hypothesis

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Azul, Jun 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Azul

    Azul Well-Known Member

    Hypothesis: Suicide is in some cases a natural way to correct over population or to get rid of socially useless members of society. In a society where people are living close to each other, certain individuals, the weakest, will be made to feel inferior from the rest and unconsciously be encouraged to kill themselves, to make space for others.
    If this is true, it is important for the suicidal to become conscious of the inauthentic origins of his suicidal feelings and reclaim his right to live, based on a belief in the superiority of individual over group interests. In other words to impose on the world his own values, rather than have the world impose its values on him.
     
  2. Azul

    Azul Well-Known Member

    "Socially useless" is maybe not a good choice of words. Many functions in society could be viewed as "useless" but are nevertheless accepted. I wish to rephrase it as "socially unaccepted."
     
  3. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Very interesting hypothesis. I agree with the part about reclaiming one's intrinsic value and right to live.
     
  4. Ignored

    Ignored Staff Alumni

    I don't agree with your hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to back it up rather than pure supposition?
     
  5. bipolarbiped

    bipolarbiped Active Member

    Shygirl-
    I believe Darwin has come up with the same theory... survival of the fittest. Nature has a way of removing the weakest link from the gene pool. We as humans interfere with the natural course of things.
     
  6. Ignored

    Ignored Staff Alumni

    That was true, but in civilised society we try to by-pass such animalistic behaviours... otherwise we'd kill disabled babies at birth etc wouldn't we? Therefore, survival of the fittest doesn't really apply and therefore implies that society does not encourage "weak" members to suicide.
     
  7. bipolarbiped

    bipolarbiped Active Member

    Society as a whole does not actively encourage suicide, however, it should be noted that people can, and do, prop themselves up to the detriment of others. Therefore, whether consciously or unconsciously "survival of the fittest" still applies to the situation. Whether we as humans can overcome the inferiority placed on us by others is entirely up to us. Sometimes complex and difficult moral choices are decided less by reason and right than by sentiment.
     
  8. Ignored

    Ignored Staff Alumni

    What do you mean, prop themselves up to the detriment of others? Who are you talking about? :unsure:
     
  9. bipolarbiped

    bipolarbiped Active Member

    I mean that people will use others to further themselves along in life. "Climbing the ladder" on the backs of others. Nobody specific, just generalities.
     
  10. ACRon

    ACRon Well-Known Member

    this is all true, by what your saying though there is no true friend in our nature, just the survival instinct and everything else is null and void. what a horrible life!

    thank god we are allowed to masturbate or we would go insane!
     
  11. Azul

    Azul Well-Known Member

    Shygirl wrote:
    I don't agree with your hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to back it up rather than pure supposition?


    No, it’s pure supposition, albeit after long hard thinking and observing the world.


    Shygirl wrote:
    but in civilised society we try to by-pass such animalistic behaviours... otherwise we'd kill disabled babies at birth etc wouldn't we? Therefore, survival of the fittest doesn't really apply and therefore implies that society does not encourage "weak" members to suicide.


    We try to bypass such animalistic behaviours… Yes but the human is a sublime animal. This means the mechanisms of survival etc. operate with humans to get the same results as in other species, but has to take another course than the direct animal one, to obtain these results, in ways the direct consciousness is not aware of. For example it is clear what we call romantic love is one of the ways nature has come up with to obtain the result of procreation. When we’re in love, we would say we’re in love, and not that we’re part of a chain of procreation. But viewed objectively, it’s exactly that. The objective outcome is procreation, and love was the means of getting us there.
    If you look at our species on a macro level it is perhaps possible that you’ll observe there are unconscious mechanisms that regulate the population, like for example a mechanism that makes life unbearable for some people so that those would make the seemingly subjective choice of suicide.
    In inner cities, ghettos, where there is not much space to distribute among its inhabitants, it can be observed that there is much more violence and murder. On a subjective level there will always be a subjective explanation for this or that murder.
    Same in confined little spaces like prison, where the weak are discouraged to take up much space.
    We don’t kill our indesirables, we’re far too human for that, instead we isolate them, which in the end achieves the same result that society wanted to reach by killing them (minus the guilt though): they don’t take up our space and they don’t disturb our society.


    Sketches wrote:
    by what your saying though there is no true friend in our nature, just the survival instinct and everything else is null and void



    I don’t follow… Where have I said or implied this? I have expressed the hope that the individual can overcome the imperatives nature lays on him.

    Sketches wrote:
    thank god we are allowed to masturbate or we would go insane


    yeah, it is fun isn’t it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.