Two questions about hedonism

Sam Martinez9 said:Quote:>

ruggedbadger2 says: @Sam Martinez9 One can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—perhaps the hope of a reunion in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope in such a dark situation, people often lose their grip on reality or end up taking their own lives. >

That’s a consolation, not really hope.

It is rare for a parent to kill their own child, but we much more frequently see cases where parents lose a child to a car accident or an illness. Even then, it's rare for those individuals to seek an exit through suicide.

I have a friend who lost her son about three years ago, and she tells me the pain feels just as sharp as it did on day one. She doesn't find any real solace in anything. However, she has a daughter who needs her, and so she keeps going, enduring the grief of her lost son just to be there for her.

@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

Sam Martinez9 said:Quote:>

ruggedbadger2 says: @Sam Martinez9 One can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—perhaps the hope of a reunion in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope in such a dark situation, people often lose their grip on reality or end up taking their own lives. >

That’s a consolation, not really hope.

It is rare for a parent to kill their own child, but we much more frequently see cases where parents lose a child to a car accident or an illness. Even then, it's rare for those individuals to seek an exit through suicide.

I have a friend who lost her son about three years ago, and she tells me the pain feels just as sharp as it did on day one. She doesn't find any real solace in anything. However, she has a daughter who needs her, and so she keeps going, enduring the grief of her lost son just to be there for her.

I guess there isn't much of a difference between consolation and hope anyway. Think about a parent trying to find comfort by hoping their kid will recover from an incurable disease, versus a parent finding solace in the belief they'll see that child again in heaven after they pass. In both scenarios, you have a parent clinging to something unprovable just to reach a positive outcome.

If a parent loves their child more than themselves—under any definition, including the idea that everyone is ultimately self-interested—then wanting the best for that child or less suffering for them is pretty much a given. I don't really see why this would be considered an action that results in neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.

hiddeneagle98 said:@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

That's also an easy way to spin it.

hiddeneagle98 said:@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

Why are you questioning this poor woman's sincerity?

I haven't heard cynicism this disgusting in a long time.

ruggedraven36 said:Why are you questioning this poor woman's sincerity?

I haven't heard cynicism this disgusting in a long time.

I don't think she’s picking out some noble little rationalization just to impress whoever she's talking to; rather, I think her conscious mind genuinely believes that's the truth. It’s like that guy who walked around with a brain injury thinking he was handed a shovel to clean up bird droppings—he actually believed it. When someone views themselves as a good person (which, let's face it, most of us love to believe), their conscious mind will "fill in the blanks" based on that self-image.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe anyone can be absolutely certain about the specific reason why they aren't going to take their own life. For most people, it's less about a specific reason and more that they simply cannot bring themselves to do it, regardless of the circumstances. So, how can you be sure it's because of one specific reason, and that if that reason vanished, you'd suddenly decide to end it? If you ask me, our conscious awareness doesn't have a clear enough window into those deep-seated psychological processes to articulate the exact causes and motives. Instead, the conscious half just interprets raw feelings and fills in the gaps with whatever narrative makes sense at the time.

I agree, it’s not about being cynical. It’s just a fact that killing yourself is incredibly difficult; the body is hardwired to stay alive at all costs. But once those mental loops take hold, I guess it becomes hard to pin down why someone did or didn't go through with it, or why they feel like they didn't.

Of course, both sides could be right here—maybe she kept going for her daughter, or maybe she just kept going because survival is an instinct we can't really turn off. We're just guessing from the outside, so it's impossible to know for sure. These are just my assumptions.

hiddeneagle98 said:I don't think she’s picking out some noble little rationalization just to impress whoever she's talking to; rather, I think her conscious mind genuinely believes that's the truth. It’s like that guy who walked around with a brain injury thinking he was handed a shovel to clean up bird droppings—he actually believed it. When someone views themselves as a good person (which, let's face it, most of us love to believe), their conscious mind will "fill in the blanks" based on that self-image.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe anyone can be absolutely certain about the specific reason why they aren't going to take their own life. For most people, it's less about a specific reason and more that they simply cannot bring themselves to do it, regardless of the circumstances. So, how can you be sure it's because of one specific reason, and that if that reason vanished, you'd suddenly decide to end it? If you ask me, our conscious awareness doesn't have a clear enough window into those deep-seated psychological processes to articulate the exact causes and motives. Instead, the conscious half just interprets raw feelings and fills in the gaps with whatever narrative makes sense at the time.

She nearly went through with it. About three weeks after her son's funeral, she made the decision. It was simple and stark: when she weighed the crushing agony of losing her child against any potential future joys life might offer, she concluded that living simply wasn't worth the effort.

However, her daughter—who lives separately but talks to her on the phone every single day—picked up on something in their conversation. She said the magic words: "I need my mother alive." After hearing that, my friend decided not to go through with it.

She still feels that life isn't worth living, but since her other child still needs her, she keeps going.

I know, I know... you can argue this is just her story, that she was just planning it all along, blah, blah, blah...

ruggedbadger2 said:I agree, it’s not about being cynical. It’s just a fact that killing yourself is incredibly difficult; the body is hardwired to stay alive at all costs. But once those mental loops take hold, I guess it becomes hard to pin down why someone did or didn't go through with it, or why they feel like they didn't.

Of course, both sides could be right here—maybe she kept going for her daughter, or maybe she just kept going because survival is an instinct we can't really turn off. We're just guessing from the outside, so it's impossible to know for sure. These are just my assumptions.

Look, regardless of how we're "hardwired," you aren't really a person unless you're making conscious, free choices about what's best. We can't pull a peek inside her brain to see her programming, but one thing is certain—what she did was noble.

ruggedbadger2 said:I guess there isn't much of a difference between consolation and hope anyway. Think about a parent trying to find comfort by hoping their kid will recover from an incurable disease, versus a parent finding solace in the belief they'll see that child again in heaven after they pass. In both scenarios, you have a parent clinging to something unprovable just to reach a positive outcome.

If a parent loves their child more than themselves—under any definition, including the idea that everyone is ultimately self-interested—then wanting the best for that child or less suffering for them is pretty much a given. I don't really see why this would be considered an action that results in neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.

Hope is the belief that things will change for the better. For instance, hope is believing a child will recover and return to being healthy, happy, and playful... and that life will simply carry on from there.

Comfort, however, steps in when hope has run dry. It’s what happens when the child won't get better, won't live a healthy, joyful life anymore, and we won't get to experience that happiness with them.

But we find comfort in the thought that we'll meet again somewhere else—heaven, perhaps—or that we will join our child in whatever comes next, whether that's a divine realm or the vast, dark nothingness that atheists believe follows death.

ruggedbadger2 said:I agree, it’s not about being cynical. It’s just a fact that killing yourself is incredibly difficult; the body is hardwired to stay alive at all costs. But once those mental loops take hold, I guess it becomes hard to pin down why someone did or didn't go through with it, or why they feel like they didn't.

Of course, both sides could be right here—maybe she kept going for her daughter, or maybe she just kept going because survival is an instinct we can't really turn off. We're just guessing from the outside, so it's impossible to know for sure. These are just my assumptions.

Actually, taking one's life isn't difficult at all. My apartment building in Chicago uses natural gas; you just turn a valve and... well, you know. Beyond that, getting ahold of certain pills isn't an issue these days either, especially for a woman grieving the loss of her son.

It isn't hard, and in some instances, even making the decision isn't the hurdle. Usually, it happens when death starts looking more appealing than continuing to live. When that happens, and how it unfolds, depends entirely on the individual's specific circumstances and their personal breaking point. There is also the grim argument that death is inevitable for everyone eventually, so why wait?

And, naturally, religion plays a massive role. A devout believer won't take their own life because suicide is considered a grave sin.

Sam Martinez9 said:She nearly went through with it. About three weeks after her son's funeral, she made the decision. It was simple and stark: when she weighed the crushing agony of losing her child against any potential future joys life might offer, she concluded that living simply wasn't worth the effort.

However, her daughter—who lives separately but talks to her on the phone every single day—picked up on something in their conversation. She said the magic words: "I need my mother alive." After hearing that, my friend decided not to go through with it.

She still feels that life isn't worth living, but since her other child still needs her, she keeps going.

I know, I know... you can argue this is just her story, that she was just planning it all along, blah, blah, blah...

Alright, look, in the first version of the story, it felt like it was missing that emotional hook—that moment where the daughter reminds her she isn't just a grieving parent, but a mother to someone else too. With that detail added in, the whole thing actually makes sense.

I'm not trying to insist that this is just one person's subjective reality; it's more that the way you originally laid it out reminded me of that old psychological case study involving the split brain and the two different halves of the mind fighting for control.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, regardless of how we're "hardwired," you aren't really a person unless you're making conscious, free choices about what's best. We can't pull a peek inside her brain to see her programming, but one thing is certain—what she did was noble.

Nobody is questioning whether she was noble or if her actions were ethical.

Sam Martinez9 said:Hope is the belief that things will change for the better. For instance, hope is believing a child will recover and return to being healthy, happy, and playful... and that life will simply carry on from there.

Comfort, however, steps in when hope has run dry. It’s what happens when the child won't get better, won't live a healthy, joyful life anymore, and we won't get to experience that happiness with them.

But we find comfort in the thought that we'll meet again somewhere else—heaven, perhaps—or that we will join our child in whatever comes next, whether that's a divine realm or the vast, dark nothingness that atheists believe follows death.

Then you could argue that believing things will just magically improve is its own kind of comfort... but whatever, we're getting off track.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who actually believes in a "great black void" after death. There isn't anything after death because there’s nobody left to experience it (another tangent, I guess).

hiddeneagle98 said:@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

I’d personally categorize your take as little more than lumpen-psychology.

For context, look at the suicide rates in a place like Rhode Island, a state with a relatively small population compared to the rest of the country. Then, compare those figures to other states or international data.

The conclusion remains clear: suicide is a very real issue, and people from all walks of life reach the decision that death is preferable to continuing their lives, for a multitude of reasons.

ruggedbadger2 said:Then you could argue that believing things will just magically improve is its own kind of comfort... but whatever, we're getting off track.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who actually believes in a "great black void" after death. There isn't anything after death because there’s nobody left to experience it (another tangent, I guess).

I agree. I'm currently typing this up while at work, so it's a bit difficult to focus properly on the posts and the specific phrasing, which was my first thought on the matter.

Sam Martinez9 said:I’d personally categorize your take as little more than lumpen-psychology.

For context, look at the suicide rates in a place like Rhode Island, a state with a relatively small population compared to the rest of the country. Then, compare those figures to other states or international data.

The conclusion remains clear: suicide is a very real issue, and people from all walks of life reach the decision that death is preferable to continuing their lives, for a multitude of reasons.

And where exactly did I claim that suicides don't happen???

hiddeneagle98 said:And where exactly did I claim that suicides don't happen???

Of course you didn't. But that makes your post directed at Disney even more distasteful.

The reality is that suicides certainly happen, but my friend didn't take her own life because she loves living or because she has an affection for herself; she did it because of her other child.

So, you essentially spat on a complete stranger, labeling her a common liar who is masking her true motives and her reasons for staying *in this world* from everyone else—and from herself.

Sam Martinez9 said:Of course you didn't. But that makes your post directed at Disney even more distasteful.

The reality is that suicides certainly happen, but my friend didn't take her own life because she loves living or because she has an affection for herself; she did it because of her other child.

So, you essentially spat on a complete stranger, labeling her a common liar who is masking her true motives and her reasons for staying *in this world* from everyone else—and from herself.

1. I can't believe I'm even seeing this kind of commentary floating around anymore. It’s like people just stop thinking the moment they open their mouths to type. You see these threads popping up, full of the same tired arguments and recycled nonsense, and you have to wonder if anyone actually processes what they read before hitting "post." It's exhausting, honestly. It feels like we're stuck in this endless loop where everyone is just shouting into the void without an ounce of nuance or actual perspective. It’s not just annoying; it’s genuinely draining to navigate these discussions when it feels like common sense has gone out the window entirely. Let me just set the record straight on one thing you said. I wasn't "snarking" at you because of some weird grudge involving that friend of yours or whatever; I was simply making a connection back to what we were talking about earlier.

Look, my comment was using your friend’s situation as an example—an example that you were the one who voluntarily brought up in this thread to begin with—but it wasn't just about her. It was meant to be a broader point about human nature. The whole idea is that everyone is essentially a "typical liar" in their own way, myself included. So, saying I’m "feeding the trolls" or fueling the fire is a total stretch; if we follow that logic, I’d basically be admitting that I’m a troll myself, which isn't how I see things at all.

Look, you’re missing the point entirely. That single sentence you used to frame this woman's entire situation isn't actually a description of her—it’s just one line that you pulled out of thin air. In fact, she didn't even write it herself; you did. So, when you try to build this whole narrative around it, you're really just arguing with your own words rather than anything she actually said. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation, but honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels at this point. It’s one of those things where you look at the facts, try to make some sense of the chaos, and realize that the logic simply isn't there. It reminds me of watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is standing around debating the color of the conductor's hat instead of actually grabbing a shovel to clear the tracks. We keep seeing these same patterns repeat themselves, almost like a glitch in the system, and every time I think we've finally reached a turning point, we just slide right back into the same old dysfunctional habits. It's frustrating because it doesn't have to be this complicated, yet here we are, dealing with the fallout of decisions that seem to defy common sense. The whole point of that sentence was to focus on the actual wording itself—what you can derive from the text on the page—rather than making some grand analysis of that mysterious woman’s character or her body of work.

And for the record, I never once said she was just some "run-of-the-mill liar," nor am I trying to reduce her entire life and legacy down to one of your pathetic, single-sentence summaries.

Look, if you’re actually getting worked up over this conversation about your friend, then maybe just don't bring her into a debate about hedonism where people are busy stretching the definitions of pleasure and pain until they're completely meaningless. Instead of trying to pin all that "guilt" on me next time, take a second to reflect on why you feel the need to weaponize your friends' genuine struggles just to score a point in some pedantic internet argument.

To put it bluntly: take your little morality lectures and shove them. Seriously, just save the sanctimonious preaching for someone who actually gives a damn.

Besides that, I’m done trying to argue this point on this thread. It feels like a total waste of breath because we've reached a point where actual discussion is impossible. People have this desperate, almost pathological need to feel superior—to prove they're the "good guys"—by treating everyone else like they aren't even human. Once someone decides they need to dehumanize you just to validate their own existence, there’s no reasoning left to be had.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Sam Martinez9 said:Of course you didn't. But that makes your post directed at Disney even more distasteful.

The reality is that suicides certainly happen, but my friend didn't take her own life because she loves living or because she has an affection for herself; she did it because of her other child.

So, you essentially spat on a complete stranger, labeling her a common liar who is masking her true motives and her reasons for staying *in this world* from everyone else—and from herself.

I think the percentage of parents committing suicide due to the loss of a child is actually quite small, so hiddeneagle98 is right to question whether this specific case is truly representative.

That bolded sentence contains a double negative.

Harold Doyle3 said:I think the percentage of parents committing suicide due to the loss of a child is actually quite small, so hiddeneagle98 is right to question whether this specific case is truly representative.

That bolded sentence contains a double negative.

Thanks for the post. My brain's reaction was really just a matter of habit and somewhat dogmatic thinking.