The Nihilistic Argument

[MindOverMatter2]

This is an argument i have been developing for while now, and although i did post it on my other thread, i felt it deserved its owns thread as a ground for debate because i plan to put it in my book once i have developed it fully.

The Nihilistic Argument

The atheist says that rational truth trumps emotional beliefs, beliefs that stem from a desire to be valued and to have value; for example “Christianity”. At least this seems to be the atheists opinion, since he or she certainly doesn’t believe that Christians have rational grounds for holding that objective moral values exist. If rational truth is what leads you to disbelieve in the emotional leap of faith held by Christians, then in so far as one wants to be rationally consistent and honest, the same must be also true in cases where one feels emotionally inclined to believe that his life has significance, that life is worth living; that life is about living, that you should believe in yourself and that this is “true”. If there is no objective moral value to life, then the conclusion that one should act out of any emotional attachment to ones own existence, such as the fear of death or the desire for life, is irrational since such emotions incline us to make value judgments about an existence which has no true objective value. A truly rational person will rise above their feelings, and in so doing will reject emotions that lead to self preservation as irrational, because a rational person does not form beliefs about the world or what he should do in the world on emotion grounds given the fact that emotions have no rational value.

A rational person does not act on irrational emotions if emotions do not tell us anything true about life or anything true about the real world. While you might find emotional reasons for living, you have lost the rational right to conclude that such emotions are a rational basis to exist. Your choice to exist is a value judgment; you value your life in that you are attempting to save that which you perceive as valuable, that which you would like to have value. But If you truly accept that your life has no intrinsic value, then you will not act as if it does and you will accept that it does not, since to behave and think as if it did would be contrary to the truth, being a denial of reality, and thus would be an irrational act.

However; if life does have intrinsic moral value, then it is objectively rational for me to save my life, because that act is rationally consistent with a person that has true moral value. the fact is, in the real world atheists do believe that they have rational reasons for acting on certain emotions. Thats a fact which is displayed by the very fact that they continue to exist.

A true rational atheist knows there is no objectively rational reason to continue existing; for existence has no true objective value. Fear of death and the belief that life is worth living, or is something that should be lived, reveals nothing more than the fact that you are a deluded slave and that your sense of significance is merely a product of the irrational emotions that comprise part of your being. Thus on the basis of a rationality that has no space for faith in objective moral significance and human existential value, suicide is the only truly free and rational choice that one can make since life is not for the living; it is not about survival since there is no purpose to it, therefore why are we surviving? Being alive is meaningless, and rational man does not partake in what he knows or believes to be a meaningless emotional delusion (just like the atheist does not partake in religions because they believe it to be a meaningless emotional delusion). In other words, the fact that you pursue life is in fact irrational and is purely an emotionally driven act from which only suicide can set you free.

When i was faced with the challenge of suicide, i could not except the idea that absolute skepticism is more rational than hope in God. For in God there is at least a mystery, and it seems to me that it is folly to reduce ones self to nothing when one has no evidence that life really isn’t worth living. But If i choose to live, i must live for the hope of God, for to hope in God is also to hope that survival is rational and is as intrinsically and objectively meaningful as it evidently appears to be.

Thus God has to be the basis of any rational being that chooses to stay alive and at the same time live rationally. Therefore God is an axiom to rational life itself.

*To deny objective morality, is to justify the rapist, the murderer, the slave owner, the oppressor, the nihilist; for they do nothing wrong. *

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In a nihilistic world, committing suicide is not to be a victim, but rather it is to embrace freedom from the emotional irrationalities of human life.

It is in this situation, when man confronts a nihilist standing on the abyss, that Pascals Wager is at its most potent in its rational power.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This is an argument i have been developing for while now, and although i did post it on my other thread, i felt it deserved its owns thread as a ground for debate because i plan to put it in my book once i have developed it fully.

The Nihilistic Argument

The atheist says that rational truth trumps emotional beliefs, beliefs that stem from a desire to be valued and to have value; for example “Christianity”.

Sure, empiricism/logic/the scientific method are superior devices to human emotion if the goal is to adequately describe reality. We have made significant progress in this world through the use of the former, as it is taught, learned and studied.

This is not a knock on human emotion, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that human emotion is contrary to reality. Yet if often is, and that’s the main reason why people visit psychiatrists.

At least this seems to be the atheists opinion, since he or she certainly doesn’t believe that Christians have rational grounds for holding that objective moral values exist.

Sure is. Luckily for atheists, they are not precluded from accepting objective moral values.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sure is. Luckily for atheists, they are not precluded from accepting objective moral values.

What are objective moral values?

 

[tonyrey]

Luckily for atheists, they are not precluded from accepting objective moral values.

“Luckily” is the key word! It suggests that for atheists objective moral values have no rational basis…

 

[Sair]

The atheist says that rational truth trumps emotional beliefs, beliefs that stem from a desire to be valued and to have value; for example “Christianity”.

Actually, all that atheists generally hold is that there’s no reason to believe in any gods, emotional or otherwise. Some atheists go further and actually believe the universe is godless, and find it a much more wondrous place for being so. To discount either reason or emotion from our experience of the world is to diminish our understanding and appreciation for all that we are, in the very act of wishing we could be more. Both inform our behaviour, for thus we have evolved to be. Sensory experience and emotion are prior; reason, at least in such abstract forms as humans apply it, is a much later development.

At least this seems to be the atheists opinion, since he or she certainly doesn’t believe that Christians have rational grounds for holding that objective moral values exist.

There’s a bit of simplification going on here - what atheists believe is that religious scriptures and teachings constitute inadequate grounds for believing in objective moral values, whether such texts invite a rational or an emotional response. If there are objective moral values to be had, they are to be found in the process of understanding our experience in relation to the wider world of which we are a part.

If rational truth is what leads you to disbelieve in the emotional leap of faith held by Christians, then in so far as one wants to be rationally consistent and honest, the same must be also true in cases where one feels emotionally inclined to believe that his life has significance, that life is worth living; that life is about living, that you should believe in yourself and that this is “true”.

Yet it would seem that Catholics are the first to claim that the ‘truth’ of their God can be known through reason alone, and then go on to invoke the fundamentally emotional rationalisation of this claim - that there must be ‘more’ to life than what is available to our experience. This is a pretty much a corruption of emotion by artificial and unsupported reason - resulting in a desire to be more important in the grand scheme of things than we actually are. Having been told by religious texts and leaders that we have an eternal cosmic destiny, we are emotionally conditioned to be dissatisfied with our temporal limitations; our quest for rational grounds for believing in anything is thus misdirected.

If there is no objective moral value to life, then the conclusion that one should act out of any emotional attachment to ones own existence, such as the fear of death or the desire for life, is irrational since such emotions incline us to make value judgments about an existence which has no true objective value.

The very idea of ‘value’ is a subjective concept. To be valuable means to be valued by some subject. Again I would say that the concept of ‘objective value’ is actually tied to a misdirected and arrogant desire for an importance beyond our temporal existence. Certainly we have no reason to suspect that we have such importance. The world existed for billions of years before us, and will probably do so perfectly well without us, should we follow our current path and eventually destroy ourselves.

A truly rational person will rise above their feelings, and in so doing will reject emotions that lead to self preservation as irrational, because a rational person does not form beliefs about the world or what he should do in the world on emotion grounds given the fact that emotions have no rational value.

Actually, a truly rational person will consider his or her emotions as a line of evidence to be consulted in the tapestry of experience. We might be comparatively insignificant as individuals in the bigger picture, but that does not mean we aren’t part of it. Emotions, particularly those that lead to self-preservation, are deeply ingrained in our nature, as they are in that of other animals. We in the modern world have lost touch with many of our innate senses and abilities - taking our emotions seriously can sometimes lead us to eminently sensible conclusions; for example, when a woman feels apprehensive around an overly intrusive man and decides to abandon his company, she is very likely saving herself from being assaulted later.

 

[Sair]

A rational person does not act on irrational emotions if emotions do not tell us anything true about life or anything true about the real world.

How do you know whether emotions tell you anything true or otherwise - other than your own internal conditions - without also consulting reason? As I’ve said, our experience is woven of both.

While you might find emotional reasons for living, you have lost the rational right to conclude that such emotions are a rational basis to exist.

Have we? If you ignore emotional reasons to exist, you might as well not do so, that is true - but then, you are assuming, without justification, that we have any other reason to exist, and likewise, that we need such a reason to exist, beyond our subjective value for our own lives and experiences whilst we have them.

Your choice to exist is a value judgment; you value your life in that you are attempting to save that which you perceive as valuable, that which you would like to have value.

You are equivocating on the meaning of ‘value’ – you think value must be objective, eternal, universal. It need not be so in order to be real to those who have a subjective value for their own existence. I think you’ll find that most living things strive to remain alive – that we do so is as objective a fact as you could hope for.

But If you truly accept that your life has no intrinsic value, then you will not act as if it does and you will accept that it does not, since to behave and think as if it did would be contrary to the truth, being a denial of reality, and thus would be an irrational act.

What is the difference between considering my life to have intrinsic value and considering it to have value to me as a living, experiencing being?

However; if life does have intrinsic moral value, then it is objectively rational for me to save my life, because that act is rationally consistent with a person that has true moral value.

Such an act also is rationally consistent with a person who simply enjoys being alive and all the experiences it affords. You are, again, artificially separating reason and emotion.

The fact is, in the real world atheists do believe that they have rational reasons for acting on certain emotions. Thats a fact which is displayed by the very fact that they continue to exist.

That, or we do not have any supposedly rational reasons to cease existing once we do. It’s not like we had any say in our existence in the first place – why not make the most of what we have?

A true rational atheist knows there is no objectively rational reason to continue existing; for existence has no true objective value.

Of course there’s no rational reason to continue existing – if anything, arguably, the world would be a better place for everything else in it if humans ceased to exist. But that is to deny the intrinsic good of pleasure and happiness, and also the positive effects we might have on the rest of the world if we turn our efforts towards it. You are the one who is wed to the idea that all actions, including willful belief, must be rational – you are Catholic, after all.

 

[Sair]

Fear of death and the belief that life is worth living, or is something that should be lived, reveals nothing more than the fact that you are a deluded slave and that your sense of significance is merely a product of the irrational emotions that comprise part of your being.

Now you are missing the point. Fear of death is not a problem to anyone who honestly accepts his or her place in the world. Death is a part of life, a part of the great dance of time and change. Fear of death is something that characterises the adherence to organised religion – which invites people to believe that they might live forever. Life is simply something that is; we’re not fulfilling any grand design by being alive. It’s up to us, while we live, to make our own meaning in the context of our own existence. Anyone who cannot accept this, or for whom this isn’t enough, is deluded or arrogant.

it is not about survival since there is no purpose to it, therefore why are we surviving? Being alive is meaningless, and rational man does not partake in what he knows or believes to be a meaningless emotional delusion (just like the atheist does not partake in religions because they believe it to be a meaningless emotional delusion). In other words, the fact that you pursue life is in fact irrational and is purely an emotionally driven act from which only suicide can set you free.

Why be ‘free’ from the only reality we know? If anything, it is religion that brings about suicidal tendencies, by encouraging us to believe there are ‘ultimate’ reasons for our existence that are not borne out by our everyday experience. Again, you are searching for meaning in the wrong places – beyond your life and the lives of those connected with you. Why should you need such far-reaching significance? Don’t you know how to appreciate what you have?

When i was faced with the challenge of suicide, i could not except the idea that absolute skepticism is more rational than hope in God. For in God there is at least a mystery, and it seems to me that it is folly to reduce ones self to nothing when one has no evidence that life really isn’t worth living. But If i choose to live, i must live for the hope of God, for to hope in God is also to hope that survival is rational and is as intrinsically and objectively meaningful as it evidently appears to be.

Why are your only options God or nothing? Don’t you notice the middle ground? When I struggled with depression and despair, what brought me through was not some fantastical notion of eternal, cosmic significance for my life, but solid, sensuous, active experience of the world – reinforcing my sense of connectedness with everything that exists apart from – yet also intimately connected to – myself. Life is worth living as long as you feel it to be so – again, the interplay of emotion and reason. Do you imagine you know so much about the universe that mystery is only to be found in your formulated concept of God?

Thus God has to be the basis of any rational being that chooses to stay alive and at the same time live rationally. Therefore God is an axiom to rational life itself.

You don’t need any god to motivate you to stay alive. You just need to get out more.

To deny objective morality, is to justify the rapist, the murderer, the slave owner, the oppressor, the nihilist; for they do nothing wrong.

But to deny that they do quantifiable emotional and physical harm – in the sense of causing actual suffering – to other beings is simply false. If you deny any awareness that this is immoral, whether eternally, cosmically significant or not, indicates a rather detached attitude to your life and that of your fellows.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you sure this doesn’t cross the line on the band on atheistic/evolution threads? (see the message pinned to the top of this forum).

 

[Nooj]

The problem I think you have is that not all atheists value rational thinking over emotional beliefs. By emotional beliefs, I mean beliefs that are motivated by emotion. And those that claim to value rationality over emotional beliefs, if you ask them, will probably qualify that claim by saying that in some instances, they prefer emotional beliefs.

Have you looked into existentialism? Both the theistic and atheistic strands are very interesting and might have answers for you. Congratulations on overcoming your suicidal thoughts.

 

[Kalmbach]

This—I am not pained to admit—will never make it into a book. Aside from being rambling, it’s fraught with philosophical assumptions about the position of the non-believer (which you’ve conflated, for some reason, with nihilism).

Your entire argument hinges around what you do with the knowledge that life is meaningless—your proposition being that the only rational decision is to kill yourself. First, it can’t be rationally concluded that it is better not to exist than to exist (or vice versa), because the question then comes “better to what end?” You might say “it is better not to live a meaningless existence,” but this judgment doesn’t resonate from a philosophical line of thought, it is your subjective assessment.

I have a subjective assessment of my existence too: I prefer to live in spite of the meaninglessness and absurdity of it. From the idea that there are no objective givens, it doesn’t follow that I can’t enjoy life, that I can’t have values that preserve the well-being of society, and it certainly doesn’t justify the rapist. On purely philosophical grounds, the nihilist will neither justify nor condemn the rapist; on social grounds, we will assert our collective value that rape cannot be tolerated.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How do you know whether emotions tell you anything true or otherwise - other than your own internal conditions - without also consulting reason? As I’ve said, our experience is woven of both.

I raised this same point in another thread. While “rational” and “irrational” are useful labels in some context functional people make use of both. In the thread in which I tried to raise this point I made mention to a book called “Descarte’s error.” from the Amazon.com description:
Amazon.com:

Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa and a prominent researcher on human brain function, challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality…Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making.

The actual description is longer than that, but I copied the parts that are relevant.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This—I am not pained to admit—will never make it into a book. Aside from being rambling, it’s fraught with philosophical assumptions about the position of the non-believer (which you’ve conflated, for some reason, with nihilism).

Your entire argument hinges around what you do with the knowledge that life is meaningless—your proposition being that the only rational decision is to kill yourself. First, it can’t be rationally concluded that it is better not to exist than to exist (or vice versa), because the question then comes “better to what end?” You might say “it is better not to live a meaningless existence,” but this judgment doesn’t resonate from a philosophical line of thought, it is your subjective assessment.

Firstly, the fact that not all atheists think a certain way is irrelevant, since that is not what i am trying to prove. I was generalizing; and i was doing so on purpose for the sake of argument.

What i am trying to show you, is that given a certain attitude towards beliefs certain existential consequences follow. You have not properly understood the argument, since you are leaving out the vital premise of how a rational being responds to existence if he or she rejects emotional/non-rational reasons for believing that life is worth living or that human life has true value. The point is, the atheist has unsupportable beliefs that are irrational in contrast to the objective truth when given their system of thought, and therefore those beliefs have the nature of a fantasy. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a purely rational atheism, and that atheists choose and feel justified in believing things on purely emotional grounds if it will support their survival and social pleasure, even if they “know” that the concepts they adhere to are not objectively rational. I will give an explanation of my position, later on in the week.

 

[Kalmbach]

Firstly, the fact that not all atheists think a certain way is irrelevant, since that is not what i am trying to prove. I was generalizing; and i was doing so on purpose for the sake of argument.

What i am trying to show you, is that given a certain attitude towards beliefs certain existential consequences follow. You have not properly understood the argument, since you are leaving out the vital premise of how a rational being responds to existence if he or she rejects emotional/non-rational reasons for believing that life is worth living or that human life has true value. The point is, the atheist has unsupportable beliefs that are irrational in contrast to the objective truth when given their system of thought, and therefore those beliefs have the nature of a fantasy. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a purely rational atheism, and that atheists choose and feel justified in believing things on purely emotional grounds if it will support their survival and social pleasure, even if they “know” that the concepts they adhere to are not objectively rational. I will give an explanation of my position, later on in the week.

I understand your argument fine; It can be whittled down to “I may be irrational, but so are you!” You haven’t considered my argument in detail. I am saying that since it cannot be concluded that it is better to exist or not exist (i.e., that no philosophical argument can achieve either one of these conclusions), it is not irrational for an atheist to continue living. Since we can justify our existence in subjective ways, we can determine for ourselves whether it is better or not to continue living. An atheist may concede that life has no intrinsic meaning, and so derive his values and meaning relative to his experience. An atheist will also argue that, from their subjective stance, it is better to live than not. A position (such as your own) that takes, for argument sake, the relative nature of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ as a granted, but does not take the subjective wish to continue existing as a granted, is bankrupt on its on terms.

You’re confounding a lot of concepts here in your argument around ‘rationality’ (a contested concept as it is, as per postmodernism). You want rational to signify objective, and emotional to signify subjective; but these terms don’t mean the same thing. To say something is arbitrary, or subjective (as is the case with creating meaning in an otherwise inherently meaningless milieu), isn’t to say that it’s irrational. Rationality means there is a base or a cause (i.e., good reason) for the things we believe. When the claim is about whether or not we should continue to live, our relativist stance gives us not the answer that we should end our existence, but in fact no objective answer at all. The truth claim about our existence is then, rationally, a subjective one (e.g., “I want to continue existing” is a truth claim about me). It’s neither inherently rational to continue living or not; the rational grounds are for a person to decide.

Your position and mine don’t necessarily exclude one another though. For instance, you wrote:

I could not except the idea that absolute skepticism is more rational than hope in God. For in God there is at least a mystery, and it seems to me that it is folly to reduce ones self to nothing when one has no evidence that life really isn’t worth living

Although your use of ‘rationality’ is obscure and presumptuous, your argument is one for faith, namely that it is more subjectively] meaningful to live a life of hope in God than not to. If that’s true for you, it’s rational to continue on. What could be more rational than securing our hopes and happiness? There may be no rational grounds for believing in a higher power (evidently, this is my position), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t rational grounds for believing our beliefs (i.e., about God) are true–a subtle, but important distinction.

Your position is a tempting one (even for atheists); it is popular, albeit poorly conceived, and in your case, poorly articulated.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I understand your argument fine; It can be whittled down to “I may be irrational, but so are you!”

If thats all you see me saying, then you are either ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to you, or you are not reading the post properly.

You haven’t considered my argument in detail. I am saying that since it cannot be concluded that it is better to exist or not exist

Lets try this again

If atheism is correct, then it follows that there is no objectively rational reason to continue existing or to perceive your life or anyones life as truly valuable, in a moral sense, or existentially significant in an ontological sense. There are only emotional reasons for thinking these things. Therefore to treat ones life or anyones life as morally valuable is an objectively irrational act. To consider life as something worth living is objectively irrational because life, objectively speaking has no worth or value given your world view. Its just a subjective fantasy that you choose to participate in. If you judge non-evidential beliefs as non-rational, then this not only includes belief in objective moral values or Gods existence, but also the belief in our sense of personal and existential worth as a civilization. It includes any and all beliefs, religious or circular, that are not the conclusions of rational thought and evidence.

Because our motivations for living are purely non-rational emotions, it follows that there is no rational reason to continue existing; and thus it follows that to continue existing would be an irrational act. Therefore “suicide” is the only possibility of escaping from irrational reality. Death follows as a necessary and rational conclusion, not because one desires death (which would be equally irrational) but rather because to desire life is objectively irrational, survival is objectively irrational, since the desire for life is purely an illusion of our emotions and not rational thinking. Therefore death is the only rational option, since to continue living is irrational.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since we can justify our existence in subjective ways,

Justification, in the context of survival, has no objective meaning, if given the truth of your world view. It is irrational to believe oneself to be justified since there are no objective/ontological standards of justification when it comes to the subject of survival. You cannot rationally justify why you choose to live. There are just the emotionally induced fears or fantasies which you participate in.

we can determine for ourselves whether it is better or not to continue living.

Not on rational grounds you can’t.

An atheist may concede that life has no intrinsic meaning, and so derive his values and meaning relative to his experience.

Experiences have no intrinsic meaning, thus it is objectively irrational to derive meaning from them. What ever meaning you imagine, although it may very well be comforting, it will not say anything true about the reality which exists beyond your imagination; that is if universal naturalism is correct.

 

[Kalmbach]

If atheism is correct, then it follows that there is no objectively rational reason to continue existing or to perceive your life or anyones life as truly valuable, in a moral sense, or existentially significant in an ontological sense.

This is what you’re not acknowledging, and it is the seed of your entirely fallacious argument. If the position that some atheists hold is true–that life has no inherent meaning or value–then it necessarily follows that there is no objectively rational reason to continue, or not continue to exist. Our position is that there is no basis for any action or feeling whatsoever, moral or otherwise. What I’m telling you is that the word “rational,” as you’ve used it, is a misnomer because it implies a basis, cause, or justification for feeling or behaving. You’re suggesting that “to desire life is objectively irrational,” when, from our position, it necessarily does not follow one way or another.

 

[Kalmbach]

Not on rational grounds you can’t.

Maybe this will help: if everything is relative and subjective, there are no justifications in the objective sense (a claim you’ve mirrored). If there are no rationales, there is no debate about what or what is not **rational. **The positions held by atheists just are.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

An atheist will also argue that, from their subjective stance, it is better to live than not. A position (such as your own) that takes, for argument sake, the relative nature of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ as a granted, but does not take the subjective wish to continue existing as a granted, is bankrupt on its on terms.

As an atheist you are prepared to entertain objectively irrational reasons for existing.

You want rational to signify objective,

If we want to say something that is true of reality, then what we say has to rationally correspond to reality. Otherwise what we are saying is irrational in that it doesn’t correspond to reality but we nevertheless behave as if it does. Thats objectively irrational. You are treating reality as something that it is not. The only way to escape this is to say that it is rational to emotionally respond to reality as something desirable; that it is rational to act on emotions. But you haven’t demonstrated this rationally, and you cannot given your world view.

Rationality means there is a base or a cause (i.e., good reason) for the things we believe. When the claim is about whether or not we should continue to live, our relativist stance gives us not the answer that we should end our existence, but in fact no objective answer at all.

Thats because there is no objectively rational reason to believe that life is worth living. If life is not objectively worth anything, then it is irrational to attach value to it, or to believe it has value or significance, since it doesn’t reflect true objective reality. Its delusional behavior regardless of what you believe.

The truth claim about our existence is then, rationally, a subjective one (e.g., “I want to continue existing” is a truth claim about me). It’s neither inherently rational to continue living or not; the rational grounds are for a person to decide.

Objective truth is not subjective. It cannot be changed according to our whim. You can choose to live, but you cannot claim to others that you have rational reasons for doing so. Given your world-view, it is both objectively true that you want to live, and objectively true that you have no rational reason for doing so. You are driven by emotions that tell you nothing about objective reality, accept that you feel and that you are aware of feeling. We can either respond rationally to those feelings, or you can respond irrationally. If we allow our feelings to drive us despite the objective truth, then we are acting irrational.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If the position that some atheists hold is true–that life has no inherent meaning or value–then it necessarily follows that there is no objectively rational reason to continue, or not continue to exist.

Existential survival itself becomes the antithesis of reason, because your choice to live in existence is driven purely by emotional beliefs that have no objective basis in reality. This is to say that feelings which encourage us to believe that life is worth living do not reflect the objective truth about the meaninglessness and worthlessness of being alive. It is a delusion. Life has no value and so it is irrational to give it value. Therefore it becomes entirely rational to cease existing; not because its desirable, but because every act of life is an irrational act. Thus Death is the only escape from irrationality. If you choose to live instead, it is for irrational reasons.