Why did the person wash the dish in the first place?

Nothing negative though. — Terrapin Station

It's there by fact of being there. Wait that was zen.

I'm liking the themes of complexity and time.

Schopenhauer1 So it seems you just want everyone to accept that dealing with stuff is actually bad. Then what ? Are you ok with thinking everything you do is shit because there could be a better world and you were not born in it? Would you still do it? If everyone thought the same way then we would either lose the will to live or stop thinking about it as bad and you would get back to the starting point. — Alan

Yes, T Clark is kind of right. This is yet another reason not to procreate someone else into this situation. What this could inform us, the already-alive is about our own conditions of human existence. It tells us where are striving comes from, our constant dissatisfied state. Perhaps it will bring empathy when dealing with others and ourselves. In a way we can never be satisfied, only temporarily satiated. The ship is always going to leak- it will never be waterproof.

Ironically, I read an article in The Atlantic of of a reinterpretation of Job by Edward L. Greenstein here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/job-edward-l-greenstein/594769/

According to this interpretation, instead of Job showing contrition when YHWH shows him this spectacle of how he created the stars,and can make nature do all these seemingly miraculous things, Job essentially does a white knuckled fist to God and simply says he feels sorry for everyone in creation. I'll just share the last part of the article here and bold what I think is important.

But then: enter God. “Up speaks YHWH,” as Greenstein puts it, momentarily folksy—a voice “from the windstorm.” “Bind up your loins like a man,” God warns Job, before stamping on the effects pedal and delivering perhaps the most shattering speech ever recorded. Question after question, power chord after power chord: “Where were you when I laid earth’s foundations? … Can you tie the bands of the Pleiades, Or loosen the cords of Orion? … Do you give the horse its bravery?” No explanation; no answer for Job; no moral or theoretical content whatsoever. It’s the interrogation of consciousness by pure Being, by the Logos, by the unstopping, unmediated act of creation itself. Do not try this at home. “Does the falcon take flight through your wisdom, As it spreads its wings toward the south?” The human intellect shrinks before the onslaught. The language is incomparable. God, it turns out, is the greatest poet; no one can touch him.

And it’s at this point, with Job reduced to a pair of smoking sandals and the divine mega-monologue still ringing in the vaults of the firmament, that Greenstein and centuries of tradition diverge. He has produced his new translation of Job, he tells us in the introduction, to “set the record straight.” Every version of the Bible that you have read puts Job, in the wake of God’s speech, in an attitude of awestruck contrition or reconversion. “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes,” he says in the King James. “I’m sorry—forgive me,” he says in Eugene H. Peterson’s million-selling plain-language adaptation, The Message. “I’ll never do that again, I promise!” Greenstein’s Job, however, stays vinegary to the end. “I have heard you,” he tells God, “and now my eye has seen you. That is why I am fed up.” The Hebrew phrase commonly rendered as some form of I repent, Greenstein translates as I take pity on. Dust and ashes, meanwhile, is for Greenstein a biblical epithet meaning humanity in general. So the line becomes “I take pity on ‘dust and ashes.’ ” Job’s last word: What a world you’ve made, God. I feel sorry for everyone.

What does it mean? This newly revealed Job, writes Greenstein, “is expressing defiance, not capitulation … If God is all about power and not morality and justice, Job will not condone it through acceptance.” Upon the scholarly merits of this approach, I am unable to pronounce; as an idea, I’ll consider it. We don’t read the Bible, it’s been said; the Bible reads us. It searches us. And here for us in 2019, right on time, with tyranny back in style and riding its behemoth through the streets, is a middle-finger Job, a Job unreconciled to the despotism of experience. He’s been shattered by life-shocks; then God, like a wall of terrible noise, fills and overfills his mind. His response: Thank you, but no.

Gloria Dei est vivens homo, wrote Saint Irenaeus: The glory of God is a living man. Might not the Author of Life look with favor upon this brilliantly resistant creature, this unappeasable critical thinker, this supremely lonely and dissenting figure, this Bartleby with boils—unswayed by the sublime, scratching his scabs in the land of Uz? That might be the rankest heresy: Let me know, bishops. But consider what Greenstein’s nonpenitent, polarity-reversed Job has done to the ending of the book. As before, with the experiment over, Job is blandly restored to a state of health and wealth; as before, God upbraids the sententious friends, the Bildads and the Eliphazes and the Zophars, and sends them off to make some burnt offerings, “for you did not speak about me in honesty as did my servant Job.” The quality or valence of this honesty, however, has turned upside down. It has become a kind of white-knuckle existential tenacity, a refusal to disown oneself even in the teeth of the windstorm. Maybe that’s what this God, faced with this Job, is telling us: Bring it all before him, the full grievance of your humanity. Bring him your condition, loudly. Let him have it. — The Atlantic

Now, I am far from looking to the Bible for any inspiration, but this translation of Job has some good insights, at least as a metaphor for the human condition. The friends of Job to me, are like the equivalent of the guy who says, "Do something about it!". They don't see the bigger picture, the bigger reveal. Job sees existence as a whole for what it is, and ironically (in this translation), existence (God) commends Job for sticking to his guns and questioning the point of being born at all. THAT was the right answer. All this suffering and striving, and Job just says, "yeah, I just don't give a shit anymore, it means nothing to me now, I see that..give me all your excuses and justifications, it doesn't phase me anymore. Give me your 'Do something about its!!' and 'Progress', and 'flourishings', 'the technology of the modern age', and I'll show you striving after wind."

Taking this more existentially, and less mythical-dramatically, life is striving-after, always in a deprived state. The sooner people realize this,the more empathy we have for our state as fellow-strivers, how we treat each other, and how we respond to each other. There is nothing to get after, nothing to be, nowhere to go. Those are culturally-created and perpetuated values that are promoted by many who want to keep it that way. Rather, we are sufferers in and by existence.

@Inyenzi you may like the themes of that article and this post. I'd like your thoughts too.


You may also find this interesting since you are into literature and poetry.

Interesting themes there.

It can be, sure. There are a lot of ways to look at it, including the zen "wash the dishes to wash the dishes." — Terrapin Station

But the fact that there is even a reason to zen out on washing dishes is a dealing with.

Then no value should be assigned to it. Doing things and dealing with others are just a feature of life. — Alan

True based on being a fact.

Being aware of the differences between the way we want things to be and the way they really are somehow drives both individual and social change towards minimizing the difference between that which is not as we want it to be and the ideal. — Alan

Yes, but again, the initial separation is there, and then the (basically) forced working towards fixing the gap. This is deemed as good and then mumblings of meaning attached to this pursuit.

In the end dealing with things may not be good or bad but if you deal with them you may get closer to this ideal world you and I want. If we actually got to create this ideal world then life may not be possible because the ideal world and the actual one are mutually exclusive. The only thing left is to improve the world for us and for the rest of the people even if that is achieved asymptotically. — Alan

In the end, there is dealing with. It cannot be avoided. We are forced-oriented to it. However, is this something we should identify with simply because it is an inescapable feature? No, rather it is a forced "thrownness" on the person. It's like being on a game with obstacles you cannot escape.

There, fixed it. — Purple Pond

:ok:

It works for a little while before it gets worn to mush and all kinds of nails stuck in it and its usefulness deteriorates exponentially. — whollyrolling

I think you are saying that philosophy doesn't assume anything. I think it is good. We are not robots who just do stuff, but ask why, analyze, compare, look at underlying metaphysical and epistemological and ethical underpinnings.

I think I know where you come from and you know the same for me. After a few tries, we've found that we're not going to convince each other of our positions. I'm comfortable with that.

I was teasing you. It was intended to be friendly teasing. — T Clark

I know :D

Oh schopenhauer1, you're such a knucklehead. You can't fool us. We know this is just Anti-natalism, Take 73. — T Clark

I do like focusing on existential matters and basic assumptions- why people assume "dealing with" is good. Why people assume "progress" is something people should pursue. Why putting more people into the world is a good thing, etc. If I talk to you about the induction of electricity through copper wires and power stations having huge magnets that spin and create electricity that is pushed through metallic wires.. You might ask, what is the reason? Well, I want to know how electricity works. Why? Well, a lot of modern society runs on this? Who were the people involved in understanding electricity to the point of utilities that generate large amounts of viable electricity and electrical components? There is all this minutia but it's all based on assumptions- by the people who created this stuff, by the people who consume it, by the people who study it's history and science. The ideas of logic, fundamental laws, complexity, emergence, language, etc. In other words, all these assumptions but it goes back to existential attitudes like the very ones I bring up.

Yes in a rough way, and you notice here in the article:

Awareness and acknowledgment of the arbitrariness of Dasein is characterized as a state of "thrown-ness" in the present with all its attendant frustrations, sufferings, and demands that one does not choose, such as social conventions or ties of kinship and duty. The very fact of one's own existence is a manifestation of thrown-ness. The idea of the past as a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, results in the notion of Geworfenheit—a kind of alienation that human beings struggle against,[2] and that leaves a paradoxical opening for freedom: — Thrownness

This might describe a lot of what I am talking about in terms of structural suffering and unable to change systemic parts of either existence itself, culture, or circumstances one is brought into.

Are they dilemmas if people don't think of them as dilemmas? — Terrapin Station

I will grant you that a lot of mundane habit-behaviors are not dilemmas nor seen as problems to overcome. That is unless something goes wrong, missing, etc. But even the most mundane stuff can be seen as mildly annoying to deal with and will simply have to be done again and again and again adding up to a lot of mildly annoying deal with situations. Like human desires itself, it is endless.

Right, so we should both stop complaining and do something about it. Thanks for inadvertently bringing me back to reality. Only I can't really do anything about his complaining, except either try to make him see the error of his ways, also known as mission impossible, or basically walk away. — S

Hey I guess you just have to "deal with" the situation :lol: .

So I would agree with you that having to deal with problems is overall not a good thing. (Or I might have totally misunderstood you.) — Purple Pond

No, you understood very well. I agree with your assessment too. And if we add to the fact that problems will not cease to need to overcome, that is a lot of negative in regards to the first two parts of your model.

How can you decide having to deal with stuff is bad if there hasn't been any other way ever? This is my point when I talk about ideals. It seems bad to you because there's a completely idealized idea and then you just compare it to the real thing! — Alan

Well right, and you hit on an interesting issue. I think people identify with the terms of this existence (like suffering, and "dealing with") because it is the only existence that they know or can know. Thus since it is all there is, it must be excepted and not critiqued. You can critique specific instances, but never the reality background the show takes place in itself it seems. Again, that is perhaps because it is the only one we know. But as you point out, we do have ideal notions. There are notions of possibilities, contingency, ideals, and better possible worlds.

The current world is one with undue suffering (i.e. exceeds what one would have asked for to "grow") and growth-through-adversity (pain to a point that one supposedly "grows" from it). The world also has an orientation to "dealing with" situations, decisions, problems, challenges, etc. These are the facts. A better world might be one where one can dial down or up the pain to grow as much as one wants, or even a world where one doesnt' have to grow or find meaning in any pain, and one doesn't experience undue harm. Or a better world might be where one can transfer to all various kinds of worlds with amounts of pain and suffering at one's will. Of course the only way those worlds exist are through imagination. Instead we have this world- a world where we are always oriented with "dealing with". My normative claim here is that we should not just accept this as "good" simply because it is the reality.

Okay, so the next point: this sounds like "overthinking" a bit. I don't think that most situations are dilemmas in the way that you're describing it. It sound like you're describing someone rather neurotic, who would find even the slightest thing stressful for some reason, rather than being able to just go with the flow without worrying about most things. Certainly some things are dilemmas for everyone, but most things won't be dilemmas for most people I don't think. — Terrapin Station

Well, I don't think I am overthinking it. Rather, I am analyzing what people don't perhaps analyze. I believe in existentialist literature at least, there is talk about an "aboutness" to consciousness. I see a similarity here in terms of there being a "dealing with-ness" to normal waking life. We deal with all the things mentioned. And yes, if just very "low grind" activities like getting out of bed, it isn't so bad, but added to the complexity of how humans live and interrelate and survive, there is very much a stressful dealing with in even the most mundane of lives. However, I don't want to downplay the initial "dealing with" that is deemed as good in the first place. What is it about overcoming situations and challenges that need to take place? Of course, if someone wants to sit it all out.. well, that is not an option. At least not without suicide or making someone else deal with it, thus transferring the dealing with situation to someone else.

You know I don't agree on the inherent suffering in life but I do agree that many people identify themselves with the actual suffering and it fucking gets to my nerves because it apparently enables them to be assholes because they've gone through so much pain. It's as if they gained more dignity or something. — Alan

Agreed. Suffering apparently gives you more credibility. It's used in various ways too. For example, because someone is starving in Africa, your pain shouldn't be so bad. Rather, it is revealing that despite not being an even worse pain, it just feels that much relatively worse when you go up the hierarchy of needs.. it doesn't disappear, the little is now the big thing as you move up. Also, how screwed up is that that in order to negate someone else's negative experiences, you have to point to someone with yet worse negative experiences.

Yeah, well, seeing the same old shit over and again can sort of make that happen. Sorry, but you've long since worn away most of my patience. — S

Then don't respond.

Idiots and psychopaths? Yeah right. It's just a common reproach to people who complain too much instead of trying to help themselves. — S

Again, miss the point which was broadening the very assumption of "dealing with" in the first place that generally, people (I guess like yourself) like to assume is default a "good" thing in the first place. Dealing with, and creating new people to deal with is taken as default good. I am questioning that. So this isn't really about the phrase qua phrase as it is often used, though it tangentially has to do with that. Rather, I am showing how it reveals a bigger picture of assumptions about how we think "dealing with" is a good thing in the first place.

You interpreted it a bit differently? No shit. — S

What the hell is your problem... You approached and are now worse than Terrapin levels of debate etiquette.

You posted on a public forum, with an audience, knowingly. Who else are you complaining to, if not us? Yourself? — S

I interpreted the response a bit differently.. He may have been simply giving an explanation rather than an admonition. I was thinking there was a sly ad hom in there, that may have not.. Either way, "us" threw me off.

You're always so full of skewed hyperbole. It's a joke. — S

He used the term "us" in hyperbole terms, just showing what it was conveying.. US- the "real people", "genteel society", "the regular Joe" annoyed at someone complaining.

But, if I was capable of not feeling bad about causing others to suffer, what reason would I have to not cause suffering to others? Well, I would say only the prudential reasons like the fear of being reprimanded or the fear of spoiling valuable cooperative relationships. I think it would easier for you to persuade people to avoid having children by talking about how much suffering will come to them from the stress, anxiety, worry, sleep deprivation, emotional exhaustion, labor pain, boredom, and possible grief that comes with having children. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, there are apparently people like @Terrapin Station that don't care about causing unnecessary harm where it can be completely prevented unto another person.

The child is already in the world prior to birth. — Terrapin Station

It's a colloquialism you are taking too far then. Clearly no actual "thing" is "thrown" into the world. A person is conceived, gestated, and birthed into the world. The idea is, no one existed prior to their existence (whatever that might mean, conception, gestation, birth, consciousness, self-consciousness one or all of them).

But they pick up more than the slogan, they base their lifestyle on it. It consumes them. — whollyrolling

Well, this is partly why I am questioning this in the thread- specifically the slogan "Do something about it". In this case, I am delving into the idea that we are ALWAYS dealing with in life, and then asking why is it that we embrace the notion that "dealing with" is a good thing.

I guess what I'm thinking is that whoever says that, if you challenge the notion to their face, they back pedal or go blah blah, and they really seem to have no understanding of the figure of speech. It came from somewhere and spread like a virus, just like "yoga" and "I'm going to surround myself with people who are brimming with false optimism". — whollyrolling

I tend to agree with you here. I think people pick up slogans and don't reflect on the assumptions behind them.

I'm not sure who says "do something about it" other than idiots and sociopaths. Are you saying that you perceive idiots and psychos as social norms in this day and age? — whollyrolling

Ha, there are tons of people that have that knee-jerk response to a complaint someone else has. But my point is we are ALWAYS doing something, dealing with something in the first place. Why should we embrace the "dealing with" just because we are born into a world that is inherently like this? Do we have to identify with something just because it is what is the case? Doesn't make sense that we think it is always good to identify with that which causes suffering. For example, people rather say, "No pain, no gain" or "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger" than say, "life is inherently flawed due to structural suffering". It is enculturated to identify with that which causes the suffering than to call it out as bad.

I think the reason why people might tell you to “do something about it” is because they don’t feel anyone has a duty to solve your problems(and they are completely right about that). The upside is that you also don’t have any duties to solve anyone else’s problems. — TheHedoMinimalist

Interesting egoistic perspective. The point is, we live in a world where we are constantly having to "do something about it". There is no way out of it. That I am saying is bad, and should be a good reason to not bring others into this state.

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world. — Terrapin Station

Ok, first this is a tangential argument. This is typical from you though and your poor argument-style habits. You are going down a rabbit-hole rather than look at the actual argument at hand..also we've had this type of non-identity debate numerous times I believe. But I'll indulge here..

When a child is born, it is thrown into the world at point X of its consciousness. It isn't relevant actually at what X time you want the person to be considered fully "conscious" either. That person was procreated, and the procreation is done by the parents of that person. This is a no-brainer and no amount of semantics will bypass the self-evidence that people are born from be procreated by a set of parents. The "born" is the thrown into the world part. Prior to this it is just the parents' imagination or projection of what the child will be.

Seems a little too tautological for my own tastes. I don’t see how “deal with it” amounts to living. — NOS4A2

The minute you wake up you are dealing with. If it seems too simple to you, it is because it is never reflected upon or looked at from a birds eyeview...it's just assumed as what we do. I'm questioning the whole thing of having to deal with being good (essentially amounting to being good).

Good in what sense? Good for me only, the person who has the problem? Good for everybody else but me? There was a case in Which a girl killed people because it was Monday and she hated Mondays and so she dealt with that by killing people. People will not always deal with the same issues the same way and thus a general consensus on morality will not be reached. — Alan

So this isn't about how to deal with something but THAT we deal with anything/all things at all in the first place. We are always in a state of "dealing with" (deliberating about goals, solving a problem, overcoming a challenge, prioritizing what to do next, finding more comfortable circumstances, etc.).

Waking up, brushing my teeth, going to work is not dealing with some other problem. Those actions are not a solution to some problem and therefore I'm not dealing with anything, I'm just living life because all those activities some of the things we do when we live life as an average middle class employed human according to culture and morals which does not bother me at all. — Alan

So this is dealing with, but it is just such a wrote enculturated routine, it feels more habit. But indeed you are dealing with what you should be doing, what is expected of what you should be doing, prioritizing, planning, executing, etc. In other words, you are almost always in a state where you have to do something about something. I mean, you can live in your own feces in one spot and slowly die of starvation. That is still dealing with in an ascetic (perhaps Cynic?) fashion. Dealing with comes de facto as a living being in almost all waking moments.

I have problems because some things are not the way I want them to be and therefore I call them problems and if I have to deal with those it may be good for me or I can just not care. In fact, problems seem to be relative to every person. Some may have the same problem but their subjective experience is completely different so now I would ask you to please explain why you think people think dealing with stuff is good? Some stuff may not be worth dealing with for some people and therefore dealing with it being good makes no sense. — Alan

This is the heart of the question I am asking. Life has a series of "dos" these does must be dealt with (assuming no starvation and sitting one's own feces until death). We are constantly in a dissatisfied state, hence our "deal with" to get over dissatisfaction. The bed is uncomfortable and you can't sleep- must find bed. I need money, must find optimal job. The boss expects these goals from me- must deal with tasks or get fired and not get money. The bathroom looks and feels dirty- gotta clean make sure that gets cleaned. I'm lonely and can't find a partner or friends- better get out there and join some group. The grass is getting too long, better mow that. I need a garden- better go build a bed for the plants, plant, water, fertilize, and weed. Etc. etc. etc. It's a series of dos based on baseline dissatisfaction. But it is assumed this is what makes life great- tending to the garden, joining the social group, getting that work-task done, brushing the teeth, etc. Yes, you can say you do those things IN ORDER to do other things more preferable (pleasurable?), but these "goods" that are pursued represent also the things that are not had initially- again, the initial dissatisfaction (just more dos to get the goods, so to say). We are in an initial state of dissatisfaction or deprivation that must be dealt with, repeatedly until unconsciousness/death. This whole system is deemed as "good" by many, but not reflective about its deprivational nature that is there to begin with. If life presents itself as challenges to "deal with" (get and keep a job to survive, let's say, or making more comfortable environs for yourself), then what is it about this that is "good"?

There's this other point you put and I do agree with you: bringing someone to life is something that should be analyzed more exhaustively because times change and they may become less diesirable to live in over time and therefore more problems will arise. It may have nothing to do but I highly recommend you to watch Evangelion. I think it refers exactly to this point you make. In it Shingi, the main character, refuses to do lots of things and flees from what he is supposed to deal with. Most people hate him as a main character but they don't realize he has been brought to existence to deal with the consequences of human stupidity, so I really believe that in his case life is really something to be dealt with. — Alan

Yes, there is nothing needs to take place for another person. By having them, they exist and must "deal with".

I just think some people created that sort of metaphysics as the easiest answer to life which to me has no either quality of positiveness or negativeness. I think that accepting that life cannot be reduced to such properties is the main problem given the huge influence of pessimist thinking nowadays. Also, the fact that we actually have to build/create our own vision of life might be challenging, not to mention the fact that we might also have to change things actively is also more challenging. — Alan

Three things.
1) Pessimists do NOT have that much influence. Quite the opposite, there are more positive self-help, articles, and advice columns than ever before. As an experiment, start complaining about life's inherent flaws to people, and see what their reaction will be. Not joyous high fives that we are all on the same page, I'm afraid.

2) As for inherent negative- I did not mean that the "universe" is structurally negative, but human existence in the universe. I see as structurally negative as being put in a situation of always "dealing with" and being deprived at almost all times. On top of this are the contingent harms (not structural or inherent but probabilistic to each individual and their circumstance). So we have two forms of suffering or harm right there that inform us about existence. See past post about the idea of deprivationalism here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5981/schopenhauers-deprivationalism

3) Creating or dealing with life's challenges is exactly the type of thinking I am opposed to. Actually, ironically, this is EXACTLY the thread I am posting about right now. Check it out:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6434/the-mild-torture-of-do-something-about-it-assumptions

I also think the quote about "not worth the bother" is revealing. I think Cioran was saying that by killing yourself that means you took it seriously enough to do that. Clearly, there is a sort of play on existential themes- reversing the seriousness of suicide with the lightness of reveling in understanding life's inherent negative nature. In this case there is a certain glee to the pessimistic understanding. He extends this to the reader with his biting turn of phrase. Life sucks- let's talk about it.

I for one never thought the positivity police was very convincing. The more "hope" and positivity just seems to underscore the inherent negativity and structural and contingent flaws of existence. Thus I think there is catharsis in pessimism- in the realization that life is structural suffering regarding human life, and contains contingent suffering for individuals.

I think I get your point: we can’t not deal with it. But I think that when people use the phrase “deal with it” they mean you can take certain steps to alter your situation. I just know that whenever some has said “deal with it” to me, it was because I was complaining about a situation or other. — NOS4A2

Yes I get that- but that is kind of the surfacey way of thinking about it. Yes, we all know that "do something about it" is a colloquialism for, "change your course of action or take these other steps you are not taking". However, to broaden and deepen the point here, we are ALWAYS in a state of "dealing with", and when bringing people into existence (procreation) we are recruiting THEM to deal with as well, so there is something about "dealing with" that seems culturally/individually assumed is good. Being put and putting others in a situation of "dealing with" seems to me a mild torture that we simply take as what existence is about. It is the dissatisfied background radiation of life.

Going for the unknown of death. Is the absence of the bad the good despite not being able to enjoy such goodness? I think that's an ethical question. There's also the psychological part but I'm even more naive in that respect. Regarding suicide prevention, that's also a philosophical question. Are you doing good to the person by trying to stop him or her from suiciding? I cannot think beyond some ethics. I would rather have the philosophical debate instead of an advice but to me they are both welcome. At the end of the day I think advice also requires philosophy as backup. — Alan

Ok, I like those questions. I think you bring up a really good point about not being able to get the benefit of the "relief" of the suicide. The very relief that is trying to be obtained is also obliterated with death, hence why Schopenhauer said:

Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer. — Schopenhauer, On Suicide

I also had a lengthy discussion about Cioran's aphorism:

“It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.” — Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born

I take this as somewhat similar to Schopenhauer, the damage is already done by being born and enduring the suffering that drove you to suicide. There would be no actual relief from the death itself.

people mean you should work to change the situation rather than complain to us about it. — NOS4A2

"Us" I like it..brings images of people standing in a circle with angry faces and torches. Village of the "annoyed". Anyways, you kind of didn't see the main gist of the post I see. I was about ALWAYS being in a place of dealing with something and putting others in this situation. We assume this is good. Why? What is good about dealing with at all? Of course, we have to "do something about it", there is no other way..

Question, why do you think suicide is a philosophical question? I ask for two reasons. 1) I think it is a philosophical question, put in the proper context of whether existence is worth continuing, putting new people into existence, what we should get out of life, what values we hold, how society is run, etc. and 2) I think your OP is lacking in philosophical elements, so I am trying to rectify that a bit to make this more of a philosophical debate, and not an advice column, as this forum is more for philosophical musing, debate, reflection, etc.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you. — S

Although I've had some issues with your debate style in the past (mainly unnecessary rhetorical taunting/antagonizing), I have to confirm that this is the case here with TP as far as red herrings and evasion goes.

Weird questions. Don't you already know the answers? Where's the mystery? — S

The broad cultural and internal themes that influence how humans prioritize their goals fascinates me.