Schopenhauer on the Futility of Suicide

IF 1.8 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY MIND Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1093/mind/fzae020
Colin Marshall
{"title":"Schopenhauer on the Futility of Suicide","authors":"Colin Marshall","doi":"10.1093/mind/fzae020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Schopenhauer repeatedly claims that suicide is both foolish and futile. But while many commentators express sympathy for his charge of foolishness, most regard his charge of futility as indefensible even within his own system. In this paper, I offer a defence of Schopenhauer’s futility charge, based on metaphysical and psychological considerations. On the metaphysical front, Schopenhauer’s view implies that psychological connections extend beyond the death of an individual. Drawing on Parfit’s discussion of personal identity, I argue that those connections have personal significance, such that suicide does not allow one, as Hamlet hopes, simply ‘not to be’. On the psychological front, I argue that a distinction between agents’ intentions and underlying desires makes room for Schopenhauer’s claim that paradigmatic suicidal agents ultimately desire the opposite of what suicide accomplishes. I conclude by showing how this understanding of futility can buttress Schopenhauer’s charge of foolishness. My interpretation still leaves Schopenhauer vulnerable to certain objections, but shows that his account is more defensible than previous commentators have realized.","PeriodicalId":48124,"journal":{"name":"MIND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MIND","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzae020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Schopenhauer repeatedly claims that suicide is both foolish and futile. But while many commentators express sympathy for his charge of foolishness, most regard his charge of futility as indefensible even within his own system. In this paper, I offer a defence of Schopenhauer’s futility charge, based on metaphysical and psychological considerations. On the metaphysical front, Schopenhauer’s view implies that psychological connections extend beyond the death of an individual. Drawing on Parfit’s discussion of personal identity, I argue that those connections have personal significance, such that suicide does not allow one, as Hamlet hopes, simply ‘not to be’. On the psychological front, I argue that a distinction between agents’ intentions and underlying desires makes room for Schopenhauer’s claim that paradigmatic suicidal agents ultimately desire the opposite of what suicide accomplishes. I conclude by showing how this understanding of futility can buttress Schopenhauer’s charge of foolishness. My interpretation still leaves Schopenhauer vulnerable to certain objections, but shows that his account is more defensible than previous commentators have realized.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
叔本华谈自杀的无用性
叔本华一再声称自杀既愚蠢又徒劳。尽管许多评论家对叔本华的 "愚蠢 "指控表示同情,但大多数人认为他的 "徒劳 "指控即使在他自己的体系中也是站不住脚的。在本文中,我将从形而上学和心理学的角度为叔本华的徒劳指控进行辩护。在形而上学方面,叔本华的观点意味着心理联系超越了个体的死亡。借鉴帕菲特对个人身份的讨论,我认为这些联系具有个人意义,因此自杀并不能像哈姆雷特所希望的那样让人 "不存在"。在心理学方面,我认为,区分行为人的意图和潜在欲望,可以为叔本华的说法提供空间,即典型的自杀行为人最终渴望的是与自杀所实现的目标相反的东西。最后,我将说明这种对徒劳的理解如何能够支持叔本华对愚蠢的指控。我的解释仍然使叔本华容易受到某些反对意见的影响,但却表明他的论述比之前的评论者所意识到的更有辩护性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
MIND
MIND PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: Mind has long been a leading journal in philosophy. For well over 100 years it has presented the best of cutting edge thought from epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of mind. Mind continues its tradition of excellence today. Mind has always enjoyed a strong reputation for the high standards established by its editors and receives around 350 submissions each year. The editor seeks advice from a large number of expert referees, including members of the network of Associate Editors and his international advisers. Mind is published quarterly.
期刊最新文献
Freedom, Omniscience and the Contingent A Priori Conceptual Decolonization, Conceptual Justice, and Religious Concepts Symmetry, Invariance, and Imprecise Probability KK is Wrong Because We Say So Not Quite Yet a Hazy Limbo of Mystery: Intuition in Russell’s An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1