You're just telling us what you personally find meaningful.
But this doesn't extend to others. Your argument is about subjective values - you value the superset - but this is wholly subjective as well.
Death is a superset of life, therefore I value death more than life, therefore you should kill yourself to find true meaning. By staying alive you're choosing the blue pill.
(I can make these arguments all day. You're never going to be able to prove to others that your form of meaning is somehow rational or logical. All of your arguments are back rationalization - postdiction.)
"I find the red pill more meaningful because it is redder than the blue pill and red is the colour of the sunset and the sun is really big." <-- This argument is no less arbitrary than your "superset" argument.
Um, no. It's pretty well established that one can start or stop playing WoW at will from real life. There is no evidence that one can return to real life from death.
Of course there are some belief systems that claim that death leads to an unimaginably wonderful heaven, but even those belief systems tend to discourage suicide.
>There is no evidence that one can return to real life from death.
What about all the dead people who come back to life thanks to medical intervention?
This is an outdated perspective. Loads of people now living were once dead.
Scientific evidence indicates: Matter starts out dead, becomes alive, then becomes dead again, then rots into the ground and eventually becomes alive again.
After your corpse rots it becomes dirt, the dirt is eaten by plants and insects, who are eaten by animals, and the animals are eaten by humans, and that matter is then used by humans to create babies, and then babies are alive.
This is a fact. Dead things become alive through natural processes. But to be alive you first have to be dead.
Your superset theorem of meaning is probably a rationalization of some deep emotional bias that has roots in your genes and early childhood environment.
> What about all the dead people who come back to life thanks to medical intervention?
Then they weren't really dead.
> This is an outdated perspective. Loads of people now living were once dead.
Maybe if you're using an outdated definition of death. By death I mean brain death, from which there is no recovery by definition ("the irreversible end of all brain activity").
The cessation of breathing etc. is no longer a useful definition of "death" precisely because of the "coming back to life" you describe:
> Dead things become alive through natural processes. But to be alive you first have to be dead.
The dead things are not "you" in any useful sense of the word. Yes I know it's the same atoms, but "you" are not just your atoms. "You" are an emergent pattern of thoughts and memories, which cannot begin to emerge until your brain develops.
Sure, you can take the cosmological approach that we are all connected, all things are one etc., but in practice, once your definition of "you" no longer distinguishes "you" from "not you", it's no longer a useful word.
> Your superset theorem of meaning is probably a rationalization of some deep emotional bias that has roots in your genes and early childhood environment.
Sure, I clearly stated it was just my opinion. All opinions have roots in genes and experiences. But the experience of arguing with you has thus far failed to change my opinion, it's merely persuaded me that you use very different definitions for words than I do ;)
But this doesn't extend to others. Your argument is about subjective values - you value the superset - but this is wholly subjective as well.
Death is a superset of life, therefore I value death more than life, therefore you should kill yourself to find true meaning. By staying alive you're choosing the blue pill.
(I can make these arguments all day. You're never going to be able to prove to others that your form of meaning is somehow rational or logical. All of your arguments are back rationalization - postdiction.)
"I find the red pill more meaningful because it is redder than the blue pill and red is the colour of the sunset and the sun is really big." <-- This argument is no less arbitrary than your "superset" argument.