The Ultimate Question: Existence

[Roose]

If you were offered the chance to continue life as you know it or to remove yourself from existence, what would you do?

This means that you were never born and therefore have no recollections of any sort. Snap of the finger and you never existed.

[Morae]

I dont understand the question. What reason there could be to erase yourself from existence completely? Usually when asking this kind of questions either side has positive things, but really... erasing yourself from existence is like going beyond suicide.

[Kasierith]

Willingly removing yourself is akin to suicide. When you commit suicide, you end things because you can no longer stand reality. You can no longer stand reality because something in it is making you unhappy. The reason why you care about being unhappy is that you care about yourself. If you care about yourself, you will not commit suicide. Therefore, suicide / erasing yourself is illogical

If you want to end it because you love yourself enough to end your own suffering, you're just hurting something you love

[apepi]

Ill pick life now, inexistence latter.

[Deleted]

Willingly removing yourself is akin to suicide. When you commit suicide, you end things because you can no longer stand reality. You can no longer stand reality because something in it is making you unhappy. The reason why you care about being unhappy is that you care about yourself. If you care about yourself, you will not commit suicide. Therefore, suicide / erasing yourself is illogical

If you want to end it because you love yourself enough to end your own suffering, you're just hurting something you love

Can you be more self righteous....There is suffering in the world beyond the limits of human understanding, and people take the only option left to them.

Trying to do pseudo logic to explain your religious beliefs only spits on the memories of those who felt so at loss with life they ended it by their own choice. I'd strongly suggest you never try using that on someone who has lost someone related to suicide.

---------- Post added 2012-03-22 at 01:48 AM ----------

I dont understand the question. What reason there could be to erase yourself from existence completely? Usually when asking this kind of questions either side has positive things, but really... erasing yourself from existence is like going beyond suicide.

It's "perfect" suicide, nobody who loved you suffers and you get to end your suffering.

[Kasierith]

Can you be more self righteous....There is suffering in the world beyond the limits of human understanding, and people take the only option left to them.

Trying to do pseudo logic to explain your religious beliefs only spits on the memories of those who felt so at loss with life they ended it by their own choice. I'd strongly suggest you never try using that on someone who has lost someone related to suicide.

Hmmm.... if that's your reaction to that, what do you think of the opinion that its better to let 5,000 people die horrible deaths than tell a lie, because you're responsible for your lies, but you aren't responsible for them?

[Deleted]

Hmmm.... if that's your reaction to that, what do you think of the opinion that its better to let 5,000 people die horrible deaths than tell a lie, because you're responsible for your lies, but you aren't responsible for them?

Did you enjoy that first year philosophy module?

Thought experiments are only interesting when they're well thought out.

[Kasierith]

Did you enjoy that first year philosophy module?

Thought experiments are only interesting when they're well thought out.

I wonder how long it will take you..

You have a perfect duty never to lie. The reason is that, it is impossible for everyone to lie. Lying is based on deception. Deception is based on being able to trick another to think something other than reality... however, if everyone were to lie, than deception would be impossible. All truths would be understood as lies, and because of this the lies are the truth, because the lies are the reality that everyone expresses. If everyone knows that what you say is not true, you cannot deceive them. In addition, whenever you lie to them, you are using them as a means to an end. You are removing their ability to make their own choices and decisions as a free, rational being. If that person is about to kill 5,000 people, you are denying them their own will. Denying a person this is immoral and wrong, because you are using that person's gullibility as a means to the end of saving others. On the other hand... you aren't the one actually harming the people. You aren't the person who is killing them, that person is. You have an imperfect duty to help them... but whenever a perfect duty and an imperfect duty conflict, you must always go with the perfect duty because ultimately by ignoring those who die you are not using them as a means to an end.

[Adam Jensen]

May as well pick both since we'll all experience "nonexistence" sooner or later.

[Deleted]

I wonder how long it will take you..

You have a perfect duty never to lie. The reason is that, it is impossible for everyone to lie. Lying is based on deception. Deception is based on being able to trick another to think something other than reality... however, if everyone were to lie, than deception would be impossible. All truths would be understood as lies, and because of this the lies are the truth, because the lies are the reality that everyone expresses. If everyone knows that what you say is not true, you cannot deceive them. In addition, whenever you lie to them, you are using them as a means to an end. You are removing their ability to make their own choices and decisions as a free, rational being. If that person is about to kill 5,000 people, you are denying them their own will. Denying a person this is immoral and wrong, because you are using that person's gullibility as a means to the end of saving others. On the other hand... you aren't the one actually harming the people. You aren't the person who is killing them, that person is. You have an imperfect duty to help them... but whenever a perfect duty and an imperfect duty conflict, you must always go with the perfect duty because ultimately by ignoring those who die you are not using them as a means to an end.

Again, your miserable attempt at logic does nothing but highlight the severe lack of understanding on your part.

There are numerous glaring issues with your initial proposition, as well as your analysis. However as I'm currently in quite a lot of pain I have no patience to bother explaining it to you. I'd strongly suggest you go off and study philosophy if you wish to attempt to use it in conversation, because you're bloody awful at it.

[Stir]

If you care about yourself, you will not commit suicide.

Not entirely true. If you care about yourself, entering non-existence would certainly prevent more suffering.
The problem, of course, is that indeed it is illogical because you won't be aware of the fact that you're no longer suffering. In effect, by robbing yourself of the chance to get a better life, you make your own suffering eternal, because, to any mortal creature, eternity goes no further than their own life span.

However, there are circumstances where it might be better to prevent increasing suffering. It's not a black-or-white stance.


I voted 'life.' I have plenty of time to perfectly not exist when I'm dead. And yes, that would be a perfect non-existence. When I am dead, I leave no loved ones in mourning... Rather, they lose a me and may mourn because of their loss. It's all relative, you see. If I cannot perceive, then as far as I am concerned, that which I cannot perceive does not exist. In the same light, as soon as I am dead, I cannot exist except for in the perception of those who've known me in life.

[Kasierith]

Again, your miserable attempt at logic does nothing but highlight the severe lack of understanding on your part.

There are numerous glaring issues with your initial proposition, as well as your analysis. However as I'm currently in quite a lot of pain I have no patience to bother explaining it to you. I'd strongly suggest you go off an study philosophy if you wish to attempt to use it in conversation, because you're bloody awful at it.

How could you ever even think of claiming to know philosophy without having looked at Immanuel Kant? If perfect and imperfect duty didn't give him away, than you have never looked at his theories. He's basic, basic ethics... oh, and it isn't that his logic fails. Its the fact that you cannot accept a world of pure logic and absolutely no empathy. Its why Kant gets such a bad name... even though ironically, utilitarianism is the one that people say is cold and heartless.

I grew up in St. Petersburg, between two drastically different eras. My childhood was spent looking back at a long history of a nation's suffering, surrounded by people trapped in a fog of hopelessness and confusion as their entire world changed bit by bit around them. There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world, but that is a part of reality. You can either reject it, and spend the rest of your life with the weight of mental anguish pressing down on you.. or you can accept it, and at least have the small comfort that you are not alone in this world

[Deleted]

How could you ever even think of claiming to know philosophy without having looked at Immanuel Kant? If perfect and imperfect duty didn't give him away, than you have never looked at his theories. He's basic, basic ethics... oh, and it isn't that his logic fails. Its the fact that you cannot accept a world of pure logic and absolutely no empathy. Its why Kant gets such a bad name... even though ironically, utilitarianism is the one that people say is cold and heartless.

I grew up in St. Petersburg, between two drastically different eras. My childhood was spent looking back at a long history of a nation's suffering. There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world, but that is a part of reality. You can either reject it, and spend the rest of your life with the weight of mental anguish pressing down on you.. or you can accept it, and at least have the small comfort that you are not alone in this world

Look I've studied philosophy extensively through Sociology, I've two degrees in the field. And the crap you spouted I'd have barely let you pass a theory class.

You sound like a first year philosophy student who has yet to actually understand any of the material he has read in a contextual sense. But do continue, it's actually funny.

Please do not talk down to our users. Post respectfully or not at all.

[Glad]

I would chose life, though I have had some doubts about that before. My mother's life would have been hella easier if she had waited longer to have kids; if I never existed she probably would be happier with her life. (Also, why are people commenting like it's suicide? Was that part edited in after posting? I feel like there's a pretty clear difference between taking your life and never have existed in the first place)

[Ogretron]

It's "perfect" suicide, nobody who loved you suffers and you get to end your suffering.

So you also remove any joy you might have brought to anyone? The only reason I can think of for someone to want to do that is if they hurt a lot of people in their life. If that were the case, I don't see them feeling remorse enough to actually choose this option anyway.


I choose life, obviously. This isn't an "ultimate" question at all.

[Prancing Minstrel]

I still have people I hate to see suffer, I'd carry on for now.

[Kasierith]

Look I've studied philosophy extensively through Sociology, I've two degrees in the field. And the crap you spouted I'd have barely let you pass a theory class.

You sound like a first year philosophy student who has yet to actually understand any of the material he has read in a contextual sense. But do continue, it's actually funny.

Alright, if you don't recognize what I was trying to say, I'll try to lay it out on a more basic level
The basis of Kantian Deontology is the application of universality. Everyone must conceivable be able to perform an action at the same time. If you do something that, if every single person in the world were to do it it would become illogical, it becomes imperfect. For example, if everyone in the world were to steal, no one could steal. Everyone being able to steal means that there is no concept of private property. Without private property, one cannot steal. So the fact that everyone can steal means that no one can steal, thus making it logically inconsistent.
By the same reason, you can never lie to another person, because if everyone were to lie to each other, there would be a basic understanding that the other is lying, and if they know that your lie is a lie on principle, you cannot deceive them... so it is impossible for all people to lie to each other. If an act is so that you could not comprehend every person who ever lived doing it, than it is an immoral act.
The addition to this, the interpersonal aspect, is to never, ever use others as a means to an end. This is because all humans possess free will and rational thought. If you are to use others as a means to an end, you deny them free will. An example of this is lying to a police officer about committing a crime. A police officer is his own, individual agent in the universe; given his own means, he will arrest you for breaking into the house. If you lie to him, however, you deny him this; you deny him the information that he needs to make a rational decision, and by doing that make him a means to your own ends, ie getting away.

Is any of this ringing a bell?

[speehs]

Oddly, yesterday I would have chosen nonexistence in a heartbeat, but today the thought horrifies me. The brain is a strange, strange contraption.

[Fuzzzie]

Post respectfully please.. Thank you.

[Kasierith]

Post respectfully please.. Thank you.

My apologies, I'll edit my tone down