Well I am far from being pro-suicide, but I think that suicide connects to some other profound issues. For instance, is it better to risk your life in a fight when you are being abused? Should a person tolerate slavery to increase longevity? Should we prioritize long lives over brave lives? — macrosoft

The Stoics warranted suicide under strict conditions. Seneca must have welcomed the idea of suicide as salvation from a despotic ruler. As to delineating when suicide is warranted instead of unwarranted could be an interesting topic question.

What do you think?

I can relate to any ambivalence. But I guess for me it's a form of stimulation. I need 'hard' conversation, risky conversation, heavy conversation. It's clear to me though that I am tuned so that I am on one side of the spectrum. Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty good at playing the usual games. I'm a charming extrovert when I have to be. But 'really' I am a creature of solitude and heavy thoughts. — macrosoft

Cynicism would point out that 'profoundness' is a symptom of a mediocre life. I try and live my life as mediocre as possible though.

I'm just trying to paint how they see it, or at least how I've seen it.

When it comes to suicide, the political question seems unimportant to me. Because you can't stop it, and a successful suicide transcends all law enforcement and whatever people will say about it. It leaps into the 'truth.' That's part of its allure. Death is transcendent. — macrosoft

Don't you find the prospect of suicide, as a no win game? I mean, there's nothing to be gained at the end of the day, when one thinks too seriously about suicide. It's just another act of 'resistance' from futility.

Maybe. I've always been comfortable in all of this deep stuff and bored when things are just cutesy small-talk. So people come to me sometimes when they are desperate. I'm a good friend for heavy conversations, but maybe not much fun when frivolity is called for. — macrosoft

I'm an advocate for philosophical quietism, despite my rampage of posts. I don't know what to think about 'profoundness'. It seems like lipstick on already red lips.

Usually the psyche involved is aware of too many contradictions. Reality is cracked through the center of their soul. They want opposite things, and it is hell, like being torn apart. And they 'see' that it is their own nature that is their hell. They are their own prisons. They don't have the comforting illusion that the problem is outside them. — macrosoft

I see you added this. I don't know what to think about suicide. If one believes in unrestrained individualism, then so be it?

Sure. It was tragic. But having been in some very dark states of mind, I understood it too well to feel judgmental. The suicidal person feels like a disease. So they think they are doing good by doing away with themselves. They feel the guilt of being an individual, the guilt of entanglement. And even being loved is part of the entanglement. In a certain state of mind, being loved is terrifying. The fantasy is to be in a place without the 'guilt' that comes with mattering. — macrosoft

Profound. I guess we're delving too deeply into the topic when things start sounding profound.

But, wasn't their loss tragic in some sense? I would hate to leave more pain behind than happiness and such.

I don't know the details. Can you sketch the hypothesis? — macrosoft

It's easy. Think of it analogously to our current computer landscape or plane of existence. Given a sufficiently complex enough computer, that isn't limited by physics to simulate reality, we occupy a plane of existence that is analogous to a simulation in hyper-reality that is the state space of a computer.

Should I go on?

Also, I think most people (or most atheists/agnostics) think of death as a neutral absence of experience. — macrosoft

Indeed. That's true. But, after all, resistance is futile in the case of suicide.

I'm an avid fan of the simulation hypothesis. It seems as though each person exists on a plane of solitude and loneliness sometimes, maybe even solipsistically. But, the simulation hypothesis renders suicide as futile in-of-itself.

I'd say most people never even think about it so abstractly. — macrosoft

Why not? If one commits oneself to the prospect of eternal bliss that is suicide, then they ought to think about it abstractly.

BTW, do you believe in the simulation hypothesis of reality?

I've contemplated suicide before. It is the coldest calculation imaginable. It is truly arctic, terrifyingly arctic. — macrosoft

If one takes one'self seriously enough, then it's not so unimaginable. But, still. It takes some guts to pull the trigger. Can one face the prospect of suicide with a straight face? I don't know.

But, back to the topic. Why don't more people realize that resistance against resistance is futile?

Resistance to resistance may be futile, since we actually want it as much or even more than we hate it. Most of us are sufficiently invested in life so that suicide is not a 'living' issue and that instead concrete situations are our living issues. Philosophy does give us wise rules-of-thumb (reminds for particular purposes) and an overall orientation in existence. — macrosoft

Suicide is always futile. It's an idealistic dream world. I'm surprised so many people find it comforting when the uncertainty of existence points the other way. I would want to live forever, not erase myself. Such are the pangs of existence, yes; but, suicide is too big of a leap to overcome via rationality. I heard that suicide is done either by passion or cold analysis. I can't fathom what kind of analysis must operate to lead to such a conclusion. Time to eat something then. That's simpler and easier to obtain rather than eternal bliss in a never-ending dream.

I think, suicide should be reserved as a last ditch effort at the cessation of pain and suffering. Such a decision is always vague by nature and uncertain. One never knows when too much is too much. What are your thoughts about suicide?

And even the pursuit of the simple life is a form of overcoming the drift toward complexity of modern life. — macrosoft

Yes, that's true. Resistance is futile, then?

Spot on though. I think that the purity of simple existence is more easily obtainable than the complexity of existence. Why don't we all become simple folk then?

We start to get to the terrible heart of the issue. If we really want the cleanest solution, then BANG it's suicide. But I would rather be a little dirty and still alive, at least while I'm healthy and still fascinated by existence. I do think the quest for a certain kind of purity tempts some to the grave. It's simple and quiet down there I hear. Or actually I don't hear. — macrosoft

Oh dear. Not suicide. Such a decision is irreversible and morally wrong towards other people who care for you. Did I mention I'm a big Nel Noddings fan?

If I may interject, I know how to get ecstasy once in a while. I just don't know how to live constantly in a state of ecstasy. We aren't designed to live there. With drugs, we can trick our systems quite spectacularly, but this is dangerous, since we are messing with a machine that took millions of years to tune. — macrosoft

Indeed.

It's a generalization from many particular narratives. Maybe one person makes chasisty the fundamental virtue. Then their resistance is just lust. They push against lust with 'will power.' Another person thinks clarity in thinking is the fundamental virtue, so they push against ambiguity, logical fallacies, etc. Still another person thinks freedom is the fundamental virtue, so they push again their cowardice and go to war, or they push against the apathy of their neighbors to get their favored candidate elected. Basically they choose their enemy or resistance as they choose their virtue. — macrosoft

But, what about tackling this 'resistance' itself? Is that possible? Doesn't that mean the cessation of desiring and wanting itself? Isn't that the most logical route to take?

I was attempting to explain my point in saying that happiness and ecstasy are not for anything else, and explain that I don't endorse their pursuit, but nor do I think they're in any sense bad things. — All sight

But, what about "resistance" which @macrosoft talked about? Surely, ecstasy and happiness are forever a goal but not directly obtainable.

It isn't a noble pursuit. It's base, point was that they were things that tend to be good in themselves. They aren't for anything else. — All sight

What do you mean?

Even the stoics work at overcoming the resistance of their irrational nature. It's one more heroic task that we can choose to assign ourselves. One more way to shine in relation to others. — macrosoft

Indeed. Overcoming resistance; but, what's this "resistance" you talk about?

I'd say: ask yourself what it would mean to be alive and want nothing at all. — macrosoft

It would be a peaceful existence, no?

The question is not whether we ever get what we want but whether we ever abolish all wanting. To abolish all wanting, though, is to abolish life itself, since life 'is' care. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that? Interesting, as all your posts...

No real use in happiness or ecstasy, they aren't really for anything else, they're awesome possum all by themselves. — All sight

Yet, can they be "obtained" like a pair of shoes in the flee market? Nope.

I like stoicism. I like the idea of not wasting time on what is out of your control. And I like the ultimately macho idea of staying cool-headed, bravely facing existence. But there's another aspect that flees from the complexity of life into a kind of living death, ultimately narcissistic. If we are going to flee from wants into bare needs, then remind me again why we are bothering to survive in the place? I picture the individualistic stoic who just wants to hold his detached pose above all things. 'Look at me, ma. I don't five a guck, except about not giving a flock.' Then there's the noble emperor, sacrificing complex pleasures for the simple, profound pleasure of a rational, transparent-to-itself, righteous life. The second one seems like the more respectable 'radical' version. — macrosoft

I like Cynicism because it bypasses the Stoic into pure simplicity. What do you think? I've become an avid Cynic as of late.

One may not always get what they want, but they get what they need, not because there is a distinction in kind between wants and needs, but in one's levels of passion and orientation towards them. — All sight

The Schopenhauer in me says that we never really get what we want. It's a constant illusory goal. To want something is to place it in the highest priority of our motivations. Is there any use in chasing after happiness or ecstasy? I don't think so.

We live with a constant perceived deficit in life. Almost something to do or strive for.

But, isn't that pointless? How much do we really need?

I am trying to say it's value depends on situations and points of view. There is a way I can understand it as a ladder. But I have seen it as a kind of prison too. — Valentinus

Oh, understood. I just see suffering as a noble feeling that everyone deals with and is a catalyst for further spiritual growth.

Say I have a desire to be able to be invisible at will. Well, that desire isn't going to be met, but in my view it's ridiculous to say that I'm suffering because that desire isn't met. — Terrapin Station

Analogically, people want things that are beyond the scope of their control.

Hence Stoicism>?

I'm not sure about that; but, will have to confirm.

My plans are to first make more money. I need to stand up on my own feet at the moment.

I'm ready to stop giving people advice that they don't actually want and didn't actually ask for.

Except for one little thing. I'm not actually ready.

Any advice?

(learning from the master here) — Jake

Haha.

There is a terrible expression some of us in the trade use when suffering does not confer much knowledge to a colleague: Rookie for Life. — Valentinus

I'm a rookie for life, haha.

But, is suffering inherently meaningful? I think so.

Metaphorically it's a ladder everyone has to climb on.

Suffering isn't meaningful unless one seeks the meaning of it. But is it worthwhile to look for meaning in suffering? My answer to that question is yes. — Tzeentch

So, suffering can be inherently meaningful if one professes a non-solipsistic view on life. Does a solipsist suffer?

Everything in life serves a purpose. And no, you are not obliged to do anything you do not wish to do... — JoliJoleen

That's arguable. I think everything in life can serves a purpose. Whether they actually do is another question.

Well, sure. Schopenhauer talked about happiness being a state of equanimity between conflicting desires. It's not a matter of preference than to want what is least painful.

Sound advice. I wonder why people don't pay attention to it? They seem possessed with the idea of obtaining happiness over all else over the detriment of never attaining it.

Another awesome post.

Thanks.

I adore Wittgenstein. He's one of my very favorites, and I did have a kind of mystical response to parts of that book. — macrosoft

:)