6 ms·

That's interesting you bring up this point, because it opens up a whole can of worms: - Why is suicide bad? - Why is there a presumption that this is your one

by hosh 4y ago

That's interesting you bring up this point, because it opens up a whole can of worms: - Why is suicide bad? - Why is there a presumption that this is your one and only life? - Why is there a presumption that life is made to be enjoyed? - Why is there a presumption that consciousness ends after life ends? - If death is inevitable, then couldn't suicide be broadly construed to pretty much ... just living? Believe it or not, these are thoroughly explored by monks and philosophers. Ironically, I think perhaps, you should take a step back and examine some of your own frame in looking at this. I'll start with this: there are more than one kind of motivation for ending one's own life. The most common one, which we call suicide, is usually done after giving up on life because there is overwhelming pain. There is a lively debate about this going on with regards to assisted suicide, including certain countries having passed legislation with state-funded assisted suicide. It's not that I agree with this kind of suicide, but rather, I think you are construing suicide far too broadly, conflating what the monks are doing with suicidal people overwhelmed with pain. What these monks are doing are not an attempt to kill themselves, because things are more difficult. If that were so, there would be no tradition of self-immolation. To give you a contrast, look at say, a modern -- still living -- teacher named Adyashanti. In the past year or so, he took a sabbatical from teaching due to his health condition, where he silently attends and lets his partner lead the teaching. And it may not seem like it when you hear him speak over the years, but he has been experiencing significant pain for years due to his ongoing health condition. It's the same realizations he has that allows him to carry on with his teaching despite experiencing that pain, as it does with the monks going through mummification or self-immolation.

sokoloff 4y ago
> Why is there a presumption that this is your one and only life? > Why is there a presumption that consciousness ends after life ends? Because there’s no evidence to the contrary and Occam’s Razor as applied the plain observations of life and death suggests this is a reasonable base assumption. “The simplest explanation is usually best.”
- msm_ 4y ago
  I mean we are on HackerNews, site filled mostly with rational, down to earth people. But there are billions people that believe in, for example, saints that can intervene in the earthly affairs. They also believe in multiple stories about miracles involving that saints after their death. I don't, but your razor doesn't work when one believes there is evidence to the contray. In fact, despite our bubble, way, way more people worldwide are religious than atheists. (and by the way, you only picked two out of many questions to answer)
  - pwgentleman 4y ago
    That seems to imply those billions of people religious are not rational, down to earth. Theism in itself is a simpler explanation for existence than atheism, and yet many rational people are atheists. Is it because they weighted all the possibilities or because they discarded the option a priori? We are all way less rational than we would like to believe.
    - unaindz 4y ago
      I would argue that theism is not just a simpler explanation but a more naive one. We could also explain computers as magic and it would be simpler than explaining it with electricity and math. No religions are based in any observable facts* and thus being naive explanations, indistinguishable from magic. * More like they are based on deprecated observable facts, at first the sun and nature, later man and it's dramas. Now we now the sun is just a big ball of gas and man is just a big brained mammal. That being said religion is just one area of many and you could be very rational in lots of them but be religious for whatever reason.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  The simplest explanation, by far, would be a deistic view of some sort or another from which questions of the meaning of life cycles immediately emerge. A belief in natural emergence relies not only on endless untestable hypotheses, but even still results in the exact same sort of frustrating unanswerables. For instance if one believes that the initial matter, which would culminate in the Big Bang, whisked into existence through a quantum fluctuation, then it immediately leads to the question of what created this void, rich in quantum interactions, or the nature of quantum interactions themselves? And for that there's not even a hypothesis, untestable or not. Maybe there will be one day, but also maybe not. To me the simplest answer is to simply acknowledge of our own inability to offer any compelling answer to this question. That's not to say an acceptance of such inability, but assuming the nature of a destination (one way or the other), in a journey we've yet to even scratch the surface of, seems neither simple nor wise.
rcoveson 4y ago
I think you've missed the point. GP is saying to close the can of worms of reasoning and rationalizing in favor of gut-checking things against childlike simple thinking. Don't kill yourself because ~everybody who isn't clinically depressed or "galaxy-brained" agrees that it's a bad thing to do. Simple. If the self-mummifying monks took this approach, they would probably take a vacation from monking after their trains of monkish thought arrived at suicide, instead of going through with it.
- msm_ 4y ago
  Isn't attainment of nirvana and ending the cycle of death and rebirth the whole point of Buddhism? To avoid the suffering of another incarnation? So maybe for the monks the ritual suicide is something their gut feeling tells them is right? I mean, I don't know a whole lot about Buddhist, but I suspect that you don't either (please correct me if I'm wrong). And really, is dying in peace during a religious ritual really so much worse than desperately clinging to life in hospital for the final before death, maybe ruining and exhausting your closest family in the process? Don't get me wrong, I prefer our way of life, but I believe you think your (our) culture is the only correct one, and for example refer to it as "gut-checking" or "childlike simple thinking". I don't think it's as universal and obvious as you think.
  - rcoveson 4y ago
    There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christianity. I'm talking about our ancient, shared core of self-preservation and empathy. The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. So no, to answer your question, I don't know much about Buddhism. I don't know much about mathematics, either, at least not when compared to how much there is to be known. And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). The same is true of a subset of philosophers (these particular Buddhist monks) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. I'm sure they've thought a lot about it; certainly a lot more than I have! But there's a thing that sometimes happens when you think about a problem too much, to the point of obsession: You can end up even further from the truth than you started. Just look at the hardcore utilitarians. Look at Ayn Rand. All of them know more about ethics and philosphy in general than I do. Doesn't mean I can't dismiss them with a heuristic, which I do. Why is there reverence for suicidal Buddhist monks in this arena, but not the equally-kooky Western utilitarians?
Natsu 4y ago
> - Why is suicide bad? It inflicts massive suffering to everyone around you and is frequently driven by incorrect perceptions of how bad things are which can be treated. > - Why is there a presumption that this is your one and only life? It might not be, depending on how you see loss of consciousness every night. Are you even the same person you were before sleeping last, other than that you believe you are? > - Why is there a presumption that life is made to be enjoyed? We seem to have some instinct to enjoy ourselves, though it can go wrong in many ways. Also, we like it. > - Why is there a presumption that consciousness ends after life ends? It really looks a lot like sleep, except that there are relatively few people who say they've ever observed anyone waking up from it. > - If death is inevitable, then couldn't suicide be broadly construed to pretty much ... just living? I mean, if we're going the kindergarten route, you'd tend to look at it as "just dying" ... except that many people have experienced it and it's generally horribly painful for everyone who was near you.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ep103 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ep103#35582936 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ep103#35582936

by hosh 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

> Why is there a presumption that this is your one and only life? > Why is there a presumption that consciousness ends after life ends? Because there’s no evidence to the contrary and Occam’s Razor as applied the plain observations of life and death suggests this is a reasonable base assumption. “The simplest explanation is usually best.”

msm_ 4y ago
I mean we are on HackerNews, site filled mostly with rational, down to earth people. But there are billions people that believe in, for example, saints that can intervene in the earthly affairs. They also believe in multiple stories about miracles involving that saints after their death. I don't, but your razor doesn't work when one believes there is evidence to the contray. In fact, despite our bubble, way, way more people worldwide are religious than atheists. (and by the way, you only picked two out of many questions to answer)
- pwgentleman 4y ago
  That seems to imply those billions of people religious are not rational, down to earth. Theism in itself is a simpler explanation for existence than atheism, and yet many rational people are atheists. Is it because they weighted all the possibilities or because they discarded the option a priori? We are all way less rational than we would like to believe.
  - unaindz 4y ago
    I would argue that theism is not just a simpler explanation but a more naive one. We could also explain computers as magic and it would be simpler than explaining it with electricity and math. No religions are based in any observable facts* and thus being naive explanations, indistinguishable from magic. * More like they are based on deprecated observable facts, at first the sun and nature, later man and it's dramas. Now we now the sun is just a big ball of gas and man is just a big brained mammal. That being said religion is just one area of many and you could be very rational in lots of them but be religious for whatever reason.
somenameforme 4y ago
The simplest explanation, by far, would be a deistic view of some sort or another from which questions of the meaning of life cycles immediately emerge. A belief in natural emergence relies not only on endless untestable hypotheses, but even still results in the exact same sort of frustrating unanswerables. For instance if one believes that the initial matter, which would culminate in the Big Bang, whisked into existence through a quantum fluctuation, then it immediately leads to the question of what created this void, rich in quantum interactions, or the nature of quantum interactions themselves? And for that there's not even a hypothesis, untestable or not. Maybe there will be one day, but also maybe not. To me the simplest answer is to simply acknowledge of our own inability to offer any compelling answer to this question. That's not to say an acceptance of such inability, but assuming the nature of a destination (one way or the other), in a journey we've yet to even scratch the surface of, seems neither simple nor wise.

rcoveson 4y ago

I think you've missed the point. GP is saying to close the can of worms of reasoning and rationalizing in favor of gut-checking things against childlike simple thinking. Don't kill yourself because ~everybody who isn't clinically depressed or "galaxy-brained" agrees that it's a bad thing to do. Simple. If the self-mummifying monks took this approach, they would probably take a vacation from monking after their trains of monkish thought arrived at suicide, instead of going through with it.

msm_ 4y ago
Isn't attainment of nirvana and ending the cycle of death and rebirth the whole point of Buddhism? To avoid the suffering of another incarnation? So maybe for the monks the ritual suicide is something their gut feeling tells them is right? I mean, I don't know a whole lot about Buddhist, but I suspect that you don't either (please correct me if I'm wrong). And really, is dying in peace during a religious ritual really so much worse than desperately clinging to life in hospital for the final before death, maybe ruining and exhausting your closest family in the process? Don't get me wrong, I prefer our way of life, but I believe you think your (our) culture is the only correct one, and for example refer to it as "gut-checking" or "childlike simple thinking". I don't think it's as universal and obvious as you think.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christianity. I'm talking about our ancient, shared core of self-preservation and empathy. The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. So no, to answer your question, I don't know much about Buddhism. I don't know much about mathematics, either, at least not when compared to how much there is to be known. And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). The same is true of a subset of philosophers (these particular Buddhist monks) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. I'm sure they've thought a lot about it; certainly a lot more than I have! But there's a thing that sometimes happens when you think about a problem too much, to the point of obsession: You can end up even further from the truth than you started. Just look at the hardcore utilitarians. Look at Ayn Rand. All of them know more about ethics and philosphy in general than I do. Doesn't mean I can't dismiss them with a heuristic, which I do. Why is there reverence for suicidal Buddhist monks in this arena, but not the equally-kooky Western utilitarians?

Natsu 4y ago

> - Why is suicide bad? It inflicts massive suffering to everyone around you and is frequently driven by incorrect perceptions of how bad things are which can be treated. > - Why is there a presumption that this is your one and only life? It might not be, depending on how you see loss of consciousness every night. Are you even the same person you were before sleeping last, other than that you believe you are? > - Why is there a presumption that life is made to be enjoyed? We seem to have some instinct to enjoy ourselves, though it can go wrong in many ways. Also, we like it. > - Why is there a presumption that consciousness ends after life ends? It really looks a lot like sleep, except that there are relatively few people who say they've ever observed anyone waking up from it. > - If death is inevitable, then couldn't suicide be broadly construed to pretty much ... just living? I mean, if we're going the kindergarten route, you'd tend to look at it as "just dying" ... except that many people have experienced it and it's generally horribly painful for everyone who was near you.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ep103 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ep103#35582936 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ep103#35582936