I will kill myself

[Fluffywolf]

I just got this... Well.. Assumption going on over here. But please clarify.

What was your intention for sharing this with us. If not for sympathy?

 

[Nadir]

An important thing to note while criticising his approach is that there's ultimately no difference in saying "I'll kill myself." and "I'll die." They lead to the same thing. If you really think this is a disturbing idea, I have another one for you: "Smokers die."

His eventual suicide, even though you might think differently, can't possibly have any regulatory power over your life, another life or society in general. The reason why society looks down on suicide is, in addition to its moral, subjective aspect (i.e. "giving others pain", "burning in hell", "wasting a life away" etc.) basically a material one. After all, the state has to worry about retreiving your body, performing tests on it, preserving it for a funeral etc. so naturally suicide is discouraged.

This of course doesn't change the probable fact that humans are more connected and dependant on being alive than they give themselves credit. It's one thing to mildly entertain an idea. It's another to execute it. In the end, you probably will not kill yourself as you're claiming. Somehow I don't think it would flow very naturally.

 

[heart]

People who seriously want to kill themselves don't tend to talk about it beforehand for obvious reasons.

 

[Into It]

What was your intention for sharing this with us. If not for sympathy?

This is a philosophy forum. I was sharing an emotionally challenging opinion, hoping to stir up emotions in others and elicit arguments as to whether this is absolutely stupid or fairly reasonable. My opinion on this issue almost always stirs things up.

And heart, I assume you think I would not talk about it because someone would stop me? The only person who would be able to do that would be my nearest and dearest, (who I haven't met yet, but I hope to) and ideally, she would be open enough to understand my viewpoint, otherwise she wouldn't be able to be near me. To love me, you must understand me.

Interestingly, INJ's seem to understand where I'm coming from more than other types. That is very interesting because INJ's see the furthest into the future, so they, of all of you, were probably the ones to have entertained these types of thoughts the most.

 

[Into It]

I'm just thinking that people usually think of an objective purpose as something that can only be given by God or the likes, otherwise it's all subjective. 1But it doesn't totally make sense to me, why many people seem to need this all encomposing greater purpose that is meant to be objective.

When we create stuff. It might serve an objective purpose, to serve our objective 2selfish gene which is to continue existance. Hm suddenly I remember what this is all about, whether there is meaning to existance at the most fundamental level.... Scratch the above comments out. 3I'll just remain as an agnostic on whether there is reasoning behind the movement of an atom.

Hey, hey now...Chin up, kiddo!
I honestly think it's cool that you are an SJ and you are interested in psych theories and philosophy. I don't see this too often, and I think SJ's are underrepresented on this forum.

1.Because to them, if it's "purposeless," it is depressing. Most of them have probably been disempowered by religious notions, and they don't realize that if it serves meaning to them, then it is meaningful. I completely agree with you that this is a difficult viewpoint to understand. *Strains to use Ni*

2.I just read this book. I liked it.

3.Maybe if we think about it hard enough, we'll figure it out.

 

[antireconciler]

An objective purpose would not be. It could not be. And I don't see why there is a need for a greater purpose, but many people believe there is one just because they find this thought cold.

At the same time, there is a temptation to think that grasping the coldest, hardest idea which one can find evidence for, and then owning that thought completely, makes for having come closest to the truth. The idea is that few people come to the truth, therefore, it must be difficult, thus, ideas difficult to accept become passed as true. That the truth has been difficult does have historical merit. That the truth is difficult tout court is an immensely stronger claim which there is little evidence for, and this difference can be overlooked. I don't think you've made this mistake, but it happens sometimes, and it really can be tempting, ime.

Most difficult it can be sometimes to accept the truth which is easy. If the truth is difficult, well, it does seem to be quite fond of irony.

they don't realize that if it serves meaning to them, then it is meaningful.

I like this.

But it doesn't totally make sense to me, why many people seem to need this all encomposing greater purpose that is meant to be objective.

There seems to be a will to create in your own image, such that your finite creations will resemble you, yet, you, as the lord of their domain. If this is reflected up to the level of the world, then that lord becomes God over his finite creations, which, as finite, we will always identify with ourselves as well. As we would have our own creations reach back toward us to resemble us, so to do we reflect that own urge ourselves toward the all-encompassing ... I think there is something to this. It paints us as quite loving creatures, which is pleasing.

Sometimes, I think of your question in terms of sections of the brain playing nice with each other, although it might just be a toy model: Since the brain represents all cognition and perception, then every part playing nice with every other part equates to objectivity. (!) If we are born as cooperative creators, so too does that extend to individual sections of the brain, which will strive to cooperate with other sections, but war when they do not recognize each other as elements of the same organism, that is, they have divergent wills or purposes. You see every section always striving for recognition, to live, but to extend itself, and so to without, on the level of individuals. This seems natural enough that each should dream of a whole individuality, or even comprehend that every section is striving for objectivity. But each section is also curious, as is so fundamental to humans, and will always desire to know. Perhaps that forms the basis of their desire to extend and to recognize others. The very desire to know appears to be a drive for objective purpose.

It's an interesting question though.

 

[Jeremy]

2."Purpose" is an invention. It is subjective. So while my life has purpose to me, and to those I know, I doubt a greater purpose than this exists.

So what? If all your purpose is is an invention of your own making, why does that matter? It's still a purpose. People get way too worked up in this.. you have to make your own reason for living. You're not going to find it objectively.. it just doesn't exist. It is something inherently subjective, but that doesn't make it any less real.

 

[Into It]

At the same time, there is a temptation to think that grasping the coldest, hardest idea which one can find evidence for, and then owning that thought completely, makes for having come closest to the truth. The idea is that few people come to the truth, therefore, it must be difficult, thus, ideas difficult to accept become passed as true. That the truth has been difficult does have historical merit. That the truth is difficult tout court is an immensely stronger claim which there is little evidence for, and this difference can be overlooked. I don't think you've made this mistake, but it happens sometimes, and it really can be tempting, ime.

Most difficult it can be sometimes to accept the truth which is easy. If the truth is difficult, well, it does seem to be quite fond of irony.



I like this.



There seems to be a will to create in your own image, such that your finite creations will resemble you, yet, you, as the lord of their domain. If this is reflected up to the level of the world, then that lord becomes God over his finite creations, which, as finite, we will always identify with ourselves as well. As we would have our own creations reach back toward us to resemble us, so to do we reflect that own urge ourselves toward the all-encompassing ... I think there is something to this. It paints us as quite loving creatures, which is pleasing.

Your posts are pleasing, Lukester. I wrote you a long PM a minute ago and my comp crashed.

So what? If all your purpose is is an invention of your own making, why does that matter? It's still a purpose. People get way too worked up in this.. you have to make your own reason for living. You're not going to find it objectively.. it just doesn't exist. It is something inherently subjective, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Yes, you are on the money. I am making my own reason for living, and in a way some consider unusual. An entire story, an entire work of art - some parts are challenging and some parts are glorious

 

[Moiety]

Into It my friend,

..here...Listen to him..Watch this. He talks about death. He had cancer.


"Death is a useful, but purely intellectual concept. No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven...don't want to die to get there. And yet, death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is..as it should be. Because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it's quite true. Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living the results of other peoples' thinking. Don't let the noise of others opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition...They somehow already know..what you truly want to become. Everything else..is secondary."
-S. Jobs



[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA"]YouTube - Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005[/YOUTUBE]

I love that speech. I don't know the man too well, but that's a solid speech.


Haven't read much of this topic but the words "no pain no gain" come to mind. Also, the expression "the pursuit of happiness".

 

[Kalach]

Is this another one of things in the vein of "Love is just oxytocin"?

I'm obscurely offended.

No one's coming up with better value constructs?




Oh, and if anyone dies because of that unsympathetic response, um... yeah well, whatever.

 

[Into It]

Is this another one of things in the vein of "Love is just oxytocin"?

I'm obscurely offended.

No one's coming up with better value constructs?

Oh, and if anyone dies because of that unsympathetic response, um... yeah well, whatever.

I like you, Kalach. But do you really think you're that important to me? :rolli:

 

[INA]

Consider organ donation.

 

[Into It]

Consider organ donation.

Oh, definitely! There's even a possibility that, in a given situation, that could be a huge influence on my decision.

Remember John Q? haha...

 

[Kalach]

I like you, Kalach. But do you really think you're that important to me? :rolli:

Sweetheart, other people read too. To, as I did, merely question the merit of the fluffy value constructs in this discussion is me doing what I should for discussion, but such an approach falls crucially short for people in need of those constructs now.

And there's little I can do about that. Thus the obscure offense taken. You, putative ENFP, are supposed to do better. Those among us with sensitive souls, and that would be you idiot Fs, are not in fact liabilities. They, you, are the ones who test and produce the value systems.

Or you could leave it up to me. My regime shall include tattooed barcodes.

 

[Into It]

Oh, and if anyone dies because of that unsympathetic response, um... yeah well, whatever.

Sweetheart, other people read too.

Who, other than me, would have died because of your response? I really don't understand. And the taking obscure offense...you...really lost me...

 

[Into It]

Sweetheart, other people read too. To, as I did, merely question the merit of the fluffy value constructs in this discussion is me doing what I should for discussion, but such an approach falls crucially short for people in need of those constructs now.

And there's little I can do about that. Thus the obscure offense taken. You, putative ENFP, are supposed to do better. Those among us with sensitive souls, and that would be you idiot Fs, are not in fact liabilities. They, you, are the ones who test and produce the value systems.

Or you could leave it up to me. My regime shall include tattooed barcodes.

OH, I get it! So you're saying if someone could come up with a 'superior' value system to mine, I would possibly adopt it? And then you tried to say something kind?

 

[Kalach]

I know one or two people who have a kind of knee-jerk "I'm sensitive" thing going on, like an illness or a warning, when in fact it's neither. "I'm sensitive" is an ability. You're supposed to use it. Personal pleasure and suffering gain in meaning when they are evaluated and extended, the coming to know of the difference between this feeling and that, how they arrived, perhaps even where they're going. And using that knowledge.

Ya gain it through personal tribulation, and ya extend it to all of goddamned humankind. I'm saying, what is feeling plus perception if not at minimum a freakin' barometer for what is good and what is bad.

Rock n' roll.





(*sigh* It has to be me who says this?! C'mon you pansy Fs, what's with you guys today?)