Blog

(Post ID shown: 18)(Post Category: phil)

Philosophy V3(/∞)

The ramblings of a madman some shall call, an insane rant from a retarded mind; But Philosophy is more, philosophy is questioning the very existence we live, our perception, our morals, our ethics, our humanity. Philosophy is everything. For thou may live a life of grandeur, yet philosophy still reaches thee, for Philosophy is universal, a constant, a reminder, of mortality, of death, of life, of murder, of suicide.
While I may not be a philosopher, the current state of the world is frightening; while thy assets may be in order, chaos nonetheless unfolds, the world in chaos, in madness. Yet we don’t question it–others anguish, pain, tears, we don’t spare a second though at the idea of homicide, suicide, genocide, we accept it, accept it as normal, as natural.
While nonetheless we’ll all die, death early is ultimately unneeded, a short life serves no purpose but to harm the minds of others.
While thou mind may not be preoccupied with such ponderings, nonetheless it’s an unyielding fact, a fact as set in stone as Athena Parthenos, unyielding, final, unchanged. The human mind, a misunderstood, unknown, and unhelpful existence; it serves no purpose to the world cut short, yet harms the world further in life.
A paradox, that’s what it is, an unknown, impossible scenario, yet at the same time present, possible, likely. Will the human existence continue? Should it continue? The continual existence harms the environment and world as a whole, yet the human mind is set on self preservation, on life, on prosperity.
So should the human race, the human mind, the human malice, anger, and harm continue? Should the world be subject to its unyielding horrors, or should it be cut short, with death, premature death, bittersweet death.
While death would be positive for the world overall, is it against the human condition to die, to be cut short? Or should we ignore the human condition, of hunger and malice, of greed and self preservation, and cut our lives short? Should we follow the thinking of Albert Camus or Arthur Schopenhauer? Of continued life, or death?
Should suicide be a choice? Penalized for wanting life to end? Or should it be accepted as normal, natural, wanted? Should we even consider it as an option when it harms the fragile minds of others, their illusion of life and death as discussed in Philosophy V2(/∞)? Or should we consider it taboo, unwanted, unneeded?
While death would benefit, it would also harm, suicide would harm the minds of others. So the dilemma still stands, should it be accepted or criminalized? Criminalizing it would decrease the likelihood of it, sure, but it would also take away the free will of life and death, suffering or blissful ignorance.
Penalizing people for committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is generally seen a good thing, sure banning it would make several people continue living, however is it truly worth living if that life is full of pain, sorrow, and depression?
On the other hand, allowing it openly would drastically decrease the population. Without the threat of punishment suicide would become much more common and accepted; but would allow for the freewill of life and death, it would allow those who feel like life isn’t worth living escape a terrible reality.
Would it benefit or harm? That question is a question yet to be definitively decided by the human race, yet to be pondered if life is truly worth living, if we’ll actually impact the world, the galaxy, the universe in a meaningful, lasting way, if our lives actually serve a purpose.
Purpose, yet another paradox, while some try to explain the purpose of the human race by ceding a plan given by deities, but these art yet false promises, false hope, not a true solution to the question posed; does the human race serve a purpose other than to exist?

Date of writing: 2025-5-27