I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

Survival and subsistence are not necessarily pleasurable - indeed, for many individuals, they are distinctly unpleasant. Also difficult, disappointing and often painful. This accounts for a good deal of self-destructive behaviour, ranging from substance abuse to suicide. I don't see anything particularly spiritual about most forms of self-harm. We might set aside religious or ideological martyrdom as a special form of self-destructiveness that does have a spiritual component. But the more common forms arise from unhappiness, frustration and discontent.

Do you think a human falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body can itself be a valid social goal, — kudos

No.

in the sense that it is a force of thought directed against the overwhelming wave of subsistence as a goal? — kudos

What would cause such a thought?

Or more generally, is mere existence enough from an objective point of view? — kudos

Mere existence is never "enough". It is the beginning of purposes and goals; the base-line necessity for conscious thought and volition.
Is there an "objective point of view"?

Anti-Oedipus is an individual or a group that no longer functions in terms of beliefs and that comes to redeem mankind, as Nietzsche foresaw, not only from the ideals that weighed it down, " but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his hope to man.

It seems like fear is the ultimate currency that keeps people apart and separate. Fear of losing, losing control, or being sectioned away from normal existence. Fear also sections away, wins and dominates others, in such a way as to pass itself on through itself. You could say that it is a kind of fear that has being for itself, but not exactly rational being in itself.

Regarding number three, I have been thinking a lot lately about democracy. Don't you think that the ideal society would be undemocratic? Democracy is in a way a correction of a flaw in ourselves and our ability to cooperate and compromise with each other.

What would cause such a thought?

In essence, the fundamental tendency of ourselves to look for true freedom. In this case, maybe a type of freedom from the boredom of choosing, boredom of self, and from the asymptotic value that outer life and its inner manifestations tend to lead to; the condition some of us call unhappiness.

This reversal would permit the evolution of a life-style and of a political system which give priority to the protection, the maximum use , and the enjoyment of the one resource that is almost equally distributed among all people : personal energy under personal control.

There is a conflict of personal energy and control that it implies a person taken in their separateness from such a proposition. It sounds like a narrative that people come together and produce an aggregate change. Is that going to achieve the intended goal, or is it just another illusion of external machinery?

Democracy is literally extended from the Judaic tradition (All men are equal before God) and the Judaic tradition is about seeking redemption for the "sin" in man or as you put it a correction of a flaw in ourselves.

You mean the whole history of democratic-style decision-making all the way back to the ancient Athens and beyond, or do you just mean to draw a kind of plurality of the concept during its evolution?

the condition some of us call unhappiness. — kudos

I may have mentioned that. Yes;

But the more common forms arise from unhappiness, frustration and discontent.

Why make such a song-and-dance about it?

sort of an analogy for why is like your neighbour has invested in monopolizing the water supply with armed turrets, and you’re supposed to not care.

Sorry, what?

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

It cannot possibly. You are conflating the symptoms with the cause. Self-destructive tendencies are a symptom of a deeper problem within a person, which is better relegated to the field of psychiatry and psychology. Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem.

Even the Cynics would not recommend for us to be self-destructive. The Stoics recommend a view of life in self-restraint. None of them specifically talked about "continuation of life", rather, the fact that you are alive still and has some work to do while alive. In other words, take care of the life you have by using wisdom. If living is tiresome for you, try to understand yourself.

Do you think a human falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body can itself be a valid social goal, in the sense that it is a force of thought directed against the overwhelming wave of subsistence as a goal? Or more generally, is mere existence enough from an objective point of view? — kudos

Antinatalism largely answers this dilemma of putting people into a world where they must subsist, often against what would be the conditions and range of choices they otherwise would have chosen.

Your question is, if I understand correctly, 'if self-destruction is the answer, then why bother to foster children at all?' The question I'm posing isn't so much focused on anthropology as much as sociology. I'm not saying that under any and all circumstances life is not really worth living, but only under the present asymptotic conditions; by asymptotic I mean the 'ultimate goal' that our present lifestyle tends to as we allow it more and more autonomy from ourselves. A concrete example might be climate change. Isn't it posited that without a third hand we will spiral into natural unpredictability with possibly dire results?

Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem.

I agree with your point here, but only with qualification. Did psychoanalysis ever characterize any 'illnesses,' or was it the individual themselves, psychiatry, and psychology that characterized it that way? It is unfortunate that our language has taken to calling personalities 'illnesses,' and 'problems' because they are obsessive (could also be viewed as fore-thinking), depressed (could also be viewed as introverted and inventive), or anxious (could also be viewed as meticulous or full of creative energy). True, taken to extremes these become obviously problematic for society and the individual in question, but even then thinking of things as illnesses or problems is only moderately helpful as a metaphor to overcome, but this is not to be taken in the literal sense in my view; that would only serve to externalize things with no real hope of ever gaining any real closure.

Aren't we both on the same page that the individual experiencing self-destruction should be treated as a real individual and not as a problem waiting to be solved by the man, or an ill person who could infect others with their disease?

It is unfortunate that our language has taken to calling personalities 'illnesses,' and 'problems' because they are obsessive (could also be viewed as fore-thinking), depressed (could also be viewed as introverted and inventive), or anxious (could also be viewed as meticulous or full of creative energy). True, taken to extremes these become obviously problematic for society and the individual in question, but even then thinking of things as illnesses or problems is only moderately helpful as a metaphor to overcome, but this is not to be taken in the literal sense in my view; that would only serve to externalize things with no real hope of ever gaining any real closure. — kudos

It is not unfortunate, as you would like to see it. Observational approach to understanding the behavior or humans and animals -- in their natural order! -- points towards nurture and tenderness. We would not naturally seek chaos and suffering. So, establishing what's normal is really establishing the human psychology.

A baby monkey would cling to the terry cloth mother, than to a wooden mother. See Harry Harlow - The Nature of Affection.

"Problems" are meant to be solved, or analyzed. The human tendency to try to solve problems is part of continuation of life, as you say. If the word bothers you, then there are "cases" .

We would not naturally seek chaos and suffering.

What about who you’d call the grandfather of Western philosophy, Socrates? Someone who, as the story goes, chose execution over fear and groundless obedience to the natural order of his day.

What about who you’d call the grandfather of Western philosophy, Socrates? Someone who, as the story goes, chose execution over fear and groundless obedience to the natural order of his day. — kudos

I don't think you got the whole story of why he chose to drink the hemlock. It was a calculated decision on his part -- aging had a lot to do with it. His relationships with family and peers was very important. His identity was tied to his beliefs and how he lived. So, he was trying to avoid self-destruction by choosing, instead, to die.

Yeah, but what was he accused of, and why didn’t he stop?

Yeah, but what was he accused of, and why didn’t he stop? — kudos

I'm not sure. It's a matter of debate as this is Socrates.

Observational approach to understanding the behavior of humans and animals points towards nurture and tenderness. We would not naturally seek chaos and suffering. So, establishing what's normal is really establishing the human psychology.

It would be appropriate at this point to ask you for clarifcation on what you mean by 'nurture and tenderness' and 'chaos and suffering.' This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life?

Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

As the Buddha is said to have been, this before his quest for enlightenment wherein he sat under a tree and nearly starved to death in his ponderings? Certainly the Buddha can be said to have "achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards his attributed circumstances" (this when power is understood as “ability to accomplish”).

From the OP:

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

“Self-destruction” can signify many things and come in many forms. The want for ego-death, wherein the empirical ego is obliterated—and in some traditions said to then be rebirthed anew—comes to mind as one form of want for the destruction of the self. Even Nietzsche’s aphorism of the beast of burden whose back breaks from the load bared, turned into a carnivore combating the monster of “thou shalt and shalt not”, that after fully vanquishing the monster is then turned into a newly birthed babe to the world can easily be interpreted to address just such an ego death. In parallel, all forms of sincere love, such as compassion, will in due measure destroy an otherwise seemingly isolated selfhood—are the destruction of the self in this sense—this in part by opening up floodgates regarding the intrinsic worth of others such that one opens up to what’s commonly termed selfless acts, with altruism as an example.

But something tells me these trains of thought are not what you’re after as regards destruction of the self and spirituality?

To be honest, though, I’m mainly posting because the OP’s enquiry into self-destruction heavily reminds me of this song, which I generally like :smile: :



As artistic expressions go, there might be found some deeper truths in the lyrics dependent on their interpretation; e.g., assent to falsehoods is detrimental to one’s long-term well-being, even if somehow comforting in the short-term. More concretely exemplified, alcoholism is detrimental in just such a manner, yet some will prefer it to dealing with the hardships of life all the same.

But, unlike notions of ego-death for example, I so far don’t understand how such behaviors detrimental to one’s well-being can be said to be spiritual aiming or yearning.

OP’s enquiry into self-destruction heavily reminds me of this song, which I generally like.

How nice to know that I'm successfully tapping into the debased individuals who make up the NIN fanbase. Looks like we're getting somewhere good now. Didn't Trent and Manson both satirize the illusion of choice and agency? Through their spectacular debauchery they exposed the asymptotic strivings of the autonomic continuation paradigm.

How nice to know that I'm successfully tapping into the debased individuals who make up the NIN fanbase. Looks like we're getting somewhere good now. Didn't Trent and Manson both satirize the illusion of choice and agency? Through their spectacular debauchery they exposed the asymptotic strivings of the autonomic continuation paradigm. — kudos

Not that this reply in any way addresses my post, but your biased interpretations re NIN are showing. Check this out, for example; and if you want, let me know how non-spiritual, anti-choice, or anti-agency it seems to you:



At any rate, is this going to turn into a rock music is debauchery thing? Or do you have some meaningful content to impart in relation to the content I previously posted?

:lol:

I have no words at the moment.

:lol:

I have not words at the moment. — L'éléphant

Hey, as to being debased by others, “javra” does translate into “cur”. @kudos’s less than civil reply is nothing shocking.

But I’m glad someone is getting a good kick out of things so far.

Check this out, for example; and if you want, let me know how non-spiritual, anti-choice, or anti-agency it seems to you.

What I'm talking about is a kind of nihilism that is about the reality of choice and agency. But the reality we want means overcoming the little pods that our own mass media has embedded us into. In general, the commodity system creates needs for themselves that simultaneously present a lack in the individual in their negation. This is more like Head Like a Hole, but you could pick any NIN out of a hat and get more or less the same message. The thesis is that to really accept lack in general, and to rebelliously draw distinctions within it; to create a kind of empire of lack with the intention of attaining some kind of choice. Isn't that the only way to rebel against a self-generating need-machine: to become the machine yourself?

Isn't that the only way to rebel against a self-generating need-machine: to become the machine yourself? — kudos

no. You might want to address my first post to you.

Hey, as to being debased by others, “javra” does translate into “cur” — javra

I see. :grin: I've never used this word before.

It would be appropriate at this point to ask you for clarifcation on what you mean by 'nurture and tenderness' and 'chaos and suffering.' This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

Sorry, I still don't see how the "will to power" amounts to self-destruction and that the natural tendency to not choose chaos and suffering automatically betrays their background as the reason for being so. I was trying to tell you that even in the wild, they wouldn't choose self-destruction. Socrates was doomed and he knew it. Exile was not an option because he was old and didn't want to be separated from his loved ones. In essence, he was already destroyed by the powers that be. His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity.

Are we making up stuff as we go along in this thread? Because as I see it, statements like yours are generalizations with no basis.

Exile was not an option because he was old and didn't want to be separated from his loved ones. In essence, he was already destroyed by the powers that be. His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity.

So the choice was between renouncing beliefs -meaning teaching truth, wisdom, and philosophy to Athenian youths - and death. So how was it not self destructive to choose death?

I see. :grin: I've never used this word before. — L'éléphant

:smile: eh, "javra" is the Romanian word for cur/mongrel, not that many people make a habit of using the latter.

His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity. — L'éléphant

Yes. Moreover, were he to choose exile and a renunciation of his beliefs rather than concede to his sentence of death, this would have served to obliterate the cause which he strove for. So, especially given that all choices pointed toward the destruction of his own identity, conceding to die was that one option what best served his cause. Doubtful that his ideas would have been held in the same regard historically without Plato having written The Apology of Socrates [edit] or if Socrates would have evidenced himself a hypocrite by choosing to not honor the results of this trial by jury. The Platonic Academy might have never emerged otherwise, for instance.

So the choice was between renouncing beliefs -meaning teaching truth, wisdom, and philosophy to Athenian youths - and death. So how was it not self destructive to choose death? — kudos

No, you misunderstood. To him, any of the choices of punishment is like death. I mentioned those already -- exile, renounce his beliefs, and death are all similar in effect.

See below, for javra's take on it:

Moreover, were he to choose exile and a renunciation of his beliefs rather than concede to his sentence of death, this would have served to obliterate the cause which he strove for. So, especially given that all choices pointed toward the destruction of his own identity, conceding to die was that one option what best served his cause. — javra

:100:

No, you misunderstood. To him, any of the choices of punishment is like death. I mentioned those already -- exile, renounce his beliefs, and death are all similar in effect.

Aren't you sort of generalizing that all self-destructive people are irrational? Most people who choose a path, destructive or not, have some grounds for doing so. That part can be more or less assumed. Carrying over to the mainstream of the conversation, in a climate where your freedom of choice were under arrest, wouldn't a rebellious path with aim of liberating the freedom of the individual be worth taking? Otherwise, it would be likewise a kind of death of the individual.

Aren't you sort of generalizing that all self-destructive people are irrational? — kudos

Yes.

Most people who choose a path, destructive or not, have some grounds for doing so. — kudos

Now you're intentionally blurring the lines. I no longer know what you really mean here.

Carrying over to the mainstream of the conversation, in a climate where your freedom of choice were under arrest, wouldn't a rebellious path with aim of liberating the freedom of the individual be worth taking? — kudos

Meaning to self-destruct? If one dies for a cause, that's one thing. But if one just waste away because of discontentment, then that's a problem.