2
   

A Philosophy of Mortality and Suicide

 
 
JLO1988
 
Reply Fri 21 Feb, 2014 06:02 pm
There is always something about wanting to end one’s life that is wholly irrational, violently selfish, and paradoxically selfless. Try to see death as being the same as eye color in terms of how our biological cells evolved to decay, except, death is a biological trait that evolved not to enhance the survival of the individual but of a group. Death, by its very nature, was a mutation that was adopted by what we know as ‘life’ the same way any other trait is passed on. From its very inception, there’s no escaping it, death is the ultimate governor of the ego. It’s different than other evolution because it puts the very concept of natural selection under the microscope. Death is evidence of God in evolution.
How else can one explain why ‘cell death’ has been so prolific when it seems to go against proliferation? It’s not as simple as an increase in genetic variety of members though that does occur; increased variation alone isn’t a satisfactory explanation for how death can become advantageous to a group. Death increases variety only when a group’s system of reproduction stifles that variety. A measure for population control, limited space, and resources provides more commonsensical understandings of why death is vital to life as we know it. ‘Life’ did not invent death but it has exploited death’s utility.
With this understanding of the origin of ‘natural death,’ we can find parallels in human society to the irrationality of death such-as war and suicide. In both, we justify the killing of human beings. War is justified on a national scale as well as the individual level and both are common occurrences that have become accepted as a part of life though we wish that they were not.
I think suicidal thoughts are caused by a confusion of emotions resulting from misplacing them. For example, when one bites into a fast-food cheeseburger as he’s thinking about an episode of road rage that just occurred they’re allowing anger to replace pleasure. The resulting suicide takes place after many incidences of emotional confusion which create physical changes in the structures of the brain.. The individual begins to crave their dominant emotion, anger, sadness, grief, and they lose satisfaction with their present reality. Preoccupied with their inner experience, they’re experiencing schizophrenic-like states while engaging in things that are ordinarily pleasurable, and reality grows burdensome.

Keep in mind these are my thoughts and I claim absolution if my understandings are fallacious.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,486 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2014 02:28 am
@JLO1988,
Welcome to the Φ forums. You've raised a number of interesting topics in your post, and i'm interested in exploring them, in detail. And by "exploring" i mean both asking questions and arguing with your OP statements. If you don't mind, i'd like to respond to your first sentence last.

JLO1988 wrote:
Try to see death as being the same as eye color in terms of how our biological cells evolved to decay, except, death is a biological trait that evolved not to enhance the survival of the individual but of a group. Death, by its very nature, was a mutation that was adopted by what we know as ‘life’ the same way any other trait is passed on. From its very inception, there’s no escaping it, death is the ultimate governor of the ego.


In its earliest stages, "death" occurred as a by-product of a living cell's reproduction: a single cell split to produce two. That cell ceased to exist so as to reproduce. Thus "birth" and "death", as physical phenomena, are coeval. "Life", in so far as we can define it, is mutation -- "Birth" and "Death" are the conditions of that mutation

JLO1988 wrote:
It's different than other evolution because it puts the very concept of natural selection under the microscope. Death is evidence of God in evolution.


Substantiate that statement, please; i find your argument unwarranted.

JLO1988 wrote:
How else can one explain why ‘cell death’ has been so prolific when it seems to go against proliferation? It’s not as simple as an increase in genetic variety of members though that does occur; increased variation alone isn’t a satisfactory explanation for how death can become advantageous to a group.


"Cell death" is a phenomenon only found in cells cooperating in forming a single, conglomerative organism -- in that situation, different cells organically serve the organism in different ways, serve different functions -- all reproduce and yet some serve different structural purposes...

JLO1988 wrote:
It’s not as simple as an increase in genetic variety of members, though that does occur; increased variation alone isn’t a satisfactory explanation for how death can become advantageous to a group.


It's quite true, death is not the origin of variety (nor is it advantageous to it). If anything, again, death is one of the conditions that variety needs to adapt to in order to endure.

JLO1988 wrote:
A measure for population control, limited space, and resources provides more commonsensical understandings of why death is vital to life as we know it. ‘Life’ did not invent death but it has exploited death’s utility.

With this understanding of the origin of ‘natural death,’ we can find parallels in human society to the irrationality of death such-as war (... and suicide.) In both, we justify the killing of human beings. War is justified on a national scale as well as on the individual level and both are common occurrences that have become accepted as a part of life though we wish that they were not.


At this point, i must wholly disagree with you...i have been willing to accept a few dichotomies within the bounds of this discussion: birth v. death, adaptation v. condition. And yet, i need to register this response explicitly; i am opposed to both war and suicide, and the idea that peace need necessarily be balanced by war. A living being does not have to kill humane beings to live. While predation is a common aspect of all ecosystems: war, murder and suicide are rare social practices unique to social peers, such as ourselves, and are totally avoidable on the basis of communication...

Hey Ho to the continued relationship between biology and language theory...

JLO1988 wrote:
I think suicidal thoughts are caused by a confusion of emotions resulting from misplacing them. For example, when one bites into a fast-food cheeseburger as he’s thinking about an episode of road rage that just occurred they’re allowing anger to replace pleasure. The resulting suicide takes place after many incidences of emotional confusion which create physical changes in the structures of the brain.. The individual begins to crave their dominant emotion, anger, sadness, grief, and they lose satisfaction with their present reality. Preoccupied with their inner experience, they’re experiencing schizophrenic-like states while engaging in things that are ordinarily pleasurable, and reality grows burdensome.


JLO1988 wrote:

There is always something about wanting to end one’s life that is wholly irrational, violently selfish, and paradoxically selfless...
Keep in mind these are my thoughts and I claim absolution if my understandings are fallacious


As someone who has been subject to suicidal thoughts in the past, i can both see where you're coming from, and can say that you've effectively missed your target. The idea of suicide is simple: it's about ending suffering. But, as i realized at just the right time, if that suicidal impulse is to be taken seriously, one must consider -- suicide does not eliminate suffering, it expands it along the social network of the suicide. Thus the act is the counter to the intention.

Your proposed (yet entirely irrelevant) conflict between"life" and "death" does not justify any form of practical violence. Death, like birth, is a part of life...most things are...
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 01:48 pm
@Razzleg,
Thanks for the reply! First off, the reason for this post was inspired by the lack of study available on suicide in my psychology coursework. I'd like to say that you're reasonable retorts have inspired me to do some research on these extracurricular thoughts which I have put off and did not do prior to writing this. That being said, here's some nonsense I found to substantiate the claim made just now about the weakness of psychology's understand of suicide:

"A further complication is that current psychological evidence suggests that suicide is often an ambivalent act in which individuals who wish to die must nevertheless overcome the ordinary human fear of death (Cholbi 2011, 31–34, Joiner 2010, 62–70). Given this ambivalence, it may be difficult to determine precisely whether an act that poses an apparently lethal threat to the agent who performs it was in fact an act in which death was intended. When a person dies in such circumstances, it may prove difficult whether to classify the death as resulting from suicide (i.e., intentional self-killing) or as accidental. Such cases might indicate the need for a third category besides intentional suicide and accidental death(Cholbi 2007). "

While studying suicide in college, we basically completely skipped the topic and there seemed to be an acute anxiety associated with it as one of the last seeming misunderstood, nearly taboo realities of the field. Granted, I was only taking beginning level psych courses and it is a very touchy subject, nonetheless, the above statement is ripe with bullshit. Let me know if elaboration is needed there. The field has come a long way in the last 2o years but still has a long way to go. My thoughts on suicide attempt to represent, granted through 'language theory' which I think is touching on the roots of psychology with Freudian type theory but in the modern world where we've been to map the brain and are beginning to understand how behavior influences different structures. I'd classify my ideas on suicide as more philosophy, like a religious examination of one's own personal thoughts, self-psychology if you will...
[Cholbi, Michael. "Suicide." Stanford University. Stanford University, 18 May 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.]

The second topic I brought up which I have to say is one of the most interesting things that I've neglected in my extracurricular curiosity. What you're referring to is cell mitosis and what I have made mention of is cell apoptosis or 'cell death.' Though, the way you mentioned it was that through the duplication of a cell during mitosis, two are created and one is destroyed. As cool a theory that is as to where the beginning of death truly was, well frankly, reproduction is not death and there's no death occurring there. I'm not even going to say I disagree with you, lets leave it at a difference of philosophical perception and maybe you want to read up on cell apoptosis.

Topic number three has to do with the concept of God and that would require much discussion but I can provide some more insights on the subject. Where I mentioned it I was using the term to identify what appears to me to be a unified consciousness capable of mutation which as you pointedly mentioned is the defining characteristic of life as we understand it. I came to this conclusion by rationalizing through my amateur understandings of natural selection that death, by its very nature, is not advantageous to the individual except through the greater advantage afforded their species and their young. By suggesting that this turns natural selection on his head is suggesting that there is an activity above the level of the biological individual taking place in evolution.

Let me clarify one thing, creativity is a process of creation and destruction, I was never intending to prove the existence of god because I already believe that god both does exist and does not exist as a concept. If aliens came to earth tomorrow I would view them as god the way that I view myself as god of this world as a human being. These are my views, beliefs, and feelings on that subject. I'm not simply trying to identify a physical presence outside the individual organism but more closely an instinctual awareness of one's species, place in the world, which is unconscious, spiritual, and motivated the mutation of apoptosis. Before apoptosis cells reproduced and never died, we've witnessed this occurring in lobsters and other organisms who have small telomerase strands, another subject I don't know enough about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase) but lets just say that we're aware of the mechanisms to theoretically turn off cell death.

You may think I'm contradicting myself when I say that death IS advantageous to variety because it is but only a certain kind of variety. I'm not sure how to explain this with an analogy but it's like more of the new less of the old... I'm thinking in terms of combinations of combinations, the longer we can reproduce, the more complex the combinations while through death's influence on evolution, the complexity of the combinations is sacrificed for a greater variety. In these terms death is referring to the 'cell apoptosis' which leads to the end of a human's reproduction cycle not their life though it's clear that a human life is much more than what we leave behind genetically. I hope that does something for you. Furthermore in my philosophy of death it is an altruistic event, always and though there's violence in suicide, there's still an element of altruism as death is still involved. It evolved into being and to quote the bullshit 'intro philosophy' class God talk about supreme beings that means its "all good."

I'm not up on my forum lingo so IDK if "Hey Ho" means something but let me say that I wasn't trying to justify war merely understand it as if I was an alien being who had never experienced in their lifetime war between their species. Suicide, on the other hand I feel that people only truly contemplate one time... Perhaps that's a stark statement but that was my experience with it, trying to truly contemplate death and as far as that is universal in suicide, the contemplation of death, is about as far as psychology has come on understanding it from what I have seen.

Again, thanks for the reply, I think I chose the right forum when I posted!!
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 04:47 pm
Suicide will definitely test your mortality. Little written about suicide in the literature of psychology? You jest,of course. Having a little trouble with a paper?
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 06:14 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
No and perhaps you're right, however, I am pursuing a B.A. in health and studying addiction with goals of getting into psychology more later on. The subject of suicide in beginning(first two levels) of psychology courses very narrowly covers the topic and discussion on the chapter covering it was skipped. I'm not struggling with any assignment, merely under the impression that accepted theories on understanding the mechanisms of it don't exist. Am I mistaken?
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 09:51 pm
@JLO1988,
There are all sorts of papers on suicide that are both accepted and contradictory. My strategy was always to find out which the Professor would support and then research, read and write to his/her view. The objective is to graduate. And then shine.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 10:34 pm
Saw this on another site and thought it might be of interest to you:
Men and suicide. Chewed up and spit out.

Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I have lost family and multiple friends to suicide. All have been men and the suicide statistics show that men represent the majority of suicide victims.

How do we continue to ignore the significance of this fact? When combined with the imbalance in incarceration rates, it is difficult to not conclude that men as a whole are chewed up and spit out in a way that reflects a large social problem.

Both men and women face struggles unique to their gender (I am not referring to suicide here btw). Paying attention to one does not mean we cannot or should not also pay attention to the other.

JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 10:49 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Thank you for the input, my intent wasn't to spark a discussion just thought I'd throw a few ideas out there and see what kind of response I got, not too bad I guess.
0 Replies
 
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 10:51 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
@bobsal u1553115
I agree completely, we need more prevention efforts aimed at real world solutions active and available. We go through school and face the threats you're talking about without any formal introduction into systems that cause a lot of harm especially when misunderstood, trust me I know.

thanks again
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 01:45 am
@JLO1988,
Well, i'd like to start off by saying that if "Hey ho" has some sort of inside online meaning, then well done, internet, you've managed to subvert an age old expression of enthusiasm and endorsement. It wouldn't surprise me, but i just meant "Hey ho"...

JLO1988 wrote:

Thanks for the reply! First off, the reason for this post was inspired by the lack of study available on suicide in my psychology coursework. I'd like to say that you're reasonable retorts have inspired me to do some research on these extracurricular thoughts which I have put off and did not do prior to writing this. That being said, here's some nonsense I found to substantiate the claim made just now about the weakness of psychology's understand of suicide:

"A further complication is that current psychological evidence suggests that suicide is often an ambivalent act in which individuals who wish to die must nevertheless overcome the ordinary human fear of death (Cholbi 2011, 31–34, Joiner 2010, 62–70). Given this ambivalence, it may be difficult to determine precisely whether an act that poses an apparently lethal threat to the agent who performs it was in fact an act in which death was intended. When a person dies in such circumstances, it may prove difficult whether to classify the death as resulting from suicide (i.e., intentional self-killing) or as accidental. Such cases might indicate the need for a third category besides intentional suicide and accidental death(Cholbi 2007). "

"While studying suicide in college, we basically completely skipped the topic and there seemed to be an acute anxiety associated with it as one of the last seeming misunderstood, nearly taboo realities of the field. Granted, I was only taking beginning level psych courses and it is a very touchy subject, nonetheless, the above statement is ripe with bullshit. Let me know if elaboration is needed there. The field has come a long way in the last 2o years but still has a long way to go. My thoughts on suicide attempt to represent, granted through 'language theory' which I think is touching on the roots of psychology with Freudian type theory but in the modern world where we've been to map the brain and are beginning to understand how behavior influences different structures. I'd classify my ideas on suicide as more philosophy, like a religious examination of one's own personal thoughts, self-psychology if you will... "
[Cholbi, Michael. "Suicide." Stanford University. Stanford University, 18 May 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.]


i don't think that Michael Cholbi is wrong to consider suicide a psychologically challenging issue, both the motives and actions taken by those inclined are difficult to parse out. And to seek out a causal thread, in the light of that ambiguity is nigh impossible.

JLO1988 wrote:
The second topic I brought up which I have to say is one of the most interesting things that I've neglected in my extracurricular curiosity. What you're referring to is cell mitosis and what I have made mention of is cell apoptosis or 'cell death.' Though, the way you mentioned it was that through the duplication of a cell during mitosis, two are created and one is destroyed. As cool a theory that is as to where the beginning of death truly was, well frankly, reproduction is not death and there's no death occurring there. I'm not even going to say I disagree with you, lets leave it at a difference of philosophical perception and maybe you want to read up on cell apoptosis.


i brought up cell mitosis as a counter to you argument that death is opposed to life. My intention was to show that, in its most primitive form the death of the individual played a part in new cell's birth. However, when you mentioned "cell death", or "cell apoptosis", i made it clear that this phenomenon only took place when genetically linked cells forming a multicellular organism adapted so as to die in a way that served the larger being's survival. The organs of the organism need certain cells to die at certain times in the course of it's development in order to adopt and adapt to it's environment.

JLO1988 wrote:
Topic number three has to do with the concept of God and that would require much discussion but I can provide some more insights on the subject. Where I mentioned it I was using the term to identify what appears to me to be a unified consciousness capable of mutation which as you pointedly mentioned is the defining characteristic of life as we understand it. I came to this conclusion by rationalizing through my amateur understandings of natural selection that death, by its very nature, is not advantageous to the individual except through the greater advantage afforded their species and their young. By suggesting that this turns natural selection on his head is suggesting that there is an activity above the level of the biological individual taking place in evolution.

Let me clarify one thing, creativity is a process of creation and destruction, I was never intending to prove the existence of god because I already believe that god both does exist and does not exist as a concept. If aliens came to earth tomorrow I would view them as god the way that I view myself as god of this world as a human being. These are my views, beliefs, and feelings on that subject. I'm not simply trying to identify a physical presence outside the individual organism but more closely an instinctual awareness of one's species, place in the world, which is unconscious, spiritual, and motivated the mutation of apoptosis. Before apoptosis cells reproduced and never died, we've witnessed this occurring in lobsters and other organisms who have small telomerase strands, another subject I don't know enough about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase) but lets just say that we're aware of the mechanisms to theoretically turn off cell death.


You've found order in the universe, and perhaps it is biological in nature. You seem want to posit that because this order exists, a unified consciousness has planned it, or at least been instrumental in its strategy. This is a prime example of both mistaking the tools of analysis with the reality they are intended to measure and the reverse engineering of the observing consciousness.

Natural selection is not beneficial to individuals, but the sacrifice of individuals is the way that natural selection, as well as more complicated models of evolutions, has managed development. It's a trial by error system, and the fossil record shows how often it has failed.

"[You were]...never intending to prove...because [you] already believe..."

Exactly...

JLO1988 wrote:
You may think I'm contradicting myself when I say that death IS advantageous to variety because it is but only a certain kind of variety. I'm not sure how to explain this with an analogy but it's like more of the new less of the old... I'm thinking in terms of combinations of combinations, the longer we can reproduce, the more complex the combinations while through death's influence on evolution, the complexity of the combinations is sacrificed for a greater variety. In these terms death is referring to the 'cell apoptosis' which leads to the end of a human's reproduction cycle not their life though it's clear that a human life is much more than what we leave behind genetically. I hope that does something for you. Furthermore in my philosophy of death it is an altruistic event, always and though there's violence in suicide, there's still an element of altruism as death is still involved. It evolved into being and to quote the bullshit 'intro philosophy' class God talk about supreme beings that means its "all good."


i have no idea what you're talking about. My father died last year, a victim of cancer...and i can assure you that there was nothing altruistic about it. He would have rather lived, and we would have rather he be here now. His death added in no way to the genetic variety in my existing sperm cells. His life did, certainly, as did the lives of his forbears, but his death contributed **** all. If anything, he would probably liked to have seen me impregnate a woman and for us to have given him grandkids. And those potential grandkids would only have profited by knowing him...How has death "furthered" life, in this instance?

"Cell apoptosis" is an event that takes place largely at the embryological stage of life, a genetic event antecedent to altruism. One person can consciously sacrifice their own benefit to another, up to and including sacrificing their conscious life, but life includes both doing so and not -- as well as implicating all of the constituent cells.

JLO1988 wrote:
I'm not up on my forum lingo so IDK if "Hey Ho" means something but let me say that I wasn't trying to justify war merely understand it as if I was an alien being who had never experienced in their lifetime war between their species. Suicide, on the other hand I feel that people only truly contemplate one time... Perhaps that's a stark statement but that was my experience with it, trying to truly contemplate death and as far as that is universal in suicide, the contemplation of death, is about as far as psychology has come on understanding it from what I have seen.


Well, then i abjure you, suicidal persons consider both the idea and the act many times. i am convinced, at this point that you understand neither it nor its object.; i think that you a are poor representative of your profession, if this is your representation of your discipline.

Stay in school...
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 04:03 pm
@Razzleg,
Sorry, I'm a poor blogger because I don't see any warrant for your frustration and don't plan on humoring the side of you which is clearly at a loss of humor...

Not that I'm at all surprised by this response, the post was a whim, and science, biology, microbiology, these subjects I admittedly know very little about. If I study life-sciences it will be much later in life as a hobby that I wish to care more about.

I never asked for you to pass judgement on me and frankly, my life-long discipline has been in academia as I'm 25 years old and that has been the path I chose my whole life.

Never would I claim that God is biological in origin, we lack a working definition of life just as we do God. Concerning your deceased relative... Try to understand the reaching nature of my thought processes, the train goes like this, natural selection is survival of the fittest through mutation and the passing on of more beneficial traits of mutation, if death evolved as a beneficial mutation.... How is that so?

In the case of your personal feelings towards a recently passed relative, well I can only hope that it has expanded your spiritual perception of death, giving you a greater understanding of what will eventually be something that you yourself experience.

Finally, and of course, I do not pretend to understand suicide and made myself pretty clear as to say that the science of the mind does not pretend to understand it either. Who's the pretender here?

Do yourself a favor, drop the "angry expert" attitude, it's not the natural language of an internet user and try actually knowing what you're talking about before you attempt to tear someone apart because you don't like their something about them... Here's a hand:

Why do cells undergo apoptosis?
Posted on November 23, 2010 by apoptosis2010
Cells undergo apoptosis for many different reasons. Of course, for an organism to perform apoptosis, it must be multi-cellular. Apoptosis is a way for an organism to get rid of cellular disposal with little damage to the surrounding tissue. It is a controlled programmed cell suicide. When a cell is determined to be useless to an organism, it is then disposed of. However, in cancer cells, apoptosis is unable to be activated. Epithelial cells are constantly undergoing apoptosis within the human body.

According to ccs.k12.in.us,one of the many reasons a cell undergo apoptosis is that it has been damaged beyond repair and therefore useless to the organism. If the damaged cell does not commit suicide, then it can do more harm than good if kept that way. Another reason is that the cell has started deteriorating due to aging or it has just outlived its usefulness. The final reason is that due to embryonic development, some cells must be destroyed in order for the organism to reach its final stages in development. For example, the development of the fingers and toes in a human. Apoptosis occurs in the “webbing” between each finger in order to separate them. This is shown in the picture below thanks to utm.utoronto.ca.

Check my other post which I care more about under the title "How We(The US) Can Still Win The War With Drugs"
0 Replies
 
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 04:48 pm
@JLO1988,
I was just taking my own advice and looking into apoptosis some more. Perhaps I shouldn't have used that term as it's only one of multiple forms of cell death. Anyways, to try to avoid further argument on a matter none of us are qualified to argue about, here's a video of apoptosis cell death that is quite beautiful

http://youtu.be/xkASer3gEnc
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2014 04:57 am
Actually, the moment people attempt suicide is quite well studied - short circuiting that moment is called crisis intervention.

People don't necessarily kill themselves because they are suicidal (there are many, many suicidal people who don't kill themselves) - most kill themselves because their coping mechanisms have been overloaded.

When that happens - it's not about selfishness at all.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2014 05:44 pm
Incidentally some misguided religionists say suicide is a sin, but NOWHERE does the Bible say that..Smile
0 Replies
 
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2014 04:14 pm
@vikorr,
I appreciate your comments. My frustration then should be directed at our educational system not academia in general. Students need to study suicide. The more controversial a subject is the more important it is that novice psychology students be exposed to it early on before they've been influenced by different views.

Furthermore, the best measure for preventing something like suicide is better understanding it yet the chapter was skipped when it came up in a psychology course text. I think this is more a cultural issue and perhaps circles around the fact that the quality of American teachers reflects their pay rate, which in turn reflects in our youth who spend half of their conscious time learning from them.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2014 01:54 pm
@JLO1988,
Suicide is in many cases not selfless, it leaves a devestation in the people caring for the person who committed suicide, if a lot of people are dependant on the person as a leader, it might devestate the organisation as there might be no one to take over.
0 Replies
 
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 04:37 pm
@Razzleg,
Rereading old forum, thought I'd comment about your late father.

You mistook what is meant by death and applied it quite literally to the passing of your father. That is the death of the human organism. Death has already occurred on the cellular level as part of the aging process.

This should add the missing empathy you were looking for and could not find.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 10:41 pm
@JLO1988,
JLO1988 wrote:

Rereading old forum, thought I'd comment about your late father.

You mistook what is meant by death and applied it quite literally to the passing of your father. That is the death of the human organism. Death has already occurred on the cellular level as part of the aging process.

This should add the missing empathy you were looking for and could not find.


I wrote a long reply to your latest post that further analyzed the perspective you represented in the previous course of this thread, but I've chosen to abandon it. I choose to replace it with this plea:

Please, don't pursue psychology as a career.
JLO1988
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2014 06:36 am
@Razzleg,
Thank you for caring.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Philosophy of Mortality and Suicide
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/14/2019 at 04:46:01