/feels/ - personal experiences

I don't know, but I'm getting really sick and tired of seeing "kys" ironically posted everywhere to set the tone for online discussions.

>>184
>I don't know, but I'm getting really sick and tired of seeing "kys" ironically posted everywhere to set the tone for online discussions.
No one said it here until you did.

Meh, I mean, it's not selfish or "bad", but I also don't blame those left behind for being hurt. When I was little my dad broke up with his gf (who I really loved too) and she killed herself. It's just hard to cope with, and anger is part of it, guilt is pat of it, guilt about anger is part of it.

It's also really hard being on the receiving end of someone who makes lots of suicide threats. I've had it happen twice in my life that I've ended up as someone's lifeline, where they call me repeatedly about to "finally do it." That's also hard soykaf to navigate, where you don't know if you're actually someone's last hope or just being emotionally manipulated.

I guess with my experience being at the other end, I just feel like when it's brought up on boards like these it gets oversimplified. Of course… of course everyone can do whatever they want to do with their body. But like any decision, it also effects the community around you, and it's unrealistic to expect them to be coldly detached. They're real people with real emotional depth too, and this is one decision that will affect them profoundly, so it's at least worth considering.

>>185
wew calm down.


kys really does set a negative tone.

the ethics probably relate quite a bit to if you think there is something after life.

I can predict with a great degree of certainty that there are things in my life that haven't happened yet that I would rather wait to see happen than die. When that is no longer the case, I might off myself. I think you're jumping the gun a little if you think it's a good idea to kill yourself cos you had a bad day. Notice that I said nothing about ethical justification, I don't think that such a concept applies here.
>Having a bad day? Fuck it. Kill yourself. What do you honestly have to lose? I mean if we are all heading for eternal oblivion in the end, what does it really matter?
Your subjective experience of being alive is the only thing you have in your life – everything else you perceive rests on it. Sure, oblivion is oblivion, but as long as you have the only thing that you can be sure exists (your mind) you may as well enjoy it and maybe not be such a wuss if you had literally one bad day. You can be assured there's something in your life to strive for, unless, you know, you're 80 years old. Or terminally ill. Or unlikable to everyone you meet. I don't think you're any of those things.
If you're suffering so much or you truly lack any motivation to go on, I understand if you want to kill yourself, and I won't stop you. For your own good, don't end your life because you stubbed your toe and your milk went sour.

I think people should think before suicide, and probably not do it for small reasons. Suicide is permanent. That doesn't make suicide inherently bad though. It could mean permanent escape from the pain and suffering a person has.
I think suicide should be something so easily available, a person can do it within five minutes of wanting to do it, or less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
Imagine if the pilot here committed suicide the first time he wanted to. He'd not have been alive to kill to many people.
Imagine if I could have died when I wanted to. I'd have been dead five years ago. Were these five years worth it? Not really.
>You won't remember if you had a long, wonderful life or a short, miserable life when you're dead.
Yup.
>You're basically asking them to continue suffering so you don't have to. That's fucked.
Agreed.
>potentially a crime against your future self
That's an extreme stretch. Not convinced at all.

Also
https://ashspace.org/contribs/carthago_deleta/living_as_a_suicidal.php
This is a good, but certainly not perfect, article.

>>184
While ``kys'' is trashy, there are valid reasons to tell someone to kill himself, online. Like if said person is in the military, or claims to be capitalist.
>>186
>It's also really hard being on the receiving end of someone who makes lots of suicide threats
Agreed. The best way to react to that is to wish them good luck in achieving all their goals, whether or not any of their goals is to die.
>>189
>the ethics probably relate quite a bit to if you think there is something after life.
What was it like before you were born? There is fortunately nothing after life. I don't want to exist. Existing has been awful. regret/10

>Suicide is not selfish. Asking someone not to commit suicide is selfish

Literally this. i would always say to my parents and friends when i was younger when they would call it selfish 'what is more selfish? to end your own life because you are unhappy or to force someone else to live theres because there life makes you happy?'

to me, it's basically a question of personal autonomy and i've always struggled to see why others cannot see it this way, ultimately it is for me to decide if i want to life my life as a human being with agency/autonomy.

Having said that though, i'm glad i'm still here, anon. I hope you are too, sometimes.

>>198
Tbf i was going to argue with the original point but no, you're actually totally right. Also Cops and Politico types… normal people to for that matter.

>>183
>Asking someone not to commit suicide is selfish. You're basically asking them to continue suffering so you don't have to. That's fucked.

Yes you are completely right both in this and in general. I highly doubt any cunt who uses this argument can cook up anything to defend it, expect a lot of stupid appeal to emotion and alike garbage '''''arguments''''' that boils down to pretty much WHY KIL URSELF WEN U CAN JUST B URSELF :)) because they are so fucking dumb. I can though, it's because almost every argument for suicide also works against it. Still, I'm killing myself before I'm 24.

also if you brainlets have problems with understanding how it's not selfish to kys, but it is to use this 'b-but people are gonna be hurt' argument and to ask person to continue living:

I am experiencing 100% of my life. That is, my experience, my life is 100% of my life. But in lives of others, I'm what, less than a percent probably? 5-10%? For closest of the closest, for your teenage love during it's peak, even then it's not 100%, it's maybe what, let's be real generous and say 60-80%? So yeah, fuck off and kys lads.

I think most people assume that being suicidal is a sickness that you can be cured of. You are in an altered state of mind where you can't make responsible decisions about your own life and you will be glad they saved you once the pills start working.

Theres too many scenerarios where someone commits suicide even if they could get help. A guy in my neighbourhood recently left this world. It was tragic because he had lots of people that he could go to for support for his problems. Sadly depression hinders people from seeing this and is just why we dont give people the right to end their lives.

>>200
>ultimately it is for me to decide if i want to life my life as a human being with agency/autonomy
It's not that simple. Many suicidal people suffer from some form of mental illness. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/25/in-defense-of-psych-treatment-for-attempted-suicide/ for a discussion of this issue. This lainon >>192 mentioned the pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525, who is actually a good example of suicide attributable to mental illness. The pilot believed he was going blind even though dozens of doctors told him he wasn't (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/europe/germanwings-co-pilot-andreas-lubitz-doctors/). This is consistent with the informal description of psychotic depression Scott gave in his article. Psychotic depression is treatable.

>>192
>Imagine if the pilot here committed suicide the first time he wanted to. He'd not have been alive to kill to many people.
How do you know he wouldn't have attempted suicide the same way? Or a worse way?

>>183
>Suicide is not selfish. Asking someone not to commit suicide is selfish. You're basically asking them to continue suffering so you don't have to.
Selfishness is probably not a healthy way for a suicidal person to approach the subject. It can become a source of self-pity, and can prevent useful self-examination (e.g. by projecting guilt over one's own perceived selfishness).

As for suffering, I think it's important to distinguish between suicide and refusal of care. In the U.S. you generally have a right to refuse medical care as long as you're informed and competent. People tend to find this acceptable because it's a matter of accepting death rather than inducing it.

>The only philosophical objection to suicide that I've found somewhat reasonable is that it is potentially a crime against your future self
I think there's a more general idea behind this. It's something like "dereliction of duty," in this case a duty to oneself.

>>202
The pills just kill you on the inside, but leave a body behind to remain a wageslave. I've seen too many people before and after drugs. People who used to care about their lives, to care about the world, suddenly go "oh, it doesn't matter that people starve! It doesn't matter that I won't accomplish my goals! :DDD I'm alive!!!!!!!!!!!"
Lowering your standards, destroying your goals, dreams, and hopes. That is what drugs are for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_surrounding_psychiatry
>>203
>help
What help could he be given? ``Depression'' is just another word for realism, when optimistic and oblivious people deem it bad.
>>204
Mental illnesses have always been subjective, unlike real illnesses. You can't define them in objective ways. Please stop believing in the DSM like a quran or bible.
All YOU want is for people to conform. You don't care about people. You care about conformism.
>How do you know he wouldn't have attempted suicide the same way? Or a worse way?
Because suicide by airplane would not be one of the publicly available options.
>As for suffering
People should be able to escape suffering at any time.
>duty
RIghts are about choices. The right to live means being able to choose to live or die. Without the choice to die, yes, life becomes a duty. And duty, as with any compulsion, is wrong.

>>216
The only people that live happy lives are the ones that don't understand how the sausages are made, or they just don't fucking care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_therapy
intrigues me though.

>>217
Reminds me of the last few episodes of NGE. I don't think any sort of therapy is useful though.

>ethics in suicide
…
>consider this
you dont have the right to die till you leave something worth living behind

>>228
And that is why aborted children are punishable by death

>>216
>psychiatry isn't perfect therefore it must be evil
Also the whole "meds turned me into a zombie" is such a lousy meme. No one ever thinks that to themselves. They just repeat what they heard elsewhere because they think it sounds cool.

The human brain is the most complicated arrangement of matter in the known universe. You can't expect psychological miracles to happen from ingesting a single molecule.

However, psychiatric medications can and do help many people. They may not be sufficient on their own and they may not be for everyone, but that doesn't invalidate their use.

>>216
>What help could he be given? ``Depression'' is just another word for realism, when optimistic and oblivious people deem it bad.
okay, just, shut up, and go read about depression or experience it yourself. It's literally an altered state of consciousness.
>Mental illnesses have always been subjective, unlike real illnesses. You can't define them in objective ways.
[citation needed]
now you are just talking out of your soykaf. Please refrain from being so opinionated about something you know so little about.

>>216
He was 17 years you dip. Do you really think that there was nothing to be done that could change his state of mind.

>>239
>>240
>>241
Why not just be direct about the fact that you're a conformist?
>or experience it yourself
(': why do you think I haven't?
>that could change his state of mind.
Lots could be done to change his mind, but perhaps nothing could be done to actually improve his situation.

>>244
>perhaps nothing could be done to actually improve his situation.
at 17 years old?

>>239
They can and do help many people, but the whole "zombie" thing isn't just something people say to be cool. When I was first put on meds, I had no idea that it was something that people said, but that's exactly how I described my feelings at the time.

If you've ever had them prescribed and you had a halfway decent neurologist/psychiatrist, you have definitely been warned of the side effects. I've been on all sorts of medication for depression, and every single one of them had serious side effects, to the level that I ended up stopping the use after a while. At best, I would have a low sex drive and complete lack of motivation to do anything (felt very similar to being off the meds, just less bad emotional plummets and self-loathing) and at worst, I'd be paranoid, suicidal and destructively angry with heavy mood swings.

If you've looked at the research, this is not some outlier from the general effects. SSRIs usually have a negligible difference from placebos with the added side effects, while benzos usually straight up turn you into a vegetable. There is a weak consensus of this being better than being depressed, but for many people, including me, they're a temporary attempt at getting better that's rarely very effective.

The biggest problem is really just the fact that they go through what is relatively weak research, so comparing to nothing, they'll be better in a lot of cases, but a huge amount, something far, far beyond negligible is going to be unaffected or just made worse.

>>216
>``Depression'' is just another word for realism, when optimistic and oblivious people deem it bad.
This is ridiculous romanticization of a serious mental issue, not to mention that is completely wrong. There is some correlation between IQ and depression rates, but to think that it somehow implies some higher level of consciousness is plain silly.

>>240
>[citation needed]
How do you think the DSM gets made? The illnesses there aren't backed by serious research, the vast majority of them are just decided as being real illnesses by a board that may or may not be primarily interested in making a new edition to sell, since they cost ridiculous amounts of money and professionals need to keep up with the latest ones.

Spurious motivations aside, there is very little information beyond vague observations available for a huge portion of mental illnesses. The most common ones, like depression, definitely have generally understood symptoms and such, but the distinction between that and, say, a virus, is that there isn't [a specific thing] causing it. Depression is observed by the symptoms and it is mainly treated like that as well, since it just varies far more than regular illnesses. When treating a virus, you usually get something against [the specific thing] that causes it, and while you might be guessing what the specific thing is from the symptoms, it's always going to be [a specific thing] instead of a variety of vague and unspecific causes that contribute to the end result.

Now, that is simplifying how it is, but mental illness is far too complicated to treat it in similar ways to regular illnesses.


>>244
Frankly, your arguing style is terrible and you're doing your cause no favours with it. Sorry for being so direct about it, but please just try and actually convince the people you are arguing against instead of just arguing for your own sake.

>>251
>serious mental issue
Can you show it objectively exists and is not cultural?
The existence of depression as an illness is cultural.

>>252
well, as a person who has depression (yay!), i'd say that often times it seems to be characterized by belief in likely false things (I can never have any friends, I will always be ugly and miserable, nothing can ever change). As such, you could argue that it is an illness as much as worrying that the dwarves in your closet will come out in the night and eat you alive–there are no dwarves in your closet, and things can get better.

Of course if this is valid, then ignorance is also a disease.

>>251
>Now, that is simplifying how it is, but mental illness is far too complicated to treat it in similar ways to regular illnesses.

That may be true, but i feel mental illness is written off far too much. Maybe it needs to be treated differently, but it still needs to be treated and recognized.

Just as an anecdote, where I work I have known, over the years at least, gosh like, five people who have been pressured to quit due to their mental illness. That is basically all the people I know who work there and deal with mental health issues. It seems we are an easier target than, say, people with outward physical problems.

>>216
>All YOU want is for people to conform. You don't care about people. You care about conformism.
How do you know that's all I want? Can't I want more than one thing at a time?
You seem to be under the impression that caring about people is incompatible with conformism. By "conformism," I'm assuming you mean a desire for other people to adhere to social norms. If that's the case, then I don't see how you got this impression. Or how you got the impression that I'm a conformist.

All of this is, of course, irrelevant. But I'm curious why you believe these things anyway.

>Without the choice to die, yes, life becomes a duty.
You have it backwards. Your duties precede your choices.

>And duty, as with any compulsion, is wrong.
That's a strange thing to say. If I form a contract with another person, then I have a duty to uphold the contract. Is that duty wrong? Is the duty of a parent to protect its child wrong? Or the duty of a state to protect its citizens?

>>252
>The existence of depression as an illness is cultural.
This is both obvious and irrelevant. All illness is cultural. Suppose we define "illness" as "an abnormal condition that causes distress." This definition clearly allows for different cultures to disagree about whether something is an illness. (Is depression an illness? Obesity? Heartbreak?) You might say that this is a bad definition; if so, then I challenge you to come up with another.

>>253
>likely false things
What about when those things aren't likely false? Some people are called depressed for simply realising capitalism is bad. And they get put on so many drugs.
I'd certainly be on drugs if I was stupid enough to tell the truth to people offline.
>Of course if this is valid, then ignorance is also a disease.
And ignorance isn't a disease.
>five people who have been pressured to quit due to their mental illness
That's awful, depending on the circumstances.
>>257
>Your duties precede your choices
Is freedom a good or bad thing? I sadly have no points to make if you consider it bad: I consider freedom to be axiomatically good.

>>258
>Some people are called depressed for simply realising capitalism is bad. And they get put on so many drugs.
I'd certainly be on drugs if I was stupid enough to tell the truth to people offline.

>>257
>>Without the choice to die, yes, life becomes a duty.
>You have it backwards. Your duties precede your choices.

>>And duty, as with any compulsion, is wrong.
>That's a strange thing to say. If I form a contract with another person, then I have a duty to uphold the contract. Is that duty wrong? Is the duty of a parent to protect its child wrong? Or the duty of a state to protect its citizens?

You are a fascist if you sincerely believe the "duty to live" is a higher power than the agency of the individual, and are not just simply stirring the pot. Man does not serve society, society is a series of bonds formed between men for mutual benefit. When an individual no longer derives benefit from this bond it is broken, that is the path of least resistance. To occur otherwise is to be molded by the hands of tyranny - a slave to your fellow man.

>>262
>You are a fascist if you sincerely believe the "duty to live" is a higher power than the agency of the individual
I have to admit, I like where it is going.
"Fascist" would not be the right word, since it refers to political beliefs, but we get your point.

>Man does not serve society, society is a series of bonds formed between men for mutual benefit.
Not only that.
Society is a being unto itself. It cannot exist without the individuals that form it, but, I would say that neither can man exist (in the full extent of his nature; not physically, of course) without society that forms him.
Homo est animal sociale.

Aside from that, I, myself, would not make the point that the wrong of suicide is aimed at society. It is not the most fundamental problem.
I will also omit the biological issue of self-preservation instincts.
The wrong made by suicide is one that said person commits against himself.
It is against the nature of a conscious being to extinguish itself for the sake of ceasing-to-exist. To die without meaning is to ascribe no meaning to the life that culminates in this death. It is equal with denying any meaning or worth to yourself, thus the most violent act an individual may commit against his own will, the highest denial of his freedoms - pinning a worth equal to 0 to them.
One cannot be free in death, since one cannot make choices while dead. Thus, suicide defies freedom, it kills any freedoms that an individual has.
We arrive at a paradox, of sorts. It is contrary to the nature of will to discard itself as worthless. But what if one's will is to die?
I would say that it is impossible, and the only conclusion is that this desire does not stem from will, from the being itself; rather, from incorrect judgment and external influences.
Many people have arrived at this conclusion, which is why suicidal thoughts are universally considered a medical condition, either a part of a more complex one, or in and of itself.
It is why the law in many countries allows to temporarily restrain freedoms of people attempting suicide. Not because the law is a societal imposition to prevent waste of resources, but because it is impossible to make a fully conscious, informed, unclouded decision to cease to exist for the sake of it.

yes, I am pretty much going for "WHY KIL URSELF WEN U CAN JUST B URSELF :))" argument

Ultimately, you can't really make a universal statement about suicide.
There are, of course, specific circumstances that would justify suicide in any ethical system, but no circumstances would justify it in all of them at once. One can say that a very specific kind of suicide is highly justified, more than that, venerated, in the Teaching of the Catholic Church, and this kind is the only one that would be outright condemned in most materialist worldviews.
How you judge suicide depends on the value system that you ascribe to, and to argue if suicide is ethical is to argue which ethical system is true, and which isn't.

To say that suicide is an act of will that is universally neutral, neither good nor bad, is possible only in nihilism, where you refuse to accept any concept of universal values.
Only if you refuse that anything is of positive and of negative value can you say that an act can never have negative value (i.e., that suicide is, in the end, neutral, because a will can choose to end it's existence). But then, you can't really say that preventing someone from doing something is of negative value, can you?

>>183
>a crime against your future self
Not only that.
Against your current self as well, because you would, pretty much, kill it. Also, against your past self, because it has, presumably, toiled and tired in blind hope of some future; or with no hope, hoping that any hope will come around in the future.
Against yourself, in a nutshell.

>>192
>there are valid reasons to tell someone to kill himself, online. Like if said person is in the military, or claims to be capitalist
Oosh, you believe that it is ok to wish death upon people that have different political ideas than you! I'm sure you're the guy that we should consult about ethics!
you're tasteless.

>>258
>Is freedom a good or bad thing? I sadly have no points to make if you consider it bad
There is no need to be sad; I think freedom is a good thing, too. But sometimes goods are at odds with each other. For instance, if you think both freedom and life are good, then I ask you: Should a mother have the freedom to abort her unborn child? If you were so inclined, you might answer that the mother has a duty to carry her child to term. (You may have to humor me here.) That is not to say she literally cannot abort her child. Practical considerations aside, that is a choice she can make. But—still humoring me—it would be a wrong or invalid choice because it would require her to forsake her duty. This is what I mean when I say your duties precede your choices. It is not like >>216, who seemed to suggest that duty is merely the absence of choice. That would be like saying human rights are also the absence of choice, but for other people instead of yourself.

>>262
>You are a fascist if you sincerely believe the "duty to live" is a higher power than the agency of the individual
Why do you say this? The "duty to live" I called a "duty to oneself." Can you be a slave to yourself? What would that even mean? Likewise for the contract and parenthood examples in my previous post. I think you didn't adequately address those.

>>262
Agreed.
>>264
>Society is a being unto itself
When it becomes one of Stirner's spooks, yes, absolutely.
>commits against himself
But what about people who are not masochists?
>It is against the nature of a conscious being to extinguish itself for the sake of ceasing-to-exist
Think of the nature to avoid unpleasantness and pain.
>highest denial of his freedoms
In contrast, I see being able to take your own life to be the maximal expression of freedom: to have complete freedom over your life. To have complete control. To choose whether you exist!
>it is impossible to make a fully conscious, informed, unclouded decision to cease to exist for the sake of it
If humans cannot make good decisions, why should humans exist? In this case, why not eradicate humanity through the nuclear option?
>where you refuse to accept any concept of universal values
Moral and ethical values are cultural, and therefore subjective.
>>265
>life
>good
Life itself is not inherently good. I think it's neutral, it's how an individual person's life is.
>duty
But duty is inherently wrong. A person should free himself of such ideas, and do solely what he desires to. Human rights are actually about having choices.
For example, the right to be silent means choosing to be silent or not. The right to live means choosing to be alive or not. If you don't have a choice, it becomes a duty.
>duty to oneself
There can be no such thing if a person satisfies the following things:
rational
logical
not masochist

>>267
>Think of the nature to avoid unpleasantness and pain.
Unpleasantness and pain are just signals like any other, they are only interpreted as harmful. They are bad because it is the meaning that is assigned to them.
The purpose of these signals is to avoid things that harm you, so you could survive longer.
To harm yourself in fear of bad signals is a perversion of this mechanism. The nature to avoid unpleasantness is not for the sake of avoidance, but for the sake of survival.
Unpleasantness and pain are facts of material world, just as pleasure and enjoyment is.
To consider pain as something of utmost importance in your life and in decision to cease it is equal to considering pleasure as the only, or major, thing that you live for. If such purely biological view is how you think, then it is your right to do so. However, if you wish to view people as animals, then any discussions philosophical in nature, any thought that aims to transcend the material, should not be of your concern.
I dismiss pain, food and cummies as, more or less, irrelevant in philosophical context.

>In contrast, I see being able to take your own life to be the maximal expression of freedom
I have addressed this view in my previous post. You have either ignored it, or did not understand it. If you wish to dispute my statements, then please do so; but it will make no sense if you will not comprehend (or not read) my train of thought beforehand.
To choose that you should not exist is to choose that your freedom is irrelevant, therefore it is an act against your own freedom.
Suicide is self-murder.

>If humans cannot make good decisions, why should humans exist? In this case, why not eradicate humanity through the nuclear option?
I'm sorry, I haven't said that. I have said that the decision to kill oneself is inherently self-contradictory, not that humans lack epistemological capacity to make decisions regarding their existence.

>Moral and ethical values are cultural, and therefore subjective.
I understand that the conflation of these words is extremely popular, especially nowadays, so, semantics aside, let me clarify - we are not talking about anthropology, but philosophy. At least, I am. Purely subjective and culture-specific values are not of concern, especially since we are members of different cultures. I have assumed that societal standards of conduct are not what we are discussing here.
If you believe that the only ethical values are those forcefully imposed by society, then you are, literally, beyond good and evil. And frankly, I see no place for your world view in a discussion on whether suicide is good or evil, since you do not believe in the existence of good and evil.
I have addressed nihilism in my previous post. If you wish to respond with nihilism, then please address my points on nihilism instead of ignoring the fact that I wrote anything.

>>257
Giving birth is a violation of the NAP.
>>262
Do you really think it was possible for you to not be a slave to your humanity and by extension humankind from the moment of your conception?
>>265
Both creating and destroying life is cruelty. Let things pass. I think you can definitely be held hostage by your own ego.
>>267
We're all living here today so we're all masochists having tasted some pain in life. Suicide is understandable, but it is a false freedom because you never chose whether or not to exist in the first place. Craving complete control is another human trap.
>why should humans exist
Now that's spooky!
There is no good rational reason for humans to exist; we just do through the blind logic of nature's evolutionary process.
Values are subjective like our existences in relation to others, but can't they be held to be binding on those that willingly accept them?
>inherently wrong
>should

>>269
>Do you really think it was possible for you to not be a slave to your humanity and by extension humankind from the moment of your conception?

I dont consider being subject to my biological (and otherwise) programming to be slavery in the same sense as slavery to others via social bound. That said, I still greatly dislike being subject to my programming, haha.

>>264
I would consider 'societys' distaste for suicide to be its own defence mechanism - within the value system it creates, namely, the power structure of a hierarchy (from the smallest tribe to the largest metropolis there are always haves and have-nots) there is a negative utility to suicide. Less people, and especially, people opting out of the power structure society creates, devalues the power structure to the remaining members.

That the will of the individual is able to be disregarded by Society in such a way as to deem "these thoughts cannot be your will because this desire is contrary to all values we have given you" is the height of slavery, and the transformation of an alliance of merit between individuals into a cattle station where not only the terms are dictated but the form as well. Hell is, after all, other people.

>>265
Some of what you asked I probably cleared up a bit more above.

Can you not be a slave to yourself? What is yourself other than a sum of behaviours both biologically and culturally engrained? Depending on your view of this the answer will change substantially. I know this could go wildly off track, but let us consider that the value system given to us is not the only aspect of our being and that a degree of consciousness exists and is, to some extent, separate from that which we are taught - case in point, we are able to empathise, theorise, predict and in many ways transpose the content of our thoughts into space and time beyond our meaty constraints. Is it not possible to be at odds with one, or more, elements of our taught and learned behaviours? To want to stop gambling, to stop drinking or smoking, to stay away from that person that brings nothing but bad into your life, to stop being walked all over at work, to stop living in poverty. Is the failure to do these things a weakness of character, a slavery to the senses, or should we call it something else - maybe mental illness?

Duty to Oneself becomes far more complicated when you stop considering Oneself as a single, unified entity that is in agreement..

Is it always this fun here?

>>268
>To harm yourself in fear of bad signals is a perversion of this mechanism.
Death isn't harm though. Pain is harm. Injury is harm. To say that pain is subjectively bad rather than objectively bad is correct: some people are masochists. Many are not.
>If such purely biological view is how you think
Are you claiming that humans have to be masochist to differentiate themselves from animals? I disagree. Humans have brains, and can make plans. If they plan to avoid pain, all the better for them.
>is to choose that your freedom is irrelevant
There is no lack of freedom in death, because there is no existence. No one exists to have their freedoms taken away, in death, since they don't exist.
>Purely subjective and culture-specific values are not of concern
Then there is nothing of concern in this thread.
>you do not believe in the existence of good and evil
No, they exist, but subjectively.
>>269
>it is a false freedom because you never chose whether or not to exist in the first place
The choice to die now or die later is an important freedom even if it cannot undo birth. In some ways it can help partially, but never completely, atone for birth.
>There is no good rational reason for humans to exist; we just do through the blind logic of nature's evolutionary process.
Can't disagree with that. I myself, if I had to give myself a reason to live, would live to experience fun, though.
>Values are subjective like our existences in relation to others, but can't they be held to be binding on those that willingly accept them?
hmm
I guess so. But what makes them binding? What would it mean in this situation?
>>270
Your reply to 264 is nice. I like it.

>>267
>Stirner
Read on.

>>270
>Duty to Oneself becomes far more complicated when you stop considering Oneself as a single, unified entity that is in agreement.
There seem to be two similar but different ideas in your post. The first is that you can be contrary to yourself, as for example when you want to stop gambling but do it anyway. The second idea is that the self has discrete parts, and I disagree with that. You say this:
>a degree of consciousness exists and is, to some extent, separate from that which we are taught
I'm not convinced there is a part of ourselves that is "separate from what we are taught." I think we negotiate our whole selves with the world around us from birth to death, and no part of us is "off the table," so to speak. And out of this negotiation there emerges not just ourselves but also society. For this reason I found the choice of words in >>262 unsatisfactory:
>society is a series of bonds formed between men for mutual benefit
There seems to be more to it than that. But anyway, my point is that the self cannot be dissected into "aspects" that come from either within or without but not both.

Maybe this explains the idea behind one's duties. They are what society demands at the negotiating table. Everyone can accept or reject those demands but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And one of those demands is that you preserve your own life since, as >>270 says, your life is valuable to society. But why is your life valuable to society?

With rare exceptions, we all value ourselves. Originally this was due to biology. But over time, it became a part of society as well. Hence self-preservation is a duty, and a duty to (i.e. because of) ourselves.

>>270
Why are you saying this in regards to my post? This is not a part of my argument; actually, I've ignored the aspect of society for the vast majority of that post.
I will respond as if it was referring to my post, to my best understanding as to what you could have been commenting on that I have written.

>That the will of the individual is able to be disregarded by Society in such a way as to deem "these thoughts cannot be your will because this desire is contrary to all values we have given you" is the height of slavery
I did not say that something is bad because society says that it is bad, but because it is inherently bad.
Do you just assume that anytime someone claims that true things exist, they mean "something that society forces you to accept"?
Can't something be true in and of itself, not true relative to someone's opinion?
If someone writes an equation, do you need footnotes to back it up?
You might say that I am wrong, that the equation is incorrect, but I think that you are saying that I am wrong solely because I say that something is true, and things being universally true is somehow a violent imposition made by society.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have not once mentioned society's distaste for suicide as an argument, merely as an example, a point of reference; a practical backing of a claim that no comprehensive world view accepts suicide in and of itself, but only when justified. No world view other than nihilism, but you can't really call nihilism comprehensive. At least I can't.

>Duty to Oneself becomes far more complicated when you stop considering Oneself as a single, unified entity that is in agreement.
>What is yourself other than a sum of behaviours both biologically and culturally engrained?
How does one being shaped by things outside of him make him not one anymore?
Do you reject synthesis on principle?

>>271
>Are you claiming that humans have to be masochist to differentiate themselves from animals?
If by "masochist" you mean "to hold something as more valuable than physical stimuli of pleasure and displeasure", then yes, I am.

>No, they [good and evil] exist, but subjectively.
>Death isn't harm though
>No one exists to have their freedoms taken away, in death, since they don't exist.
That's the reason people (by "people" I mean "that's the reasoning behind this opinion", not "that's the arbitrary societal imposition that I, the oppressor, use to violate the Freedoms of You, the Ego") think murder is wrong. Someone did exist, he had a free will and a consciousness, but he doesn't anymore, because you killed him.
I don't think that this comparison would matter to you, though, since it is only subjectively bad, and the person that was robbed of his freedom and would subjectively find it bad does not exist anymore, so no one is harmed.

I believe that I've entered this discussion with a certain presuppositions that you do not hold, that is, that objective truth exists, that universal right and wrong exist, and that the avoidance of pain and search for pleasure are not important when we talk about values.
A set of presuppositions that people use to communicate with each other and reach the same conclusion is called language. You speak different language, a language where no statement can be claimed as true, other than "true subjectively because that is what I want", and nothing can be called good, unless you mean "good because I find it pleasant".
That is fundamentally dismissive of ethics as a concept.
Either the OP did not frame the question correctly, you are crashing the party through deconstruction of the underlying premise, or the discussion has already been derailed.
I don't mind it at all, it's just for the record.

>>273
I forgot to ask >>271 the question to which the picture actually refers - if one is merely reacting to external stimuli, cowering under touch like a mimosis, are you actually free, or just a slave to your environment? Where is freedom in submission to one's material complications, fleshy nature, or any other ingrained desire for kicks?

>>273
>That's the reason people (by "people" I mean "that's the reasoning behind this opinion", not "that's the arbitrary societal imposition that I, the oppressor, use to violate the Freedoms of You, the Ego") think murder is wrong.
No. What makes it murder is that the person did not consent to dying. If a person said "doctor, please kill me, for I am under pain" in many countries that's labeled euthanasia rather than murder.
>That is fundamentally dismissive of ethics as a concept.
Are you saying ethics is objective, then? I think it's not. I don't disagree that people with different axioms may find things difficult. But are our ideas truly axioms, or are the axioms deeper, further down, more abstract?
I like listening to people talk about how they feel.
>are you actually free, or just a slave to your environment?
Good question. I suppose you aren't free from having flesh: that is right.
Some things are things people will not be free from: for example, as long as we live in this part of the universe, we're bound by how physics and chemistry operate in this part of the universe.
>other ingrained desire for kicks?
Now, human nature and instincts: those can be overcome. Humans do it all the time.

>>183
Problem with suicide, is that when your ready to do it, you have already gone through the worst of the suffering in order to get to that point, so it's always too late to save your self from suffering.