>arguing against suicide
Why do all philosophers seem to be compelled to do this? I mean especially the nihilists and existentialists. Why do they attribute special significance to this one act and then come up with ad-hoc arguments that do not logically follow from their ontology?
Because suicide is ending your single chance at doing anything ever for all existence not only early, but intentionally. It's like winning a billion dollars and spending $7.40 and then burning the rest.
First off what nihilist is going to say "wowy life is literally like winning a billion dollars". Ascribing positive value to life doesn't follow from belief in the absurd. And this analogy fails because burning billions of dollars certainly isn't proscribed by Nietzsche or Camus or Sartre.
ig anything, why then should suicide not be seen as an equally meaningless act, the validity of which is just as irrelevant as any other?
It's the spirit of rebellion that's found in Nihilism and Existentialism and finalized by Camus. Raging against the constraints of being by constantly grappling with the want to end it.
For the same reason they take continue to take steps forward and dont immediately kill themselves.
Self preservation.
>B-b-buh S-Suicide i-isn't the right way to deny the Will-to-Live
Y-you have to dddddedddicate your life to altruism and art
k-k-k-kill yourself is cheating! you can't do that.
It's the natural conclusion one comes to and because it's execution would be the end of its pondering then it really begs the question, why keep on living? Why even ask the question? It's the cognitive disconnect between being a biological entity and fancying ourself as an omnicent being.
The entire point of Nihilism/Existentialism is the struggle. They honestly couldn't care less if you killed yourself for what ever reason, but suicide is not a Nihilistic act, it's more so like giving up.
>ad-hoc arguments
specifically how
a nihilist might say "life is 'pointless' and filled with pain, faced with this mountain of misery, what is the actual reason i haven't killed myself."
given that when other activities that are becoming burdensome you can pack your things and leave that relates in an analogous way.
>giving up
If you believe in nihilism, then what is there to give up on? You literally believe there is nothing, no point. Thus, there is no greater struggle. There is only our base instinct to live.
Going off that, to answer op, it is because most of these people would simply be told to off themselves if they thought it was correct. And due to our brains that can't be so easily done. So its all kind of a moot point.
>Believe in nihilism
You don't "Believe" in Nihilism first of all. Secondly, this
>You literally believe there is nothing, no point
Does not lead to this
>Thus, there is no greater struggle
not to mention these are misrepresentations of what nihilism is. It's true that life is not intrinsically "good" or even "worth" living, but it is also the only way that we know of to observe and participate in the universe, meaning it is important to continue existing to continue the search for purpose. A nihilist isn't against suicide in any way, but they don't support it or see it as the answer either.
>some acts are more nihilistic than others
>uses "couldn't care less"
Qeq
I'm sick of people hating the word "believe" so much because of the religious connotations. Would you be happier with "think there is nothing". Same damn thing.
If your nihilist don't you think there is nothing to discover? So why stick around? If you still think its possible isn't that more in line with agnostic or some such.
The only reason I keep on living is because the assholes keep finding new stupid reasons why suicide is wrong and then basically implicitly threaten to make me a vegeatable if I make any suicidal gestures.
I can give up on things required to live.
Not doing things like eating is painful.
Ergo kill yourself.
If you have "Belief" in a philosophy that means you are trying to replace your own thoughts with the thoughts of another, which is not the point of philosophy.
>If your nihilist don't you think there is nothing to discover?
Absolutely not, Nihilism rejects notions of "absolute" powers or objective truths, like God and morality. There is plenty of stuff to discover and take meaning from, even if they are ultimately found to be incorrect or "bad". It's a huge misconception that the Nihilist's answer to life is death, one that shows you have close to no knowledge of the philosophy itself.
Probably because suicide is used as a common argument against worldviews that don't assert some sort of objective meaning. As in "why don't you just kill yourself if everything means nothing, herpderp?"
What's more ridculous is when nihilists tell you how you should behave. You just said there is no objective morality, so you do not get to prescribe moral doctrine asshole. Although, I am not a nihilist and believe the mitigation of suffering to be the one and only objective good personally.
I don't understand Sartre myself. I mean he puts forward this idea of subjective meaning. But isn't something which we call "meaning" meant to first and foremost be objective? So yes personal meaning might be objective within the context of the self but "subjective meaning" is an oxymoron. Am I wrong?
Itt: worthless betas trying to make "the pussy way out" sound like it's not "the pussy way out".
There is no real justification for not killing yourself if you are a nihilist - all justifications and explanations for continuing to exist are cop outs.
Because otherwise they would have to kill themselves.
I hate to be "that guy", but the definition of "believe" is "accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
It has nothing to do with "replacing your own thoughs" as you say.
And the rest of what you say reeks of religious apologetics. "You just haven't read the whole bible/quaran man, if you became a fucking scholar on the subject you'd see I'm right".
I've seen enough in relation to nihilism to know that it prescribes that there is no point to life. Sure, there is stuff to discover in life, but not a greater truth akin to religion. That said, what is the point in finding these things? None really, because there is no greater goal.
Killing yourself wouldn't be a nihilistic act, if you cared nothing about life why would you kill yourself.
Suicide is a very emotional act, I think it requires a lot to take your life, not that I would know I am still alive somehow.
I've always thought of nihilism as the complete loss of care about life and that would be quite destructive on its own. The ones with the intention to die however must care a lot if they hold enough regret or whatever negative emotion if it is strong enough to push them of a ledge.
if you care nothing about life then why would you put up with it and then proceed to paint it as nobel heroism? besides most of the time nihilism leads to a life of decadence. What could be more decadent than killing yourself?
>if you care nothing about life then why would you put up with it and then proceed to paint it as nobel heroism?
Because there are good points to live that outweigh the bad points. I honestly suspect this whole "hurrhurr, why don't you just kill yourself" thing is just the projection of some extremely bitter people.
>besides most of the time nihilism leads to a life of decadence. What could be more decadent than killing yourself?
Not killing yourself. Pretty hard to be decadent when you're dead.
>implying positive and negative experiences are on equal footing
positive experiences: conditions which at the very least are compatible with human existence
negative experiences: All other conditions
Oh gee I wonder what there is more of
>Because there are good points to live that outweigh the bad points
In any and all cases? That certainly sounds like a lot of objectivity for a nihilist, however hypothetical.