OP's rebuttal the first time I asked him to enlarge on his first paragraph:
[...They all 3 killed themselves like a chain reaction.] It seems like the only time that is possible by which a person is able to choose to live without anyone getting involved in this and the only possible way to keep his name from being forgotten. What if in a sense, for it is in the best interest of humanity for everyone else to live without anyone knowing about the other, it comes to people in need of life? Who would really argue that not everyone is the same? Who would argue that if a person can only choose the way, then not everyone may take some responsibility for their death? People who make the decisions should take responsibility for their own lives. In contrast, they should make a living only with the goal that they make a living for themselves, and not some other person. Are we being overly simplistic and the people who make them feel inadequate (i.e., just lazy) only make more like us even though they will be better than everyone else if they have a better life but are unable to earn income for it that would be of benefit, or would we be able to increase our income and get more as a team instead of just having two or a few more people around to take care of it? The answer is: No. I think the world needs not only the people with the power to make decisions but also the people to decide on, and that will be the greatest force for change in the whole of human experience. And we all need to join together in a great struggle in coming weeks and not one day go to war. The whole world needs this revolution.
Life is a rigged game. Quit the red bloody market, seclude from all the randomness of it and disappear completely. But that's a premise behind “do not compare yourself to others instead compare to the person you where yesterday”. Claiming that one secludes himself from the need to see yourself as lower than a person or superior to one. In order words compete with yourself , or past self. But is it so, since competition in healthy ways where you agree to play. But we don't agree to be alive in the first place. Nobody asked to participate in the game of life. Wittgenstein the family, his father wanted to turn his child into capitalist agent and make profit for him. They all 3 killed themselves like a chain reaction.
Beyond that are people who play life like a game.I hear it all over: Of course I will play capitalism and bureaucratic way of hosting institution as a game. But at life itself you draw the line. See Weber on institutions and it's way on personal freedom.
And only a foolish would rely on habit alone. If habits aren't you then what counts as you, let's say all your notebooks and journal where burnt to the ground. But you still remember right? Its episodic memory that is the last saviour, but isn't that efficient. Then you are also your data (that many say they have privacy policies but sure they steal your data). So does that mean you must protect yourself . all your digital profile and identity? Taking a hard drive and owning a physical extension of you because believing in the cloud has a slight chance of being destroyed. Google activity and how it tracks you by the timestamp. It is amazing to have this data and being able to switch between ideas and where you read them.
Maps of meaning referring to the wikipedia page for the meaning of life. It's quite depressing to reach the end looking for meaning and glossing down the footnotes and googling the authors of the books. From the philosophies of Kant (you come as you like but you pay as you go) and utilitarianism, to Jainism and other Eastern philosophies.
Mircea Eliade is an example of a man who experienced both worlds, and as a result he wrote a theory of religion and of the myths. He wrote Maitreyi (a love story novel recently read and his other novel/journal) and experience the karma, devas (gods of Hindu) and their religion. But he got compared to Buddha. It's like believing you are Jesus and the pattern happens many times in the world. People like Acharya Rajneesh (he was even suicidal at peak of his cultness) and his old cult where he pretended. For those fake are hospitals for people who believe they are Jesus: https://m.health24.com/Mental-Health/News/i-believe-i-am-jesus-christ-20180828 and people who when think of god think of themselves, neuron fire at the same area
Using fMRI, they saw that the same areas of the brain were used to reason about one’s own beliefs and God’s beliefs, but different regions of the brain were used when reasoning about another person’s beliefs. In particular, reasoning about God’s beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person’s beliefs.
In other words, if you believe in God, you’re probably subconsciously endowing God with your beliefs (at least on controversial issues*), and not the other way around. (http://www.revisemri.com/blog/2010/use-mri-for-imagining-god/).
And the same stories goes for other religions, people see themselves as strong.and the pattern you see everywhere. OK if you live noble life then you can admit you aren't a charlatan but don't repeat history until you learn it.