What do you think of suicide? As a theme in literature and as an action one might perform someday.
I think it only makes good drama when love is involved, when someone martyrs themselves on the pillar of love, it's a small and selfish act in that case really.
I duno, chronic pain and old age are valid reasons. Spent much time with people in their 80's? Life is done, why prolong the inevitable for the sake of some more misery? It's already being debated and legalized in more enlightened places, not so much the backwoods theocracies yet.
That's where I want to go, when you're suffering the physical decrepitude of the old age, can be understood. BUT, can one in some other point in one's life say "Well, it's been a fun ride" and end it without drama? Not in a selfish way. (My thoughts are somehow like these)
Ending your life isnt easy, its difficult.
Facing the unknown (death) is brave.
Also why would you suffer trough some shitty uncurable sickness? Whats the point? Why do you think it would be better to suffer till death, than just end it when you seem fit to end it?
>why would you suffer trough some shitty uncurable sickness? Whats the point?
Because you are still alive.
Why do you think it would be better to suffer till death, than just end it when you seem fit to end it?
Because you finished what you started. You did not give up. You fought. You stood tall and looked God in the face and said, "No. You do it."
In lit it's often done with little realism, written by people whom would never do it themselves.
In real life, I think it's that individual's choice. There's plenty of reason to live for most, just the same as there is plenty of reason to commit suicide. People have told me it's selfish to kill yourself because your family would grieve and so on. Is it not selfish for them to make you stay?
People should take solace in the fact that they can kill themselves really at anytime. It might help the people that want to rush into it.
>Because you are still alive.
>You did not give up.You fought.
Living isn't the greatest action one can do. If you're buried in pain or sickness, actively end it is not give up. Giving up can also be understood as letting that sickness drive you where you don't want to be.
Well, maybe in your head this sounds good.
But i had to live trough the last years of my great grandmother, and let me tell you, there was no dignity in it.
Lot of times i had to come home to find her lying on the floor in her own blood piss and shit, because she fell on her way to the toilet and at her age every fall did serious damage.
She began to loose her mind, she was hallucinating fuckin weird and scary things, sometimes i woke up at her yelling that someone is in her room watching her or talking to her, when there was noone.
At the last few months she barely could communicate or recognise me, and one of the last times she was conscious, she told me that she would rather die if she could.
So after living trough that, I wouldnt say that you are tall and mighty and certainly you dont tell god shit.
It was heartbreaking to watch, and i promised myself i wouldnt be a burden like that on my family if i can help it.
Sorry for the rant
Or, you know, you could die on your terms, which probably wouldn't include being in extreme pain, not being able to control your bowels, blood pouring from your mouth, having your family watch you become a weak shell of nothing, having to stick them with your medical bills, etc. I mean, I can go on if you want.
>Is it not selfish for them to make you stay?
Indeed, but I mostly think it's more about misconception of suicide. One would not deny a loved on to move to some far country if they needed it.
>People should take solace in the fact that they can kill themselves really at anytime.
It's more forbidden than marrying your mother. Society hasn't put it's head around it.
You won't get any sympathy from me. I have family, too. Grandparents who fell into dementia and illness. Even one who said the same thing your Great-Grandmother did. You're not the only person who's had to live through that. If you take a defeatist view, fine. I don't particularly care.
It's still the cowards way out.
Actively ending it is exactly giving up. There's no way you can put that and not come to that conclusion.
I just dont understand, whats the benefit if you decide that yeah i will die a slow and painful death, rather then end it while i am capable of thinking and caring for myself.
If you end it, you spare yourself and others a lot of suffering. On the other hand, youll just die slower, prolonging the suffering for everyone.
I dont see why would that be any braver then just ending it.
Look at it this way: you become rather sick, what do you do? Go to a doctor who gives you medicine and speed up the process of your healing, or say "fuck it thats not natures way, medicine is for pussies!" And suffer trough it.
Because to me, you sound like the latter
My grandad blew his head off, but did so sort of amicably. He was in his 80s and was unable to take care of himself, so instead of being sent to a home he just wrote a little note and said its all good, then boom. My dad said he would probably do the same. His side of the family doesn't seem to suffer from depression, they just think being old is gay.
No, I'm definitely the former. I want the doctor's medicine to prolong my life. Until the doctor can do no more. Until there is absolutely nothing more that can possibly be done. God/Nature/the Universe (whatever you want to call it) will take my life. I will not. I will see it through to the end. No matter what. Whether that's a heart attack, a car accident, a brain aneurysm, cancer, choking on a hot dog, an infection from a sliced finger, an arrow through the heart, an attack from a gang of wild dogs, drowning, hypothermia, or anything else you can think of, including a long, slow slip into dementia.
I will die. Something will kill me. But it sure as shit ain't gonna be me that does.
Did Jesus die by his own hand? No. He was fighting for his principles and his beliefs. He was tortured and he took it. Nobody had to kill him.
I'm not even a Christian, but Jesus is an admirable character.
Then your free will is a lie. How can you do anything freely if you can't even decide if you want to have the possibility of doing it or not?
You're doing everything freely right now. You can choose to kill yourself right now. I have the possibility of killing myself right now. I choose not to. That's exactly what makes free will. Without the possibility of suicide, there is no free will. Suicide is the source of free will. You can do anything you want.
You shouldn't, but I don't particularly care. That will be the end of your story, but it won't be the end of mine.
Bringing up this question is a great way to see a fine presentation egotism; People take pride in anything they can, anything that sets them apart from others or allows them to feel superior, especially in suffering and death.
>I can suffer longer than you can.
It's childish and really only for the perceived approval of others who aren't even there.
Seneca, in one of his letters, described a young spartan boy who had been captured and was set to be a slave; the boy bashed his head against a was until death when given the first opportunity to do so; he would rather die than be a slave. Seneca related this story to our suffering in everyday life. He ask, "Are you a slave to life?"
Also to add to this.
Before any two parents go on to have a child, I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that they understood the possibility of their child having feelings of mental anguish, suffering from diseases, and of course killing themselves.
I mean, you wouldn't bring life into this world without considering all the possibilities, right?
It's irrational to assume that everything will be wonderful simply because you perceive yourself to be a capable parent. Your child, upon being born, has the possibility to undergo all the fucked up shit that happens in the world: torture, rape, disease, genre fiction, etc. Of course, this possibility may be lessened drastically by being in a highly civilised part of the world but even then the possibility still exist.
So, in the end, it is the parents duty to accept the fact that their child had killed themselves since they understood and came to terms with this possibility before his/her conception.
>So if I decide to torture you, trying to avoid that would be a coward action.
You have neglected yourself the option of end your life by yourself, that's accepting your enslavement to life. The fact that it is physically possible doesn't make it a real option.
You can quote the ancient Greeks all day. It's common knowledge Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc., were against it, except in certain circumstances.
Socrates himself said, “a man, who is one of the god’s possessions, should not kill himself ‘until the god sends some compulsion upon him, as he sends compulsion on us at present'”.
Zeno said, “god gives the sign for an individual’s departure”.
You're going to quote them because they agree with you. That's fine. Seneca himself was "forced" to commit suicide by Nero. I believe he had a choice.
I disagree with the part of the Stoic philosophy from 2300 years ago that says it's acceptable in certain circumstances.
I am not accepting an enslavement to life. I don't consider myself a slave to life.
It's always an option. Every second of every day it's an option. And every second of every day I choose not to do it.
Further, the same can be said that this discussion turns into the same on the other side.
>I am more compassionate than you are because I'm accepting of suicide.
It's childish and really only for the perceived approval of others who aren't even there.
I can type, too.
>Or, you know, you could die on your terms, which probably wouldn't include being in extreme pain, not being able to control your bowels, blood pouring from your mouth, having your family watch you become a weak shell of nothing, having to stick them with your medical bills, etc. I mean, I can go on if you want.
That's what you said.
>You can if you want. It's not going to change my mind.
>Listen, I don't care if you or anyone else choose to kill themselves. Just know you're a coward.
That's what I said. How did I not confront everything you said in your so-called "statement." It was just a gore statement for some lame attempt at shock value.
I said, point blank, you can continue to go on with your shock statement if you want, but that none of that convinces me and there was no argument to refute.
What more did you want me to say? Or were you just looking for some sort of grammar slip up to be a pedant? I can give you taht, if yous reelly wants me to,
No one gives a shit about changing your mind. You threw out "suicide is cowardly" and bragged about how you'd hypothetically act instead of arguing why suicide actually is cowardly.
I quoted Seneca because what he said in that letter matches what I want to illustrate: you don't have to suffer if you don't want to; you don't have to be kept alive by feelings of some vague duty or disapproval from god.
>Further, the same can be said that this discussion turns into the same on the other side
sure, you could do this all day, that is, come up with as many hypothetical mindsets as your imagination allows you, but that still doesn't change the fact that continuing life only because it is cowardly to kill yourself and it is brave to suffer longer than others is obviously pure egotism, driven by a looming want for the hero stamp.
also, why would someone who would kill themselves do it for approval when, after killing themselves, would never actually get to bask in said approval?