tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7091568853729007464..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The philosophy of suicideUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64019816219851293562014-01-17T21:27:54.821-05:002014-01-17T21:27:54.821-05:00Mr. Pigliucci and others,
Does anyone owe anyone ...Mr. Pigliucci and others,<br /><br />Does anyone owe anyone else his or her life?<br /><br />Does anyone have a duty to suffer for anyone else's benefit (or to forestall anyone else's prospective suffering)?<br /><br />Does the mere fact (i.e. imposition) of being born render each one of us a slave -- to family, to community, to the species?<br /><br />It seems to me that, in the absence of answering any of the above questions in the affirmative, there's nothing more selfish, and therefore more hypocritical, than stigmatizing suicide as "a selfish act." <br /><br />And even if it is, so what? Unless the 'collateral damage' of killing oneself is premeditated & also irreparable (which it very rarely is), so what? 'The world', after all, could stand to be relieved -- freely by self-selection -- of as many desperately (i.e. pathologically) miserable people as possible; gratitude rather than scorn (or taboo-fear) being the more appropriate, more civilized (i.e. pre-modern, pre-JCI), response. <br /><br />Perhaps killing oneself is simply an act of self-defense against 'involuntary self-torment'. If so, reparable collateral damage is a reasonable trade-off (risk), no?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13060631269271098801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58376379325805279302014-01-04T16:26:02.682-05:002014-01-04T16:26:02.682-05:00Bonobo Nation -
>"It can be, but this is ...Bonobo Nation -<br /><br />>"It can be, but this is not the topic under consideration is it? When negative thoughts and evaluations about the world and your place in it become chronic and insurmountable, well, it is then that you have a problem, and it is this later position which is quite obviously the topic under discussion."<<br /><br />- Well, it seems like that is what is under consideration... I've been questioning is what counts as chronic or insurmountable and what is simply the normal deliberations of a philosophically inclined person? Certain topics take a huge amount of time...<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Again, I think it is quite obvious that Jake meant that the objective would be to alleviate their suffering so that they felt normal within themselves as opposed to being just like everybody else."<<br /><br />- You've got a good point, perhaps I was drawing up a straw man, however what I was trying to do was a reductio ad absurdum when considering the core elements of his argument... Why couldn't the "normal" be the state of contemplating the existential consequences of your existence? It seems that his argument is dependent on the fact that most people do not explore that level of philosophy for an extended period of time and so wouldn't be considered normal (and so should be 'fixed'), which then leads to justifying the borg since that could also apply to a whole range of mental states that aren't typical, but could be altered with pills.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"As it happens Jake’s information is demonstrably correct, he is not spouting an unsubstantiated opinion; he is just relating a few facts to you."<<br /><br />- Well, actually, I posed numerous questions to these supposed "facts" that have yet to be answered, perhaps you can answer them for me?<br /><br /><br /><br />>" Again, Jake is not expressing an opinion, spend a week on a stroke ward! Also, try to become a little more informed on the subject of neuroplasticity."<<br /><br />- Care to inform me? I'm pretty familiar with the generic neuroplasticity argument, actually.<br /><br />:-D I love your name! Sounds like a fun nation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58095593458221058302014-01-04T14:20:49.421-05:002014-01-04T14:20:49.421-05:00@Jake Zielsdorf
Thanks Jake, you put a cogent and...@Jake Zielsdorf<br /><br />Thanks Jake, you put a cogent and reasonable argument in terms that avoided moralising about the subject. <br /><br />@Jacob Edward<br /><br />Jake has some strong points and it is obvious that you feel passionate about the subject. I suspect your passion has resulted in a reading of Jake’s position that is a little, well, radical. <br /><br />“Why couldn't depression be a legitimate response to real circumstances occurring in a person's life? The thing that would be abnormal is a person NOT being depressed by horrible things happening to them.”<br /><br />It can be, but this is not the topic under consideration is it? When negative thoughts and evaluations about the world and your place in it become chronic and insurmountable, well, it is then that you have a problem, and it is this later position which is quite obviously the topic under discussion. <br /><br />“- Lets all just hook into the borg that way all of our brains will be "normalized" and people can keep living like everyone else.”<br /><br />“- Actually no, that's not a perfectly respectable position to take philosophically... That's like saying hooking yourself into the borg is a perfectly respectable philosophical position to take.”<br /><br />Oh Jacob, really! You like your straw men don’t you (or is that straw Hive, for that matter I would not complain if someone hooked me up to 7of 9). Again, I think it is quite obvious that Jake meant that the objective would be to alleviate their suffering so that they felt normal within themselves as opposed to being just like everybody else. <br /><br />“- Again, both arguments are disgusting.”<br /><br />Again, Jacob! Give (good) reasons for your conclusion. I get that you are passionate but for that passion to spill over into this kind of linguistic violence is disturbing to me. <br /><br />As it happens Jake’s information is demonstrably correct, he is not spouting an unsubstantiated opinion; he is just relating a few facts to you. <br /><br /><br />“- Wrong. The mind is like the operating system being run on the hardware of the brain, that's like saying Mac OS X is the hard drive.”<br /><br />“Oh Jacob”, he says again in a deliberate attempt to capture and mirror the authors patronising tone. Really! I thought the world had moved on from this position. Again, Jake is not expressing an opinion, spend a week on a stroke ward! Also, try to become a little more informed on the subject of neuroplasticity. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254326948479779511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29898222350027266612014-01-03T16:13:27.115-05:002014-01-03T16:13:27.115-05:00Jake Zielsdorf
>"I'm not pathologizin...Jake Zielsdorf<br /><br />>"I'm not pathologizing your dark thoughts."<<br /><br />- Glad you cleared that up, I was seriously worried there since you're suggesting that if someone is looking for meaning in life while they are depressed, they could be better off taking pills instead of further introspection and reflection...<br /><br /><br /><br />>"The universe is ultimately meaningless."<<br /><br />- Well that's not true by definition. You should also be careful about how you're using the word "purpose" since its one of those words that is easily abused with ambiguity which contributes to a lot of confusion.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"neither do gods because they don't exist."<<br /><br />- lol, how do you know?<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Humanity will ineluctably perish "<<br /><br />- lol, how do you know?<br /><br /><br /><br />>"our nihilistic universe"<<br /><br />- lol, how do you know?<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Ethical arguments for living are viable but in some cases may not be efficacious. Medications may obviate the need for reasons to persist by allowing the depressed person to feel like a content, normal human who isn't caught up with those questions."<<br /><br />- That's disgusting.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Reasons for being are in my opinion largely post hoc rationalizations for why we continue to live."<<br /><br />- Sure some arguments are rationalizations, but others aren't. The same could be said of arguments for not continuing to live.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"I'm saying this because I felt the philosophicality of the idea that the depressed brain is abnormal was neglected in the blog post and the comments."<<br /><br />- So what you're trying to tell me is that if a brain is depressed, its abnormal? Why couldn't depression be a legitimate response to real circumstances occurring in a person's life? The thing that would be abnormal is a person NOT being depressed by horrible things happening to them.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"After all that's what this is all about: normalizing the brain so that the person keeps living like everyone else."<<br /><br />- Lets all just hook into the borg that way all of our brains will be "normalized" and people can keep living like everyone else.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Both arguments and medication will change their neural circuitry if they are effective."<<br /><br />- Again, both arguments are disgusting.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"It's a perfectly respectable philosophical position."<<br /><br />- Actually no, that's not a perfectly respectable position to take philosophically... That's like saying hooking yourself into the borg is a perfectly respectable philosophical position to take.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"The mind is the brain so when the brain is abnormally depressed antidepressants are an important tool for normalizing it."<<br /><br />- Wrong. The mind is like the operating system being run on the hardware of the brain, that's like saying Mac OS X is the hard drive.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"There is no principle for which method should be used in which situation. They should be prescribed on a case-by-case basis."<<br /><br />- You do realize that these two sentences contradict each other...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12243236983534631602014-01-03T10:51:47.795-05:002014-01-03T10:51:47.795-05:00First of all, I'm not pathologizing your dark ...First of all, I'm not pathologizing your dark thoughts. And I'm not trying to write a treatise on this topic. But hopefully this will be clearer.<br /><br />The universe is ultimately meaningless. We arose from the purposeless process of natural selection. Nature doesn't care about your death and neither do gods because they don't exist. Your family and friends will probably care about your death but they will eventually die too and you at some point will be completely forgotten. Humanity will ineluctably perish whether it's from the heat death of the universe or something sooner. Humans don't generally regard this reality as cheerful. Subjective meaning and purpose can distract most people from obsessing over our nihilistic universe but the depressed person may not be neurologically equipped to embrace these veneers. Ethical arguments for living are viable but in some cases may not be efficacious. Medications may obviate the need for reasons to persist by allowing the depressed person to feel like a content, normal human who isn't caught up with those questions. I think the most profound reason that we keep on keepin' on is that we're biologically inclined to. Reasons for being are in my opinion largely post hoc rationalizations for why we continue to live. I'm saying this because I felt the philosophicality of the idea that the depressed brain is abnormal was neglected in the blog post and the comments. After all that's what this is all about: normalizing the brain so that the person keeps living like everyone else. Both arguments and medication will change their neural circuitry if they are effective. Either avenue may obviate the need for the other.<br /><br />I'm sorry you find this position disgusting. It's a perfectly respectable philosophical position. The mind is the brain so when the brain is abnormally depressed antidepressants are an important tool for normalizing it. There is no principle for which method should be used in which situation. They should be prescribed on a case-by-case basis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993148116270015124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38385900695477944582014-01-02T13:33:25.141-05:002014-01-02T13:33:25.141-05:00part #2
Jake Zielsdorf
>"when you'...part #2<br /><br />Jake Zielsdorf <br /><br />>"when you're gloomily striving for a raison d'être you generally want to find something solid, not slippery subjective purposes, so you can get caught in a black hole of nihilism that causes great, unnecessary mental distress."<<br /><br />- I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say here, but there is a incorrect way to introspect on things (starting from fallacious assumptions), and giving people pills doesn't fix that.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Antidepressants may obviate the need for a reason to live."<<br /><br />- As a philosophically inclined person, I find that position disgusting.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"If you're content you don't necessarily have to justify why you are."<<br /><br />- But you don't necessarily have to justify "why you are" when you aren't content either, you choose to search for those answers regardless if you are content or not.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"In fact, attempting to tell yourself why you're happy may vitiate the equanimity."<<br /><br />- Well, I disagree that figuring out why you're happy might spoil the mental calmness you've been experiencing, and in fact, if you figure out what the true reasons are for that calmness, you would probably decide to strive for an even higher level of happiness, or you might gain a better appreciation of the factors that caused the calmness to begin with and then be in a better position to direct your own life if you figured out that those factors do not align with your chosen value system.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"I'm just saying that we shouldn't presume that reasons for being are necessary for being."<<br /><br />- You're going to have to explain what you mean by this, if you mean that the reason I exist is because my parents fucked, well then yea, that reason was only relevant in the very beginning and now I exist because I choose to consume food instead of starving myself...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19056629714750237772014-01-02T13:32:43.363-05:002014-01-02T13:32:43.363-05:00Jake Zielsdorf
>"I'm suggesting that ...Jake Zielsdorf<br /><br />>"I'm suggesting that doing a cost/benefit analysis on suicide may exacerbate the psychological suffering of the depressed person."<<br /><br />- "may exacerbate"... I'd love for you to paint the scenario of when this could be true, otherwise we are using different meanings for the same concepts/words. <br /><br /><br /><br />>"I think that searching for meaning to one's life too strenuously can more easily induce or worsen melancholia than free one from it."<<br /><br />- Why would you believe this? You're also going to have to define for me what you mean by "too strenuously" and how on earth you're able to objectively differentiate it from a philosophically inclined individual who just so happens to be on that particular topic as opposed to some other philosophical topic like language or rights... <br /><br /><br /><br />>"The ultimate meaninglessness of existence can be acutely palpable when you're in a dark state and painfully dwelling on it may be a symptom of a neural imbalance that is best addressed with medication."<<br /><br />- I suppose with this we need to define what it means to be in a "dark state" instead of honestly assessing the totality of the world which includes moments when you contemplate its horrors instead of exclusively looking at sunshine and puppy's. What does it mean to dwell on something as opposed to being mindful of a concept for an extended period of time? When I reflect on how words like dwell are typically used, it seems to be more of a democratic expectation of what people should think or care about as opposed to being relative distinction to the individual in question which has some pretty obvious problems associated with it that I don't think needs to be clarified here.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"What I'm trying to say is introspection isn't necessarily a virtue;"<<br /><br />- Well, that's true in the sense that 'nothing' is necessarily a virtue, but making that distinction is only useful when trying to gain a broad conceptual understanding of how ideas actually operate, but when we start asking basic questions about what a person values, just about anything will start to point to introspection being a virtue...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13498878687816056302014-01-02T13:29:10.862-05:002014-01-02T13:29:10.862-05:00>"Happy New Year!"<
- Happy New Y...>"Happy New Year!"<<br /><br />- Happy New Year to you too, hope you had some fun.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"This is very much off topic, so I hesitate to go deeper into the question."<<br /><br />- Never worry about going deeper into a question!<br /><br /><br /><br />>"I'm talking about "natural" language, in which there's often a difference between the intended and the received meaning."<<br /><br />- Not if both people involved take care to ensure that a real understanding in the communication is happening, just like you and I are doing right now.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Natural language is like a currency with a denomination and a value you can't be certain about."<<br /><br />- I disagree, why would that be true?<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Perhaps one thinks that one has a lot of dollars, but if one wants to spend them, it becomes clear that for others they're not dollars and don't have much value at all."<<br /><br />- I think perhaps you misunderstood my analogy...<br /><br /><br /><br />>"One can claim one is "a social kind of guy", but others may think it only confirms you're an egotistical nosy parker."<<br /><br />- Just because someone intends to give a piece of information doesn't mean that more information can be gained than just what was said...<br /><br /><br /><br />>"You don't own the meaning of the expression "I'm a social kind of guy". In that sense, the meaning of thoughts is not your property."<<br /><br />- No, you don't own the "expression" just like you don't own the currency, but you do own the particular instance of the expression when it originates in your mind, just like when you own the particular instance of dollars when it ends up in your bank account. The meaning of thoughts in the abstract sense is not your property, but the meaning of your personal thoughts is what you own. Does that help clarify what I'm talking about?<br /><br /><br /><br />>"But there is no "agreement", except in the case of some formal languages."<<br /><br />- Sure there is, or at least enough of an agreement to the point where the difference could never be seen or explained.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"People don't sit down and talk about the real meaning of being "a social kind of guy" (if there is a real meaning …)."<<br /><br />- They most certainly do, especially in psychology departments and class.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"I think even the expression "I'm a libertarian" doesn't have a meaning on which there's "agreement"."<<br /><br />- Well, there are some incredibly complex and abstract social issues that do have a lot of confusion around them that would take months of work and clarification in order to effectively unpack the misunderstandings and to achieve this true understanding that I was referring to, but its definitely not impossible.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"One uses the expression and hopes that it conveys the intended meaning, without being entirely certain."<<br /><br />- Sometimes, but not always, that's why its important to have this kind of dialog that we are having right now.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"Nobody owns the meaning of the word libertarian, and therefore the thought "I'm a libertarian" is not your property."<<br /><br />- That's an interesting distinction. I suppose the meaning of the word libertarian would be a relativistic distinction that has 'something' to do with (though not dictated by) the different flavors suggested by the different thinkers throughout history, but is primarily the encapsulation of core ideas and how the ideas relate to each other. I think you are confused about the existence of concepts and the point about the thought being in my bank account and not the bank account of the person sitting next to me (assuming this person doesn't violate my bank account with some telepathic super power) being the distinction that gives me my ownership of the thought from his claim of ownership of my thought.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30947680696141551852014-01-02T10:13:43.804-05:002014-01-02T10:13:43.804-05:00Have you read Sister Y on suicide? Worth a look, I...Have you read <a href="http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2008/09/hoover-hog-you-have-described-yourself-as-a-currently-non-practicing-suicide-what-does-this-meansister-y-i-am-very-much-i.html" rel="nofollow">Sister Y on suicide</a>? Worth a look, I think.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24973166730783285822014-01-01T19:02:43.018-05:002014-01-01T19:02:43.018-05:00I'm suggesting that doing a cost/benefit analy...I'm suggesting that doing a cost/benefit analysis on suicide may exacerbate the psychological suffering of the depressed person. I think that searching for meaning to one's life too strenuously can more easily induce or worsen melancholia than free one from it. The ultimate meaninglessness of existence can be acutely palpable when you're in a dark state and painfully dwelling on it may be a symptom of a neural imbalance that is best addressed with medication. What I'm trying to say is introspection isn't necessarily a virtue; when you're gloomily striving for a raison d'être you generally want to find something solid, not slippery subjective purposes, so you can get caught in a black hole of nihilism that causes great, unnecessary mental distress. Antidepressants may obviate the need for a reason to live. If you're content you don't necessarily have to justify why you are. In fact, attempting to tell yourself why you're happy may vitiate the equanimity. I'm just saying that we shouldn't presume that reasons for being are necessary for being. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993148116270015124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25662502739405386662014-01-01T08:01:02.889-05:002014-01-01T08:01:02.889-05:00I agree completely with this article.
It seems to...I agree completely with this article.<br /><br />It seems to me that all other arguments aside, it is completely unfair to ask a person to not commit suicide because it might hurt others around him. For many people, wanting to commit suicide doesn't come easily. It's the result of unbearable pain. Such a person should not be asked to carry on just because others don't like it.<br /><br />The reason the state, friends and family might intervene is because they believe that trying to commit suicide is an in the moment thing, and after more time and thought, this same person who wanted to kill himself might want to live more. I think there's empirical evidence that in many cases this is actually right. But when this is not the case, the only loving thing to do is allow them to commit suicide. This is a sacrifice, because you lose a person you love. But it's better than asking a person to keep on living in unbearable pain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78056605686039491052014-01-01T04:11:30.384-05:002014-01-01T04:11:30.384-05:00Jacob,
>Also, I still need to get your answer ...Jacob,<br /><br />>Also, I still need to get your answer to the question as to why it would matter if a part of your body was attached or not to have ownership over it<br /><br />Good point. It seems the answer is because he wants to define 'ownership' in that way. <br />Bill Raybarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04983019883413164948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89697548668552275542013-12-31T21:31:40.499-05:002013-12-31T21:31:40.499-05:00Jacob,
Happy New Year!
This is very much off top...Jacob,<br /><br />Happy New Year!<br /><br />This is very much off topic, so I hesitate to go deeper into the question. But I think your analogy with money is a good one. I'm not talking about formal languages here – like in mathematics, (mathematical) physics, parts of philosophy etc. I'm talking about "natural" language, in which there's often a difference between the intended and the received meaning. Natural language is like a currency with a denomination and a value you can't be certain about. Perhaps one thinks that one has a lot of dollars, but if one wants to spend them, it becomes clear that for others they're not dollars and don't have much value at all. One can claim one is "a social kind of guy", but others may think it only confirms you're an egotistical nosy parker. You don't own the meaning of the expression "I'm a social kind of guy". In that sense, the meaning of thoughts is not your property. If it's the meaning that counts – and I think it is – your thoughts are often not your property. <br /><br />"You are right though that in order to have any real conversation and understanding there needs to be an agreement on what these words actually mean." <br /><br />But there is no "agreement", except in the case of some formal languages. People don't sit down and talk about the real meaning of being "a social kind of guy" (if there is a real meaning …). I think even the expression "I'm a libertarian" doesn't have a meaning on which there's "agreement". One uses the expression and hopes that it conveys the intended meaning, without being entirely certain. Nobody owns the meaning of the word libertarian, and therefore the thought "I'm a libertarian" is not your property. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567949421756041958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18263245222426836462013-12-31T11:38:06.315-05:002013-12-31T11:38:06.315-05:00I suppose you would have to define what it means t...I suppose you would have to define what it means to be in a hyperactive search for reasons to live, as opposed to being philosophically inclined which certainly doesn't seem to be typical of the vast majority of the population and so could be mistakenly categorized.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15112877917803581842013-12-31T10:56:45.064-05:002013-12-31T10:56:45.064-05:00Thanks for this, Massimo, thanks indeed.
I have ...Thanks for this, Massimo, thanks indeed. <br /><br />I have found Jennifer Hecht's new book on the subject, "Stay," to have a number of philosophical, historical and sociological errors in it.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8829462961935577972013-12-31T07:43:11.599-05:002013-12-31T07:43:11.599-05:00Massimo
While I am mainly sympathetic to the conc...Massimo<br /><br />While I am mainly sympathetic to the conclusion you outline I do have one reservation. If, as you say, life only has value under the conditions you describe, would this not make involuntary euthanasia permissible where those conditions do not apply, but the individual in question did not want to die? For example one could imagine the life of a severely disabled but religious person who, despite not living a life that "yields sufficient pleasure" (e.g he may live in constant pain) and who cannot in any significant degree pursue his own goals, still decides to carry on living (and indeed believes it to be his moral duty to do so). On your definition wouldn't this individual not be leading a life that was not valuable, even to himself? Worse still the only reason he has for carrying on with it (his religion) is false and most likely irrational. <br /><br />Surely however we would not want to conclude that it is permissible to take his life for him? But if his life really has no value, despite his mistakenly thiinking it does, would it not follow that taking his life were permissible, on the view you've outlined? Or is there some reason to think that one cannot be wrong when one decides that one's life has value for oneself (and hence presumably, has value simpliciter)? Even though one can be mistaken in believing one's life has no value when it does (e.g. When suffering severe clinical depression). Wouldn't this itself be a queer situation? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13286492170738093973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53204166431676457642013-12-31T00:17:04.468-05:002013-12-31T00:17:04.468-05:00I think a hyperactive search for reasons to live m...I think a hyperactive search for reasons to live may be a symptom and perpetuator of depression and suicidal ideation. Maybe antidepressants and not arguments are the responsible prescription for suicidal persons.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993148116270015124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30672705733180383982013-12-30T21:53:58.679-05:002013-12-30T21:53:58.679-05:00>Just because people say "I have" a P...>Just because people say "I have" a PhD it doesn't mean they "own" it in anything like the sense at issue here.<<br /><br />- It seems that you are dead set on the idea of ownership being something that is specifically referred to as something that can be sold, which is definitely not how I think the word is primarily referred to, especially by the libertarian argument. If this metaphysical divide seems unpenetrable, it would seem that the best thing to do when evaluating libertarian arguments about the foundation of property rights is to substitute the word 'ownership' for the word 'have' and keep the same metaphysical implications of what you are calling "natural law" and what I consider as the logical implication of having (at least to a degree) separate consciousnesses and self-hood. If you wouldn't agree that you "own" your PhD (in order to allow the logic to work), you would at least have to admit that having a PhD is a part of your self-hood, right? It's this self-hood that is the foundation for property rights.<br /><br />Also, I still need to get your answer to the question as to why it would matter if a part of your body was attached or not to have ownership over it, especially with the context of the clarification I made in the earlier post. Why does something 'have' to be distinct from you in order to own it? What if you get the future version of the Google Glass which which might be a neural implant, are you saying that you do not own the implant because it isn't distinct from you?<br /><br /><br /><br />>I think you have a point there, though usually the assistance in question is provided or paid for by a government agency. And most certainly it is authorized by one, in order to prevent abuse. And I think that libertarians would have a problem with that.<<br /><br />- You're thinking of the Anarcho-Capitalist which is certainly one of the many sub categories of libertarianism, however, all forms of libertarianism aren't necessarily incompatible with all forms of collective bargaining.<br /><br /><br /><br />>What should protect you from the NSA is not a property right (the right to your thoughts), but the right to privacy. Another non natural right invented by modern societies and enforced (when it is enforced) by social contract.<<br /><br />- I'd like to get your input on this thought in the context of what I said earlier about the logic of self-hood.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40570087692853271842013-12-30T21:17:37.499-05:002013-12-30T21:17:37.499-05:00If there is a coercive intervention to prevent som...If there is a coercive intervention to prevent someone who has been depressed for many years from commiting suicide, is there not now a moral obligation on the part of the person intervening to relieve the sufferer's depression?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190232413374053069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32691849513292809522013-12-30T20:07:49.613-05:002013-12-30T20:07:49.613-05:00Patrick,
>"You write "it would be tr...Patrick,<br /><br />>"You write "it would be true that I own my thoughts". One of the problems with that idea is that thoughts usually are expressed in words, and you don't "own" the meaning of those words. "<<br /><br />- I suppose the best analogy I've come up with is that of money. You don't own the currency (the Fed does), but you do own the particular dollars in your bank account... if you feel this is a false analogy, let me know.<br /><br /><br /><br />>"He is conveying information about himself, but it isn't the information he thinks he is conveying. "<<br /><br />- What he's doing is conveying information that he thinks is true about himself, regardless if it really is true about himself. You are right though that in order to have any real conversation and understanding there needs to be an agreement on what these words actually mean.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848567855634971449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49713293361044561262013-12-30T08:50:47.784-05:002013-12-30T08:50:47.784-05:00Dear M,
If your religion was truth you would find ...Dear M,<br />If your religion was truth you would find it impossible to reject. My religion is One. == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11781182477262605662013-12-29T18:29:55.293-05:002013-12-29T18:29:55.293-05:00Jacob,
You write "it would be true that I o...Jacob, <br /><br />You write "it would be true that I own my thoughts". One of the problems with that idea is that thoughts usually are expressed in words, and you don't "own" the meaning of those words. <br /><br />To give an example: I know someone who claims that he's "a social kind of guy". But I also know quite a few people who think he's an egotistical nosy parker. <br /><br />So this guy tells me that he's of the social kind. But I doubt he is using this thought as a kind of tool in order to convey information about himself "just like when he donates or sells a kidney / lung". He is conveying information about himself, but it isn't the information he thinks he is conveying. <br /><br />He forgets that the meaning of the word "social" is, in a certain sense, common property. Not his property, common property. The meaning of words is common property that we use to express our thoughts. Perhaps we think our thoughts have exactly the meaning we think they have – but unless we're living in a very solipsistic universe, they usually don't. So perhaps you own your thoughts, but very often you don't own the meaning of those thoughts. If you assume that the important aspect of a thought is the meaning, then no –you don't own it. You couldn't if you wished. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567949421756041958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87317468558480387382013-12-29T08:34:08.060-05:002013-12-29T08:34:08.060-05:00Jacob,
> Why would it be true that you have to...Jacob,<br /><br />> Why would it be true that you have to be able to sell something in order to own it? Could you sell one of your PhD's? <<br /><br />You are equivocating on the English language. Just because people say "I have" a PhD it doesn't mean they "own" it in anything like the sense at issue here. Indeed, your own example should show you that one needs to be careful with words like "have," "my," etc.<br /><br />> So because a famous philosopher said something makes it true? <<br /><br />That was just a quite. There are pretty good arguments in philosophy against the concept of natural rights. You may want to consult the relevant entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.<br /><br />> Lets say that the government didn't agree that you owned your marriage <<br /><br />You don't "own" a marriage, you are in one. And yes, that's a perfect example of a social contract: without the imprimatur of some authority (usually, the government) you are simply not married, no matter what you think.<br /><br />> Is that a semantic thing about separateness <<br /><br />It's a metaphysical thing about separateness.<br /><br />> Could I only own my arm if it was chopped off? Why would it matter if it was attached or not to have ownership? <<br /><br />Even though I wouldn't advice it, yes, once you part physically with a bit of your body then you can sell it. Which is why you can sell your kidneys, for instance. But you can't part with your whole body.<br /><br />> the libertarian wouldn't have a problem with the voluntary assisted suicide scenario unless there was coercion involved in the decision making process. <<br /><br />I think you have a point there, though usually the assistance in question is provided or paid for by a government agency. And most certainly it is authorized by one, in order to prevent abuse. And I think that libertarians would have a problem with that.<br /><br />> it wouldn't be true that "I am my thoughts", but it would be true that "I own my thoughts". <<br /><br />Again, you are using the word "own" too liberally. What should protect you from the NSA is not a property right (the right to your thoughts), but the right to privacy. Another non natural right invented by modern societies and enforced (when it is enforced) by social contract.<br /><br />Philo,<br /><br />> This is false; according to the Stoics, the eudaimonic life is exactly equal to the virtuous life, and virtue is always under one's control. <<br /><br />Not exactly. While it is true that the Stoics focused on the sort of thing one can control and designed their version of eudaimonia around them, they, like Aristotle, realized that there are circumstances under which the pursuit of a eudaimonic life is simply not possible. I refer you to the main SEP article linked in my post for a discussion of this. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57718183970286422762013-12-28T19:39:23.322-05:002013-12-28T19:39:23.322-05:00"As for the Stoics — who were famously friend..."As for the Stoics — who were famously friendly to the concept of suicide — it is permissible when we are impeded from pursuing a eudaimonic life."<br /><br />This is false; according to the Stoics, the eudaimonic life is exactly equal to the virtuous life, and virtue is always under one's control. Therefore, there are exactly no instances according to Stoic thought where one could ever be impeded by living a eudaimonic life.Philohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07452817194687367952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16802818690822288492013-12-28T14:21:41.141-05:002013-12-28T14:21:41.141-05:00Suicide is a very personal and very difficult subj...Suicide is a <i>very personal</i> and very difficult subject to articulate. <br /><br />We are all different and what seems like an insurmountable problem for one person is a challenge for somebody else. We assume that we all feel the same under the same circumstances (have the same emotions etc.) and that if I can cope with desperate issues…. so can anyone else. Also, we are here by chance and we remain by choice. You have to realize that just prior to conception there were NUMEROUS possibilities for our physical and mental characteristics as there were for our parents, etc.<br /><br />Humans are hedonic creatures, in addition to calculative creatures. That’s not to say we’re solely motivated by pleasure and pain, but the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, do explain a great deal of our behavior. Thus, we (some more than others) have the ability to figure out whether our future likely has more pleasure and less pain in store for us, or more pain and less pleasure. If our future is found wanting (likely, to be wanting), and, being self-conscious and conscientious creatures, having an awareness of life and death and all these processes likely entail (life = presence of experiences both positive and negative, death = absence of experiences both positive and negative), some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish, torment and dread. <br /><br />I abhor the idea that people who are living excruciatingly painful lives are being emotionally or psychologically pressured to continue living because of religious ideals or nonsense like “betraying humankind.” <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254138622622583294noreply@blogger.com