/lit/ - Literature

I'm not quite seeing the problem.

When Hawking thinks it's time for him to go, I don't think you're qualified to tell him he isn't.

Nor anyone else who isn't Hawking.

>>6637830
>only if I were in great pain

This is the problem right here. People, especially Americans, think that the reduction of pain and suffering is some great good which should be striven for regardless of its purpose, even to the point of ending life in the name of 'stopping the pain'. Pain is shitty, no doubt, but to seek the reduction of pain as an end in and of itself is absurd. Pain is only an indicator or symptom, it is not a condition which requires the termination of life.

Someone should assist you in your suicide, since I'm sure going to kill yourself for being a colossal faggot.

>>This is what a life without philosophy will bring you.
>This is the sort of chucklefuckery one makes when one is overeager about bandying about a term they only learned about the other day.

>>6638069
To a degree.
>Pain is only an indicator or symptom
Then what say you about life?

>>6638069
1. Hawking is not American, he is a Brit.

2. Hawking's condition is untreatable, and his substantially reduced quality of life, i.e: pain, is inescapeable save through death, which, coming to us all sooner or later, he may find desireable to expedite.

>>6637830
Is should be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.

>>6638159
Now, the legitimate concern about suicide (=suicide of the young) is that the suicidant has responsibilities. It is the famous cliché that before you die, you subscribe a financial credit and never pay back. Or you conceive children, only to give death to yourself a few years later.

perhaps, some day, out of the cost of sustaining the life for the old, some country will be the ultimate utilitarian and give death to old people for financial reasons, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the state plots against the people to enslave it in some life penalty. I think the politicians talk about what the public want and can hear. The suicide is too taboo now, euthanasia is more or less hear-able, especially with such a old demography. Since I believe that the humanism will remain the doctrine in power for a few generations, once the euthanasia is accepted, it will be the turn of the suicide to be the subject of attention. I think that it just takes time and nobody can have, at once, all the liberties everyone can conceive.
more precisely, they talk about the affairs whereof they are aware, the affairs whereof the public likes. I do not think that many people will be concious of this kind of suicide.

The peaceful suicide having nothing to do with the hedonism, I think that the suicide in general will never be discussed if the doctrine/morality in place still focuses the feeling, such as it is today. I do not see a bunch of more or less healthy persons going into the streets and asking for a drug to peacefully die in stating that somebody hurts them and oppress them. Perhaps the whole mentality of how to deal with requests in a democracy will change, but it will not be for tomorrow if the change in mentality is gradual over time.

>>6638163
i am not a vitalist à la Nietsche or Deluze, Camus, though . I think that the humanity's essence is to work on reflexivity (relating to the concciousness), solipsism. For instance. I see the animals as having poor reflexivity, and good solipsism. They are what they feel. They are not detached from their emotions, nor thoughts, nor self. They are as close as their skin as it can be. Idem with the women.

men are the same during infancy, but my bet is that our job is to be like those buddhists (not the hippies buddhism) to become selfless, to be in control of our body and mind.

A burning animal would scream and run in every direction. A burning man would not do this, because it has reached a higher essence than the one of its animosity