It is not off topic professor frost. As Aedes had said, One must be self consious of being a philosopher. I think this is essential in trying to look into the value one man have to his life in his decision to take away his life for whatever reason. Which makes me think, If there is a historical instance in which a philosopher suicide because of his philosophical finding, the meaningless of life for example.

Suicide strikes me as emotional and not intellectual. And a philosopher is no more susceptible than the rest of us of being shattered by meaninglessness (or more capable of resisting it), though a philosopher might be able to articulate it better. Camus and Sartre were both very interested in the existential crisis, i.e. the brutal realization that life is meaningless, and Camus in particular looked at the suicide question. At any rate, neither one committed suicide (though Camus' death in a car crash was one of the great ironies in philosophy, because his argument for the absurdity of life was founded on the idea that you could die randomly at any time).

One notable suicide was my favorite author (or one of my 2 or 3 favorites), Yukio Mishima. He publicly committed seppuku in 1970 the day he finished his greatest work (The Sea of Fertility, which is a tetralogy of four novels starting with Spring Snow). He was into the old samurai culture and had some views of Japan's decay and decline; and he took over some government office with some followers and then some of them publicly killed themselves.

It was strange, though, because it was NOT really because of meaninglessness -- that type of suicide in Japanese culture seems the opposite -- suicide is honorable and glorious and it preserves meaning. And this, in fact, links right up with Camus. As I recall, he felt that the actual act of suicide is the last moment in which someone exerts control, i.e. makes a decision. It's the critical moment where one has the power to decide whether to live or die. (He phrases it differently, but that's the idea).

Is this even allowed to be discussed on the forum, but seriously, if anybody has reason to commit suicide would they share it. Here's a better question. Is suicide an action generally committed by the insane (or mentally hindered), or by the sane, just not at the same standpoint as the intellect of the social norm.

People give all sorts of justifications for end their lives. Hunter S. Thompson's justification was, basically, that life was boring.



I'm not a doctor, but I have to seriously question the mental stability of anyone who plans and commits suicide. In at least some regard, a suicide must be insane, or at least not entirely sane.

Why did Hunter believe life was boring?!
Is there any way to make it so that my signiture doesn't pop up every time I reply?

Here are two articles on the matter; they are the first to pop up on google, and both handle the matter responsibly and respectfully. The first is a shorter piece, the second contains details about his post-death tribute, worth reading about anyway.

Last Words: A Testament to Hunter Thompson

Football Season Is Over : Rolling Stone

As for your sig, beats me. Justin is the master mind of all the technical stuff - it's a wonder I can even figure out how to post.

This is exactly my point Aedes. Can a philosopher be so emotionally attached to a concept so much so that he can intelectually justify its actualization.

Didythomas,

I read in Leo Tolstoy journal that there was a time in his life that life provides no meaning that he actually hides rope and gun from himself to avoid the temptation.

I hope people here does not misunderstand me. But most existentialist philosopher suffer from this angst. And Camus certainly dwells so much in this matter. I am looking for an philosophical suicide instance, to better understand the existentialist emotional attachment to an intellectual finding.

Someone who conjures up rationalizations for their emotions, I do not think, has a real justification. If I get angry, feel bad for being angry, and then develop some rationalization for my being angry, do I have an honest rationalization, or am I just trying to ignore the fact that I shouldn't have been angry?

This is a good one. I've never thought of it this way. I could easily see someone taking the position that the realization, through action, of a philosophical position careully considered is taking philosophy to its highest level (i.e. 'Living It"). When we ponder the implications for suicide; however, it takes on a dark implication.

But I've always believed (particularly in Ethics) that not just resolving it, but living it, is the holy grail of philosophy.

I think so. I'll try unchecking the "Show your signature" box next to the Quick Reply. If it works as planned I should have no signature for this post.
- Frost

To answer this you need to look epidemiologically at those who commit suicide. And you're going to find an exceptionally strong correlation with mental illness, particularly affective disorders (i.e. mood disorders like depression, bipolar, and anxiety) and to a lesser degree thought disorders (like schizophrenia).

A minority of people kill themselves impulsively, like a murder-suicide or like a jeez-I'm-broke-because-the-stock-market-crashed. There is a minority who kill themselves because they have overwhelming pain or disability from an illness.

Suicidality is a psychiatric / psychological phenomenon unto itself, but it is a feature of many other conditions.

I can tell you though that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who commits suicide solely because of a rational idea. It may be a rationalization for some overwhelming emotion, but I doubt you'd find someone who calmly comes to that decision in the absence of emotional input.

I agree, suicide itself seems an immoral action and thus logic can't be the majority input to an action, it would have to be an overwhelming emotion; but rationalization could lead to those emotions, thus causing the rationale to be the original, indirect cause of suicide right?

Well, that adds a different element to the discussion. To talk about who commits suicide is a conversation devoid of moral considerations. Since most people who commit suicide have some sort of mental illness, their unifying trait is NOT a predisposition to "immoral" actions, but rather extreme (i.e. terminal) impairment in their ability to cope with life and emotion. Remember that depression has a mortality rate, just as heart attacks and pneumonia have mortality rates. And one of the causes of death from depression is suicide.

Whether suicide is a morally positive, negative, or neutral act depends on your moral vantage point, right? I mean if you're a samurai warrior and you've been shamed and disgraced, then suicide is a morally positive act. If you're a devout Christian, then suicide would be regarded as a morally negative act (a mortal sin, in fact). If you're a consequentialist, then suicide is positive or negative depending on the likely results of your actions, not on the act itself.

Furthermore, an immoral act has to be considered immoral in light of who has been offended by that moral transgression. If we are the stewards of our own bodies, then is it a moral offense against one's self to commit suicide if that is one's choice?

I don't think so -- I think rationalizations are smokescreens that hide what is really going on underneath. We are fundamentally not rational beings -- but we think of ourselves rationally and we apply rationalizations to all sorts of irrational impulses within us. I don't think the rationalization can lead one to suicide, it's the underlying emotions.

I completely agree with aedes, that mentally impaired individuals commiting suicide is beyond the ambt of morality. Moral action requires a high degree of ethical responsibility on the part of the actor.

Animals do not commit suicide.

1626 - Francis Bacon (Died from a cold while stuffing snow in chickens. I am calling this one indirect, but still a suicide.)

1943 - Simone Weil (Starved herself to death.)

1978 - Kurt Godel (Starved himself to death, for fear his food might be poisoned.)

1980 - Roland Barthes (Drunk from a party wandered into a street and was hit by a laundry truck. I have my suspicions.)

1995 - Gilles Deleuze (Autodefenestrated (i.e. threw himself from a window) from his apartment.)

This is why they don't let chickens have knives.

Hi guys

Many of these great people of huge influence were very odd indeed , one of them would for example only eat rice and only eat it in the exact same place. If he could not do this he would starve

I must think of the book where I read about these strange and extremely intelligent but highly unsociable people

Life is absurd. Without one's constant pleasures, would it be more unreasonable to commit suicide dying a happy man than a sad one?

The moral of this story is that there are no verifiable stories of any philosophers, being of sound health and sound mind and not in dire circumstances, deciding to kill themselves.

Hey that would make 99.99999999999999 % of humanity animals? :bigsmile: