Depends, I suppose, on how one feels about suicide. Not a bright light perhaps but the consolation at least of knowing that there is an end that one can opt for.
But again , there is a grain (or a mountain ) of uncertainty whether suicide IS the end; which leaves it only a quasi option.
Well, let’s go back to the OP:
When contemplating suicide “I” either takes into account the part about “after ‘I’ die” or “I” doesn’t.
But my “I” here doesn’t exist as an entity able to grasp the “real me” able to in fact close the gap between what “I” think I know about all of this here and now and all that I would need to know ontologically/teleologically about the very nature of Existence itself.
Instead, “my suicide” is construed by me to be an existential contraption rooted in dasein, rooted in conflicting arguments regarding whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do out in a particular world where those in power prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors regarding either taking your own life or in assisting others in taking theirs.
Grain or mountian, the uncertainty here appears to be built right into the human condition. Perceived options here appear to be largely existential contraptions.
In fact, the one certainty we can all come to agree on seems to revolve around whether or not someone actually does commit suicide. Though even here it might actually be a staged suicide set up in order to cover up a murder.
The bottom line [mine] being that only the existence of God – an omniscient/omnipotent vantage point – allows for the sort of certainty the objectivists cling to. And they cling to it [in my view] in order to sustain some measure of psychological comfort and consolation.
And the “serious philosophers” here seem no more better equipped to pin it all down than the rest of us. In fact I suspect that, like all the rest of us, they too are all over the map [morally and politically] when it comes to voicing opinions about suicide and options.
Contraption or not? If Darwin was right on, why is that animals have no fear? If there was some something to the realization of time, as a human contraption , then minus that , animals should exhibit some instinctual end of time, as it were. But they do not seem to.
Would not the contraption of time then, not evident in Sun- genera, still have some sort of instinctual undertow?
The fact that generation goes on in spite of contraption of time, and on the contrary, appear to function in am instinctual world of timelessness., indicate the othwrwordliness of natural phenomenon?
If so , it defeats the idea of. Contraption as anti-natural.
Bergson, Rousaseau, James, and others are with this idea , as well as Nietzche, the philosopher par excellence working from analogous depths .
Again, our “contraptions” here are clearly out of sync.
Iambiguous true troll comes to bare…
“You can’t be an objectivist unless God exists”
And it’s subtle too “I don’t believe in God therefor there are no morals”
Iambiguous is a bible thumper.
There are 4 possibilities here iambiguous.
There is no God and no afterlife.
There is no god and an afterlife.
There is a god and no afterlife.
There is a god and an afterlife
There is no god and an afterlife.
Iambiguous trickily says that unless there is a god there can be no afterlife, and to make the trick stick, he says there is no god.
All of us are supposed to be like “well if I’m an objectivist, then god must exist”.
This is iambiguous’ wet dream.
Iambiguous is not a rational agent as they are called, for the spirit of honest inquiry – he has an agenda.
If you can’t see that he’s a bible thumping troll, you’re not reading him close enough
Above post was edited
Unless of course I’m wrong.
Well people do last forever…
I’ll give you this to think on iambiguous…
What makes you think that an omniscient omnipotent being wouldn’t use its omnipotence to make up morality???
You never describe this being as omnibenevolent, which for every other being in existence is the most important Omni that exists.
What if there was no creator god for existence, but we live forever anyways…
Two refutations of your argument.
Of your hole.
I noticed you refused to answer my thread addressed to you that morality is falsifiable, even without omniscience.