Brainstorm...

"Education is a process through which truth is not introduced into the mind from without, but is "led out" from within.  The mind then finds then revealed within itself knowledge both of its own nature and of the universe, a knowledge otherwise clouded by the obscurities of mundane existence."  ~ Plato

The locus of education: The Curriculum v. The Student

This concept represents one of the fundamental struggles in public education.

In many ways it describes the philosophical difference between special education and regular education.

Empirical research clearly leans towards Plato and the individual.

Economic pressures pull us toward standards and accountability...

When the locus of education is moved closer to the individual, objectives become apparent and... objective.

When the locus of education moves closer towards standards, objectives become blurred (hence the current confusion) and subjective.

The solution to this dilemma is not written down on paper ... it is within the individual; The Student. 

The question should be: what does Ryan need to be inspired and to develop?  Not... How can we get better results from our students?

We should observe and listen to the students sitting in front of us...

We should be acknowledging their strengths and weaknesses...

We should respect the intuitive knowledge within them...

Math is discovered... not learned.

Language is instinctual... not taught.

Art and literature is spiritual and inspirational... a process, not a program.

Children are curious about nature... by nature.

Will, imagination, faith, hope, and empathy... these are what our students' desire.

The current locus of education is preventing these desires and clouding our judgment.

Let's move the pendulum towards The Student.

We have placed ourselves on an arrogant platform high above The Student.

Let's step down and allow them to stand on the platform and drive the decision we make.

The philosophical reduction of education to bits of information is a reflection of today's philosophical reduction of life to matter, love to chemicals... this world to shit.

Existentialism, nihilism, skepticism...shit.

Little Miss Sunshine, The Catcher in the Rye, The Bone, Alaska, American Psycho, Nietzsche... The Road, The Stranger, Fight Club... Fight Club!... reduction to shit.

A purely scientific world view has brought us to the brink of disaster.

Nuclear weapons, overpopulation, pollution, oppression, violence, crime, war... these are a reflection of our current philosophy.

Students ask: "Why math?," or "Why do I need to know history?," or they don't say anything at all... no affect... not participation... shit.

We say:... Our response is:... The powers that be tell us to:... shit.

"Today, class, we will be learning about shit... You need to know this shit so that you can spit this shit our on the test."

Shit.

Tyler says that "recycling and speed limits are bullshit," "They're like someone who quits smoking on his deathbed." (Fight Club / Adbusters)

The question is:  what does Holden need?  For a student that thinks the world is shit... what does he need?  What was he searching for?, What was he lacking?...

If life is shit... then what's the difference?

Is life shit?

What is our philosophy?

What do we believe?

What are the beliefs of our community?

Families fractured, cultures fractured, politics fractured, the church fractured, minds fractured, schools fractured...

The standardization of America appears to be stabilization effort to bind a civilization in shambles.

It's result... is shit.

On the other hand... and there needs to be another freakn' hand.

Some believe (and I include myself in this group) that division is a necessary process of evolution.

In order to develop, systems need to conflict and divide, separate and balance, coexist and develop, then, reintegrate to produce a greater system.

This process is demonstrated in physics, biology, psychology, and philosophy (systems theory).

Viewing our current situation in this manner changes our philosophy significantly.

We have transformed from "meat and chemicals" to playing a crucial role at an incredible time of flux.

We gain an understanding and a philosophical perspective that gives us a clear mission for the future.

Division is necessary and is surrounding us...

We need to reach a state of equilibrium...

Coexist and develop...

And search for (or welcome) a unifying philosophy... educationally and globally, that will produce a better system.

I hope.

Shawn

Suicide v. Life

The Debate

Shawn..."What are you reading?"

Mike..."Ah... I recently took an interest in the Supreme Court.  I'm reading an informative book that gives a general overview of the court; it's structure, purpose, history... Kind of an "Idiot's Guide" to the Supreme Court.."

Shawn..."Cool."

Mike..."You know Shawn, I was just telling Bill that I think it might be a good idea to have something like a debate with the students.  I thought we could pick something that they would want to get involved with, something that they were interested in for a topic and have something formal that the kids could set up and put on... and I would like to open the debate to the entire school, not just my English class.  What do you think?"

Shawn..."I love the idea. I think a debate setup-if they could get into it-would be perfect for this kind of setting.  Have you thought about any cool topics to debate...?"

Mike..."I have some ideas... and I was going to brainstorm with the class to get their input.  What do you think? Any topic jump out at you?"

Shawn..."Yeah, I can think of a few. If I thought about it I could probably come up with some more-I mean we could really get them to explore some important ideas-things that would get them thinking about different stuff. I like this,...how about Suicide?... I think we should debate the pros and cons of suicide.  It is the fundamental debate."

Mike...that would be interesting. Are you serious? We can't do that."

Shawn..."Of course I'm serious. What do you mean we can't? Why?"

Mike..."How can you be serious? What do you mean "why?"  You mean you want to have a debate-a debate between students-where one side argues that suicide is bad; and the other side is going to argue that suicide is good? And you're asking why we can't?"

Shawn... "That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't think they are already thinking about this? You don't think that they are already having these conversations with each other...or that they are not having these conversations with someone else-but they are thinking about it. It's a fundamental question in life. The whole Myth of Sisyphus struggles with this very idea."

Mike... "That's not the point. I'm not saying that it isn't a great topic. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a great debate. I'm just saying that this is a public school... and you would like some poor student to argue for suicide... in front of the entire school? I just can't see this being a good idea. Are you really serious?

Shawn..."What do you mean am I serious?  These guys are 16, 17, 18, 19, years old. Think about the things that they are already thinking about. Think about the things that they are already involved in. They are adults, or at least they are on the border between. Pretty soon they will be parents.  Why would you aski if I am serious when I think that they are mature enough to have a serious debate? Are you saying that they aren't mature enough to talk about these things in a serious way?"

Bill..."Hey, are you guys all set...What's ah, going on in here?"

Shawn..."Mike was just telling me about the debate idea-I think the topic should be suicide."

Bill..."Hah, hah, ah... are you serious?"

Shawn..."Of course I'm serious. What is with you guys? Why would you ask if I am serious?  It's the fundamental debate."

Bill..."Debate... as in "pros and cons"?  Debate...as in one kid stands on this side and the other one stands on that side and one of them is going to argue that suicide is the right thing to do?"

Shawn..."Yeah. What are you afraid of?  What do you think is going to happen?"

Mike...."Let's say the pro-suicide kid wins the debate."

Shawn... "Do you think that would happen?"

Bill... "That's what a debate is isn't it? Each side is going to try to prove the other side is wrong. So you are going to get some kid up there arguing that suicide is not a bad idea, and he is going to try to convince everyone else that he's right...and because it's a debate, he's got a shot of winning."

Shawn... "But do you think that he's going to win? Do you think that the argument in favor of suicide is stronger than the argument against it?"

Bill... "That isn't what I said. I'm not saying that some kid is going to get up there and make some unbeatable argument in favor of suicide but if this is a debate and we are going to let the kids decide who wins, if you get someone charismatic up there who is arguing that suicide is the best option, then he's got a shot of winning."

Shawn... "Are you saying that the whole school is going to be convinced that suicide is the best option because someone is a better speaker than someone else? Are you giving them enough credit?

Bill..."There is no way I'm letting some kid convince the school that it is beneficial to commit suicide. And yes. I think that how the whole thing is presented has a lot to say about who wins a debate. That has nothing to do with credit. Who do you think we are talking about?"

Shawn... "I'm just saying that it sounds like you think they aren't mature enough to have an honest discussion about suicide. I mean we know that they are thinking about it. We know that people their age are the ones who are actively considering it and we are treating it like it's a taboo or something that we aren't allowed to talk about. That just doesn't sound like the right thing to me. We should give them an opportunity to have an honest discussion about things like this."

Bill... "I completely agree with you. Let's have a discussion. You're not talking about a discussion. You are talking about having a debate where someone is arguing in favor of suicide."

Shawn... "But do you think that it matters?"

Bill... "Uh yeah. You're crazy if you want someone to get up there and try to win-and that's what you try to do in a debate you try to win-by convincing the entire school that suicide is perfectly reasonable."

Shawn... "But do you think that he's going to win?"

Mike... "That's not the point. The point is that you want to sanction a debate in which we ask some student to try to win by proving that suicide is right. If it's a debate, we have to consider that both sides are equally winnable. If you don't think that both sides are winnable, then it's not a fair debate. Then we're asking someone to take up the side of trying to win by proving suicide is the best option but we all know that he or she can't win because it's not a real debate...not to mention that we shouldn't debate suicide."

Shawn..."What do you mean "shouldn't""?

Mike..."There is no logical reason to argue in favor of suicide."

Shawn... "What do you mean logical?"

Mike... "I mean that win or lose, there is no reason to get someone to argue in favor of it. None of us think that suicide is the best option. It sounds like none of use wants the pro-suicide side to win. So how is it a logical idea to ask these kids to debate the merits of suicide when the last thing we want them to do it actually think that suicide is the right option."

Shawn..."Logical or not, people contemplate suicide... our students are contemplating suicide... right now there are probably some of our students who are thinking about suicide and who are they bouncing their ideas off of? How are they approaching the issue? It is a fundamental question. You can't help it. Everyone contemplates suicide."

Bill..."Who contemplates suicide?"

Shawn..."Everyone."

Bill..."Me?"

Shawn..."You have never thought about killing yourself?"

Bill..."No... No, I have never contemplated suicide."

Shawn..."You're lying... you have never thought about why we exist... are we just "unruly dust" kind of stuff?  The meaning of existence kind of stuff?"

Bill... "Yeah...I think about why we exist. Yeah I think about the questions of ‘who are we?' and ‘why are we here?' and ‘what's the meaning of life?'...but that's not the same thing as thinking about killing myself."

Shawn..."It is the same thing. If you can't find a reason to believe that this life is worth living then what's to stop you from committing suicide?"

Mike...."I think the point that you are missing Shawn is that we are going to ask the students to create an argument for suicide... there is nothing beneficial about that debate.  We're not just talking about special circumstances for suicide like for people with terminal illnesses or people that are suffering... you want them to argue that suicide is beneficial for the typical person... I think it is unethical."

Shawn..."Listen, the point of the debate is to put students in position to define the reasons for their existence... it forces them to define why they should live."

Ryan..."Hey guys what's up?"

Bill..."Mike brought up the idea of having some kind of formal school debate and Shawn wants kids to debate that suicide is a good option."

Ryan..."Are you serious?"

Shawn..."What is it with you guys. Why would you ask if I'm serious? It is a completely legitimate topic. It's more than a legitimate topic it is an important topic. These kids should be discussing this kind of thing. These 2 guys don't think the students are old enough to have the debate... it is the fundamental freakin' debate."

Ryan..."Okay, hold on. We're talking about an idea that we should have some kind of school debate where the students get up and argue for and against some topic right? That kind of debate? And Shawn, you want the topic to be about suicide. So some team or whatever is going to argue against suicide-like suicide is a bad idea and some students are going to argue for suicide-saying that suicide is a good idea? And you're serious Shawn?

Shawn..."Yes. I'm completely serious. We just watched Romeo and Juliet...Are we not supposed to talk about what happens at the end? Are we supposed to just be silent about it and move on? Don't you think they are talking about it? Or at least thinking about it? Some students listen to Marilyn Manson...Do you think they aren't hearing about this stuff from other sources? They think about suicide... that is why we should have the debate."

Bill..."There is no fucking way I am going to let some fucking kid convince the school to commit suicide. It's a stupid idea."

Shawn... "You don't think these kids are mature enough to have an honest discussion about suicide? You don't think we should talk about it with them?"

Bill... "Yes. Let's have a discussion. Let's talk about it with them. That's a great idea. I think we should have a discussion about it. We have had discussions about it. You want to have a fucking debate about it. You want some kid to get up there and say ‘I think suicide is great. I think everyone should commit suicide.' That's unreal."

Shawn..."You think some kid is going to trick all of the students into committing suicide?"

Bill... "That's not the point."

Ryan...."I don't think I can ethically allow that to happen... I think I would have to step in and say no."

Shawn... "You would want to censor what we should and shouldn't debate?"

Ryan... "It's not about censoring anyone. It wouldn't be responsible. You have to remember some of the kids that we are dealing with here. One of these kids, I just talked to her today. She doesn't know where she is going to sleep tonight. It's not responsible of us as educators, it's not responsible of us as people to take kids like that and put them in a situation where they are going to hear other kids their age arguing that suicide is the right thing to do."

Shawn... "Then maybe we shouldn't have them read things like Romeo and Juliet if we can't talk about these issues."

Ryan... "I'm not saying that we can't talk about it."

Mike... "It's kind of unfair to bring in Romeo and Juliet anyway because the whole ending is set up for suicide to be the best option. It wouldn't be Romeo and Juliet without the whole tragic ending. I don't think the kids are going to be convinced to go out and commit suicide because Romeo and Juliet did. I don't think that they would relate to Romeo and Juliet. The whole situation was perfect for just such an ending."

Bill... "Are you saying that Romeo and Juliet couldn't have any other ending...it needed suicide to be Romeo and Juliet?"

Mike... "Yeah. Don't you think? How else could it end?"

Ryan... "I have to really stress this point that these kids, the population we are dealing with,...it wouldn't be responsible of us to have this kind of debate."

Shawn..."Is it ok for us to have this debate?"

Ryan... "What do you mean?"

Shawn..."I mean is it okay for the four of us to have this debate right now? Is it okay for the four of us to debate about suicide?"

Ryan..."Of course it's okay for us to debate it. I would love to sit back and have a debate with you guys about this, you and Bill could argue against mike and me...okay maybe not you and Bill but yes It's okay for us."

Shawn..."But it isn't ok for the students?  Why?"

Ryan...."Because it's different. Sometimes these kids don't get what you want them to get. Sometimes they don't take in everything you are saying and they take bits and pieces of the debate and hear what they want to hear.  Bill might be teaching this great lesson about how terrorism is this horrible thing and how it brings terrible consequences and there are one or two kids in the back..."

Bill... "Three. In my class it's three."

Ryan... "...three kids who don't get any of it and all they take in is that terrorism is really cool."

Bill... "It's funny. We were just talking about the option of Civil Disobedience or Terrorism and only one kid chose Terrorism. Almost the entire class said that they would choose Civil Disobedience."

Shawn... "That's what I mean. These kids are mature enough to make intelligent decisions based on legitimate reasons."

Ryan... "It's not an issue about whether or not they are intelligent enough to make the right decision after the debate. I'm not worried about the kids arguing in favor of suicide winning..."

Bill... "But they might."

Ryan... "I'm not worried about them than night. I'm worried about them the next night or a week later or a couple weeks later when they are sitting back and having a beer or something worse and they had a bad day and they don't know where they are going to stay the next night and they remember some argument that someboday made that says suicide is a legitimate choice and they are sitting there and thinking,...'yeah, maybe it is a good option.' And then boom. That's it. They're not thinking rationally right then. They are not making intelligent decisions right then in that situation. It might put them over the edge."

Shawn..."It might... but it might give them the reasons to live."

Bill..."Are we going to be part of this debate?"

Shawn..."I don't know."

Bill..."I just... I'm really really not comfortable letting some kid win the fucking debate for suicide."

Shawn..."You think he would win the debate?"

Mike..."I think I could win the debate in favor of suicide... I'm sure I could. I mean I could definitely get a good shot at it. I could put together a really convincing argument in favor of suicide. Really, there are lots of cases where suicide might be the best option. You could talk about the terminal illness side, euthanasia,...Right before he committed suicide George Eastman-the Kodak guy's last words were something like, ‘I've done everything I wanted, why wait?' That's perfect I would use that perspective. There are all sorts of cultural examples of justifiable suicide. Lots of different cultures have the concept of ‘Honor killing'...

Bill... "Like Bushido?..."

Mike... "Exactly.  I actually really enjoy the whole idea of this debate... I just don't think we can have it with the students.  I don't think it is ethical."

Shawn..."Ethical? ... I think it is unethical not to have the debate."

Ryan..."You're crazy.  There are students out there who don't take what we want them to take, who don't get what we are hoping they'd get. You put them in a room where people are arguing over whether they should kill themselves, and they hear the Eastman thing and think, ‘yeah, that's right, why wait?' There are some students that will watch the debate and it might put them over the fucking edge."

Shawn..."You're right... there are students out there who are contemplating suicide.  Therefore, we should have the debate. You're a counselor. You've seen the kind of thing that we set up for kids and suicide. It's ridiculous. It's one of those in house things where we tell kids that you shouldn't drink or smoke or use drugs because it's bad. It's not honest. It's not genuine. It doesn't address the real issues that the kids need to talk about."

Bill..."We can discuss anything... but I'm not comfortable having them argue for suicide."

Shawn..."So... in your discussion you would only talk about the reasons against suicide.  That makes it a bullshit discussion.  Some students commit suicide.  Students make that choice... we need to debate this stuff.  How do you convince your students to live... and against suicide?"

Bill..."Through my zest for life"

Mike..."That's a good answer.  No really. It's a great answer. It's teaching by example. That's probably the best argument. There is no reason to argue for suicide...for these kids, I mean.  It can only be harmful."

Shawn..."Are you still questioning?"

Mike..."What do you mean?"

Shawn..."I mean... If you completely and wholeheartedly believed in the reasons for life, you wouldn't worry about this debate."

Ryan..."What are you talking about?"

Shawn...."You think the reasons for suicide are legit... Otherwise you wouldn't care about debating the pros and cons of the debate; because the pros obviously out weigh the cons and you would want to bring that to light."

Mike... "Exactly. I think there are legitimate reasons for committing suicide. People do it. Every day. I don't think that every single one of the people that has or will commit suicide is doing it because they have illegitimate arguments. I think that for some people suicide is a legitimate option. I may not agree with their reasons, but I give them credit. Some of them might not have thought about it, but some of them might have thought it through and suicide was the best available choice to them. It would have to have been right? Or why would they have killed themselves?

Shawn... "I don't think that's it. I mean, if these kids really thought about it, and we had an honest debate about it, the reasons to live would be the important reasons that come out. The arguments against suicide are the ones that we need to give them a chance to hear. They already have talked about the reasons for suicide. They are already thinking about that but where are they getting the counterarguments to those ideas? From each other? When you counsel kids, you talk to them about suicide right?"

Ryan... "Of course we do. If they give any sign that the idea is bouncing around in their heads we talk to them about it. We have a discussion about it."

Shawn... "What about the kids who don't go to a counselor?"

Mike... "He's right though. Don't they say that most of the people that successfully commit suicide don't talk to anyone about it before they do it?"

Shawn... "If you guys really thought that pros...the arguments in favor of life were stronger than the arguments in favor of suicide, then you wouldn't have a problem with the debate. You would want them to have the debate so that we could have an honest discussion about the reasons for life."

Ryan..."That's bullshit.  The kids sitting there watching the debate are going to be half-ass listening and they will only here what they want to hear."

Shawn..."That's such a cynical perception of the students."

Ryan..."I think it's the truth."

Shawn..."I think that's bullshit."

[This part of the debate is fictitious... it didn't happen... I added the following statements to give my (Shawn's) reasons for living]

Ryan..."If  you're so fucking convinced that you could win the debate... let's hear your argument.  Leave out all of the research and formal crap...in your own words... lets hear the argument against suicide."

Shawn..."It is the argument for life... the philosophy that supports our reasons for living... not dying."

Ryan..."Oh Jesus"

Shawn..."For me it's not Jesus... and it's not religion. Suicide can only be validated when one believes in the philosophical reduction of life to matter, love to chemicals... this world to shit.  Existentialism, nihilism, skepticism...shit.  Little Miss Sunshine, The Catcher in the Rye, The Bone, Alaska, American Psycho, Nietzsche... The Road, The Stranger, Fight Club... Fight Club!... reduction to shit.  A purely scientific world view has brought us to the brink of disaster.  Nuclear weapons, overpopulation, pollution, oppression, violence, crime, war... these are a reflection of our current philosophy.  Students ask: "Why math?," or "Why do I need to know history?," or they don't say anything at all... no affect... not participation... shit.  We say:... Our response is:... The powers that be tell us to:... shit.  "Today, class, we will be learning about shit... You need to know this shit so that you can spit this shit our on the test."  Shit.  Tyler says that "recycling and speed limits are bullshit," "They're like someone who quits smoking on his deathbed." (Fight Club)  The question is:  what does Holden need?  For a student that thinks the world is shit... what does he need?  What was he searching for?, What was he lacking?... If life is shit... then what's the difference?  Is life shit?  What is our philosophy?  What do we believe?  What are the beliefs of our community?  Families fractured, cultures fractured, politics fractured, the church fractured, minds fractured, schools fractured...  You're afraid to have a debate about suicide when we are losing the fucking debate.  The argument for suicide... is shit.

On the other hand... and there needs to be another freakn' hand.  Some believe (and I include myself in this group) that division is a necessary process of evolution.  In order to develop, systems need to conflict and divide, separate and balance, coexist and develop, then, reintegrate to produce a greater system.

This process is demonstrated in physics, biology, psychology, and philosophy.  Viewing our current situation in this manner changes our philosophy significantly.  We have transformed from "meat and chemicals" to playing a crucial role at an incredible time of flux.  We gain an understanding and a philosophical perspective that gives us a clear mission for the future.  Division is necessary, and is surrounding us... We need to reach a state of equilibrium... Coexist and develop...And evolve.

Life was created on this planet only once... and we... we are part of a unifying ebb and flow of being and becoming.  If I were to stand in front of the student body I would bring a sunflower with me.  I would ask them if it were alive.  When they said yes, I would pick off a pedal and ask them if the flower was still living.  When they said yes, I would cut the flower in half and ask them if there was still life.  Confused... I would state that beings do not live in solidarity... atoms and cells are never alone.  There is no individual.  There are no individuals.  Flowers live and die but "life is more real that lives."  People commit suicide when they believe they are an individual.  But we are not individuals... we don't simply exist, we don't simply live...we live as a link to the future and know that our death is not the end of life.  My purpose is to live... and our purposes are the same.  We are parts of the same collective whole.  Our lives are different but our life comes from the same source.  There is no debate between suicide and life... there is only life.  You can either play a conscious role in life, or not.  But suicide is not an option.  Again, there is only life."

Ryan..."You think a kid sitting in the back row is going to get that?"

Shawn..."What do you mean...?"

Ryan..."Existentialism, nihilism, "being and becoming"... there is no way they are going to get that shit."

Mike..."Do you think that your argument is the only argument against suicide... for living?"

Shawn..."I don't know."

Bill..."What if you were part of the debate and you were chosen to argue for suicide... what would you say?"

Shawn..."I would refuse to participate in the debate."

Mike... "See, I think that is the crap part. No offense but even though your argument is a good one. It is fundamentally flawed. You think that people only commit suicide because they believe they are an individual and if they suddenly believed that they were all parts of the same collective whole that everyone would think that suicide wasn't an option. But that's not necessarily true. Think about it. First, what if we are just individuals? It's a nice thought to conceive of an ‘everything is one' idea. I think I personally agree with that but just because it's a nice idea doesn't make it true. How do you prove that you're right? That's what a debate is. A debate isn't founded on faith. It is not about the visceral feelings that cause us to make our personal priorities, to make our personal systems of morality and ethics and personal conceptions of the universe and that is religion...at least that is what religion boils down to. Any time you have some kind of opinion that is founded on something that you can't prove and you just appeal to someone based on what they feel should be true, it is some kind of religion. You can't prove religion. You can't win the argument for any religion beyond a shadow of a doubt because at the heart of it there is an absolute dependence on some fragment of necessary faith - it's Colbert's Truthiness in reality.

There is no and there never has been a state of equilibrium anywhere in nature. It's a myth. If there were equilibrium nothing would change. Things are the way they are, people are the way they are because of tumult and tragedy and audacity and awkwardness and randomness and irrationality launched through bad ideas or no ideas every bit as much as because of wisdom and philosophy. I would say even more because of convulsion and clamor and chaos than anything else. We are not rational people. Once you put people into the mix you get irrationality not rationality. No animal commits suicide. It can't be suicide if it's not something that is thought out. You can't get murder without thinking. And suicide is murder of oneself. It requires forethought, just like any other kind of murder. If you take religion out of the mix, you're position is less defensible and not more. What if, what if all this shit really is shit? What if the kids are right to wonder why they need to learn all of this stuff? What if they don't need school like this? What if they are the ones who are asking the right questions?

We are forcing them to learn these subjects, but who says that it is the right thing? There was never a time in the history of the world that every person in a culture was required to learn specific concepts in a school setting that were not immediately relevant to reality of their working-acting-living lifestyle. Education was originally for the wealthy who were expected to be better. Aristocracy comes from the Greek word for excellence. The idea was that the wealthy people were closer to excellence and had a responsibility to help the less fortunate. Education was for a limited portion of the population. But it wasn't an equilibrium. Convulsion, Clamor, Chaos, Change. More and more people needed to be educated to give more and more people the opportunity to make their lives better. But when do we ask the question, the real question, when do we cross the line between providing more opportunity and forcing irrevelvant material down the throats of those who don't need it?

If you want to debate suicide you have to consider a possibility that we are wrong. That all of this really is shit and that those people asking the questions are really the ones who are the forerunners of the next part of the Convulsion, Clamor and Chaos that will usher in the next part of our existence. The premise that life was created on this planet requires the idea of religion. It assumes a teleology not in evidence. Without that piece of faith, life is just as likely to be the result of chance not of creation, of momentous and unpredictable, millennia after millennia of Convulsion. It is not enough to say that life was created only once. Rather, it is important to note that life was not created countless times.

The very fact that teachers, parents, politicians, et cetera, et cetera, can't give an acceptable answer to the questions of why we are doing what we are doing is evidence that there may not be a valid reason. The idea that we are all a part of becoming then itself becomes more wishful thinking than reality. We all hope that this has menaing. We all feel that meaning would be really nice, but we don't know that there is meaning. We don't know that there is purpose. We can not prove that there is teleology. A sunflower, in that world, is only alive because we say that it is alive. By itself, it is nothing. It requires our input, our decision making, our discernment to give it the concept of life. We create the concept of life to make distinctions. Alive and nonliving are ways of describing things for us. Neither the stone nor the goose nor the sunflower make any such distinctions. If they live, they are not conscious of their own life and so, for all practical purposes, without us, they are not alive. Life is a concept. If it has value, it is there because we have put it there. Why would we put value there? Without religion, it's pure Voltaire, Si Dieu n'existait pas, Il faudrait L'inventer. We need meaning to be successful. The more successful we are, perhaps, the more meaning we infuse without validation. But all that means is that when someone sees through the cracks in our hopeful armor, either we redouble our efforts to spackle it over or we let them think what they want and accept that we can't prove that they are wrong.

In that world, suicide is perfectly legitimate. If you are too sad, too lonely, in too much pain, too bored, too whatever you want, and you want some sort of proof that there is a reason not to kill yourself, there isn't any. Pain is just pain. Suffering is just suffering. Even happiness is just happiness. Sisyphus is our absurd hero. Meaning is found in how we approach life, not in the life itself.

But that's only if you are wrong about this whole ‘no individual' thing. What if you are right? Unfortunately, all that means, sans religion is that life goes on whether I or you or any one of these students goes on with it. The absence of the individual means that the individual has no value. A suicide then is part of the process of life. In death, you contribute to the overall process of continuing life. This is quintessential A Few Good Men right here. ‘You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.' The reduction by one of a doubting Thomas through suicide strengthens life. It removes the doubter, the cancer that eats away at the hopeful-armor. Hope may grow stronger as those who are without hope are removed. It's not a pretty thought but it is a legitimate argument. Logically, though you may argue that suicide is not an option, and you may do so vehemently, it is an option and it does not affect the collective in a negative way at all. Forests need forest fires. We learned that the hard way in our conservancy mistakes at the turn of the century. With the destruction of Old growth it paves the way for new growth giving it space and fertile ground. Death is necessary for there to be life. Life requires death for its definition. Living requires some sense of an endpoint for it to actually be living. Suicide is just another part of that ending. We throw Colonel Jessup in jail because he breaks the law. But he breaks the law to ensure that the law can be maintained. Socrates did not escape from prison even though he knew that his arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing was illegitimate because he too protected the laws.

Socrates committed suicide by drinking hemlock. He did not have to. He chose death. He chose death because he saw it as the best option for him. He could have stopped the trial and taken a lesser sentence. He could have escaped-easily. He chose death. By his choice, his teachings take on even greater meaning. They are then passed along to the millions who have read about his deeds through the words of his devoted followers. It created a new kind of thinking, it was the beginning of organized Western Philosophical questioning which is the cornerstone to every single European based philosophical debate over whether life has meaning and value. Even the greatest skeptics required the existence of Socrates and Plato and then Aristotle to have the foundation for their criticisms. If Socrates had believed that suicide was not an option, the possibility of the Western Heritage we depend on for our existence and for this very debate may not have existed. Of course there is a choice. Had Romeo and Juliet ended otherwise, would it have become so great a tragedy that it inspires the hopes and passions of so many others? Kurt Cobain's suicide is still the event that many currently use to fuel their own philosophies about life. His death might have saved others. Where do we draw the line? Stabbing oneself? Shooting oneself? Hanging oneself? Jumping off a building? Is it suicide to leap from a burning building in the hope that you might survive the fall when you are certain you won't survive the fire? Using drugs? Smoking? Drinking? They can all kill you. Knowing this, every single use is a contribution to possible suicide. How about driving, flying in a plane, climbing a mountain, riding a skateboard, stepping outside your door, sitting on your couch? Every action or lack of action brings you closer to your ultimate death. How do you draw the line as to which one counts as suicide and which one doesn't? Early Christian followers could either deny that Jesus was their saviour or die by torture. Many chose death. Is suicide only suicide when those who commit such actions do so with sad or tragic thoughts? What about those who long for what comes next? Not through sadness but through hope for a better place? How do we justify telling a person who lives in horrible, excruciating pain every minute who only asks for and end to the pain of life that suicide is not an option from our pain-free chairs typing through our pain-free debates? What about those who fail in the attempt. Sometimes it is the very moment of failure which gives them a new perspective on life. If suicide were not a choice, this revelation might never have occurred to them. They would have continued on in misery and pain lacking the hope they found in failure. What is death really? Just like your sunflower, pull off one of my fingers, am I still alive? Cut me in half, am I still alive? Take away my ability to move, am I still alive? Take away my ability to think, am I still alive? Take away my memories, my hopes, everything that has ever given me meaning,...you get the idea. Life and death are too complex for maxims and generalties to apply across the board. Sometimes, as tragic as we want to believe it is, Death, even suicidal death, promotes Life in a way that Life alone fails to do. It is the fact that we have the choice that makes life precious to those of us who choose life. The fact that at any minute I could choose suicide but I do not gives my life meaning and value. I don't even have to think about it and it still has meaning. I choose to hope. I choose to have faith where there is no proof. This is living. I can't force this kind of acceptance onto anyone else because then it wouldn't be what it is. Suicide must be an option if for nothing else but to make every moment we refuse to take that option precious. "

Shawn: "You say... "A debate isn't founded on Faith?"...  "I disagree; all debates are founded on faith.  Whether you believe in God, or humanity, or science and empiricism... one must take some leap of faith in order for any debate to be had.  We use words and language to communicate... we use mathematics and reasoning to prove... we use dialogue and logic to understand... none of which can be absolutely proven.  Prove to me that the number 4 exists... or love... or sarcasm... or memory... you can't.  This is your argument.  Nothing can be proven... everything, without faith, is absurd.... shit.  Therefore, any person who is willing to participate in any debate has some faith.   I believe that this debate must be had and it must be won in order for any person to live a healthy life.  You ask the question: "Where do we draw the line?"...  Inferring that it is black and white... death or life.  In a sense, I disagree.  The philosophy you described is death... it is philosophical suicide.  Without a clear purpose to live and a healthy philosophy driving your being... existence is shit.  Drugs, smoking, killing, hording... what's the difference if we lose the debate?.....................It is good to question, it is good to discuss, it is good to debate... these things infer a quest for truth and understanding.  Kids are groping... blindly searching for something to hold on to... and you / we give them shit... and they accept it.  And once accepted... their eyes open to a world of shit.  And they stop questioning.  There's your equilibrium... a long wilted life.  I suggest that they grope... I suggest that they question and discuss and debate... and when some kid reaches his hand out with his eyes closed... I suggest that we offer them the sun." 

Mike... "Exactly, a debate (debattre) is a fight, a battle in which we use ideas as our weapons. These ideas can and should be powerful, but the ability of ideas to act as proof against other ideas ends when the ideas require a faith not shared by the combatants. I think we agree here. I agree with you when you say that any person who is willing to participate in any debate has some faith. It's just that sometimes the combatants have faith in different things. If what I said before was poorly worded, I apologize. A debate is not founded on faith not shared between the debaters. A debate can only go so far as the debaters have common ground. All I was trying to say is that it seems that you were assuming common ground where there wasn't necessarily common ground. Just because on debater has a faith in a certain truth doesn't make that a universally shared truth. Again and again your argument falls into a circular reasoning pattern...life is the only option because we all share in a oneness of life. Therefore, death in the form of suicide is not an option because Life is the only option. This is not an argument because it assumes its conclusion to justify itself. There is no evidence thus far that life is the only option. There is no evidence thus far that we are all connected. It would be nice if we were. It would be nice but nice is not a good argument in a debate unless we are arguing over whether it would be nice if life were the only option. The difficulty of a debate is not the explaining of your position-that is the easy part. The difficult part is in proving that your position is a stronger position than the other side's position. You don't have to prove absolutely, but you have to make an argument and you have to answer the other side's criticism. For example, the question "where do we draw the line?" suggests that your vision is the one that assumes a black and white world. I offered a spectrum. Your original premise There is no debate between suicide and life... there is only life.  You can either play a conscious role in life, or not.  But suicide is not an option.  Again, there is only life creates a dichotomy, establishes a right or wrong. My question about a line points out the indefensibility of such a position. I am using your own idea that Flowers live and die but "life is more real that lives." Life, by your very reasoning includes suicides. More than that, Life (capital L) requires suicides if suicide is a way of expressing how one wishes to live. You assume that death is an end to life. I gave examples of how it promotes life, philosophical life, passionate life and repentant life. You may argue that you don't think you should commit suicide. But assuming that no one should commit suicide because...life is not shit? Prove it. I say life may very well be shit, to some people. If you want a universal acceptance of life as the answer to everyone's suffering, then offer something besides a leap of faith that is only justified (it seems) when you are a healthy individual with hope in your heart. What about the rest of the world? There is an old idea of a place called Ultima Thule. Explorers were always searching for that place just outside the borders of the known world. They never found it. But generation after generation of explorers continued to push back the borders of the map. In their failure, in their disappointment, they made new maps. What they did find did not satisfy them, because they were searching for something more. The Search (capital S) exists because of ideas like Ultima Thule. Even if in the end, these ideas are false, it doesn't change the impact the Search has on the world. It's the same thing for your "only life" idea. It is a good idea, a grand adventure for those who wish to search for it. But there is no proof that it is there and we can not force it on those who aren't ready for it. Even Plato understood in his Allegory of the cave that most people were not ready for the Sun. Sure we should offer it to them. Sure we should try to convince them it's real. But to claim it is the only option is to handicap our attempts. Of course there are other options. The very fact that "The Cave" exists is proof of other options. These other options may, in the end, prove false, but you have to prove it first. What if the only way to end the foolishness of suicide is to stop making it the focus of our War on Self-Doubt? What if the very existence of suicide in such staggering numbers is because our treatment of suicide shows people mourning over the tragic loss of life? Maybe this is what these kids are longing for. If there are no individuals, why mourn them when they are gone? If we take away the appeal of suicide to the individual maybe we will find that it loses some of its purpose. But, again, to say that suicide is not an option belittles the great battle that goes on in the minds of both those who resist and those who succumb. According to Plutarch, Brutus' prior to killing himself answered his compatriots call to fly from their final danger, "By all means must we fly; not with our feet, however, but with our hands". Ultimately he stabbed himself. Again, he chose death and I do not see this as the wrong choice. I do not see it as selfishness. I do not see suicide as an all or nothing bad thing. Death is a part of life. The one can not exist without the other. If you are arguing that some suicides are wrong, then perhaps you are right. But who are we to be the arbiters of such things? Who are we to say that we know better than they who walk the line and ultimately make up their own minds? By all means, offer them the sun, but if they mean to plunge themselves whole within it, it would be foolish to then say that's not an option when you offered it to them.

Shawn... "You are asking me to prove my faith in order to win this debate.  But I don't think that's really the debate.  For me, it's really about Faith or a philosophy... a belief in some reason to live.  It doesn't necessarily have to be my faith... but it has to be a belief in some philosophy that will guide our reasons for living.  When you asked me [fictionally], "Do you think that your argument is the only argument against suicide... for living?"... I replied, "I don't know."  And I don't know (in the empirical sense)... I believe... and I search for truth and beauty to reinforce my belief.  Suicide is a philosophical end... a conclusion to the debate; an arrogance and ignorance about what is and what isn't.  I wouldn't force my faith on any person and I believe that I will always be searching and finding.  To end that process on either end of the spectrum is a demonstration of arrogance and ignorance.  In the debate about whether or not someone should end their life or continue to live... Suicide is a proclamation of knowledge that can not be proven... life, and existence, is the only choice that allows one to reinforce and reveal to nature of their faith.  Therefore, I have my personal faith that prevents me from committing suicide and I believe that others must find theirs in order to live a healthy life.  People that proclaim that they know and understand the universe completely, beyond any further reinforcement, commit either philosophical or physical suicide.  You, Mike, state that we can never empirically know the purpose of our existence... therefore, based on your argument, we could never truly justify such a definitive decision."