this one is about suicide. someone said somewhere in some forum (yes,i can remember where i live and what's my name...) that suicide is a coward. i think anyone can live, but there are people who are afraid to die. then there are others who are not afraid to die, but not brave enough to actually kill themselves (acrophobia perhaps...:>) ' (so the difference here is this: first one doesn't want to be dead or dying, so alive is only choice; second one doesn't want to be alive or dying, but wants to be dead. that's dead end for him. that dying part is hard to the brain to comprehend. that's why there is such thing as suicide attempt.) or is the one who's not afraid to die, actually not brave enough to live? as i said, anyone can live, it doesn't require bravery. but anyone can't commit suicide, so it requires something. bravery? stupidity? or maybe just help? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! life's a laugh and death's a joke... and i have to add this one: Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear -- not absence of fear. - Mark Twain
Most people who commit suicide have things going on in their life such that it looks like they became afraid of continuing to live. If someone who's an absolutely perfectly happy person -- doesn't just seem to be, but actually is -- commits suicide, then that's bravery. They'd be throwing away what they love in favor of what they fear... pretty much the definition of bravery.
Beg to differ... I'd call that second person the definition of stupidity Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Vargas: I was probably the one who wrote that, it sounds like something I would say. I disagree with you, I think it takes alot of courage to live. Especially if every day you knew that you were just going to get sicker, or if every day you knew that no one cared if you lived or died, that takes a good deal of bravery to face the pain and hurt, and continue living. Hoth: You have a very perverted definition of bravery. Dictionary.com defines bravery as being brave, which is defined as having courage, which is defined as "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution". It has little to do with giving up loved things for feared things. If someone loves puppies and is terrified of spiders, we would call that person stupid if they picked up spiders instead of puppies. But if the person was afraid of spiders, but picked up a highly-poisonous one because it was about to bite someone, we would call that person brave. Courage is the ability to do what needs to be done, not the ability to run headfirst into death. There's a significant difference, and hopefully you'll learn it before you become a danger to yourself by handling too many spiders in preference to puppies.
Suicide is the anti-thesis to natural selection. It is encouraged by sub-conscious seeds of melancholy from birth and will arise provided the circumstances of a given environment. Given the right amount of pressure surely anyone would crack. In those instances, life evolves coldly and harshly; suicide becomes a poignant testament to the trappings of the anorexic mind.
Noble ... <i>Seppuku</i>, which is the Japanese word for disemboweling yourself is widely known throughout Japan, and not just because it's a Japanese word, wise-guys. During WWII, the Japanese pilots were known as Kamikaze's, which, as everyone knows, literally translates over into Divine Wind. From an American standpoint, we figured they were committing suicide by bombing us and razing us and then divebombing into our battleships and such. In their minds, however, they were committing terrific bravery in spite of life. The people that committed <i>seppuku</i> did so out of nobility--it was nobler to die by taking one's life than to continue onward in defeat. I'm surprised at the hostility towards <b>Hoth</b>'s comment on suicide. <b>Fathoms</b> thinks it's the anti-thesis to natural selection, when it can actually fit right in with attrition. <b>Riomacleod</b> says that being courageous means that someone doesn't rush headlong into death. Can we think of anyone that's ran headlong into death? Well, <i>kamikaze</i>'s, of course. Who else? If you're Christian, you'd better say ol' Jesus himself. What about members of the recent jihad? Though we may agree that their act was despicable, can we really say that what they did was not courageous in their minds? Living day-to-day can be just as courageous as deciding to end it all oneself. During WWII, in the Warsaw ghetto (thousands of people were crammed into living quarters usually capable of sustaining hundreds), the Germans would require Jewish members within the communities to pick out from their number those that would be sent onto their death. Rather than choose who would die, they chose for themselves to die (through suicide). Not brave? Not courageous? Puh-<i>lease</i>. Sometimes the easy road in life is not taking a stand, not drawing a line about how far one will go. Would you feel better about someone committing suicide rather than choosing you to die, or, would you have felt he was more <i>courageous</i> by choosing you to die? Tough questions. And, yes, they apply here. Thanks! prag
If bravery depends on your particular ideas of what's morally right and wrong, then it becomes brave to do absolutely anything so long as it's defined as morally good and involves something you have a natural inclination against. People who murder but say they're murdering bad people, for example, would claim they have a natural inclination against murder but were forced to be overcome it in order to accomplish the moral task of vanquishing the evil people. These murderers thus become brave, by overcoming their inhibitions for the sake of moral righteousness. Considering that the morally relative aspect of bravery can mean anything, the qualification of doing something that is not the path of least resistance for the individual should be considered the defining characteristic of the term. This is why it’s more brave for someone who’s happy to commit suicide than someone who’s unhappy, and it’s more brave for someone who’s terribly unhappy to force their self to live than for it is for someone who’s happy to simply go on living. 1) Happy person choosing to live = no bravery involved 2) Unhappy person choosing to live = much bravery involved 3) Happy person choosing to die = much bravery involved 4) Unhappy person choosing to die = little bravery involved Of course, #3 never happens except in cases of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. That’s why these are seen as the ultimate brave acts: the person with a great life who gives it up to save others. Riomacleod, I have no desire to be brave in that extreme sense... neither in killing and being killed in some war as you would likely say defines the greatest bravery, nor in handing spiders. (Well, actually, there's nothing wrong with non-poisonous spiders.) Your concern is of course touching. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep, it depends on the reasons, the cause. To pilot a bomb-laden craft into an enemy ship for your country might be brave. To kill yourself so a sick person can have your liver, that might be brave. But most dumb-arses who get depressed and shoot themselves in the head are just dumb-arses.
If you remember, Pragmathen, Jesus asked at least twice for God to skip this part of it. When I said doesn't rush headlong into death, I meant that they didn't seek death for death's sake. Besides, who says that it IS nobler to die than live in defeat? Could it be that it's really nobler to admit defeat with your head held high? Isn't it possible that real nobility is knowing when you've been bettered, and accepting that you have more to offer the world? Saying Kamakazes are brave is like saying that suicide bombers are brave. Usually that's simply not the case. People that are indoctrinated into a fundamentalist organization such as Empirial Japan and many terrorist organizations, as well as groups like the KKK have lost the primary condition of bravery: namely choice. I remember a quote, I believe it was from Patton during the Korean War, but I could be wrong. "Your [The Soldiers'] job is to make sure the other guy dies for his country". I will give you that your Jewish example holds, with the exception that they are not commiting suicide. They are choosing who gets executed, and that's a completely different thing. Remeber being courageous is "Doing what has to be done". If the choice to sacrifice oneself is made so that your loved ones can live a bit longer, then that is bravery, and is a difficult decision. If the choice to sacrifice oneself is made simply to martyr oneself or to make people feel guilty (don't think it didn't happen) then that's stupidity at its finest. Finally, Hoth, I disagree about your assumption about what is the most brave. First of all, I don't think that death has to come into play with bravery. I think the people in the civil rights movement were brave, but very few of them really risked death. I think that people who stand up for what they believe in are brave. I don't really know what the most brave thing is, in all honesty, it's never occured to me to ponder it.
irresponsible Suicide or continue to live is not matter being brave or not. It's about responsibility. We're meant to live not just for nothing or even for ourself. We bring duty and obligation in our life. (I think i don't have to explain it too much about purpose of life).
i would love to share my oppinion with you but it hurts to much to write twice so i will just have to refer you to the other thread is suicide a civilised act ?http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5884
Asguard: I can only assume you are referring to your "You don't know despair" post, which seems to be the only one relevant to the topic. I've never been swayed by that argument for anything. I've never killed anyone, but I know that's wrong. I've never taken a sledgehammer to someone's car, but I know that's not right either.
Actually i was talking about the very last one i posted (sorry I think its on the third page). ____________________________________________________ I know i feel there is no good reason to take your own life NOW. I felt nothing like that then. I felt depressed, and isolated and i would have given ANYTHING for the world to go away. I could talk to my friend but there was nothing he could do to pull me back, he could only sit and watch as i sliped deeper and deeper. It started out that i would just pray that God would kill me. This went on for months and months before i sank even deeper into depression. One day i was sitting in my room thinking about what it would be like to die when i suddenly when looking for my poket knife. I gess God wanted me alive because i couldn't find it all i could find was a compass. I tried to slice my wrists with it but it was to small. So if not for luck (or God) i wouldn't be here at all I don't think it takes courage to live simply because cougrage is always linked to HOPE. If you sacrifice yourself it is in the HOPE that it will do some good. ____________________________________________________ When i felt that way i had NO HOPE so how could i have courage. I think i will quote another post from that thread This was from bbcboy (on page 2) ____________________________________________________ I think you could put this quote in a nutshell by saying there is always hope. By definition a person suffering the effects of depression has no hope. None! There are good days when moving forward is a possibility. There are manic days when a laugh is just as possible as smashing up a room. There is, however, no hope. Try to remember the most bored you've ever been. Now try to remember the exact moment you discovered you were so bored. Now imagine that moment in a loop, a time loop that never goes away, that never changes always there is no hope of improvement. We on the outside can see there is a better way. I've been on the inside and nothing anyone could say could improve my mood as much as I desparately wanted it to. That's depression There is no hope! All of you who've been there know I speak the truth. Those who haven't... I pray you never do. ____________________________________________________ I pray every day i am NEVER in that place again (all this might be iralavent but it might also give an insite into just what you are talking about, these are real people you are judging)
Just out of curiosity, especially for people who say there's an absolute wrongness involved, what counts as suicide? If someone intentionally takes a lot of risks, and essentially forces their "invitation" to death, should that be considered similar to suicide? Let's say someone has shown signs of depression, and then they go out to climb a mountain and they're reckless and "accidentally" fall to their death. Is it suicide when a person induces an "accident" for their self? They aren't directly killing their self, but on the other hand they're acting in a way that they must know has a decent chance of causing something else to bring about their own death.
I use to do that all the time. I would drive really fast on roads where there were no cars (i never wanted to kill anyone else just myself) and i would hope to crash but luckily i never did. That was before i tried a more direct aproach.
Originally posted by varkas: Sounds like... me! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Own experience: No. To live require lots of bravery... it's easy just too kill yourself... you kill, and it's done... but it's hard to decide to live when you have a crappy life... I guess I'm brave enough to live, not brave enough to kill myself, and not afraid of dying, but afraid of living... It's a hard place to be... Love, Nelson
I was always afraid of dieing (and the pain assocated with it). I was never afraid of being dead (after all death is the greatest adventure). As to being afraid of living i don't know. I don't think it was fear but more like being stuck on a ride that i didn't like and wanted to get off.
