Death
There is no downside to death, if one does not see it coming and there is no suffering involved, whether psychological or physical suffering. Suddenly BINK, the lights go out and there is no experience good or bad for that particular subject. It's like I've heard it expressed in the past, if you die quietly in your sleep it's a gift from the gods. If it were not for a built-in fear of death it could not be said to be bad. Identity is a constitutions conscious storyline of the ups and downs of life, a chaos of experiences really and this is what is mourned by loved ones, as an on going event you where part of their lifes, and when death arrives, a piece of their life is lost, and can only be recalled. Your Thoughts?
Comments (150)
I think that in thinking about death in both senses, it behooves us to remember that life is but a transitory phenomenon in the expanse of time. It is a function of the properties of our universe, which is itself transitory within the vastness of space/the void. The universe had a beginning, and will have it's end, as well, and with it any possibility for the formation of life. When we speak of death with fear, it is death in the first, deverbal, sense of which we speak. We are afraid of the cessation of our lives, and the resultant obliteration of the subjective "world" which is the sum total of our understanding of existence. Death, however, when viewed in light of the transience of life, seems not something to fear, it is the natural state of the substance of our bodies...of ourselves. Death (inanimacy) and immateriality are our natural status quo; this admittedly marvellous experience of life is the actual aberration. Once all the matter composing the universe has been destroyed, the last of it swallowed by the final gigantic remnant of a star, the last remaining "black hole", the substance of our bodies will yet exist, but as energy filling and reacting within the void of space, perhaps awaiting the proper conditions for another "big bang" type event.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Tip 'o the hat to some forgotten wag.
Anyway, there will be time enough for that, later. Right now, everything, including death, is all about the living. Grief, eulogies, funerals, head stones and all the "You will never be forgotten" lies are, in the end, all about the living. All of it. Even this thread. You can't escape life, even in death.
On the other hand, some other wag once wrote something to the effect that you only die when the last memory of you dies. Maybe then you can RIP.
The only true meaning for conscious existence is that of eternalizing itself in the face of the eventual entropy of the Universe.
Whoever succeeds: - The true apotheosis!
I tend to agree with the following passage from Philipp Mainlander - 19th century philosopher -:
“But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!”
There is a lot baked in that cake to say annihilation is redemption...is that truly what is stated here? That can justify a lot of evil--assuming you even believe in the concept of evil.
This is about how organisms function relative to the physical world he/she lives in, there are particular functions to be recognized in the relation of subject and object. Nothing is eturnal
The only true meaning of conscious existence is that it is the working relationship between subject and object. Consciousness is perception, is reaction, is cause to the outside world. Your answer is in your own statement, all things change, nothing is eturnal.
Sorry you lose me right way when you get biblical. I do not have any respect for it.
That's how I see it too. To be dead is to be gone, utterly gone. While we are still alive, we can worry about the living we'll leave behind, try to avoid death for their sake, buy life insurance. Of course we often avoid death for our own sake. We are attached to the plans we have for ourselves, and perhaps to all the many simple, sensual pleasures of being healthy and in good relationships.
That's a good one. :up:
If you're being tortured mercilessly, yes.
Quoting boagie
That's what the Thanatos and Algea do to you. It makes you lower the bar for everything, so much so that you begin to perceive curses as boons, punishments as rewards, hate as love, privation as presents, you get the idea.
Quoting boagie
Don't kid yourself.
That out of the way, food for thought: Algea warns us of Thanatos and Thanatos liberates us from Algea. Our frenemy relationship with pain (Algea) and death (Thanatos) is the stuff of legends.
Also check out Tithonus, granted eternal life but not eternal youth. Imagine if you were told that you would age but live forever. Wouldn't you ask for the Grim Reaper to pay you a visit...at the appropriate time? and maybe...just maybe...we did just that, explaining why we die i.e. we willingly opted to die to escape a grim fate like Tithonus'. :chin: We forgot about the arrangement...someone jog our memories for us will ya.
Our relationship with death is strongly defined by our expectations of death, i.e. our beliefs. Fear of death may be humanly intrinsic, blind faith has the power to overrule that though - or at the very least, inhibit the psychological terror of facing death.
What should a person fear when they expect to ascend the stairway to heaven after death?
What should a person fear when they expect to be reborn time and time again?
That's why I opt to be "religiously inclined". Death is the root of fear and master of many mysteries. Simply taking an available answer, be it true or false, can massively shift how we face death and in turn how we face our fears.
Quoting boagie
Now in accord with my personal beliefs, I'd hate a sort of sudden, unaware death. I'd like to face it head-on, a sort of magnum opus to my life. I believe there is something grand to be gained from that, as if our consciousness is most conscious just before it falls apart.
- Biblical! He says.
If only did he knew that, "Philosophy", is not for the clear minded.
Quoting Derrick Huestis
Indeed, I don't believe in this arbitrary dichotomy of the nature of Men.
Quoting boagie
Everything is "Eternal", as everything descends from the natural essence of the Universe:
"The craving for the craving - Egoism."
In my intro post, I did mention no downside where there is no form of suffering to the process.
I am afraid I am unfamiliar with the references you make here but will check it out. Is it Greek mythology?
Your point here about the adoption of a myth, an unlikely method alone to find truth, simply to obtain existential comfort, is a betrayal of your intellectual integrity. If you are alright with that, then your home free. If you are a Yank, most of the population apparently agrees with this method or process. It is not a behaviour I personally respect, and the tendency of believers is to believe they are deserving of respect.
Given the temporality of everything around us, what makes you think the universe is eturnal? Sorry if I misenterpreted your perspective as being bibilical. Although I think it possiable its influences might creep into any of our posts, culture does tend to define. When ever one is in complete agreement with the majority, is when one needs to question one's own motivations and methods of understanding.
Just what absolutes are you referring to?
I think that the way death is thought about in a negative way within many cultures leads people to fear death. It may be that in some cultures it is not seen as something to be feared so much but understood to be part of the cycles. The fear of death is linked to our attachments to ego consciousness. Some people are so much more afraid than others, but probably at the moment of realising one's future death is on the horizon makes it hard not to be fearful of non existence, and this may also be connected with whether we feel satisfied with our lives and how we have contributed to life in the world.
This is a truism which requires a bit of clarification. The English adjective "eternal" is semantically problematic...semantically ambiguous in the absence of qualification. This is because English "eternal" involves a semantic conflation of the meanings of two different Latin adjectives: aeternus, which means "pertaining to or lasting for "the age", for a given span of time (Latin aetas = "age") or for ages" and aeternalis, which has the meaning "everlasting", "infinitely lasting", "lasting forever (beyond all ages or outside of time)". The first, aeternus, is a temporal term, while aeternalis describes existence outside of time. Because of this, "eternal" and "infinite", as well as "eternity" and "infinity", may be, but are not necessarily synonymous. To tell your lover that "our love is eternal", you are using that word in the sense of Latin "aeternus", the "age" in question being for your or her lifespan (whichever ends first) or at least until one of you gets sick and tired of the other, but when a Christian says that "God is eternal", he means in the sense of Latin "aeternalis". So, since our universe is not everlasting, but will some day eventually die, it is, indeed, "eternal", but only in the sense of the Latin adjective aeternus.
I wish it were that good a deal - a swift and painless demise - but something tells me, dying isn't a very pleasant experience if you know what I mean.Quoting boagie
Yes, Greek mythology. Here are some links:
Tithonus
Algea/Algos
Thanatos
Throughout one's life there is a common avoidance in pondering death, and more so the more one is full of life's vitality. I have found some peace with the idea through understanding the nature of consciousness as that which is thought to be lost. Conciousness is not lost, it is everywhere, and if one identifies with consciousness rather than the vehicle that carries it, there is a level of compensation in that.
Conciousness is one thing and identity is quite something different. Identity is a constitution's consciousness of it's journey through this life, so identity becomes the journey, what context has largely defined. Constitution is a given, good or bad but what happens to it registers in consciousness as who/what you are.
I agree there is much suffering involved in most deaths, but there are those the gods smile upon and it's BINK, the lights are out. The big sleep is granted utterly without suffering, never knew what hit them sort of thing.
If an expert sniper/marksman blows your head off with a clean shot to the apricot, I don't think there'll be time enough to realize that you're dying.
You had to know you get stuck with that handle--lol!! You are of course right, no suffering is involved, whether psycological or physical. You might think that getting shot in the head would be painful, but not if it does not have time to register. It is not the worst of ways to go.
I think not. I see it as the most pragmatic thing to do. If there is some truth to what I believe then believing is the best thing I can do. If there is no truth to what I believe, obtaining existential comfort is still the best thing I can do.
Not to mention that I think the quest "to find truth" is a vain one. Don't get me wrong, in many ways I think that too is one of the best things one can do - but it boils down to being utterly pointless.
Can't really argue with a man who simply wants happiness. My only point might be that what is good for an individual in their quest for happyness, can create a problem for a world that needs to deal with reality.The religious you might agree are not dealing with reality and it shows at the voteting both --think Trump, and the many many hate groups who vote for him, including the religious right wing. You might consider another drug.
I chose that handle myself - it suits me, as if we were made for each other. :grin:
It's my firm conviction that I have enemies with both the motive and the resources to put a bounty on my head. I hope they put into their service a marksman cum hitman to do the job. Fingers crossed! :grin:
LOL!!! Ever put snow on a hot lightbulb---Bink or could be a Tink, at any rate, the lights go out.
:gasp: :brow:
The only option available to us is a subjective experience of reality to begin with. I believe the problems we encounter as a collective whole have their very root in failing to acknowledge that how we perceive the world is highly individual. This isn't exclusive to religion but shows wherever humans interact with each other - from relationships to politics and even science. Fanatiscm in this regard (i.e. "You're delusional, adhere to MY reality instead") leads to the worst kind of behaviour.
There is a base to our experience of the world, due to operating with basically the same systems. Apparent reality is based upon our experiences through our common biology, a biological readout you might say. The impression that I get from you, is that you are choseing to embrace something you know to be delusional, how that is even possiable boogles my mind. The world is chaotic enough as it is, if you wish to introduce an exceptence of all realities and/or all opinions have equal crediabilty there would be nothing but chaos. I can tell your sold on this course of reaction, but it is not one I personally have any respect for. These in- groups/religons are divisive and irrational, and in these times of nucular profiration we cannot afford irrationality and the creation/or maintenance of hate groups -- May Ali behead you if you disagree!
Indeed, what we do have is something like a "common reality". Through our common biology, we can confirm that we experience roughly the same things. This alone does not make do for rational ground though. Humans used to live on a flat disk until their common reality changed.
Self-deception imho is an integral part of human being. The topic of death does very well to illustrate this.
Either it's as you say and there is no downside to death - in which case our survival instinct would be a form of self-deception.
Or there is a downside to death, in which case your proclamation that there is none is an individual self-deception on your part.
So if we are to deceive ourselves either way, I might as well choose my delusions based on merit.
From my witness of death of my father in the hospice, it was very painful process going into death. It was not some sort of momentary event. It was slow and gradual, sometimes up and down condition of the physical health, and deterioration of the mind into the demise.
I am not sure what happens after one's death, but it was evident that the process of death was very slow and painful prolonged suffering of months for the dying.
Of course, each and every death is different. But some can be long lasting painful process before the actual death.
When I say "everything is Eternal", I am not referring to anything that is within the limits of existence, but to the substance that permeates all of reality and that contains its natural essences - the metaphysical field -, therefore, the only way to truly be "eternalized" before the Universe and its eventual end, is through the concept of "Idea".
Become conceptual, and thus reach the true "Apotheosis" - Eternity.
The only standard in defining no downside is the condition of no suffering, whether that be psychological or physical. Apparent reality is delusional if you like, it is created by our biology. Apparent reality is a biological readout, as surely as a calculator creates a sum total of its input, so the sum total of the reactions we have to the physical world present us with apparent reality.
The survival instinct is not delusion, it is the serving of the essence of what you are, you're genes, your body is a vehicle for said genes. The function of the vehicle body is to survive long enough to pass on your genes. You seem to be wishing to negate the power of reason, the fact that our ancestors were ignorant of the total reality of the world does not negate the value of reason which did discover the earth was not flat. I guess we should define the term delusional, so as to be sure we are on the same page. You seem to think that delusion is the key to happyness but wish to use reason to get there and then justify living in delusion through reason. It is strange to me.
Concepts and ideas are the tools of reason, not an end in themselves. The Maps is not the terrain so to speak.
Concepts and ideas are both the foundation of reality - through the angst to be - aka Egoism - - and its method by which "reality" becomes "rational", and also an end to be reached, because everything that was eternal has, as first purpose, the returning to being eternal.
Returning to your final allegory, a "map" obviously is not and cannot be the "terrain" rationally and existentially, however, in the metaphysical field, three scenarios are possible:
[i](1) The map is the terrain;
(2) The map is not the terrain;
(3) The map is and is not the terrain.[/i]
Your view is limited to the perception that the "always present limitation of existence is a rule, not only for itself, but for all other epistemological fields".
The foundation of apparent reality is your biology, foremost we must have experience, for experience is the holy grail. Certainly our ideas and concepts structure somewhat, but all words are but qualifications and/or limitations. Experience of the physical world is, the other half of your mind, it's is fuel to the mind so to speak. Subject and object stand or fall together- to steal a bit from Schopenhauer. Open and unlimited speculation is metaphysics, if it never answers back to reality it is quite useless.
Death is the completest term of time. It is proof, complete proof, that time is change, not duration. The difference life is to the metaphysics of duration, proving duration is not what time is and metaphysics not what realness is, is the meaning and realness of time. We are biologically committed to enduring, and metaphysically committed to conceive realness enduring or duration. The devil is in the details of that commitment, because if we can't see past it to the completing term of time lost life is we can never know, or be, the angel only that loss can intimate and all we know and are is the devil of duration both experience and metaphysics is.
Without consciousness there is no time.
Whose? When is this if only recognition of the difference lost life, or new life, is is knowledge of what time most really is? Surely not consciousness only your own? Even dead matter experiments with altering conditions that ultimately, if very rarely, generates the potential for life. And even wholly instinctive life experiments, however many fits and starts and dead ends, with the conditions from which consciousness might emerge. And even our much touted awareness is within the context of a mostly autonomic biology that is only in the least terms autonomy. What we have to recognize is that the expansive terms of duration and enduring is not what time is, and that it is through the least term of not enduring and not attenuating duration that time is what it is and most real. The most infinitesimal deviation from the causal nexus is the most complete term of time. But it is never to be found in the continuity of that nexus. That is, the least term of time is all the differing it is. There is no "because..." to it. And recognition of this is never in your possession, but is always only known as something lost to you. Something worthy, and more what worth is, than all that endures your possession of it.
Careful! It's a trick question. but there is an answer.
I wouldn't say that. No more TPF. No more heroes. No more thoughts about quantum physics. No more carrot cake. No more walking the dog. No more painting. No more watching children play. -No more Coldplay, Rammstein, Killing Joke, Doors, Satie, Nat King Cole or System of a down. Not to forget Allanis Morrisette. Or Nina Hagen. No more loving. No more realizations...
Only the grim rebirth that awaits. To re-experience the growth to adulthood never to be obtained. Maybe I like death!
Quoting boagie
Suffering occurs in life, not death. With death, life ends. And with it, suffering. There's neither a downside or advantages in death for the deceased. Besides, good or bad, it happens anyway!
In death, it is the persons who loved the deceased who suffer. So, from that viewpoint, there is a downside to death.
The things you have stated have already been well established in previous posts--- nothing to disagree about here.
People may think good or bad of you but in death, there is no experience, no feelings, what they think could have no effect.
No more, no more, you have to ask yourself, is it better to have lived or better to have never existed. Never to have experienced love, but also never to have experience the slings and arrows of life, in the form of nature red tooth and claw.
Possible only to a conscious observer, another consciousness.
That's the wrong way to look at it. We can't really get each other right in life, but we can interact and respond to each other, and the real measure we share is the character of honesty and discipline we bring to the drama of it. That drama is never complete in the sense that we achieve synchrony in our terms, but every measure of the quality of our participation in it is more complete than the quantity of synchrony to our terms. But even this is never a matter of established meaning or appropriated terms. What death brings to this is the completest possible recognition of how incomplete our participation is in that drama. But if that recognition is always more complete than all the terms we deem we share in life, then what we do share in, subterranean to the explicitly perceived meaning of our terms, is more real than that perception. The dead can no longer respond to our misperception of them. We can either arrogate that misperception or recognize how incomplete our participation with them is. But insofar as that participation is real, more real than our perceptions of it, then the dead are always as with us as they were in life anyway. You cannot remembrance the dead, for any perception of what they meant to us is distortion without the living response correcting, or modifying it. But you cannot eliminate the meaning our part in the drama, or dialectic, of always uncompleted terms is to our continued capacity for that drama among the yet living. Language does not emerge unilaterally, and death proves just how unalone we are in it, even, maybe even most, when we are at a loss for words.
Is perception finality?
I must admit to being puzzled by your post. Are you saying, we didn't really know the person alive and can know them even less when they are dead? Perhaps, I am missing the point, perhaps you could word it differently?
I like your style. I vote for evolved self-deception. We're in the grip of a master madness, the fear of perfect sleep.
I dig the catalog. I agree that we fear death as a loss of nice things. But we can reason that being dead involves no fear, no sense of loss. I'm in not rush, for reasons such as yours. But it's nice not to fear some absurd torture chamber at the end of the earthly journey.
Sidepoint, but to me it sucks that our culture embraces pointlessly drawn-out and painful deaths for no reason that I find valid anyway. Obviously I wouldn't want death forced on other who felt the need to cling, but I do wish I could set up some auto-destruct feature for myself in case I'm unlucky enough to be trapped in some ugly state. For instance, maybe a stroke destroys my autonomy, or I'm paralyzed by an accident and physically can't choose to leave this world on my own terms (just having the choice would make post-accident life more endurable, I think.)
Suffering is painful, but it is also a part of life. It must be a difficult situation for anyone going through that stage in life. However, I still feel all life is precious, and better than death even if going through the suffering. I oppose to ending life by artificial means, or giving up hope for possible recovery from the ill health no matter how terminal it is.
I think you've answered my question. If so, there's no point.
However...
Every word we utter is inflected, every gesture or expression we share characterizes what is said such that the lexical sense and syntactic structure of the entire language is revised in that character. When we get lost we look for a map and for some landmark to reference it. Without that reference all signs are inscrutable. But the map doesn't tell you where you are, it tells you how to leave. You are more present where you are lost than navigating that departure. Any sign convinced you you know where you are actually leads away. So with language. When you think you know where you are in it you are lost, and as a matter of deliberation. If you cannot recognize how inscrutable we are to each other you can never know where you are in the drama of life. But note the sudden transformation of all signs once you become convinced that you do. The completed loss death is is an inscrutable absence we cannot navigate ourselves away from. But we only learn what language really is and means in that loss. There is no final term to the departure from being real. Only loss is presence. For, in loss, all that remains is responsibility that the worth of the lost be recognized. Deny this and we really are lost, and the drama of language is, in reality, not even begun. Finality is not loss, it is the beginning and the act of being undeparted. But conviction in the terms of navigating our departure from the inscrutable realness of life assures only that what we think we mean is never really even a beginnig. Time is neither beginning nor end, and certainly not a duration between such "ends". It is the moment of our participation in the recognizableness of the worth of the lost, and of being lost.
Sorry, it's a little over my head. Do any of our fellow posters wish to take a crack at it?
I do seem to better understand your meaning, as in a shopping mall map, you are here. Somewhere however you need I think, to leave language behind as a guide, and rely upon a basic understanding that death is the end of all experience. Consciousness continues, its all around us and ever renews itself. It ever lives in a self induced apparent reality, and as a an individual dies, so to dies a world.
I know I'm dying but I feel no pain except regret.
Death itself is not painful, but rather the regret that I left no legacy that would keep me remembered for something, for not doing more in my life, for not enough love with those who are most close to me like family.
Rather more tangible. It is precisely that consciousness does not continue that death is so dreadful for the living. If there really is nothing left of us how much more of a burden is it to think we knew the departed but now realize we were not there for them at all! That is, the dead are only gone insofar as they were not there at all in life. What does it mean to have someone in your life if not currently present? What is the difference? And yet, though loneliness and "missing" others when absent is distressing, it is not grief. What is the difference? If another is real in life, is that realness suddenly gone in death when not gone by mere distance? And doesn't it take the complete loss of that realness to make us recognize what we missed when alive and present?
What is tangible in what we share is the terms by which we recognize what such differences mean. Life is the language of the articulation of the worth of time. And we are perhaps the most articulate term in that language. But it is fatuous to suppose that we are endowed with that role by some external power or system. We create all the terms of that articulation. And it is impossible that we are perfectly synchronized in all its terms. But what we do do, and very much as our own creation, is to spur each other to greater rigor in presenting our own terms. This always fails, in some small nuance at the very least. But the more perfectly we achieve constancy in our terms the more overwhelming to that constancy is even the most nuanced failure of it. But if others then respond with even greater rigor of their own, and in recognition of the worth of the effort, each speech act and response in recognition of the worth of even greater rigor in thought and utterance, each act and response, together, a nuance overwhelming our commitment to constancy, then moment to moment, though we may never awaken to the changes, grows the language always overwhelmed by nuanced failures to be articulate, though just as always committed to eliminate such failures. We recognize ourselves and each other more in our own failure to be that articulation and in the response to it of greater rigor others bring in recognition to our effort to prevent it, than we do in the flat reading of the utterances we exchange we are pressured into in the academic world, or, for that matter, in the abandoned rigor of aesthetic and religious hermenuetics.
It is precisely that we are committed to reducing misstatements to the most trivial nuances, and can never quite succeed, that language is born at all. That is, long before we know what words mean there must be that recognition between us that there is rigor we are trying to bring to and spur each other in. And the terms of that recognition is the nuanced failure of that articulation. But every such nuance is overwhelming our commitment not to. Every moment in the drama of that failure in the commitment to articulate flat meaning is the completest event of language, in any language. And any recurrence of anything so complete as that moment grows more completely what language is between us than any fixed lexicon and grammar can ever be. But only in death is that completeness as recognizable as our commitment to meaning what we say and/or saying what we mean is feeble. It is not enough to cease talking or to become inaccessible for dialogue, Only the completion death is can be the most articulate term in the completion the growing moment intimated the worth of our failed articulation and response in recognition of the rigor brought to it. That is, because our constant commitment to facile and impersonal speech hides the nuances of terms overwhelmingly personal and intimate each moment of failure in that commitment is, only death can prove to us how completely that moment is what language really is. Ceasing to be altogether is the most articulate term we can bring to life. Speculation of an afterlife or conscious being of some sort after death is merely more of our fatuous commitment to constancy. And nuance by nuance of failed articulation enjoins us in the terms of that articulation in ways that no fantasy of a soul or eternal consciousness can be more than a distraction from or sop to our commitment to elude the real cost of sharing meaning. We can convince ourselves there is no need to push rigor so far that only others can spur us to the brink, or that we are so clever we can avoid even the least nuance of failed articulation, but either way the real cost of meaning is unpaid, and language dies.
The nature of life itself does not lend a reason that an individual should echo through time, as a present manifestation, one is cause, something others react to. If the care of others is involved, then there is reaction to the lack of presence, perhaps sorrow. Most people think of their identity as the totality of their life experience to that point, but all life stories are somewhat meaningless and as Shakespear said, our small lives are rounded by sleep. In this life, all we have is each other.
All words are qualifications and/or limitations.
Maybe it's because we're scared of death that makes us scared of the dead coming back to life...
note: NO explanation forthcoming just take it as a serious and sincere statement.
Fairy tales of heroes who died beautifully bring us joy whilst our family who died in the way bring us sorrow; the essence of death is a double-edged sword.
The reality of death is similar, a need to die for release from life may change your view that death is horrific.
I assume when I die my spirit will become dishevelled, like an animal's body when it becomes a carcass. I assert my identity is still active when I'm dead. I'm still selectable as a character.
Is there life after? Only for those who deserve it.
[i]“Now we have the right to give this being the well-known name that always designates what no power of imagination, no flight of the boldest fantasy, no intently devout heart, no abstract thinking however profound, no enraptured and transported spirit has ever attained: God. But this basic unity is of the past; it no longer is. It has, by changing its being, totally and completely shattered itself. God has died and his death was the life of the world.
In this same life after death, you would think those who have endured unkindness would be kinder as a result, intent on sparing others the awful suffering they abhorred firsthand; indeed, entropy is not only the rule of the physical, but of the metaphysical: - Death IS, and only it can in turn, give life.”[/i]
- The Philosophy of Redemption, Philipp Mainlander.
Well put. :up:
You've miss quoted me, I did not say that death was the most beautiful concept humans have.
Thanks Manuel!!!
This isn't a theology site, but a philosophy site. Vengence is mine says boagie!!
:heart: :heart: :heart:
His translation is coming out next year. There's one made by a an enthusiast in Mainlander's subreddit, which is pretty decent.
But if you already know German, that's very cool.
He's a bit of a downer, but his arguments in metaphysics are extremely interesting.
Can you substantiate this beliefs in any way?
Personally, I am not afraid of ghosts and zombies they belong to the realm of supernatural fiction, along with witches, warlocks and angles.
Like there is no day without night and no evil without good. Like sleep divides the rythm of night and day, death divides the cosmic rythm of the singular and the infinite. Infinity and singularity mean nothing without the god-given life and death. Like life divides the same daily rytm, so does it divide the cosmos. Unified at the border between infinity and singularity, life and death play eternal divine rythms in their middle.
And amidst those divine unification, all we can do enjoy life in an infinite divine way, or suffer from it. We can experience life in an animal-like way, trying to cling to life instinctively, without a knowledge of the infinities we are embedded in. Without a knowledge the miraculous wonders we are immersed in. But with an instinctive drive to stick.
Or experience life in a modern suffering-baseed mode, leading to contemplated death, an immature escape. One can escape death by the futile and naively childish attempts to become genetically or meme-based immortal.
But one can also rest assure that death is just death, a necessary condition for the divine gift that life actually is. Rest assure that death is just an intermediary of whatever form of life.
People and animals on all planets of the universe are understandably clinging to life to stay away from death. But death is not to fear. Death gives life. Once death, how else can it be that life will not be instantaneously after?
Eternal death is as mad to assume as eternal life. Death can be a welcome way out in modern society, as detached from reality as the worldview it presents. There is even money to be made from suicide. Death can be the easy way out. At the same time it gives meaning to life and
We can rest assure that no one shall ever understand the damned and blessed gift of live. We can only try to unfearingly cling to the bittersweet heavenly derived juice of life. Accepting and understanding that death is nothing to fear and the fear of it just the result of an unhealthy growth. Again, realizing that death is not eternal by its very nature.
You are into Theology my friend, and it is not a legitimate topic/subject. When nonsense is made sacred, the world is in trouble.
I'm not aware of any fucking theological knowledge my friend. And truly don't give a damn for it. Thoughts on death were asked, I gave them. I could put my thoughts in a "legitimate" scientific frame, but who, for fucking God sakes, says science is right? You are just a human vessel, trying to make your empty meemes immortal. An irrational and vacuous attempt, detached from life. :smile:
Excellent, when negativity or negative truth is realized, as apparently you believe. You are in complete agreement with Arthur Schopenhauer, " Life is something which should never have been." I am not at all sure I disagree.
It certainly sounded theological to me, if I am mistaken I apologize. I'll reread your post to see if I get the same impression. Just reread it, and withdraw my apology.
Indeed, the translation is an amateur effort to be recognized. That it also serves, as a motivational example, for the extensive research of minimally renowned authors, but who present a perception and a philosophical argument that is very interesting.
Quoting Manuel
I would say that Mainlander's vision is one of accepting the futility of the struggle for life, because - in his philosophy - everything that becomes life is just prolonging "suffering", that which is completely non-existent and impotent if the concept of "death" is applied.
His argument does not defend "death" per se, but rather the cessation of all that potentially brings about "pain" or, in terms more metaphysical, "entropy".
Quoting Manuel
It is no accident that I had to revise some parts of my egoistic philosophy through a pessimistic reading, as many of the arguments presented by Mainlander directly relate to the concept of "individual purpose", something that is intrinsic to Egoism and the "Self".
Nietzsche, Stirner, and others, all applied his - Mainlander's - concept of "Wille zum Tode" - aka, "Will to Death" - in some way or capacity.
Sure. I read the Spanish translation, which is just a small portion of what he wrote, so I cannot opine too strongly on his larger ethical views. As it looks to me currently with my limited understanding, his argument about cessation of suffering is interesting. There's obviously some truth to it, but I think it is an exaggeration too, though I have to read more.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I'm particularly drawn to his very interesting and considered critique of Kant and Schopenhauer. I think he makes quite good points, but would love to wrestle with them more.
There's lots of stuff in his work that lends itself to all kinds of modes of thought.
And yeah, it does appear as if Nietzsche was reacting against him, but he only referred to him once or so.
How dare you?
:up: :lol:
... can be realized by science.
To error is human-------LOL!!
Sorry Sushi, guess the form fooled me, my apology.
Expand upon!
Nietzsche read "The Philosophy of Redemption" shortly after its publication, - and Mainlander's tragic suicide -, so is agreed upon that he was well versed on the philosophy and writings of the author, and in his passages - Nietzsches's -, he refers to both the nihilistic - something that Nietzsche was very concerned about - as well as Mainlander's ascetical perception - which you referred to when saying that "Nietzsche dissagreed with Mainlander" -.
Nietzsche greatly respected Mainlander's ability, even though he was aware of his condemnation of eternal emptiness, to use the very aspects of life to realize this "eternal void". In counterpoint, Nietzsche criticized the quasi-Schopenhauerian view of abstention from the world that Mainlander preached.
In short, while Nietzsche advocated an "overdose of sensations for the end of nihilism", Mainlander advocated an "eternal abstention from existence for nihilism".
Thanks for that reply.
Did he explicitly mention Mainlander? The only thing I can recall explicitly is Nietzsche's condemnation of Mainlander's advocating of abstinence and also mentions him in a letter to someone.
I mention it because it's a shame Nietzsche didn't mention him more frequently, maybe Mainlander would be better known by now.
"Death is nature's way to tell you to slow down." - Mother Nature.
"The main effect of death on the living is the speculative ramifications disseminated by religious and or secular doctrines." - Adolph Stulpnagel von Dressau.
"We don't want to live forever. Immortality is a veritable nightmare. We just don't want to die." -- Robert K. Steiffenhauser von Kielkebaden.
"In my youth I wished for infinite knowledge, wisdom and intelligence upon my death. Now I wish for ignorant stupidity." Herr hochwohlgeborener Baron Kreffke Max Stillstoffen von Wartburgh.
"If the Tower of Babel was unfinished due to society reaching the sky, then man's life is unfinished to stop him from reaching... very high. Higher than he can bear." Fraulein gegenwegerstrecklich Hanna Zwickreckstuck von Bieberheim.
"Man can't get higher than a bear? This has been debunked by Jimi Hendrix." Herr Obersturmstrassenwagenkonduktor Holz Heindrich von Gestraub.
"Death is..." (Unfinished due to exitus lethalis) Der schweigensteiger briefmarksammler Gottlieb Drucke von Eckhardt on his deathbed.
Advantage of death compared to birth is in that you are aware of new birth :smile:
To be not is to be free from all suffering.
How can death be sleep when sleep is part of being alive?
Brain waves
1. Gamma waves: Intense concentration
2. Beta waves: Most common, normal awake state
3. Alpha waves: Awake, relaxation
4. Theta waves: Awake, deep relaxation
5. Delta waves: Dreamless sleep & deep meditation! ( :chin: )
What caught my eye is :point:
Quoting Eternal Oblivion
Brain + Delta waves = Brain
Ergo...
Good point. I like to think of death as like sleep only deeper and less refreshing.
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
Just you wait for the pain.
Two weeks ago, I had to go to the ER, I was in such pain. Gastrointestinal spasms because of a viral infection. I was thinking that death hurts like this, although probably more.
They gave me IV painkillers ... But without those!!
The brain exhibits delta waves when a person is alive.
Science has proved that death is not sleep.
I didn’t say death was sleep. Death can be thought to be like a dreamless sleep. The difference being you don’t wake up. Or picture it as a state of pre-birth.
It can. It can also be thought to be heaven/hell or 'a state of pre-birth'.
None of these things are true.
I think I’ll face it as inevitable, but it’s likely I’ll want to keep living. As for regrets— there are many, naturally.
It is true. Heaven and hell are nonsense— there’s no evidence for that whatsoever.
But you know it's coming, it's just a matter of time when, and you know it could be anytime.
You can't fool yourself or buy yourself time.
:up:
The Great Disappearing.
Forgetting, being a stream of disappeared memories, the disappearing of self-continuity ...
Horizon of the autobiographical. Horizon of the historical. Horizon of species. Horizon of the Sun. Our Black Sun.
An a priori oblivion.
To the extent they matter, we stake all of our "hopes" on the uncertain ...
It's good to know the Porch and the Garden have some views in common.
:ok: I was merely referring to the perceived similarity between a brain with delta waves (dreamless sleep) and brain with no waves (death).
A simple equation to represent the above situation:
1. Brain + Delta waves (Dreamless sleep) = Death (not brain dead)
2. Brain - All waves = Death (brain dead)
@180 Proof
[quote=180 Proof]
there
is
no godot
but
Death,
and
Sleep
is
her prophet.[/quote]
1. Insofar as perception matters, dreamless sleep = death.
2. There are two kinds of death viz. dreamless sleep & brain dead.
This is the part I disagree with. Why equate dreamless sleep with death? There's zero evidence connecting them.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'dreamless sleep'. I dream every night. I'm also unsure how it's scientifically possible for to prove someone is not dreaming when exhibiting delta waves.
Good question! Consider it our best guess, a guesstimate if you will.
By the way, do you have any evidence that death isn't a dreamless sleep?
Why is it our best? It's quite basic to compare a sleeping person with a dead person merely because both are stationary.
Quoting TheMadFool
No. But you and no other have evidence that death isn't 'a pre-birth state', 'a synthetic mind-substrate extension', heaven/hell, purgatory, a lingering spirit, reincarnation, nirvana or any number of unimaginable afterlives.
What's better then?
Quoting The Opposite
If you're correct, we should have some sense of being as opposed to nonbeing, existence instead of nonexistence or, to put it simply, life and not death when in a dreamless sleep. Care to share your views on that?
I don't think there is a better...
Quoting TheMadFool
... and I'm doubtful this is even a thing.
It's interesting though, right?, how people back then equated what is physiological life (brain + delta waves) with physiological death (brain - any waves)? Science has come a long way but the question is what is life?
Remember (the minor gods) Thanatos & Hypnos are twins. :fire:
Thanatos & Hypnos?
Where does Algos (god of pain) fit into the overall scheme?
The paradox: Pain (Algos) is a cardinal sign of disease and disease leads to death (Thanatos). However, when in pain, the last thing our minds is sleep (Hypnos) - pain (physical and mental) keeps us awake at night!
:ok:
My take on desirability/appeal in descending order of preference:
Hedonic value
1. Joy [Best-case scenario]
2. Painless [Not bad]
3. Some pain, some joy [Manageable]
3. Painful [Worst-case scenario]
Realness value
1. Real [Want]
2. Illusion [Don't want]
Unfortunately, it's pain that, in a sense, keeps it real. Ergo, if we want not to lose touch with reality, we must not only accept pain but, oddly, even hope that we experience it. If we reject pain, there's a chance that we might be living in an illusion.
Sorry I mean there is no better as in there is no best theory of death. @TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
On the same theme...
What do we want, what do we really, really want?
Happiness, right? Not just happiness but ecstatic bliss if that even makes sense.
What would we be willing to do for that?
Anything, of course. Among that is what you once equated transhumanist abolishment of suffering to viz. a 24 hr morphine drip.
Take it a little further and what we have is heaven, simulated.
Thus, if everything were perfect and it were all sunshine and rainbows, the odds are it's a simulated reality (an illusion or to the Indians, maya).
Pain, its existence, functions then as evidence/proof that the world then is real.
I might've missed a spot or two. Why can't a world that has pain as a feature not be a simulation? Nick Bostrom of simulation hypothesis fame seems not to share the sentiment as expressed in the following excerpt from Wikipedia:
Quoting Private Language Argument
In other words, there's nothing that's realistic about pain, at least not to the extent and in the sense we think/believe. There's more that can be said.
NB: My formula – reality is that which encompasses reasoning that reasoning, therefore, necessarily cannot encompass, or exceed (just as no part is equal to or greater than the whole to which it belongs (à la a 'map =/= the territory' ... 'a pixel =/= the hologram' ... 'a set =/= the continuum' ...)) :fire:
Since you brought up Occam's razor, the question that naturally follows is, can this reality, keeping our assumptions to a minimum, explain pain? We will refrain, for the moment at least, from hypothesizing a "reality beyond".
Yes, pain keeps death at bay by functioning as a warning sign but have you noticed how fire alarms and humble alarm clocks are acoustic doppelgangers. It's as if pain has the dual purpose of awakening us and also avoiding death. I'm sure I won't have to spell it out for you what that means. That's all for now. Good day.
HI Fool---lol!! What do you think of the idea that there is an ultimate reality from which apparent reality is discerned, and that the method of discernment is biology. Such that, only certain aspects of ultimate reality are sensed by our biology. In this way of thinking, pain certainly is a sensing by ones biology that indicates that there is something of ultimate reality that is depremental to our biological nature. Much of ultimate reality is not sensed by various organisms, where you have a somewhat differing biology, you have a somewhat differing apparent reality. Reality does not come in discreet packages, where there is no separation, there is nothing which is an absolute other.
I suffer from anxiety and for the last 10 or so hours I'm having an episode and what do you know?, I had an epiphany. Pain/suffering does, as I said, drive off sleep but then you can't think straight (no gamma wave activity possible) - am I really awake then?
Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, could you clarify how your post relates to my own?
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
No good! I know it might not help much, but I think you're a pretty cool person who's kept this forum interesting. I hope it settles down soon, and you can get some rest. When the suffering seems unbearable, just remember that it will pass, like it always does.
Try controlled breathing, as the Buddha said, marry your breath. Control your breathing and you control your emotions. Not being sarcastic!
Much obliged :up:
Yeah. Sunning in the Garden, then watching the rain from the Porch till our skies clear again.