NGTM-1R, it looks like a couple basic points in my argument weren't presented well.
Suicide is the end-state of a disease (depression) that is clearly treatable. The symptoms of depression aren't a 100% fatality rate. Suicide is just the mechanism of mortality.
If you posit the nonexistence of a choice in this case, then it's not preventable.
Choices are the products of tangled heuristic pathways, overlapping conditions, environmental influences, and stochastic processes. They are not the result of an abstract will pointing to an outcome without external influence. This is the misperception I wanted to clear up.
The succeeding elements of your argument suggest you're essentially agreeing with me, and that I just didn't present things well:
The characterization of the act as a plea for help also demonstrates the problem with the argument you're making. Something in that logic process has clearly gone terribly wrong since the plea is being made in the form of an act which renders it unanswerable.
If your argument is that something is terribly wrong in the cognition of the individual choosing to commit suicide, I certainly wouldn't disagree. It makes no more sense than an immune cell attacking friendly tissues. Yet both cases do occur.
Yes, failure. Suicide is, to use an engineering term, a failure mode of the human pysche.
Absolutely in agreement with that.
It is the failure of normal coping mechanisms to sustain the mind.
Totally correct. But you must remember that many of those coping mechanisms are external, not under the control of the individual, or both.
They were not able to handle the strain.
Sure. But this seems to be leading to an argument that they 'just should've toughed it out', which ignores the fact that the stresses which drove the victim to suicide could have been altered by intervention. As, I think you'll agree, would happen in 100% of cases in an ideal world.
So yes, ultimately, it must be ajudged a sign of their weakness, their inability to adapt to or cope with what they were exposed to.
I believe you take an interest in militaria. It is often said in military circles that 'no one can resist interrogation'. The degree to which one resists, however, varies considerably, to the point where some perform heroically under interrogation and are commended for it. Nonetheless, the military is careful to train its soldiers not to be
ashamed of breaking under interrogation.
All human minds will collapse under sufficient strain, just as - in your metaphor - all engineered structures will.
Your argument is that some minds are more prone to collapse than others due to internal, structural factors. These are the 'weak'. They are separated from the 'strong' by their inability to adapt to or cope with stimuli they are exposed to.
I am in agreement with the supposition that some individuals are predisposed to react to life stress factors more heavily than others. This is an undeniable scientific fact. It is known to be moderated by genetics.
My argument is that the number of factors affecting depression and the decision to suicide are epiphenomenal, networked, stochastic, and highly sensitive. Individual cases of suicide, therefore, cannot and should not be attributed to 'weakness' in the individuals alone. It should instead be attributed to the failure of the individual
and the individual's social context. Depression and suicide occur in a social context and must be treated that way.
Furthermore, while I try to avoid dispositional inferences in arguments, I must admit to some degree of anger with you, NGTM-1R, and Mefustae for using the loaded term 'weak' to refer to suicide victims. It is well known that many depressives do not step forward for treatment because of the popular perception that depression is 'not a real disease' and that it should simply be toughed out.
It seems to me that your decision to make dispositional inferences about depressives and suicides, by labeling them 'weak' - a term that carries honor-laden connotations of cowardice and failure - you contribute to that existing and prevalent social problem.
I feel that this choice of words, while it may describe a valid phenomenon (the individual variance in reactivity to stress) is both socially irresponsible and inflammatory. Depression is a mental illness characterized by loneliness, negativity bias, and learned helplessness. Describing depressives as dispositionally weak and unable to handle the strain placed on them, whereas others are 'strong' enough to become homeless, is, I feel, a moral transgression, akin to smoking around an asthmatic.
By no means, however, do I mean to suggest that you intended to attack depressives or suicides in your posts.
