[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 550x364, Dddr66.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2374427 No.2374427 [Reply] [Original]

I was in a Lit class, and we were reading "The Sleep" by Cailtin Horrocks, and I suggested that everyone has the right to commit suicide. And everyone look at my like a psycho.
Question of the Day
Does every human have the inviolable right to commit suicide? (Please leave religious teachings of this)

>> No.2374432

I think so, yeah.

>> No.2374440 [DELETED] 

>>2374427
>Does every human have the inviolable right to commit suicide?
Yes, because it's your life.
But you have to consider the fact that you're making all of your enemies happier and everyone you love immensely sadder by doing it.

>> No.2374446

>>2374427
>Does every human have the inviolable right to commit suicide?
Yes, because it's your life.
But you have to consider the fact that you're making all of your enemies happier and everyone that loves you immensely sadder by doing it.

>> No.2374449

It is not feasible to separate the religious aspects with committing suicide. The majority of the world still consider the taking of one's life with religious implications.

>> No.2374452

Rights are government issued. Nobody has any inherent rights the universe bestowed them with.

If what you're asking is that we should allow people to kill themselves, then no, fuck head.

>> No.2374454

of course, its your body who is anyone else to tell you what to do with it

>> No.2374462

Fucken' rights, it's all about rights these days.

>> No.2374464

>>2374452
I am asking from a philosophical point of view. I don't care about the government or what religions say. And I am not suggesting people should commit suicide I am asking if they have the right to do so

>> No.2374472
File: 59 KB, 450x600, 450px-Le_Transi_de_René_de_Chalon_(Ligier_Richier).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2374472

A good book to read here would be Lisa Lieberman's Leaving You: The Cultural Meaning of Suicide

>> No.2374473

>>2374464
And I answered your question.

>> No.2374479

>>2374464

This is the wrong way to look at the issue I think. But I will not judge but rather leave you to it.

>> No.2374481

Yes, anyone who says otherwise is some kind of vulgar pragmatic, and intellectual scum deserves no acknowledgement.

>> No.2374483

>>2374464
"philosophical point of view" doesn't mean independent of government or the physical, it's not license to jump into the infinite metaphysical. That anons position is a philosophical one.

If you want philosophical ideas on the subject of suicide, google it. Plenty of philosophers have considered it.

>> No.2374489

I don't really think it's a question of rights. I mean almost everybody has the ability to commit suicide, you don't exactly get punished for doing it unless you fail.

There's no way of preventing it or punishing those who do it so I don't think it's a question of rights.

>> No.2374490

>>2374473

Did you mean from a utilitarian position it would not be in societies best interest to alow people to die?

>> No.2374498

>>2374449
the tripfag has a point.

When looking into philosophy, the answer to OPs question has for each philosopher a strong connection to the core of his thought.
Kant, for example, refuses the right to kill yourself, because you would actively offend the humanity instilled in you.

Schopenhauer refused suicide because it would rather express the dominance of the will than the negation of life. Denying life is denying pleasure, but comitting suicide is wanting life and merely thinks he lacks the pleasure he deserves.

Philosophers who emphasize the institution of property also often think suicide is legitimate, because self-ownership is the most fundamental property and is not be interfered with.

In many times and cultures suicide was even necessary in order to retain individual honor or that of a whole family if not nation.

>> No.2374499

What about assisted suicide?
Why do you think that isn't that legalised?

>> No.2374537

>>2374499
because politics (and consequently legislature) are about popularity and pragmatism in that order, not intellectual honesty or consistency

>> No.2374544

>>2374498
Wasn't Kant opposed to suicide because it was fundamentally irrational? Reason reasoning to end reason, so to say.

>> No.2374560

OP Here. I was thinking about Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus when I asked the question, and I feel like Camus never really explained why he opposed suicide. He claims life is essentially absurd and the impossibility of reaching higher truth, so why is it unacceptable in Camus' understanding?

>> No.2374565

>Does every human have the inviolable right to commit suicide?
>ctrl + f Hume
/lit/, your entry-level is showing. See Hume's On Suicide. Suicide is concluded to guilt free, but only because of certain restrictions (we fear death, existence may be worse than death etc.)

>Kant, for example, refuses the right to kill yourself, because you would actively offend the humanity instilled in you.
Uh, Kant's moral duty is based on ability to will in a rational manner. It is irrational to make the decision that will prevent further ability to will, and thus immoral. Hume, in contrast, did away with will with the concept of radical choice (we always have the ability to choose).

>> No.2374567

>>2374560
it isn't, it's a perfectly logical response to the absurd

he's just a rebel. read la chute and l'homme revolte.

>> No.2374580

>>2374565
You seem to be well read on Humean(?) philosophy, what do you recommend aside from On Suicide?

>> No.2374596

"I told you once that our lot as men is to learn, for good or bad," he said. "I have learned to see and I tell you that nothing really matters; now it is your turn; perhaps someday you will see and you will know then whether things matter or not. For me nothing matters, but perhaps for you everything will. You should know by now that a man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting, nor by thinking about what he will think when he has finished acting. A man of knowledge chooses a path with heart and follows it; and then he looks and rejoices and laughs; and then he sees and he knows.

He knows that his life will be over altogether too soon; he knows that he, as well as everybody else, is not going anywhere; he knows, because he sees, that nothing is more important than anything else. In other words, a man of knowledge has no honor, no dignity, no family, no name, no country, but only life to be lived, and under these circumstances his only tie to his fellow men is his controlled folly. Thus a man of knowledge endeavors, and sweats, and puffs, and if one looks at him he is just like any ordinary man, except that the folly of his life is under control.

Nothing being more important than anything else, a man of knowledge chooses any act, and acts it out as if it matters to him. His controlled folly makes him say that what he does matters and makes him act as if it did, and yet he knows that it doesn't; so when he fulfills his acts he retreats in peace, and whether his acts were good or bad, or worked or didn't, is in no way part of his concern. A man of knowledge may choose, on the other hand, to remain totally impassive and never act, and behave as if to be impassive really matters to him; he will be rightfully true at that too, because that would also be his controlled folly."

>> No.2374603

>>2374580
This: http://plato.stanford.edu
You can read his books, but they're incredibly long winded, and often sound like he's saying the very opposite of what he wants to for several paragraphs (Socratic irony for you). Treatise of Human Nature is good, but in a somewhat different style IIRC to the others. Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and Enquiries concerning the Principles of Morals are the real meat and bones. If you walk/jog a lot, I recommend audio books.

>> No.2374620

>>2374603
Thank you, he's such an influential thinker I feel I need to have read some of his work at least.