Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nurture and Suicide

Rate this topic


Time_Maker

Recommended Posts

Howdy Ya'll

I have a question about justification of suicide. I am sure everyone on this site agrees that one should kill oneself when happiness is unachievable. An example of this is when an individual becomes severely handicapped, or perhaps is locked in a POW camp. If you don't agree to this, I am going to assume you do because thats not going to be the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is, "Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?".

* * *

Let me give a purely hypothetical example. Lets say we have an individual by the name of James Doe. James was born to a mother and father who were drug addicts. James remembers watching his father snort coke , and watching his mother pop pills. James is a smart and inquisitive young kid, always asking questions, and always reading (he was taught to read at a young age, because that's "what mothers' duties are"). And young James used to ask questions to his parents about the world around him, but his parents would always lie and tell him the wrong facts. When James would get slightly older, he would call his parents on it. The parents response: "We were only joking! Can't you take a joke! All the other kids at your school would get it!".

But that wasn't the only type of abuse young James had to endure growing up. James was kept isolated from other children, and was never allowed to socialize with other children, expect on rare occasions. Instead, James was put on a diet of Video and Computer Games. Of course, James became quite good at them, but James was not good at talking to other people.

In grade 5, James was allowed to have his first friend come over, Al. One of Al's hobbies was to tease and beat James up at school. James mother liked Al though, and told James to play with Al, and don't be silly about Al beating James up. Of course, James' parents used to beat James up as well, no matter how major, or minor, the problem was. Given these problems, James would escape further into the world of Video Games, where everything is rational, and where the rules are consistent (an escape that James' parents encouraged). James quickly learned (but not yet realized) the outside world is dangerous and unable to be understood, so its best to stay inside and avoid it.

James was also sexually abused as well through most of his young life, first by his mother, then by his younger brother. However, no further details need to be stated in that regard. James however did learn a lesson, but did not realize he learned it until much later in life: to have sex, one must take from another.

James was also shunned by his classmates (when they weren't beating him up). James was disabled, having a speech problem, making no one able to understand him. Plus, for whatever reason, James can also see sounds as colors, giving him problems in class whenever music was the subject (James would say "I like this song because it looks green", instead of talking about melody and rhythm). This however did teach James a lesson: People are animals. One person is the same as all other persons. James would never be able to understand them or reason with them, so stay away from them as much as possible.

In grade 6, all of this abuse would come crashing down onto James, and James collapsed into tears one day during class. James' teacher sent James to the school consoler. James made the counselor promise to keep what he told a secret. The counselor agreed. James then proceeded to tell the consoler, in a span of an hour (that is the amount of time James had) everything that is wrong with his life (sans the sexual abuse, it did not hit him yet that was bad). James was then sent back to his class. When he got home, both of his parents were waiting for him, and they both beat him up. They told him those things never happened, and that he was crazy. As another punishment, they also removed his privilege to play video games (thereby throwing him into a world that is dangerous and makes no sense). James learned two lessons that day: Reality exists only in one's mind, and never trust authority, they will betray you.

In grade 9, James, via his mother, discovered Objectivism. Objectivism threw James for the ultimate loop. On one hand, he acquired so many life lessons from what happened to him. On the other hand, Objectivism makes sense. James elected to integrate Objectivism into his life.

For the remaining 4 years of his education, James life was split into two stark extremes: What he reads as truth of Objectivism, and how reality is. James knew to understand science, one must use reason; but in his science class, the theory of the giant dragon living under the earth was given the same level of truthness as plate tectonics (he would of course be suspended for disagreeing with his teacher, which would result in him going back home for his beatings). James knew that might doesn't equal right, but when James gets thrown off the top of the gym bleachers and left for dead, and the gym instructions punish him for just lying there and not getting up, it makes him wonder what is just, and what isn't.

Between all of this, James' mother would get a job as a school teacher. James would eventually realized the "sexual touches" he received as a young child was wrong. He would also decide its time to talk to a consoler about all of this.

While in college, James went to his college psychological counselor to try and learn how to communicate with people, how to set aside this abuse, and to get his mother removed from teaching. After explaining his past, and how he feels, the counselor responded with something like this: "Clearly you went through a lot. You are depressed. Take some anti-depressants and you will be fine". James left the counselor's office, and put the prescription for his anti-depressants in the first rubbish bin he could find.

James eventually left his school, and worked for the Government. He has a good job, working in a moral and just agency. Everyone at his job likes him , they see him as an "up-and-come-er" who will go far in the agency. And James likes his job as well, he gets enormous value and joy from it.

But not everything is right with James. James is unable to be comfortable and communicate in a group setting, but acts like he is, making James feel guilty (James is unable to follow a group conversation, because he sees everyone as one and the same, and not as individuals, even though he knows he shouldn't). James is unable to trust people, and is unable to identify who is friend, and who is foe (again, he sees everyone as the same, even though he knows he shouldn't). This of course results in him having no friends, no mates, only one lover in his life (if he was a better judge of character, he would have known not to choose her). James also goes through the motions of pleasure, and spends his weekends (when he isn't working), alone and depressed. James is unable to go to movie theaters or watch TV (we won't go into those reasons), sees pubs and discotechs as places to kill the brain, and is unable to talk to people because he's scared.

* * *

With this hypothetical example now laid out, I want to ask of you, should James kill himself? I can see it going both ways.

Why he should kill himself? The brain and philosophy can be analogous to the human body - it grows at some point in time, and then it stops growing. There are reports in history of feral children; that is children who were raised by animals. Once they reach past a certain age, these children can never be reintegrated as a human being again. Also, in psychology, there are reports of children being completely isolated from other human beings, and just given food and water. These children also never become human, and can never even learn languages.

This analogy works for James as well, but in a less dramatic sense. James was isolated as a kid. James may never be able to learn the basics social interactions; may never be able to learn how to trust or understand other people; may always live his life isolated and "faked" for everyone else's pleasure and benefit (which goes against Objectivism). He also only find joy in his work, and nothing else.

Why shouldn't James kill himself? Perhaps there might be ways to correct his mis-intergration. Perhaps he doesn't fully understand Objectivism, or perhaps he needs to find a psychologist who can help him integrate Objectivsm. Perhaps some anti-depressions would be good for him (even though it would hide reality) or some anti-social medication (same problem).

My problem is, I don't know what the correct answer is. Is there a third answer to this hypothetical problem that I'm not aware of?

Thanks for your help with this issue. Sorry for this topic being such a downer, however, I would like an answer to this question. Mods: Please feel free to move this post from "Ethics" to "Psychology" (or another thread), or rename the thread if you so choose. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me first start by saying that the danger of asking hypothetical questions about a third person is that most people will assume that you are actually talking about yourself. If this is the case, and you are actually considering hurting yourself, the best course of action is to get professional help from a psychologist.

My understanding of Objectivism and suicide is that suicide is only justified when the conditions of the world make the achievement of life impossible. For example, in a totalitarian dictatorship no one actually "lives".. and the best you can hope for is a living death. In these cases it is better to kill yourself than live as a conquered slave.

How does this apply to your question:

The topic of this thread is, "Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?".

My quick answer is basically that no, it is not, because saying that environmental factors have screwed up someone's mind too much to achieve happiness is very deterministic.

Why shouldn't James kill himself? Perhaps there might be ways to correct his mis-intergration. Perhaps he doesn't fully understand Objectivism, or perhaps he needs to find a psychologist who can help him integrate Objectivsm. Perhaps some anti-depressions would be good for him (even though it would hide reality) or some anti-social medication (same problem).

My problem is, I don't know what the correct answer is. Is there a third answer to this hypothetical problem that I'm not aware of?

James should not kill himself because no amount of experiences can prevent him from fixing his mind. Barring any physical damage to a person's mind, there is always a way back from any amount of experiential damage. Men have volition, which is more powerful than any environmental (nurture) or genetic (nature) problems. The proper course of action is to see a psychologist.

So I know this is just a cursory treatment of the topic, but I'll let others be more specific about this.

edit: changed the wording of the first sentence.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he should definitely not kill himself. I don't see a justification in the story.

After reading the story, my biggest surprise was that James actually made it through all that with so much sanity: he can hold a job he actually does well and likes (and, from the story, it appears that he is not fooling himself, since others see him as competent too). Since I'm not a psychologist, and have never heard of real-life cases this bad except in stories about some 20-year old murderer, the second thing that amazes me is that James is so benevolent about the world at large. Evidently, at some level, even as a young child, he appears to have had a certain implicit grasp of the metaphysical versus the man-made; the evil he faced does not seem to have become a general metaphysical judgement. Indeed, I detect a certain benevolence or attempt at benevolence toward other people as well.

Obviously, James has had many years of non-average personal relationships. So, it's unsurprising that he doesn't have practice in the area of normal human relationships. It's tough to know whether this is something that James can work on alone, or if he absolutely needs a psychologist. Either way, my advice to James would be to contact a good psychologist at least to get an opinion on how best to proceed. Sometimes, all it takes is practice. The first lover didn't work out because James was a bad judge of character? Well, presumably, the experience taught him something and he'll be a slightly better judge next time.

If James himself is contemplating suicide, he should most certainly see a psychologist. The biggest risk he runs is that he will make up reasons not to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I dont think about suicide very often. I think the last time it came to mind was on 9/11. I remember wondering to myself how horrible it must have been up there for people to decide that throwing themselves out of a window 100 stories up was the better of all other possible alternatives. Compared to that, the scenario for your friend James does not seem quite so bleak. Suicide in his case would be the worst possible decision. He has already survived all of the wounds of his early life. All he needs now is help dealing with the scars. Because he has not found happiness in life does not mean that he will not find it. Unless, of course, he stops looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?"
On that question alone, I'd say no, as one's happiness/satisfaction with life doesn't necessarily correlate to how one was raised/nurtured.

James is unable to be comfortable and communicate in a group setting. James is unable to trust people, and is unable to identify who is friend, and who is foe... James is unable to go to movie theaters or watch TV, sees pubs and discotechs as places to kill the brain, and is unable to talk to people because he's scared.
It may surprise you or not, but a lot of people with normal and proper upbringings are having these same difficulties. While an improper upbringing can lead to problems, care should be taken that it not be used as a social crutch.

In your hypothetical example, you used "unable" several times. Wouldn't "unwilling" be more correct? I can understand why the hypothetical James would be unwilling, but I don't think James would be unable due simply to the way he was raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he should not kill himself. He should move very far away from his parents, lead a rational, self-fulfilling life, and go to therapy. Life is way too precious and exciting to end merely because of bad parenting. It won't be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that James should stop focusing on his past as a way to justify negative feelings in the present.

Instead, the past should only be brought into focus with the intention to use this information to better his life.

As long as the cycle of self pitty instead of action to make things better will not stop, James is and will remain the main source of James' misery. It is James' looser attitude, and not his past, that bring him the most problems.

"Oh no, I suffered abuse, I'm so fucked up I better just role over and die". This attitude is a disgrace, and this is what James needs to realize: that this attitude of succumbing to self-pitty and wallowing in it is James', not anyone else's, choice, and it is something to fight and eliminate; something to be ashamed of, and not something to embrace; something to reject in the name of everything good that is possible for James.

James should fight self-pity above all else. Because self-pity is the first and biggest obstacle in his way to recovery: it is what prevent further action in the path of healing.

Now that I'm done with this part, there aer a few more things to say:

About "social problem": The main problem here looks to me like it is composed of a few smaller problems:

  1. Fear of not being able to survive without adjusting himself to society, thus willingly destroying every ability or behavior that would reveal the fact that James does not like all people equally, and in fact likes very few.
  2. A tendency to generalize his view on people, such as "human beings are animals, they are all the same", instead of judging people as individuals.

The first cause is the major problem. And perhaps James does not admit this to himself, because his morality tells him that pretending to like people is wrong. But the lie cannot disappear: it sinks in and affect self-image and self-confidence.

The solution to this, is to identify this fear and the automated behavior, and to think if it is actually necessary, or if it is possible for James to enjoy life and survive without having to pretend.

Introspection is James' friend here.

I doubt if James actually damages his ability to identify people's character, in terms of irreversible brain damage. Sounds like there are unresolved issues about interaction with people, but not loss of ability. And this can be corrected by identifying the subconscious ideas James holds about new people, and the skill of identifying people can be improved by practice.

As for James' mother: I think it will be unhealthy for James to keep in touch with his mother, because it implies moral support. If his mother does not admit to the past, apologizes for it, and changes herself, James should condemn her and move on. But above all, I think it would be wise for James to focus on healing, instead of punishing his mother. Maybe there is room for justice (like having her fired from her job as a teacher), but I think that James would be better off focusing on himself first, on healing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he should definitely not kill himself. I don't see a justification in the story.

After reading the story, my biggest surprise was that James actually made it through all that with so much sanity: he can hold a job he actually does well and likes (and, from the story, it appears that he is not fooling himself, since others see him as competent too). Since I'm not a psychologist, and have never heard of real-life cases this bad except in stories about some 20-year old murderer, the second thing that amazes me is that James is so benevolent about the world at large. Evidently, at some level, even as a young child, he appears to have had a certain implicit grasp of the metaphysical versus the man-made; the evil he faced does not seem to have become a general metaphysical judgement. Indeed, I detect a certain benevolence or attempt at benevolence toward other people as well.

Obviously, James has had many years of non-average personal relationships. So, it's unsurprising that he doesn't have practice in the area of normal human relationships. It's tough to know whether this is something that James can work on alone, or if he absolutely needs a psychologist. Either way, my advice to James would be to contact a good psychologist at least to get an opinion on how best to proceed. Sometimes, all it takes is practice. The first lover didn't work out because James was a bad judge of character? Well, presumably, the experience taught him something and he'll be a slightly better judge next time.

Right. I agree with all of the above.

If James himself is contemplating suicide, he should most certainly see a psychologist. The biggest risk he runs is that he will make up reasons not to do so.

And I would also add that anti-depressants are a good solution in near-suicide cases. Normally I would not take them, but if I am overcome by emotion, I think I owe it to myself to take anti-depressants to restore my ability to think logically, and make the decision about my life using my reason, and not my overwhelming emotions of pain that disable my ability to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that James doesn't have "normal" relationships etc. doesn't mean that he can't pursue values. He may experience some temporary or permanent curtailment of what he can pursue (it is possible that, in some respects, he may never recover fully), this doesn't mean that he can't pursue values at all. Would you kill yourself if you lost your right arm in an accident? It's the same sort of thing. Yes, he has a handicap and it is possibly a terrible one, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end.

Given, it's not for other people to tell someone what they ought to have to endure, either. I'm not sure I'd want to endure being a quadriplegic even though I know there are ways to let quadriplegics do some things on their own. I suppose that each person has some theoretical upper limit of the degree of handicap they'd want to endure . . . and it's difficult to know in advance until you've actually become handicapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Badkaram (regarding post 2):

You said: "Let me first start by saying that the danger of asking hypothetical questions about a third person is that most people will assume that you are actually talking about yourself."

Sorry, but I don't care what you, or "most people" think. Unless there's a reason why I should care what "most people", I ignore it.

You say "achievement of life impossible". What is the "Achievement of life"?

You also said "n these cases it is better to kill yourself than live as a conquered slave.". Nope. the best case is to either escape, OR to raise up against the country.

"My quick answer is basically that no, it is not, because saying that environmental factors have screwed up someone's mind too much to achieve happiness is very deterministic."

Yes there is proof that environmental factors can screw up the mind too much to achieve happiness. Please look at feral children, as one example.

A human being's only tool for survival is his mind. In my hypothetical example, James' parents plucked the wings to their son's mind, making him "half a person"; a person that can only fake living and happiness, but never really embrace it.

Software Nerd:

In my story, James no doubt learned his metaphysics from video games. Video games, as you may know (especially Japanese Games) usually have a "good guy/ bad guy" storyline. The Evil Bowser kidnaps the Princess, and its up to the common Italy Mario to (eventually) rescue the princess. The Evil Wizard Ganon put Princess Zelda to sleep; and its up to the (good, heroic) Link to wake Zelda up. His world in fact was made up of a world of Good and Bad, and, if your good enough, the Good will always outwin the Bad. Something that I didn't think about is, if you read between the lines, perhaps James thinks reality has a big reset button called "Suicide"; press it and try again.

"Well, presumably, the experience taught him something and he'll be a slightly better judge next time. "

Oh? And how would James learn his lesson? In my story, what gave you any clues that he did? And what lesson did he learn?

Fletch:

" I remember wondering to myself how horrible it must have been up there for people to decide that throwing themselves out of a window 100 stories up was the better of all other possible alternatives. " Couldn't the argument be made that they weren't committing suicide? I can make the argument that they were attempting to save their life, by taking a last chance risk of jumping off the building. It clearly didn't save them, but the gain (.00001% chance of surviving) was better then a 0% chance of surviving.

"e has already survived all of the wounds of his early life. All he needs now is help dealing with the scars." Scars? Or perhaps a mind that is permanently changed.

Huntress:

First, I like your picture. Did you save the princess too? Or find world -1?

""Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?"

On that question alone, I'd say no, as one's happiness/satisfaction with life doesn't necessarily correlate to how one was raised/nurtured."

Sure it is. The mind is an organ, not unlike a leg (yea, I know a leg isn't an organ, but listen to this...). If a young child has his or her leg binded up as a kid, that leg will never grow to a full sized leg, regardless of the type of therapy or help he or she gets. Why would the mind be any different?

"It may surprise you or not, but a lot of people with normal and proper upbringings are having these same difficulties. While an improper upbringing can lead to problems, care should be taken that it not be used as a social crutch."

Why? And what is a social crutch?

"In your hypothetical example, you used "unable" several times. Wouldn't "unwilling" be more correct?" I am going to make the assumption that you are unable to fly. Not unwilling, but unable. You don't have the proper tools to flap your arms and to lift up; it just isn't possible. In my story, James is unable to lead a successful life that is happy. Not because he's not willing, but because he's unable (or, to be optimistic, he doesn't know how because he was never taught how).

Mimpy:

What would Therapy be able to do?

JMeganSnow:

"[this]doesn't mean that he can't pursue values. He may experience some temporary or permanent curtailment of what he can pursue". What value is that? The value of living for others? The value of pain? The value of sacrifice?

I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know.

To everyone:

Until next time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And James likes his job as well, he gets enormous value and joy from it.

This alone indicates the James is capable of experiencing joy which would be enough from an Objectivist's point of view to rule out suicide.

It seems entirely possible, though there exists no sure thing, that therapy can help him work through at least some of his other problems in life, and he could learn to find the joy that he finds in work in those other facets of his life.

Yes, his mind may well have been stunted, but there is not enough information in the context of the scenario (nor known in reality) that says his brain is incapable of constructing new neural pathways which would allow him to adjust his worldview to a more realistic one.

Now I may be wrong and it's just my opinion, but based on the scenario and your response to some of the posters, it looks more like you are trying to make the solid case for suicide as opposed to looking at the very realistic alternatives that were given to you. I say this because you have come to certain conclusions or use certain examples which are irrelevant UNLESS real extensive therapy has already been tried. For instance;

Yes there is proof that environmental factors can screw up the mind too much to achieve happiness.

Sure, but he has received some degree of socialization, not all of which is totally screwed up. Additionally, there is proof that some minds CAN be repaired. Therapy is still a viable option.

a person that can only fake living and happiness, but never really embrace it.

How do you know this is the case? How do you know that therapy cannot help him correct this, at least to some degree? And, if you do know for a fact that he can NEVER really experience joy or hapiness (despite the fact that you say he does in his job) then what is the point of the hypothetical? There really is no dilemna to be considered.

In my story, James is unable to lead a successful life that is happy.

Again I ask, how do you know this? And again I ask, if you know this, where is the dilemna? Objectivism, as I understand it, makes it pretty clear that if values and happiness are in fact no longer acheiveable, if all one can look forward to for the rest of their life is pain and suffering, then you have a moral case for suicide. As it is, there is not enough information in the scenario to make the moral case for suicide, and there is in fact information which makes it explicitly not the moral solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't care what you, or "most people" think. Unless there's a reason why I should care what "most people", I ignore it.

Isnt that a rather rude thing to say, considering it was you that started this thread by asking for other peoples opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James could talk in therapy. He can release all the stuff that he's been keeping inside to someone who might actually try/want to help him, unlike the counselor in college. Of course, he should not go to just any psychologist. He should go to one that is known to value and build self-esteem and independent thought in others. There are several Objectivist pyschologists he could see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't care what you, or "most people" think. Unless there's a reason why I should care what "most people", I ignore it.

Fletch is correct and this is not called for. Please try to keep this discussion civil.

In my story, James no doubt learned his metaphysics from video games. Video games, as you may know (especially Japanese Games) usually have a "good guy/ bad guy" storyline. The Evil Bowser kidnaps the Princess, and its up to the common Italy Mario to (eventually) rescue the princess. The Evil Wizard Ganon put Princess Zelda to sleep; and its up to the (good, heroic) Link to wake Zelda up. His world in fact was made up of a world of Good and Bad, and, if your good enough, the Good will always outwin the Bad. Something that I didn't think about is, if you read between the lines, perhaps James thinks reality has a big reset button called "Suicide"; press it and try again.

This hypothetical is getting way out of hand. Let's not psychologize theoretical James any more, unless he is an actual person and you're qualified to speak for him.

In response to my earlier post:

What value is that? The value of living for others? The value of pain? The value of sacrifice?

I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know.

No, the value of enjoying your life in whatever way you can. Even if you can't have everything you might want because of accident or trauma, you can still have a great many things. I, for example, will never be an olympic gymnast or Miss America or a Nobel-prize-winning scientist. However, just because I can't achieve everything doesn't mean that I shouldn't enjoy what I can do.

It sounds like James has some things he can do just fine (his work) and other things that he can't do (socialize). Possibly the things he can't do are simply very difficult for him to do. Like any other person that aspires to rationality, James needs to evaluate his desires (for social relationships) in terms of what it will take for him to achieve them and whether, in fact, they are actually achievable.

It's not rational, however, to decide that if you can't achieve a particular goal or fulfill a particular desire that life is empty and suicide is the best solution. James has a vast open plain of possible goals before him, his path is his to choose. He may never become a social butterfly, but he can always choose goals that he can achieve and find happiness there.

Real happiness doesn't result from achieving the "set" goals that you've fallen into emotionally by osmosis from everyone around you: the job, the wife, the house, the 1.8 kids, the dog, the buddies, etc. It results from achieving the goals you've chosen rationally. James retains the power to choose what will be the goal of his life and the fuel of his happiness. Right now it sounds like his emotions are filled with a vague accumulation of what he's seen other people wanting to do. This, however, is very fixable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps James thinks reality has a big reset button called "Suicide"; press it and try again.
Suicide is more like throwing the PS3 out the penthouse window - ain't no trying again. I can understand breaking controllers because of some
frustrating games, but suicides on the HNL.

First, I like your picture. Did you save the princess too? Or find world -1?
:lol: Hehe, yup, I even found out small fiery mario on my own back in the day :D

One's happiness/satisfaction with life doesn't necessarily correlate to how one was raised/nurtured.
Sure it is. The mind is an organ, not unlike a leg (yea, I know a leg isn't an organ, but listen to this...). If a young child has his or her leg binded up as a kid, that leg will never grow to a full sized leg, regardless of the type of therapy or help he or she gets.
Sure, but that's a correlation between health and one's nurturing, not between happiness and one's nurturing. If a bad upbringing meant one was fated to be forever unhappy, that might excuse a person for killing themselves because of a bad childhood. Since no such enevitability exists, killing oneselves because of what one's parents chose to do seems a bit of a copout, and saying that one can't be happy because of what others did seems to be a social crutch i.e. based on false premises and probably even more detrimental to one's happiness than one's upbringing.

I am going to make the assumption that you are unable to fly. Not unwilling, but unable. You don't have the proper tools to flap your arms and to lift up; it just isn't possible. In my story, James is unable to lead a successful life that is happy. Not because he's not willing, but because he's unable (or, to be optimistic, he doesn't know how because he was never taught how).
I somewhat understand what is required in order to be able to fly, but what does one have to know/be taught in order to be happy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said: "Let me first start by saying that the danger of asking hypothetical questions about a third person is that most people will assume that you are actually talking about yourself."

Sorry, but I don't care what you, or "most people" think. Unless there's a reason why I should care what "most people", I ignore it.

My point was that if you come in and ask a complex hypothetical question about a person who is considering killing himself, one natural reaction (which happened to be mine) is to ask "is that person you?" I was trying to be indirect in asking you to clarify that you are not "James" and you are not considering killing yourself.

You say "achievement of life impossible". What is the "Achievement of life"?

By "life" I mean more than just "non-death", but a state of existence of liveliness, vitality, and happiness. A state of working towards and achieving values.

You also said "n these cases it is better to kill yourself than live as a conquered slave.". Nope. the best case is to either escape, OR to raise up against the country.

Clearly escape or fighting are the best two options but there are conceivable conditions where this is not possible. A rational man values life so much that he will accept nothing less than life, so will not accept as a substitute for life an existence of living-death (e.g. slavery). Peikoff explains this well in OPAR but I can't find the reference at the moment.

"My quick answer is basically that no, it is not, because saying that environmental factors have screwed up someone's mind too much to achieve happiness is very deterministic."

Yes there is proof that environmental factors can screw up the mind too much to achieve happiness. Please look at feral children, as one example.

In this context I was using environmental factors to mean "bad experiences." I'm not a psychologist but I've known people who have suffered from PTSD and I really think that there is no experience that cannot be overcome.

A human being's only tool for survival is his mind. In my hypothetical example, James' parents plucked the wings to their son's mind, making him "half a person"; a person that can only fake living and happiness, but never really embrace it.

Our difference of opinion is that I do not believe that this type of damage is possible in an irrecoverable sense. Barring any actual physical damage to James' brain, I see no reason why he won't be able to overcome his past. Whether this is the same with, for example, radical Muslim terrorists that have grown up on anti-American propaganda is a question I am still considering. For now my answer is that yes: it is never too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Again

RationalBiker:

"This alone indicates the James is capable of experiencing joy which would be enough from an Objectivist's point of view to rule out suicide."

True... but should pain also be part of life? I don't know...

"It seems entirely possible, though there exists no sure thing, that therapy can help him work through at least some of his other problems in life, and he could learn to find the joy that he finds in work in those other facets of his life."

Possible. It could also be possible that a therapist would also say "your crazy" and throw him in a mental hospital. Ever been in a mental hospital?

"Now I may be wrong and it's just my opinion, but based on the scenario and your response to some of the posters, it looks more like you are trying to make the solid case for suicide as opposed to looking at the very realistic alternatives that were given to you."

Nope, my point was, could a mind be too far destroyed to be repaired? Your answer, to this question, is a No.

Fletch

"Isnt that a rather rude thing to say, considering it was you that started this thread by asking for other peoples opinions? "

Please clarify this statement. What exactly did I say that was rude?

Mimpy:

"James could talk in therapy. He can release all the stuff that he's been keeping inside to someone who might actually try/want to help him, unlike the counselor in college."

Perhaps, but the risk might be too great. James might spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. And that's not a good thing.

JMeganSnow:

"Fletch is correct and this is not called for. Please try to keep this discussion civil."

As I responded to Fletch - please clarify this statement. What did I say that was rude.

"This hypothetical is getting way out of hand. Let's not psychologize theoretical James any more, unless he is an actual person and you're qualified to speak for him."

What hypothetical? Please give examples that show the hypothetical that is getting way out of hand.

"In response to my earlier post: No, the value of enjoying your life in whatever way you can. Even if you can't have everything you might want because of accident or trauma, you can still have a great many things. I, for example, will never be an olympic gymnast or Miss America or a Nobel-prize-winning scientist. However, just because I can't achieve everything doesn't mean that I shouldn't enjoy what I can do."

I'm going to make the assumption you're answering my question on your quote of "JMeganSnow:

"[this]doesn't mean that he can't pursue values. He may experience some temporary or permanent curtailment of what he can pursue". What value is that? The value of living for others? The value of pain? The value of sacrifice?

I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know. " (thats the only quote, and question I asked you).

But, to answer your question, what if every single thing you do, except for work, brings you pain and sorrow? What if it doesn't seem like you can ever overcome that pain? Is it still worth it? I'd say no (but perhaps Therapy MIGHT help).

"Right now it sounds like his emotions are filled with a vague accumulation of what he's seen other people wanting to do."

What leads you to that idea? What did I describe about James that made you conclude that he's a second hander?

Hunterrose:

"Suicide is more like throwing the PS3 out the penthouse window - ain't no trying again. I can understand breaking controllers because of some #%$^ frustrating games, but suicides on the HNL."

If HNL means Hole Nother Level, maybe it is like getting into world -1, the japanese version (which I never did).

"I even found out small fiery mario on my own back in the day"

So did I. Its amazing how great that game is, and how glitchy that game is as well. But enough about a plumber who eats mushrooms and grows tall.

"but that's a correlation between health and one's nurturing, not between happiness and one's nurturing."

Sure, but the mind's purpose is to identify concretes, and identify what is real and what isn't If the mind turns into a funhouse mirror, how can an individual know what is real, and what isn't?

"I somewhat understand what is required in order to be able to fly, but what does one have to know/be taught in order to be happy"

You don't have to be taught how to be happy, you just have to be taught how to understand reality. You have to be taught what is real, and what isn't, and what is facts of reality, and what isn't.

Badkarma556:

"My point was that if you come in and ask a complex hypothetical question about a person who is considering killing himself, one natural reaction (which happened to be mine) is to ask "is that person you?" I was trying to be indirect in asking you to clarify that you are not "James" and you are not considering killing yourself.

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't like indirect questions. They are very confusing and indirect.

"By "life" I mean more than just "non-death", but a state of existence of liveliness, vitality, and happiness. A state of working towards and achieving values."

Great but what's this reference to?

"Clearly escape or fighting are the best two options but there are conceivable conditions where this is not possible. "

I'm assuming your referring to the concept of suicide. But this makes no sense. Escaping suicide or fighting suicide... I know how one can fight it, but how can one escape it?

"n this context I was using environmental factors to mean "bad experiences." I'm not a psychologist but I've known people who have suffered from PTSD and I really think that there is no experience that cannot be overcome."

Ok, maybe its my lack of communication skills, but are you saying is that we escape or fight from environmental factions from bad experiences..? I'm sorry, talking on this form, for whatever reason, just exposes how bad of a communicator I am.

"Our difference of opinion is that I do not believe that this type of damage is possible in an irrecoverable sense."

I'm sorry, but my to understand you have completely broken down at this point. What difference of opinion are you talking about? What's the subject. Honestly, it feels like I'm talking to someone who can't think and is always jumping around (thats my opinion. No one else has ever called you on it I noticed, so its just me :|) .

Everyone: Until later :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True... but should pain also be part of life? I don't know...

It's not a matter of "should", it's a matter "is". Pain is a part of life, to varying degrees for different people.

Possible. It could also be possible that a therapist would also say "your crazy" and throw him in a mental hospital. Ever been in a mental hospital?

"Possible" is all I have to demonstrate to invalidate suicide as a moral option according to Objectivist ethics.

Yes, I've been to a mental hospital.... as a civil servant. "Mental Hospital: that's not good" is an inaccurate generalization. Mental hospitals help plenty of people "fix" their mental problems. If James thinks that mental hospitals are automatically "not good", James probably has a psychological or physiological issue that prevents him from realistically evaluating the potential for a mental hospital to help him with his problems in which case it may just be the perfect place for him.

Nope, my point was, could a mind be too far destroyed to be repaired? Your answer, to this question, is a No.

That is not my answer. I did not answer the general question in your quote above, I answered the question relating to the specific context laid out in the James scenario. Based on that, James' mind is not necessarily too far destroyed to be repaired. This answer is consistent with what you asked in your first post;

With this hypothetical example now laid out, I want to ask of you, should James kill himself? I can see it going both ways.

Based on the details of the hypothetical it is not known with certainty if James' mind is beyond repair and the fact that he can experience happiness in his work suggests that it's possible he could experience happiness in other areas of his life as well. Given only what is included, therapy is a viable moral option, suicide is not. So no, it can't "go both ways" (according to Objectivist ethics anyway). According to James' ethics... who knows?

The answer to "could a mind be too far destroyed to be repaired?" would be "yes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time Maker, it's perfectly fine to reply to different people in different consecutive posts, in fact it makes it easier to read. Also, please use the quote function. If you need instructions on how to do this, just ask.

"Isnt that a rather rude thing to say, considering it was you that started this thread by asking for other peoples opinions? "

Please clarify this statement. What exactly did I say that was rude?

You responded to an innocuous statement attempting to inform you of something that may occur by telling the author that you don't care about other people's opinions. Since this entire board is about soliciting other people's opinions and challenging those opinions that's not the kind of thing you want to say here. Instead, you can clarify for us that you either ARE James or are definitely NOT James so that we are all on the same page and no one is operating under false assumptions.

In other words, it's rude to ask what people think about X and then, when they tell you, inform them: "I don't care what you think."

"This hypothetical is getting way out of hand. Let's not psychologize theoretical James any more, unless he is an actual person and you're qualified to speak for him."

What hypothetical? Please give examples that show the hypothetical that is getting way out of hand.

The hypothetical existence of James and the hypothetical picture of his hypothetical mental state and where the hypothetical subconscious premises this hypothetical person operates under hypothetically came from.

If James doesn't exist then anything you have to add to your original hypothetical as an argument is invalid: in layman's terms you are pulling it out of your hiney. If he is a real person you need to say so if you want to continue to elaborate on his situation.

But, to answer your question, what if every single thing you do, except for work, brings you pain and sorrow? What if it doesn't seem like you can ever overcome that pain? Is it still worth it? I'd say no (but perhaps Therapy MIGHT help).

Everything?! Even grocery shopping?! How can you have angst about grocery shopping?! OMG THERE'S SO MANY KINDS OF PEANUT BUTTER!!!

*cough* Sorry. In any case, I'm kind of reminded of the woman that went to the doctor and said, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." He said: "Then don't do that." The point is that if a lot of things are causing you problems, you should stop doing those things. If you find that you want to do those things but are nevertheless unable to gain any enjoyment from them, then the very first step is to figure out why you want to do them. Sometimes if you want to do something but it never turns out the way you expected the reason that you want to do it is something you picked up subconsciously from other people.

I've felt guilty for YEARS because everyone in my family goes to college and if you don't, you're considered a failure. The thing is I never really wanted to go to college. I still don't really want to go to college even though it would probably benefit me at least a little in some ways. I just don't consider it to be worth the time and effort. Yet this issue has caused me a lot of grief because I'd like to make my parents proud of me.

The first step right off the bat is to stop hurting yourself . . . you're flying blind without a compass. Then, sit down and evaluate rationally what things are actually valuable to you. Not what you feel would be good for you, but what will actually be good for you, like focussing on your work and getting some therapy. Maybe telling the people that you're having relationship problems with that you need some time off to think.

As Rational Biker said, the fact that James can enjoy his work means that his mind isn't damaged beyond repair. He just needs to embrace what he can enjoy, get away from the things that he can't, and discover methods for repairing the damage so that he can increase the scope of what he can enjoy. If there's good in your life there is no sense in destroying that to escape from the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...