But rather, this is a birthday message from me to me on why I am in suicide prevention work.
I treat everyone as if they were all equally created by a Divine Being, with a value that no rationality can rationalise.
Whether your morality is informed by society, religion, culture, or human nature and rationality, we should reflect on the value of life in general.
“What is the value of my life?”
“What is the value of the life of my community?”
“What is the value of the life of human beings in general?”
The answers to those questions guide the setting up of laws and regulations, ethical practices, resource allocations, and political systems.
Perhaps I am a non-rationalist in taking the non-scientific stance that humanity is created by a Divine Being. Ionically, I am also a man of Science and have been following the discoveries of human evolution and the hand of nature in driving the evolution of man. I think the two views are irreconcilable, and it is probably easier to leave it that way.
Yet, I know that my stance is closer to the ideal community (and the world) I hope to live in. Let’s consider a proof by contradiction by Jordan.
“(I)n Genesis 1, it relates the idea that human beings are made in the image of the divine, men and women … … But I think it's an absolute miracle that right at the beginning of the document, it says straightforwardly, with no hesitation whatsoever, that the divine spark, which we're associating with the “word” that brings forth being, is manifest in men and women equally. That's a very cool thing. And you've gotta think, like I said, you actually take that seriously.
Well, what you've got to ask is, what happens if you don't take it seriously? Right? Read Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment." That's the the best investigation of that tactic that's ever been produced. Because what happens in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is that the main character, whose name is Raskolnikov, decides that there's no intrinsic value to other people. And that as a consequence, he can do whatever he wants. It's only cowardice that stops him from acting. Right? Because, well, why would it be anything else if the value of other people is just an arbitrary superstition? Then why can't I do exactly what I want, when I want? Which is the psychopath's viewpoint. Well, so Roskolnikov does. He kills someone who's a very horrible person, and he has very good reasons for killing her. He's half starved and a little bit insane, and possessed by this ideology, it's a brilliant, brilliant layout. And he finds out something after he kills her, which is that the post-killing Raskolnikov and the pre-killing Raskolnikov are not the same person, even a little bit. Because he's broken a rule, like he's broken a serious rule, and there's no going back. And "Crime and Punishment" is the best investigation I know of, of what happens if you take the notion that there's nothing divine about the individual seriously.
Most of the people I know who are deeply atheistic, and I understand why they're deeply atheistic, they haven't contended with people like Dostoevsky. Not as far as I can tell. Because I don't see logical flaws in "Crime and Punishment." I think he got the psychology exactly right. Dostoevsky's amazing for this because in one of his books, "The Devils," for example, he describes a political scenario that's not much different than the one we find ourselves in now. And there are these people who are possessed by rationalistic, utopian, atheistic ideas. They're very powerful. They gave rise to the Communist Revolution. Right? I mean, they're powerful ideas. His character, Stavrogin, also acts out the presupposition that human beings have no intrinsic nature and no intrinsic value. And it's another brilliant investigation. And Dostoevsky prophesized, that's what I would say, what will happen to a society if it goes down that road. And he was dead exactly accurate. It's uncanny to read Dostoevsky's "The Possessed" or the "The Devils," depending on the translation, and then to read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" because one is fiction and prophecy and the second is hey look it turned out exactly the same way that Dostoevsky said it would for exactly the same reasons. So it's quite remarkable.
So, the question is: Do you contend seriously with the idea that, A: there's something cosmically constitutive about consciousness, and B: that that might well be considered divine, and C: that that is instantiated in every person. And then ask yourself, if you're not a criminal, if you don't act it out? And then ask yourself what that means. Is that reflective of a reality? Is it a metaphor? Like, maybe it's a metaphor, a complex metaphor that we have to use to organize our societies. It could well be, but even as a metaphor it's true enough so that we mess with it at our peril. And it also took people a very long time to figure out.
I believe that all suicide is preventable, but we don’t have all the know-how yet.
A friend shared this article with me, and I was very disturbed after reading it and ended up debating with my friend:
The Problem With Saying Suicide Is Preventable
“Though well-intentioned, the truth is that not all suicides can be stopped, even with the best efforts. But right after my father’s death, everywhere I looked I read that suicide is preventable. This instilled an immediate, unconscious conviction in me of a double failure: my father, who had not done enough to save himself, and those of us who loved him most, who had not done enough, either. Collectively we could have deterred his death. But we did not.
…
The crux of the issue with blanketing suicide as something that can be stopped is that it flattens one of the most confounding psychological, medical, and philosophical questions of being human into something simpler than its reality. Perhaps one day we will be able to say that, with the right blueprint, suicide is preventable. But we do not have the knowledge, let alone the resources, to make that true now.”
Dreams and goals drive progress. Whether we will ever achieve them is secondary. It is the motivation and ideals that matter. Otherwise, why try? Cross-referencing with mathematics:
Gödel incompleteness theorem that states there will be true statement that cannot be proven, but that thought should not deter the progress and the drive for innovation to push to solve as many as we can.
Did Gödel's incompleteness theorem stop mathematics's advancement? Rather, it is reinterpreted as the motivation to more research and human ingenuity.
Thus, the statement of “not all suicide is preventable” should then be measured and reinterpreted in a way that doesn’t hinder further progress and the drive to decrease suicides. In the end, I settled with the following statement: I believe that all suicide is preventable, but we don’t have all the know-how yet.
I believe that time does not heal all wounds, but it gives hope.
Hope is a very mysterious thing. How do you justify the existence of hope logically and rationally? Referring to my previous article (https://substack.com/home/post/p-162659907), we are more likely to sway towards hopelessness and a sense of negativity. Perhaps my best attempt is to argue that the world is highly complex and ever-changing. As such, nothing lasts forever, and that should include psychological pain, terrible situations, and bad economic status.
However, the victim must take an active step to change the situation. It can be seeking professional help, setting the necessary boundaries and actions, or working through the problems, no matter how long it takes.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Suicide prevention work is a journey. How long I will be in this field is unknown. But I hope that the world will keep going and continue to progress in this area.
Alex, thank you for sharing this post. I love the part about time not healing all wounds but it giving hope. Wishing you a happy birthday!