|
So are we simply arguing from the same side? Because my premise is that there doesn't need to be a "me." My premise is that, in fact, there isn't a me. And plenty of people would argue that eliminating the ego is essential to an enlightend life (the Buddha, for example).
I think we actually agree. You say that "It is far from clear that there needs to be a 'me'... in order to do any of the things you describe." I say that "There is no spirit, no essence. We are simply the sum of our parts." We're in agreement here. I won't defend the human tendency of clinging to the ego. I agree with you that it's unnecessary.
Regarding the question at the end of your post, I don't know that it's still valid, considering we agree (unless I'm WAY off in my understanding of your post). I'll try to answer it anyway:
...I would guess that it's a side-effect of a reasoning mind. We can contemplate our own mortality. We can guess at the future. This ability to infer our future, the same one that allows us the foresight to plant crops every year, will sometimes allow the conclusion that the future is one better left unlived. The myriad benefits of our ability to predict and reason far outweigh the rarity of suicide.
__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain
|