“The thought of suicide is a powerful consolation: it makes you get over many bad nights. ”

(Beyond good and evil, Aph 157)

‍

I. Assisted suicide and “death tourism”

Paul Stephan: Dear Lou, thank you so much for your willingness to talk about this rather difficult and polarizing topic of suicide¹. — The fact that this issue is so polarizing can be seen, for example, in the recent debates about the “death capsule” or “death machine” Sarco developed by Australian doctor and euthanasia activist Philip Nitzschke — “noun est omen,” you would almost say. Nitschke, also known as the “Elon Musk of assisted suicide”² referred to, advertises a quick, uncomplicated death by suffocation in a plastic capsule that personally reminds me of a vacuum cleaner. Although assisted suicide is not prohibited in principle in Switzerland, the use of this equipment for the first time a few months ago caused some outrage. The public prosecutor's office is investigating; so far no result. Why do you think this invention of all things caused such vehement reactions?

‍

Lou Wildemann: I'm not an expert on assisted suicide. I am also unable to judge this case legally at all. Why this causes such outrage may have something to do with the appearance of this device and the fact that you are there in the truest sense of the word encapsulated is and therefore very isolated. You may make a responsible decision, but in this way, there is almost something alien about the whole procedure.

In my opinion, however, the countless ethical questions that go with it are much more important. I don't have any final answers to them either, but the debate is very important to me. Because this is a very technological form of suicide and a form that potentially makes suicide usable, capitalizes, monetizes. In a society as profit-oriented as we are and how it will probably be even more powerful, this is a potential gateway for the question: In the worst case scenario, to whom is suicide suggested at some point because you are no longer usable — for reasons of age, illness or other reasons? That is a situation that we should not want to have. But yes, it's extremely complex and it's hard for me to side with either side. I do not want to deny the seriousness of their decision to the people who want to claim this for themselves, those affected. At the same time, the mechanization of such an existential step is At least questionable.

‍

PS: I could also imagine that this type of suicide is a bit “too trivial” for people, so to speak. Although this whole matter can also be seen as a form of identification. What I found remarkable, for example, was that this method was said to be very “artificial”³ be. This choice of words naturally raises the question of why other methods should be “less artificial.” So the great outrage surrounding this one individual case seems a bit exaggerated to me.

‍

LW: Yes, the term “artificiality” is of course interesting in this context and it probably means more “technologized.” And I understand that when I look at this capsule. I don't want to judge whether this is “worse” or “less bad” than taking a pill or choosing another method. I really find the question of usability more interesting. There seems to be a need that a market recognizes and obviously wants to get in there. The fact that there is a need may also have something to do with the taboo of the topic as such. I wonder if suicide were less taboo or not taboo at all, there would be such excesses. I don't know that, but I find it interesting to think about whether, as you said, the “identification” actually points to another problem.

‍

PS: The fact that there is obviously a large market can definitely also be seen from the fact — which was also discussed in the context of the debate about the “death capsule” — that there is now quite considerable “death tourism,” as they say, in Switzerland. Swiss legislation not only allows Swiss citizens to be assisted in suicide, but also people from other countries. Recently, 1,700 people residing in Switzerland and 500 traveling from abroad for this reason made use of this option every year.⁴ That is already a lot. There is only one really substantial restriction in Switzerland, namely that assisted suicide is not “for selfish reasons.”⁵ may happen.

‍

LW: What are “selfish motivations”?

‍

PS: Yes, that is just the question of whether it is already rated as “selfish” if you want money for it at all or whether the criterion is stricter. Based on the legal text alone, this does not necessarily seem self-explanatory to me.

‍

LW: Ah, “selfish” — doesn't it mean the person affected himself who commits suicide?

‍

PS: No, the person who is assisting must not act out of selfish motives, this is stated very clearly in the corresponding paragraph. With the “death capsule”, it is also the case that its operators do not currently charge any money for its use or only want to be reimbursed for the costs of the gas, the nitrogen, which they use. But I agree with you that this “capsule” just because of its appearance does not unfairly give the impression that it could become a business model. And that is exactly what raises very, very big questions: Will such offers be advertised at some point? Will there ever be a “luxury suicide for the rich”? And many more.

‍

LW: It is also interesting whether the general suicide figures in Switzerland, i.e. those who are not assisted, who happen silently, in secret, whether they have fallen — or whether the figures are more likely to rise as a result of this offer. That is a criticism that is often voiced. But I'm not sure about that.⁶ Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is actually being used. But there seems to be a general concern that suicide is downright “contagious” and that people are only given the idea through this opportunity or the discourse about it. But you can certainly question that. I think you're either suicidal or you're not — but that's also a tricky field.

‍

PS: Exactly, you mention an important reason why this topic is so taboo. In preparation for this conversation, I have read various articles on this topic on philosophical websites and the like, and there is actually no text that does not at least in the margins the big clue: “If you are thinking about killing yourself, seek help,” and the telephone number of a psychological counseling center is given. Does this caution seem excessive to you? Or do you think that such advice can also be helpful?

‍

LW: Yes, that's the next big barrel... That immediately makes me think of the “trigger warnings” and how inflationary they are currently being used and whether they actually do what they're supposed to do. There is certainly a wide range of very sincere offers of help, but at the same time there is also a kind of etiquette that is followed ahead of time and provides such articles or even art that deal with these topics with trigger warnings or such information. I don't know whether this really helps anyone or changes something about the problem itself, but at least I'm critical of this trend of trigger warnings. This seems to have now become a kind of standard that reproduces itself. I sometimes ask myself what access to the world outside this points to — which we are not warned about either. But yes, making it clear again and again that there are offers of help is certainly no mistake. I prefer the offer of help to the trigger warning — let's put it that way.

‍

II. MALA — a film about the suicide of a young woman

PS: We're sitting here today primarily because you're making a film about this taboo subject — and exactly with the claim, if I understand you correctly, to put your finger on the wound and bring the topic of suicide to the big screen in a very provocative way. Can you say it that way? After everything you've said so far, I assume that you won't prefix your movie with a trigger warning?

‍

LW: So first about my reasons for doing this. My motive for making this film is not to provoke or trigger any social impact. My motive is to describe a very specific feeling and to bring it into a cinematic form. What I mean by that is the simultaneity of a seemingly very strong exterior and a hopeless interior and a very lonely decision that was made before the film even starts. The movie shows only the last few days of a young woman's life — after many years of torturing and weighing up; the experience of getting to the same point over and over again and failing because of her own futility. Her decision has been made and we only see her making a few final preparations. She cleans up in the truest sense of the word. But she does all this while meeting friends, doing her job, traveling a lot, and being read from outside as a tough, strong person. That's what it's all about for me: to show that you should actually look particularly well when it comes to seemingly resilient, strong people. Because these are exactly the ones who stumble across their own image, because they think it's completely impossible to talk about how they're really doing. They think they have to figure everything out with themselves and then make a very lonely decision. Her environment was then completely offended because they did not see it coming. These cases abound. Relatives report this time and again that they “would never have thought of that” with him or her in particular. So that is what I want, that is my motive: to describe a feeling, from the perspective of the suicidal person, which only a few know in this intensity or can only be very difficult to empathize with. Basically, it's about what it feels like when you're still taking part in life but have actually completed it. That is my motivation to do it. If that makes people feel provoked by this honest presentation, that is not my goal. But if it makes just one person understand this condition a bit better and may therefore be able to look more attentively at the people around them, then it's good. I am primarily moved by personal, intrinsic motives. Provocation and any possible reception in general played no role in writing the script.

‍

‍

PS: It should be emphasized at this point that the film is not yet available. You're in the preparation phase right now, aren't you?

‍

LW: Yes, we are in the preparation and financing phase. It has also been going on for a very long time and is very, very bumpy and difficult. Because in Germany, there is a public film funding system and, even if you make a movie, you need a public broadcaster that participates in it and evaluates the film later after it has been shown in the cinema. It is difficult to find a partner who supports this issue and has so far failed time and again due to concerns about responsibility. Things like the “Werther effect” — i.e. fear of imitation — are put forward. It was then suggested to me that I should rewrite the ending and whether I could tell the same story without her ultimately committing suicide. So there is also a strong desire for a happy ending, quite obviously. All of this has led us to decide: Okay, we now have to finance this on our own. Because we don't want to change history. And if that doesn't work in this system, then we have to independent do. We're doing everything we can to shoot in summer, starting in August.

‍

PS: That's right, and you've started a crowdfunding campaign, which is still running at the moment (link). So if you want to support this film, this project now, you're welcome to do that. How has the campaign been going so far?

‍

LW: In waves. There are always days when it skyrockets and then it stagnates again. That is different. But we remain optimistic.

‍

PS: Yes, that is important.

‍

LW: And the nice thing is that there are associations of relatives and the German Society for Suicide Prevention that have read the script and who support us a lot in this and even think it is a valuable project from a prevention point of view — precisely because it shows so mercilessly how such a person can do. And that's an interesting observation anyway: I've been working on this project for six years now and what I find time and time again is that people who are really dedicated to the topic aren't as afraid of touch as people who haven't dealt with it yet. The shyness is significantly greater there. Affected people, relatives and experts are more in favour of greater openness. Because the taboo is still there.

‍

‍

PS: Yes, definitely. You yourself spoke of the most famous example of the alleged “risk of infection” of suicide, this story that in the 1770s a great many young people, the Goethe's Werther have read, have taken their lives. Is that actually true as you tell yourself? Have you ever dealt with that? And aren't you afraid that there might be someone who, through your film, feels reinforced in their decision to kill themselves, might take this young woman as a role model in some way?

‍

LW: As far as I know, the so-called “Werther effect” is not without controversy. That is the one thing. And the other thing is: I can understand the concern about imitation; it should be taken seriously. At the same time, I know that my script and the way I want to tell the film don't glorify suicide, that's not my approach either. But I'm not going to morally judge him either. I'm showing an individual story one person. And the story ends... bitterly. It is bitter for everyone involved, no one really won. It's no one's fault either. But Mila, the main character, hasn't made a mistake from her point of view either. I am generally convinced that you should never underestimate an audience and that people will take away what they want to take away. I think intentional happy endings, which you can tell that they are just trying to convey a moral message, are significantly worse for those affected, because then they don't see each other again and understand their feeling or condition even more lonely because someone shows them: Oh, look, and everything will be okay in the end. This may even make the situation worse. In my experience, the longing for happy endings comes more from those who are not affected.

The fact is: In Germany, over 10,100 people commit suicide every year. That means at least one person every hour. So as we speak, one or one. And if we have another coffee afterwards, another one or another. These are the facts for now. These cases exist and they exist despite the taboo. And for me, that suggests that not talking about it does not have a preventive effect. Clearly not. And that is why I do not think this concern of imitation that we spoke of is correct and I also find it interesting, even philosophically, to ask myself where this social taboo comes from. What does it have to do with religious heritage, what does it also have to do with the logic of exploitation, including power? We should all keep going, we should remain part of the system, we should sort ourselves out somehow, get help, get a coach, take psychotropic drugs — the main thing is that it somehow ends well again. When you look at it that way, suicide is of course a denial. It is — supposedly — not usable and an exit from the whole. And for that reason alone, it is not wanted. And as I say that, it sounds like I'm making a fire speech for suicide — I don't want that at all. But I find it interesting why such a widespread problem — it is uncanny Many: more than in road traffic, through violence and through drugs combined, every year — so unknown. Hardly anyone knows that. Almost no one I talk to about this topic knows these figures. Why is that so? Why do we avoid it like that? That can't be right. And that doesn't seem to have a preventive effect, otherwise the figures wouldn't be so high.

III. On the philosophy of suicide

PS: I can definitely follow that. And you're also addressing an important facet right now. Exactly, suicide has been an important topic in philosophy for many centuries, even millennia, about which a lot has been written. What can definitely be said very roughly and which is also often addressed by Nietzsche is that there is a very big contrast between the pre-Christian, i.e. the ancient, view and then the Christian view. Well, in ancient times, this taboo about suicide didn't even exist yet. On the contrary, it was entirely of the opinion that, under certain circumstances, it might be necessary to commit suicide in order to avoid dishonor. It was just more important to die an honorable death than to remain alive in any way, but to have to live under circumstances that would have been felt as completely unbearable. We know, for example, the suicide of Socrates: He has been sentenced to death and is now faced with the choice of fleeing and going into exile or of carrying out the death sentence on himself by drinking a poisonous cup. To the horror of all his friends, who really persuade him that he should choose the first option, he drinks the poison cup precisely for the reason that he says: Well, I've been fed by the city all my life, my whole identity depends on the fact that I'm a citizen of that city, I can't run away now if the city disagrees with me. Another, less well-known example is the philosopher Empedocles, who, according to legend, is said to have plunged himself into a volcano. — So yes, the great taboo was actually only brought into the world through Christianity. How do you perceive it: Would you also say that our culture is still very strongly influenced by Christianity today, or would you consider other motives to be more decisive?

‍

LW: Yes, I think that is still very profound, the religious idea of original sin that you have to endure. And when you repent, keep commandments and so on, paradise beckons at some point. In such a context, self-chosen death is of course unthinkable. I do think that this still has very far-reaching effects. And in addition, there is certainly the fact that in our western way of life, this neoliberal system, there should also be a solution for every problem and a form of functioning and optimization. This makes it difficult for people who get to the point over and over again that they just don't function in it. And they don't work even with all sorts of tools and then break down. I think religion, the idea of suicide as a sin, has played a significant part in how little we talk about it today. How shameful that still is. The reception of violence against oneself and violence against others is generally astonishingly different. Violence against others, the exercise of power over others, is so accepted — and also completely normalized in the media and in art — but violence against oneself is taboo. That is very astonishing.

‍

PS: Well, you're actually bringing us to the exact point of talking about Nietzsche, who, I think, is well known, is trying very hard in this regard, as in many other respects, to build on this pre-modern view. He speaks of “free death” at various points in his work. In Zarathustra For example, it says: “[S] tirb at the right time! ”⁷. So you shouldn't leave death to chance, you should determine the time at which you die yourself and you should choose it in such a way that in case of doubt you are not dishonored, i.e. you don't have to live an existence that you can't be responsible for or that is no longer compatible with your self-image.⁸ Nietzsche is of course very different from Christianity, but also from the philosophical mainstream actually, of his time. Both in Schopenhauer, who was his most important philosophical teacher, and in Kant and Hegel, there are very clear and very clear condemnations of suicide and Nietzsche is just trying to revalue this.

‍

LW: What kind of convictions?

‍

PS: For very different reasons. With Schopenhauer, you would think at first glance that he would support suicide.

‍

LW: I would have guessed that now too.

‍

PS: Yes, there is also a very interesting philosopher who should not be left unmentioned in this regard, who has also been read by Nietzsche: Philipp Mainländer, who in his main work — as far as I know his only work — with the title Philosophy of Salvation Based on premises similar to those made by Schopenhauer, suicide is virtually obligatory. You should kill yourself in order to extinguish the terrible will to live — and he also committed suicide shortly after completing this book. But Schopenhauer himself writes that suicide is virtually an imperfect way of “sneaking” out of life, since the motives for killing himself actually still correspond to the will to live; in other words, he sees a certain self-contradiction of the “suicidal person.”

‍

LW: Because suffering alive still means a will?

‍

PS: Exactly, the consistent denial of will for him is just asceticism, which also takes on the pain and suffering.

‍

LW: What would Nietzsche say to that?

‍

PS: I actually haven't found a place where he explicitly deals with this suicide criticism by Schopenhauer.⁹ His criticism is actually on a very fundamental level, because Nietzsche would say that you can't help but affirm the will to live: Even the Schopenhauer ascetic is actually someone who affirms life at heart, and for this reason the standard of Schopenhauer's criticism of Nietzsche no longer works at all.¹⁰ Can you follow me?

‍

LW: Yes, I think that is the reason why there is a certain speechlessness between those affected and those not affected. From a life-affirming perspective, this is simply incomprehensible.

‍

PS: Although for Nietzsche, the free death of the “master” would be precisely an expression of affirmation of life, not a negation, because a heroic, self-determined way of living is preferred over simply vegetating or an externally determined existence.

‍

LW: That sounds like a very rational approach, it seems less about suffering.

‍

PS: Yes, that's right. But what is exciting now is that there is another aspect in Nietzsche's thoughts on the subject. In fact, he would actually say that the entire Christian culture, i.e. actually the culture up to the present day, is characterized by the fundamental contradiction that, on the one hand, it is very life-denying,¹¹ But on the other hand, it precisely forbids choosing this free death. In some places, he even goes so far as to say that the vast majority of people should actually kill themselves, but they are prevented from Christian morality and kept alive almost artificially.¹² What do you say about this rather provocative view?

‍

LW: I have to get to Roberto Espositos Immunitas think. He says there: In theology, also in law, and also on other levels, there is this image of immunization, of alleged immunization. You use something consciously, in the case of religion, an immanent sinfulness that you attribute to a person — in order to then protect him from sin through rules and coercion. In other words, through violence that reproduces itself so permanently. From the point of view of power, from a religious point of view, it is claimed that it is necessary to address human scarcity, sin, with norms and rules — in fact, people are only made sinful through a set of rules that no person could ever fully comply with. Violence or power consciously uses the shortcoming — the negative image of man — to underpin their position of power. It just sounded like I heard you talking about Nietzsche. I find that very understandable. There is a great lack of freedom in this.

Esposito also says that's where you actually cut off a bit of liveliness from life. A contradiction that is difficult to recognize if you can't afford the luxury of distance. This happens constantly, is almost institutionalized and at the same time, as I said, violence against oneself is such a taboo. I'm really interested in this paradox. Especially in such an increasingly individualized world; the circumstances in which we live; the way we do business; how we interact with each other; how we communicate; which technologies we use and so on: We are constantly curtailing ourselves in our vitality and that seems okay. But when someone ends their life, that's a problem.

‍

PS: You could even with Nietzsche, who writes just that,¹³ It certainly raises the question of, for example, when soldiers go to war or if any martyrs sacrifice themselves for their faith, whether these are not also forms of suicide de facto, which, however, are not framed as such and are considered completely okay. When people sacrifice themselves for some ideas set by society, that is completely okay or is even celebrated, but as soon as they want to evade exactly that by suicide, it is suddenly terribly bad and the biggest sin that you can ever imagine.

‍

LW: And she shouldn't go to school! I also worked as a journalist for a few years. The press code is also interesting not to report on suicide — unless he is a very prominent person, then, strangely enough, that doesn't apply. We report on the mass accident on the motorway and the fire that killed people. About all possible forms of violence, crime, about victims of war. When it comes to suicide, the reason not to report is the protection of relatives — which we are not interested in in all other cases. I always have question marks as to why this should be the case.

‍

PS: As we slowly come to the end of this conversation, I would like to point out two problems that also affect Nietzsche. I was talking about the fact that he upholds the term “free death” in various places. There is such a passage from his late work where he also drops the, perhaps notorious, sentence: “The sick person is a parasite of society. ”¹⁴ Given that Nietzsche became such a “parasite” himself only a short time later, this sentence is of course not devoid of a certain irony. But what he's already writing at this point is exactly that if you run the risk of becoming a “parasite,” you definitely have the duty to kill yourself and even doctors should then make you do so to avert this damage from society. Isn't it also a great danger in this whole discourse on euthanasia that this debate could very easily tip over in a very weird and questionable, certainly neoliberal direction?

‍

LW: Absolutely yes, that's why I mentioned it briefly at the beginning. The problem that there is a kind of habituation to this possibility, which can then develop step by step, in the worst case scenario, into a recommendation or suggestion that the time has come now because you no longer contribute to society. Because you're not functional, for a variety of reasons. That is a huge risk. Not to mention the question in whose hands or ideologies such developments can become weapons. But even assuming that the political conditions remain approximately as they are, even then the influence of a potential market in this area must be viewed absolutely critically.

‍

PS: That brings me to a follow-up question. Nietzsche has this very strong concept of free, self-determined death. But where and how can you actually draw the line? Is it really possible to die completely self-determined? Or aren't there always some social factors that could very subtly drive you to commit suicide? And doesn't he then become very unfree again?

‍

LW: Yes, we're not in a vacuum, of course. We are a product of the conditions in which we live. And we can suffer so severely from these conditions alone that we no longer want or cannot live in them. That can be the motivation of many others. That is also very important to me in the story I am telling. That there is no single, identifiable, comprehensible reason. And that the character also has no diagnosis. By the way, this is also a problem for certain funding agencies and potential financiers — which is interesting. There is a great longing for diagnoses, for clear categorization — what does it have? What is that? — for one comprehensible reason. If you don't deliver it, and I do that very consciously, then it causes irritation. That is also interesting. But from a preventive point of view, exactly right: a complex figure that does not provide a comprehensible causal chain.  

I am very much in favour of spiritual maturity and self-determination, but that always takes place within the limits of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. With every decision you make, you could ask: Was it really self-determined? Probably not. But still... We always get to the point: Suicide does happen, it does happen. And, as I said, maybe — thesis — it would happen even less if the taboo did not exist. Because the despair that it makes you feel so alone and so misunderstood could be alleviated.

‍

PS: If I may ask one more question at the end: So what do I ask myself, completely apart from Nietzsche, as a philosopher, or what my own criticism of suicide would be: You have already spoken of a “lonely decision”; whether the problem of suicide is not actually, that you are completely beaming yourself out of the social relationships in which you are involved in, in a certain way, apparently a decision that only concerns you yourself, but which also has an impact on others at the same time. That is perhaps actually one of the reasons why the topic is so emotional, because many people, probably just about everyone, have people in their circle of acquaintances who have killed themselves. What I want to say is that people who kill themselves actually seem to be moving in self-contradiction, i.e. ignoring on the one hand that the others will grieve, will also blame themselves and much more, but at the same time they may want to take account of this aftereffect and perhaps want to take revenge in some way against posterity and want to plunge others into grief and doubt. So I don't want to say that this is the case for everyone or even for the majority — but isn't that a problem?

‍

LW: That is definitely a possible view, which is probably also quite common. But I would definitely like to contrast this with another perspective: namely that suicide, especially when there are many social entanglements and relationships, is not a decision against these people, but the end of a sometimes long-standing attempt for this environment to live on and fail because of it. That is very important to me and that is also what associations of relatives repeatedly emphasize: Suicide is not a decision against someone, but actually the failure of trying to continue for others. I find this a very important perspective, which is in no way intended to glorify this, but only to show — and of course we don't know any figures or anything about that — that the plural is probably not frivolous ad hoc decisions, but rather those that have had a long, painful lead time. And that these people really didn't make it easy for themselves.

‍

PS: Yes, I can definitely understand that you can and in many cases must look at it that way too. Yes, thanks again. Is there anything else you absolutely want to say about this topic?

‍

LW: I'm sure there's still a lot more, but I'll leave it at that: We should all talk more about it.

‍

PS: I can definitely agree with that and I think the various Nietzsche passages we referred to could definitely provide good material and should definitely be read more. What I might be able to recommend at the end is the novel Veronika Decides to Die by Paulo Coelho, who is even a bit Nietzschean and has also really moved me personally. Do you know him?

‍

LW: There is also a movie there, yes.

‍

PS: I don't know him again. So I can highly recommend this novel to anyone who has read this conversation and may have suicidal intentions — and of course also to seek help, that's obvious.

‍

Lou Wildemann is an author and director from Leipzig. She previously worked as a freelance journalist for public television for several years. She studied Political Science (BA), Cultural Studies (MA) and Philosophy (MA).

‍

Link to the film's crowdfunding campaign MALA

‍

Item photo: Johann Heinrich Tischbein the Elder: Dido's Suicide (1776) (link)

‍

footnotes

1: Editor's note: In order to avoid the problematic moral connotations of the traditional term “suicide,” which Lou Wildemann drew our attention to following the conversation — does the term “murder” imply killing for lower reasons — we use other phrases below.

2: Cf. The entry about him on the English-language Wikipedia.

3: According to Dieter Birnbacher in an article for Brisant (link).

4: Cf. swissinfo.ch.

5: Art. 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code. It is therefore the absence of a prohibition and not an explicit permission (cf. Giovanni Maio in conversation with SWR).

6: Editor's note: The statistics quoted in footnote 4 record a rapid increase in cases of assisted suicide in the last 20 years, an increase of almost tenfold. At the same time, cases of suicide using other methods have been declining sharply since the late 90s, which suggests a certain correlation. Overall, the suicide rate remains relatively constant (cf. Swiss Health Observatory).

7: So Zarathustra spoke, Of free death.

8: See also Human, all-too-human II, The Wanderer and His Shadow, Aph 185.

9: In an estate fragment from 1875 (link), Nietzsche seems to be paraphrasing Eugen Dühring's thoughts in this regard.

10: For example, the quintessence the third treatise of The genealogy of morality.

11: “I call it a state where all are poisonous drinkers, good and bad: State where everyone loses themselves, good and bad: State where the slow suicide of all — means 'life. '” (So Zarathustra spoke, From the new idol).

12: In one Draft letter from 1884 addressed to Paul Lanzky For example, he writes: “What do I have to do with those who have no goal having! My body prescription, casually remarked, is, with regard to such, — suicide. But he usually mistells, due to lack of discipline.” In a Estate fragment from 1880 He defines Christianity precisely “as the great mob movement of the Roman Empire [...] of all those who would have had reason to commit suicide but did not have the courage to do so; they sought with fervour a means to endure their lives and find something worth enduring.” See also Another fragment from 1888.

13: Cf. on this self-contradictory nature of Christianity The happy science, Aph 131. In Aphorism 338 of the same book It says: “[T] he war is [...] a detour to suicide, but a detour with a clear conscience.”

14: Götzen-Dämmerung, rambles 36.