Suppose for a minute that we have a person who's utterly dissatisfied with life. People are cruel, dates are mindgames, beauty is sold to make money for some rich numb asshole's already big pocket, any effort to help the world is without hope or use - and so on. This is a person who goes on with his office job he hates, out of mere survival instinct rather than out of any sort of hope; once he realizes he doesn't have to go to work, he'll abandon it, too, and contemplating suicide won't come longly after.
Suppose that he's utterly convinced that life is shit, because his - oh goodness, was it shit. He's convinced that people are inheritently awful beings, that society drives us all insane while pretending to try and help and make things better, that love is an illusion, a narcissistic facade people put on so that others - those the "lovers" have the most use from - won't run away from them in horror after they learn what those people really are, that we carry on solely because our bodies - animal bodies - tell us that somewhy, we have to survive and procreate, just like fucking bacteria...
You get the idea. How do you convince the guy otherwise? Do you, even? Whether you do, why?
mk I've just had to change the community tag on this post as it was previously tagged as #pedophile presumably by Grendel as he has a standing grudge with TFG. Can we have muting count for community tags as well please? Edit: Actually had to change community tags on several posts, and don't imagine muting would help as he can sign up another account. Perhaps if people are going to abuse the community tags (more probable as the community grows) they should be something that has to be earned by or bestowed upon the user.
Yeah, we need to make the person that adds the shown community tag visible. It's something that currently can be abused. Someone that is muted should definitely not be able to add a com tag. rob05c, insomniasexx, forwardslash, mk, let's make this a priority.
I agree. If you mute a person, they should not be able to community tag your post. You can only community tag once you have filled up your hubwheel once, so creating a new account (without effort) is already deterred. If we find the community tag is still being abused, there are other steps that can be taken at that time. cc: Cedar
He's still here?? I have him muted so I never see his stuff. Wow, I just went to his profile page...no one has shared or commented on his posts for a long time yet he's still posting so much. It's bizarre how persistent he is even when people are ignoring him...I worry for his mental health...
I envy it. He seems to be fueled by discontent. With such sufficient energy, if only he'd put this mind of his into something beneficial, we'd soon hear good news from his fields.It's bizarre how persistent he is even when people are ignoring him
Wow. Thanks. I did notice it once, on the failed fanfic post (it said #creep), but never thought it got beyond that. Was it you who set the #creep tag to #tonightletswritelikeits1999? Is the writing this bad? Given how it's the first story I've posted here, I'm worried about its quality.
Nono, the writing isn't bad I was just stuck trying to come up with an idea for a tag and I had the prince song on my head. Sorry if it offended you, want me to change it?
Can a world where dogs sometimes wear tiny hats be that horrible? http://www.clickypix.com/dogs-wearing-hats-34-cute-pictures/
You can't convince someone that the world isn't a terrible place, because it is. At best, the world is meaningless, because good and bad are just subjective judgments. The only productive reaction is to accept this meaninglessness, and move on. There are more interesting things to think about, some you can even do something about.
Yeah, at that point they might not want to be 'convinced.' But most people have one or several things they enjoy or look forward to. Eventually they realise they want something enough to get things together. People like seeing each other succeed at something they care about, and naturally support each other.
I once watched a presentation from a guy who jumped off the Golden Gate bridge and survived. He said that the instant his feet left the concrete he realized that life was worth living. So, tell him that if he jumps, his last experience will probably be regret.
I wouldn't. People only want to persuade suicidal people away from that decision because they don't know what comes next, and it validates the choice that the non-suicide makes to stay alive. The better question is: Why is he wrong? If he kills himself, then he is done with this world. If he doesn't like this world (even though that may very well be a temporary problem with a permanent solution) then why stay? Most of the time it's because people are afraid of what's next. Hamlet said all this centuries ago so it's not extremely profound, but it does answer the question of, "What if he's not wrong, and neither are you, because nobody really knows anything about existence?"
I try not to assume that I'm correct in my decision to continue living. I only know that I did it for selfish reasons because I like life and what I've done with it so far, and death is scary. As well, there is little consequence to me to delay death until later because I doubt that if there is something after death that it will evaporate before I get there. I also want to see my son grow up and I owe it to him to be around because I brought him here and will not abandon him no matter what happens to me personally. This decision would be entirely different if every day was waking agony and the decision to delay death would only serve to continue that. The idea that I might do 'something good' with my life is based on some cosmic sense of right and wrong, which we also don't have any proof of. I went to war. I killed a LOT of people. Hundreds, if not four-digits because I was in the Air Force and we don't do this onesie-twosie. They were praying, living, and fighting just like we all were but they were holding the wrong flag. They got killed because they believed in something slightly differently than us in the grand scheme. Their lives were worth that small belief difference to us. So, if someone believes in something much more important (life being too painful to continue) then why should I stop them? I've killed for less.
Is it a decision for you? Other people don't seem to even have that question pop up in their heads. Do you feel like there are many people asking this question, in one way or another?I try not to assume that I'm correct in my decision to continue living.
It's not a question for most because society forces a blanket prohibition of suicide on you. The question is answered for you daily. You will continue living because you will not be looked upon kindly if you commit suicide. People will assume you were faulty or tragically flawed or any other number of things. But no one will assume that you were right because it would throw their whole existence into question. I've thought about committing suicide before. I don't think that my poetry leaves that question unanswered. I didn't do it because I have obligations other than to myself. So no matter how much I may have wanted to in the past, the thought of my son growing up without me is worse. I owe him. I am going to pay that debt.
It's noble of you. I wonder what others, in different situations, have to answer - those, perhaps, without such obligations. Is it a question in which a situation of being right may occur? It's a personal choice, you've already stated, so answering this in any way is as right as wearing anything you prefer. Maybe this is why nobody asks the question: because they already know the answer, and it's the life that throws them pieces with the taste of suicide to chew on. What do you think?no one will assume that you were right because it would throw their whole existence into question.
I think more people ask the question than you think. You wouldn't know if someone did. It's embarrassing for a lot of people to admit that they've contemplated their own existence as not worth sustaining. Maybe everyone but you has contemplated suicide. You wouldn't know at all. It's not likely, but it's possible. It's a situation where being right may occur, and it's a question where no one actually knows the answer. So everyone can pretend they're right, and maybe some people are right, but no one knows until they get there.
Recommended reading: The Good Outnumber You; Are we naturally good or bad?; The Bonobo in All of Us. I think it's more complex than 'good' and 'evil.' I prefer the alternative dichotomy of individualism versus collectivism. As a species, we must have a selfish instinct. No individual can survive without it. But, as we all know, selfishness is 'bad.' Except it isn't. Placing the individual above the group is bad. We are social animals. Because evolution figured out that we accomplish more by working together, than being alone. Hence, we all also have a collective drive. A desire to care for others, and even put their needs above our own. I think the classic 'good' and 'evil' can be reformulated as a battle between selfishness and charity, which rages within us all. I don't think anyone is bad. That's the wrong way to look at it. People are broken. For whatever reason – nature or nurture – some people put their selfish instinct above their charity instinct. Most people, even. But to paraphrase Oswalt, enough people are charitable that we have civilisation. For all his complaining, your hypothetical individual probably lives in one of the most equitable, one of the least violent societies in the history of any species, with food and shelter and transportation and incredible health. Those things didn't magically appear. They were created by individuals within our social species. You can't make people 'good.' All you can do is be charitable yourself; build, rather than destroy; and use your life to make humanity better in some small way. Convincing people is hard. You can do whatever you want. But I'm going to create.people are inheritently awful beings
How do you convince the guy otherwise?
And let him jump? What if the guy's convinced that his actions won't have any impact on the world? Learned helplessness, perhaps. Maybe he'll try and even persevere once he has the momentum, but right now, he has none. Will you convince him otherwise? why? how?Convincing people is hard. You can do whatever you want. But I'm going to create.
build, rather than destroy; and use your life to make humanity better in some small way.
"The world" in this context is really "other humans". If you can't imagine any way you can make even one other life better in some way, then you really haven't thought about it enough. It is through these small acts of kindness that the world is transformed - as rob05c said above - it's how we made civilisation in the first place.
Everyone's gonna die. But if you do something to make someone's life better, there's a good chance that they will do the same, before they die. That ripple can extend to infinity, to a kind of immortality, and it's the only way we can build the Star Trek future that we all want. You don't have to do it - but you can. [edit] I am reminded by this of a wonderful quote from Harry S. Truman : "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
No; I meant, I'm not really going to try to convince you. Of course I'd try to keep someone healthy from committing suicide. The vast majority of suicidal reasons are transient. But I'm not a counselor. If I didn't know the person, I'd try to get them help. If I did, I'd do everything I could as a friend, and still try to get them help from a professional. I gave you the logical argument. You're asking for social and persuasive skills now. I am gifted with neither. Sorry.Convincing people is hard.
And let him jump?
What if the guy's convinced that his actions won't have any impact on the world…Will you convince him otherwise? why? how?
No, I'm asking for your opinion on the situation, and how you'd act. You've already told me what you'd do for suicidal thoughts. Will you do anything towards the feeling of helplessness, of powerlessness? Whether you will, why?You're asking for social and persuasive skills now.
Interesting question. You've made me put off eating dinner to think about this! One one side of the coin I can see where he's coming from. I'm just a man going about my business surviving each day, accumulating money and so on. Eventually I may have children of my own, try and raise them successfully and they'll continue doing the same thing. From a biological perspective it seems both completely pointless but also it's my only reason for existing - to make more of me. So not only do I see where he's coming from, but my life has been great thus far. Sure I'm on anti-depressants but they (along with incredible support) saved me and brought me back to the track I was on before. By and large things are looking mighty fine to me. So how the hell do I convince someone who existence thus far has been awful? I don't think I could. On the other side of the coin, I have developed my own reason for existence and I go about that each day. So my perspective is going to be quite different from him. I feel like this would make things all the more difficult in my quest to keep him alive. Say he was on the ledge of bridge, ready to jump off. I'd stop him if I could, try and talk him down. Hell I'd tackle him off the edge if it was a plausible way of getting him down unharmed. But convince him life is worth living? And that the world isn't as miserable as he believes? I doubt my ability too. He could question why I even bother trying to save him; and I would respond with "I don't want you to die. I would be unhappy if you died". I can say that honestly, and he wouldn't believe me. Also as I'm thinking about this, I realize that bringing myself into the situation does seem to be a bit more ego-centric that some would recommend but fuck it, this guy doesn't care about himself. I have to try every venture before he jumps off. I'll make it about me, I'll make it about his family (though I doubt that would elicit anything positive given his current state), I'll make it about the people having to look for his body when I go and tell people about it. I'd try and make him angry, although that would be very unlikely to work. I'd offer him a beer and a feed at a local pub so we can discuss things - or sit in silence, whatever he prefers. Shit I'll sit in a different booth if that's what he wants. In the end I'm sure he would still jump. Someone going through life like this wouldn't take in anything I'm saying or trying to do. But do I still try? Absolutely. I'm not one to bow down when there's no chance of success.
Of course! I guess it's a large combination of things though, definitely not one thing. I wake up each morning with a strong urge to.. I dunno. Get things done. I wake up and the first thing on my mind is "There's work to do". Be it go to the gym, play all my various sports, actually go to my job, go be social etc. I think it's all of my interests rolled in together. I have so many things I enjoy doing, and that would likely be why I would fail at convincing this person out of his belief; we're just too dissimilar, I don't have the experience he does and I can only use examples from my own, very positive life. Today for example, I woke up, went to the gym and busted through my routine. Came home, had some breakfast and a protein shake. Had a shower and washed my hair cause I'm getting a haircut after work and I know it'll make the job easier for them. Head down to work, listening to my "strut" playlist (these are all songs I feel good listening to). I get to work, do my thing, converse with people, get a little shitty at times, and then eventually it's the end of the day and it's Friday here so yay! I went out to get my haircut down the street, then joined up with the workmates for a Friday beer. After that I came home, organized dinner and then checked Hubski and saw your fascinating post. Now I've had dinner, am looking at some art I've been working on thinking I really need to finish that before I see my brother in November. And I'm also setting up a date tomorrow with a friend, going to the SPCA to play with the kitties. Outside of that; I'll organize my music and find some new artists, maybe watch a movie if something cool is available (I go alone most of the time, it's easier for me to get immersed that way), practice for rugby, go see my friends elsewhere in the city. If the weather is crap I'll jump on some games on Steam and shoot things, cruise Hubski and see what Reddit has to offer. Work on art some and get new ideas. Read! Reading is a great escape for me, I'm going through the Wheel of Time and also all of Brandon Sanderson's works and I truly get lost for hours. If my city isn't really doing it for me, I can go for a drive. 3 hours away is Queenstown http://imgur.com/gallery/czFv5Dy , where I used to live and just a truly stunning place to be; alone or with friends. New Zealand is a truly small place, everything is so local and at hand (despite being an Island). Sorry this is truly rambling, I guess I just wanted to convey somehow that it's so many things that I live for. All these little things come together and get me out of bed, I love doing everything and I have so many things to keep me occupied that in the odd weekend where I have nothing to do, I'll feel fine about sleeping till noon. I try and be appreciative for everything I have, and posts like yours bring to the forefront how good life is for me - so thank you for that at the very least!
You're welcome. I'm not often thanked for asking questions, I must admit. I'd like you to take part in a thought experiment now; I think you might find it peculiar. Imagine yourself in a less than pleasant place in life. You know yourself; what would the current you say to the different, less-than-happy you? How would you cheer this person up and get them up to current-you's speed?
Holy shit, man. This is amazing. The care, the respect and the conviction you put into your less fortunate self is inspiring and is awesome to listen to. Thank you for sharing this. May I ask what "Takina te hoe kia Rite" means? I wasn't able to google its meaning - only its translation, and it's vague.
Thank you for the kind words, I just hope I did the question justice, you've been making me think quite a bit! Ah it's a Maori motto, at my old College - it means "Wield the paddle together". You're never alone, we row the boat as one etc. Family is very important in my culture.
Well aside from all of the potential "afterlife" stuff, there's two main things that keep me going. First, people need people to make things less miserable. Take the trick with the glasses and the popsicle sticks. A single stick wouldn't be able to stand alone. But with three sticks, they can hold one another up using the glasses as support. The most miserable man ever will be the last man to live. By removing yourself from the equation, you remove your potential to do good - no matter how small that good is. Second, the mere achievement of it. Let's face it, the world IS a horrible place on average. But guess what? At the end of your lifespan, you will be able to look back at your life and bask in the glory of the fact that you lived that long in such harsh circumstances. Not that it's any comfort, but still... But the final word, really, is that the world IS miserable on average - but one's existence can be used to make sure that in two, three generations people won't have to post this sort of post because the world maybe won't be such a bad place to be. Remember - the wonderful thing about time is that it allows you to change things. Don't cut your time short.
So far, it's the closest to answer to "Why should I live" I've encountered: "To make others, the future people, suffer less than you do right now".but one's existence can be used to make sure that in two, three generations people won't have to post this sort of post because the world maybe won't be such a bad place to be.
I'm crossposting from another related thread. Full disclosure, I have a clinical diagnosis of depression and lost ~2 years of memory to SSRIs. The primary one is this. Premise 1: Life will have an unknown amount of good and bad events Premise 2: I have already endured what I consider some of the worst possible bad, and survived. Premise 3: I cannot enjoy good events if I am dead. Conclusion: I shouldn't kill myself because while things may get bad, there will be things before/after the bad events that are deeply enjoyable, and I want to be there for them. I always have the option of taking my own life at some unknown point in the future if that argument loses validity for some reason. I can't exactly change my mind after the fact. In a way, knowing that I have that as an 'out' takes a lot of the pressure off. I have 2, (Good arguments against suicide) but one of them is a conditional whose conditions are not currently met.
Hey, Ben. I've just read your comment once again, and I'd like to say that the arguments you provide are brilliant - especially premises 2 and 3. Thank you for sharing them: they make a surprising lot of sense for being mere two strings of text. Be good, man. I hope things stay alright for you.
I would tell him that there's a difference between claiming that his corner of the world sucks, which is an opinion that he is perfectly entitled to and I won't argue against since I am not him, and claiming that the world in general sucks, which he has no way of knowing. This hopefully pushes him to consider whether he actually believes that the world is a terrible place or whether he is merely projecting his torment caused by life circumstances onto other people. Whether he chooses to commit suicide or not, he does it with a hopefully more intellectually honest mind and emotionally honest heart.
You can't logic and reason your way out of this kind of depression. One conversation is not enough to convince someone that the huge wall they have built around themselves needs to come down. They might not even realize they've been building that wall.
Fair enough. What do you suggest one starts with, then? What are the points you'd bring up to make the guy see that the world is not a terrible place (so that those would cook in his head in the meantime)? How do you start bringing down the wall from your side? Can you, even?
There's nothing I can say to make someone change their point of view. It has to come from that person. All I can say is that he's wrong. The things he thinks aren't true. If you want to take that wall down, you have to examine each brick. Why did you put that brick there? Because of an experience or moment - you have to look back on it and either accept it and move on, or totally change your point of view on the experience. It's not my wall, so I can't tell you what the bricks are made of. You have to do that yourself, with a lot of introspection. The problem with someone who's depressed is, that you can't think clearly or logically about a moment, and come to a different conclusion. You are already in the depths of an emotional state where you can't change your mind without help (help from a professional therapist or help from an anti-depressant).
The world is a disgusting place. The world is the thousands of screams of dead or dying meat. The world is maggots gnawing at any hint of tenderness. The world is the descent of locusts on a bountiful harvest. The world is bile and hate and suffering. But we are not the world. We, those of us who even bother thinking about these things, are sculptors. We don't need to see the world around us, we don't need to care about anything outside of our sculpture. All we need to do, all we can do, is build the vision of ourselves and make it invulnerable to the world around us. We are the statue and the sculptor. We are monoliths of marble that we have crafted into beacons of beauty and civility, so what kind of monolith is broken by the fetid shit and rotted meat that makes up the rest of the world? Your hypothetical person does not realize yet that all he can do is make the statue. He keeps playing in the sewage of life, making what will ultimately be taken from him. He does not yet realize that the only thing he can make is himself, and the only thing he can make himself is invulnerable. Outside of him, there is nothing.
Because to do otherwise is to become rotted meat, and at that point, why do anything? He must find a way to become so disgusted in the taint of the outside world on him that is becomes his only need to remove the filth. Apathy is filth, hopelessness is filth. They are not part of the sculptor nor the statue, they are parasites, and he must recognize this.
I think the thing you're missing with this question is that "the world" isn't one big thing -- it's kind of a federation of different, smaller things experienced by each person. For one person, The World may seem rather wonderful -- they have family they can rely on, friends and loved ones they can be with. They have a career they love -- or, at least, isn't draining the life out of them. They live in a place that's safe, relatively modern, and affordable for them. Their future prospects are good, and they have enough stability to plan for that future. None of that is outlandish as a definition for a world that's good, I don't think. But that "Good World" is not universally available to people. Where a person is born, when they're born, and to whom they're born can turn all of that pretty normal stuff into an absolute fantasy, not a possible reality that he or she can work for. Pile on top of these things poverty, disease, conflict, bad choices, and a host of other situational factors, and you can be looking at a life that ain't worth living by any stretch of the imagination. You should count yourself lucky that you can even have the thought that your version of the world isn't such a bad place, 'cause for a lot of people, it's little different from living in a house on fire. What you're asking is akin to "How do I convince someone who's blind that orange is the most beautiful of all colors?"
You've just described The World as one homogenously-good thing for some people, haven't you? I'm asking you to see the world that's homogenously-bad for this one guy, because that's how it appears to us most of the time while we're stuck in one place - or believe ourselves to be stuck. If you were to see this guy in the ledge, would you convince him to stay, knowing how terrible he perceives life to be? why? how?
The good stuff I cited was just an example -- what makes a person's life feel, subjectively to them, good or bad is as variable as each person is, right? Some people enjoy solitude, and are desperate to escape family entanglements and friends, and strongly don't want children, etc. For them, The World feels good when it closely matches those desires. For another person, family is key -- they feel miserable without a spouse and children and all the chaos that goes with it, and a community they can be a part of, and all that. For them, The World feels good when it closely matches those desires. What I'm trying to get at is that The Good World is just a schema each person has in his or her head -- and they hold that schema up against the world they're actually living in, to see how they're doing, and how they should feel about things. That schema is individual to each person, and is influenced by, and compared to, the circumstances of their lives -- the external things that happen to and around them. And, for some people, the world seems homogeneously bad, because what they want and what they expect in no way match what they have and where they are. Some people react to that fact by saying, "Well, you don't have to be stuck there. You can change things!" And the point of my first post is -- hey, man, the fact that a person can even have the hope that change is possible is an accident of circumstance. The ability to change things, to not be stuck where you are? That's a rare privilege, when looked at on the scale of the world. So, if you cannot change the circumstances that you find yourself in, the only other alternative is to change the schema. To change how you define a "Good World" to match what actually exists. Because the world doesn't care. It's neither good nor bad. It just is. Well, this right here is why I'm not a first responder for emergency situations. My response would probably be something like, "I dunno, man, jump if you want. The only reason I haven't done it already is a vague curiosity about where all this is going. Also, there's a fear of the pain. Jumping would hurt. I've thought about poison, but it's so... uncertain." And so on. You've just described The World as one homogenously-good thing for some people, haven't you?
If you were to see this guy in the ledge, would you convince him to stay, knowing how terrible he perceives life to be? why? how?
That's a very considerate, deep way of talking about what makes our lives what they are. Thank you for sharing. Do you think like your response to a suicidal person on the ledge would be wrong? inconsiderate? uncareful? meaningful, or, meaningless? something else?
I don't know -- all I can really say is that I've made a personal commitment to honesty, so I'm sort of bound by that commitment to say what I actually think. So, who knows how inconsiderate, meaningless, or harmful that statement would be to a person on a ledge... but it would be honest. I just know that if it were me on the ledge, and someone tried to talk me down with some bullshit about how "where there's life, there's hope", I'd rather jump than continue the conversation with that person.
Which is a sentiment I dislike, for two reasons - too much comfort makes people complacent, and if people SEE no wrong they can fix no wrong. Seeing too little can be as bad to the mind as seeing too much of the world.For one person, The World may seem rather wonderful
I get where you're coming from, I really do. But as I've gotten older, the thing I've realized is that peace -- in one's life, and in one's mind, and in one's heart -- is an incredibly rare and precious thing. As long as the person's peace doesn't come at the expense of another person's wellbeing, coming in and fucking up their worldview just because you disagree with it seems like... well, a kind of rape of the spirit. It's like with religion, right? I'm not a religious person, but I've got religious friends. One guy, he's part of what I would almost term a cult -- but they're harmless. They just believe weird shit that doesn't reflect any kind of reality. Misquoting religious texts, misunderstanding doctrines. That sort of thing. The thing is, I wouldn't pick a fight with this guy about his beliefs -- even ones I know, for sure, to be untrue -- because what harm does it do? He's happy, and the world isn't harmed by it. Let him be, I say. And I generally apply that to most people with whom I disagree, or who hold views that I find bizarre. As long as you're not standing on peoples' throats to have your happiness, have your happiness. But yeah, when complacency leads to other peoples' misery? That's a whole different game.