Only the Lonely

http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/06/24/only-the-lonely/

by jlangenauer • 13 years ago

395 107 13 years ago

kposehn• 13 years ago

I've always thought that if you know someone is suicidal, don't always make it apparent that it is on your mind.

Sometimes they just need to have a person who lets things be normal - someone who knows what is there, but doesn't let it change the tone of every interaction.

That seems one of the most helpful things you can do, in my opinion.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

Honestly, as a non-suicidal person, I find my opinions on the matter are almost always wrong (at least according to people who hopefully are in better positions to know) so I have given up having opinions on the matter.

michaelochurch3• 13 years ago

Sometimes they just need to have a person who lets things be normal - someone who knows what is there, but doesn't let it change the tone of every interaction.

Yes. I'm very glad you said this. Mental illness is bad, but even worse is all the nonsense you have to put up with from people when you try to get your life back together-- the prying questions, the discrimination, the ridiculously long-lasting career-altering properties (due to people in power generally being superficial and mean-spirited) of minor health problems.

It's like a hurricane. A few people die in the storm itself, but then hundreds or thousands die in the human-made chaos and disintegration afterward. Seeing the wreckage that is made of your life after a mental health event (and experiencing the fact that many people want, with glee, to push you back into the hole, because it means less competition) can, for many people, trigger another one that is longer-lasting and harder to break out of.

If you're not a psychiatrist or therapist, often the best thing you can do for a mentally ill person is help that person get back to a normal life.

mooze2• 13 years ago

I wrote a blog post on this a while ago, but it boils down to being kind and supportive in a non-intrusive, non-judgemental way.

EvanKelly2• 13 years ago

This is the essence of being a good friend. Just "being there" is sometimes the most important thing a person can do. It's easy to let a person know you're there for them without hitting them over the head with the fact that you're worried about them.

thaumaturgy2• 13 years ago

It is extremely difficult to know how to interact with someone with depression.

Often, you're right, it would be fantastic to just hear from someone who invites themselves over for lunch and a game on the weekend. Other times, you really want to be able to just have a deep conversation with someone, to be able to let your guard down for a while and talk about troubling things openly and honestly. Unfortunately, that's often unrealistic: the other person has to be in the mood for it, you have to feel safe enough about it to not shy away from it because it might be made a big deal of later on, when you're feeling better.

flatline• 13 years ago

I don’t want to be alone, but I want to be left alone.

I have always suffered from this as well. Perhaps it is just a touch of introversion? I have a happy marriage and family but I often need time all to myself or I just get overwhelmed by the constant stimulus of...other people. I don't even necessarily do anything different than I would with my family, though I generally try to work on my own projects or study something interesting.

minikites• 13 years ago

That's understandable. I read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/d... and I felt a lot less guilty after more thoroughly understanding myself and what introversion is (not necessarily the same as misanthropy or social anxiety)

hjay2• 13 years ago

I saw the picture of Susan Cain (the author) on that page and I thought she was awfully familiar. It was then that I realized she was the lady who gave this talk http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.... a while back.

Enjoyed the talk, I will be looking to buy this book once I'm done with my current reading schedule.

PavlovsCat• 13 years ago

Isn't that the (pop?) definition of extrovert and introvert, i.e. some recharge when with others, others when alone?

For me that seems to constantly change, that is, when I spent a lot of time alone, people are exciting and refreshing to me, but if I spend many intensive hours with many people, I sometimes actually physically shiver in relief the second that is over: the moment I walk out the door, close the door behind visitors, or put down the phone, I tremble a bit and feel a wave of relaxation wash over me. I like to think that's a sign that my body and mind were looking forward to some alone time, to process things maybe, instead of me being antisocial or socially inept.. but I'm not sure, could be a bit of both.

jenius• 13 years ago

Wow this is super weird, I was just thinking this exact same thing about myself, spacing out and mulling it over in front of my computer screen, then I refocused my eyes and this was the next comment and I read it.

Crazy. I'd love to know what the answer is though, for real - what would we be classified as?

I experience things exactly as you said - for me it's about a balance. Sometimes I have been out too long doing whatever with people, hanging out, drinking etc and I want some time to take a break, get a glass of water, and get some work done. And sometimes I have been getting work done for too long and I need to be out and see people. It's a very strong urge on both sides, and the ideal spot is right in the middle.

ncphillips• 13 years ago

I can relate to this at times. Although I would be perfectly capable of doing working at home, I don't. Instead I sit in public places so that I am not alone. But, I would note, those places are not social. In the library of my university is a large open room, which often has several people in it; however, is a designated quiet area so talking is kept to a minimum. This way I am not alone, but I am left alone. It is the presence of other's I enjoy, not necessarily their attention.

mindcrime• 13 years ago

Yeah, same here. I'm sitting at a Barnes & Noble cafe right now, actually. I prefer to be here over being at home, because if I'm alone in my apartment too much in one go, the "lonely" thing really kicks in big-time. But, by the same token, even though I like having people around right now, I very, very much do not want to talk to any of these people, or interact with them in pretty much anyway. Well, OK, other than the two hot baristas serving coffee, especially the redhead, but I digress...

Anyway, the "lonely but want to be left alone" thing really resonates with me. I definitely am a lonely person, as I find it harder and harder to "connect" with people on a deep level as I get older, and I don't have many truly close friends even though most people think of me as highly social, and I have tons and tons of acquaintances. So I know lots of people, am social enough to interact with strangers when I want to, have no problems networking and talking to people at events, etc... but I still mostly don't enjoy being around people, except for a very selective set of people that I deem interesting. Most people bore me very quickly, which is, I suppose, part of my problem. Very few people just seem to be interested in anything genuinely interesting. Outside of hanging out at SplatSpace (local hackerspace), most people strike me as fairly boring.

It also doesn't help that I have strongly held opinions and positions that make me a minority in one sense of another in most social groups (I'm a Libertarian and I'm atheist) so the set of people I'm likely to feel good about deeply engaging in is already pretty small.

sigh

asie4• 13 years ago

As somebody who has cancer, mentioned in the article and mentioned right next to diabetes (cringe), I look at the people complaining about how human interaction is complicated and life is difficult and I am left speechless.

Fuck people, make an effort. Do it for the dying ones.

eshvk6• 13 years ago

Life is difficult. People feel their problems are insurmountable; "make an effort" feels like an American cheerleading thing. Sometimes, it is not really about the effort; if it was, you could get rid of therapists and SSRIs and tell people to run around the block a few times.

Also, everyone is dying. Your illness has made you more aware of it; how people accept death is the question.

paranoiacblack4• 13 years ago

You're just missing the point entirely. Fry isn't setting up Cancer and Diabetes and Depression or suicidal thoughts as equals, but rather as equally likely ailments. "Make an effort" is blaming the victim for something usually out of their control which is similar to blaming you for getting cancer. Imagine if you were telling someone with skin cancer or lung cancer that they should "make an effort" to stay out of the sun or quit cigarettes. You're trivializing the disease that's already there.

And you're not the only one. This is a common attitude people have. It's as if people who really feel detached from this life and want to end it do not have that right. Instead, millions of people would rather sit down and debate whether it's ethical for someone to kill themselves or have a physician-assisted suicide. Maybe we all want to believe that everything is a Hollywood-esque setting where you just need to find the right people and love of your life to get everything back together. In reality, mental illness (cyclothymia, in this case) is just as real as every other illness and you can't just "make an effort" to get rid of it. I'm sorry about your illness, but try to not to trivialize other's, it isn't a competition.

ANTSANTS2• 13 years ago

That portion of the article is referring to clinical depression, not general loneliness and unhappiness. You just demonstrated his point (that people have a hard time seeing mental conditions like bipolar disorders as actual diseases of the mind and not just bad attitudes) quite nicely.

Pardon me for being frank, but when I pause to imagine having my life taken from me before I was done living it, or being so profoundly unhappy that I would sincerely attempt to kill myself, I can only see both as terrible in their own right. There's no sense in trying to compare the severity of one to the other.

heurist• 13 years ago

Depression (and other forms mental illness) isn't as fatal as diabetes or cancer but it is fatal for many people and ruins the lives of even more.

pavs• 13 years ago

Fuck people, make an effort. Do it for the dying ones.

I think this is exactly what Stephen was referring to, most people don't understand clinical depression, including yourself, it seems.

At least with something like cancer you can tell for sure whether you will live or not or for how long you will suffer. With clinical depression, even if diagnosed and medicated most people suffer as long as they are alive, and some people will even try to hide for fear of people constantly trying to be in their face with advice and overtly concerns. Similar to what Stephen is facing, which makes me wonder if he trying to hide it...

lfuller• 13 years ago

This just shows an ignorance of the issues being discussed here. The issue is not that "human interaction is complicated and life is difficult", it's that his feelings - and the feelings of many others - are the result mental illness.

This is a serious health issue - equally as serious as cancer.

cranefly2• 13 years ago

Cancer frightens me very much. How are things going for you?

Crake• 13 years ago

For some people, depression is terminal.

The world would be a much better place if people understood this. (Incidences of terminal depression might decrease, too.)

vacri• 13 years ago

"Fuck people, make an effort"? What do you think Fry's essay was? Did you read it past the bit you didn't like at the start?

Instead of focusing on the few words of the essay about what affects you, why not focus on the torrent of words about what affects Fry? In other words, 'make an effort'.

electronvolt• 13 years ago

I'm sorry that you have cancer. It's a terrible disease that nearly took a parent from me (it had metastasized before it was caught; my mother was incredibly lucky). I don't intend to trivialize it by any means, but I do think it's important to compare it to something like bipolar disorder.

Malignant cancer will probably either be dealt with or kill you on a time scale of 5-10 years, and although mortality rates vary, your chances of surviving many forms of it, particularly if it's caught before it metastasizes, are decent. Yes, there's a chance that it has gone into remission and might come back, but that chance goes down every year it hasn't happened, to the point where you're generally considered 'out of the woods' if you've been cancer free for more than 5 years. It's in many ways an acute disease: you have it, and it either kills you or you get better. Treatment is acutely unpleasant, but unlikely to kill you and although it can leave you with health concerns (if I remember correctly, it can cause osteoporosis in some people), for the most part you are done with it after less than a few years of chemo+radiation therapy.

Compare that to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 20. Life expectancy in the US is almost 80. You don't really get better from bipolar disorder: you can be stable for a long time, but you never get to the point where you're considered to be 'out of the woods' with regards to having more mood episodes. That gives 60 years of dealing with a disease that has a high mortality rate and incredibly unpleasant symptoms; mania sounds great until you realize that it can mean experiencing full blown psychosis: walls melting, seeing people where they aren't levels of crazy. About one in three (25% to 50%) of bipolar patients attempt suicide at least once; one in five will die from suicide. As has been pointed out elsewhere, that is a higher death rate than some cancers, and that is -one of- the ways it can kill you.

The treatments, too, although not as immediately unpleasant as chemotherapy, are honestly potentially worse and cause more chronic concerns. They can cause other chronic problems that can kill you (liver failure, weight gain, weight loss, diabetes, thyroid dysfunction, lithium toxicity/lithium, weight gain, diabetes, associated heart issues/depakote+antipsychotics, PCOS in women/depakote) or be debilitating (dystonia, tardive dyskinesia/antipsychotics). It should be a sign of the severity of some symptoms that it's considered an acceptable trade off to have muscle spasms or uncontrollable facial movements for the rest of your life, sometimes in ways that are debilitating enough that you won't be able to walk. Note that these aren't the disease, these are the side effects that're considered 'less bad' than experiencing the actual symptoms of bipolar disorder. Many of them are permanent and will continue even if the medication that caused them is stopped.

These are some of the -common- serious side effects, not all of the common side effects (there are lots of other common ones that effect quality of life, including hair loss, sexual dysfunction, memory failure, etc.). With regards to rarer side effects, lamictal can (rarely; 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000) cause your skin to fall off, particularly if your dose is increased too quickly.

Schizophrenia is generally worse than bipolar disorder, and the treatments are often similar (less lithium, more antipsychotics).

Both are chronic conditions that, when they are bad, can keep you from working, finding housing or living a normal life for however much longer you live.

I wouldn't wish cancer or bipolar disorder or schizophrenia on anyone. But I'd probably wish for cancer over severe bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

nostrademons• 13 years ago

I think there's a difference between what Fry's describing and normal introversion. Normal introversion is "I just want to be left alone for a few hours", or at most, "I just want to be left alone this weekend". Introverts have normal need for community, they like being around people - they just can't stand to be around people too much, because it's energy draining for them. Fry seems to talk in terms of "I just want to be left alone this lifetime."

There're a lot of personality traits that are perfectly normal over the short term that become pathological over the long term. Sadness, for example - he describes how before medication he would consider suicide daily, while now he can still feel sad, but it doesn't feel like this all-consuming ever-present companion. Anger too: it's normal to get angry, it's not normal to be angry. And loneliness, and drive, and even things like hope or rationality.

I remember describing to my therapist that I have this tendency to get super-obsessed with whatever I'm working on and block out everything for a couple days so that I can concentrate on it. Her first question was, "Do you return to your normal life at the end of those few days, or do you feel like it consumes you until you finish it?" When I said I usually return to normal after a bit, she was like, "Maybe that's just a personality trait of yourself that you have to learn to accept." It's (generally) not pathological if it's temporary, if you feel you have a "self" outside of the trait.

thaumaturgy2• 13 years ago

Fry seems to talk in terms of "I just want to be left alone this lifetime."

There is a struggle -- not speaking for him but for myself -- between wanting companionship and wanting to be alone. I think my default state is, "I just want to be left alone", but every so once in a while all of the alone-ness (not loneliness per se, but all of the quiet and solitude and introspection and stillness that accompanies prolonged periods of being alone) kind of piles up and becomes too much to bear, and then I need to connect in some way with someone for a little while.

But, only a little while.

And, if I don't get to make that connection, then loneliness sets in: the feeling that I am no longer alone by choice, but rather that there is something wrong with me, something that is off-putting to other people. Then, I begin to feel unable to connect to others.

It is a damnable thing. I have tried all manner of approaches to "managing" it, to make it less pathological, but in the end I simply loathe the company of other people right up until I suddenly am desperate for it -- where it's too late and too difficult to get it because I don't maintain friendships and relationships the way that other people do.

dwc2• 13 years ago

Normal introversion is "I just want to be left alone for a few hours", or at most, "I just want to be left alone this weekend".

I think there are a lot of introverts who would disagree. From my reading, introversion/extroversion is a broad spectrum. Many of us prefer not to engage socially much at all, to the point where it's the inverse of what you stated. Once in a while, I like to be around people for a few hours. Or at most a weekend.

mwfunk• 13 years ago

I've always been like this as well. I have all sorts of solitary things that I enjoy doing, and that time spent alone recharges me for the other parts of my life. But, when I'm alone too much, I get lonely and that makes me unhappy. But, when I'm trying to maintain a social life I don't get my alone time as much and that makes me unhappy.

Fortunately my wife is very similar, so it's a good fit on that level. It can just be really hard finding a balance while still being a good friend to my friends.

suppressingfire• 13 years ago

Naw, don't worry about it.

You're a great friend :-)

lcedp• 13 years ago

I believe it's just how the human mind works. If you spend a lot of time with somebody(even with the loved ones), you start to want to enjoy some time alone. But after an hour(or a day) without them you want the opposite.

callmeed• 13 years ago

Yes, most definitely.

I never really realized it until I got married. Going from only child to being married to a big, loud, Italian family was hard. On Thanksgiving and Christmas, usually by 1pm I'm down the street going for a walk.

RexRollman• 13 years ago

I've been diagnosed with cyclothymia as well and I had always assumed that this feeling was part of it. I want to be alone but, as the same time, I don't want to be lonely. It's a weird thing and something of a paradox.

javajosh13• 13 years ago

Personally, I think it's great that Fry has been so forthcoming with his travails. It helps others tremendously to know that they are not alone.

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification, independent of brain-chemistry. Hamlet is right for the wrong reasons. These are my beliefs:

The only real reason to continue is because you think that you can contribute, in at least a small way, to the long-term well-being of humanity. You, an individual, are a cell in a vast organism of humanity, and your duty is to find something useful to do. There are many ways to do this, as a (spiritual, physical) healer, as a (artistic, technical) creator, or as a player of (business, political) games (who, by the way, use the output of the first two types in the game).

The "long-term well-being of humanity" itself has many possible expressions. On the largest scale, it means making sure that humanity itself can survive any calamity. That means not only taking care of this planet, making sure that it can sustain life, but it also means reaching and colonizing other places in the solar system and galaxy. Given the incredible work required to build a self-sustaining colony orbiting the Earth (which is the only viable option given our level of technology) maintaining intellectual freedom is paramount. Constructing social/political/economic systems that reward power to those with self-restraint, and engender trust in those who could harm us is also important. On a smaller scale, raising children is crucially important, because the organism of humanity needs new cells to replace the cells that die.

Comedians like Stephen Fry are our philosophers. They perform a remarkable feat of alchemy, taking the banal horrors of political and social life and transmuting them in to something funny, something insightful, something that makes you think. Humor is an effective coping mechanism when we face our own prejudices, our own contradictions and, importantly, the same mistakes we see in others. Too often our leaders, and indeed we ourselves, don't laugh enough at the tragedies of our age - for laughter is more powerful than hate, because it criticizes injustice but mercifully leaves behind the terrible burning that anger creates.

Please, Stephen, continue.

michaelochurch3• 13 years ago

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

I don't see death as innately undesirable (though the period immediately before it can be painful) but I think that karma is real (not the loopy, Westernized kind; it occurs over millennia and its only continuation is through the mind itself-- nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies) and that rebirth is true.

Choosing to die isn't necessary karmically negative-- and euthanasia goes into a different category-- but killing anyone (including oneself) in anger or out of a negative emotion probably is karmically negative, and the moment between lives is one of the most powerful/karmically charged points that one faces. So, for me, it just seems like a risk I don't want to take. Even when life seems horrible, I don't kid myself into believing for a second that I couldn't be born again much worse off, facing all the same karmic problems but with less in the way of resources.

(No, I'm not saying "suicides go to hell" because I'm not sure I believe in a hell; but I am saying that I think an afterlife is, although certainly not proven, more likely than not and I don't want to go there on bad terms.)

javajosh13• 13 years ago

nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies

Evidence of reincarnation would be astounding! Interestingly, even if reincarnation were proven, scientifically, to happen, it wouldn't change my belief at all. My duty is to Earth life in general, and the human organism in particular, and that's true whether my mind is the same age, or very much older, than the body I'm currently wearing. :)

gnaritas2• 13 years ago

it occurs over millennia and its only continuation is through the mind itself

Minds last no longer than brains, which is a human lifetime; how could it possibly occur over millennia?

nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies) and that rebirth is true.

Rebirth and reincarnation are supernatural beliefs; they have no foundation in fact or evidence at all.

but I think that karma is real

Based on what evidence?

(not the loopy, Westernized kind

It's all equally loopy.

ANTSANTS2• 13 years ago

I don't see death as innately undesirable (though the period immediately before it can be painful)

Ironically, I was under the impression that dying itself is strangely pleasant and comfortable, while being dead and done forever is the scary part.

Not that I ever bothered to ask a dead person or anything.

eshvk6• 13 years ago

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. I have several problems with that:

1. The whole idea that you can actually with your belief systems decipher what is good for all and then actually do it. History is littered with people who have terribly damaged the world; everyone of them (from the African dictators who slaughtered for freedom) probably thought they were doing good.

2. Why does humanity need to continue? Why of all the species that have come and gone and will keep doing that are we so special? Are we particularly nice to each other? God, no. Are we particularly more brutal than other species out there? I think probably not; more inventive, yes; but about the same in terms of brutality.

3. Does the Universe particularly care about whether you the snowflake exists or not? Probably not. It is unfeeling, uncaring and simply is.

Ultimately, life is absurd and finite. The finiteness everyone is aware of; even those who are too wrapped to be aware of the absurdity. There are a few options then why people continue:

1. The promise of an afterlife; sadly not convincing any more.

2. Reasoning like that of Camus - he says that the only way to deal with the absurd is to revolt against it; live in the moment, enjoying the pleasure and the pain of the fleeting. That is one way to approach this problem, but is it enough?

javajosh13• 13 years ago

The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue.

Ah, but at least I'm trying. And as for those others who have tried, failed, or even done harm - I'm glad that they tried, too. The major pitfall that I see people falling into is not having any real, positive goal that is bigger then themselves. Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.

md224• 13 years ago

Good points... I like point number 2, as I have often thought that there is nothing intrinsically "good" or "bad" about the existence of life in the universe, it is simply a beautifully complex arrangement of atoms, one that pleases us to contemplate and behold.

I do feel like some historical figures that damaged the world did so not out of a feeling of doing what was "good," but more like what they felt was right for them, based on their priorities and worldview (perhaps this is what you meant). Selfishness could fall under this category, if these people felt that certain levels of selfishness were acceptable to them. Indeed, all of us attempt to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness... some people just have balances that tip toward destruction. This is not to forgive them for their crimes, but I've become increasingly skeptical that everyone thinks they are doing "good" in the sense of "good for humanity."

Anyway, my personal goal is to try to live an enjoyable life while doing my best to avoid harming others in pursuit of that life. I feel like this is a pretty common stance.

OvidNaso• 13 years ago

You are taking as an assumption that the value of the future must be more than of the present. Our experience and concept of time cannot, necessarily, be extracted from the brain. Given, what we might call a tragic end for humanity, even if it is sometime in the near future, does not retroactively place a tragic value on the past.

javajosh13• 13 years ago

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about!

delluminatus• 13 years ago

I spend a lot of idle time thinking about death and how I feel in relation to it. I hope to be among the first generation of immortal humans, and yet I have no particular reason for wanting to live forever or even wanting to live until tomorrow. Life is good, but frankly, it's bad in equal measure.

In the end, though, it's all I have -- it's all I am. As feeble, uncomfortable, and tenuous as the single, lonesome life may be, that is the only thing I'll ever know. How could I throw it away -- throw myself away -- the only thing of me that might possibly have any value?

javert6• 13 years ago

Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash.

Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

People who tell you that do NOT have your best interests in mind.

dreamfactory• 13 years ago

I think the argument being made here is that ultimately your biology dictates that you are a social animal (however hard you may try not to be).

pandler• 13 years ago

Of course they don't have your best interests in mind. Isn't that the point?

javajosh13• 13 years ago

Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

Good heavens, is that what you heard? Sacrifice means giving something up; I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. You are clearly free to pick that purpose for yourself (I hope you do), or pick another purpose, or none at all.

And we are both free to advocate for our choices in the hopes of inspiring others who, at least in my case, may not have thought about it in quite these terms. You clearly don't like the sound of my purpose, so why don't you share yours?

mooze2• 13 years ago

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

So that others won't have to suffer as we did.

paranoiacblack4• 13 years ago

Your reasons for continuing are optimistic and perhaps privileged. For a large amount of people, especially for minorities and other groups in the past, contribution to the long-term well-being of humanity was not the goal. Some people had to watch as their children or parents were taken from them by war or sometimes trade and slavery. Perhaps those people sought revenge and reunion. Others were born into extreme poverty and prejudice. Perhaps they seek equality. Others were born into abundant wealth and perhaps they seek to amass more wealth and take advantage of a money-driven world. Yet other were born into internment camps and reservations. Maybe they continue out of ancestral pride or out of a sense of justice and reality. Because of nature of humans (i.e., greediness and hatred), in my opinion, the long-term well-being of humanity is a feeble goal meant for Engineers and Scientists for the most part.

At the same time, as Stephen Fry points out here, some people continue because others won't allow them to quit. Or, in a lot of situations, they can't quit without throwing the lives of their families and friends into a gambit.

Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.

eshvk6• 13 years ago

Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.

What is a "meaningful death"?

People around you are happy because of stuff in their head; you are merely an external event. E.g. I have a friend who hates dogs, she gets unhappy at the sight of one. I like dogs. The external event is the same, only the belief system changes. Does that inherently render the object (the dog here) worthy or unworthy?

javajosh13• 13 years ago

Your reasons for continuing are optimistic and perhaps privileged.

Without a doubt - and I would remove the "perhaps". I am incredibly lucky to have been born in the time and place that I was, with the mind and body that I have. Ensuring the long-term survival of humanity, I believe, is the most important but most difficult and demanding goal a person can have, and only the wealthiest in the world would even attempt it. And indeed: if there's any worthy cause for the wealthy, it's this.

Consider a world where poverty, cancer, child-abuse, government abuses are totally eliminated. Now a comet strikes Earth and wipes out all life larger than an insect from the surface of the planet. Would that not be a bitter irony?

icesoldier• 13 years ago

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

To add my own perspective, I'm not really driven by contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole. Humanity in the small in the form of a community and/or a (potential) family, perhaps, but I'm not audacious or driven enough to consider that what I do has a rippling effect.

On the other hand, I continue because I'm so interested in what people can create. Music, indie games, a bit of programming, a new novels here and there discussing the tendencies of people and of nature, a modern philosophy for those unversed in its finer languages and arguments. I'm in a rather fortunate position that I can spend a non-trivial amount of time consuming and discovering the volumes of culture that a globally-connected people can make. When the barriers to creative expression have been lowered enough that all you need is an active imagination, the drive to set it to work, and the time to put it down - that's what I get out of life. I want to see what people can come up with.

andrewcooke• 13 years ago

why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification

the two aren't really connected. we continue because it's hard to think of something that is more strongly selected against, in evolutionary terms, than not wanting to do so.

we are bred for survival. all our ancestors survived long enough to have offspring...

so we continue because, generation after generation, that is what is selected for. rationality isn't that relevant.

javajosh13• 13 years ago

And species, universe-wide, are selected for their ability to outlive their home worlds.

Think about that.

stiff• 13 years ago

Not all things have to have a reason for existing, in fact not all things can have such reason - the very concept of something having a reason is just a product of our utilitarian view of the world and one that can not be applied infinitely; at the end something has to exist for its own sake.

My goto metaphor for life is making a picture with a paint that evaporates from the canvas immediately after having made the last stroke - it will not produce a dent in the universe but nevertheless you can take pleasure in the process of painting it. Before I die I would like to have the feeling that I expressed everything I am capable of expressing, in terms of emotions, thoughts, writings, inventions, so that there is no reason any more for me to continue living anyway. My capabilities are definitely finite, so it should be attainable.

doctorstupid• 13 years ago

Dude, we continue because those that chose not to didn't do so well at promoting their genes.

VLM• 13 years ago

"why DO we continue?"

How can it possibly be, in an audience like HN has, that no one mentioned sheer curiosity until this post? I know we're not all intellectually dead here.

Especially once you get old enough to have the slightest spark of nostalgia? Or the smallest ability to pattern match/model, hypothesize, test, and conclude?

How can the HN audience, of all groups, not be interested in the future solely for the future's sake if nothing else?

javajosh13• 13 years ago

> "why DO we continue?
sheer curiosity

Curiosity is my #1 driving force. That is why I ponder questions like "why do we continue?" There is nothing quite like the sensation of "clicking", figuring something out, attaining the ability to speak about a complex subject with ease. It's wonderful.

And I discovered that curiosity itself is absolutely a drug. By itself, it is merely another path to acquire certain sensations - the sensation of learning, the sensation of innovating, the sensation of connecting the dots. Indeed, this is the drug that most people here share. Curiosity is another form of pleasure-seeking, complete with it's own set of dark sides (the obsession, the depression, etc).

Curiosity, though, is the highest of the pleasures. It is the only pleasure that can reach beyond itself to the truly new. In my case, I was perplexed by the pointlessness of the world. All of the work in technology and science. All of the factories pumping out electronics and gadgets. And the question arose: what is all of that for? And even more simply, where does it all go? The second answer came first: entropy, war, consumerism. And it struck me: what a waste. Entropy cannot be avoided, but clearly mankind has excess productive capacity, and more clearly it's being channeled into destructive purposes. We aren't building monuments, we are building disposable goods to be burned up in the great bonfires of consumerist vanity and mostly pointless nationalism.

And the thought arose in me: we need, I need, something positive to work toward. We all need it. We need something positive, something lasting, something beyond ourselves, to channel our excess productive capacity into. We need to know that what we make won't get burned up in a war or thrown into a trash heap. And what better option than an attempt to colonize other worlds? Here was a worthy goal, extremely difficult and demanding of us intellectually and economically. And if successful, would ensure that Life would live on no matter what calamity struck us here at home.

That's how curiosity led to belief.

Andrew_Quentin• 13 years ago

"why DO we continue?"

To be is rare, to not be is not. Rare things are precious for their novelty if nothing else. We are going to die in any event, so we might as well live while we can.

tomjen32• 13 years ago

I can assure you that if the only reason I have to live is because I have a supposed duty, I will kill myself. I hope everybody else do to. Nobody should live like a slave.

hjay2• 13 years ago

"The strange thing is, if you see me in the street and engage in contemplation I will probably freeze into polite fear and smile inanely until I can get away to be on my lonely ownsome."

This is me. I feel lonely all the time, yet when people approach me for conversation, I smile and respond with the least amount of words possible, and long for the moment I can be on my own again.

estacado• 13 years ago

Suicidal thoughts as a disease may not only be solely genetic, but may have something to do with lifestyle/environment, like other diseases. I wonder how many starving Africans actually have this disease.

Millennium• 13 years ago

First World Problems (tm): because the people you don't sympathize with are just playing life on easy mode.

ctdonath• 13 years ago

it’s the thought behind the most famous speech in all history. To be, or not to be.

In high school I started memorizing that for no particular reason. Upon completing a test, I idly doodled it in the margin waiting for the class to end, and handed in the paper. The next morning, the teacher cornered me in the hall and delicately asked if everything was OK. Bewildered by the time & tone of the question, I suddenly realized what Hamlet's soliloquy was about.

jtheory3• 13 years ago

I enjoyed reading through this speech again just now -- I have a strange sense that my thinking has been clouded every time I've read it in the past (primarily in school), but now I can grasp it.

That said, I don't agree with Hamlet at all, and the real problem is far deeper than he realizes. I'm also surprised that Stephen uses this soliloquy to capture his own thinking.

"To sleep: perchance to dream" -- that's the turn, but Hamlet is worried about the afterlife, about supernatural judgement. He's very right to be, in context -- he's already met a ghost. But isn't Fry a vocal atheist? Isn't he already sure that "no dreams will come"?

I don't think I've ever had "might go to Hell" as a reason against suicide... I was already most of the way to atheism by the time I was playing with these kinds of thoughts as a teenager.

It's also a cheat, in a way -- sort of like "I don't kill people because I'm afraid then I'll burn in Hell" is much less moral than "I don't kill people because I understand the pain and harm of murder, and I don't want to inflict that on anyone".

The real problem of answering "to be or not to be" is that suicide isn't as obviously morally wrong as murder. Yes, harm is done -- the people around us can be devastated, for example -- but for a mind in sufficient pain, it's not hard to attenuate the imagined future suffering down to nothing, and I've talked to lots of people actively doing this ("they say they love me, but they'll be happier when I'm not here causing them so much trouble..."). And it doesn't work to argue someone out of depression, of course, though I'm afraid I learned that lesson the stupid way.

NovemberWest• 13 years ago

I don't deal well with being alone, but I am also an extrovert. Loneliness and being alone are very much different things. I was much, much, much lonelier in a marriage where love had died than since my divorce, though I was romantically "alone" a long time (however, my sons still live with me so I have rarely been literally alone).

paganel• 13 years ago

Maybe lots of people already know about it, but I'll just copy-paste this in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs

It's not an anti-dote (to loneliness and everything), it just genuinely helped me from time to time and I hope it will also help others.

joebeetee• 13 years ago

..."what the fuck right do I have to be lonely, unhappy or forlorn? I don’t have the right. But there again I don’t have the right not to have those feelings. Feelings are not something to which one does or does not have rights."

This is a great quote. Having been exposed to significant poverty and hardship growing up, I am often unnecessarily and overly harsh on celebrities and privileged people - this quote stopped me in my tracks.

Then I begin to think about the life/health that I have and start to feel like the jammy one.

Sorry Sir Stephen, wish I could help in some way.

baby• 13 years ago

I don't understand how nihilist people (as I am) who are suicidal (as I am not) are still alive. As long as I can recall I've never had even one thought about killing myself, but if I did I can easily imagine that I would have killed myself.

gadders• 13 years ago

I can't help feeling a bit cynical about Stephen Fry's suicide "revelation". After gaining all the news coverage, the very next day he announced some new TV project of his. Coincidence?

jtheory3• 13 years ago

Perhaps he's starting a new TV project he's pleased about, has his meds well in order, and is feeling strong & stable enough to discuss this now?

Or should he wait until nothing's happening in his professional life? Then the cynics would say look, it's been 6 months since he's done anything important, and so he has this suicide "revelation" to get back into the spotlight. Coincidence?

andyhmltn• 13 years ago

I'm deeply thankful to Fry and everything he's done in this regard. Had I not watched him talking about his experiences so openly I would not have noticed myself acting in a similar manner.

Only the Lonely

Related Stories