life requires to a reason to exist, at least for people. We are past the point of being unquestioning animals. Yet there is no ultimate reason for existence or living. Reproduction is what live does but that doesn’t mean it should. Therefore there is and never will be a reason for living (that isn’t rooted in appeals to emotion or nature, AKA fallacies) making death the only logical choice.

ppeal to nature argument. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it good to follow. And I have already explained why not. As I said if you take it further then there is no reason to do anything at all. — Darkneos

No it's not. It's an appeal to it feels good and there is no reason not to do it so it's perfectly logical to want to do it argument. And I said you didn't explain anything because I still don't see why there is no reason to do anything at all.

It’s not. It just shows that death is the only option left. Life requires to a reason to exist, at least for people. We are past the point of being unquestioning animals. Yet there is no ultimate reason for existence or living. Reproduction is what live does but that doesn’t mean it should. Therefore there is and never will be a reason for living (that isn’t rooted in appeals to emotion or nature, AKA fallacies) making death the only logical choice. — Darkneos

So a good reason would be an ultimate purpose? Is that the reason you want?

I'm not making appeals to nature but I am making appeals to emotion in the sense that an emotion could bring forth a reason to do something. But I suppose we keep going in circles anyhow.

The end note to your question is: People live life because it's worth it and it's simply fun. It's perfectly logical to me and seemingly to most people who are alive. You don't think it's a valid reason? Well, I'm afraid you're not going to convince very many people.

I’ve already explained why pleasure is not a reason to live. — Darkneos

If multiple people are telling you that you're in fact not explaining anything then you should probably look into it.

No it's not. It's an appeal to it feels good and there is no reason not to do it so it's perfectly logical to want to do it argument. And I said you didn't explain anything because I still don't see why there is no reason to do anything at all. — DoppyTheElv

It is. You are arguing it’s only natural to do so so it’s appeal to nature. I’ve already said why it’s not logical to want to do it. Stop repeating the same debunked arguments. Desire and emotion are not reasons for doing something, they are simple feelings that come and go. We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything.

Emotions are not reasons to do something either. They are just reactions to situations but we think they mean something or that we should do something but this is in error.

The end note to your question is: People live life because it's worth it and it's simply fun. It's perfectly logical to me and seemingly to most people who are alive. You don't think it's a valid reason? Well, I'm afraid you're not going to convince very many people. — DoppyTheElv

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? Just because most people believe that doesn’t make it true or logical. I know I can’t expect to convince folks of this because they are too attached to life and can’t see clearly.

If multiple people are telling you that you're in fact not explaining anything then you should probably look into it. — DoppyTheElv

Again just because many people say something doesn’t make it true. I have already shown every argument for living to not be logical and rooted in fallacy yet people want to believe otherwise.

It is. You are arguing it’s only natural to do so so it’s appeal to nature. I’ve already said why it’s not logical to want to do it. Stop repeating the same debunked arguments. Desire and emotion are not reasons for doing something, they are simple feelings that come and go. We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos

I like music and it makes me happy. There is nothing illogical about liking music being a sufficient reason to play my piano. This would change if you add a twist. If you play the piano, someone dies. Yes, then it's arguable about it being a good reason, but a reason could be there none the less.

You haven't argued anything in your responses to me man. You literally just say "it's not an reason" and then "I've argued why."

We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos

That is literally what it means to live a human life. Subjective experience of objective facts. Hello?? Is this a secret method to assimilate us into the borg?

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? Just because most people believe that doesn’t make it true or logical. — Darkneos

And simply asserting that doesn't make it so. Life may not be so enjoyable for you at the current moment. But I'm certainly enjoying it! Am I lying or broken?

People can't see it because it is not true. It makes no sense not to do what you like. In your view, I should just sit and wait for time to go by while I come home after a long day of school. Because apparently wanting to have fun doesn't count as a reason to play a game with my buddies. It doesn't compute to people who truly do get enjoyment out of the things they do. Perhaps you can't but that doesn't mean I can't either.
— Darkneos

I know I can’t expect to convince folks of this because they are too attached to life and can’t see clearly. — Darkneos

How convenient that the will to live is the obstacle to understanding you. I'm sorry to say then that indeed most of the population who enjoy life, no matter how good in philosophy they are, will simply not be as enlightened as you. Except for the ones who, sorry to bring this up despite to your request, are depressed.

Again just because many people say something doesn’t make it true. I have already shown every argument for living to not be logical and rooted in fallacy yet people want to believe otherwise. — Darkneos

And that, I suppose, is the rationalization that allows you to be confident in your position despite the numerous advances against it in this thread.

And that, I suppose, is the rationalization that allows you to be confident in your position despite the numerous advances against it in this thread. — DoppyTheElv

It’s not rationalization, that is literally what the defenses against death or suicide are, appeals to emotion or nature, which is why they fall flat. They don’t see why their logic does not follow.

How convenient that the will to live is the obstacle to understanding you. I'm sorry to say then that indeed most of the population who enjoy life, no matter how good in philosophy they are, will simply not be as enlightened as you. Except for the ones who, sorry to bring this up despite to your request, are depressed. — DoppyTheElv

I wouldn’t call it the will to live so much as it is the bias towards life. Considering most living things tend to avoid death quite intensely it would make sense our reasoning would be clouded by such a drive. “I have to live” yet when trying to pin down why that is you ultimately have nothing to stand on. Death however doesn’t really need a reason, it finds you. You don’t have to live but you will die. Sorry I don’t have a more poetic way to put that.

I like music and it makes me happy. There is nothing illogical about liking music being a sufficient reason to play my piano. This would change if you add a twist. If you play the piano, someone dies. Yes, then it's arguable about it being a good reason, but a reason could be there none the less.

You haven't argued anything in your responses to me man. You literally just say "it's not an reason" and then "I've argued why." — DoppyTheElv

I have argued why. I’ve told you that it’s only an automatic response to stimuli, it isn’t you. You don’t decide what you like or dislike. Liking music is not a reason to play it, all that means is that you like music. The same goes with playing the piano and someone dying, that isn’t a reason to stop. I like music but that is no reason to play the piano, all that is is an automatic response to stimuli. It doesn’t mean I should play nor does it logically follow.

That’s like trying to derive an ought from an is.

You are trying to argue for life when the reasons of so many have been shown to be fallacious.

You are trying to argue for life when the reasons of so many have been shown to be fallacious. — Darkneos

Lets just shy away from the discussion side of things because we're not getting anywhere.

What are you hoping to get out of this discussion? Seeing as we've gone far from what people's reason to live for are.

I want to show that there is no reason for living so that when I eventually take my life people won’t call my illogical or clouded

Perhaps a reason to remain alive is to see if there is any other reason to stay alive besides this.

plenty of people do thinks they don’t like for years. Most jobs tend to be like that for the population as a whole. — Darkneos

Yes, but they put up with that suffering only to avoid even greater suffering, and in the hopes of some small pleasures along the way and even greater pleasures afterward.

There seems to be asymmetry that needs to be made explicit: we don't need a reason to live as much as we need one to die. It can be said that the default state of our existential switch is set to live, live as long as possible. In other words, living is not so much a choice as it is a compulsion and that being the case, your question becomes meaningless. We don't choose to live, we live and that's that.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it
— baker

Except it isn't the default. It's a choice. — Darkneos

I suppose it is so for some people, but I'm not sure it was a choice for them for as long as they can remember.

There seems to be asymmetry that needs to be made explicit: we don't need a reason to live as much as we need one to die. — TheMadFool

THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.
These are games; one must first answer.

This is how Camus opens his Myth of Sisyphus. (I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.)
He formulates the matter as such: It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself.

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing.
— baker

What you're describing is a competing desire: a desire to be moral or, hopefully, to act upon a moral impulse. — Kenosha Kid

No. I'm talking about actually being certain about one's sense of right and wrong. I'm talking about being certain that A is morally right, and that B is morally wrong.

When a person reflects on the morality of a particular prospective action of theirs, and is unable to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether said action is morally right or not, this is when their motivaiton falters.

THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.
These are games; one must first answer.

This is how Camus opens his Myth of Sisyphus. (I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.)
He formulates the matter as such: It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself. — baker

My thoughts exactly.

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? — Darkneos

If your basement hasn't been flooded, why would you worry about your basement becoming flooded?
IOW, a problem only has relevance to a person by its relative proximity to a person. I'm not so sure most people ever think about their "reason for living", unless they experience some traumatic event.
Ignorance makes for blissfully happy campers.

I want to show that there is no reason for living so that when I eventually take my life people won’t call my illogical or clouded — Darkneos

That is such a crappy reason to engage in such a discussion and figure things out.

And yes, there will be many who will say that your reasons were "illogical or clouded". Don't count on them.

As things stand, you're on the trajectory of a self-fulfilling prophecy, nothing more. That's lazy. You need to put in more effort.


I suggest reading William James' Is life worth living?, if you haven't already:

/.../
These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The 'scientific proof' that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the beings that then and there will represent them, may then turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go on, with words like those with which Henry IV. greeted the tardy Crillon after a great victory had been gained: "Hang yourself, brave Crillon! we fought at Arques, and you were not there."

No. I'm talking about actually being certain about one's sense of right and wrong. I'm talking about being certain that A is morally right, and that B is morally wrong. — baker

That's not the same thing as a decision to act. To act is to affect a change in the world. You might act on the basis that belief that the action is correct, but to act in accordance with that belief is still a desire to realise it.

Yes, but they put up with that suffering only to avoid even greater suffering, and in the hopes of some small pleasures along the way and even greater pleasures afterward. — Pfhorrest

I don't think you've worked a service job before. The kind of work wears you down to the point that most people dread waking up and going through it, never really being able to enjoy days off because they have to go back to the job.

It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself. — baker

Literally the same thing, he's just splitting hairs.

We don't choose to live, we live and that's that — TheMadFool

But we do choose to live, with every action that prolongs exists it's a choice to go on. Stop choosing and eventually death takes you.

But we do choose to live, with every action that prolongs exists it's a choice to go on. Stop choosing and eventually death takes you. — Darkneos

Well, I was coming at it from the well-known fact that though a mind makes a firm decision to die (suicide), the body resists (gasping for air, body writhing, and the whole nine yards of what has been fearfully labeled "death throes") and how so has been, occasionaly, depicted quite accurately on screen.

I don't think you've worked a service job before. The kind of work wears you down to the point that most people dread waking up and going through it, never really being able to enjoy days off because they have to go back to the job. — Darkneos

At the job I lost a year ago (and still haven't replaced), which I had for 8 years prior, I would routinely beat the everliving shit out of myself, with my actual fists, because of the pressure to keep up with the insane workloads that got dumped on me all at once. And then be awake all night anxious about the next day. And just barely be able to unwind back to "normal" by the end of the weekend, only for Monday to fuck it up again.

But I put up with it because the alternative was ending up homeless, or at best living in the tool shed next to my dad's trailer again, which was even worse.

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

I'm not sure and it's a good question. For me the possibility and actuality of relationships keep me going, I think. And I am most despairing when I find myself unable to relate to others well. Maybe separation creates the possibility of value, but then if relationships don't work well, or others are uncooperative, there is a tendency to want to take one's ball home, permanently. That'll show the buggers. I know I feel it quite a lot.

There is no reason to live. Not any objective meaning anyway. For many, their faith in a higher power is their raison d'être. For those that are secular (myself included), we continue to live because of stubbornness to see things through and a general willingness to avoid death.

At the job I lost a year ago (and still haven't replaced), which I had for 8 years prior, I would routinely beat the everliving shit out of myself, with my actual fists, because of the pressure to keep up with the insane workloads that got dumped on me all at once. And then be awake all night anxious about the next day. And just barely be able to unwind back to "normal" by the end of the weekend, only for Monday to fuck it up again.

But I put up with it because the alternative was ending up homeless, or at best living in the tool shed next to my dad's trailer again, which was even worse. — Pfhorrest

For many others though homeless would be an improvement. Either that or death.

I'm not sure and it's a good question. For me the possibility and actuality of relationships keep me going, I think. And I am most despairing when I find myself unable to relate to others well. Maybe separation creates the possibility of value, but then if relationships don't work well, or others are uncooperative, there is a tendency to want to take one's ball home, permanently. That'll show the buggers. I know I feel it quite a lot. — bert1

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak?

For many others though homeless would be an improvement. Either that or death. — Darkneos

And those people would quit their job and go homeless, or die.

Those who don't evidently find the alternative superior.

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak? — Darkneos

But do you know what that actually entails?

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame.

Those who don't evidently find the alternative superior. — Pfhorrest

In the West, we're used to thinking like that, and to think those are the alternatives.

In contrast, in some other cultures, the relevant dichotomy is living an honorable life vs. not living an honorable life. Considerations of wealth and material wellbeing are secondary or even irrelevant to this.

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 don't really care what other people think of my choices in that regard. There are almost 8 billion people, so hanging around could be considered selfish. Leaving could be considered weak. So what?

hear that the good things in life make people stay but aren't those just to make life bearable? To me it seems like that is an argument only if you HAVE to live but from what I see it's optional. — Darkneos

It's definitely optional. Some things are easier if you do a prison break and live on your own terms, the way you want to as far as it's possible in your historic era.

There's a price for that though. There's some comfort and safety that comes from being a normal person, doing what everyone else does.

At least where I am, if you stick out, it's kind of dangerous, so you have to set up fixtures to give yourself a safe profile, like the way you dress, the car you drive, the way your front yard looks, the way you talk.

So maybe not as much of a prison break as it seemed. :monkey:

I get depressed occasionally, mostly when I tired. But I've got a cool garden planned this year and I can't wait to see how it turns out. It's mostly native american species that are going extinct because asian immigrants are edging them out.

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak? — Darkneos

For me, because I would feel ashamed with myself I think. However foolish the game may be, it affords one an opportunity one would not otherwise have. Namely, to learn the rules and prove to oneself that one is, if not competent, then capable of a little improvement. If someone says they don't value improvement, and they feel no shame at all in the refusal to take part, there is no reddening of the cheeks as they refuse the relationship, then so be it. I'm not sure I would believe them.

EDIT: This is one of my more pompous posts. A fine display.

Killing you is a bad option. Think of the bad people who will smile and say: we already knew he was a freak, a coward, etc. Fuck them.

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame. — baker

No you aren't. You aren't giving supremacy to anyone. By opting to not play you win. Think about what happens when enough people stop playing the game, there is no game anymore.

What's a true shame is how you can't see that. The reality is that we have been convinced we must play, so the only way for others to win is to keep playing.

Also some might have regret but some experience great peace knowing it will all be over.