>>24594734
You're right, they certainly might. Though given what we know about plants I think its unlikely. I just used them as a clearer example to show that being is not contingent on percieving yourself. However, the faculty to discriminate between being/not-being is contingent on perception.
>>24594701
My claim is that you, being as you are, can and do discriminate between being and non-being in a way that being is a preferable outcome.
If you agree, then you've given an answer to the question "Why not kill yourself."
If you disagree with my claim, you can prove me utterly wrong by immediately killing yourself, right here, right now. Post proofs, if you want. Because if you cannot discriminate between what is, or is not, then there is no difference between killing yourself or living.
>And I think I've sufficiently demonstrated with a stretch rivaling yours, with far less text.
You haven't demonstrated anything, apart from stating that animals may or may not have self-recursive perception.
Btw I don't mean to sound hostile. Just so there's no misunderstanding:
>What is
Could "technically" be construed as the prime question, but imo "Why dont you kill yourself" is a better way of implicating that question while also adressing "What/How can I know what I know" and also "What is purpose/action?".

If you think this is too much text, I'll just give it to you again in the simplest terms.

Why don't you kill yourself?

>>509617370
If america was culturally "german" like you say they wouldn't have supported the anglos in both world wars against us.
They view the english as their cultural brothers, and us germans/european mainlanders as mere distant relatives.
The only difference is that americans are still less spiritually kiked and cucked than the english.