Posts from Hmm

In principle, there is no definitive answer to this question; it all depends on the specific situation and the specific person, and I will now explain why, especially emphasizing the second point. In this discussion, the prevailing view is that suicide is for the weak, that only a weak person would choose to escape their miserable existence into the afterlife, but this is hardly the case. In practice, people with weak character tend to cling to life quite well. Look around and you will see many examples – alcoholics, drug addicts, homeless people; these are all people who have fallen and lead a terrible and pathetic existence, which can only be conditionally called "life." Do you really think they don't commit suicide because they have a strong character? Or willpower? Or do you think they are happy with their lives? I anticipate a weak argument from someone along the lines of "if they were unhappy, they would change everything!!!!!!" However, firstly, a weak person is weak precisely because, even realizing that they are living in a mess, they cannot find the will to change it, even through suicide. Secondly, many Russians are unhappy with their lives and do nothing to change it; you only need to look at the discussions about politics to see this. However, I am starting to stray into unrelated topics; the bottom line of my thought is that weak people are weak because they cannot decisively change their lives, even by ending them. I could devote a second paragraph to explaining why suicide is not always an indication of a person's strength, but everyone is already talking about that, so I won't waste my energy.

Here, Siever is right, by the way. There are some examples, for instance, self-sacrifice – which, by the way, is also a kind of suicide.

And if you replace "everything is bad" with "everything is good" in the first option, it would be a little more interesting.

in practice, weak-willed people actually cling to life quite well

He-he... Siv, the key point here is that everyone clings to life by default. Both the weak-willed and the strong-willed. So, all your subsequent arguments are incorrect. As I mentioned in the discussion about politics, I believe that a certain degree of reflection and an attempt to think about oneself are not the least important factors in committing such an act. Obviously, all your "homeless people" in the examples simply lack this factor; they simply don't have the proper level of self-awareness.
One of the most famous suicides is Judas Iscariot. Being one of the twelve apostles, he was probably quite intelligent. There is an opinion that the betrayal was actually his ingenious scheme to launder money: that is, he expected to receive money from the Jewish priests, but Jesus would still not be executed. In the end, we know that things turned out differently. Being a person who was intelligent, but weak, Judas Iscariot chose the path of suicide. He possessed reflection, but did not understand some other things. He realized that he had made a huge mistake, but he preferred not to come to terms with it.
Still, he possessed some determination, there is no doubt about that. He possessed a certain destructive determination. But this is not courage in any sense – courage requires overcoming one's own fears, confidence. Determination, however, is also inherent in weak people in some cases. Determination without courage distinguishes the fact that a person may decide on evil and stupid actions, indulging instincts and base feelings. But following base instincts cannot be called courage, because these are the simplest instincts in one way or another. Even if their execution is associated with some higher-level brain activity. Courage, on the other hand, is pure higher-level activity, because fear is one of the strongest instincts, and courage is aimed at overcoming it.

In my opinion, the question is quite clear. And based on the question, I would distinguish between suicide and self-sacrifice. One thing is when a person wants to change something in this world, they have a goal that could potentially be approved by their like-minded people. And they are ready to pay a high price for this goal, such as their life. (This includes spies, astronauts, religious fanatics, but not schizophrenics, blackmailers, and other mentally ill people). Another thing is when (as stated in the poll) everything is bad, and the person, on the contrary, does not see a goal ahead and, due to the lack of a goal, does not want to live. In general, you understand, here there is a goal – there, there isn’t.

It's clear that all the homeless people in your examples simply lack this quality; they don't have the necessary level of self-awareness.

And what do you think they're doing when they get drunk or high? They're trying to suppress that self-awareness. But between sessions, there's sometimes a window when they realize how miserable their existence is. And instead of interrupting it, they go for another dose – that's their weakness of character. I understand that you have a high opinion of yourself, but believe me, you don't need to have a complex spiritual structure or unlimited intelligence to realize that you're at the bottom and that it won't get any better.

But following base instincts can't be called courage, because it's just the simplest instincts in one way or another.

Exactly. And the instinct for self-preservation is one of the strongest. So draw your own conclusions.

I would say that the instinct of self-preservation doesn't exist on its own. It's just a consequence of other instincts. For example, if we didn't feel pain, we probably wouldn't be afraid to cut our finger. If the pain of life is stronger than the pain of death, as the survey suggests, then the instinct of self-preservation simply shouldn't work normally.

And do you think they drink or take drugs for what? Precisely to suppress this self-awareness. But sometimes, between sessions, there's a window when they realize the utter worthlessness of their existence. And instead of ending it, they go for another dose – that's what weakness of character is. I understand that you have high self-esteem, but believe me, you don't need to have a complex spiritual structure or unlimited intelligence to realize that you're at the bottom and that it won't get any better.

It doesn't take much intelligence to consciously or unconsciously formulate several disparate facts. Nor does it take much to derive the subjective statement "everything is bad" from them. But the next logical step, in my opinion, requires some reflection.
And yes, "intelligence" is not quite the right word here. It's more about a kind of self-analysis, things that are related, but not identical.

I would say that the instinct for self-preservation doesn't exist on its own. It's just a consequence of other instincts. For example, if we didn't feel pain, we probably wouldn't be afraid to cut our finger.

Well, I don't know, I decided to jump out the window, I walk up to it, and suddenly I feel a sense of fear, even though it seems like I've never fallen out of a window before in my life.

Maybe... I should think about it. For now, it seems to me that the explanation could be that the person has a separate fear of heights (I'm not sure if it's innate or acquired). But perhaps there's also something in a separate fear for their life, something that's not so simple...

A person needs strength to avoid complaining when things are bad.

If we, for example, didn't feel pain, we probably wouldn't be afraid to cut our finger.

Yeah, and we'd die from tetanus or infection. Or we'd be crawling around with complicated fractures.

Well, yes, it's not just a coincidence that we've developed a nervous system that's appropriate for dealing with these dangers.

I used to firmly believe that strength is needed for suicide, and now that the issue has resurfaced, I decided to think about why that might not be the case. And I came to the conclusion that it still is.
It seems that humans are inherently inclined to consume garbage: our ancestors did it, working as serfs, dying at 15 from pneumonia and picking worms out of the walls of their dugouts; half of our contemporaries consume it in underdeveloped countries, or under dictators, or simply as a result of unfortunate life circumstances; our children will consume it, along with boiled cockroach anuses. Safe doses of garbage can even be beneficial – they can strengthen a person's digestive system and teach them not to turn up their nose or run out of the room at the sight of this delicacy. And if a person is placed in a suitable environment from birth, they may not even know that there is another way, and they will not identify themselves as someone who is having a bad time. In any case, a person consciously or unconsciously feeds themselves with the lie that things will somehow improve.
As a result, on the one hand, we have a certain layer of attention-seekers who are cutting themselves and shouting from rooftops for half an hour about how they don't want to live; alcoholics and drug addicts who are quite successfully making their miserable existence more bearable; all sorts of orphans, workers, garbage collectors, and disabled people who live by habit and have long since stopped hoping for anything – all of them spoil the sample. And on the other hand, we have proud warriors of the past (and present) who choose death, as well as simply decisive people who quietly and peacefully end their lives – playing for the result. And also stupid schoolchildren who post a farewell status on VKontakte and jump off the roof, but here there is always some kind of idiot involved.

You'll see plenty of examples around you – alcoholics, drug addicts, homeless people; these are all people who have fallen and lead a terrible and miserable existence, which can only be conditionally called "life." Do you really think they don't commit suicide because they have a strong character?

I think they don't commit suicide because they lack such thoughts.)
There's clothing from someone else's shoulder, year-round potatoes (or whatever is now common among those leading a miserable existence; Lock writes that it's worms, so let's say it's worms), and entertainment in the form of booze and a similarly unfortunate member of the opposite sex nearby.
What else is needed? What's the reason to make a tragedy?
Again, this is the limit of possibilities. "You can't jump higher than your head." Of course, you can complain that the booze is expensive and the partner is cross-eyed, but would you kill yourself because of that? You're kidding, right?

Added 14 minutes later
In general, IMHO, it's not enjoyable for everyone to break through their own ceiling; many are already doing well. And many don't even think about the possibility of moving to a new level. So, the example with the homeless isn't very good.

Here's another example.
A young scientist, who showed great promise in school and, of course, in university, decided to commit suicide at the age of 27 because by that age he had still not made any groundbreaking discoveries and wasn't even on the path to making them. "Since there are no discoveries, it means that the hopes placed in me were false; I am worthless, and my life is meaningless."
At the same time, he already had several students (also promising young scientists) and quite good educational activities, which had earned him fame and admirers in narrow circles.

What do you say about this? Strength or weakness?

I'm with Revan. I'll go buy some rope.

Added 1 minute ago
Women are to blame for everything.