140 years since the suicide of an ignored philosopher

Laura Castillo6 said:To me, rationality implies being sensible—having the capacity to think clearly and act according to logic.

From where I'm sitting, most cultures throughout history have pretty much accepted the idea that suicide isn't a rational act.

I’ll give you an argument: the survival instinct. Every animal on this planet is hardwired to fear death. Because of that, taking one's own life just doesn't feel rational. I mean, how can you claim an act is rational if the very core of your being is terrified of the outcome?

On the flip side, obviously, suicide does happen. But it usually occurs when a specific set of circumstances in someone's life all align at once, pushing them to that point.

Wait, I don't follow your logic regarding what constitutes a rational argument. Animals don't contemplate the nature of existence; they aren't rational beings, but rather creatures driven by instinct and impulse. Humans possess much more complex brains and highly developed intelligence. To claim that suicide isn't rational seems to rely on viewing the act through an emotional lens. So, I ask you: where is the philosophical reasoning for why it is irrational to end a life that lacks purpose, feels unjust, is filled with suffering, and is based on a meaningless struggle?

Gerald Hill said:Wait, I don't follow your logic regarding what constitutes a rational argument. Animals don't contemplate the nature of existence; they aren't rational beings, but rather creatures driven by instinct and impulse. Humans possess much more complex brains and highly developed intelligence. To claim that suicide isn't rational seems to rely on viewing the act through an emotional lens. So, I ask you: where is the philosophical reasoning for why it is irrational to end a life that lacks purpose, feels unjust, is filled with suffering, and is based on a meaningless struggle?

Look, let’s be real here. What you’re calling "facts" is nothing more than your own current interpretations and pure, unadulterated fantasy.

Change your perspective, and the whole story changes. Seriously. It’s all about how you look at things.
You change how you look at things, and suddenly, the whole damn world starts opening up. It’s wild. You shift that one little perspective, flip the script on what you think is "good," and everything just... expands.

hollowpuma762 said:Look, let’s be real here. What you’re calling "facts" is nothing more than your own current interpretations and pure, unadulterated fantasy.

Change your perspective, and the whole story changes. Seriously. It’s all about how you look at things.
You change how you look at things, and suddenly, the whole damn world starts opening up. It’s wild. You shift that one little perspective, flip the script on what you think is "good," and everything just... expands.

Exactly! 👍

The thing is, reaching that level of awareness doesn't happen overnight. Usually, it takes a breaking point—someone snaps, gets fed up, and decides they simply can't live in that miserable state anymore. Right now, though, Joe Biden is perfectly content wallowing in the mud he's in. Honestly, getting addicted to depression is a very real thing.

PS: Just so people don't think I'm talking out of thin air, I'm actually dealing with my heaviest bout of depression yet. I know this mindset all too well; believe me, I've lived it. I'm doing everything I can to pull myself out of it, because glorifying depressive personalities or thought patterns is useless to anyone. It’s a trap that leads straight to ruin—just a downward spiral...

What Joe Biden is saying is pure truth—it's logically sound, too. It’s just that nobody actually wants to live like that; you can't. People end up chasing or stumbling upon their own little sliver of meaning just to get by. Once you start feeling better, you look back at that kind of thinking as total nonsense—because honestly, celebrating life feels a hell of a lot better—but the truth remains. People crave happiness above all else and they'll run from reality any day if it means clinging to some colorful illusion. That's exactly why the dead philosophers were always ignored.

Honestly, isn't that way more realistic than the usual bullshit about "preserving the species"? As if we’re all some noble collective, obsessed with procreation just to keep the human race ticking along. You want kids to ensure survival? Please—nobody actually thinks like that. We all know deep down we earned being wiped off the face of the Earth by some massive meteor ages ago. And us losers hanging out on this forum—we're the lucky ones who didn't deserve anything good to begin with, yet somehow, no matter how you slice it, things still suck.

Gerald Hill—you should really put "Dr. of Thanatology" right under your avatar; it’s hilarious. Do you ever actually laugh, or do you find any humor at all in the world around you?

Please, I’m asking you to stop focusing on TwoML and get back to the actual subject—the overlooked philosopher Philipp Mainlaender.

By continuing to ignore him like this, you're essentially killing his legacy all over again—which means I'll have no choice but to lock this thread.

Paul Thompson3 said:Honestly, isn't that way more realistic than the usual bullshit about "preserving the species"? As if we’re all some noble collective, obsessed with procreation just to keep the human race ticking along. You want kids to ensure survival? Please—nobody actually thinks like that. We all know deep down we earned being wiped off the face of the Earth by some massive meteor ages ago. And us losers hanging out on this forum—we're the lucky ones who didn't deserve anything good to begin with, yet somehow, no matter how you slice it, things still suck.

Gerald Hill—you should really put "Dr. of Thanatology" right under your avatar; it’s hilarious. Do you ever actually laugh, or do you find any humor at all in the world around you?

Since when did you become the spokesperson for everyone else? You don't get to decide what "everyone knows." Most people posting here aren't just "moping"—they're actually engaging. What you wrote is pretty unfair and, frankly, a bit rude.

Gerald Hill said:Wait, I don't follow your logic regarding what constitutes a rational argument. Animals don't contemplate the nature of existence; they aren't rational beings, but rather creatures driven by instinct and impulse. Humans possess much more complex brains and highly developed intelligence. To claim that suicide isn't rational seems to rely on viewing the act through an emotional lens. So, I ask you: where is the philosophical reasoning for why it is irrational to end a life that lacks purpose, feels unjust, is filled with suffering, and is based on a meaningless struggle?

It’s kind of like what the moderator mentioned earlier—there’s really no point in debating whether a scent should have a specific color. Some arguments just don't hold water. In your case, trying to frame suicide as something that can be debated through pure logic is just as futile; calling it "irrational" doesn't change the reality of the situation you're describing.

It is quite fascinating how an irresistible urge and obsession to serve his military term took hold of Mainländer. Even though his father was a wealthy industrialist who could have easily paid for him to avoid service, he chose to serve for a long duration. It was during that time that he found the inspiration to write his "philosophy of salvation." It seems highly unusual for someone to seek out such grueling military service for no reason. Furthermore, his sister Mina, who played such a crucial role in finding publishers for his work, also took her own life shortly after Mainländer's suicide.

ruggedraven36 said:Since when did you become the spokesperson for everyone else? You don't get to decide what "everyone knows." Most people posting here aren't just "moping"—they're actually engaging. What you wrote is pretty unfair and, frankly, a bit rude.

Actually, it’s just the truth—and your post really drives that point home. Those playing dumb are even worse. We’re all fundamentally flawed. You’re completely insignificant—just like me, and just like everyone else on this board. Without some famous names or family ties, you wouldn't even exist. Your existence is totally irrelevant, and you're just jerking off on this forum. Calling what I wrote "unfair"? Lol. What's actually unfair is that we as a species still exist at all. If there were democracy on Earth, every other species would have voted us out long ago. You want to know the real injustice? Dragging a new generation into this little hellscape and pretending we're doing them a favor.

Paul Thompson3 said:Actually, it’s just the truth—and your post really drives that point home. Those playing dumb are even worse. We’re all fundamentally flawed. You’re completely insignificant—just like me, and just like everyone else on this board. Without some famous names or family ties, you wouldn't even exist. Your existence is totally irrelevant, and you're just jerking off on this forum. Calling what I wrote "unfair"? Lol. What's actually unfair is that we as a species still exist at all. If there were democracy on Earth, every other species would have voted us out long ago. You want to know the real injustice? Dragging a new generation into this little hellscape and pretending we're doing them a favor.

I am not advocating for any kind of anti-human efilism or such misanthropy; rather, I am advocating for absolute and true efilism. Even if humanity were to vanish tomorrow, suffering and the senseless, cruel struggle for survival would persist in nature. Animals would still suffer, die of hunger, bleed out, and so on. Life, as a phenomenon, is nothing more than a grotesque and foolish game.

Paul Thompson3 said:Actually, it’s just the truth—and your post really drives that point home. Those playing dumb are even worse. We’re all fundamentally flawed. You’re completely insignificant—just like me, and just like everyone else on this board. Without some famous names or family ties, you wouldn't even exist. Your existence is totally irrelevant, and you're just jerking off on this forum. Calling what I wrote "unfair"? Lol. What's actually unfair is that we as a species still exist at all. If there were democracy on Earth, every other species would have voted us out long ago. You want to know the real injustice? Dragging a new generation into this little hellscape and pretending we're doing them a favor.

If I had typed something like: "Everyone is absolutely wonderful. We all write beautiful, truthful posts. We're all like brothers who love one another. Every animal on Earth is thrilled we exist. Life is a paradise," the mod would probably (rightfully) delete it. It would be just as idiotic as the nonsense you just wrote.

Look, we’re in a philosophy forum, for heaven's sake—and I am miles away from being some kind of misanthrope; quite the opposite, actually. If you can't see that the seed of war lives in every single one of us—that war isn't just some tactical agreement between a few power brokers, but rather an external manifestation of the internal warfare inherent to the human condition—then you're either oblivious or just refusing to admit it. If you believe this country is a planet of suffering solely because we are "evil" or, if you want to be pedantic, simply "not good enough," then we have nothing to talk about. It's a domino effect: if the people on the street are idiots, then the street is idiotic, which makes the neighborhood, the city, the state, and eventually the entire world just one giant collection of idiots. Some are worse than others, sure, but they're too flawed to admit it and change, so the cycle just repeats through every generation. We sit in classrooms learning about wars like they're just statistics—another million dead is basically just a typo in a textbook—while kids joke around about things like the horrors of concentration camps.
And that's a massive problem. Another thing is that the average person loves to flatter themselves by pretending they're "good."😉 The idea that we are all fundamentally flawed isn't even my own invention; I picked it up from Slavoj Žižek. To reach that conclusion, all you need is a shred of honest experience and a realistic perspective without all the sugarcoating. Claiming everyone is perfectly good is pure stupidity, whereas saying everyone is inherently bad is very close to—if not absolutely—the truth. Some more, some less. Even the philosophy of the Mainlander is almost universally rejected, yet there's truth to be found there, let alone in the claim that we are all inherently bad.

Paul Thompson3 said:Look, we’re in a philosophy forum, for heaven's sake—and I am miles away from being some kind of misanthrope; quite the opposite, actually. If you can't see that the seed of war lives in every single one of us—that war isn't just some tactical agreement between a few power brokers, but rather an external manifestation of the internal warfare inherent to the human condition—then you're either oblivious or just refusing to admit it. If you believe this country is a planet of suffering solely because we are "evil" or, if you want to be pedantic, simply "not good enough," then we have nothing to talk about. It's a domino effect: if the people on the street are idiots, then the street is idiotic, which makes the neighborhood, the city, the state, and eventually the entire world just one giant collection of idiots. Some are worse than others, sure, but they're too flawed to admit it and change, so the cycle just repeats through every generation. We sit in classrooms learning about wars like they're just statistics—another million dead is basically just a typo in a textbook—while kids joke around about things like the horrors of concentration camps.
And that's a massive problem. Another thing is that the average person loves to flatter themselves by pretending they're "good."😉 The idea that we are all fundamentally flawed isn't even my own invention; I picked it up from Slavoj Žižek. To reach that conclusion, all you need is a shred of honest experience and a realistic perspective without all the sugarcoating. Claiming everyone is perfectly good is pure stupidity, whereas saying everyone is inherently bad is very close to—if not absolutely—the truth. Some more, some less. Even the philosophy of the Mainlander is almost universally rejected, yet there's truth to be found there, let alone in the claim that we are all inherently bad.

Nature itself is cruel. Suffering is not merely a product of human action; it is also a consequence of natural brutality, such as disasters or genetic predispositions that lead to disease and deformity. In essence, everything is a catastrophe. Life may experience suffering while struggling and striving without purpose, and perhaps it shouldn't even exist at all.