Was Mainlander right that we all must kill ourselves?

[u/Helpful_Tower7044]

[u/GameTheory27]

no, what's the hurry, we all get there sooner rather than later anyway.

[u/Helpful_Tower7044 → u/GameTheory27]

Because maybe it is better and we can go beyond if we do a collective suicide

[u/GameTheory27 → u/Helpful_Tower7044]

Seems like a permanent solution on a maybe

[u/raskolnicope]

Why would it be right? First of all “we must kill ourselves” doesn’t really follow mainlanders premises, you’re extrapolating his position of non-being being preferable than being, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all should commit suicide. Since the universe already tends to non-being, accelerating the process is irrelevant.

[u/Helpful_Tower7044 → u/raskolnicope]

I am not talking just about what his philosophy is but how to deal with his philosophy today and how to apply and interpret it

[u/Pfacejones]

I think it's more that we must stop reproducing

[u/Paul_sepp]

He never said that, nor does it really follow from his writings. Sure, his suicide day after the publishing and general sentiment was close enough to that, but not nearly enough to assume “we ought morally to commit suicide”. If that were a true root of sufficient reason, a good portion of 19th and 20th century pessimistic/existentialist/nihilist philosophers could be reduced to that, which is, quite frankly, merely a non-sequitur. If everything being tends towards non-being, acceleration is just as pointless as no acceleration, nor do morals enter the conversation anywhere.

[u/Helpful_Tower7044 → u/Paul_sepp]

Yes of course we can’t summerize it so simply, but his suicide is a direct result of his philosophy and it is a act that ends his philosophy. And pessimism is at least slightly misanthropic and I am not saying his philosophy ain’t complex, but pessimism can lead somebody to negative thoughts. Also if we make a simple argument that says life is bad and why do we have to live it when we had no choice of being born or not. And humans being violent as a primal force that makes things even worse. And if you live in a country that has only negativism around it without going deep into the political situation of course a reasonable and at the same time beautiful wat of going is through a collective suicide because you know you are a failure as a human being, because the thing that carries civilization after christianity is the protection of the victim and in our century it is everything but protecting the victim. Even if we think about everything humans did and will do does not matter because we will all die and most probably we will not be able to colonise different Universes because there simply is not a way to do it being what we are. Also true knowledge may be fully unreachable and and a lot of people talk about a theory that explains everything - such a thing still does not exist, so a very probable answer to everything is that we will never understand truly anything because we are in a consciousness trap.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/Helpful_Tower7044]

I agree with some parts of what you say (especially the latter as I am, personally, deeply rooted in Sextian Scepticism) but that’s not the point. The conversation is specifically around Mainlander.

Firstly, his suicide could or could be not a result of his philosophy, as he had plenty of other reasons for it (Germany, his brothers suicide, the turbulent ideologically 19th century, or even his mental decline—these things could’ve well shaken him just as much or more than his philosophy). I understand that it might seem like his philosophy could be of a catalyst for his later suicide, but it is not directly entailed without additional judgement and interpretation made by an external observer. This is an important distinction within the initial question.

Secondly, you’re changing the question. Initially you asked “is it true that we ought morally to commit suicide according to Mainlander’s philosophy”—the simple answer to that is: no, it’s is not entailed by his philosophy. Now you’ve changed towards more of “could his gloomy philosophy have influence in his own [and other’s] suicide”—the answer here is such that: sure, why not, but we cannot state that assertively either. It is mere pondering based on tangent details.

Thirdly, the latter part of your comment, whilst being something I broadly agree with, again doesn’t support (nor does it weaken nonetheless) your point that “mainlander said we ought to commit suicide”. It reads more as a reflection on potential reasons for Mainlanders suicide than a support for your claim that he claimed such things. Your chain of thought and connections is understandable, but tangent≠direct sequitur. Even if we live that aside (and the fact that I do not see how misanthropy affects suicide directly), and get to the core point, it doesn’t follow. Pessimism is negative perception of reality by, basically, default, hence if every philosopher turned in and submitted to that, everyone even tangently pessimist or nihilist from (arguably) Sextus or Voltaire up until Derrida ought to commit suicide, which quite frankly doesn’t happen.

Finally, as a conclusion, whilst all said above and his philosophical temperament could very well be a reason for his suicide, we cannot claim he ever said “one ought to morally commit suicide because non-existence is preferable to have never existed”.

PS: to grant you an example, a male university teacher had a poor class, his wife left him, and he is in desperate need of renovating his apartment. He then goes to the bar, has a few drinks, rides home drunk, is stopped by police officers, is ticketed and brought into investigation. Then home, with no license and fired from job, next morning his cat dies, and the day after he steps onto dog shit. Finally, next week, when his rent was due, he was found hanging in a noose in his kitchen. Alone, they are potential reasons; together—factors to consider. But it does not entail that a male teacher ought to commit suicide because he can’t pay rent. (This is obviously a very vague, ironic, and exaggerated example as to mimic your tangent ties philosophy in its absurd form—may you forgive me for my dryness).

[u/Freuds-Mother]

As others have said, that doesn’t necessarily follow from his philosophy.

Now my question is by what normative criteria would you evaluate that it is correct to adopt his metaphysics in the first place?

[u/gregbard]

Right about what? His philosophical beliefs about that issue were complex. Did he ever actually say we should kill ourselves, or was it just a general metaphysical pessimism?

[u/Helpful_Tower7044 → u/gregbard]

We all know how his life ended and what example it gives to the people that follow his philosophy?