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.

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.

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.

As far as managing it, I can't say much. I've found that reading blog posts and forums about loneliness tends to make things worse (not really a surprise there), and getting involved in a coding project makes things better (again not too surprising). I think it helps to have a small number of closer friends rather than a larger number of less close ones, because closer friendships can more easily survive lapses in communication. As for how to make close friendships, I'm quite bad at that. My only advice so far is: have conversations about difficult topics.

There are a few things that help me out in the lows:

- I have 2 close friends. To destroy these friendships, planet earth needs to be blown up. But I don't go out very often with them. To maintain this, we play almost daily for about an hour, dota2 or whatever else floats our boat. And then, I just log off skype. I'd play even if they weren't there. FOSS collaboration works just as well.

- Having a not too demanding girlfiend helps. Look for one so smart it cripples her.

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.

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.

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.

I believe it's called "being normal". As quaint as somebody admitting to being perfectly normal might sound on the internet.

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

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

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.

You're a great friend :-)

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

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.

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...

Not even close to true and immensely insulting to claim.

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

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

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'.

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

About diagnosis, the hardest part is not when they tell _you_. Well, it is not a walk in the park to get told that good chances are you won't turn 30, but your day is about to get worse. The hardest part is to go home. Tell your gf - the one you where thinking of proposing to - that you're sick - while she says tearing that you look perfectly fine and you need to explain that on the inside you are not.

I told my gf to run away from me when I was diagnosed - I really hope she is fine. I have been told I am a selfish bastard and that decision was not for me to take and many other unpleasant things. I shrug. I went through 2 surgeries, chemo and radio. They have put more that 100 metal stitches in me. I had tubes running in places I never thought it was possible. I have attempted in pain to drink morphine because I had no more needles to inject myself. It's been hard and the way I am, if I'm going to drawn in shit I won't bring down with me the ones I love. I stand by my decision and despite I deeply care about her, I'll have to do without her, because I really believe she deserves better.

Then you need to talk to your (aging) parents. Fix one day. Yeah mum dinner is fine. No she won't come I'll be there alone. She's busy. Don't worry. No reason. --- Fun talk.

The doctor told me this disease would break me down. Therapy is almost as hard as the disease itself. The people next to you really make the difference. A good psychiatrist is also very important.

I am alive, but I am not the same living being.

Everything changes.

Good luck w/ your life, and it sounds like you really care about her. Hope you can tell her you love her or whatever at some point without feeling guilty about it harming her (then again, I'm sure she knows).

1 in 3 sufferers of Bipolar disorder attempt suicide and 1 in 5 eventually die from suicide. Clinical depression is a very fatal disease.

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.

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.

I didn't.

And of course I did not mean "snap out of it", which is bullshit and we all know that. Nor I intended to say that a disease is worse that the other (being un-PC, it might be, but how do you judge that? by which standards? and isn't it a futile exercise?).

Every human being deserves respect, and that includes respecting their illness.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why? I am not antagonistic; I am merely curious.

Why is a life with purpose (a synonym to "with aim") better than one without? The simple answer applies to your selfishness: because you'll be more confident in your dealings with others, you'll be calmer, and you'll sleep better. Knowing who you are and what you're really playing for gives you a perspective that puts you above the fray. It lets you pick your battles. It helps you make hard decisions (particularly with relationships). Indeed, it lets you see your day-to-day struggles inside the context of a much greater goal.

The drawback to larger purpose, of course, is that it's easy to lose patience with it. It's easy to lose your way - to forget your purpose, and to get drawn into the petty, pointless status contests that dominate most peoples' lives (note that you may need to take part on such contests, but when you understand them for what they are, games, then you can get better at and win.)

The reasons living your life with purpose are better than without are much like working on a software project with purpose vs without. The latter is difficult, almost impossible, and extremely painful. Purpose in the context of software should be defined by leadership, and it can be very arbitrary. But it must be there or you will flail and fail.

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.

I don't think we'll ever get hyperdrives. If any sentient species invents them, then it will be possible to destroy stars with them. Indeed, I suspect that life is fairly common in the universe, and that countless intelligent species have arisen and died off without leaving their home-planets. The difficulty of the endeavor is like a gigantic challenge, a gauntlet thrown down by the universe that asks, can you do it?

Some people want to climb Everest to see if they can do it. I want to see if humanity can build self-sustaining colonies on other worlds. It just so happens that my Everest ensures that all of the hard work we do on health, justice, technology, etc doesn't die out with us.

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.

Think about that.

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

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

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?

What exactly is that?

> so why don't you share yours?

Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a joy/suffering mechanism.

The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but moreover, to regulate the anticipation of physical pleasure/success and physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example, self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the rewards thereof.

So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above.

Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics, whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or epistemology.

Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc. So, there are good arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad conclusions.

By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said "disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on you at all. I just wanted to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people to go in a very bad personal direction.

> What exactly is that?

This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind.

> your post was mainly about other people

This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all.

As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the clarification.

> very bad personal direction.

...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it. How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me? Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read what I wrote and understand it.

No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point.

I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.

> for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive.

I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.

Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

> I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.

It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.

> when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective

I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless.

That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing.

Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?"

> Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.

It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure.

> Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else.

That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand.

> Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market?

It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics.

> Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction.

I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote.

> It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused.

Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.

2. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism, particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called Objectivism and not Selfishism).

Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in a framework that rewards only self-interest.

Adieu.

I've been studying philosophy as a hobby/passion for many years. I've read the work you're referring to, and a whole hell of a lot more. You have a very, very naive understanding of Objectivism.

> Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong.

Likewise, you really do sound like a young <X>, and in a few years, you'll realize how wrong you are about everything.

That is, literally, the sum of your argument. That is really pitiful.

And for all you know, I could be a 55 year old philosophy professor (though I'm not).

None of these comments are very friendly-feeling to me (on either side... you're both obviously feeling defensive), but if you start the exchange with that kind of comment, you're the first to deploy obscenities, you're more actively insulting, etc., you can't really claim the higher ground at the end.

I hope this is useful... it's hard to discuss these kinds of things, but if you can manage it (without getting tangled up in attack/counterattack) it can be rewarding.

So, you're right, thank you, and that is helpful.

I strongly disagree that I was more actively insulting. I think a detailed reading of the conversation speaks for itself on this.

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?

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Anyways, I agree with you that I'm merely an external event. In your example, the dog is neither worthy or unworthy, since that's subjective and has no inherent meaning. Whether the dog is worthy or unworthy is also irrelevant to its life or death. That's to say that although I truly believe that there's no purpose to all of this, I cannot answer that question until I've died. In that case, my life is spent trying to find a meaning in death.

This is a rabbit hole; a last question: Your goals, your aims, the time you spend deciding who to love, what to do? Why does it matter what you pick?

You've got what I'm trying to say perfectly.

> Why does it matter what you pick?

I don't think it does matter what you pick, honestly. I like to simplify it to a complex game of chess. No matter what, the game will end. If you wish to end the game early, you can choose poor moves or resign. But if you want to see the game out to the very end and possibly learn something in the process, you should choose what you feel to be the best move. It doesn't matter if you pick the best move or not, it only matters that you pick something you believe in. Similarly, in life, you do the best you can. You gather all of your facilities, your mind, your gut, your personality, etc, and you follow that path. No other path is inherently better than another and no other life is inherently worth more or less than yours. That's not to say we're all equal in life, but rather that we're indistinguishable in death.

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?

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.)

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.

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. :)

Personally, I prefer not to try to remember past-life memories. If there were a reason for it, I would.

Also, I tend to think (and I know this is an unpopular view in CS circles) that there probably are some paranormal interactions between consciousness and the world. Where I call bullshit is when people claim control of it-- that they can talk to dead people or predict the future or communicate telepathically. That stuff is all bunk.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?