
lovelyheartz
Let me leave, please, please...
- Jun 15, 2021
- 43
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually matter if it gets better IMO.
The argument that life is worth living because it is enjoyable doesn't make sense, because the non-existent do not desire pleasure, meaning, new experiences, etc. like the living do. By dying, you aren't really missing out on anything, because there will be no more you or desires for good experiences. I'd argue that being dead / non-existent will always be better than being alive because of the existence of pain in life. If we lived in a paradise, with absolutely no negative experiences, even then, dying will be neutral. Since there is pain (and even the happiest people have pain in their lives), dying becomes a positive.
An argument against this is that life has some sort of inherent meaning, so even if life is bad or painful, life is still worth living. However, rationally, life has no meaning other than the meaning we create. The idea of meaning is nothing but an illusion. Why live for an illusion?
The argument that life is worth living because it is enjoyable doesn't make sense, because the non-existent do not desire pleasure, meaning, new experiences, etc. like the living do. By dying, you aren't really missing out on anything, because there will be no more you or desires for good experiences. I'd argue that being dead / non-existent will always be better than being alive because of the existence of pain in life. If we lived in a paradise, with absolutely no negative experiences, even then, dying will be neutral. Since there is pain (and even the happiest people have pain in their lives), dying becomes a positive.
An argument against this is that life has some sort of inherent meaning, so even if life is bad or painful, life is still worth living. However, rationally, life has no meaning other than the meaning we create. The idea of meaning is nothing but an illusion. Why live for an illusion?