Is suicide the only logical reaction to the absurdity of existence?

So you're willing to say that there is no continuity of self? Idk about you but I feel like the same person as I was four years ago.

>So you're willing to say that there is no continuity of self?

There definitely isn't a continuity of self. There's a ton of similarity between different versions of a human body over time, but there isn't any magical force that makes each body-moment pass on identity to each of its successor body-moments. It's a convenience that we behave as though these lengths of time and material processes constitute the same identity.

Mitchell Heisman, aged 35, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on September 18, 2010 at approximately 11 a.m., EDT on the steps of the Memorial Church of Harvard University. He had arranged for a 1,905 page rambling, obsessive, and mostly incoherent book/suicide note to be mailed to 400 people five hours after his death. He was a complete nobody, living on a small inheritance and working at bookstores around Boston while working on his Suicide Note, in which he showed his complete misunderstanding of history, religion, politics, and science while doing his best to convince himself that suicide is alternately or both rational and irrelevant. His only formal tertiary education was a psychology degree from SUNY Albany, and he was a resident of Somersville, Mass. and was originally from New Jersey.

Hey Deluded Fellators of the Mighty ePenis of Jesus,
My name is Mitchell Heisman, and I hate every single one of you, including myself. All of us are nothing more than fat, educated stupid, no-lifes who spend every second of their day thinking that life is good. You are everything bad in the world. I will be everything good in the world when I am dead. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten sneered at by a Harvard professor? I mean, I guess it's fun judging my magnum opus negatively and calling it shit because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to pictures of The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, fags.
Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I know my best shot will probably come from a sweet nickel plated revolver. I'm pretty much the perfect repudiator of the benefits of existence. I was captain of the local crazy manifesto team, and starter on my shelf-stocking team at the bookstore. What deep thinking do you engage in, other than "jack off to all the wrong things Richard Dawkins wrote"? I also have a degree from a state university, and have a banging hot hardon for Friedrich Nietzsche (I imagined he just blew me; Shit was SO cash). You are all faggots who should just kill yourselves like me. Thanks for listening.

>getting your information from encyclopedia dramatica

>His only formal tertiary education was a psychology degree from SUNY Albany
Why do they make it sound like him having a BA is an insult?

>The only logical reaction to existence is giving up and plunging yourself into absolute nonexistence so you can never experience any positive experiences ever again

No

>you can never experience any positive experiences ever again

You only want positive experiences because you exist in the first place. It doesn't make sense to use that as a reason for wanting to continue existing since you wouldn't have any craving for positive experiences in non-existence.

Im not the one you are replying to but when you are a greasy fucking virgin loser typing away in your mothers basement or someone with unbalanced brain chemistry you might think this way, but theres more to life than that. Someday if you have a child or do something significant you will have something to preserve and live for, but this wont come to you right away. You will fight on and find this purpose (everyone has one) or you will be weak willed and succumb to your emotion and false reasoning that life isnt worth living and kill yourself.

Try making an argument next time.

>having a child so that you can give your pathetic existance a reason to continue
Disgusting

weak willed fags lol keep huffing and puffing and wwah wahhh weeping :'((( and fucking KILL YOURSELF

Id rather live in the perpetual bliss of living on a cloudy haze of opium smoke, wrapped in a warm cozy blanket of heroin than kill myself

>I'm so insecure about my own sense of values and meaning that small amounts of text involving the topic of suicide are enough to send me spiraling into a shitposting temper tantrum

ok

i studied this post and have yet to find a credible argument, mere ad hominems and weak willed attempts at humor from a weak willed suicidal """man"""

if existence isnt worth living at all and everything is futile then why spark this debate? surely it doesnt matter, youve ascended the realm of mortality, yes?

>suicidal

Why are you claiming I'm suicidal? Why are you even bringing me into the argument in the first place? I could be a chatbot or a sophist with no personal belief in what I'm writing and it wouldn't have any bearing on the arguments made. Trying to shift focus to the source of arguments is just a lazy attempt to substitute personal attacks for actual reason.

>if existence isnt worth living at all and everything is futile then why spark this debate?

If everything is "futile" then why would not debating be preferable to debating? If you're starting from everything being futile then both debating and not debating would be equally futile and either choice would be fine. You're showing you view not wasting energy as a non-futile goal by suggesting not debating would be preferable, which contradicts your starting premise everything is futile.

Confirmed chatbot

This clear artificial post does not warrant a response

arguing with a chatbot is futile

If the argument randomly appeared in a bowl of alphabet soup it would still be valid. The source of argument is a brainlet concern.

The source of the argument is essential to fully assess the arguments content, an argument from a mentally regressive stunted neckbeard in their mothers basement is much less credible and doesnt solicit a proper response as opposed to I, a well educated and respectable source.

Because it is. Having an undergraduate degree doesn't make you educated, every pleb has one today

>There definitely isn't a continuity of self. There's a ton of similarity between different versions of a human body over time, but there isn't any magical force that makes each body-moment pass on identity to each of its successor body-moments. It's a convenience that we behave as though these lengths of time and material processes constitute the same identity.
Well prove it. I won't accept anything less than a logical deduction by which you prove not only the impossibility beyond all doubt, but disprove the existence of the soul in all possible ways. Thanks!
>proof of the soul
>a soul is consciousness plucked from biology
>we are conscious
>we are biological
>we are souls
The soul exists by necessity. The way I don't see it existing is if there is no such thing as sentience and the universe is just one large machine, but then again, if this was the determination, then God would exist by necessity to run what can only be explained as a determined machine. In no science do we find chance, there is an explanation for everything.
So you pick, does God exist or do you exist?

Everyone dies eventually, what's the big deal in taking matters into your own hands?

If you are that low on your worth to existance op just do heroin everyday

Loaded question. Why is existence absurd?

>in b4 2edgy4u

>absurdity of existence
logic can not arise out of non-logic. Either existence is not absurd and you're retarded, or existence is absurd and you don't know what absurdity is, hence you'd still be retarded.

I heard this thread is a hot topic here, can I join the debate?

Thanks, James

>The source of the argument is essential to fully assess the arguments content

No it isn't. Validating logic doesn't involve taking in information on the source of logic. The truth value of 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't change depending on who or what put the statement together. The way your pseudo-arguments keep revolving around the topic of source demonstrates what you're doing is something other than making an honest attempt to validate the actual argument.

Are you trying to imply your argument is absolute truth? If a homeless tramp says 1+1=3 shall we take the source of the statement into account? I think so. With philosophy it isnt as linear as math, and different sources have different interpretations of certain topics that must be taken into account when debating.

Burden's on you to prove a mechanism for continuity of self exists, not on others to deny it exists. Modern science doesn't recognize any magical organ of self-continuity. And you can't even differentiate between a world where people had such self-continuity and world like ours where we don't. It's a concept that adds nothing since we already behave as though there's continuity, there's no biological need for a binding force to make the provisional sense of identity imposed across different parts of a person's life a literal truth.

It won't do anything at all, dying is just as pointless as living
Anti-natalism is the dumbest most melodramatic crybaby philosophy you can possibly have.

>Are you trying to imply your argument is absolute truth?

No, just because I used a true statement as an example doesn't mean that argument only works for true statements. You can say the same thing for the false status of 1 + 1 = 3. The source of that second statement also has no bearing on its validation.

>If a homeless tramp says 1+1=3 shall we take the source of the statement into account?

No, you shouldn't take the source into account. You validate the statement by determining if it's true. That task has nothing to do with the source of the statement. Focusing on the source would only make sense if you believe you're incapable of validating the statement. Like if a physicist made a claim you didn't have enough academic background to check directly so you do the next best thing and try to base how much you believe in his claim on his credentials. Doing that is definitely not a reliable way to validate claims.

>t. intelligent, nihilistic and a wicked sense of humor

What did you expect?
They are retards who try to imitate me.

poor little soul
>there's no meaning in existence
>why tho
>because le SCIENCE XDDD

You can lose your memories and your self is pretty much gone, and if we wanna put the nail in the coffin you can even change how your brain works, your eprsonality completely with chemical and genetic engineering in a not so distant future

There is not, lose your memories and your self doesn't exist anymore.

either suicide or religion.

But there is still someone experiencing stimuli in there somewhere, is there not?

I'll keep on living just to spite all you motherfuckers.

No one cares. Now what?

wrong

Suicide is completely illogical.

You are removing all potential you have. Your life will never get better if you kill yourself because you'll be fucking dead.

Sage for &humanities garbage that needs to be quarantined to /pol/

Suicide is a pointless action among a series of pointless actions

Existence isn't absurd.

And? That's common to all humans, not just yourself, some might have more intelligence or a different response to the same situation due to hormons but those can be changed too theorically (though it required some technology)

he never said only himself was special. When singling out human experience most people mean the shared human experience.

It'll never get worse either, balances out in the end. Suicide is just a hastening of the inevitable anyway.

Why is this thread so reddit, holy shit

>being T H I S spooked

Then that's clearly Not an individual, but humanity as a whole

What I meant was that your self won't disappear if your memories are erased. You will change, but YOU still exist to experience things.

Didn't you ever read Camus? Live in spite of the universe
dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm

Reading a bit of this.

If he didn't actually kill himself, I'd consider this a good parody of mod. liberalism

how can the absence of meaning mean that you should kill yourself?

Well that's up to you. For some people it is, for some it isn't. But I say...
youtu.be/LCRZZC-DH7M

I think perhaps it is not an absence of meaning that makes one feel that way but a loss of meaning. Take the house cat, what does a house cat know of meaning? And yet it still preens itself, sits by a fire, comes to you for attention, or food, and leaves as it pleases. It's just living, exactly how it chooses in any moment. I should think if it believed it had or should have a purpose and then was unable to, it would feel unbearable.

maybe

You're not.
You are a product of the person that was you 4 years ago.

But existence isn't absurd, user.

>logical reaction
>to the absurdity of existence
that's absurd

Bingo!

If you're going to define meaning, then also define "absurdity".

Why has this thread not been deleted? What connection does it have to history?

How are you able to completely ignore the " & Humanities" part of "History & Humanities?" Like is it just a giant blank space when you look at it on your computer screen, or do you only see the "History" part?

I don't see any connection to humanities either.

What's your definition of humanities?

What do you have backing up this claim? I sure feel like the same person I was four years ago. This feeling is SO strong in me. Why should I not trust this feeling?

because LE SCIENCE XD

Omnicide is the only rational reaction to the absurdity of existence. Destroying the world or ending sentient life would be the ultimate moral act.

The Krikkit's did nothing wrong

>This feeling is SO strong in me.

Feelings don't become better arguments the stronger they get.

>I sure feel like the same person I was four years ago.

Are there any differences between the personality of your body at age three and you now? Would you call those two people identical? That's literally what "same person" means, identical. Also, your mom before you were born has the same amount of connection shared with you now as a past personality of your body has, both are causally joined to each other in space-time. Same with every ancestor you've had going backwards thousands of years in the past. Do you believe you're identical with your mom?

Intuition is used pretty often in philosophical arguments. I have a strong intuition that I am the same person as I was four years ago. Explain this intuition.

>That's literally what "same person" means, identical.
What makes you say this? By same person I don't mean identical, and I have acknowledged that all my cells die in a period of four years. Clearly I do not mean physically identical. But there is something that is witness- to the physical me- that persists throughout the four years and beyond. Otherwise why do I have this strong intuition?

>both are causally joined to each other in space-time
To be honest with you I don't understand what you mean by this, but I actually believe that my soul is identical with my mother's soul. But there is a further distinction of the word "soul." There is the one, ultimate soul, some think this is God. Then there is the imprinted soul, the jiva, some think this is the ego. So my jiva is not identical to my mother's jiva, but my soul is ultimately identical.

Just as a side note, Moksha (enlightenment) in Hinduism is roughly when the Jiva realizes its true self as the one ultimate soul.

>(((Heisman)))
>brings up muh holocaust 25 times in a suicide note

>life
>logic

Pick 1

Schizophrenics have much stronger feelings about their delusions than normal people do about what they believe they had for breakfast. That doesn't make the schizophrenics right. Mental illness aside there's a massive quantity of studies showing our brains lead us to believe things that aren't true on a regular basis. You could argue pretty effectively that this is the whole point of having a scientific method in the first place. Our intuitions are frequently not reliable, you need to stick to a well defined method where everything is actually accounted for objectively to avoid that problem.

>there is something that is witness- to the physical me- that persists throughout the four years and beyond. Otherwise why do I have this strong intuition?

The *sense* of self is real and exists because it's convenient. The sense of self isn't the same as an actual immaterial connecting force that makes your brain's activity twenty years ago the thing as your brain's activity today. Behaving as though there's continuity in a brain's processes over time and labeling it as "John" or "Sarah" is a useful way to conduct business in a society of brain having people. But if you had two identical brain having people generated through some magical future duplication technology, you wouldn't have a reason to call one of them more the original "self" than the other. The real stuff available in these cases are the brain processes. Brain processes can be the same or they can be different. You can define self as having same or similar brain processes if you want, but that definition will start to get weird once you get into duplication or breaking down and recreating bodies with teleportation devices. You avoid a lot of that trouble by just sticking to what can be observed (the brain and its processes) and not bothering with poorly defined abstract conveniences like "self" in the first place.

You can rest assured that I don't have schizophrenia. For the sake of argumentation, the only things I can be certain of are a priori truths, that I exist, and that things seem a certain way to me. It seems like there is a continuation of my self throughout this life, why is that?
If we only use science we will only be able to make conclusions on things that have been scientifically tested. Furthermore, there are many problems with the scientific method, especially when it tries to deal with the immaterial.

>The *sense* of self is real and exists because it's convenient.
Why do you think that the reason why the sense exists stops at convenience? Why don't you think there is some greater reason for its existence? It seems like you are purposely thinking shallowly. I don't get why atheists do this.

I am not concerned with brains, nor do I know what would happen when you clone a person. I suppose either you'd clone the jiva as well or a new jiva would enter it in the same/similar way that a jiva enters a fetus. I am sure some swami has a better answer than I do.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation. I am content with ending it here. If you'd like to continue that is fine as well.