I am new to this forum, as such, this being only my second thread; I ask all readers and members to please pardon this context and its melancholy stylus. That being disclosed, I am curious as to the freely expressed ideations of everyone on suicide. I know not if this is something that has subsisted in prior threads. I am particularly fascinated with the personal choice of suicide made by the individual whom is not terminally ill, and not an adolescent whom finds turmoil at every bend in their waking life, and believes that death is an appropriate means to finish an otherwise beautiful and consequential existence. I am also not obliged to entice the objective observation of an individual who abuses drugs and alcohol. This is primarily because the mentality of such a person would be warped, regardless if they developed a tolerance to even the most potent substances and the least lethal doses. I can empathize with the recovery after a long haul down a journey similar to the hypothetic aforementioned one. I am purely announcing this issue in the hopes that staid responses, accented with everyone’s philosophy on suicide, might make for a passage with which to analyze the phenomena. Or, in totality, is suicide and the mention of it a stringent taboo? I don’t wish to impose restrictions, so please feel free to impeach my lax guidelines and reply in any manner you aspire. For instance: Do you believe that an individual with an out-going personality, with few or several close friends, would be less inclined as opposed to someone who was introverted and somewhat socially phobic, with no friends? Do you believe that an individual whom is aware of a mental illness within them selves, yet is also aware that the infirmity is either endurable, or that many more individuals may have a strain of the same illness but are afflicted to a higher degree, would be more inclined, or less. And so forth….
wow, i just registered with the name John99 about 5 minutes ago, was gonna use Johnny99 but....uhh anyway. I think in all cases suicide is a mental defect, we really have a limited understanding of the human brain and science has yet to discover methods to treat this condition that is not like using a sledgehammer on a thumbtack. Psychotropic drugs (lagal and illegal)are not an alternative because they lose effectivenesss, thats not to say prescribed drugs for severe depression should not be considered. The feelings and reasons would be similar as the brain is chemically altered for whatever state the person is in at the time. No. Clearly the decision to take ones life is the result of the individual losing touch with reality. I'm not an expert though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You definitely sound like you ae coming from a background of psychological education. In any case, why are you not making a distinction between euthansia and suicide? Surely you know the difference.
Both responses are most warmly received. Honestly, I can not declare that I am in anyway whatsoever tied to the therapeutic profession, nor have I ever endeavored to be so. Yet I am flattered and consider the comment praise. Hitherto, I find it to be an extremely interesting field of research and profession of which to perform. Thus, I speculate. In a virtual sense, euthanasia is scrutinized in Bioethics, due to the perplexities which encircle the patient, the repercussions of the said mortal infirmity that afflicts them, and if that patient is in a coma, or conscious and is capable to decipher for them selves the corollary of being “painlessly killed,” whilst pondering all considerations. Furthermore, even after so choosing, the patient would not necessarily enact the culmination entirely or even remotely for there individual selves. They would presumably be supported in that department by family, acquaintances, or remedial professionals. If an individual were in a coma, the decision to “assist” that person to “die with dignity” would be primordial in the minds and exacting decisions of the family and medical experts on hand. Thus, I speculate. Suicide, in the virtual sense, is an obstinate act by an individual which either ends in death or is deemed a “blotched” suicide, in which severe and varying internal and/or external abrasions are probable of being inflicted, consequently either temporarily or permanently determining important aspects of that individual’s health, and ultimately life. Additionally, many attempted suicides might not hold much validity on the grounds that an individual was absolutely determined to physically expire. That individual may have sought an approach for help, and the “attention,” or I think a better term “cry” for it was methodically heeded, only after the individual took a radical and terrifying approach. Before I speculate… I like the clever literary allegory used here. Assuredly, one could passively declare that suicide is caused fundamentally by a “mental defect.” Yet, the plummet into genetics after such a statement would be unavoidable. One may conjecture that in the hereditary coding of humans, some have a programming which embodies a mechanism, which given the right formula(s) would trigger an impulse to attempt or commit suicide. I.E., the loss of financial assets and security, and the extreme concussions felt as such during the period of the collapse of Wall Street during The American Depression. Nonetheless, there are many individuals with cerebral deficiencies whom could be grouped in this way, whom are capable of great achievements in existence, albeit only to endure their afflictions, and albeit therapeutic and medicinal measures are taken or not. I contemplate that no human mind is precise, even in the most rudimental themes of reasoning and exploitation. Nature is not perfect, it is inherently flawed, yet the design is too spectacular to cauterize as defective. I think, since we all are compacts of nature, the same theory might be deduced of the human mind and its function. One only need observe nature to see that the course of its evolutions and regressions are unadulterated. That is to say, unless human beings interfere with, and are ecologically garrulous with, the altruistic course of nature. I do not think the same can be inferred of the human mind, regardless of the somatic or ethereal apparatuses. I estimate that no conclusions could ever be drawn in this manner with affirming prescience about suicide, this due in part because even if evidence was provided justifying a genetic adherence to the activation of an impulsive conviction to commit or attempt to commit suicide, the human mind would not be at all unadulterated in that milieu or in any other, nor would it have ever. Reality is perceived, so the decision to take ones life is dependent on their notion of reality. Ironic, how the people that actually have committed suicide, seemed to have in a sense persevered over the very instincts that keep human beings intact in reality, survival. The endeavor to live evermore longer is not a mere frontier of ideations placated by inquisitive pioneers, as was with times passed. I think that both, the majority of people who allow destiny to concern the affairs of their death, and the minority of people whom are aware and capable of a similar if not comprisable psychological governance, yet readily terminate their own lives anyway, comprise a paradoxical annex of life within the realms of humanity and the laws developed based on the perceptions of reality. I would sincerely like to know what others believe.
Calling something a "mental defect" is pretty dismissive. I'm sure what you're implying is that it is a manifestation of a failure of the basic survival instinct that all animals have. But considering that only humans practice it, it sounds to me more like one of the vast class of things we do that are purely human. Many of them go against our instincts, but they are not failures of instinct but the conquest of them. Civilization itself--trusting and cooperating with people we don't know and aren't related to--is a triumph of a behavior that was painstakingly invented and then taught to hundreds of generations of children, over our simian instinct to form a tribe of no more than a couple of hundred people that we know personally and are related to. I see no problem in hypothesizing that suicide is a reasoned act, rather than one that results from an illness. We must start with the observation that the overwhelming number of suicides fall into the category that was listed first. Avoidance of unbearable, endless pain: somatic or emotional (the accidental death of one's whole family); imposed by the universe or accreted by foolish behavior (extreme sports). Or avoidance of despair, indignity, or a burden on one's loved ones (Oldtimer's Disease). Perhaps the pain is not unbearable or endless from our perspective. We smugly tell the patient that yoga and pain management classes can help him live with migraines, that his family would want him to live and carry out their dreams, that Stephen Hawking doesn't need to play bastketball, that we'll cherish him even when he can't remember his name or how to use a bathroom, that lots of people have beaten not only drug addiction but the circumstances that led them into it. It's really easy to tell someone else to buck up and be confident that they'll feel better next year. But it isn't necessarily the truth. The second category of suicides, by people who have no overt reason to dislike their life, is pretty small. Sure, it's a big planet and somebody somewhere does it every day and when they do it makes the news because it's so unusual. But we can't even be sure of those people. Not everyone who can't stand their life goes around talking about it. His doctor may know of the incurable, miserably painful, but not directly life-threatening illness, but perhaps he's not the type to discuss it in the office or even with his friends. Her spouse may be too big of an oaf to realize that he has been making her miserable for twenty years and that it's too late to pursue her dreams, and he'll say, "Geeze, I don't understand this, she was perfectly happy this morning when she was ironing my jock strap." We don't know what's going on in people's lives, and even if we do we don't know how it makes them feel. We cannot know the level of another person's pain, nor their ability to tolerate it. That seems like a real leap of logic, so the first thing I would do is strike the word "clearly" from that sentence. How do we know? We don't have the technology to get inside each other's heads. We don't know what life feels like to them. "Reality" is highly subjective. I object to the pat assertion that "reality" is a wonderful, pleasant thing for everybody. There are hundreds of millions of people on earth for whom reality is perfectly wretched. I regard it as a miracle that they find the motivation to carry on rather than allowing themselves to die. The fact that a tiny percentage of them take the other choice is not the remarkable part of the phenomenon. Suicide is human. Don't be so quick to write it off as pathological just because the human ability to do so is unique in the animal kingdom. It's hardly the only ability of that nature. And it's hardly the most pernicious.
I believe that all adults should have the right to end their life whenever they want to. Some people want to end their lives because they’re dying from a terminal disease. And some people want to end it because they're depressed. I don’t care what the reasons are. Assisted suicide should be a legal act in every country. Many people believe that suicide is a selfish act. But why should a suicidal person care about the people that they are going to leave behind after their dead? When a person is suicidal the only thing that they can think about is the pain that they’re experiencing. (This excludes some people that are terminally ill) Why should they be thinking about the friends and family members that they are going to leave behind? Why should anyone continue to suffer if they don't want to live? There was a time in my life when I was extremely depressed. I learned to live with my depression without the use of medication, but I still think about suicide on a regular basis. I have a lot of sympathy for people that are contemplating suicide. I believe that an assisted suicide service should be provided to the public. I don’t understand why it is acceptable to execute a person in some countries, but it is unacceptable to help a miserable person end their life. Try to put yourself mind in the mind of a suicidal person that does not own a gun. (A bullet to the head is the best way to go because it is quick and painless) I read an article on the net about the people that survived suicide attempts. All of the people in the article tried to end their life by jumping from a high place. Everyone that was interviewed had a similar experience. They all described the feeling of regret after they jumped and fear as they fell towards the ground. Why should any suicidal person have to experience that horror during their last moments on earth? I would like to see the creation of some kind of assisted suicide machine that depressed individuals could use. I think it should be a service that is provided by psychiatrists. There should be a mandatory process for suicidal people to go through before they could use the machine. The experience could begin with a psychiatric evaluation. Followed by therapy and medication. If the patient has not improved after one year of treatment they should have the option to use the machine. The experience should be as peaceful as possible. It could begin with the patient walking into a room and sitting down in a comfortable chair. The room could contain a large television and an audio system with a large list of music tracks that the patient could listen to. A nurse could come into the room to connect a tube in the patients arm. The patient would then have the choice to push a button, which would release some kind of pleasurable drug into their bloodstream. The patient would then push another button that would start the death process. After the patient pushes the button they will still have the option to change their mind and get up and walk out of the room. After an unspecified period of time, the machine in the room would end the patient's life. It would be best if it were done quickly. Perhaps the doctors could use some kind of transcranial magnetic stimulation that would instantly stop the electromagnetic activity in the areas of the brain that control our vital functions.
Are you sure? Some animals will stop eating when they’re depressed. For example, I remember watching a show about a baby elephant in Africa that stopped eating after it’s human parent went on a trip to Europe. Apparently it did not get the same affection from the people that were taking care of it when it’s human parent was on a vacation. Parrots also pull out their feathers when they’re depressed. I think they can actually be treated with some of the psychiatric medications that humans use. Do you think that all of the whales and dolphins that beach themselves are unaware of the fact that their actions could kill them? Whales and dolphins are very intelligent. Marine biologists believe that the sonar from military ships causes some whales to beach themselves, but some biologist believe that the whales could be doing it for other psychological reasons.
Suicide is the exercise of one's singular power over Nature. Why should one prefer masturbation over sexual relations with another? It's a value judgement.
I never understood why people considered suicide as selfish. Because of my beliefs (no afterlife, once you're dead you're worm food) it seems suicide can only be an act yeilding negative results. While you won't be able to experience such results, it's what you're missing out on (expected value) that makes me question suicidal people's grasp on reality, and in that respect I agree with John99. There surely must be something positive about anyones life (hobbies/friends/etc). To end ones existance seems to be a drastic way to solve their problems in life.
Jonny5: I know that you are not in a therapeutic profession, but obviously you have been extremely educated in this field. I don't have enough time to read your long posts, but if you really want me to I will, Okay? Is someone that you know contemplating suicide? And thinking about all the wonders and joys of life that we all have to explore? You can contact me personally at dvsparky@hotmail.com
The original inquisition did not in any way pertain to one’s belief in the quintessence of post-mortem. It may be stated; that a person whom commits suicide, ostensibly cannot validate the act in the comparative stipulations of whether or not the act would, or perhaps will, lead to a negative or positive outcome for them selves. I daresay, one who is suicidal, can and does value life, the components of it, and the quality which may be achieved through the channels in which their energy is imported and exported. The particular individuals’ anticipated value of life may be further in abstraction than those who seem to cope with, or solve their problems realistically. Therefore, I speculate that those who committed suicide, or are suicidal, may already be “missing out,” on and in, important aspects of life and are severely conscious of this danger. This may be residual despite their integral “expected value”, or interpretation of the merit of their existence. Thus, perhaps one may prefer to challenge death, abstaining from the travesties of life. The act in itself yields no other result(s) than to the employment of the discernments of those left here, privy to consider the reasoning of why the act might have been made by a particular individual in the first place. For those it affects, whom are stuck by the explicable grief within the acknowledgement that the act has been committed, the only discourse is aoristic in remedial consolation, and quintessentially the emotional disembowelment from the individual whom committed suicide. As far as one may refute, the act would lead to a positive or negative outcome based on allegations in rational terms, that life is profoundly positive, and certainly negative, but with finite meaning which should be sought until naturally reality is no longer viable nonetheless. I also guess that based on the parsimonious attitudes of many, suicide is looked upon and dismissed with repugnance, tinged with the subjective chimera of lunacy, and the loss of a hold on a reality which in itself is a paradox of both selfless and egocentric worth. "The real reason for not committing suicide is because you always know how swell life gets again after the hell is over." - Ernest Hemingway Mr. G In the simplest terms this is acceptable. Every conceivable notion, action, or inaction, in reality, and in the depths of consciousness are “value judgments.” And depending on an individuals experience and collective state or mood at any given moment, that person chooses to do or not to do. Bringing free will into the equation; would not every thought or choice leading up to suicide be the exercise of one’s singular power over Nature, thus entailing every single notion, action or inaction, one’s singularity over Nature? Or phrased sub topically, would not anyone who died merit the implement of ones’ singular power over Nature? I ask these questions under the presumption that to define one’s existence, at least from a fairly peripheral focal point, such as society, one must believe they are governed by humanity, its contentment’s and trepidations simulated in normalcy, and accept that one is unconditionally linked up to and with Nature. Mr G. Why should one prefer to kill, another one, as opposed to platonically loving them? Perhaps one has witnessed both humanity and Nature calculating the same act, pacifying the measuring of the very value manipulated by and from one’s own judgments.
The Hemingway quote sums up the reasons FOR suicide: Suicide becomes a viable alternative because you can NOT see that the hell is going to be over, so why should you subject yourself to continued hell with no end in sight? It's an escape - the ultimate one.
I onerously disagree with your interpretation of Hemingway’s quote considering the context in which it was intended to costume. Hemingway led a life with a receding and swelling view of catastrophe and hellish experiences. In précis, Hemingway served as an ambulance driver for the Red Cross in Italy during World War I, assuredly a panoramic hell. Not receiving the quantity of action he deemed vital, Hemingway volunteered for canteen duty, supplying combat troops, so that he could be on the front lines of battle. As a result, hospital wards and depicted scenes of the carnage from war became proverbial to him. Later, he resumed his labor as a journalist, casing most notably the Greek Revolution. Moving on, to publish numerous accomplished works, eventually garnering praise for his mixed style of pathos and proclivity for eloquent snares, ensuring his mark in the realm of literature. There are accounts of Hemingway eye witnessing World War II in a most peculiar and hazardous manner. Hemingway won the Pulitzer Prize for The Old Man and the Sea in 1953. This man's life is one brazen with activity, including, but not limited to, automobile and plane crashes, multiple marriages and affairs ending in despair, consignments surrounding areas of interest pertaining to his work, and the decoration of The Noble Prize for Literature. Bluntly put, Hemingway egged hell on; he welcomed it and was careless in the factory of it. Curiously, throughout his life, Hemingway seemed to see hell, and instinctively assess that it would be over and he would see the cessation of hell, albeit only to recur and be seen again in a dissimilar experience yet still in an analogous form. In 1961, he engineered the firing of a shot gun which ended his life immediately. What was his reasoning? He became starkly aware that his memory was defunct and his ability to write was nonresistant to such an affliction. These are two resourceful links on Earnest Hemingway, the latter of which I think more provocative: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1954/hemingway-bio.html http://www.ernest.hemingway.com/default.htm This is a resourceful link approaching the analysis of suicide: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#1 And finally, here is a link into the realm(s) of Action Theory, which might be partially or utterly factored into the philosophical autopsy of suicide: http://actiontheory.free.fr/ Thoughts?
Suicide is pointless because you'll just be born again, plus you get bad karma for it. Because it makes people sad. It would be an excellent solution, and also the ultimate liberation/'happiness'. However, it's not possible to die (become non-existent), non-existence does not exist, it cannot be. Only temporary rest is possible, not eternal rest. If I could die, I would have no reason to exist now either. But here I am, always, telling you that death does not exist at all.
Yeah but how sad do you have to be to commit suicide? A whole lot more sad than the relatives/friends will get I assume? Uh, I don't think everyone agrees with you that you'll be born again, or in Karma. Would you mind explaining your reasoning for these two claims? Ok, and the third part doesnt even make sense, at all, so maybe some cliff notes on that one? Resummarization? Why exactly does non existance not exist? Because you are telling me it doesnt? What? I think I just got stupider
How can you be sure that what you are saying is true? Do you believe that non-existence does not exist because you read it in a religious book, (Hinduism, Buddhism) or do you have real evidence to prove that your beliefs are true? Do you have any scientific evidence to prove that human souls exist, or are all of your beliefs based on faith? Nonexistence is nothing more than the cessation of the electromagnetic activity in the human brain. The chemical reactions in our brain will cease to exist, but the atoms within our body will continue to exist long after we are dead.
Sadness can't be measured very well, but many people's sadness combined is more than one persons sadness. for me, nonexistence would be a liberation from this hell-heaven on earth, so i wouldn't need to be very sad to want to become nonexistent. because something else exists: universe-- you and me. because nonexistence means "does not exist". it's not true for everyone of course. spiritual realms can't be found with scientific phycical instruments (yet), they can only be seen with the metaphysical tools of the mind. The brain is not the source of consciousness, it's a transformer which the consciousness passes through which creates more possibilities for the consciousness to express itself. every human call themselves "i". so i am omnipresent. and if "i" exist in all humans, i exist in all life, and in every atom. there is an existence/nonexistence/life... we humans recognize it as the self... it is not a person. the self is an emptiness where everything is put, where everything is possible...
non existance in the universal sense may not exist right now, but one individual can definitely cease to exist.
Since the proposed aim posted in the original thread was geared towards the psychological plinth with which one might contemplate or actually commit suicide, and this intention was not conveyed clearly, confusion surrounding the inquiry is hereby being addressed. Due to the resulting laceration of topical parallel(s), yet quite unequivocal subject(s), I have posted a thread in the Parapsychology forum simply generating a link to a website that addresses “Life after Death.” I would prefer that particulars of that supposition proceed under the auspices of that thread as opposed to this thread, which was intended to satiate the logical raison d'etre for motivations one may have, to attempt or actually engage the act of suicide; by intellectually maneuvering through hindrances of ambiguity. Personally, I have no qualms about the exploration devoted to substantiating or invalidating life after death, and would thus discuss my dissertations candidly on the Parapsychology forum. The link posted is also in placement below for convenience: Life after Death.
Judging by your posts and your title "An Amorous Anonymous Anemones", I would say you get a kick out of trying to confuse. When writing posts, however, at least try to choose essential vocabulary so your ideas do not become cluttered in fancy jargon.
