I've known a few artists who committed suicide because of this. They spent their whole lives delving in their arts to create some meaning in their lives, or simply for the love of it, but at some point it seemed even that couldn't hold up, it all broke down, and so they took their own lives. But when I look at that quote, I don't think they placed "the value of life" so high that it didn't permit them to live it emptily. I think Vaclav Havel is wrong in this regard. When people commit suicide, I think they have not fully grasped just how precious a life is.
I think the value of a life can be measured by the satisfaction you will have or not have when you lie in your deathbed and look back at how you have lived.
Yeah, he did stir up some dust in his century. But then again, I have an INTP friend who is very comfortable about living life without a philosophy, without meaning. On his Facebook profile, it even says something like "I don't live according to some philosophy. Life is so much easier once you realize that." And I think he's more right than Vaclav Havel.
And it's really funny once you relate it to other things: You have this world of people committing suicide, people starting wars because of territorial claims, revolutions, party manifestoes, staffs of bureaucrats going to work everyday to define policies. And then there comes my INTP friend and says: "Hey, why philosophy?". LOL.
I think this problem it's much more complicated and complex then it seem at first.
Yes, many of those people (artists ) commit suicide. But many do not, and manage to live a life with passion and with joy, a life full of meaning. And they DO have a philosophy at their life's core, whatever that would be. That's why generalisations are a bit simplistic.
I don't think Vaclav Havel was reffering at people who commit suicide by just being bored or depressed of life, and trying to get over it. He was talking about other kinds of people, people who were doing sacrifices, who believed in values, in meaning, in a after life, people who maybe give up their life to save something, to preserve an ideal, maybe people who died for their dear ones, for protecting freedom, love, justice...
He could also reffer to other kinds of people, maybe people who were break by the weights that the world has put upon them...
And the interesting fact is, those kind of people didn't do it (suicide) with an attidute of depression, of bore, they do it with JOY, with PASSION, with LOVE, as if this life was just a step twoard another world...
About your INTP friend...if he said this
"I don't live according to some philosophy. Life is so much easier once you realize that."
then that's his philosophy, right there. Not living according to "some philosophy" is in fact a philosophy, namely that "I don't live according to some philosophy". He just doesn't realise this, but he has a kind of personal philosophy. In fact every man on this earth which thinks and it's not crazy has a philosophy, whether he recognise it or not.
And speaking about "I don't live according to some philosophy. Life is so much easier once you realize that." philosophy, it's not a new one. If we look in history , we'll se that many people adopted this kind of view,
the carefree, no responsability, I have no philosophy kind of philosophy.
When it comes to Havel, he is pretty much the opposite of Nietzche,. That's why is important to draw a line between the philosophies of people, and how their ideas is related/linked to their personal philosophy. That's very important, we can't just generalise things in the big picture and ascribe an idea universally. We have to keep in count the context of that idea, and what is the core belief/philosophy.
Havel believed that some things are inherently good, while some things are inherently bad. He also believed there is a God.
Nietzche, on the other hand, was the founder of nihilism, as a philosophy. He negated the existence of morality at all and the existence of God too. Nihilism glorifies the absurd, the non-sense, the absence of truth, and demands that there are no such things as real values or meanings in any sense.
Now, which of these philosophers is closer to the truth would be another story. I only want to say that their ideas originated in a context of thoughts/beliefs, and that is very important
to interpret their ideas correctly.