You’ve tried to pin me in a position I don’t want to be in by asking me to give my opinion on a topic that is going to make me look like an ass if I even attempt to give an opinion on it.
That might even be the main modern source of it for you if you were wondering, the suicidal can not mention the topics which have lead them to become suicidal, because it sends you off on a boner rage and gets you hyped up to toss them in a psyche ward. Why? Because you’re a lazy piece of shit. You’re a fucking monster.
I don’t think there is a human being alive who hasn’t thought about suicide at some point during their lives.
It’s like asking someone to give their opinion on abortion or euthanasia or something, any answer is going to be the wrong one
Why stop at genetic code? Why not see what you eat as an extension of yourself? Your DNA is made up of the material you consume, after all. Why privilege genetics over any other form of material connection to others? And if this is the case, that the genetic can act as an extension to oneself, then what does that say about immortality? (Though I think when you talk about spirit and soul, you are referring to an individual thing without ancestry, but maybe you should define what you mean a little clearer)
You need to talk about it for your argument to make sense. You talk about soul and spirit in the OP and now you are talking about genetics. You need to go back and define some of these things so we can more fully understand your point.
You’re trolling, right?
Go get jacked up on stimulants and read 19th century philosophy for a few months; it’ll all make sense where everyone is coming from after that
You haven’t explained a thing, I’m not even sure which of my two statements you are responding to there. Do you know what DNA is made of? Do you know what proteins are? Do you know what amino acids are? Do you know how they get into your body?
None of that relates to the soul or spirit, which you indicate as being something belonging to the individual in your OP, rather than having a genetic heritage.
what does that have to do with whether I attended high school biology?
Any particular 18th century philosophers I should read? Or is it that they all just say the same thing so I should take my pick?
You’ll forgive me for seeing what you’re doing here as simply cloaking your inability to justify your own statements by deferring responsibility of explanation onto some abstract notion of ‘18th century’ philosophy, with support from an ad hom attack on the level of my education which you wrongly imply to be evidenced by when I joined this forum (if that is the level of your reasoning skills, I am not surprised by your inability to support your statements earlier in this thread).
You posted your idea on a philosophy forum, and then when it gets questioned, you get hostile, (and yes, I do feel that your posts have been unnecessarily hostile towards me) rather than demonstrate your actual reasoning behind your idea.
I want to know a few things.
why you chose to say that family is extension of self, but stopped short of saying that the food you eat is too, or even the air you breathe.
I want to know what you mean by soul and spirit in the OP.
I want to know why you define immortality as you do in the OP. (Regarding the ‘never weaken’ statement)
I would like you to explain what a ‘born role’ is, you use the term in your OP.
What do you mean by surrendering to grace in your OP?
There’s more, but if we can get some of those things sorted then we can begin to take a look closer at what you are actually trying to say in your OP.
Not so. You just have to understand that reality is complex and not so easily reduced to meaningless platitudes.
That’s the whole point. I do stuff every minute of the day that has absolutely nothing to improve my chances of survival. Not that it would be relevant to the 'evolutionary imperative" anyway: at the age of 54 I have no interest or desire to have any more progeny, and my son is old enough to look after him self, which in this day and age is oh so simple, and requires very little effort.
But millions of people have taken the choice to never have children and simply to burn the earth’s resources without the slightest consideration for survival, reproduction or any other simplistic reductionist aim.
You can reduce anything to simple aims, but you’s just be wrong.
if you stuck to that I might have been more patient, but you make this even more absurd claim about immortality for which you can have no evidence.
Get in some Marx and some Nietzsche and some Schopenhauer so you understand the paradigm that lead to upheaval throughout the 20th century
Jung and Freud built off of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer get them in to understand the entire foundation of 20th century psychology.
Rather than have you explain your position. Okay. We are done here.
Or how about you actually write a real argument and quote these philosophers so that your position is clear?
So far you have avoided the questions posed, used ad hom arguments (very poorly), come across as hostile and deferred your reasoning to authority figures in an abstract manner (that is, you haven’t quoted anything at all to support any of your claims, yet you seem to be suggesting that your argument rests upon these figures’ ideas).
You didn’t explain why you defined immortality how you did. You haven’t explained why suicide is a life-affirming action. You haven’t explained why you chose genetics as an extension of self, and haven’t explained why you didn’t say that the actual material genes are made of is not an extension of self. You haven’t defined soul or spirit.
but mainly, I want to know why you reduce everything down to just the self improving its chances of surviving, when that is clearly not the case.
Why is it that if one were to live forever, one would not want to learn? One would not want to produce? Because there would be no point because you would never die? That seems illogical. If anything, you would have to produce more and learn more in order not to stagnate.
I guess it’s one of the hazards of internet forum philosophy. I hope Peachy realizes I’m not here to dismiss their idea, but through examination, strengthen their argument by removing parts that don’t work and replacing them with parts that do, or else dismantle the entire thing and replace it with something else because it just can’t work.
Not really, though.
It’s true that Marx, Darwin and Mill contributed to the intellectual climate of the 20thC, and Nietzsche provided some of the fuel for reflexion and critique, but SHop??? You are kidding.
And whilst we are about it. Ugly Harris asked you for 18thC writers. You suggest 19thC!! Are you that clear about history? I think not.
Freud was influenced by Darwin, but not Nietzsche I think. And Jung was more influenced by myths and religion.
I’ve had to re-write several hundred times (literally) at this forum. You learned to mimic the language of philosophy, now go try and actually learn it and you will end up impressing me
I don’t understand this sentence in context of this conversation.
I am not here to impress you, thank you. I don’t even know why you are talking about that, or what you mean about mimicking the language of philosophy. I am here to try to understand your argument, which you seem dead set on not explaining, nor even discussing it. For what reason? I have no idea. This is a forum after all, and as such, it is a place of public debate.
If your argument rests on the philosophy of others, then you need to demonstrate where in their philosophy they say the things you say they said that support what you are saying. It’s really simple.
Now, back your claims up (that is, quote those philosophers so I know where they said the things they said that support your claims) and answer the damn questions I asked. It is that simple. I don’t understand why you won’t do that.
One of the only topics I’m not willing to give an extensive explanation for is suicide. It would be disrespectful to talk about the subject as if we’re trying to calculate it. I’m sorry, I’m just not doing it.
If you were somehow distinguishing between the Schopenhauerian ‘Will to Live’ and the Nietzschean ‘Will to Power’, the ‘Will to Live’ breaks down into a spectrum of possibility and becomes harder for us to calculate as it becomes more and more wave-like – with the inevitability of death a factor, the will could (in some cases, or at least as Nietzsche believed) be more aptly described as a Will to ‘Power’ and not a Will to ‘Live’.
Hopefully I just provided that.
I can go dig around in the works of Nietzsche I have from a long time ago and sift through all the aphorisms, trying to find ones that correlate to a ‘Will to Power’, but in all honesty you’d find more of what you want if you looked through them yourself.
I’m pretty sure the complete works of Nietzsche are all online for free in English, with numerous translations from different scholars. I personally find Kaufmann’s translations to preserve the most substance, but that’s going to vary. Be warned; those books have a reputation - a very bad reputation, one scholars tried to clear up after World War 2 for the sake of academic insight.
And when I say I can’t provide you with Nietzsche’s explanation, I mean I literally can not; he was a philologist, and knew he could achieve what he set out to do by coding all of his works in aphorism. A large part of it is almost entirely lost to time.
The power to will, does cause , absent a ‘pure expression of it (the will), the mirroring effect of a road without an exit, and seems hopelessly out of focus, however, Camus’ suicide is only a metaphor.
The plague is a metaphor, and the suicide as the solution to escape from the absurdity, has no validity, when value can be inscribed into it.