Self Destruction

Uneasy thoughts on a monumental topic.

Content warning: this newsletter addresses suicide. If this is a difficult subject for you, please proceed with care—or choose not to engage at all.

This is a philosophical exploration, not a personal crisis. I am not suicidal, though I’d be lying if the thought had never crossed my mind. These are just my reflections, open for discussion in the comments or through direct messages. If you are struggling and considering suicide, I urge you to seek help—however feels right for you.

Painting by Alexander Tinei

For the French philosopher, Albert Camus, suicide was a rejection of freedom. To him, escaping the absurdity of existence—whether through illusions, religion, or death—was not the answer. Instead of running from life's inherent meaninglessness, he argued, we should embrace it fully, live passionately, and defy the absurd. After reading his thoughts in The Myth of Sisyphus, I found myself questioning his reasoning more than I ever expected—especially given how much I admire him. Simply stated, I couldn’t help but disagree.

Taking your own life is an intensely personal, private, and monumental decision—one that doesn’t come quickly, easily, or without immense weight for everyone involved. Consider the thought process required to even entertain the idea. The hours spent in contemplation, the negotiations with oneself, the questioning of how, when, and where. Consider the amount of pain and the mindset one must be in to see this as an option. Consider the ripple effect it would have—the way this decision touches everything, from one’s obligations to the people left behind. Suicide is never an easy choice. To suggest otherwise is a failure of understanding. So for Camus to brush it off by saying one must simply “embrace life passionately” is, ironically, absurd. It carries the same weight as telling a person with depression to “just be happy.”

I dread labels, but if you consider yourself pro-choice in the abortion debate yet not pro-choice when it comes to suicide, what justification do you have? Who are you to decide what someone does with their own life when, inherently, it does not affect you?I’d argue that those who seriously consider—or ultimately go through with—suicide have already taken every possible step to reconcile their existence. It is not a rash decision but the final act in a long, painful timeline. In one of my favorite books, A Breath of Life by Clarice Lispector, she writes: “Suicides often kill themselves because they are afraid of death. They can't stand the mounting tension of life and the wait for the worst to happen—and they kill themselves to be free of the threat.” Is it an act of self-awareness or selfishness? As someone deeply afraid of death, I find this quote profoundly relatable. And if I’m being honest, I agree.

Aristotle thought that committing suicide to avoid pain or other undesirable circumstances is a cowardly act [2], Kant argues that, since objective morality is grounded in one's ability to reason, suicide is wrong because it involves removing that ability by ending one's life, thereby creating a kind of practical contradiction [3], and we know what religion thinks of suicide. In most cases, our governments and people in power cannot fathom the act because it goes against the economy and capitalism— without enough workers to exploit, capitalism fails.

I find all of these above viewpoints either wrong or economically aligned— merely opinions that do not take into consideration the consciousness of the person in question. I am aware there are people in this world who cannot make such a massive decision, but we live in a world where you can elect to make a child without permission, consideration, or even an application process. So why is it that we can make a life (a life that had no choice) but not take our own life (a life that has a choice)?

We are ravenous, fallible creatures—consuming, destroying, creating, nurturing, judging, failing, and beginning again. We hurt and heal in equal measure. We live, and then, eventually, we don’t. Right now, I can write this. I can stretch it out endlessly or make it minimal. I can make it public or keep it hidden. I am free—though even that is debatable (another Substack?). With that freedom, how can suicide be met with condemnation? I’m not saying it should be encouraged, nor should it be dismissed. But it should be accepted, without shame, without judgment. The choice belongs only to the one who makes it. No one else has the right to interfere.

Lately, especially after reading nearly all of Emil Cioran’s books, I'm embracing nihilism, as it’s not as sorrowful and absurd as people generally think. When asked why I listen to a vast amount of “sad music,” my answer is always this: “I enjoy sad music because it makes me happy.” There is a relatability to the melancholy—there is a comfort in despair. For a nihilist, life has no inherent meaning, so the question isn't why someone should end their life—it's why they shouldn't. The individual has the power to give personal meaning to life. If someone chooses to die, that decision is theirs alone.

“Suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership— ownership over one's own life and body— then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.”

— Philosopher and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz

[1],[2],[3] Wikipedia