Again, what use is taste if you're never hungry? If want exists in heaven, then so does suffering. Contradiction!

(June 16, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Again, what use is taste if you're never hungry?  If want exists in heaven, then so does suffering.  Contradiction!

Infinite pleasure. And on the contrary, there is hell.

Here's a bit of Stoic philosophy that I find relevant to the subject:

Seneca Wrote:You may consider that the same thing happens to us: life has carried some men with the greatest rapidity to the harbour, the harbour they were bound to reach even if they tarried on the way, while others it has fretted and harassed. To such a life, as you are aware, one should not always cling. For mere living is not a good, but living well. Accordingly, the wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can. He will mark in what place, with whom, and how he is to conduct his existence, and what he is about to do. He always reflects concerning the quality, and not the quantity, of his life. As soon as there are many events in his life that give him trouble and disturb his peace of mind, he sets himself free. And this privilege is his, not only when the crisis is upon him, but as soon as Fortune seems to be playing him false; then he looks about carefully and sees whether he ought, or ought not, to end his life on that account. He holds that it makes no difference to him whether his taking-off be natural or self-inflicted, whether it comes later or earlier. He does not regard it with fear, as if it were a great loss; for no man can lose very much when but a driblet remains. It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill. And dying well means escape from the danger of living ill.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=1999

(June 4, 2018 at 11:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Who is to say that mental pain is not every bit as real as physical pain?

There are people who are treated for years by shrinks and remain desperate.

It is a highly personal decision.

Condoning suicide is complicity in the crime.

(June 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm)MasterX Wrote:

(June 4, 2018 at 11:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Who is to say that mental pain is not every bit as real as physical pain?

There are people who are treated for years by shrinks and remain desperate.

It is a highly personal decision.

Condoning suicide is complicity in the crime.

Um, what?

(June 17, 2018 at 2:41 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(June 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm)MasterX Wrote: Condoning suicide is complicity in the crime.

Um, what?

It can't be more clear than that. If you condone suicide of those you know, you're culpable.

(June 17, 2018 at 2:42 pm)MasterX Wrote: It can't be more clear than that. If you condone suicide of those you know, you're culpable.

So, I think you are saying:

1) Suicide is morally wrong.
2) Anyone who says "suicide is okay" to someone contemplating it is also morally wrong.

I disagree with both. A person has a right (and, let's be frank, the privilege) to take their own life if they so choose. If someone else with whom they are associated with agrees with this decision, that is also their right. I fail to see where crime and culpability enter into it.

EDIT: Oh, and welcome to the forums

(June 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm)MasterX Wrote:

(June 4, 2018 at 11:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Who is to say that mental pain is not every bit as real as physical pain?

There are people who are treated for years by shrinks and remain desperate.

It is a highly personal decision.

Condoning suicide is complicity in the crime.

No.

(June 17, 2018 at 9:00 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Here's a bit of Stoic philosophy that I find relevant to the subject:

Seneca Wrote:You may consider that the same thing happens to us: life has carried some men with the greatest rapidity to the harbour, the harbour they were bound to reach even if they tarried on the way, while others it has fretted and harassed. To such a life, as you are aware, one should not always cling. For mere living is not a good, but living well. Accordingly, the wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can. He will mark in what place, with whom, and how he is to conduct his existence, and what he is about to do. He always reflects concerning the quality, and not the quantity, of his life. As soon as there are many events in his life that give him trouble and disturb his peace of mind, he sets himself free. And this privilege is his, not only when the crisis is upon him, but as soon as Fortune seems to be playing him false; then he looks about carefully and sees whether he ought, or ought not, to end his life on that account. He holds that it makes no difference to him whether his taking-off be natural or self-inflicted, whether it comes later or earlier. He does not regard it with fear, as if it were a great loss; for no man can lose very much when but a driblet remains. It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill. And dying well means escape from the danger of living ill.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=1999

Damn good point. The Stoics were the people who originated the idea that God (or, in their cases, the gods), didn't give people more than they could handle, mainly because they considered suicide a viable option.

To quote Epictetus, (In the Discourses, Book 1, Chapter 24), "In sum remember this: the door is open; be not more timid than little children, but as they say, when the thing does not please them, “I will play no longer,” so do you, when things seem to you of such a kind, say I will no longer play, and be gone: but if you stay, do not complain."

In the next chapter, he says: "Has it smoked in the chamber? If the smoke is moderate, I will stay; if it is excessive, I go out: for you must always remember this and hold it fast, that the door is open."

Also, word to the wise: Emil Kierkegaard's blog is probably not something to give any more views than necessary. 10 points for the damn good quote from Seneca, minus a couple thousand for being on a site from an alt-righter with tendencies towards pedophilia apologetics. Especially given that the book is in public domain and there are sources that won't make people want to shoot the messenger.

Letter LXX
Letter LXXVII

(June 17, 2018 at 4:44 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(June 17, 2018 at 9:00 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Here's a bit of Stoic philosophy that I find relevant to the subject:


https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=1999

Damn good point. The Stoics were the people who originated the idea that God (or, in their cases, the gods), didn't give people more than they could handle, mainly because they considered suicide a viable option.

To quote Epictetus, (In the Discourses, Book 1, Chapter 24),  "In sum remember this: the door is open; be not more timid than little children, but as they say, when the thing does not please them, “I will play no longer,” so do you, when things seem to you of such a kind, say I will no longer play, and be gone: but if you stay, do not complain."

In the next chapter, he says: "Has it smoked in the chamber? If the smoke is moderate, I will stay; if it is excessive, I go out: for you must always remember this and hold it fast, that the door is open."

Also, word to the wise: Emil Kierkegaard's blog is probably not something to give any more views than necessary. 10 points for the damn good quote from Seneca, minus a couple thousand for being on a site from an alt-righter with tendencies towards pedophilia apologetics.  Especially given that the book is in public domain and there are sources that won't make people want to shoot the messenger.

Letter LXX
Letter LXXVII

It's the first thing that comes up when you google Seneca on suicide.