people's views on Death

[derek]

Not necessarily true. You see (And I understand you didn't write it but you accept it so), you are a cause to an effect on the world, though your significance in relation to a greater consciousness (i.e. the natural motions of the universe and/or the organisms in it) is minimal, it is still significant in relation to you, your "gravity", what YOU can do to a situation to make it different. Even if you throw a pebble into a pond as opposed to a boulder, it still makes a splash.

When you measure the universe with a "frame by frame" perspective, you see that even though people die, their effects live on throughout time because they have created products of themselves. Such is the nature of cause and effect. So no, people do not completely die if their legacy is preserved in the world.

You made the fallacious leap from assuming I believe it because I quoted it. Further to that, you buy into the idea of "cause and effect" which is certainly much cloudier than you make it out to be.

 

[Death Aflame]

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

None of that makes my position on the matter unphilosophical as you seem to assume. It is, in fact, a position historically held by many philosophers.

Besides using a dictionary to define philosophy in the first place is an automatic fail.

 

[derek]

Well it's not a mile off, is it? The literal translation is "love of wisdom".

 

[Death Aflame]

Well it's not a mile off, is it? The literal translation is "love of wisdom".

No it isn't a mile off, I was merely pointing out what most philosophers will tell you--dictionaries aren't good places for definitions of terms used in philosophical inquiry. As a shorthand they are an okay reference I suppose, but their use is limited in a philosophical discussion.

 

[metal_wrath]

No it isn't a mile off, I was merely pointing out what most philosophers will tell you--dictionaries aren't good places for definitions of terms used in philosophical inquiry. As a shorthand they are an okay reference I suppose, but their use is limited in a philosophical discussion.

I am not basing an argument on a dictionary definition, I responded to the poster who must have taken the one definition that supported their argument.

Impossible to know, so why dwell on it?

It is pretty idiotic posting what you did, this being a Philosophy discussion...

 

[Death Aflame]

It is pretty idiotic posting what you did, this being a Philosophy discussion...

I can see how my meaning can be misinterpreted, as I wasn't exactly clear, however I clarified my meaning in the post following: i.e. discussing death in itself is pointless since it is pure conjecture that is fundamentally unanswerable (i.e. what (doesn't) happen(s) after death?), however if one were to discuss it as it relates to life (euthanasia, cultural representations/depictions, mythologies, etc.) then it is no longer a pointless endeavor.

This seems to me to be a reasonable philosophical position, does it not?

 

[derek]

It seems inherently unphilosophical, actually. Is it not philosophy's business to be involved in this discussion?

Also, just because there is no answer does not mean one should give up thinking about it. The world may be absurd, but nihilism is hardly the appropriate answer.

 

[Death Aflame]

It seems inherently unphilosophical, actually. Is it not philosophy's business to be involved in this discussion?

Also, just because there is no answer does not mean one should give up thinking about it. The world may be absurd, but nihilism is hardly the appropriate answer.

The irony is that nihilism is a stream of philosophic thought, which means that my 'nihilist' position must be a 'philosophical' one.

Anyways what I was actually alluding to was not nihilism but the verifiability theory of meaning, which most certainly is an epistemic position on knowledge, metaphysics, and thus philosophy, whether you accept it or not.

 

[derek]

It's certainly not pointless then? Have you taken up two positions?

 

[Death Aflame]

It's certainly not pointless then? Have you taken up two positions?

Care to clarify what you are getting at?

Edit: In reflecting on this discussion, pointless is, perhaps, not the word I should have used. Something like fruitless seems more fitting. I mean, there is a point in trying to inquire about death on a philosophical level, however all the conclusions that develop are ultimately unverifiable and thus mere conjecture, so inasmuch as there is no more reason to believe a philosopher's metaphysical inquiry into death as a man of the cloth's, it is, on some level a fruitless endeavor.

To clarify my position, I do not dogmatically subscribe to the verifiability theory of knowledge, however I do believe it is at least somewhat useful in revealing the mythmaking that this sort of metaphysical inquiry can often amount to. And I also think we ought to be critical of knowledge that isn't provable in any tangible sense just as Freud's theories, while reasonable on a logical level, are ultimately precarious due to their inability to be tested.

 

[Space Butler]

On my religious journey from Jehovah's Witness to Agnostic to Atheist to Agnostic, I have went through a wide range of thoughts about what death is like.

JW's believe that people die and they don't exist until armageddon, where all the non-JWs die horrible deaths and then the ones that didn't directly oppose God get brought back to life, along with the already dead ones to be judged to see if they would be killed again.

As an agnostic the first time, I thought that maybe there was something after death, but thought it unlikely. As an atheist, I thought for sure that death was just eternal nothingness, which I now think is a very undesirable thing. I don't like the thought of being nothing forever. So I have since been trying to find a way of belief that I can understand and be at peace with, and have even tried praying to the Christian God, to no avail, so far. So I am really not sure what I believe death is, now.


Oh, and this statement:

for most heterosexual people penis-in-vagina sex is the most blissfull sensation on the planet

is not entirely accurate. Clitoral stimulation is a far more blissful sensation for women, just so you know.

 

[derek]

Care to clarify what you are getting at?

Edit: In reflecting on this discussion, pointless is, perhaps, not the word I should have used. Something like fruitless seems more fitting. I mean, there is a point in trying to inquire about death on a philosophical level, however all the conclusions that develop are ultimately unverifiable and thus mere conjecture, so inasmuch as there is no more reason to believe a philosopher's metaphysical inquiry into death as a man of the cloth's, it is, on some level a fruitless endeavor.

To clarify my position, I do not dogmatically subscribe to the verifiability theory of knowledge, however I do believe it is at least somewhat useful in revealing the mythmaking that this sort of metaphysical inquiry can often amount to. And I also think we ought to be critical of knowledge that isn't provable in any tangible sense just as Freud's theories, while reasonable on a logical level, are ultimately precarious due to their inability to be tested.

Much clearer. Although, from this point of view, all beliefs are equally worthy, or worth entertaining, no?

One can be as Chomsky or (worse) Dawkins and believe death is the end, no question, or one can believe a whole wealth of others when they say they believe death is not a finite closing.

 

[Death Aflame]

Much clearer. Although, from this point of view, all beliefs are equally worthy, or worth entertaining, no?

That is one perspective for sure, one could also take the position that they are all equally fantasy, designed to let one sleep better at night (whether arguing death is the end, or a new beginning). Some people don't seem to be comfortable with saying "I don't know" and moving on, and that's fine I suppose, but I think the threshold of our knowledge of death is inherently inconclusive regardless.

 

[derek]

Indeed. I find those that consider death to be a finite end, usually enjoy such firmness of mind as those who believe in a spiritual afterlife.

I'm of the "don't know" crowd, although I have some personal suspicions and I still enjoy discussing it.

 

[monoxide_child]

I was referring to anyone trying to turn this thread into some retarded psychoanalysis.

but
if you believe that Judeo-Christianity is a cult, you could say that the concepts of "heaven & hell" are psychological crutches, where "heaven" is a bribe and "hell" is a threat, and were created as political tools to create peacefull society structure, without the reward of heaven, and without the fear of hell, humanity wouldn't have been able to develop society structure, today the fear of punishment in hell, has been replaced by the fear of going to prison, in this modernized world, religion has been mutated into nothing more than a psychological crutch for those who can't deal with the harshness of a world without a deity structure, i'm not even really sure that any religion has ever really been anything other than that

 

[Diclonius]

I believe in the soul, and I think that when you die your soul remains wandering in this world as some kind of purgatory, since I´ve seen spectres and ghosts many times.

 

[derek]

but
if you believe that Judeo-Christianity is a cult, you could say that the concepts of "heaven & hell" are psychological crutches, where "heaven" is a bribe and "hell" is a threat, and were created as political tools to create peacefull society structure, without the reward of heaven, and without the fear of hell, humanity wouldn't have been able to develop society structure, today the fear of punishment in hell, has been replaced by the fear of going to prison, in this modernized world, religion has been mutated into nothing more than a psychological crutch for those who can't deal with the harshness of a world without a deity structure, i'm not even really sure that any religion has ever really been anything other than that

It's not a cult by any definition. One third of the world's population is Christian of some denomination.

Further to that, human beings did develop complex societies before the fear of punishment in hell, as you put it, existed as it can be conceived now.

 

[monoxide_child]

It's not a cult by any definition. One third of the world's population is Christian of some denomination.

Further to that, human beings did develop complex societies before the fear of punishment in hell, as you put it, existed as it can be conceived now.

the fact that an entire 3rd of the planet is Christian does not negate the idea that Christianity could be a cult

the "complex societies" that existed before the concept of "hell" were able to come into existance because of fear of punishment for those who did not follow the rules of the society
jails and prisons, executing people, cutting off body parts as punishment for crimes, all existed before the concept of "hell" as we know it

 

[derek]

I don't think calling it a cult is particularly fruitful, but I can see what you're getting at.

Also, if you concede these complex societies can develop without the concept of hell, then you completely undermine your own point that hell, or fear of it, was required as a precursor to societal development.

 

[bleakrose]

I think death is nothing but a transition.It is something necesary.I believe there is a vital cycle that is not altered,your are born,then you live and then you die.And when you die you evolve to another state,but you can't go back to the previous state.For me you go to heaven/or just start a new life elswhere.I think after death you get to met your loved ones (i know it sounds kind of cursi,i couldn't avoid it).