Literature on suicide?
Is suicide morally wrong? What does that mean? Does it matter? Should it matter when the individual has no input into whether they are created or not?
>>7984895
Considering ordering fentanyl. Just want to understand every aspect possible before it happens.
>Is suicide morally wrong? What does that mean? Does it matter?
It is, and it means that by committing suicide you are harming others and breaking the moral law. It does matter, perhaps not to you: but it will certainly matter to anyone who cares about you (if anyone does). Is the fact that no-one has a choice in whether they are created or not a decent reason for opting-out of morality? I don't think so.
>>7984895
I think it's morally wrong if it hurts anyone in your life. You're prioritizing your immediate desire to escape over their desire to see you live. And no matter how alone you feel, I bet there are a lot of people who'd be emotionally fucked up if you checked out.
To answer the last question in your OP: none of us choose to be here. But we can choose to find the value in life, rather than giving up on it.
First time I saw anons not suggest suicide. I'm proud of you boys.
>>7984980
>being proud of people more haunted than Ghostbusters: 2
>>7984895
Do you have someone that cares about you, Anon? Not even your mom?
If you don't, if you have nobody at all that would hurt from your passing, go for it. I hate to agree with Christfags on this one but taking your life when someone would hurt deeply from your passing is selfish.
All complex living things had to fight like hell to be more than just a single cell.
A will to live and a compulsion to put things into my mouth is perhaps the only discernible meaning I have found in life.
As others has said, suicide hurts everyone.
Things get complicated and we all just ride it out anon. Don't forgot to eat, sleep and change your undies.
Yukio Mishima and Albert Camus are two suicidish authors that come to mind.
>>7985030
Even if you take a utilitarian standpoint, it's unlikely that the pain you cause will not exceed the pain you feel currently from living. The same utilitarian argument could be used to justify murder (if the pleasure I feel from killing person exceeds the pain caused by the killing of the person etc. etc.) or any number of other immoral acts. Suicide, though often romanticized, is no less immoral if judged by cruelty and by the pain it causes others, than murder.
>>7984895
Mrs Dalloway
>>7985039
Okay. Let us say I accept your point of view. How do I override the desire I have to end my life? I concede to the fact that I am selfish. I understand that the pain of my mother, sister and brother will be more than mine. Why do I still have the drive to end it? It doesn't make sense...
>>7985030
I certainly believe that you've struggled to find reasons to live. I've been suicidal, and often failed to find those reasons myself. But you've got to keep searching, because they're out there.
Find something that compels you and chase it, even if you feel no joy at first. If you're tired of people, just hang out with animals for a while. Fly to a country you've always wanted to see, or try learning a martial art. Maybe volunteer at a homeless shelter, to try and empathize with other people going through a shitty time. The key is to just keep trying, keep experimenting, and trust that something is going to click if you stay dedicated.
Look up The Peaceful Pill Handbook.
Funny how everyone on /lit/ is a nietzschean existentialist moral relativist except when suicide comes up and they start making absolutist statements of morality
>>7984895
A pal of mine sent me this a while back
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Sisyphus-Other-Essays/dp/0679733736?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
said it was a very depressing essay on the philosphical bullshit behind suicidal bizmis.
>>7985077
>everyone on /lit/
>tfw traditionalist conservative and deontological moralist
>>7985030
Will O'the Wisp by Pierre Drieu la Rochelle is probably the most intelligent book about suicide there is. Louis Malle also made a good film out of it.
A Sleeping man by Georges Perec is not about suicide per se but you might find it interesting (I did, and I was also suicidal).
Like >>7985016 said Mishima and Camus reflect on suicide, I would advise reading Summer in Algiers and more specifically The return to Tipasa which might help you accepting life for what it is.
The Sorrows of Young Werther and Cioran are obvious must-reads.
You may find Suicide by Durkheim interesting if you're into sociology (I haven't read it though).
I won't tell you to do it, nor will I tell you not to do it. I know what it is. You have to find what you want to do with your life. But most and first of all you have to get help. I know it might sound pointless to you but I swear that talking of your problems with a psychologist or whatever you can afford will help a great deal. It might also seem ridiculous but sleep. Sleep 8 hours a day, because when you're tired you tend to polarise the world a lot for the best but mainly for the worst.
Excuse any mistake I could've made: English is not my first language and I hadn't had the opportunity to sleep in a long time.
SAL was hipster garbage
>>7984914
>Considering ordering fentanyl
A friend gave me some of this. Is it like heroin? I haven't tried it because I'm a bit of a pussy desu.
>>7985157
synthetic heroin basically. It's extremely potent. Do some reading on erowid unless you are planning suicide as well.
>>7985088
He didn't stutter, now vacate the premises at incredible high speed
>>7985130
You're welcome. I hope it'll help.
Keep going.
You have to dare to eat a peach.
>>7984895
>Is suicide morally wrong?
No.
>What does that mean?
Nothing.
>Does it matter?
As much as anything else, that is to say, not at all.
>Should it matter when the individual has no input into whether they are created or not?
Sophocles put it best, best of all is not to be born, but having known life, next best is to die swiftly.
If you desire death, seek it. But your hesitation speaks otherwise, playing with suicide as some sort of escapist fantasy is quite a pathetic delusion.
Yukio Mishima
Emil Cioran
>>7984895
Right and wrong exist only to us. They can help us maintain emotional stability, but not much else. Morality has lead people to suicide, and it has lead people away from it. Everything else in the universe has no "right" or "wrong", no, they are measured in effects and causes and tendencies, et cetera et cetera. But "right" and "wrong" are so commonly applied to simple, sometimes totally insignificant, human acts, as well as human beings more generally. Indeed, there is no one word so simultaneously dehumanizing and widely used as the word "evil". This word, and many others, have no use other than to shut down any further thought. These moralists who invented these terms have no concerns for the human race; they are only concerned with humanity as a whole as a kind of hypothetical. These very same people will preach about how the world can best eliminate widespread moral offenses, and can never be seen committing a simple, admittedly insignificant, act of kindness. They have no time for that, oh no, they have more important things to do with their time. Most human beings start out in their early years as illogical and overly emotional; the mistake that most people make is to assume that this is a problem. Pure emotion needs no structural setting, it needs no academia to poke and prod at its limits, and it needs no state to enforce it on the public. Morality is alien and disfigured; emotion is much closer to us. It is the rallying call of our species.
All this considered, if you desire a reason not to kill yourself, morality won't be there to help you. Consider this; as a human being, you are born into a world of cruelty and an overall lack of empathy, where one single kind act is almost a diamond in the rough. You are born naturally driven to all kinds of pleasure, and, from the get-go, told not to exercise them. With this considered, you have one question to consider: do you become like the rest, totally complacent with widespread suffering, as well as totally opposed to the idea of allowing any pleasure whatsoever into your life, by commiting that one, final act of destruction? Or, do you rebel against that suffering by living on your own terms, by finding a place in your heart for empathy for all human beings regardless of whether they are "good" or "evil", and, by doing so, become what you were born as: an irrational, overemotional, flawed, beautiful, individual human being.
>>7984895
It is your own responsibility to make your life worth living.
>>7985228
>as a human being, you are born into a world of cruelty and an overall lack of empathy, where one single kind act is almost a diamond in the rough
>do you become like the rest, totally complacent with widespread suffering
That's all i really need to quote to point out how terrible this post is.
> become what you were born as: an irrational, overemotional, flawed, beautiful, individual human being.
ahahahahah
>>7984895
>I think no matter what, if you were to ask an organism at the start of their creation if they would like to continue living, I'm sure they would say yes
If life is meaningless, then suicide is a meaningless act. You are not achieving nor negating anything by committing suicide. The supposed end of your consciousness is just a dispersion of energy in a universe that (supposedly) continues, wherein new consciousnesses will arise with every birth, the difference between those consciousnesses and your own being only superficial. "Your" suicide is frivolous.
The difference between positive and negative emotions is intuitive. While everything appears meaningless, the difference between joy and suffering is substantial in that it effectively determines your experience and, therefore, your existence. It is an observable phenomenon that great suffering, if tolerated for long enough, will bring about a 'rebirth' into a kind of atemporal joy. This is the basis for many religions and secular philosophies. The form in which this phenomenon is presented is irrelevant, the point is that it is a factual phenomenon. It is my sincere belief that the realisation of this phenomenon is progress, in the evolutionary sense, of consciousness in general. Those who commit suicide, just as those who never even contemplate suicide, exist in a somehow inferior mode of consciousness, which will be replicated in the majority of new births, and which only progresses through those that tolerate the burden of life and persevere through the tunnel of despair into the higher mode of consciousness. Only through the higher mode of consciousness will we learn more about the universe which, meaningless as it appears to be for the moment, is nevertheless fascinating.
There is nothing immoral about suicide, but since the evolution of general consciousness seems a worthy aim in that it produces great atemporal joy, perseverance of the subject in which that evolution can occur is preferable.
>>7985175
I doubt that most people on /lit/ are actually moral relativists or Nietzscheans, and the ones who are are probably among the least intelligent on the board.
>>7985312
Why do you say that?
>>7985327
I'll take back part of what I said and rephrase it: I don't think there is a total consensus on these things on /lit/. The variety of different positions is what keeps it interesting. The people who blindly follow a consensus (whether on the board or anywhere else) without thinking things through and taking their own position are the least intelligent.
>>7985307
>If life is meaningless, then suicide is a meaningless act. You are not achieving nor negating anything by committing suicide.
Completely untrue. The desire to live is a biological imperative, an instinct that has evolved over millions of years, overcoming this to make a rational decision and avoid suffering is quite significant.
>>7985254
See this post. Of course this anon conflates causation with correlation, but there's that fundamental readiness to see life as worthwhile, it's deeply ingrained in everyone's being, their subconsciousness, their every cell.
>>7985332
what is morality but ethical bandwagoning at the end of the day
>>7985348
I need to finish Autoportrait, thanks for reminding me.
>>7985341
>deontologist 0
>nihilists 1 (but also really zero)
>>7985356
Can we please not advertise this book? There's a number of better antinatalist books out there.
>>7985348
This was a pointless book.
>>7985338
>to make a rational decision and avoid suffering is quite significant.
But you are not avoiding any suffering by committing suicide. You are nothing but a specimen of a species. The life of the species carries on whether or not you die. What you consider your individual consciousness is superficial. Yours is only a share in the consciousness of the species in general. Suffering is inherent to the consciousness of the species, and will only be avoided when the consciousness evolves beyond suffering as we know it. This can only happen if we stay alive and overcome suffering rather than killing ourselves prematurely as a vain attempt to avoid it.
>>7985370
Your scientific reductionism is meaningless in itself: you overlook the fact that meaning is a human concept and does not mean anything beyond what we experience as humans (we certainly do not experience ourselves as merely specimens of a species). If we are talking about the meaning of living, it is a very human concept, and cannot be looked at in the abstract, scientific way that you attempt. All your talk of the "consciousness of the species" amounts to nothing in the reality of human experience; we simply do not think on these terms.
>>7985370
>But you are not avoiding any suffering by committing suicide. You are nothing but a specimen of a species. The life of the species carries on whether or not you die. What you consider your individual consciousness is superficial.
Obviously not to the individual. And to the individual, the species can and probably is insignificant.
What good does the (hypothetical) eventual escape from suffering of the species do to the individual caught in the growing pains of its evolution? The idea that one should suffer for the continuation and thus advancement of the species is ludicrous in this modern era...doubly so when you yourself preface this with the 'the species carries on with you, it doesn't care about you'.
>>7985381
>Your scientific reductionism is meaningless in itself: you overlook the fact that meaning is a human concept and does not mean anything beyond what we experience as humans (we certainly do not experience ourselves as merely specimens of a species)
Fucking capped, I couldn't put it better.
>>7985254
I bet if you could somehow communicate this with the first organism to ever be, disgusting and simple in the primordial ooze, results would differ. Millions of years of evolution have programmed everything that is alive, to want to be alive. This should be obvious considering the fact we aren't all killing ourselves in the face of such overwhelming evidence we should.
http://berlinbooks.org/brb/2014/09/work-and-structure/
People in Germany might find that book interesting.
>>7985413
>Martin Eden is a good book
Are you joking? Even London acknowledged it as a total failure, and the writing itself doesn't redeem it, it's mawkish hifalutin garbage that only appeals to ladies in waiting, a century ago.
>>7985194
You have the right attitude anon.
>>7985157
It's a shitload stronger than heroin and if you (specifically you, because you're asking about it) have it in any other form than a patch, you're probably going to fuck up the dose and die.
>>7985381
You accuse my babel of being meaningless and you proceed to dictate what all humans supposedly experience and think about based on your own conceptions.
>If we are talking about the meaning of living
I wasn't talking about the meaning of living, whatever that means, just a phenomenological look at how to avoid suffering. Of course assigning a 'meaning' to life is nonsensical, but so is suicide as a means of avoiding suffering. You cannot know what happens after death. The best approach is to look at the land of the living and try to understand suffering as an aspect of consciousness from that point of view. Assuming that all humans are conscious allows us to think about consciousness of the species in general. You are only creating arbitrary barriers by sticking steadfastly to an empirical view of your own individual experience.
>>7985383
There is a melodrama in your post which suggests that you are stuck thinking about your own personal experience of suffering rather than looking at suffering in general. You are a part of a species whether you like it or not. There is nothing shameful in the fact that everything carries on without you.
You are now a human that is suffering. When you kill yourself you will cease to be a human. You are only the conscious 'you' as a living human. The deceased is no longer the conscious 'you'. The conscious 'you' has neither lost or gained anything by its cessation. Meanwhile consciousness continues in the living, suffering humans left behind. By remaining alive and experiencing the the existential 'rebirth' that occurs after a bout of genuine suffering, you may have contributed to the evolution of consciousness-in-general, ensuring a better existence for the future consciousnesses that are essentially, fundamentally, 'you'.
>>7985436
>The conscious 'you' has neither lost or gained anything by its cessation.
other than the potentiality of further suffering, which is the entire point
>>7985436
>You are a part of a species whether you like it or not.
And the concept of species is just something that arose out of natural selection, filtered through the conceptual mind of man.
>By remaining alive and experiencing the the existential 'rebirth' that occurs after a bout of genuine suffering
You can hope for that as much as you want, but for a person stuck in chronic depression this is hardly a goal to be concerned with.
suicide, like any other human action, has no value or meaning in itself. it has to be given one by the ones enacting and/or interpreting it. and this is done using the the values with which they live and organize their lives.
thus, there are only two possible reasons for suicide: one that takes place within those lives and values, whatever they may be, and has therefore a meaning and place inside them, and the other one is one possibility of action for those who failed, for whatever reason, to acquire those values and cannot therefore fully integrate the life that those around him live as the only possible life.
I killed myself once, best decision I ever made.
>>7985441
When you die, all potentialities vanish along with the synthetic 'you'. What you currently conceive as 'you' no longer exists and thus cannot gain or lose anything. Suicide to avoid suffering is senseless.
What makes you 'you' is only a mode of the general consciousness and only exists in life. Suffering, as an inherent part of consciousness, also continues. Conscience-after-death cannot be experience; thus it is nonsensical and cannot be spoken of.
>>7985448
>for a person stuck in chronic depression this is hardly a goal to be concerned with.
It is the only goal to be concerned with. That joy is preferable to suffering is intuitive. There is no need to rationalise it further. That 'existential rebirth' is a phenomenon is also an observable fact, even if you can't predict it rationally. Chronic depression that causes genuine despair is the precursor to 'rebirth' into joy and serenity. It sounds silly but it's true. This is the best thing you can hope for in life.
Suicide achieves absolutely nothing, it is only a failure to withstand the conditions necessary for the evolution of consciousness. If you do not believe in this, then suicide is the only rational choice. If you do not commit suicide immediately, then you may be acting irrationally based on your principles, but yet it is true that you are on the path to a kind of joy that is inaccessible to someone who hasn't been in your position.
>>7985482
>decision
if you think it was a decision then you didnt really did it.
>>7985413
I found it on Scribd.
>>7985492
>When you die, all potentialities vanish along with the synthetic 'you'.
No, they are replaced with the potentiality of being dead, now realized. Being dead you cannot suffer, as there is now no you. This isn't complicated. The you that was has now avoided suffering they would have experienced had they lived longer.
>>7985234
What's supposed to be so terrible about it?
>>7985558
>replaced with the potentiality of being dead, now realized.
Replaced where? The non-existent cannot have potentialities. Besides, the potentiality of being dead is primordially existent for any living being. It cannot replace anything if it is already there and has always been.
>Being dead you cannot suffer, as there is now no you.
If there is no you then who is the you that cannot suffer?
>The you that was has now avoided suffering
The 'you' is gone, it cannot "now" have avoided anything.
Think.
>>7985577
This is like arguing no-one suffers b/c eventually they die.
>>7985577
Search Results
cas·u·ist·ry
ˈkaZHəwəstrē/
noun
noun: casuistry; plural noun: casuistries
the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.
synonyms: sophistry, specious reasoning, speciousness, sophism, equivocation
"the casuistry about altruism always being ultimately selfish"
the resolving of moral problems by the application of theoretical rules to particular instances.
Translate casuistry to
Use over time for: casuistry
Translations, word origin, and more definitions
Feedback
>>7985586
I don't know how you reached that conclusion.
When you die, your particular version of consciousness ceases, but consciousness in general doesn't. Suffering is a mode of consciousness in general, of which yours is only a manifestation. The only way to deal with suffering in any positive way is to refer to consciousness in general, which is manifested in living beings, not dead ones like you would be if you killed yourself.
Conscious dead people do not exist, and so modes like 'suffering' or 'not suffering' no longer apply. 'Not suffering' can only be realised in the living. Therefore, suicide does not result in 'not suffering'.
>>7985594
>anything that doesn't fit with my platitudes is casuistry
>>7985647
>I don't know how you reached that conclusion.
By being consistent within your retarded frameworks. Which you haven't even done, flip flopping between stress on the individual and society whenever it suits your insipid reasoning.
>>7984895
It has nothing to do with morality the circumstances of your birth. If you want to race to the finish and skip life you're just choosing to go out like a pussy when you could just man up and face the possibilities of tomorrow.
>>7985740
I'm sorry that you don't understand and therefore resort to insults.
I also never mentioned society anywhere.
This thread is so spooked right now. OP, we live in a cult of life. Everyone thinks you MUST survive, you MUST go on living. But you don't have to. Life is ultimately just a game we're all playing, and if you want to quit the game, you can. That said, I think you could find reason to live (I would suggest the Tao te Ching for this, seriously). But everyone saying it is selfish to kill yourself is just plain wrong. You don't owe it to anyone to sustain an unhappy life.
>>7985757
>you have to "man up" to even live life
Why would I want to live such a life? You're basically admitting life isn't worth it
Most people agree that people have a right to live
Should that right not also include the right to death?
Besides, I don't think life itself has any value -- it only becomes valuable if you CHOOSE life
Maybe, but who cares about morals anyway? Having kids is morally wrong yet everyone does that
>>7984895
Is it bad to deatroy complexity and potentiality? Is it bad to remove and agent who could prevent suffering?
You don't just destroy the self, you deny the fruition of all future selves, and the purpose the past selves had in continuing to work towards that actualization.
Also all the people who you will inspire and help will lose as well.
If you are evil to stand by and watch as a boy drowns, wouldn't you also be evil to remove a person who could have helped the boy?
I'm reading the Myth of Sisyphus and I think Camus mentioned that Schopenhauer didn't think suicide was immoral
>>7987116
Yeah, Schopenhauer praised suicide while he would just sit at a table or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Exit
>>7984895
hume on suicide
>>7984895
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td32Uf79LnQ
