A Response to Suicidality

+++
title = “A Response to Suicidality”
author = [“Balls”]
date = 2022-03-06
draft = false
+++

It has been recently propositioned to me that suicide is a radically individualist action. I will state
my position quite briefly and succinctly: this concept is one imagined by slow mind, perhaps
even retarded in its development, and reflects a fundamental deficit in the character of its
author.

I will begin my response with the first excerpt of interest:

> Suicide is a rare form of true individualism and is a real rejection of the forced seperation of
> one from oneself. The person who commits suicide truly asserts themself over their
> situation… and makes their actions their own actions against the wishes of family, friends,
> boss’s, teacher’s and others.

I am unconvinced by the definition of “individualism” proposed here. To the author, it is not the
exercisement of liberty, the existence of fundamental rights, or the prioritization of oneself over
the whole? No. The “individualism” outlined here entails only disobeying others, without any
elaboration or nuance. Suppose a society in which norms required the use of a toilet and
sanitation for defecation. In this society, the author would in “radically exercising” his
own individualism, not only embarrass himself but run contrary to his own obvious interests.
Such absurdity is the only logical result from a definition of individualism which does not
consider the motivations (did the author even want to defecate on themselves?) or outcomes of
actions; the only factor to be considered is whether an action faces widespread approval or
disapproval. Individualism would be nothing more than a snide contrarianism.
But the following lines is where the author truly overplays their hand:

> In the little time the individual has to himself for many it is dedicated to useless consumption
> of media… None of this contributes to the development of the individual into something
> greater or otherwise develops them.

Here, it is revealed that all the posturing of “individualism” and the brave “assertion” of suicide is
merely a facade. In truth, the author accidentally admits that they have no conception of the use
of one’s time beyond mindless consumption. Rational observers might point out the many ways
in which the author could develop themselves physically and mentally — toning their physique,
seeking opportunities of higher education, discovering a new passion, starting a family — but
such is unthinkable, the idea that others might dedicate their time to pursuits with meaning —
unbelievable! Were this person given the ability they so desire, to spend all of their time at their
discretion, they would still engage in the same cycles and routines of mindless consumption.
For someone so obviously attempting to be contrarian, this ironically reveals complete and utter conformity. And thus we arrive at the crux of this perspective: to the author, ending one’s existence is a more feasible reality than self improvement or discipline.

I will conclude in a very blunt manner: it is no coincidence that such a caricature would imagine
suicide as a victory. Because the suicidal man is not one of strength, but one of weakness. A
man who lacks the minimal creativity to imagine a better future for themself and the motivation
to pursue any act of self improvement in attainment of such. Pleasure, to such a man, is not
happiness, but the lack of pain, because such a life knows no such positives. And I suppose it is
inevitable that one who would chase immediate, hedonistic pleasure so thoroughly in life would eventually come to delude themeselves into seeing the finality of such laziness as death.

But to the rest of us, suicide remains the ultimate act of failure.