Suicide
I'm not asking about the legal and moral aspects - that's been covered in many discussions and the two camps are unlikely ever to reconcile.
From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide?
Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?
Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?
Should other people intervene?
What is your opinion?
From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide?
Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?
Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?
Should other people intervene?
What is your opinion?
Comments (117)
I think there are several situations that are worse than death. And many more that are better.
But what is sobering are the number of people I have met who have tried to kill themselves and failed or been 'talked around' and then have recovered from their despair, only to gain a different perspective on life and the problems they face. Generally those people are extremely thankful they did not succeed in killing themselves. This to me suggests that intervention is important.
There are many people who use threats of suicide and attempts to gain attention. There are others who are not thinking clearly and only contemplate suicide because they are not able to imagine better solutions to whatever issue they are dealing with. There are people who appear to have no alternative - extreme pain or trauma. There are some who are just overwhelmed and for whom suicide is an overreaction. And also those who see suicide as a kind of fitting punishment for their family. I have spent a lot of time as part of a suicide intervention team in my city over 20 years, so I have seen most types of self-harm presentations.
For suicide to be rational, one would have to believe that the destruction of sentience brings with it the relief of suffering. That might seem to be obvious , but one might instead surmise that death has no effect on current suffering, precisely because it cant be experienced.
No, they are the opposite. The rational observer can readily perceive this.
Quoting tim wood
Most people. Most of the time, are nothing like purely rational. And that's why they can have very different opinions, even from quite similar perspectives. When the perspective differs widely, there is a good chance that the opinion will, too. The rational observer can usually see both sides and explain why they are different.
I am asking respondents to be that observer.
Quoting Vera Mont
The rational observer who believes that different rational perspectives can be subsumed within one overarching notion of rationality which unites them will be at risk of explaining the difference between perspectives by blaming one of them for being irrational or poorly thought out.
Quoting Leontiskos
:up:
Perhaps. And he may be correct in that assessment. But I didn't say the two different perspectives were rational - only that the observer is.
By which I mean, the observer does not take a moralistic or religious or parental or emotional or legal position, but can see whether one or both parties in disagreement have taken such a position, and if so, what those positions are.
I see I've made a fatal error in using the word 'rational'. I meant your perspective, not the subjects'; theirs may or may not be. I was asking you to judge.
1 ) I should kill myself if I did not eat 50 grams of vanilla ice cream today.
2 ) I did not eat 50 grams of vanilla ice cream today.
Therefore 3 ) I should kill myself. (modus ponens)
As for soundness, I doubt many people would agree that 1 ) is true. So that brings moral and ethical norms regarding suicide into the question.
What about:
1 ) I will end my life if I end up in a position of unendurable permanent suffering.
2 ) I am in a position of unendurable permanent suffering.
3 ) I will end my life.
That seems a bit more reasonable, as it's effectively euthanising yourself. But the claim that one could rationally commit to suicide, in terms of those arguments, turns on how intuitive 1 ) is in the second argument vs how intuitive 1 ) is in the first argument. The latter being more intuitive than the former. Due to norms.
Quoting Vera Mont
In terms of IRL relevance your first question misses a means of compulsion, things that behave more like causes than reasons. Someone can readily become overwhelmed by their life at a moment in time and try to kill themselves in a barely cognitive frenzy (see here). You might want to construe the antecedent life circumstances as an explanation for their behaviour, but it isn't necessarily the reason why they did it. Just like gravity might not be the reason a bin tips over.
Reasons that seem to make sense from one POV but not from another - I mean yes. Trivially so. All that requires is that one person believes that a reason to off themselves makes sense, and another doesn't understand it.
Should other people intervene? In some circumstances definitely yes. In some circumstances I think probably not (like Pratchett's euthanasia).
What is my opinion? People are wonderful enough to regularly value some things in life higher than their own life. Children. Duty. What is just. The absence of pain. So long as people will value some things more than their own life they're going to be people who die by their own choosing. I think suicide is a paradoxical life affirming urge to have already lived another life.
To quote Cioran, "I would always kill myself too late". (from The Trouble With Being Born).
What does this mean? It turnsout how intuitive 1 is in the second vs how intuitive 1 is in the first is what? It doesn't feel like you finished your sentence.
I elaborated, thank you for your comment.
You say "due to norms". You think it's only norms that make the second argument more agreeable? What do you mean by "norms" there? Do you mean due to completely arbitrary cultural values?
I don't think so.
After all, from a rational standpoint, suicide is a disproportionately (ir-ratio ... absurd) permanent solution to a temporary problem. :smirk:
Again, I don't think so. A "why" might be divined by their survivors but does not "compel" suicides themselves. Maybe it's the subjective loss of "why" that compels them.
Insofar as such "reasons" are third-person, ex post facto guesses, I think so.
No ...
... others usually can't help it (out of love), I suspect, whenever they do "intervene".
I'm not so sure of this. In the suicide interventions I have conducted, many are theists. While they fear god's judgment in the afterlife, they still feel compelled to kill themselves. I think this subject is fairly nebulous. My sense is that people know they are going to continue to suffer here and will take their chances with a god or an afterlife later. The unknown fear is preferable to the known experience.
Intervention sometimes takes the form of an errand. Do as you please but take care of x first.
Sometimes it becomes a full-time job.
I know that parenting has interfered with my most self-destructive tendencies. Maybe a broader view of the act is needed.
Certainly. Or it's part of your job.
Quoting Paine
Me too.
A prison sentence is also temporary. A fifteen-year sentence may be very difficult endure. But at the end, the prisoner is set free (for better or worse.) A death sentence is also temporary, even if it goes on for fifteen years, since it ends in death.
Terminal illness is a death sentence. Temporary, but its ending will not result in death, not a pain-free life. In that instance, hastening the inevitable end shortens the temporary suffering.
According to Islamic doctrine, no suffering is inescapable. There is always hope.
Patience is a virtue. Allah promises great rewards for those who bear hardship with patience.
If you have strong capacity to believe, then you can make use of such capacity to faith to believe that things will eventually get better and to sit out the temporary misery. That is the power of religious autosuggestion.
Yah. I think that comes under the religious, rather the rational heading.
I use rationality merely as a tool. I actually only use it when it suits me and I certainly do not identify with it. There may possibly be rational reasons to have hope and to keep faith in the future in spite of all adversity, in spite of all tribulations, but why use a hammer when the better tool is actually a screwdriver?
There are no rational reasons why life itself exists. So, why would there be a rational reason for insisting on staying alive and surviving in spite of all the hardships? When the going gets tough, the most straightforward solution is to seek out a crash course in spirituality and then use it to overcome your difficulties in life.
I personally do not believe that rationality can stimulate your survival instinct. In my opinion, it is simply of no use in that context.
And vice versa. It doesn't care either what you think about it. Hence, the relationship is reciprocally perfectly sound.
Abstractions don't reply, I guess. Why would an abstraction do that anyway? It is not even alive to begin with.
So is the grass, the birds, and the trees.
That sums you up nicely. Thanks.
Since your identity is closely tied to the ultimate reason why you are motivated to stay alive, no matter how hard that sometimes may be, and since there is simply no rational reason for life itself, tying your identity to rationality is in fact a threat to your survival.
If you've decided to end your life, for either a rational or emotional reason, that's hardly a handicap.
Pure rationality is a matter of form, not of content. An opinion can be rational in the sense of being logically valid and yet wrong.
Given that we certainly do not know what happens to us after we die, whereas it seems most plausible to think that nothing at all happens, it would seem that the only objection to suicide would be lost opportunities within the ambit of this life.
If some people feel incapable of going on, unable to convince themselves that things might improve for them in the future, then there would seem to be little scope for argument against suicide in those kinds of cases.
There I'd disagree.
I'm not sure how to put it though, other than Camus' essay -- a kind of defiance and rebellion against the bleak future, a rolling of the bolder knowing that eventually you'll slip, a heroism in the face of the absurd.
Though I like to tamper the notion of heroism down a bit, that's where I'd think of as a rational place to argue against suicide, philosophically.
Some people plead for mercy to the spiritual overlord while others abuse antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication. By the way, there is also no opioids overdose crisis in countries where people prefer the spiritual route:
Antidepressants, anti-anxiety medication, and opioids are the rational solution to a spiritual problem. There simply is no rational reason for life itself. Therefore, the only truly rational solution for the rational meaninglessness of life is to medicate it away.
It is not just that the unbelievers do not want children. They are even actively self-deleting. In the meanwhile, we pray to the spiritual Lord, and carry on, with or without the unbelievers.
Quoting Tarskian
This has nothing to do with suicide at all.
In the abstract, yes. On the personal level, the question becomes, is my life, in its present state worth living? It comes down from Life to my life, from Philosophy to personal experience, from the general to the specific - and that's a world of difference.
The opioids crisis is a suicide crisis.
I'm a person with clinical depression. And anxiety! It's a fun time.
There are people with these symptoms who are spiritual. Ergo, It's not a spiritual problem
Suicide is different from opiods. Yes?
Empirical studies suggest otherwise:
But then again, I agree that the only truly rational solution to the problem is medication.
Cool.
I'm pro-medication!
Though I want to push back a little and say that's not the only true rational solution.
I don't know if the solution is exactly rational even, though it helps me so I'm fine with the solution.
I only know people who are spiritual who struggle with these issues, and so I can't say that it's a spiritual problem.
Suicidal folk can see it quite differently. Trust me. The problems are not "temporary" until their gone. Death is believed to provide that.
That is why there have never been atheist societies in history. They don't last long enough to make it into the history books.
I'm not sure I understand that.
If the person believes the only way to rid themselves of misery is to end their own life, and they choose to commit suicide, then that is a completely rational choice. I do not see how false hope plays a role here my friend. If one ceases to exist at death, and misery requires one to persist, then their hope to end the misery and suffering by virtue of committing suicide will be well grounded, and their belief/hope that death ends misery... true.
That said, I suspect there are - sometimes - multiple other ways to rid oneself of misery, but that is definitely context dependent.
I question what counts as a non atheist society.
The hope is that all suffering will end with life. It's false if there is a judgmental afterlife, in which suicide is against the law.
Quoting creativesoul
Sometimes there are other means - or would be, if they were made available to the person contemplating death. But there are situations in which that person is powerless to affect change in their circumstances. (I'm thinking prisoner in some benighted country or terminally ill or catastrophically injured patient. those are extreme situations, but they're the simple fact of life for many thousands.)
Agreed, if there is some judgmental afterlife.
However, I was simply pointing out by anecdote that suicide is not always irrational, which is about being well grounded, justified, and/or arrived at from valid reasoning. That is quite distinct from whether or not the decision/reasoning was based upon true belief/premises. There are other stories as well.
Samurai will fall on their own sword rather than to be dishonored by virtue of being killed by an enemy. In that culture, it is most honorable to do so. Kamikaze pilots performed honorably according to the cultural mores as well. Suicide is not always irrational. That's the only point I was making.
Yup.
You don't have to convince me! While I would not want to live in a culture that values 'honour' -whatever they think that means - over life and happiness, I have my own exit strategy in case of certain foreseeable eventualities.
No worries. Convincing you wasn't the aim. Clearly making the case was.
:wink:
'preciate it!
Suicide is deemed a perfectly rational response to deal with an environment that inspires absurdism:
All you need, is a situation that is exceptionally difficult and/or hopeless at first glance, for any a-spiritual individual to seriously consider such final solution. It is an absolutely rational conclusion. That is why it is so predictable.
In that case, it is often too late in the game to teach this individual any "religious belief in a higher purpose" while this person will already have tried and failed a "rebellion against the absurd".
... but does not know because she cannot know. Her mere "belief" desperate guess is an unwarranted hope, or fantasy (i.e. ideation¹) thus, the "choice" to kill oneself might be valid and yet unsound; and often is unavoidable, even involuntary.
Quoting creativesoul
Perhaps, but my point is that suicide is always either unsound (choice) or involuntary (abject / pathological).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidal_ideation [1]
Yes.
1. It must not be emotional.
The mistake a lot of people make is they try to rationalize going through with an emotion. In all of these cases, this is not being rational and should not be done.
2. The resources to keep you alive are too costly.
If you're so injured that the only thing keeping you alive is a machine that will cost an inordinate amount of money and/or your time to the point where you and or your family are crippled financially and/or by time stolen from this, its viable to decide to commit suicide.
Again, this is not emotional. This is a careful cost benefit analysis that should be reviewed by others first.
3. Staying alive will result in an inevitable amount of unavoidable pain and degradation that will cripple you, and create an undue burden of time and resources needed by others to take care of you.
These seem to be the core three, and most situations can be addressed by putting them through these three points.
That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it.
How can anyone answer this if you are precluding ethics from the discussion? Isn't this fundamentally an ethical question?
This is vacuously true. That the cookie monster created the universe is a logically sound argument.
I would say it is only silly or frivolous relative to what is actually good; which you precluded from the discussion.
This is a moral question.
Where do you find these rational people in this situation? Not family members: they're emotional and have their own self-interest to consider - from both sides. If you talk about the burden your continued incapacity will place on them, they feel pressured to demur, say they'd rather have you than the money or free time or use of the living room, even though they secretly wish you had died in the accident and feel guilty as hell about that.
Then, too, family has the power to put you in a mental institution, just for thinking about it. Of course, that can't happen if you're already in hospital on life support; the worst they can do is send a psychiatric resident to come and talk to you. And he's not an impartial consultant.
Friends may also be too emotionally involved.
You could take a chance on your doctor, I guess. If you have the ability to speak intelligibly.
Quoting Bob Ross
I was asking it as pragmatic question. Or a legal one, if one were to make an argument in court.
If you objection is about your own ethical beliefs, you can simply say: "My belief system doesn't acknowledge any valid reasons for suicide." or "It's just wrong." or "I can't deal with this issue rationally." or nothing at all.
If it's about the potential suicide's ethics, he or she has to contend with them alone, while contemplating their options. We, onlookers, however, can be more objective.
Quoting Bob Ross
My question was not an argument. Neither is the vacuous postulation about the universe.
Quoting Bob Ross
"What is actually good" in your book is unknown to me. I don't have the capacity to take all points of view on good and evil into account.
By frivolous, I simply mean something like a teenager in a snit slitting his wrists to make his parents sorry for treating him as they did. By silly I mean another teenager who jumps off the balcony because her schoolmates posted embarrassing photos of her in the internet.
Quoting Bob Ross
Yes, if you like. It's a question about your opinion.
Wrong. Rationally you want people who are invested in your well being in the picture. For example, my parents have given me the ability to call a "Do not resuscitate". I understand why. I will ensure that if there is a viable chance for their life and well being to be preserved, I'll do everything in my power. But I won't put them through torture or keep them artificially alive. Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational.
On the other hand, I can make a judgement to see whether they're just tired, depressed, or frustrated if they wanted to be killed without good reason. In that case, I can get them help. Emotionally they won't want it, but rationally, they should have it.
Quoting Vera Mont
That is why you have multiple people. There may be one family member or friend who feels inconvenienced by you for the wrong reason. I won't 'pull the plug' without talking to my sister first. A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose.
Quoting Vera Mont
If you don't have the capability to ask your doctor, then you're not being rational in a decision to commit suicide. You can kill yourself but can't ask a doctor? That's not rational. That's purely emotional.
For some people, that's fine. Some families discuss end-of-life decisions long before the situation arises; they have time to prepare mentally and emotionally.
Other people are, unfortunately, stuck with religious, volatile, sentimental, emotion-driven relatives, with whom you can't discuss anything serious.
Your parents are smart and lucky. Do were we, with my mother. But everybody isn't us.
Quoting Philosophim
Not everyone, but many.
Quoting Philosophim
Maybe so. But who says all the minds in a given situation are rational? Or that the person who has a rational reason for one particular decision isn't emotional about his relationships? He might want to protect his wife from the stigma, or his children from the guilt, or his family's reputation in a religious community. Every person has a different set of circumstance and a different mind-set.
Quoting Philosophim
What? If your throat is blocked by a feeding tube, you can't think?
Quoting Philosophim
All you need is a finger on the button that controls the morphine feed and permission to use it.
But my question wasn't about physical capabilities. It was only about reasons.
If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them. Thinking about what I said should have made this answer obvious. Do you have an emotional wish to justify suicide? You doing ok?
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, this is an irrational response. Of course there are people who can't think rationally. Don't rely on those people. But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, I felt I was pretty clear. You go to multiple people. Find professionals if you lack friends. Go online to suicide help forums. Call someone. The rational thing is to reach out to other people to ensure that your decision making is on point. An isolated mind is not smart or a genius. It is vulnerable and weak.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
Then lets leave the physical capabilities out of it.
Only, they are invested. Deeply. They just have very different points of view and beliefs. I've come across relatives with the power of attorney who absolutely forbade measures the patient herself requested. In that case, the medical staff is bound by the law.
Quoting Philosophim
No, it's a factual response. If the people who don't think the same way you do are your family, with the power to decide your fate - as in a life-support situation - consulting them is foolish. Friends may be a different story, assuming you have friends who are still ambulatory and compos - many old people have run out of friends through attrition.
Yes, it's a good idea to discuss your end-of-life decisions with reasonable people who are on your side. Sometimes that's down to professional caregivers.
Quoting Philosophim
You're in a wheelchair or hospital bed, housebound. You go no place. Maybe you can use a computer and have one; maybe you can still see the screen and keyboard. Or not.
People come to you, if they're willing, or they shun you because you smell bad and remind them of their own mortality.
You have a clear grasp of best-case hypothetical, but not so much of the practical reality of people close to death.
Quoting Philosophim
Some are. But it doesn't take genius to decide whether your own life, or the anticipated future, is worth your continued attendance.
Quoting Philosophim
Can't. They - or rather the lack of them - are the most common of rational reasons. They're not part of the question; they're part of the answer.
The problem is that your question fundamentally makes no sense when taken as a whole: if it is just a question on "purely pragmatic" grounds, then there is no right answeras pragmatism offers no actual answers to anything (viz., it is purely hypothetical). Your question, while claiming to ask a pragmatic question, is asking for real answers to what is considered proper, frivolous, etc. reason(s) for committing suicide; which goes beyond what pragmatism is capable of answering (and segues into moral discourse).
On pragmatism sans goodness, see this thread by @Count Timothy von Icarus: it has a good outline of the mistake you are making.
In terms of a legal question, all legalities stem back to morality (and specifically justice); unless you are asking just for what particular legal systems (that currently exist) consider a legally permissible form of suicide (and not what people think should be legally permissible).
That would be true, if that had been my question.
If what I did ask makes no sense to you, I'm sorry, but I can't change that.
Quoting Bob Ross
The Christian-based law is a whole other can of brainworms. Starting with : Where does a judge or legislator get off telling an autonomous adult what is permissible to do with his own life?
That's why I left consideration of the law out of individual opinion. There are and have been many different legal determinations on this subject. In some countries, and some states, the law has recently been changed, because of what the majority of voters think should be permissible.
Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give? Is it going to be, "What if your family are held by hostages, and those hostages are also suicidal?" next? :) I've already given you the answer on what to do from my previous replies. Why don't you tell me what the rational think would be from your viewpoint instead?
Quoting Vera Mont
Let me be very clear about the logic
A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me.
This is wrong. This is not factual. I've already told you consult multiple people. For end of life scenarios, you should be discussing these with people long before you're put in this situation. I didn't say every friend or family member is rational. But to avoid friends and family because caring about you means they can't be rational? No.
Quoting Vera Mont
I'm going to one up your silliness.
"You're a brain in a vat. There is no one. Not even you. The concept of suicide or living no longer exists. Despite this, you want to commit suicide, even though you don't know what it is. What do you do?"
Do you understand that I'm telling you general solutions to a general problem? Being rational is partly reasoning through the concepts as a whole to apply to specifics when needed. Use your own brain here. Understanding what I've said previously, what do you think is rational in this particular situation?
Quoting Vera Mont
No, incredibly few are. The myth of the solo genius is a myth. Every idea needs to be bounced off of other human beings. No matter how smart you are, you are still human. You have a very limited world view compared to the richness of perspective and thoughts of multiple brains working on the same situation.
As for whether your life is "Too hard to bear," do you remember rule 1? Don't make emotional decisions. "Too hard" is an emotion. I already gave viable reasons for suicide that are non-emotional, and informed you that you should involve other people in it. Have you been thinking about those as you ask your questions? Because it feels like you're ignoring it and just pressing on with a bunch of "What if" scenarios that already have answers.
If you're a whiny emo who believes you're smarter than the rest of the world, that life is pain, and no one else can understand it because you're surrounded by idiots, you're being a child. I'll make the points even simpler.
1. Don't be emotional in suicidal decisions.
2. Involve other people who have your best interest, consult multiple to ensure the most rational decision can be gleaned.
3. Rational and viable reasons for suicide are excessive crippling, degradation, or excessive costs in resources or time from yourself or others to stay alive.
If you ignore the first 2 and decide you can make a sound judgement on 3 on your own, you cannot. That's an emotional retreat because you're afraid the first two will dissuade you from your emotional desires. Its not that complicated.
Nope. Just mentioning the realities you didn't take into account.
Quoting Philosophim
Not what I said. I said not all families are able to think clearly or unemotionally when it comes to the potential death of a loved one. Nor are they always in agreement. Families vary.
It's rarely a news item, but this happens quite a lot in families, whether the patient is able to participate or not.
Quoting Philosophim
You think old age, illness, disability and despair are silly? Implausible? I hope you have a long wait to find out.
Quoting Philosophim
Ever have bone cancer?
Most people cannot abide by your rules.
Because there are an infinite amount of variations and scenarios one can invent. First try to see if the rational rules I gave can adapt to the situation. If they don't, show me why they don't. Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first.
Quoting Vera Mont
And you can't necessarily discount on them thinking objectively either. You keep emphasizing the first part while seemingly ignoring the second part. This is why I note you consult multiple people, not just one.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, I think your posting random scenarios without thinking about how they play in what has been discussed so far is silly. You're being contrarian instead of thinking about it. Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work. That's a rational discussion. Ignoring what I've said and just bulldozing ahead to specific scenarios without analysis to what's already been said is disorganized, and ignores what I've stated so far. If my points are going to be ignored and not thought about, then why am I bothering to chat with you? Try to view it from my perspective for a minute.
That is what I have been attempting to do. Your rules apply in some cases, but do not cover many of the likely scenarios that real people in the real world have to face.
Quoting Philosophim
I have solved them for myself. I cannot; nor can you, for anyone else. We can have opinions about their situation, we can even judge them, but we can't persuade them to think as we do.Quoting Philosophim
Point is, they're not random. They are all too real and too common.
Quoting Philosophim
Did that, too. I've been in your perspective, but that was a long time ago.
Quoting Philosophim
You keep stating the same thing over and over. I didn't ignore it; I pointed out where it doesn't apply.
Sure, it would be nice to think everyone can contemplate their own debility, suffering and death unemotionally, and that everyone has many friends and relatives, all available for consultation, all able to assess the situation and think clearly.
This may sometimes be the case; it is not the norm.
Explain how your scenarios explicitly are not covered by the three points I posted. You have not done that.
Quoting Vera Mont
Then please explain. I do not know your personal conclusions and how they contrast with the three points I made unless you state it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Its not that the scenarios are random, its that you're randomly putting them in as questions after the fact or a previous discussion without bothering to address why they do not fit the three points I made.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, I have yet to see you say, "X doesn't work with point 1 because..." or anything of that nature.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, you stated a new scenario as a question without regards to the points made.
Quoting Vera Mont
Your question was essentially "How do we rationally consider suicide?" I noted to find other people who care about you, and consult more than one. That doesn't have to be family or friends as I've already stated. So your point is irrelevant. This is why I keep asking you to think about what's been said prior to posting. Lets focus the conversation a bit more and think, "What if someone is contemplating suicide at this moment and needs some rational steps to consider?"
People commit forms of suicide, each and every day. Moral, economic, social, etc. Some knowingly but most unknowingly, at the time, of course. Many of which who become reborn in "death" of false ideals and understanding to become new and greater versions of themself. Not always, of course.
I find it interesting you make a claim, whether inadvertently or not, that legality and morality are intrinsically not of rationale. That is to say, the purest form of rationale. This is a form of such in and of itself really. So you have to answer, what is the purest form of rationale? Definitively, this is logic. Which of course can be reduced mathematically, often, however, based on one's values and virtues, or understandings and beliefs. So what are yours? The typical ones being, suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Possibility is usually possible, but not always, so the factors that contribute to the determinations of such are relevant in determining said understanding.
Based on the current social zeitgeist, I frame your inquiry to be of such: should a person who just so happens to feel depressed, if not for a prolonged state perform an action that ends one's life? Absolutely not. Though this may be of logical benefit to naturally not only themself but that of a majority, say, a prisoner on death row. Which I find laughable since, in a base and fundamental way, any life born in this world is, per se, in a rationally comparable way. But back to that, yes, prisoners on death row are in fact forbidden from possessing certain objects that can feasibly contribute to one's own death, so, there is certainly at least a perceived rationale. Prevalent enough to reasonably have codified measures in preventing such.
It's a dark topic, but invokes the realities of the world in which we live in so remains of value. I would say, and this is just a personal philosophy of course, if someone led one to be in such a state who themselves would kill to prevent, a hypocrite deserves neither to be an executioner nor that worthy of life. So if there is even a chance your own life could disrupt, end, or destroy that which unwarrantedly and "immorally" created such a state of one to be in, which means would live with reasonable ability to further create such a state in other innocent minds, you have a duty to survive and neglect choosing such a selfish option. In my opinion. So, sometimes rationale is only circumstantial, to the point it masks possibility of change or better outcome, and logic itself. In the end, your personal, that is to say, specific avenue of inquiry is quite limited to a biological binary. Life or death. One's heart functioning and ceasing to function. But there is a wider topic I believe the sheer macabre nature of your OP might discourage others from pursing. :wink:
I have done that. Real people, in pain and fear, cannot be unemotional about their situation. Rule 1. bites the dust at the diagnosis of cancer or the repossession of someone's house. Quoting Philosophim
That is the most difficult piece of advice, and I have told you why, several times. Other people are also emotional. They can't turn it off just because you tell them to.
Sometimes even people who have discussed end-of-life care go back on their promises when the death of a parent or spouse is imminent. They don't want to let go. If you leave the conversation until decisions actually have to be made, it's even more likely that you're at a physical disadvantage due to illness or injury, and it's not discussion among equals.
Many family members and friends, if you tell them you're contemplating suicide, go ballistic, get religious and righteous on your ass, plead and cry and maunder on about the sanctity of life, then confiscate your meds and have you put in a locked ward, where you are deprived of all means of ending your own pain: you no longer have a choice, freedom or autonomy. I know this from having witnessed it. (One patient was so desperate, she stuffed her bedsheet down her throat.)
So, quite a few of the people trying to figure out when and how dare not tell anyone what they're thinking, can't trust the very people they love.
You may prescribe otherwise, but that's the way it is.
:smile:
'ppreciatchoo!
Seems other options are there to be practiced.
Rationality is a feature/quality we attribute to a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof. How well are they strung together.
Where there has never been a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof there could have never been rationality.
"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless.
I remain puzzled about what counts as a non atheist society.
Your characterization is not the only past/current state of affairs, situation, circumstance, actual happenstance. Your characterization counts as unwarranted belief(false hope). There are such cases. Not all.
Wars are won by soldiers who are willing to risk their lives and die for their (1) nation or their (2) religion, neither of which is a product of rationality. Therefore, the borders that exist and the very structure of various governments around the globe are the result of often extreme sacrifices for non-rational goals. In a sense, it is not rational to ignore the importance and the impact of the irrational.
Quoting creativesoul
There is no rationale for why the universe exists.
There are at best non-rational explanations, in absence of which the very existence of the universe is indeed meaningless.
Rationality is necessarily foundationalist offering no rationale in any shape or form for the foundations themselves.
If your only tool is a hammer, then you will in vain keep looking for a nail to hit. This search represents the losing fight of the rational non-spiritual individual against the absurd.
To the unspiritual rationalist, the foundations of our universe are irrational and meaningless. There is simply nothing that allows him to conclude differently. From what premises would be be able to do that?
Hence, atheism comes at an important long-term probabilistic cost. The absurdist philosophy predicts that at some point the atheist may very well have to pay the piper by means of a complete abdication. Such lifestyle is therefore a Faustian gamble which he is more likely to lose than not. All that is needed, are extremely unpleasant circumstances that will successfully trigger the then inevitable.
I invite you to reread and directly address the counter-examples of reasoning for committing suicide. One example of valid reasoning arguing in the affirmative for taking one's own life counts as a case of rational suicide.
If all one's suffering requires one's being alive, then one's death ends all one's suffering.
Unknown. Judging the unknown irrational and meaningless is irrational. We can only apply reason to that which we know, or think we know.
Quoting Tarskian
According to what observable reality?
"Why the universe exists" is a psychological question. It does not follow from the fact that there is no rationale answering that question that the universe is irrational and meaningless. We are part of the universe. We are meaningful and rational. If a part of the universe is meaningful and rational then it is not true that the universe is meaningless and irrational. That claim is false on its face.
The volunteer manning the suicide prevention hotline will try to give his user hope by means of some adhoc crash course in informal spirituality.
Apparently, the Biden administration has approved a yearly budget increase of $100 million (or $200 million) for this approach.
In my opinion, it may already be too late in the game for such last-ditch effort. You cannot give hope to someone who does not even believe in the fundamentally irrational notion of hope. That is why everybody knows that there is simply no hope for the hopeless.
In that sense, this approach is largely an expensive waste of time and resources. They cannot make a visible dent in the problem just by throwing money at it.
Rhetorical drivel.
The quality/accuracy of the belief system is not under scrutiny. In that case, it is how many people it could help to save from having a miserable life. Helping those who can be helped with life by spiritual teaching is fine if it helps. The reward is worth the cost. Doing nothing for them simply because they hold unacceptable beliefs to you is heartless.
Sure hope you're not in charge of appropriating the necessary funds.
Hopeless, to you, evidently means not worthy of help.
At that point, it is very, very late in the game already. For the effort to succeed, it must be started much earlier, preferably, long before it is too late, and long before the user has gone past the point of no return.
This is what religious congregations used to do. They have become unpopular now. So, we can no longer count on that approach either.
The family and the extended family are gone too.
In my opinion, all erstwhile functioning infrastructure has been mostly dismantled. That is why nothing can be done to address the snowballing crisis.
Quoting creativesoul
By hopeless, I mean, not capable of hope. If someone is capable of hope, he will by definition never be hopeless.
Can you give hope to someone who staunchly believes that hope does not even exist? That person would not want to believe you anyway. Furthermore, there is no compulsion in religion. It is not permissible to pressure this person to believe that there is hope, when this is so clearly against his fundamental beliefs.
And all of this has exactly what relevance to the universe being absurd and meaningless?
In terms of pure reason, the very existence of the universe is irrational and meaningless.
Hence, I underwrite the main idea in the absurdist philosophy, which is that the pure rationalist will first fail to struggle with the absurd and then end up contemplating suicide. The only escape hatch left is spirituality. This is, however, not available to the atheist. Therefore, a death of despair is the natural destiny for atheist populations.
So, what happened? Well, that is obvious:
It is possible to probabilistically predict increasing mortality fueled by despair by tracking two input variables: (1) growing atheism (2) a sudden surge in economic problems. There are quite a few industries such as insurance and finance which would pay quite a bit of money to get advanced warning for the incidence of despair. They would be able to use the model to save a lot of money and ultimately also to make more profit.
Modeling and extracting profits from despair and hopelessness is potentially big business, all thanks to the fundamental meaninglessness of the universe in terms of pure reason.
How do you know? Where is the evidence?
Quoting Tarskian
Now, that's what I call a silly and frivolous reason!
If there were a pure-reason explanation for the existence of the universe, why would anyone be interested in addressing the question by means of spiritual belief?
If there is no reason for it, then the very existence of the universe is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you insist that you do need meaning, you will have to find it in a spiritual answer.
This is pretty much standard metaphysics.
If life is deemed meaningless, then the absurdist philosophy predicts that the struggle with the absurd will culminate in suicide, which is the magnificent and grandiose apotheosis of absurdism as a way of life and especially death. All you have to do, is to categorically deny spirituality as a source of meaning, and then you are good to go.
Conclusion: What you don't know can't exist.
Quoting Tarskian
To one who demands that everything have a meaning that he can understand, and doesn't know the reason for the universe, the universe is meaningless. For everyone else, it's a futile question with no available answer.
Quoting Tarskian
by that same teeny little mannikin who expects to know everything, but can't,
That's surely an issue only for the absurdist philosopher and his next of kin, not for sensible people.
In my opinion, absurdism is very, very sensible, rational, and eminently reasonable. I certainly believe that absurdism is truthful. It is very good at explaining what you can see around you.
That is not the correct comparison.
You need to compare these places when they are both violently at war and then measure how they manage to cope with extreme circumstances. Do they give up? Or do they walk on foot thousands of miles from Syria to Germany, in the middle of the rain, the snow, and the winter, trying to stay alive?
A true litmus test of survival was Napoleon's battle of Maloyaroslavets. He did not want to go back to Smolensk, because he would not be able to resupply along that route. The French lost the battle and therefore knew that the situation had become hopeless. It was a true test of their resolve when they started walking back anyway.
But then again, look at how the Battle of Berezina went:
These French stragglers, who in the meanwhile had become the majority of Napoleon's army, simply did not do what it took, despite encouragement. This is the precise event which eventually cost Napoleon his imperial crown.
When everything is easy, and the country is happy, you learn nothing about the people involved. Put them in difficult circumstances and then look at how they cope. Half of them may give up without even trying. The other half may still respond by taking alcohol and drugs instead of fighting to survive. It is not possible to always prevent the shit from hitting the fan, and when it does, it is not the crowd that has always had it easy that will perform the best. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked.
The topic was how to rationally approach suicide. I didn't state you wouldn't be emotional. I stated don't make decisions due to emotion. That's irrational. Saying, "People can't be rational," is not a counter to point 1, but an emotional denial. Whether or not a person chooses to be rational is in their power. But if you are going to be rational, you cannot make your choice by emotion.
Quoting Vera Mont
Difficult to follow doesn't mean 'irrational'. I've noted you find people who care about you, and consult several people. I've noted that despite there being other people that you may encounter who will not be rational, assuming they won't is irrational as well. A solo mind is weak and vulnerable, and a monumental decision to end one's life should not be made alone.
Your fear that others around you will not be rational is emotional. Rationally, you should be approaching terms of suicide ahead of emotionally turbulent times. As I noted earlier, my parents have already discussed with me end of life procedures. If you come to a point that doesn't meet those parameters and want to end your life, that's a sign its emotional and you need to reach out to others.
Quoting Vera Mont
This is always a possibility when trust is involved. That is a risk you have to take, and once again, why you involve multiple people to handle if one goes rogue. That's part of being rational about it. Saying, "Everyone might not follow what I ask and everyone is going to be irrational," is an irrational emotional reaction.
Quoting Vera Mont
I assume we're talking adults here. Children do not have the right to suicide period. Their brains are underdeveloped and do not have full rational capacity yet. If you're an adult, no one can do this to you. Further, I noted that rational reasons for suicide are excessive resource use both time and monetarily, or excessive crippling over time and being kept alive by machines. More people agree with this rationale than you think. If you're not in one of these cases and wanting to commit suicide, then you are being irrational. If they cannot reason with you when you're being irrational, then monitoring you until you get over your emotional turmoil is the smart thing to do.
I'm not really hearing any rational counter argument here, just emotional ones. And the emotions generally are, "But I WANT to commit suicide. I don't want to tell other people because I'm afraid they'll stop me." That's emotional, not rational. The rational way to approach suicide is this. "I want to commit suicide. I better consult other people I trust who care about me to make sure I'm not being crazy." There is always risk in involving other people, but avoiding other people is a tried tactic of, "I want to do what I want, and I'm afraid other people will talk me out of it because deep down...I know its probably not right." Again, an emotional avoidant tactic, not a rational approach.
Quoting Tarskian
You claim that rationality leads to the conclusion that the universe is absurd, irrational and meaningless, and that therefore spirituality is the only alternative to despair and desire for suicide. It seems to me you are forced into this assertion by a conception of rationality that is abstractive, narrow and rigid (the same conception of the rational that led Enlightenment and German Idealist philosophers to posit the need for a god) . It leaves out a deep range of ways of producing intelligibility , meaning and understanding that are more fundamental than abstract, derivative modes of thought like formal logic and mathematical calculation. There are more intricate and robust forms of order, continuity, consistency and relevance available to thinking than that of the stultifying and stifling forms of rationality you have in mind.
I completely agree with you that rationality as you understand it is profoundly arbitrary in its foundations, but what you forget is that it is a human invention, one method among many possible methods we concocted at a certain point in history to organize our world. And , as you have discovered, it is a limited and ultimately inadequate way of making sense of the universe. But you make the mistake of blaming the universe for one crude and inadequate way of making sense of it that human beings happened to become enamored of at a certain point in our cultural development. Instead of replacing this clunky device you call rationality with a more adequate way of organizing events, you hold onto it and supplement it with spirituality, which is just your clunky rationality in another guise, a guise which allows you to fill in the holes of you logical analyses with whatever attributes you think it leaves out (the origin of purpose, love, meaning). Instead of filling in your failing rationality with an equally inadequate spirituality , I suggest you dump both sides of your dualist ontology in favor of a more useful and productive method of understanding and meaning-making.
No, actually. It was an unfortunate choice of the critical word in the OP: I failed to consider all the ways it might be interpreted. Entirely my fault.
What I asked was not how the potential suicide himself ought to consider the issue, but whether you consider anyreasons for suicide to be rational - as distinct from moral or legal.
Quoting Philosophim
I very much doubt that.
Quoting Philosophim
Not if that one has power of attorney. That's not a rational risk to take; you only get one shot at escape.
Ah, no worry! Numbers 2 and 3 are my reasons then. Feel free to comment further or end the conversation then. I don't think you had any issue with what I considered rationally viable, only in how to approach it.
I have no argument with your reasoning; I just don't see it applied in real-world situations.
Different perspectives here: I've worked in health care, seen and read many case studies. In not one instance did it go the way you prescribe.
Quoting Philosophim
I have a quibble with the way both of you have been opposing the rational and the emotional in this conversation. Are either of you familiar with the affective turn in the social sciences and philosophy that took place a few decades ago (Antonio Damasios work is one exemplification of it)? The gist of it is that emotion is the cradle within which rationality rests. It is what gives the rational its coherence, intelligibility and relevance. Without emotion rationality becomes dysfunctional and useless. I understand what you mean when you refer to situations where persons dealing with illness and death become lost in a fog of confusion. Last year my mother starved herself to death as a result of advanced dementia. My brothers and I had to support my 101 year old father in making difficult decisions concerning whether and to what extent to intervene in my mothers actions ( feeding tube vs home hospice vs nursing home). The issue of agency becomes critical as people we love get older and their mental functions are compromised. Earlier in my mothers illness, I fought with one of my brother over whether to sneak antidepressants into her regimen of pills to counteract her depression and agitation. I remembered that prior to the onset of her symptoms , she was opposed to the idea of anti-depressants. My brother was convinced that her alzheimers made her incapable of making that decision any longer, as though there was no core sense of self left there.
Health care workers have undoubtedly been influenced by studies showing that those with advanced dementia perform poorly on emotion recognition tests. But these studies can easily be misinterpreted as indicating that people advanced dementia lose their ability to understand emotion, which can lead to under-appreciating their agency and humanity in this regard. By the same token, opposing emotion to rationality by treating the former as irrational leads to dismissing the traumatized persons communications as deranged. That is, we blame their confusion on their emotions rather than on the unfamiliar new situation they have been thrown into. All Im saying is that rather than couching the issue in terms of rational vs emotional , you might consider it in terms of breadth of perspective. Those dealing with profound trauma and loss lack the conceptual anchors to process their situation, since familiar intelligibility is precisely what has been lost, not rational capacity.
If fully disagree with this assessment. Emotion is the aspect of impetus and motivation. Rationality is an evaluation of if we should, and how we should act if we should. This is through my own personal experience. I have many deadened and addictive tendency emotions. If I listened to my emotions, I would likely be homeless or dead at this point in my life. Its not that I don't have them, but they do not make the decisions, I do.
What matters in life are outcomes. I might feel bad and not want to work, but I go in anyway. I may not care that someone is doing poorly in life, but I know that reaching out can make things better. I could kill somebody and likely not feel any guilt or remorse. But what good would that do?
Emotions are for children and animals. They are guides and impulses for doing, not thinking. Rationality is contemplative. It considers all sides. It looks for outcomes. Then you have to decide if you want to act on that rational outcome, or your emotion.
The impetus from a young age is to rationalize acting upon emotions you feel. Rationalizing is inventing and coming up with ideas that 'back up' the emotional outcome you want. Being rational often times directly challenges your emotions, and thus the natural inclination of people from a young age is not to be rational, but to rationalize.
As you get older, hopefully you have people who teach you that being rational results in better outcomes. Sometimes outcomes align with our emotions, but many times they do not. That's a major difference between stupid and intelligent people. Stupid or ignorant people invent all sorts of rationalizing to justify fulfilling their strongest emotions like sex, love, hate, "I do what I want and its moral", etc. The reason why you can't tell a stupid person that they're stupid, is because they're enraptured by their own emotions. So they'll get angry and blame you. They'll come up with 'reasons' to justify their emotions. They'll say, "I don't feel stupid," then rationalize why.
Intelligent people can be called stupid, and analyze it. They might feel angry, but perhaps the other person has a point. They swallow their pride and realize, "You know what, I was stupid there. Time to correct it," despite feeling shame or embarrassment about it.
That being said, emotions still propel us. Especially early on when we're not rational. But as we improve in life and build ourselves up to lose rationalizing and become more rational, emotions matter less and less. But the seat of rationality itself? No. Just impulse.
I know this wont convince you, but I wanted to counter your comment with Robert Solomons view of emotion:
No, I wasn't. But then, I'm not opposing emotion to reason on principle. In fact, that's more or less what I've been arguing: that someone can make a reasoned decision, one that appears rational to an impartial observer, without turning off their emotions. I'm perfectly aware that people can greatly fear what is about to happen to their body and mind (e.g. if they're about to be tortured - and, no, that isn't a far-fetched example ), and reasonably seek a way out. That people can be so bereft by the loss of their home, their sight and their spouse that they reasonably prefer to curtail their own descent into a lonely decrepitude.
My POV of that of elderly persons of sound mind, with debilitating, painful and progressive health issues - a short, miserable future. Most families are content to let their parents go without a fight, but oppose any form of assistance. (mainly on religious grounds) But I have witnessed situations in which much younger people were facing a long and very bleak future, were appalled by the prospect, and yet prevented by the spouse or family from making their own decision.
Both reason and emotion can be in conflict between two people, but only one of those people is condemned to live that life.
This isn't a very good counter, because it doesn't address what I said.
I said people rationalize their emotions. That requires thinking, intention, etc. I also said emotions are an impetus to act, they are not thoughts themselves. One can act without any further thought, after rationalizing, or being rational. Emotions do not preclude thought.
I never said emotions removed agency. I never said following emotions is something you can't control. Of course you have (most of the time) have agency when you follow your emotions. Saying you don't is an excuse. We are talking about mentally able adults of course.
Right. Emotions are an impetus. They planned around fulfilling that impetus. That's not rationality. That's wanting to emotionally fulfil a desire and planning to do it.
Emotions are neither rational or irrational. Your actions are rational or irrational. Acting on emotion alone if you have time to think first is often times irrational. Acting on emotion after thinking about what outcomes will result, and putting the value of emotional fulfillment as a secondary concern, is rational.
No, I never said this. Impetus is incredibly important for those who have not developed rational minds. Without impetus or some rational guide, you cannot do anything. Emotion is incredibly useful in accomplishing things in life. But emotion is a motivator, not thinking itself.
Emotions are digests of a particular situation that want an expected outcome. They are inductive snap judgements, and some people have a more accurate emotional capacity for induction then others. But it is a quick digest, not the careful examination and thinking rationality entails.
No, this is just another person trying to justify fulfilling their emotions and elevating them in importance as something approaching rational thought. It is not. Emotions are snap judgements with what we perceive at the time, and nothing more.
Quoting Philosophim
Would you be amenable to the idea that it is just as a convenience that we separate affective and rational aspects
of thought into district categories? What if we just treated the rational and the affective , the hedonic and the cognitive, as two inseparable components of all thinking? Affect would be more than impetus, like a reinforcer that points the way and retires to the corner while rationality does its work. At every turn in a rational argument the aim we are driving toward acts as a guide and criterion for what constitutes the correctness and relevance of our thinking. It not only constantly tells us how we are doing , but whether we should continue to do what we are doing. It sets out and adjusts what is at stake and at issue for us at every moment of rational thought.
They're not judgments at all; they're primitive mental responses to sensory input from the environment and the body. It takes reason to name and describe them.
Judgment is cerebral. Emotion is visceral. Both are necessary to do anything: a computer isn't motivated to act. To a degree we don't usually consider, we are motivated in everything we do by a desire. Desire is felt, but it takes thought to articulate it and formulate a strategy for its attainment.
I have no disagreements with this take. If you want to define judgement in the cerebral sense that's fine by me. A quick digest of a situation is probably a more accurate term.
Quoting Joshs
No. Its a clear difference in approach and thought. Everyone knows that 'rationality' is the gold standard. Emotional thinking craves that standard for itself. It hates that it isn't at that level. But if it could convince everyone it is, then there's no stopping it.
Quoting Joshs
They are separable because even basic living creatures have emotional thinking. There is a clear separation between the two.
Quoting Joshs
Again, this is rationalizing. If you're reasoning to obtain the satisfaction of a certain emotional desire, you're going to reject anything that goes against that emotional desire as 'wrong'. This is why emotion is not a good guide for rationality. To be rational, we must often go against ourselves.
I think you're attributing a separate consciousness and thought process to feelings. There is no 'emotional thinking', but emotions do prompt thought and affect the thought process. And only one emotion can hate - and that one doesn't require a great deal of reasoning.
Quoting Philosophim
It's never that simple. The only time we have only a single desire in extremes of physical need or arousal, and those are also the occasions on which the reasoning mind is shouted down.
Most desires result from a mix of emotions, and most desires are tempered by counter-desires. For example, one might feel a strong urge to hit another person but also desire the respect of one's peers. Usually, it's more complicated than that. And in any of those situations, the reasoning mind keeps doing its work, instructing, directing, restraining and judging.
And by what criterion do we go against ourselves? What higher motive intervenes against emotion except another emotion? Lets say I derive pleasure from playing video games all day. Then I decide it is getting in the way of my accomplishing more important goals. In both instances, the pleasure motivates my actions. The video game provides pleasure by challenging my skills. and giving me a clear measure of my progress. When it occurs to me that I could be using my time better elsewhere, this is motived by the potentially greater pleasure associated with those other activities. Perhaps they are even more challenging , or challenging in a more multi-dimensional way. In each case, pleasure is intimately associated with creativity, and constitutes the measure of what is intellectually challenging.
Emotion here goes hand in hand with intellectual development. Why should we want to be reasonable unless knowledge were intrinsically rewarding? Why would knowledge change our mind about anything, causing us to go against ourselves, unless reason were its own reward? Addiction is so powerful because the rewards are immediate and the detrimental effects are more gradual.
I'm trying to speak in the language context they're using. The point is that there is a human tendency to argue for what we want over what is correct. A consistent strategy that people are drawn to is to try to elevate one's own emotional desires as somehow equal with rationality. Then we can do whatever we feel like and argue that we're "being smart in our own way."
Never underestimate the human tendency, which is in both you and I, to argue for one's own unearned excellence, sloth, greed, and emotional self-interest.
This can be due to an emotional conflict. But for me, its a rational conflict. Playing games is a form of relaxation and entertainment. It doesn't actually assist the world in any way, make me wealthier, or more successful in actual life.
Quoting Joshs
Then you are merely a pleasure seeking animal. This is not rational thinking.
Quoting Joshs
Because while reason can be its own reward, that again, is just a pleasure seeking creature. You are, once again, trying to elevate emotion to the level of rationality so you can justify your own emotional satisfaction. This is a completely normal rationalization response.
What you should be doing is put yourself in a position where the emotion to waste your time is stronger than your emotion to be productive when you need to be productive. When it takes all the willpower you have to drag yourself away and do something you would rather not be doing. When for the next hour, all you want to do is give up and go back to what you were doing.
If you can successfully do things that are rationally needed despite your emotional affectations towards them, then you are being a strong, rational human being. If you know you should be doing something more productive, but you can't pull yourself away from your own emotions, you are a weak rational human being. And if you just follow your emotions without thinking, you're a weak and stupid human being (not as an insult, just a description).
I can see this.
I love this wording:
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Joshs
Makes sense.
I find this ( Solomon)) very interesting.
Possibly a digression but since you raised it - I'd be interested in trying to unpack this via some examples. For instance - when determining the guilt of someone in a court of law, someone might say of the accused - 'It feels like he's guilty to me.' - and determine guilt based on this emotion rather than any facts provided about the crime. I suspect we wouldn't want important decisions made based on how it 'feels' to any given person at the time. Would we not want to use differnt tools? How do we determine which approach to privilege in the light of what you write about emotion?
Great question. What kind of mental processing is taking place when we have an intuition, a gut feeling? How often do experts in a field, such as surgeons, pilots, tightrope walkers, rely on the felt sense of a situation to guide them? Are they ignoring the facts that they have learned over the course of their careers or, on the contrary, holistically drawing from that reservoir of knowledge to arrive at a decision? I think what makes that decision felt rather than laid out as a logical structure is that it is too fresh an insight to articulate is such developed terms, not because it is lacking conceptual substance.
Sure, but I figure intuition of that kind is based on experince and lots of exposure to good and bad decision making which was more formally structured.
Quoting Joshs
Probably drawing from a theorized basis.
Quoting Joshs
Could be. I guess what we'd like to avoid is capricious thinking being used to label people 'guilty' or 'undeserving' based on physical appearances or some other emotive association which does not take into consideration the matter itself.
You seem incapable of understanding that some folk, myself included, fully accept that all things meaningful and/or significant are so to a capable creature. Hence, if 'the universe' excludes all such creatures, by definition nonetheless, then the universe is meaningless.
I've no issue at all accepting that until something/someone convinces me otherwise. I have no reason to accept the limited options you offered as means to deal with a meaningless irrational universe. In fact, I'm living proof, prima facie evidence, a shining example to the contrary.