When is suicide rational?

[gadfly]

Secondly, in order for one to determine if a situation is permanent, one would need to be omniscient. "Even the wise cannot see all ends", to borrow a line...

It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one's future will be... in some cases.

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn't exist. I'm interested in real life situations, not fantasy: give me a comparable real-life situation in which suicide is life-affirming.

OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny.

I'm not ready to say that suicide is always unacceptable on principle, because it is my life, and it is not mere biological existence that defines life, but rather living, i.e. meaningful life, life with value to me.

I admit it's difficult to think of a case where suicide would be the right thing to do. Because no matter how bad a situation is, there is nearly always a reason for sticking around. I would not want to go away merely because of a failure of imagination. Also, if depression is the cause, it is an illness, and can be cured.

What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?

[Sherlock]

GoodOrigamiMan,

You wrote: "You might want do draw a line for yourself between Philosophy and Psychology – then try and keep them separate in discussion."

Why? If a philosophy is to be more than mind games and hypotheticals, it must be lived. I see no reason to examine the topic of suicide on some purely hypothetical level with no bearing on the real world.

You wrote: "Also, please try using proper quotes - it will make your posts much easier to read."

I'm something of a Luddite, I will freely admit. I haven't bothered to find out how to snip quotes, and may not get around to it anytime soon, as I am usually in a hurry when I am posting here, snatching a little bit of time here and there. If I have a surplus of time, however, I promise you that I will at least read the instructions.

Gadfly,

You wrote: "It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one's future will be... in some cases."

True enough: if I lost an eye, I can say with confidence that I won't be seeing with two eyes in the future. I guess I had in mind "situations" wherein the permanence was not a matter of fact but of fallible human assessment (rather than "conditions" that are facts to be dealt with).

You wrote: "OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny."

If I have to make them up in my mind, then they don't exist. I was asking for real-life scenarios.

You asked, "What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?"

Well, I mentioned Hitler in a previous post: obviously his happiness would have been seriously hampered by the Allies if he had been caught and made to face the consequences of his actions. So, if the purpose of suicide is to avoid unpleasant consequences of one's actions, then it can achieve that end. Also, I'm sure there are cases where individuals have chosen to commit suicide rather than face the physical pain of torture: again, suicide achieves that end. But avoidance of consequences or avoidance of physical pain do not, in themselves, answer whether or not the action of suicide in these cases is "right", they only provide the circumstances that we would find understandable. If, in either of these two circumstances, the individuals chose not to commit suicide, I would be hard pressed to say that they did the "wrong" thing (which would be the implication if suicide in those cases was "right"). In any case, to say that suicide is "life-affirming" is, as I said in an earlier post, very Orwellian. I suspect that people who say such things have little real experience with suicide, so that they are able to entertain lofty, high-minded fantasies about it. Since I have lost two brothers to suicide, I have no tendencies towards idle day-dreaming on this topic and little patience for those who do.

[Dagny]

i have not been on the forum recently as I've been studying for finals.

Megan- was going to give a long reply to your posts but I think Sherlock has done a great job at doing that already. Regarding my signature, the reason I chose it is exactly because I believe life is the only moral choice. Being alive and living a true Life are not equal...as I have learned from Ayn Rand....but suicide prevents you from ever being able to achieve anything...true Life included. Sorry to hear about your depression. I too suffered from depression in my teens. However, my depression stemmed from traumatic events that occurred in my childhood and which I have been able to get past.

Sherlock-my younger brother (whom I am very close to) recently attempted to committ suicide. You have all my sympathy and I admire your strength, courage and love of life. I only hope to have as much when a family member passes away.

[stephen_speicher]

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn't exist. I'm interested in real life situations, not fantasy:

That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. Do you consider Galt's nature and character as unconnected to "real life?" Since Ayn Rand portrayed John Galt as man could and ought to be, do you then consider Objectivist principles, as embodied in the thoughts and actions of Miss Rand's ideal hero, also to be a fantasy?

[Dagny]

That is an interesting, and revealing, comment.  Do you consider Galt's nature and character as unconnected to "real life?" Since Ayn Rand portrayed John Galt as man could and ought to be, do you then consider Objectivist principles, as embodied in the thoughts and actions of Miss Rand's ideal hero, also to be a fantasy?

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it. Galt and Dagny were living in a completely irrational society....as bad as our world is I doubt it would ever get to that stage. Dagny was the last value John Galt had. Also, you should remember that even though Ayn Rand's own husband died ...she lived on well after him and even talked about how if she believed in after-life she would committ suicide in an instant...but she didn't believe in it...only believing in this life...and thus didn't. That is what I try to remember most....when thinking of any loved-one's death.

[redfarmer]

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it. Galt and Dagny were living in a completely irrational society....as bad as our world is I doubt it would ever get to that stage. Dagny was the last value John Galt had. Also, you should remember that even though Ayn Rand's own husband died ...she lived on well after him and even talked about how if she believed in after-life she would committ suicide in an instant...but she didn't believe in it...only believing in this life...and thus didn't. That is what I try to remember most....when thinking of any loved-one's death.

But we're talking about hypothetical situations here. In such a state of irrationality as Galt and Dagny faced, suicide would definitely be an option.

As for Ayn Rand and her husband, Frank, this is a completely unrelated situation to the story in Atlas Shrugged. Galt was scared the looters would use his love for Dagny against him by torturing and threatning to kill her in order to force him to help them. That is why Galt said he would kill himself if they found out about their love. There were no looters knocking on Ayn Rand's door when Frank O'Connor died threatning to kill him.

[Dagny]

But we're talking about hypothetical situations here.

The originator of this thread did not make any comments to say that this was suicide in the hypothetical sense at all. As far as I knew only realistic cases of Socrates and the Founding Fathers were talked about. If you are talking hypothetically then one could even argue for morality in killing (as was suggested in another thread...a life boat situation). But I certainly do not agree with considering suicide in real life and calling it life-affirming.

[redfarmer]

The originator of this thread did not make any comments to say that this was suicide in the hypothetical sense at all. If other people are talking about suicide in a hypothetical sense then I was not aware of it. As far as I knew only realistic cases of Socrates and the Founding Fathers were talked about. If you are talking hypothetically then one could even argue for morality in killing (as was suggested in another threat...a life boat situation). But I certainly do not agree with considering suicide in real life and calling it life-affirming.

As I said above and before, certainly most cases of suicide are not life affirming. It would only be in a very drastic situation that suicide could be considered rational.

However, anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness should realize that Ayn Rand and Objectivism promoted that, under extreme conditions, suicide could be rational. It is only rational, though, when two conditions are met:

1. The person is completly rational and in complete control of their mind (i.e. mental patients need not apply).

2. The pain of continuing to live negates a person's love for their life.

The only practical example of this I can think of in this society are persons with terminal illness. If one of my friends or family were in the final stages of a terminal disease and wanted to end their own life, I would view that as their personal choice and a rational one at that, as I would hope they would view my decision if I chose to.

Note that this is completely and utterly voluntary. It is not saying anyone should kill themselves for any reason. It is simply saying the option is open and is not completely irrational.

P.S. Sherlock-you never answered my question. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Do you understand the purpose of art in a man's life.

Edited December 12, 2004 by redfarmer

[Dagny]

redfarmer- stated that exact way...I agree with you completely. As for Sherlock, I cannot answer for him but I think he just said that in response to those who always use the Galt example to support the thought that all suicide can be life-affirming. Many of us have been introduced to Ayn Rand through her fiction and see her characters as role models....myself included.

[redfarmer]

redfarmer- stated that exact way...I agree with you completely.  As for Sherlock, I cannot answer for him but I think he just said that in response to those who always use the Galt example to support the thought that all suicide can be life-affirming. Many of us have been introduced to Ayn Rand through her fiction and see her characters as role models....myself included.

OK. I think part of the problem in this thread is that suicide is such a loaded word in our society that use of the word automatically conjours up images of mental illness. The original question, though, did use the qualifier "in some contexts."

Glad we finally got that one cleared up, though.

[stephen_speicher]

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it.

I will grant that it is possible that he does not grasp the full meaning of his words, but, nevertheless, the ideas he presented have a quite clear meaning. Megan tried to explain (not in these exact words) that life as an unqualified absolute is not the value, but rather we value life as a man. There are conditions which make life worth living as man's nature requires, and that fact implies that there are conditions where a rational man properly determines that his own life is no longer worth living. Sherlock trivializes these facts by focusing instead on those who choose suicide because "my girlfriend screws around."

No one here has argued that all suicides are rational and morally justifiable -- indeed, the majority of suicides are performed by mentally disturbed people -- but rather that the right to live includes the right to commit suicide, and like all human actions we judge accordingly. It is obviously an extremely serious choice, but if circumstances are such that happiness is not possible, if the pain of living overwhelms the desire for life, than suicide can be both a rational and moral act. The obvious example of this extreme act is a person who is so physically ill with a terminal disease, so racked with excruciating pain and so debilitated that living is no longer a positive value. Sherlock chose to reject another justifiable example which he was given, one of Galt in Atlas Shrugged, and claimed that was just a "fantasy," not "real life." I submit that one value of good literature is that in can essentialize issues such that characters and events represent, in the sense of concretizing principles, something more real than "real life."

I can understand why Sherlock, yourself, and any rational person would be horrified by the loss of life in a casual suicide, but that does not justify claiming that no suicide at all is justifiable.

[Sherlock]

Stephen,

You wrote: "That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. "

Oh please...you're starting to sound like a character in some melodramatic

spy thriller: "Vat you say ees ver-r-y interesteeng..and ve have vays of

makeeng you speak."

The initial question was, if you recall, whether or not suicide could be

considered "life-affirming". I contend that it is not "life-affirming", at least not in

real life. I asked for real-life scenarios, and was given the example of Hank and Dagny. When I pointed out that this was not a real-life scenario, I was told "OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny." This answer did not qualify as a real-life scenario, hence my response that you found so ver-r-y

interesteeng. Yes, I know the point that Ayn Rand was trying to make, and when

one writes a story to illustrate a concept, it is not uncommon to use

hyperbole and fantastical situations to drive the point home. It is a method quite commonly employed by authors. (A quote from some author is floating just out of memory's grasp---something to the effect that a writer sometimes has to scream in order for the whisper of an idea to be heard.) That is just what I

think Rand was doing.

[redfarmer]

Stephen,

You wrote: "That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. "

Oh please...you're starting to sound like a character in some melodramatic

spy thriller: "Vat you say ees ver-r-y interesteeng..and ve have vays of

makeeng you speak."

The initial question was, if you recall, whether or not suicide could be

considered "life-affirming". I contend that it is not "life-affirming", at least not in

real life. I asked for real-life scenarios, and was given the example of Hank and Dagny. When I pointed out that this was not a real-life scenario, I was told "OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny." This answer did not qualify as a real-life scenario, hence my response that you found so ver-r-y

interesteeng. Yes, I know the point that Ayn Rand was trying to make, and when

one writes a story to illustrate a concept, it is not uncommon to use

hyperbole and fantastical situations to drive the point home. It is a method quite commonly employed by authors. (A quote from some author is floating just out of memory's grasp---something to the effect that a writer sometimes has to scream in order for the whisper of an idea to be heard.) That is just what I

think Rand was doing.

The inital question actually was whether or not suicide could be considered "life-affirming" in some contexts. You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art. You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming. When somoene questions your interpretations, you make fun of them and compare them to a "melodramatic" spy thriller.

Additonally, if you had read and understood Atlas Shurgged and The Virtue of Selfishness, there would be no question in your mind as to whether Rand supported suicide in some drastic situations.

[Sherlock]

Redfarmer,

You wrote: "You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art."

No, you have jumped to conclusions. I don't always get the time to answer every single question in every single post: as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a lot of time and so am here at the forum in fits and starts. So, if you did ask me in some post, "Do you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art", and I didn't answer it, it was because I was busy answering another question. So, in answer to your question: yes.

You wrote: "You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming"

And you consistently misspell "consistently". But no, I am not "avoiding" that particular fact. I never claimed otherwise. It would be odd if I did, as I don't think that anyone has said what you claim I am "avoiding".

You wrote: "When somoene questions your interpretations, you make fun of them and compare them to a "melodramatic" spy thriller."

Well, guilty as charged on that one. I am a mean piece of work, aren't I?

You wrote: "Additonally, if you had read and understood Atlas Shurgged and The Virtue of Selfishness, there would be no question in your mind as to whether Rand supported suicide in some drastic situations."

Yes, I have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Virtue of Selfishness" (And "OPAR", and "The Fountainhead", and "We The Living", and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Anthem", and....you get the picture). And I never claimed that Rand did not support suicide in some drastic situations: clearly she did. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of suicide being, in some cases, "life-affirming". It is my opinion that it is not. You can disagree with me, but don't ascribe straw-men positions to me that you can then rail at.

[coirecfox]

This is the same problem I had in my initial argument--the definition of life. Is it biological only, or does it have a philosophical influence as well? I contend that human life is defined both biologically and philosophically, and the philosophical part is what gives meaning to life. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death" Thus, if the attainment of values is not possible, human life no longer has value. For a rational person to realize this, suicide would be an affirmation of ones own life because you would be affirming that the attainment of (proper) values is good, and the inability to attain values is bad.

Keep in mind that such an analysis may only be done by the possessor of the life in question, as only he has a right to take his own life.

[redfarmer]

Redfarmer,

You wrote: "You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art."

No, you have jumped to conclusions. I don't always get the time to answer every single question in every single post: as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a lot of time and so am here at the forum in fits and starts. So, if you did ask me in some post, "Do you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art", and I didn't answer it, it was because I was busy answering another question. So, in answer to your question: yes.

If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values. Ayn Rand said that she portrayed John Galt as a man should be and ought to be. Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a "real life" situation. Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a "real life" experience? If not, why? If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless.

You wrote: "You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming"

And you consistently misspell "consistently". But no, I am not "avoiding" that particular fact. I never claimed otherwise. It would be odd if I did, as I don't think that anyone has said what you claim I am "avoiding".

Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, ...

Your bluster aside, you have failed to address what I asked. To remind, you claimed:

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn't exist. I'm interested in real life situations, not fantasy:

And I asked:

Do you consider Galt's nature and character as unconnected to "real life?" Since Ayn Rand portrayed John Galt as man could and ought to be, do you then consider Objectivist principles, as embodied in the thoughts and actions of Miss Rand's ideal hero, also to be a fantasy?

You can continue to insult, mock, and talk around the questions, in which case I will not bother asking you questions anymore, or you can directly address the issue as stated above. The choice is yours.

[Sherlock]

Redfarmer,

Chill. Take a deep breath---there now, feel better?

You wrote: "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values."

A "proper" understanding? And who is to determine what a "proper" understanding is---you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it's how I make my living.)

You wrote: "Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a "real life" situation."

"Rail"? Good grief, my only beef is that I was looking for a real-life, historical example and no one has given me that. If you think that characters in a book of fiction are real-life persons who lived and died at a certain point in real history, then, my friend, you have problems with discerning reality. I am not "railing" against ol' Galt and Dag for the illustrative and literary purposes they serve: I am merely saying what ought not to get any sane person's undies in a bunch, which is---hold on to your seat now---THEY WEREN'T REAL FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED. Mickey Mouse isn't real either, just to give another example.

You asked: " Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a "real life" experience? If not, why?"

What is being "validated" or "invalidated"? The book does not represent actual history---but that wasn't Rand's purpose. She wasn't attempting to write the history of an actual event, she was using the device of fiction to illustrate ideas.

You wrote, "If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless."

How did I "invalidate" one scene?

You asked, "Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?"

In answer to your first question: no. In answer to your second question: yes, but I'm having too much damn fun.

[redfarmer]

Redfarmer,

Chill. Take a deep breath---there now, feel better?

You wrote: "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values."

A "proper" understanding? And who is to determine what a "proper" understanding is---you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it's how I make my living.)

The previous statement reaks of subjectivism.

You wrote: "Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a "real life" situation."

"Rail"? Good grief, my only beef is that I was looking for a real-life, historical example and no one has given me that. If you think that characters in a book of fiction are real-life persons who lived and died at a certain point in real history, then, my friend, you have problems with discerning reality. I am not "railing" against ol' Galt and Dag for the illustrative and literary purposes they serve: I am merely saying what ought not to get any sane person's undies in a bunch, which is---hold on to your seat now---THEY WEREN'T REAL FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED. Mickey Mouse isn't real either, just to give another example.

You asked: " Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a "real life" experience? If not, why?"

What is being "validated" or "invalidated"? The book does not represent actual history---but that wasn't Rand's purpose. She wasn't attempting to write the history of an actual event, she was using the device of fiction to illustrate ideas.

By your own admission, Ayn Rand's novels illustrate ideas. So, why do you refuse to accept Rand's illustration of Galt's intention to kill himself if the looters discovered he and Dagny were in love? I assume you accept other ideas from the book if you are here.

You wrote, "If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless."

How did I "invalidate" one scene?

You continually refuse to accept an example out of Atlas Shrugged which clearly demonstrates what I and several other people have been saying. Instead of trying to refute what we have said, you simply evade the fact we have provided an example and continually demand a "historical" example. Nuclear hollacaust has never occured but it doesn't take an actual occuarance to know that it would be a bad thing if it happened.

You asked, "Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?"

In answer to your first question: no. In answer to your second question: yes, but I'm having too much damn fun.

I have no further reason to respond to you then. As Stephen said, you seem to continually be avoiding the issues by making personal attacks. If you wish to debate the issues, I will respond. Otherwise, this will be my last post in response to you.

[Sherlock]

Redfarmer,

You wrote: "The previous statement reaks of subjectivism. "

That may well be---and it's hardly surprising, since you have chosen to ask if I understand the "proper" understanding of art. I'll ask again: who defines what is "proper"? (Oh, and it's "reeks", not "reaks".)

You wrote: "So, why do you refuse to accept Rand's illustration of Galt's intention to kill himself if the looters discovered he and Dagny were in love?"

Earth to redfarmer: I haven't "refused" Rand's illustration of her ideas. I think that particular scene illustrates her ideas very well.

You wrote: "You continually refuse to accept an example out of Atlas Shrugged which clearly demonstrates what I and several other people have been saying."

I refuse to accept your examples because they do not meet the requirement that I stated; namely, that I am looking for a real, flesh-and-blood example from history. If you cannot accept that there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction, then you are going to face serious difficulties in life. For starters, I should warn you that Santa Claus does NOT exist and is NOT going to come down your chimney in a few weeks, no matter how good you have been this past year.

You wrote: "Instead of trying to refute what we have said, you simply evade the fact we have provided an example and continually demand a "historical" example.

I'm the one who asked for a real-life, historic example. You can either meet that request, or continue to give me fictional examples. If you continue to provide the latter, then my rejection of them does not constitute evasion, but rather reflects my ability to perceive what you apparently cannot: namely, that fiction is not the same as non-fiction. They are different, trust me.

You wrote: "Nuclear hollacaust has never occured but it doesn't take an actual occuarance to know that it would be a bad thing if it happened"

"Hollacaust"? "Occuarance"? Do me a favor, and use the spellcheck function. You would lend your statements more credibility if you demonstrated that you at least had a grasp of the English language. I understand the occasional typo, and am prone to them myself, but c'mon now...But anyway, I agree with your statement. I have now filed it in my "Profound and Deep Thoughts" file. What else should I do with it?

You wrote: "As Stephen said, you seem to continually be avoiding the issues by making personal attacks. "

I haven't avoided a damn thing. You simply have not provided me with what I asked for, and you evade that truth by pouting. Be a man, redfarmer.

[RationalBiker]

A "proper" understanding? And who is to determine what a "proper" understanding is---you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it's how I make my living.)

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the "proper" understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to "proper" in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument. Otherwise, accept it. Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it's purpose.

[redfarmer]

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the "proper" understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to "proper" in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum.  If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument.  Otherwise, accept it.  Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it's purpose.

Thank you. That is what I meant to say. I guess I may not have said it clearly enough.

[Sherlock]

Rationalcop,

You wrote: "At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the "proper" understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to "proper" in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. "

True, but Redfarmer has not explained HOW it is that I don't have a "proper" understanding. I completely agree with him that art serves to "concretize" values. But somehow, that isn't enough for him, and he continues with statements such as "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values." Hmmm...what am I missing? My conclusion, then, is that he has a different view of what "proper" is, though he can't spell it out. And yes, that is subjective, but I don't know what else explains the difficulty he is having. It is a way of evading the fact that he hasn't provided what I asked: merely, a real-life, historical example of a "life-affirming" suicide. And I don't like evasion.

You wrote: "If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument."

But that's the problem: I don't disagree with his statement, "the purpose of art is to concretize values". The subject here isn't art at all, it's whether or not suicide can be "life-affirming". I am asking for an example that is from the real world, not the world of fiction.

You wrote: "Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it's purpose."

I couldn't agree more.

[redfarmer]

Rationalcop,

You wrote: "At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the "proper" understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to "proper" in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. "

True, but Redfarmer has not explained HOW it is that I don't have a "proper" understanding. I completely agree with him that art serves to "concretize" values. But somehow, that isn't enough for him, and he continues with statements such as "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values." Hmmm...what am I missing? My conclusion, then, is that he has a different view of what "proper" is, though he can't spell it out. And yes, that is subjective, but I don't know what else explains the difficulty he is having. It is a way of evading the fact that he hasn't provided what I asked: merely, a real-life, historical example of a "life-affirming" suicide. And I don't like evasion.

You wrote: "If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument."

But that's the problem: I don't disagree with his statement, "the purpose of art is to concretize values". The subject here isn't art at all, it's whether or not suicide can be "life-affirming". I am asking for an example that is from the real world, not the world of fiction.

You wrote: "Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it's purpose."

I couldn't agree more.

If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn't you just ask for one instead of playing games?

What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not. Your insistance for a "real life" example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won't accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. You're creating a false dichotomy between values in "real" life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged.

The fact that none of us can immediately give you a name and case file does not indicate that suicide cannot be life-affirming. As the example from Atlas Shrugged shows, it certainly can be under extreme circumstances.

You claim I'm the one who has been evading you but yet you're the one who's been acting like a parrot, repeating the same things over and over without any clarity on how they bear on our questions. You have yet to answer Stephen's question about what exactly you meant by the statement he questioned without making fun of him. You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt).

If any of my assumptions about you are false, please correct me. Otherwise, please stop playing games and expecting me to read your mind.

[Sherlock]

Redfarmer,

You wrote: "If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn't you just ask for one instead of playing games?"

But I did! That's why I asked you who determines what a "proper" understanding is, as it was clear that merely agreeing with you that art "concretizes" values was apparently not enough.

You wrote: "What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not."

No, I am telling you (I don't need to imply) that a fictional example does not provide what I asked for---an example from real life (reality). I asked for an example from real life---that was my request---and you insist on reading more into my inquiry than I intended.

You wrote: "Your insistance for a "real life" example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won't accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. "

You're right about that! I require some indication that a theory has some basis in fact. In this case, since suicides are unfortunately common, we can look at the reasons people commit suicide (which is not the case with the nuclear holocaust analogy that you attempted to make). I am merely asking for examples of "life-affirming" suicide.

You wrote: "You're creating a false dichotomy between values in "real" life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged."

No, I'm asking that the values in a fictional story correspond to the values observable in reality, if I am to draw real-life conclusions and real-life lessons from the story. It has nothing to do with the characters, mind you: a space-alien story that reflects values that correspond to observable reality is perfectly fine. If the values in a fictional story are simply meant to entertain, or serve some other purpose, then I don't ask or expect the values to correspond to observable reality.

You wrote: " You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt)."

Because I like reality.