Why do you say that their depression impaired their ability to reason? I don't know them, but from what I have read here, they seemed to be good enough.
Obviously, their depression influenced their thoughts. But that's how it works for any emotion, including happiness and hope. A "healthy" human is not a rational human, a healthy human is a human that have a strong SI and will do anything to survive, even if it's irrational. We are animals, after all, philosophy and reason is not as important for us as being able to live and reproduce.
A happy human is a human who lives in delusion. You can argue that that's necessary, but you can't say that they are rational.
I disagree that being happy (or rather, living a rich and meaningful life that embraces the rough and the smooth) is delusional.
ijustwishtodie's worldview was unrealistically pessimistic, and also far too
confident. There was a certain arrogance to the worldview, a paternalistic sense that
I know what's right for you. In fairness, I did also seem him say that he didn't actually want to prescribe death and respected if other people didn't want to kill themselves, but he still basically thought they were making a mistake and wasn't afraid to say it, in very strong terms.
I'm a liberal - I broadly believe people should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, except insofar as they infringe upon the human rights of others. I'm also an existentialist - I think people have to create their own meaning in life.
Nihilism is existentialism's gloomy older brother. Rather than "you have to create your own meaning", nihilism says "life doesn't have meaning, it's all pointless". And that's dangerous because it marginalises the individual, which is central to my ethics.
I don't like life.
I want to die. That's
my choice. Everyone else should have the same choice, and most of them would choose to live. I don't get to say "no, your decision is wrong, you should die!", because it isn't for me to decide for others.
I picked that quote out to jokingly attribute it to Schopenhauer (who is generally considered a nihilist in comparison to the existentialism of Sartre and De Beauvoir) because it's so obviously bonkers that it makes Schopenhauer seem pessimistic. Schopenhauer, for instance, believed we could temper our suffering by practising asceticism, but we'd still never be completely fulfilled. He also believed that overcoming difficulties was "the full delight of existence". He lived to be 72, he loved theatre and the ballet, he enjoyed symphonies, read widely (poetry, literature, philosophy, science), and spoke seven languages. Schopenhauer enjoyed walks outside every day and died of natural causes. He was sad that most of his friends had died and when his health declined he regretted that he wasn't going to finish his work. There was someone who had a healthy pessimism that didn't stop him enjoying life, and whose thoughts are still relevant 150 years after his death.
Schopenhauer, for all his pessimism, would immediately see it was wrong to press a button wiping out all life on Earth. You have to either be dictatorial or possessing completely warped thinking to have the arrogance to decide for every other living thing about whether they should live or die, and think it doesn't matter if they all die. That's not heroic, that's the villain of a Marvel movie.
Simplicity and certainty aren't actually strengths. The world is complex and uncertain.
Why isn't wanting to end suffering not seen as heroic? Ultimately that's what he wanted for all of us, to not have to suffer anymore. He saw the logical that with existence there is always a risk to suffer when in non-existence you can't suffer at all nor desire to exist in non-existence so you can't be disadvantaged there but can be disadvantaged when existing.
I think I've already addressed this, but if I choose not to suffer any more then that's fine. Equally, when you die you can no longer
take pleasure. Never enjoy a good meal, laugh at a joke, be astounded by a sunset. If that's a choice you want to make then that's up to you (it's a choice I'm making), but to only look at the downsides of life without looking at the upsides isn't rational, especially when we're talking about life in the general sense rather than the specific.
I disagree completely! ijustwishtodie did have a unique antinatalist view of life and was unflinchingly honest in his discussion of his nihilism, fears, and suffering. There is something noble and decent about him being so honest with us. This thread is not about venerating death, or being pro-death, this is about acknowledging the unique content this user contributed. Did you come up with the boys vs. girls counting game? No?
Suicide is so often seen as a shameful horrible thing in society. On SaSu, I think we can be pro-choice, support people getting better, encourage people to try to get help before making rash attempts, but also acknowledge the courage and integrity that is required of extreme honesty. If a user leaves well, with a decision that isn't rash, why can't we remember them and show our respects to them after?
Antinatalism is not a unique view, it's very common, both on here and among depressed teenagers generally.
I'm not saying that everything about ijustwishtodie was bad, or that we shouldn't commemorate them. But seeing them described as a "hero" and "philosopher" and "noble" is ridiculous. It would seem distasteful and unpleasant of me to start an argument with grieving people about the significance of their dead friend, so I won't - I just reject the lionising (especially
pthnrdnojvsc's post), and am happy to push back against the extreme nihilistic worldview.
