My kitty’s breath smells like cat food.
Not necessarily.
So, where’s the part where failing to lead a consistant life justifies solitary confinement until death?
It ate my post!
Anyhow…
The suicidal tension line seems to be a “line in the sand”, a threshold, past which a person will commit suicide.
For example, a person is about to commit suicide but remembers a loved one and stops. A “suicidal tension line” was met by this person, but not crossed, and so they chose surviving over suicide.
I would have to disagree with the idea that it’s this tension that keeps people from committing suicide, though I do think it exists (but may not necessitate it’s own term; I call it “reason(s) to live”).
It is interesting to think of what would happen to even healthy people if you removed all of their reasons to live, and the things extrapolated from such a test; this is what olanv seems to be getting at. Something like, “if you take away all the reasons to live, and yet a person lives, what does that mean?”
… if I sound bizarre, it’s because the hamsters ate a much more competent post!
Truly, a more complete, holy, exact and pure example of verbal masterbation I have never before seen.
Of course, it’s 4:00am and not being able to get back to sleep may have something to do with it???
OK, just starting with the OP. I’m trying to translate this whole thing into English - individually, the words all have meaning, but as stated I’m having real trouble with it.
You propose a large scale experiment in which, for the test group (as opposed to the controls), you magically introduce a technology that makes suicide less unthinkable, that moves down the suicide tension line, as you put it. Those people who then do, in fact, commit suicide under the new conditions, you are claiming never really wanted to live, but were kept alive by fear of suicide. Somehow this invalidates their “contract” (with what?) in that they really never agreed to the terms, but were staying alive under duress. And this also somehow means that they were not aware of their own existence?
If I understand this correctly, my major problems with it are
a) the major ‘tension’ most people have with suicide is that if successful they would then cease to be alive. Eliminating that ‘tension’ would kind of refute the point, wouldn’t it?
b) I don’t know about you, but I didn’t sign any contract when I was born. I didn’t voluntarily enter into any life. This fact does not preclude my being able to preceive reality or my self-awareness.
c) I’m not clear on where the linguisitic tokens of suicide and survival enter into this. Tokens are just that - representative symbols that contain no inherent value.
d) I’m not clear on why talking about survival makes suicide more likely (and maybe I’m misunderstanding your text).
e) I don’t understand your connection between desire to survive and self-awareness. Surely one can be self-aware and simultaneously unhappy, can’t they?
olanv, if you’re not just dicking us around, you need to make your point clearer. As a computer programmer, I’ve learned that anyone who can not explain a concept without throwing around jargon probably doesn’t actually understand what s/he is talking about. If you really do understand (and mean something by) what you’re talking about, break it down into bullet points of one line apiece, and without all the techno-babble. Think of talking to a bunch of bright sixth-graders.
This is simply doubletalk of the most new-to-philosophy-college-freshman sort. People are aware of their existence, but they are not “really, really,” aware of their own existence unless that have performed some magical act of naval gazing? This sounds a lot like The Velveteen Rabbit, to me. (Try it; you might like it.)
Then, if they became really, really aware of their own existnce, some large number of them would actually choose non-existence (even though they currently possess the traits of being “consenting, happy, family, active, successful, many friends, not suicidal either of ideation or impulse”?
Why? What is there about existence that you believe makes non-existence more attractive to someone who possesses the traits of being “consenting, happy, family, active, successful, many friends, [and] not suicidal”? It seems to be an exercise, not so much in futility as in dumbness. “I will pretend that huge numbers of people want to not exist, despite how happy they are, by creating an imaginary construct.”
I’ll tell you right now, I’ve had some really rough years, and I still prefer the joys and pleasures I manage to grasp as I pass by over simply winking out. And telling me that I really want to wink out in the best of times seems a projection of some dark aspect of your personality rather than a brilliant insight into mine.
Here, you claim to know that some people really want to commit suicide, but are held back by vague forces from which you would like to release them.
Why?
What actual good is accomplished by getting people to die off preamturely, based on some vague impenetrable point that you think that they could be persuaded to want to if put into the right philosophical environment? We can load up people with depressant drugs and get many of them to commit suicide without all the pseudo-philosophical blather, but I have seen no reason why we should want that beyond your vague belief that we should do it because we could do it.
The notion that all this wanting and not wanting life or death, but only for the few who attain great knowledge/wisdom/awareness/whatever has always seemed to me to be a classic case of undergraduates not really understanding Plato’s mouthpiece Socrates in the Republic and the parable of the Cave. (I doubt that the actual Socrates was quite as bi-polar as later students would read Plato’s version of Socrates. And I do not think that Madame Blavatsky or Edgar Cayce are good instruments for the transmission of Platonic thought.)
I like pudding, but I do not like it when there is a firm “skin” covering the surface of the pudding. So, for me at least, ontological schematics are little more than a way of keeping the pudding soft. Is that what you are trying to get at?
I tried thinking of how to reply. I typed many drafts. I looked at the replies again. I typed more drafts. I think I will be eternally frustrated so long as I convey this idea in a manner that elicits responses of “muddled”, “incoherent”, “abstruse” and the like. I think I will require help in order to produce what I am trying to produce. I think that I will require the help of a critic, a person who doesn’t even necessarily agree with the ideas, but a person who organizes ideas concisely… with “three dollar words” or what have you. I am asking for this help.
olanv, I’m a decent writer in the sense that I put words together fairly well. Less so in the sense of having good ideas to write.
But it’s been many years since I’ve been a college freshman newly excited about philosophy, linguistics, semiotics, etc. To be honest, these were never top priorities of mine, although I’ve dabbled enough to have some mild interest and small understanding.
Although no one has ever accused me of being particularly concise :D, I might be able to help you if you can get your points across to me. Feel free to email me directly if you wish. Or just look at the questions I asked in my post above.
Above all, though, you need to lose the jargon. Again, I strongly suggest listing your points in simple bullet or outline fashion, until you truly understand what you’re driving at. Surely you can find ways of phrasing your points that are a) sequential and b) comprehensible in a non-technical vocabulary. I understand that what you’re trying to say may well be complex. But I suggest you boil it down to some basic points such as:
example:
I (as olanv) believe:
-
People often want to kill themselves, but are prevented by fear of consequences other than death itself.
-
If this fear could be reduced in a portion of the population, while not reduced in another, we might have a controlled study of what proportion of the population this is.
-
Those people who are prevented from committing suicide by fear of consequences have not committed to life as a contractual agreement.
-
Such people are therefore not self-aware.
-
etc.
Now, if you were to do this, at least people could get points to latch onto and either ask for further explanation (continued at a similar, non-jargonistic level) or argue. As it is, I still don’t know if the points above are things you actually meant or not, and if they are, I certainly don’t understand how you’re getting from some to others.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
olanv, I think you and Timecube Guy really need to sit down for a talk. Check out http://www.timecube.com/.
Wow. I mean wow.
Olanv, is it your contention that this explains the actions of the occasional person who ends his or her life without any particular discernable reason? I’m just trying to ground your comments in the real world.
It is my contention that anything that can ONLY be there as a result of suicidal tension, represents a system, which, when engaged with as a purpose for doing something, will for force the person in the system to do the exact opposite of what they claim their purpose is. This is the reason why people, who say that they are doing stuff to survive, are born, live 80 years, and die (self refuting).
They obviously were not doing what they were doing to survive. This isn’t just true of survival, this is true of all linguistic tokens that they utter. “I add value to the community.”. “I help improve the standard of living for my community.” “I work hard.”. “I deserve what I have.”. “I am correct in this instance.”. “I am intelligent.” “That was funny.” The list is exceedingly long. In all of these types of instances, anyone engaged in ANY process, system, behavior etc… that can ONLY be here because of suicidal tension is going to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they think they are doing, and what anyone within that system thinks they are doing. Any behavior within the bounds of suicidal tension is zero sum behavior. When they say they are bringing life, they are murdering someone. When they say that they are doing something to survive, they are doing that thing to commit suicide and murder everyone they possibly can (including me!). When they say that they “love” someone, they are saying that they appreciate the manner in which that person procures human slavery. This is what is demonstrable, from what I’m talking about. If you don’t understand that, I have some kind assistance to help me clarify what I’m trying to clarify, so as to stop wasting time that can be used to make sure that timedoesn’t have to ever be wasted again, should one so choose.
[QUOTE=olanv]
That would be nice.
Much better, except for the last sentence, which I don’t quite understand. How were you planning to ensure that time doesn’t ever have to be wasted again?
Now, to your point. I don’t see how you get from a to b.
Let’s say you have a hypothetical situation, in which the only thing making it viable is that people don’t commit suicide - not because they’re afraid of death, but because they’re afraid of other things - pain, leaving obligations (whether financial or emotional) unfulfilled, or committing a sin in their religion. (For me, it’s easier to think of it in terms of the cost of suicide being too high for them). I believe this is what you refer to as a system that can exist ONLY because of suicidal tension.
Let me first make clear that I don’t think any such system exists. I think there are people who truly want to commit suicide, and there are a very few situations (such as ongoing torture with NO hope of let-up until death, or very painful terminal disease) in which most people would choose to commit suicide. But I believe, and I will freely admit that I have no statistics one way or another to back this up, that most people, even in miserable situations such as slavery or concentration camps, choose not to commit suicide not because they fear pain or guilt or eternal damnation, but because they fear death - the big Not Being. Even for those of us who believe there is no afterlife, and therefore that death (not dying itself) is neutral with respect to pain/pleasure, it is very frightening to face the idea that we will no longer exist, even at the same time it may be highly attractive. IMO, this is why every society in the world came up with some kind of religion.
But let’s assume for the moment that such a system, made possible only by the high cost (in terms of pain or guilt) of suicide, can and does exist. Or, for that matter, let’s take any individual who would like to commit suicide, but finds the cost too high. I don’t understand why this in turn implies that any purpose they declare themselves to be achieving is in fact the opposite.
I’d dearly love to have a Mini-Cooper. But I am unwilling to pay the cost. How does that invalidate the other decisions/actions I take in my life? Or, if that’s too tangible for you, think about it: every day each of us does not do many things we might like to because we are afraid - not of the direct result, but of the side results. I don’t kill my nasty boss, or that annoying door-to-door salesman, or the obnoxious neighbor across the street, not because I wouldn’t like to have them dead, but because I fear the other results. This doesn’t invalidate what I do do, does it?
Ah, but you’ll say you’re talking about something different - wanting to kill yourself is different from wanting something else. And you’re right. But here, amazingly enough, you’re, IMHO, grossly oversimplifying things.
Your suicidal tension, as you call it, or the high cost of suicide (in pain, duty, or sin or some combination thereof - I can’t think of any other costs, can you?), as I call it, prevents what you might call impulse or short-term suicides. That is, people who are miserable and, more importanly, utterly hopeless, for a short time are often prevented from killing themselves because of your suicidal tension (or my high cost). But the old expression “Hope springs eternal in the human breast” (while cynical as well as trite), is true. Emotions are fluid things; people maximize their happiness in whatever circumstances they find themselves, and find snatches of pleasure in many things. A constant, ongoing desire to commit suicide is rare, and I believe that a person who experiences such feelings over the long haul (say, in excess of a year or more) will eventually find that the price can be paid.
But again, let’s hypothesize, or take an example from real life - a person who truly would prefer to die but is prevented from doing so, such as a terminally ill patient in constant pain, or a torture victim who knows that only death waits at the end. They are miserable, right? But how does that invalidate their having a purpose - a sincere and valid purpose?
In short, to me, you’re saying “if it’s raining, that can’t possibly be an artichoke.” I’m not seeing how you’re getting from your hypothesis to your conclusion.
Maybe this is a condensed version of what I’m stating…
Any “thing”, “system”, “interaction”, “process” that can ONLY be here as a result of inanimate* tension to suicide, is, in the short term, going to appear to be the sole definition of what is meaningful, valuable and productive, but, in the long term, is the only method of committing suicide and homicide. To clarify the last part, the homicide and suicide being referred to, are what people usually call “dying of natural causes”, “dying of old age”, “dying by accident”.
*To clarify “inanimate tension to suicide”… This is the difference between, say, a 10-gauge sawed off shotgun, and being strapped to a bed. If you take groups of acutely suicidal people and strap them to a bed, the incidence of suicide will decrease because the inanimate tension has increased… they have to swallow on their own mucus and saliva in order to accomplish suicide. This difference in inanimate environment and the correspondence to completed suicides from one to the other will show a clear line which can be called a “tension line”. Now, remember, this example is dealing with a population of only acutely suicidal people to illustrate the principle. I think it’s intuitive to assume that while maybe one person will complete suicide strapped to a bed, most, if not all these people will complete it in a room with a 10 guage sawed off shotgun.
I will also suggest that your concentration camp illustration is false. There is a lot of suicidal tension involved in electrocution, gassing and/or being shot by malevolent captor. In the instance that electrocution fails, because they are caught, a person is punished severely. The inanimate suicidal tension in the camp is high enough to maintain the camp. There is no “human spirit” that transcends this law. Decreased suicidal tension under these conditions would not allow the work done in the camp to be possible, and would have made the ability to run such a camp, impossible. Which means, that everyone would have to find something else to do. That something else, is behavior that necessarily manages survival in the actual sense of the word, not in a self refuting sense of “I lived for 80 years and died of old age”.
OK, let’s see if I come within spitting distance of your meaning. You’re saying that when people have “no choice” about commiting suicide, (that is, the cost is too high for them to be willing or feel able to do it), then their entire lives, and actions within those lives, are in essence a suicide rather than survival?
I guess I’m really missing it here. It sounds to me like you’re hypothesizing a virtually impossible situation for the sake of altering definitions of words. Are you actually saying anything about human behavior or motivation? Or are you just playing with semantics?
People don’t live out 80 years of ceaseless wishing to suicide. Just doesn’t happen. They may shallowly think they do, because they’re unhappy more often than they’re happy. But no one sustains that degree of misery and hopelessness over the very long haul; they either deal with their situation (at least finding occasional moments of pleasure) or they find a way to die. So what in heaven’s name is your point?
And horseshit on human spirit, btw. That’s crap. What isn’t crap is that many, perhaps most unhappy people don’t want to commit suicide because they are afraid of being dead. There’s nothing noble about that. Or ignoble, for that matter. It’s built into us, a natural consequence of our own sense of self - we can’t really imagine our consciousness ceasing to exist, and the idea, while sometimes attractive, is also intensely frightening.
However, I’m willing to believe that there are a fair number of people out there who blame their unwillingness to commit suicide on external factors and ‘constraints’ rather than that fear. THere is, after all, something dramatic and noble-seeming about killing one’s self, while there is nothing at all admirable about chickening out.
Is he saying that there’s no such thing as the will to live?
I didn’t think so, but at this point I’d have to say “damned if I know!”
Wait a minute - I just had a possible idea of what olanv might be talking about!
Are you by any chance pointing out that the more miserable a system is to live under, the more difficult it must be within that system to commit suicide? That, a society that depends, say, economically, on the misery of a portion of the population, can survive only by making suicide sufficiently difficult that the miserable ones won’t or can’t do it?
Somehow I think that’s only a tiny portion, if any, of what you’re driving at. But it’s all I’ve got.