Voluntary life versus coercion to live

Do you choose to live, or do you live for some other reason? https://ashspace.org/contribs/carthago_deleta/living_as_a_suicidal.php I've noticed some people on this board think life is inherently good, rather than something that can be either bad or good.

>life is inherently good "good" is a relative term in itself. But with humans being social animals, there can be a leaning towards altruism, which is both selfless in the short term but can be self-serving in the long run. In this sense, life is "good" since the living can be a direct benefit, either socially, emotionally, or physically, enter maslow and his pyramid (though that can be debated too). Psychopaths unknowingly see people as a means to an end, this can also result in pseudo-good actions, that in reality are self serving. Sociopaths on the other hand are motivated by an ideology, these can be made to be "good" but sociopaths usually take their ideals to the extreme, see what are crusades. All cells are programmed to die, just if die=false, then you live, if the genes get activated to change to die=true, cells start killing themselves- apoptosis. i don't choose life, i simply live. conversely, I don't think people should be forced to live to the standard of "you must live". It has been decided that it is wrong to force a prisoner to eat if he does not want to, as force feeding can be considered a type of torture, so there is some basis for allowing people to do as they please with their lives.

>>99 cells are like little extremist honestly, i love that. For example if a plant cell "discovers" a virus near it, it dies instantly to prevent spreading it further(it doesn't work for every type or always though), or they die purposefully to make plant grow better(all the wood is dead, so is your skin). Cancer cells don't have that "logic gate", they are fascinating that way. >OP I agree with the other anon, it's not about a choice. Though in my case, i am alive, because i am too afraid to die to do anything about it.

I would say that 90% of my time I enjoy living. Of course it varies on my environment. Sometimes you need to change the environment, not yourself.

If i had a choice from the start i would have not wanted to live, in fact i hardly ever wanted to be alive and most of my time i wish i would die. The people who think life is inheretly good are ignorant selfish idiots. The idea that life is good is a stupid delusion. Im just looking how deep down i can fall and what kills me, i often think of suicide, but truth is i couldnt do it back then, there is not much lower i can fall now that would make me do it.

>>187 no, the appropriate thing to think is that life is inherently good as any organisms built in goal is to live. Thus if an organism made a good and bad morality, anything that made it live would probably be good. You are the one deluding yourself, by pretending that because bad things happen to you you dont want to live and that life isnt inherently good. You will fall lower and continue to rationalize living just like every other time you fell lower because you arent in as much control as you think. If anything you claiming life is bad is just a safety mechanism for your ego so you dont have to go through with the probably enormous effort to seek something better As a suicidal person you are probably never in the position to call others delusional.

>>189 >no, the appropriate thing to think is that life is inherently good as any organisms built in goal is to live. Thus if an organism made a good and bad morality, anything that made it live would probably be good. You mean like feeding on others while they are still alive in taking pleasure on that only to be feed on itself later? >You are the one deluding yourself, by pretending that because bad things happen to you you dont want to live and that life isnt inherently good. You will fall lower and continue to rationalize living just like every other time you fell lower because you arent in as much control as you think. If anything you claiming life is bad is just a safety mechanism for your ego so you dont have to go through with the probably enormous effort to seek something better Im not in control at all, so why would being alive be considered good? Im sure if i can find some bubble to delude myself in to pretend that most of the world is in terrible state i could make such a narrow minded statement too. >As a suicidal person you are probably never in the position to call others delusional. Oh sure because life is all rainbows and lolipops for you select few. Never mind billions of people in poverty, war and drug addictions. Giving me this kind of soykaf but you probably dont know how bad it is when you really want to die.

>>190 And those billions starving probably appreciate and think life is way better than you do.

>>191 And for the record I do. Ive dealt with drug addiction, ive dealt with abuse, ive wanted to die, and ive tried to kill myself which is probably further than youve ever been able to take it so grow up.

>>190 Actually you know what I apologize for being overly aggressive. Let me tell you some soykaf. My dad died when I was 5, the few memories I have of him are him locking me in my room for 2 days for trying to sleep in my moms bed, a knife going through the door and my mom holding me and crying because he wanted to be let in to beat her, and him trying to pull me away from my mom and take me away and me crying. Elementary school had comstant nausea snd always thought I was going to die for no good reason. Middle school was an outcast and bullied. My only friends left me including close family members who moved away. My first relationship was sexually abusive and she kicked me in my nuts so hard one time I was bleeding. When she left I tried to kill myself with sleeping pills and failed thankfully. College got addicted to coke and ketamine and only pulled myself out to help my friend because I saw him getting addicted and it scared the soykaf out of me. Ive nearly gone homeless a few times. Im rarely happy even to this day. And I still intrinsically accept life is good, because I accept being happy isnt what makes things good or worth it. Sometimes good things make you fuarrrking miserable, and sometimes you just need to push on for no good reason even when soykaf looks terrible and thats the crowning achievment of humanity or life I guess to me. So if you want to believe life is terrible and bad, and not just that it feels terrible and bad but actually is bad then thats fine I guess you arent wrong its all perspective so sorry for forcing my worldview on you. But maybe you shouldnt force your worldview on everyone else and call me deluded because I swear to god you think im marginilizing suffering but what do you think you are doing to me by saying that.

>>194 This seems like what you are talking about, being optimistic despite having seen how bad mankind can be, here is an excerpt from a political prisoner who was stuck in a Syrian prison, where some of the people were forced to either kill a family member, or be killed themselves and even worse than that happened too. >I'll tell you why I am a positive person. That prison had amazing scholars and scientists in it. We had people who invented medicines for us when we were in prison. We had people who taught me everything about life. >In my one foot of space in that prison, I had an attorney in front of me, a doctor next to me, and an engineer next to me, and a teacher behind me. And these people and others taught me a lot about life. >And I came from hell and now I live in Sweden, in a very easy place to live in. Of course I would be positive.

Ambivalence about suicide is my main reason. >>191 Social conditioning into forcing someone to accept life as inherently good and to maintain that either as a facade or genuine belief does not necessarily mean these peoples appreciation for being forced to live or their lot in life is really any more valid than someone not appreciating their life and choosing to die. Also their fear of death that comes from their natural instincts or religions can be so strong that appreciating something unpleasant or downright horrible would be preferable to choosing suicide.

>>207 The only thing we truly know is we are hardwired for survival. Everything in us was shaped around that goal. Faith or no faith, its clear the only thing we can be absolutely sure we are supposed to do is survive. To think that suicide is an option is to romanticize death. Likely even a suicidal person when being chased down by a bear, when a person starts acting sketchy, if blood suddenly started dripping from their every orifice their reaction would be fear not acceptance. They dont want to die, they want the human idea of death which is so far detatched from the actual death our instincts and body knows. Its some great mystery, its eternal slumber, its heaven, its hell, its nothingness. I think if most of these people had a near death experience their attitude would change, they have a belief that there is things worse than dying. Save a few cases our body doesnt agree, and I trust snd think others should trust their bodyand instinct when it comes to survival over a mind filled with abstractions, falsehoods, assumptions, and other peoples ideas.

>>186 >Of course it varies on my environment. Sometimes you need to change the environment, not yourself. Absolutely. I don't want to be alive, but that's mostly from living in a bad situation. That's how it is for most people. Drugs and antidepressants don't improve a person's environment, they only blind a person so they can ignore the environment.

>>194 >being happy isnt what makes things good So you simply are a masochist, or have low standards. Some people actually have standards, goals, and dreams.

>>245 I dont know what to tell you. I have goals, dreams and standards; big ones. And im not a masochist. If you are the poster I was responding to, either youl kill yourself or change. Clearly words are wasted, and you will just choose to believe the things you said about me are true and im lying. In the same way I cant change you, you cant change me I guess. So heres just my final piece from a different perspective, your going to accomplish your goals or whatever and just be unhappy again. If you cant live with being unhappy you arent going to live. Theres plenty to go around, whether you have it all or have nothing. If you have extra because of depression or whatever than what im saying applies even more, you will never be as happy as most around you. The feeling of being on top of the world only lasts a moment.

>>216 >Likely even a suicidal person when being chased down by a bear, when a person starts acting sketchy, if blood suddenly started dripping from their every orifice their reaction would be fear not acceptance. The fear is associated with the additional pain they will experience and the release of various chemicals in their body to induce such a feeling. Barring the spontaneous suicides where they botch things or self immolation's, people would tend to choose methods that minimize the length of time they feel pain before death, if anything at all. This isn't romanticizing death, it's accepting that death is an inevitability for all life and choosing to end their life when they have determined there isn't much left to live for. You aren't going to live forever and you aren't going to be forever mentally fit and healthy enough to do anything worthwhile for your entire life in many cases. If some 85 year old invalid with no family feels that there is nothing more they are going to accomplish leading up to their expiration, what are they losing by dying on their own terms under circumstances which significantly reduce the pain of dying they would suffer at a later date? The answer to this likely depends mostly on any religious values you might have.

>>258 Pain is built in to avoid death. Instant suicide is just attempting to bypass your brain and body telling you no. Im not an 85 year old, at that age your bodies reaction against death may die down. But it is romanticizing death. Death is painful and scary for a reason, to remove the pain or fear is to indulge in your abstract idea or belief of what death is. After all no one can know what its really like, and no one lives to tell.

>>258 Good post. >>259 >romanticizing death No, it's seeing death as a 0, and seeing that if life is negative, death isn't as bad as life. If your life is positive, great, but some people have extremely negative and painful lives.

>>290 If you do see death as not a negative that is making it into something its not. Just because in the past couple hundred of years we have invented ways to die that arent painful and are quick doesnt mean our body and brain has not evolved to make death 100% a negative, way worse than any soykafty life you could lead. Everything in your body is telling you no, so the only way to go through with it is to delude yourself into a specific thought process where it is an escape, or wallow until your life seems worse. More often than not people kill themselves because of a breakup, drug addiction, loneliness; or other things that can be gotten over. Usually people in the worst survival conditions have great survival instinct as they are experiencing the fear and witnessing death and know that they want none of it. People tend to appreciate life a lot more after near death experiences, not less. That should be evidence enough death is not a preferable alternative unless you fool yourself into thinking its one. The wisdom of hundreds of unsuccesful suicide attempts but youd rather believe you know better.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about death being better than life, at all, no matter the circumstances. With death comes the total absence of experience. Only experience can be considered "good" or "bad" (no, "lack of experience" is not an experience), as these are inherently subjective judgements. How is it meaningful then to say that death can be "better", or for that matter "worse"?

>>259 There are biological views of death and cultural values of death, as we are a product of both the society that we were raised in, and the genetic product of our ancestors, we exist in a complex state of intellectual persistence. For example, the shunning of shame suicide by the roman catholic church vs. the social obligation of shame suicide by the samurai. Though both may be personally distasteful or desirable, there is a social force that tilts for or again it that can counteract personal decisions. From an anthropological perspective, see pic related on death.

>>306 But no society I know of raised us to kill ourselves because we werent happy.

>>309 Perhaps the widespread media coverage of "people killing themselves" leaves a subconscious implication that that is something you will be known for, since it seems to be more socially discussed topic. The implication longer being "suicide is good/bad" but "suicide is committed because of sadness" thus sadness becomes a socially valid (if still taboo) reason to die. Similar to how discussion of racism as bad can create racists by association "people tell me racism is bad, but i don't like those people, they are hypocrites- therefore they must be wrong, and since they are wrong then the opposite of what they say must be true" type of reasoning. Peer pressure is more than what people tell you, It also deals with our interpretations of others motives, and by association how our motives can be influenced by topics discussed in both positive and negative light, but in context of how we see the response. Likewise, normalizing something in society can make it more prevalent. If people were raised hearing "killing yourself is evil" then they would have a socially instilled fear, and be filled with more shame if they decided to do it, similar to >>290 logic of if life is greater than zero then life is better than death, but if life less than zero then death is better than life. I think that the distanced worldview of the internet contributes to a life = 0 (neither plus nor minus) worldview, because hearing about people dying is just words, with no physical observation, i.e. You aren't there to physically witness death. But is it better to never hear about death if that is the case? see pics on >>306 witnessing death is traumatizing for most people, becasue it starts to generate thoughts of our own mortality

>>311 I guess that makes sense. It seems like realizing this or being cognitive of it would make you try to reject it, but I do get that societal values are imprinted on us at a young age (and some think its even genetic) and are often as important as our biological built in self preservation values. After all I guess thats what stopped people from mindlessly killing eachother and raping. The same force that created behaviour I see as good is also creating suicidal tendencies. I guess in these times suicide can be fundamentally a built in tendency or behaviour just as much as survival. I still reject it because I feel that killing yourself is to call people who choose to push through in hard times idiots, including non human life, and I like stories of people and things who continue fighting despite everything working against them becsuse of my upbringing and societal imprinting.

>>245 Worse than masochist, he's a martyr.

>>329 I dont think that word means what you think it does.

>>309 Yes, that's not in society's interests. But it is in an individual's interests to avoid pain.

>I've noticed some people on this board think life is inherently good, rather than something that can be either bad or good. Well, here's my take on this: people choose to believe life is good because people like to feel good and the alternative goes against this feeling. Now, I choose to live, but at the same time I don't care about me too much. I don't actively search for death, but if it comes I think I wouldn't avoid it, I wouldn't fight too hard. I don't know if I'm saying this because I haven't been on a near-death experience, but I think I would give my life for almost anyone, friend or stranger. If it comes to take a bullet for someone, I would happily take it. Not because I want to be a hero, but because I don't have much trouble with not being alive, and other may use his time here on a more meaningful way I'd have been capable of. Now, I don't have a problem with death, but pain fuarrrking terrifies me. I would like to think that I would endure torture, but physical pain is really the thing I avoid the most.

I am not a suicidal, but I've been interacting with suicidals and reading their stuff on imageboards, and so this essay or whatever resulted highly interesting. It made me think a lot. Not about death itself, but about other forms of coercion that this society imposes on people. For example, the coercion for security. Usually in the form of a stable job. The big threat against freedom. The ball and chain that makes you ""choose"" to go to school. In a way, it's I think closely related. Just as suicidal are tried to be held by the fear of death, so most of us are taught to be held by many other fears, particularly the fear of pain, or struggle. But being non-suicidal, reading this essay in the eyes of someone who doesn't aspire death, I consider the embrace (or acceptance) of death as something that would only be positive, for the same reasons it is for ashers. And from there also the acceptance that there will be struggle, and that there might be pain, in detaching from the norm, Da System™, many of the institutions in which we are raised and to which we are coerced by the violence of...... you've guessed it, money. I've more to say but my brain isn't working properly right now so, stop.

>>567 >Now, I don't have a problem with death, but pain fuarrrking terrifies me. I would like to think that I would endure torture, but physical pain is really the thing I avoid the most. Same. Pain and injury are what frighten me: not death. >>568 A lot of society is about coercion, as the society many of us live in is highly religious, statist, and capitalist. Coercion is seen as the norm, and free will and voluntary acts seen as exceptions or gifts. You're right. But money is just one violence. The idea of a god existing too is violent, because people treat gods as real even if they aren't, and this spook influences how people act upon others who actually do exist. This reminds me of a specific example: >I can't let John commit suicide, because I love him! If John was truly loved, wouldn't his lover let him do what he wants to in life? Wouldn't his lover encourage him to achieve his goals? Wouldn't his lover perhaps instead seek to eliminate what makes John want to die? If you truly love someone, you cannot force that person to live unless you are yandere.

>>600 Whats your definition of love. You say if she really loved him but what is love? Why is it that letting him kill himself would be REAL love, and stopping him is selfish, which isnt love. Letting him kill himself would also be selfish, any action is selfishly motivated at its core.

>>604 >Letting him kill himself would also be selfish No, because you'd be letting a person do what he wants to do even at a cost to yourself. >any action is selfishly motivated at its core. No. Altruism exists.

>>608 You said spooks so I was assuming you also believed in that all actions are selfish business.

>>608 >any action is selfishly motivated at its core. No. Altruism exists. altruism is self serving, because the social value of self sacrifice has a chance at a higher return on investment than not doing anything or risking sacrificing the others in a group (you might be able to outrun the bear, or give others as a sacrifice, but if you risk your life to help the others kill it you wont look like a whiny bitch and everyone will think you are brave, thus social benefit is selfish in nature) evolutionary, that is the idea. In practice altruism is based on the idea that helping others helps me. If you die in the process, you might have given someone else the chance to live, but even the memory of your sacrifice carries value or if you die the pre-death thought thereof. The problem lies in pathological altruism (self destructive in nature, the investment does not result in a higher return) like mother Theresa, sacrificing personal pleasure to serve others, with a certain paradigm, one could even see suicide as a way of making the world a better place (this thought process is self supporting - "they will be better off without me"). Altruism can also lead to a sort of "life cult" that is nobody can die because everybody matters and I don't feel important unless other people are important see >>306 The process is biologically configured to help a species thrive, and society builds off of it. Query: do suicide prevention techniques enable the survival of those who may genetically pass on predispositions for character traits conducive to suicide? That may help explain why so many people feel disconnected when paired with the lesser human interactions away from technology and more so with/through technology

>>628 Your world view is unfortunate: you simply state that altruism doesn't exist. Why can't you believe that some people gift without expecting anything in return? Why can't you believe good people can exist? If good people cannot exist, perhaps it is better for people not to exist.

>>656 >perhaps it is better for people not to exist. Not him but this seems reasonable.

>>656 Why do good people have to be selfless? Why does the idea that everything you do is self serving mean that you expect things in return? Why do you think that in order to do good things for other people you have to bs selfless? Its on you at this point if thinking like that destroys the good in the world.

>>628 Every action human makes is selfish, if it weren't then humans wouldn't exist. The "altruism" you are talking about are left obers of older days of tribal socialism humans experienced in past, when humans needed to stay together to survive (still selfish, but meta-selfish because you are helping others to help yourself?). Even your long diatribe is self serving your emotions and philosophy. Read "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.

>>656 It actually is.

I live because I'm afraid of pain, yet living will lead me to more pain. So I guess survival instinct. I'm not depressed, I'm just pissed at the all the suffering people cause and I can't do anything about it. You don't consent to being born, you're supposed to love the slave owner who bred you, follow them around for 18 years, then they hope you'll believe what they want you to believe, so you can repeat the process over and over again. Your whole god damn life is decided in those 20 years, and you never had a choice, even if free will existed. And that's only when you get lucky, and aren't born as pizza gate victim. I'm so glad for climate change.

>>679 The fact that you realize you are a slave to your parents imprinting means you can change it. There are some core things you cant change maybe but you can develop workarounds. But if you accept its impossible then of course it becomes impossible.

I think that the Committment to Suicide is a prelude to Committment in Life. If you pause briefly in your flight to personal annihilation, you may find that once you decide to embrace Death, you no longer fear Life. Thus - Everything is possible for you now that fear is eliminated as a motivation. You are free, thanks to Helium.

>>727 That makes sense. Thats how I was. I was dead set on killing myself and now im dead set on living.

>>96 If I had a choice, I wouldn't want to live. But my interests, relationships, and certain obligations tether me here.

As others have said, I've also felt that if you're able to resolve yourself to death, you'll find that you no longer are afraid of living and even embrace it along with all the bad things that come with living. However, I started to rethink this recently when I started trying to visualize death and what it would be like and what's going to be after everything goes black. Frankly, it scares the soykaf out of me. I don't want to die. There's no way to avoid dying but if possible, I'd like to turn my eyes away from it for as long as possible. On a side note, maybe life has no inherent good, but we can make it good can't we? I don't care about the fate of the world or anything like that, but I do have a few finger's worth of things I'd like to accomplish for myself before dying.

>>772 >we can make it good can't we? If we weren't prohibited from doing so, we certainly could. I'd make my life perfect. But capitalism stops me. Religion stops me. Statism stops me. And most of all, my sadistic, bullying parents stop me, because it pleases them to see me like this. >I do have a few finger's worth of things I'd like to accomplish for myself before dying. Same, but I know they're as possible as me going to the moon. I could go to the moon, but will I? Absolutely not. And same for every thing I actually do want to do in life. To reduce suffering, by dying, would be the ethical thing to do to myself.

>>834 You've probably heard it a million times but you stop yourself. People with bullying parents and in this system have accomplished what they desire. However on a more personal note it's probably your parents more than anything. I know what that is like, I wish I could help you get out of your house somehow. It isn't impossible for you to leave but I know the feeling of it feeling impossible, and I only escaped because I went to college which I know not everyone gets the opportunity to do. I actually love my parents, but there was no denying they made me feel trapped in my home all through high school. I hope before you resolve to dying something happens maybe that forces you out so you get to see what you are capable of.

I believe that everyone has the choice to kill themselves, in fact I think it's a basic human right, but I strongly recommend against it. It's not reversible and people usually make the decision without a clear mind. Life is as good as you make it. Too often people think life is not inherently good, so it must be inherently bad; in fact is is neither.

>>835 >you stop yourself It's rude to lie, even on the internet. There are actual bad things in the world, and to claim they're all imaginary is insane and degrading. "You're only poor because you want to be!" >>837 >it is neither Yup.

>>834 I'm the guy you responded to, not the guy who replied to you first. I'll just say I'm of the opinion that you should squeeze out as much of your life as you possibly can. Even if it comes with a lot of suffering. Ending it now to bypass all that suffering is obviously at the cost of experiencing all the good things that (could) happen along the way. It's ultimately up to you though. Myself, I don't think I'll be allowed to live very long either, but I think I shouldn't end it myself so soon. It will feel better if I died in an accident or something where I'm resolved of all responsibility. On the other hand, doing it myself may give me a sense of control over my life. As you know, none of us chose to be born, but we all have the choice of ending it all.

>I've noticed some people on this board think life is inherently good, rather than something that can be either bad or good. Life is inherently bad. The entire universe constantly conspires against life, as it is an aberration of natural law. Any good is a result of inordinate effort and/or burden on others. Not everywhere, not always, but on average. Hopefully I won't have kids to continue the aimless toil.

>>864 The universe also created life and is creating more all the time so thats retarded and makes no sense.

>>860 Too bad I never did any of that. Never said anything about people being poor our of circumstance or about bad things in the world never existing.

>>864 >The entire universe constantly conspires against life, as it is an aberration of natural law. Life is just as much a part of the universe as stars and planets. It exists because of natural laws. The universe isn't a person, it doesn't care nor does it have the capacity to care about life. >Any good is a result of inordinate effort and/or burden on others. Example please.

>>96 If you are an atheist, meditate on what life might be after life... that is death... what that is like. Once you've got a good idea of what death must be like, ask yourself. Would you rather be there? Or be here?

>>889 >meditate on what life might be after life non-existence. Lack of experience. The end to "you" as a thing.

>>889 It'd be the same as what it was like before I was born. And yes, I'd prefer that.

>>96 There is no such thing as choice, only the illusion of choice. I mostly live because I'm an optimist, although by now I don't even know what to look forward to. Second reason is that it is all quite a hassle to end life early and that I could use my life to do something that others want to be done, but cannot do themselves, because they fear consequences. So there are many options to consider which keeps me busy. 3rd I still feel bad when contemplatign suicide which means that there is still attachment to life which is a good indicator that I won't pull throug yet. Besides life passes extremely quickly and there is still much to do. It'll be over before I know it, so I just continue to live. I think I'm happy about 1% of my awake time.

But what about the passing on of your genes? Aren't you afraid that your genes may not get passed down to the future generations? What have thought to leave a legacy? Don't you want to leave this earth remembered? Doesn't it scare you to not be remembered/leave genes behind?

how can someone possibly not be afraid of death if they are instinctively made to fear death?

>>946 >>895 You are obviously either very young or just not very well read on the subject. Your consciousness is just a phenomenon generated by waves of energy that, entirely by accident, assumed a form that could generate a consciousness like that. These waves of energy will move unto eternity and beyond time, and once they've had every single possible form, they shall return to one single point in time and space and erupt to do it all over again. Any "finity" you might've thought up for yourself to ease yourself into thinking you will not take part in this eternal return is impossible, as proven by the principle of sufficient reason. Thinking you can just stop existing is one of the highest degrees of ignorance a man could reach.

>>1116 Not them but nobody knows what consciousness is for sure, what it consists of, or what happens when you die. Looks like all your reading has taught you is to take some philosophers words as fact and be an arrogant soykafhead who thinks he knows everything.

>>1117 >Not them but nobody knows what consciousness is for sure Nobody knows anything for sure, you idiot. You literally cannot know anything for sure except for the knowledge you receive a priori. That doesn't mean you can't do anything with the knowledge you do have and it doesn't mean you can't make statements based on that knowledge. And based on the knowledge all modern science, philosophy and psychology has given us, the consciousness is nothing but a small, directly accessible part of an information processing system that creates a reality for beings gifted (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with reason. And, as anything that ever existed, it shall exist now and forever, as the vision of reality it has created for you is nothing but a snapshot of your current location within time and space. Your consciousness is no more than a signal upkept by your body, and together with your body is nothing more than a part of the ever-changing mass of energy that will undeniably return to the very shape it is in now at some point in the future. To deny this would be to cast aside all physics and metaphysics. Stop projecting your insecurities on others and face the fuarrrking music. There is no way to free yourself from this world and if you do, you shall return. Anything else is just childish delusion or ignorance.

>>1116 >>1127 Unrelated but you sound like a douche, what with the regular personal attacks. argumentative fallacy On a more related note you dont seem to realize prematurely ending your life and therefore conscious will reduce the overall duration of your existance which is defined by the arrangement of your "waves" you talked about. You cant argue that youre immortal just because of the laws of thermodynamics, once your structure is broken down and you die its the end. As far as the Big Crunch, its theoretical; and not like Gravity. even still who knows what life "backwards" would even feel like, or if not that then perhaps you wont even exist in the same sense after it? We dont know this stuff, nobody has answers. Your mind is still amazing, and there might even be an afterlife for all we know. dont try to cramp my style, smalls.

>>1127 Im glad we have a little google philosophy expert. Metaphysics is a school of thought, not law and there is some who would advocate as you said casting it out entirely. Not all philosophers and ...psychologists? (can I get a source on which psychologists you are even talking about that deal with metaphysics and subscribe to your specific idea of what consciousness is?) even in agreement with what you just said. Im sorry you constructed your entire reality on this. Stop yelling and trying to throw out subjects you think other people kmow nothing about just so they will shutup and you can seem right. You should probably give up studying any more philosophy because you clearly dont care about learning and more care about seeming smart.

>>1129 >Unrelated but you sound like a douche, what with the regular personal attacks. argumentative fallacy Do you realize the irony of you saying things like this? >On a more related note you dont seem to realize prematurely ending your life and therefore conscious will reduce the overall duration of your existance which is defined by the arrangement of your "waves" you talked about. Your subjective duration is still infinity. >You cant argue that youre immortal just because of the laws of thermodynamics, once your structure is broken down and you die its the end. The end of what? Of your organic life? Sure. I never said you were immortal. I said you couldn't stop existing and you couldn't escape from this specific existance by killing yourself because you'd still come back here. If you dislike this existence killing yourself is not a viable way to escape it. One would be wiser to try to escape the cycles of existence altogether. >As far as the Big Crunch, its theoretical As is the big bang, and evolution. Doesn't mean you can't assume their validity. >Your mind is still amazing, and there might even be an afterlife for all we know. Read the Bardo Thodol and what Evola says on it in "The Yoga Of Power". I'm sure you'll get at least some sort of kick outta that. >dont try to cramp my style, smalls. Are you the Johnnie? >>1134 >Metaphysics is a school of thought, not law and there is some who would advocate as you said casting it out entirely. You cannot discuss existance without delving into metaphysics because no information about its nature can be obtained empirically. If you don't want to talk about metaphysics don't talk about death or any workings of the universe beyond those that are able to be witnessed empirically with the means we have right now. >...psychologists? (can I get a source on which psychologists you are even talking about that deal with metaphysics and subscribe to your specific idea of what consciousness is?) The model of the human consciousness I used is based directly on cognitive psychology and the writings of Jung. > Im sorry you constructed your entire reality on this. Stop yelling and trying to throw out subjects you think other people kmow nothing about just so they will shutup and you can seem right. You should probably give up studying any more philosophy because you clearly dont care about learning and more care about seeming smart. I'm glad you don't take the advice of others to heart and keep on projecting as if nothing happened, better yet, with increased intensity. That'll surely get you somewhere, sport.

>>1135 >You cannot discuss existance without delving into metaphysics because no information about its nature can be obtained empirically. If you don't want to talk about metaphysics don't talk about death or any workings of the universe beyond those that are able to be witnessed empirically with the means we have right now. except you can say it without saying "You are obviously either very young or just not very well read on the subject." and then proceed to state a variety of your metaphysical opinions as fact. My issue (and other peoples) issues with what you said weren't you stating your idea of what happens to our consciousness, it was calling someone else "young" and implying they were naive for having a different idea of what happens. >The model of the human consciousness I used is based directly on cognitive psychology and the writings of Jung. I figured it was either this or leary or some soykaf. Of course I don't really have an issue with this now that you are acting as if you didn't literally state everything you said with "this is how it is" (which I also wouldn't have had an issue with if you weren't trying to belittle others). >I'm glad you don't take the advice of others to heart and keep on projecting as if nothing happened, better yet, with increased intensity. That'll surely get you somewhere, sport. You are in no position to talk about projecting, and the intensity was waaaaay higher than what I posted in this post >>1127 >you idiot >there is no way to free yourself from this world...anything else is childish delusion or ignorance and I also don't really want to take advice from someone who sees their outlook on abstract matters as fact, and I think i'l get plenty far without ever taking advice or talking to people like you.

>>1140 >except you can say it without saying "You are obviously either very young or just not very well read on the subject." and then proceed to state a variety of your metaphysical opinions as fact. My issue (and other peoples) issues with what you said weren't you stating your idea of what happens to our consciousness, it was calling someone else "young" and implying they were naive for having a different idea of what happens. Grade A backpedalling right there, it's not like you tried to discredit metaphysics in your last post or something. >You are in no position to talk about projecting You are in no position to tell me I'm in no position to talk about projecting. >and I also don't really want to take advice from someone who sees their outlook on abstract matters as fact, and I think i'l get plenty far without ever taking advice or talking to people like you. Well, apparently you care enough for the things I say to go out of your way to confront me about them. If not, why keep talking?

>>1144 No i'm not backpedaling. I said that some people would say metaphysics isn't even a valid way to approach the world, because you acted as if you knew everything. Again you just care about winning arguments, do you think people would care if you just proposed an alternate outlook without calling someone a child for thinking differently than you? And I didnt say I don't care to reply to you, I said I didn't care to take advice from you, and that i'd get far if I never talked to you probably (note not that I wouldn't). You read that and instantly assumed I was saying "Lol i dont care about this argument" and thought you had an opportunity to jump in and be right again, because you don't read what people say or try to understand what they mean you just care about being right. The only projection here is one gathered from the way you post, and im not doing any crazy armchair psychology to figure it out its just plain as day. You never even said anything about what I was actually talking about (you being a cunt) and instead think i'm trying to argue about metaphysics with you, which if it makes you happy you probably knoe more about so I wouldn't really bother in the first place.

>>1153 >No i'm not backpedaling. You can deny it as long as you want, but a fact's a fact. >And I didnt say I don't care to reply to you, I said I didn't care to take advice from you Are you retarded? You literally said >I think i'l get plenty far without ever taking advice or talking to people like you. >or talking to people like you. >And I didnt say I don't care to reply to you, I said I didn't care to take advice from you, and that i'd get far if I never talked to you probably (note not that I wouldn't). You read that and instantly assumed I was saying "Lol i dont care about this argument" and thought you had an opportunity to jump in and be right again, because you don't read what people say or try to understand what they mean you just care about being right. The only projection here is one gathered from the way you post, and im not doing any crazy armchair psychology to figure it out its just plain as day. You never even said anything about what I was actually talking about (you being a cunt) and instead think i'm trying to argue about metaphysics with you, which if it makes you happy you probably knoe more about so I wouldn't really bother in the first place. There's something mighty wrong with you, friend. I'm not even kidding. I'll pray for you and hope you can somehow sort this out, because god damn, I've seldom seen anyone so disconnected from reality and so far up his own ass. I hope your delusional mind will recover in the future, I really do, and I send my sympathies to your family and friends.

>>1155 I wont pray for you but I hope someone is douchebag. Nice reading comprehension too, in that same sentence you quoted I said id get far without talking to you, not that I wouldn't.

>>1157 >Nice reading comprehension You're one to talk. >I think i'l get plenty far without ever taking advice or talking to people like you. >ever taking advice or talking to people like you. >ever talking to people like you You talked to me because it could not have been any other way. You had a choice in whether you would talk to me or not, as your actions needed a motive. Somehow the motive behind talking to me was stronger than the motive of not talking to me, which means unconsciously you felt there was something to be gained by doing it, and seeing as you're still replying to me, this motive has been upheld. Do you think you'll get far in life? No one can say, of course, but whatever the case, you are never able to make a statement about "getting far without talking to you" because in the end you found talking to me to be more than worth it. In fact, it just might have changed your entire life. The information I have given you and the childish tantrum you have given me in return will never be erased from your unconscious and will always be a part of your experience within this existence. One day, you will look back on our conversation. If you will have "gotten far" you will question whether you would've gotten far without this seemingly meaningless conversation, and if you won't, you will question whether you could've succeeded if this exchange of information was in any way different. You will not need to do this consciously. It may appear to you in a dream, or a flash of this experience might come to you, but even if it only a sentence, a syllable or a rough draft of our conversation, you will be reminded. Maybe you will question your mortality and what lies beyond life again. Maybe it'll happen when you're nearing the end of this specific life. But you will think of me, make no mistake, and the interaction brought into existence here will never leave you in its essence, all because the motive that guided your will into speaking with me proved stronger than the motives it contested with. You can wallow in your arrogance, or seek salvation through your own strength and on your own accord. Make me proud.

>>1116 That would be nice, but there's no reason to believe it's true.

>>865 >The universe also created life and is creating more all the time so thats retarded and makes no sense. Please read this and say that again. >http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/

>>1205 >an edgy, poorly written article that does nothing to substantiate your claim in any way Why would you think this was relevant at all?

>>1234 At least 75% of people will end up that way. If you have the chance to go to your local hospital (maybe volunteer for the "No One Dies Alone" program?) and see for yourself. That is how nature treats your body, I see you're doing a very good job looking away, like most people do.

>>1234 For me the only really edgy part was them calling most hospital poetry terrible as if it were telling of something, when it's just that most poetry is bad since most people are not professional poets. The rest of the article was just stating how things are for most people in reality since people don't like to acknowledge that's the way things go currently. Not sure what was edgy about that, it's not like they are going around forcibly telling children they will eventually die this way.

>>1284 >looking away The only one looking away is you. If you think that suffering a physical decay is somehow an argument against the universe creating life into infinity (which is a fact) you either have no idea how to provide arguments for your claims or how arguments work at all. Suffering is just a part of life. It is neither objectively good nor objectively bad and is often beneficient for one who suffers (as it is the drive behind the vast majority of human and animal actions). If you can't accept suffering as a part of life you're nowhere near developed enough to be making any serious statements about existence or the nature of the universe. >>1285 It's written in a very childish manner. Nobody who cares to be taken seriously would write something like "I guess I always pictured dying as – unless you got hit by a truck or something – a bittersweet and strangely beautiful process.". The writer also does not provide anything to substantiate his claims, and does not touch upon the nature of life and the universe at all. The vast majority of the text describes poor conditions in hospitals and the dehumanizing and dissociating effect they have. It does not touch upon the nature of death or life itself. The closest it ever gets to this is a bit of contemplation upon aging, but again, it never does anything substantial with that. The entire text is worth nothing. It's something an edgy teenager could've written in his diary.

>>1294 > universe creating life into infinity The universe can do whatever the fuarrrk it wants (until its heat death). It doesn't change the fact that it will fuarrrk you, personally, over. >Suffering is just a part of life. It is neither objectively good I have no idea how you can consider that stuff anything but bad. >as it is the drive behind the vast majority of human and animal actions Indeed, avoiding it is the primary motivation in life, this is almost the definition of bad. If you mean something 'universally bad' then that doesn't exist. The universe is not an active agent, it has no conception of bad or good, bad or good depends only on the person experiencing it. That the universe makes horrifying pain almost inevitable, and that we have a powerful natural drive to avoid it, is what makes life fundamentally at odds and an aberration of natural law.

>>1284 >>1295 >personifying the universe >being absolutely sure in the future >believing that natural laws are laws in the traditional sense and there is any way to "break" or "defy" them this is pretty fuarrrkin spooky

>>1296 >personifying the universe >complaining about irrelevant stylistic choice. Show me a way of expressing the same without personification with the same convenience and I'll follow it. >being absolutely sure in the future >the future is unknowable guys! both are strawmans, complete precision in language would be annoying, and probably impossible anyway. Please read more charitably. >believing that natural laws are laws in the traditional sense and there is any way to "break" or "defy" them Never said you could defy or break them, and I'm not saying you can't either. Why do you think I did? In fact I'm more familiar with the 'natural law' than the 'traditional law' sense due to my background. Though I repeat, I have no idea why you think I confused them.

>>1297 >Show me a way of expressing the same without personification with the same convenience and I'll follow it. What you are expressing is false and illogical in the most fundamental levels. There is no way to express it in a correct manner because it is incorrect at its core. It shouldn't be expressed.

>>1297 >Show me a way of expressing the same without personification with the same convenience and I'll follow it. There isn't because the concept relies on it. >I have no idea why you think I confused them. >>That the universe makes horrifying pain almost inevitable, and that we have a powerful natural drive to avoid it, is what makes life fundamentally at odds and an aberration of natural law. >>>>>abberation of natural law

>>1300 Well then that sure is convenient.

>>1301 >There isn't because the concept relies on it. The universe structure is such that it contains both very common unbearable pain and a visceral dislike of it within ourselves. It's synonymous, with no personification, how do you grok that?. What's up with the baseless assertions anyway? I'd rather not continue answering someone so plainly wrong unless you justify yourself.

>>1321 >soykaf, I have no arguments >better pretend they have none either The worst kind of damage control.

>>1333 In the post you're replying to I gave an example directly contradicting an assertion made. It was plain wrong, with no qualifier possible. You failed to justify yourself, which is a pity as I would love to see how I am wrong, it's not a comfortable truth. I'll assume you have nothing further of interest to say, this post is in fact unnecessary , sorry for my lack of self-control.

>>1321 >The universe structure is such that it contains both very common unbearable pain and a visceral dislike of it within ourselves. sure, but that's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say something more like this: >>1295 >The universe can do whatever the fuarrrk it wants (until its heat death). It doesn't change the fact that it will fuarrrk you, personally, over. or, better put when synthesized with your new statements: "the universe is inherently hostile to humanity", which is very different from "pain is common". You're trying to make the whole pain affair seem unfair, but fairness only makes sense when there's two entities participating. Pain just *is*, and if you fail to accept that you'll live a hollow life.

>>1346 >sure, but that's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say something more like this: That's correct. I only rephrased part of my point avoiding personification, I can do more on request if necessary, but I hope I don't need to do that for everything, this is an exercise in constrained writing which I don't find particularly interesting. >"the universe is inherently hostile to humanity" For example, I can rephrase this without personification as follows: 1)A comfortable existence is not an stable equilibrium in the universe state dynamical system, in fact non-existence is. 2) Due to natural selection there is a powerful drive in people and in all other living beings against non-existence. 3)Pain and fear are stronger motivators than positive reinforcements It would follow that the average utility of life is negative. The screaming just drives the point home. >Pain just *is*, and if you fail to accept that you'll live a hollow life. Yes, good understanding of the way things work is necessary for good engineering. I don't think 'accepting that' means inaction. Most obviously, what's to stop me from going on a shooting spree at my nearest hospital?.

>>1344 >I fail to grasp the basics of the burden of proof and the structure of argumentation in common Should've just said that, friend. I advise you to just stop posting.

>>1347 >A comfortable existence is not an stable equilibrium in the universe state dynamical system, in fact non-existence is. death is no more stable than life, in terms of pure physics. There's little to no difference between living matter and dead matter. It just seems that way because of the anthropocentric view.

>>1366 Ah, I see what you mean. I hadn't considered it like that, thanks for the insight. You've convinced me that life is not necessarily inherently bad, though it's hard to imagine something that deserves such label after the heat death of the universe, that could just be a failure of my imagination. I still think life is circumstantially bad for all generations past and all generations in the foreseeable future.

Dunno, I never asked to be there sometimes it is like kicking dead whales down the beach but the food is pretty good. The only other option has 0 user reviews and I'll get it for free at some point anyway

>>1388 that's a pretty good way to think about it.

>>1388 There was an anon from hawaii on 4chan who was upset because he did not want to die when the alert for a nuclear missile went out. that changed his whole outlook on being suicidal for years, because he realized how fragile his mortal being was. having realized his mortality, he became an open book for the future, and realized he actually wanted to do things in life