Chapter IV. Suicidal Reciprocism
Abstract
This paper begins with the problem of nihilism, according to which there is no absolutely given purpose of life, and proposes Suicidal Reciprocism, which explores the possibility of constituting death as humanity’s ultimate existential orientation and the effects this has on present life. Suicidal Reciprocism does not define death merely as the end of life, but understands it as an existential possibility through which a human being can constitute their own ultimate end as a purpose and an orientation. Human beings continuously form coherence between the ultimate orientation they have established and their present lives, and this coherence becomes an existential criterion that organizes present life. This structure is not limited to individual existence. The existential structure analyzed through nihilism and the orientation toward death at the individual level can, at the level of groups and societies, be transformed into the problem of anomie and collective orientation toward an end or social self-dissolution; in this case, the same structure can be applied on a larger scale by replacing individual nihilism with social anomie. Therefore, the structures of ultimate orientation, coherence, self-determination, and self-responsibility addressed by Suicidal Reciprocism are not fixed at the single scale of the individual, but can be extended to collective and social dimensions as the scale of the subject changes. Accordingly, Suicidal Reciprocism is not limited to a philosophy dealing only with the problem of individual suicide. Under the premise that the individual, group, organization, society, and humanity as a whole can each function as an existential subject, it aims at a general existential philosophy that establishes nihilism and anomie as corresponding concepts according to scale and applies the same reciprocal structure to different scales. The structure of coherence between ultimate orientation and present state, self-determination and self-responsibility, and the reciprocation of action and consequence is addressed within the same analytical framework even when the scale of the subject changes.
Section 1. Ontological and Existential Starting Point
The starting point of Suicidal Reciprocism is as follows. There is no absolute value of life given to human beings a priori. The world does not guarantee humanity a final purpose. It does not presuppose that God, a transcendent purpose, historical necessity, or universal values necessarily assign one purpose that human beings must follow in their lives. Therefore, human beings confront nihilism. However, Suicidal Reciprocism does not stop here. Rather, it asks:
“What remains when all meaning is removed and pushed to the very end?”
The answer is death. All meanings created in life are finite. Love, achievement, honor, social roles, ideas, and happiness all ultimately stand before the limit called death. Therefore, when nihilism is pushed to its very end, the ultimate existential boundary that remains for human beings is their own death. This is the starting point of Suicidal Reciprocism.
Section 2. Definition of Nihilism and Its Relationship to Death
In Suicidal Reciprocism, death is not merely the end of life. Death is the ultimate limit through which a human being finally defines their existence, and for some human beings, it can itself be constituted as a purpose and an orientation. Therefore, it rejects the following proposition:
“Death is something that must necessarily be eliminated in the process of living life.”
Instead, it asks:
“Is death, too, not something that human beings can choose and orient themselves toward in the process of constituting their existence?”
What is important here is not to equate suicide with an impulse or temporary despair. What Suicidal Reciprocism addresses is the existential possibility of consciously constituting death as one’s ultimate orientation.
Section 3. The Purpose-Making of Suicide and Ultimate Orientation
The most fundamental proposition of Suicidal Reciprocism is this. Suicide can also become a purpose and an orientation of life. This does not simply mean the psychological state of “I want to die.” More fundamentally, it is an existential question: “Toward what kind of ending will I live my present life?” Therefore, there is no necessity to establish the purpose of life as survival itself. For some human beings, the purpose of life may be achievement; for some, it may be love; for some, creation; and for some, reaching an ending that they themselves have defined may become their ultimate orientation. Suicidal Reciprocism does not a priori eliminate this possibility.
Section 4. Distinction Between Death and the Ultimate Self-Image
What is important in Suicidal Reciprocism is not merely the will to die. There is an image of the ending that one desires. A human being does not merely stop at thinking, “I want to die,” but can constitute an ultimate self-image through the question, “In what way do I want to end my life?” Here, “the form of the ending” does not mean a specific method of execution. It is an ultimate existential image concerning what kind of meaningful relationship one wants one’s death to have with one’s entire life, what kind of person one wants to be remembered as, and in what state one wants to complete one’s life. Therefore, in Suicidal Reciprocism, death itself and the self-image attributed to death are distinguished. Death is an event, while the desired form of one’s ending is an orientation.
Section 5. Coherence Between Ultimate Orientation and Present Life
This is the core principle of Suicidal Reciprocism. The ultimate orientation and present life must be coherent with one another. If a human being establishes their own ending as an ultimate orientation, then their present life must also have a relationship with that orientation. In other words, life is not a separate process detached from death. Present life becomes a process constituted toward the ultimate end that one has established. Therefore, the central question is:
“Am I living in a way that aligns my present life with the ending I desire?”
At this point, every moment of life is compared with the ultimate orientation. Does the present choice correspond to one’s ultimate self-image? Do one’s present actions correspond to the image of the person one wishes to be? Does one’s present life contradict the ending one desires? The process of securing such coherence itself becomes an existential task.
Section 6. Ultimate Orientation as the Driving Force of Present Life
Here, the most paradoxical structure of Suicidal Reciprocism emerges. Taking death as the ultimate orientation of life can, rather paradoxically, become the driving force that enables one to live in the present. Once death is constituted not as a mere impulse but as an ultimate goal, present life is no longer a meaningless waiting period. Present life becomes a process of constituting oneself toward the ultimate orientation. Therefore, “I will die someday” and “I live in the present toward the ending I desire” are entirely different propositions. The former is the fact of death possessed by every human being. The latter is an existential orientation. This difference is the core of Suicidal Reciprocism.
Section 7. The Orientation Toward Death and the Reversed Directionality of Life
In ordinary life-centered thinking, one thinks as follows:
That is, life is affirmed first and death is regarded as the final conclusion. Suicidal Reciprocism can reverse this direction:
That is, a human being can first consciously establish their ultimate ending and then constitute a present life coherent with that ending. At this point, death is not something located on the opposite side of life, but becomes a reference point that organizes present life.
Section 8. Principle of Existential Coherence
In Suicidal Reciprocism, the value of life is not measured simply by how long it lasts. A more important question is:
“To what extent are one’s present mode of existence and ultimate orientation consistent with each other?”
Therefore, life is a continuous process of self-constitution. The present self must not become disconnected from the future self. If one ultimately orients oneself toward a particular ending, then one’s present actions must likewise not betray that orientation. This can be called existential coherence.
Section 9. Rejection of Self-Deception and Existential Alignment
Existential coherence includes the rejection of self-deception. Does one say that death is one’s ultimate orientation while actually living an entirely different life? Does one say that one desires a particular ending while becoming, in one’s present life, the exact opposite kind of person? In Suicidal Reciprocism, such inconsistency is an existential problem. Therefore, a human being asks themselves:
“Am I the same person as the person I say I am and the person I live as?”
Reducing the distance between ultimate orientation and present life becomes an existential task.
Section 10. The Orientation Toward Death and Freedom
Suicidal Reciprocism does not regard human beings simply as beings compelled to survive. Human beings can choose the direction of their own lives, and that direction can include their own understanding and choice concerning death. Therefore, the question of freedom does not end simply with “How will I live?” More fundamentally, it asks, “What will I establish as my ultimate orientation?” And it asks again whether there is any reason to exclude death from that ultimate orientation a priori.
Section 11. Self-Determination and Self-Responsibility
If one chooses one’s ultimate orientation oneself, responsibility for that choice also belongs to oneself. Therefore, Suicidal Reciprocism binds the following together as one principle: self-determination entails self-responsibility. If one claims one’s life as one’s own, one cannot transfer responsibility for one’s choices to others. In particular, one must not make others responsible for one’s ultimate choice or instrumentalize others in order to justify one’s own choice. Therefore, the freedom of Suicidal Reciprocism is not unlimited self-indulgence. Freedom and responsibility constitute a single existential unit.
Section 12. Existential Ethics of the Suicidal Person
Even if one establishes one’s own death as an ultimate orientation, others remain independent existential subjects. One does not transfer one’s choice onto others. One does not shift responsibility for one’s death onto another person. One does not turn others into means for one’s own purposes. One does not violate another human being’s freedom and life for the sake of one’s own ending. One considers the consequences that one’s choice leaves for others. Self-determination is not a right to erase the existence of others. One accepts even the wounds one will leave behind as one’s own responsibility. The impact that one’s choice leaves on others likewise becomes part of one’s existential responsibility.
Section 13. Principle of Final Solidarity
In Suicidal Reciprocism, solidarity is not identical to the coercive denial of death. Solidarity is a relationship in which, rather than commanding a person thinking about death, “You must live unconditionally,” one can say, “I will listen to what you are thinking.” At the same time, one can also say, “Let us not give up even the possibility of making a different choice right now.” Therefore, final solidarity is distinguished from coercive life extension. Its purpose is to recognize a human being as an existential subject while leaving open the possibility of relationship so that the subject does not close their life while completely isolated.
Section 14. Love and Existential Autonomy
Love likewise cannot become a basis for possessing another’s existence. Even if a loved one is oriented toward death, this does not create the right to decide that person’s entire life on their behalf. Therefore, love need not be expressed as the coercion of “You must live because I love you,” but can also be expressed as, “I will treat your existence as that of an independent human being to the very end.” At this point, love and freedom are not necessarily antagonistic to each other.
Section 15. Raising a Problem for Sartrean Existentialism
If Sartrean existentialism grants human beings the possibility of freedom and self-creation, Suicidal Reciprocism pushes that principle to its very end.
“If human beings can choose their own meaning and the direction of their lives themselves, why must that ultimate orientation necessarily be the continuation of life?”
Furthermore, it raises the question:
“If human beings choose their own existence and must take responsibility for that choice, what grounds are there for a priori excluding death when death is included in their ultimate orientation?”
In other words, Suicidal Reciprocism extends the logic of freedom and self-responsibility to the problem of death.
Section 16. Raising a Problem for Camusian Absurdism
If Camus chooses the direction of affirming and rebelling against life despite the absurd, Suicidal Reciprocism asks:
“Why must the recognition of the absurd necessarily lead to the conclusion of continuing life?”
Choosing the sensory joys of life is also an existential choice. However, whether there is a logical basis for determining a priori that it is the only possible choice is a separate question. Suicidal Reciprocism calls precisely this point into question.
Section 17. The Fundamental Paradox of Suicidal Reciprocism
There is a fundamental paradox in Suicidal Reciprocism. Taking death as an ultimate orientation does not make present life meaningless. Rather, the opposite may be possible. If one establishes the form of the ending one desires, present life becomes a process that must achieve coherence with that ultimate orientation. Therefore, life is not meaningless because death is the purpose; rather, the ultimate orientation of death can give direction to present life. This is the key point that distinguishes Suicidal Reciprocism from nihilism.
Section 18. Distinction Between Nihilism and Suicidal Reciprocism
Nihilism
There is no meaning. Therefore, nothing matters.
Suicidal Reciprocism
There is no absolutely given meaning. If nihilism is accepted to the very end, the ultimate limit called death remains. Human beings can constitute their own ending as an ultimate orientation. And they can create, by themselves, a present life coherent with that orientation. Therefore, Suicidal Reciprocism does not discover only meaninglessness in nihilism. At the end of nihilism, it discovers the possibility of death as an ultimate orientation and brings that possibility back as a principle for constituting present life.
Section 19. Aversion to Suicidal Reciprocism and Structurally Similar Cases
The act of ending one’s own life generally generates strong aversion. However, when only the structure of voluntarily and permanently terminating an existing state of existence and transitioning to a subsequent state is abstracted, similar forms of self-terminating decisions can be found in everyday life as well. A representative example is the decision and implementation of voluntary business closure. Rather than continuing its existence, a corporation can voluntarily terminate its business and conclude its existing organizational state of existence, and this process can take place according to certain legal and institutional procedures. Likewise, an individual’s voluntary resignation has a structural similarity in that it voluntarily terminates their existing occupational state of existence. In both a corporation’s decision to voluntarily close its business and an individual’s voluntary resignation, at the moment the termination of the state of existence is decided, the purpose of continuing to exist while maintaining that state is solely the termination of the state. At this point, the desire to achieve consistency with the state of termination that one has defined oneself becomes the driving force that enables one to endure until the end. In other words, although the act of ending one’s own life generates strong aversion, the more abstract structure itself of voluntarily and permanently terminating one’s existing state of existence is extremely common, and some forms of it are legally guaranteed and procedurally regulated. The significance of this point is that human beings do not necessarily terminate their present state of existence only through external coercion; the structure itself of terminating it through self-determination and transitioning to a new state is already recognized across various areas of society.
Section 20. The Overall Logical Structure of Suicidal Reciprocism
Section 21. Core Propositions of Suicidal Reciprocism
“There is no absolutely given meaning of life.”
“If nihilism is pushed to the very end, what ultimately remains in human existence is death.”
“Therefore, suicide is also a possibility that human beings can constitute as the purpose and ultimate orientation of their lives.”
“What is important is not simply wanting death, but constituting by oneself the ultimate form of the ending that one desires.”
“And the process itself of continuously creating coherence between that ultimate orientation and present life can become the driving force for living one’s present life.”
“Therefore, life is not something located on the opposite side of death, but becomes an existential process constituted toward the ultimate ending that one has established.”
“If one chooses one’s ultimate orientation as one’s own, one must likewise accept responsibility for that choice as one’s own.”
“At the same time, one does not make the existence of others a means for one’s own choice, and leaves open the possibility of solidarity with others until the final moment.”
Ultimately
“There is no purpose of life absolutely given to human beings. If nihilism is accepted to the very end, death remains. Human beings can constitute even that death as their ultimate purpose and orientation. And the process of bringing the ending one desires and one’s present life into alignment can itself become the driving force that enables one to live that life.”
This is the core of Suicidal Reciprocism.