Civilization as the hypocrisy of false freedom and suicide

[Valhala]

I was thinking today about the real unfoundedness of the so-called religious-ethical dogmas that, with their centuries-old "civilizational" coding, keep us chained here, trapped in a vicious cycle of repetitive nonsense and futility. This bodily shell in which we are trapped is programmed for reproduction and biological survival at any cost and regardless of everything. It is the biological-technical aspect of our physicality and it is indisputable. However, the hypocritical social-civilizational codes that mantra about some alleged personal freedom are not in accordance with the true nature of our being and hypocritically serve only a dehumanized social system that rests on the unscrupulous exploitation of all natural and biological, including human resources without exception. That hypocritical order is able to celebrate "heroic self-sacrifice" only if it is in accordance with its norms of behavior that serve exclusively to control the population and the survival of the system. it's about the basics, really the most basic human right to be alone, to decide absolutely for oneself about one's survival or disappearance, about ending or ending one's life voluntarily, all social systems and religions find in the same focus uncompromising prohibitions on deciding one's own life and the right to choose and dispose of one's own life in accordance with one's beliefs. Only a few dared to tackle this problem outside the ruling, generally accepted repressive dogma. Sartre, Camus, Amery Jean, Wittgenstein, Weininger are some of the few who tried to look at the problem of suicide as "the first and most serious philosophical problem" from a completely different angle.

 

[L'absent]

Biological imprisonment is only the first level of condemnation: we are organic automatons, designed for the perpetuation of the species, without ever having signed the contract of our existence. But the second level, the most subtle one, is the conceptual prison, that superstructure of dogmas, precepts and artificial morals that legitimize themselves under the pretext of a collective good which is nothing other than the perpetuation of a mechanism of exploitation. It is the rhetoric of the 'right to life', never understood as real self-determination, but as an obligation to permanence, as a forced constraint on the agony of being. The great deception lies precisely here: we delude ourselves that we have agency, while every radical choice is subjected to the sanction of society, the censorship of codes, the repression of the law. If life were truly ours, we should be able to dispose of it in an absolute sense, but instead here is the ban: you can let yourself be consumed by a demeaning and parasitic existence, you can sacrifice yourself for a company, for a State, for a religion, but you cannot decide to stop playing.
Suicide, Camus said, is the only truly serious philosophical problem, and its centrality in existential discourse is demonstrated precisely by its systematic removal. Jean Améry spoke of the 'hand that tightens around the throat from within', of the internal coercion inoculated by centuries of guilt-inducing narratives, of the silent condemnation imposed on those who claim their exit from the scene. Because survival is not the inviolable dogma, but survival functional to the maintenance of the social structure. So, here we are, praising an existence that disguises itself as free, but which is chained to the most archaic and primordial paradigm: the duty to exist, not as a subject, but as a mechanism. The right to die is the extreme taboo, because granting it would mean admitting the absurdity of a system that is based on impositions disguised as freedom. They claim the right to define the meaning of our existence, but we claim absolute ownership of the final word.