| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #21 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/04/03 13:53:06 |
One of the problems I have with many religions is their focus on worlds beyond this one. Whether they exist or not (and I am inclined to think not) this is the world we live in now, and this is the existence that defines us now.
Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
GregFla |
Re: Do you fear death? | #22 | ||
|
Posts: 6 01/04/03 16:59:37 |
I don't fear death.
I admit to not fully understanding it. Infinity is a fantastic theory and I wish to be a part of it. Am I? I sincerely doubt it. I am fascinated, however, with the idea that here I am, a pimple on the immense ass of time, and I am alive in this millisecond , here on this place. Life is a pretty cool event. Blink enough and it is over. I wish to be around longer, but alas, I just blinked again. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
auswiq |
Re: Do you fear death? | #23 | ||
|
Posts: 16 01/04/03 17:41:01 |
One of the problems I have with many religions is their focus on worlds beyond this one. Whether they exist or not (and I am inclined to think not) this is the world we live in now, and this is the existence that defines us now.
Yes, if approached from a purely existentialist point of view. But I still contend that whether or not we accept or try to deny the fact; we are inherently conscious of an eternity - (do animals have and exhibit this awareness? -they certainly do not appear to - they dont have elaborate funeral ceremonies for their dead for example). Ok, it might be argued that we extrapolate eternity from our full ' I' awareness in context of past, present and future, but to me, it leaves questions unanswered as to why we then strive for purpose, betterment, for 'something beyond our current selves' if indeed there is nothing but a 'hole in the ground at the end' - in other words, why are we striving for ideal of a better world' if death is the final curtain on existence - our death as well as the supposed 'heat death of the cosmos? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #24 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/04/03 19:05:59 |
I don't buy that consciousness is the sole determinant of being part of eternity and infinity - however one chooses to define those terms. What is simply is - existence is there whether we are thinking about the philosophical ramifications of existence or not.
I would say we strive for the ideal of a better world because in the end, if that wasn't hardwired into our DNA, we'd still be little amoeba bumping around a nutrient bath ocean or two. I don't say this to be depressing, because I don't think it is depressing. On the contrary, I find it absolutely awe-inspiring that something like life can grow, change, and wind up creating things on its own. Consciousness, too, is an incredible, if bizarre, thing. I said in an earlier post that I emotionally fear death, but I also recognize intellectually that it is a function of my hardwiring, and doesn't make any rational sense beyond the organism that is me having built into it the desire to continue its existence. Time is just another arbitrary line we've drawn to make it easier to approach the universe. The important things are that we exist, and the individual choices we make, as individuals and as societies. Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Do you fear death? | #25 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/04/03 21:23:29 |
Auswig:
Of which particular theology, if it should happen to have a name, are you so convinced? Muzadi: Quote: Saying that it is irrational to intellectually fear death is to say that it makes no difference whether you or anyone else lives or dies, intellectually. Society could cease to exist, and intellectually, it makes no difference. The point is, I don't think you can differentiate the emotional and intellectual in such a way, nor is it healthy to do so. On the intellectual hand, ascribing value to life is irrational--a mere function of biology, and on the emotional han, the exact opposite. Whether anthropocentrism or not, I think there needs to be a unification between the emotional and the intellectual that does not require one to live their life in continual contradiction. Religion is one attempt to bridge this divide, but as most of us would agree, it has failed. Various philosophies also have tried, many have failed. I am so tired of the rhetorical and the sloganistic answers to such a *complex* issue, and if there is not let's not pretend that there is. Otherwise, you're better off in an open-minded, tolerant church. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #26 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/04/03 21:50:49 |
Actually, I would disagree. Saying that it "is irrational to intellectually fear death" is not, as you say, to say that it makes no difference whether you or anyone else lives or dies. It does make a difference, since by that the universe is different, and, more personally, from the point of view of the people who you interact with, it will also be different. I also don't think it's an issue of there being a contradiction between the intellectual and the emotional, since if both are simply ways of perceiving. Neither changes the actuality, just how an individual interprets something, in this case, death. Emotion is perfectly logical within its own framework, and this doesn't contradict or fight the intellect - it's just a different vantage point. Philosophy and religion are ongoing ways of addressing the issue of death, among other issues. They are memetic constructs that interact on an individual level with each person; as such, they function at a personal level, not a societal level, when we are talking about perception. Individual philosophies and religions fail for individual people only. I would agree, certainly, that few philosophies and religions have proven successful from *both* a rational and an emotional perspective, and I do think that to be ultimately effective and useful, a philosophy/religion must work on both of these levels. Some have gotten close - Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Sufi, Pantheism (particularly, I think, Heretical Pantheism). Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Do you fear death? | #27 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/05/03 17:30:54 |
Muzadi
Quote: Certainly you do not think that my use of the word "difference" implies merely alternative outcome? Of course there exists difference when an individual lives or dies, in the purely technical sense of the term. A world where I exist is most obviously different than a world were I do not exist. The point was, there is really no meaningful (and please don't misuse that word) difference, intellectually, between one state of the universe and another. For example, in one universe I die in a plane crash, in another I survive unharmed, and in another I survive as a paralytic. Intellectualy we have no basis by which to discriminate between these universes other than to describe their inequality, if as you imply, it is intellectually irrational to fear death. Not until we approach the issue on the emotional level do we have any basis by which to evaluate the alternative states, which is why I think you say, "and, more personally, from the point of view of the people who you interact with, it also will be different." It's as if you're justifying your objection to my argument by slipping an emotional appeal in the back door. (i.e. bait and switch). Quote: Well, to say that the intellect and the emotion are various ways of perceiving reality is a pretty big assumption. First of all, that statement flies in the face of the notion of objective reality, which I am not going to affirm or deny here. However, I think that there are many, far more knowledgeable than I, who would would take issue with your assertion that reason (i.e. the intellect) does not represent actuality. There are other difficulties with this as well. It's easy to justify your emotion as a valid means of percieving reality when it comes to death, but what about speaking in tongues, or the salvation experience, or prophesying, or hearing from God? Are those emotional experiences also "perfectly logical within their own framework" in such a way that "doesn't contradict or fight the intellect." I find it ironic that as a scientist, you are willing to so easily throw away the scientific method's claim to reality. The problem is, we are both emotional and rational creatures. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to compartmentalize the two aspects. We can never be free from our emotion any more than we can be free from our reason. To say one is "perfectly logical in its own framework" blindly ignores the fact that neither can exist entirely alone in that framework. So again I would assert that the solution to problems such as this will be found in an integration, rather than distinction, between emotion and reason in such a way that does not unduly subjugate one to the other, or it will not be found at all. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jeremy1952 |
Re: Do you fear death? | #28 | ||
|
Posts: 907 01/05/03 17:47:46 Enlightened One |
Timothy, Responding to Muzadi
Quote:I didn't take the original statement that way at all. It is true that intellect is a way of perceiving reality; how does this imply that there is no objective reality to perceive? It is also true that emotion reflects an underlying reality. Example: a man is telling you that you can trust him. Everything you know about him, intellectually, tells you that he is trustworthy. Your intuition, however, is screaming "NO!" There is nothing mystical about this; numerous real facts - a disconnect between his words and gestures, registered subliminally; a connection between this situation and other situations, not consciously considered; whatever. The fact is that in actual, real, objective reality, this person is a liar and a threat; and the emotion of fear you are experiencing is also real. But even if the person were not a threat, it is still true that the emotion is a real emotion. Quote:again, I'm not seeing exactly how this follows. Something can be perfectly logical and totally false. If you take a rationalist position, which it seems you do, then logic itself has an actual physical existence separate from the thinker/feeler who uses it. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #29 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/05/03 18:43:33 |
Timothy, I suspect we are agreeing more than we're disagreeing, though I think we're using different definitions, which is obscuring the issue. You wrote, "I find it ironic that as a scientist, you are willing to so easily throw away the scientific method's claim to reality." I don't throw away the scientific method's claim to reality, rather, I am putting in perspective. Kant made the point that it is impossible, using reason, to escape the perspectives, assumptiong and interpretations of one's own psychology. This doesn't mean that there is not objective reality, only that our attempts to understand and approach it are always going to be filtered through the lens of our own experience and psychology. This does not reject the scientific method, but simply says that we need to understand that our understanding is always going to be colored by our perspective. It's much like the idea of a paradox - two things can seem to be contradictory (take quantum mechanics and general relativity) but in fact are not - each is simply looking at the same thing from two different angles. From a more philosophical angle, look at the concept of "bad". If I do an action, it may be "bad" for me personally, but "good for someone else", so is the action bad? Or good? It's both - depending on the perspective. Similarly, I am not saying that there is no objective reality, only that we, as sentient creatures, are limited by our ability to sense and understand, and indeed, simply by our point of view. We should of course continue to use the scientific method, but just be aware of the limitations of perspective. You also write: "The problem is, we are both emotional and rational creatures. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to compartmentalize the two aspects. We can never be free from our emotion any more than we can be free from our reason. To say one is "perfectly logical in its own framework" blindly ignores the fact that neither can exist entirely alone in that framework." I think we're talking around each other here, because I do not see any contradiction. We are both emotional and rational creatures, or, more precisely, our emotion operates from a different perspective than our conscious reasoning - it's still logical, it is just worried about different things and has its own perspective and own experience. In other words, I'm agreeing with you. :-) Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Do you fear death? | #30 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/05/03 21:20:14 |
Muzadi
You're probably right in that our dispute is more semantics than anything else. I would say, however, that we are impassed concerning whether the observed differences in emotion and intellect are merely paradoxical, that is a result of perception, or are, as such, contravening states of being. I've been trying to get around to reading Critique of Pure Reason, it's on my Palm, but alas, so many other things to do.  Kant does catch alot of flack, though.Nonetheless, where does that leave us? How does this answer the question: How should we as sentient beings live in the light of our mortality? Why shouldn't I slit my wrists? Why is my life somehow better than a grasshoper's life. Earlier today I wondered if my life wouldn't be better as a meercat, not that my life is especially bad or anything, but I couldn't formula a decent argument to the contrary. So my hope for this thread is to see our many brilliant minds push beyond a mere superficial examination of the issue and address the problem of actually living this mortal life of ours. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #31 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/05/03 22:39:32 |
At the risk of having the wrath of Literary Correctness rain down upon me, I would point to _Watchmen_, a graphic novel by Alan Moore.
There's a chilling quote in it that I still remember: "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." One can, and many do, look at this and see it as a prescription for anarchy and chaos, but I think it is in fact saying something different. Specifically, that we, as sentient beings, are responsible for defining what is moral. We can't pass the buck, nor can we count on any verifiably morally certain prescription. This is why doctrine-based religions and philosophies are so popular - they absolve the individual of responsibility for making moral determinations. Now, this still doesn't say what we "should" do/believe/think morally, and, inevitably, people are going to disagree. Ergo, witness politics, war, etc. I think you can put together some agreement of morality based on certain commonalities in the human and social condition, for some of the same reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Namely, because of the fact of our own biology, we have certain things hardwired in to a lesser or greater degree. For example, why haven't we all committed suicide? The answer isn't complicated, it's that if we were mentally or biologically set up to commit suicide on a large scale, humanity would have died off a long time ago. In mathematical terms, it's a constant of our moral condition that we want to continue to exist. Which is why we don't generally go around slitting our wrists (on average), and why we obsess about things like consciousness past death. Will we always agree? Let me rephrase that - will we EVER agree? To this, I think the answer is, yes, sometimes, but not all the time, and never completely. Ultimately, I think the first step is to stop looking for a divinely endorsed statement of proper morality, and to start taking responsibility for things ourselves. The next step is to continue to push back the boundaries of what we don't know, and to encourage the free flow of ideas and tolerance of thought. And from there? Well, first things first... Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
auswiq |
Re: Do you fear death? | #32 | ||
|
Posts: 16 01/06/03 06:49:22 |
T.S.
The Judaeo-Christian theology on which I base my convictions. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Chris OConnor |
Re: Do you fear death? | #33 | ||
|
Indisputable BookTalk Master
Posts: 9511 01/06/03 09:23:44 BookTalk Owner |
Muzadi
Quote: I totally agree. Much of modern religion is based on turning off your brain and blindly following the flowchart of morality provided in their holy scriptures. This has always frustrated me to no end. Life isn't black and white. Sometimes one must actually think deeply and make a decision between the lesser of two evils. But belief is much easier than thinking, hence all the believers and so few thinkers. Chris |
|||
|
|
||||
|
stevepainter |
Re: Do you fear death? | #34 | ||
|
Posts: 156 01/06/03 12:18:09 |
To the original question: Do you fear death?
No, I don't. However, I would say that I lament death. I lament the things I will not see and experience. I feel sorrow for those that will miss me. I feel a loss regarding what I will never be able to do. The limiting factor of death makes me sad, not afraid. It's better to look at life from a perspective where you feel joy in that which you see and feel and do. It's better to share a smile with a friend now and help those that will go on without you as best you can. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
auswiq |
Re: Do you fear death? | #35 | ||
|
Posts: 16 01/06/03 19:52:40 |
Just think for example, of the disgraceful carry-on over in the so called 'holy land' - One would think that after wheelbarrow-illions of years of supposed evolution, Man would be displaying a bit better advertisement for his ability to think through and effectively work out beneficial solutions to the state of the world. I know that the Bible is 'BS' to a lot of you but just have a look at passage in 1Kings:Ch. 18 vs 17-46. Pagan priests given opportunity to demonstrate their 'answers and solutions' - check the outcome. Now to those of us, so dog confident in our ability, due to our 'evolution' to 'show how its done', I think its time for another 'Mt Carmel' and see what the outcome is this time around. After all, God's prepared to be fair. How many more illions of years of 'evolution' do we need to do a better job than we're doing in this sick n' sorry world at present, I wonder? In meantime, many more innocents are going to be butchered by our bombs. Honestly I think the peacefully grazing horses and cows are more 'evolved' than we smarties are. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Do you fear death? | #36 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/06/03 21:10:58 |
Why isn't it a prescription for anarchy and chaos?
It is a contradiction to affirm an objective responsibility to subjectively define morality. This is not meant to be sophism. I'm merely trying to understand. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: Do you fear death? | #37 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/06/03 21:54:37 |
Re, from Timothy: "It is a contradiction to affirm an objective responsibility to subjectively define morality. This is not meant to be sophism. I'm merely trying to understand." I agree. What I'm describing is not an objective responsibility to subjectively define morality. First, whether or not we mean to, we will subjectively define morality. It's not an "if" but a "how." Secondly, there is no objective responsibility, only a subjective one. Moreover, it is, to my mind, a greater burden and larger victory for it being subjective than objective. Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
First Steps... | #38 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/07/03 14:27:17 |
Muzadi
I want to thank you for your willingness to engage with me in dialogue. There remains much to be said, but I do not wish to be overly antagonistic. Without provision, I lend my full approbation to your articulation of what we as a society must do next: Ultimately, I think the first step is to stop looking for a divinely endorsed statement of proper morality, and to start taking responsibility for things ourselves. The next step is to continue to push back the boundaries of what we don't know, and to encourage the free flow of ideas and tolerance of thought. In the same venue, I would add the words of David Hume: Quote: From Essays on Suicide |
|||
|
|
||||
|
muzadi |
Re: First Steps... | #39 | ||
|
Posts: 21 01/07/03 14:37:44 |
Disagreement is inevitable, honestly. It's only when people make it personal and slip into ad hominem crap that it becomes a problem and an issue.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, or even any of them. I have ideas, thoughts, suspicions, and gut instincts, but none of them constitute a definitive "answer". I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, either, as the seeking is more important than the finding in matters of philosophy. The point where you think you've found "the answer" is the point where you shut your brain down. This is why, when forced to identify myself on religious grounds, I usually say I am a heretic (as in, of the Book of Heresies - my site listed below reprints some of it), since that almost aggressively insists on the individual not passing the intellectual buck. Geoff Tuffli dubogula@yahoo.com The Recordings of the Book of Heresies www.therecordings.net |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
To clarify... | #40 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/07/03 19:16:20 |
Jeremy
Quote: As I stated before, I'm not going to support or oppose the idea of objective reality here; however, I think that the salient issue lies in the distinction between what it means to know and what it means to perceive. A reality cannot be proved objective, unless it can be objectively known, and to assert (or dispute) that such is the case without corresponding proof is meaningless, so far as the argument goes. However, if reality is at best only perceived, then it cannot be objectively known (i.e. subjective). This was, give or take a fallacy in my personal articulation, Kant's position, and also the cause of many, Rand for example, to have labored so diligently to discredit him. Again, I am not going to make a case, for or against, either argument as the point was merely to show that there remains a general lack of consensus on the subject. So, I guess my purpose here is to clarify the intent of my original argument, but in all likelihood (or at least that is my hope), our dissention lies largely in semantic trivialities as Muzadi implied. I am more than content to leave it at that, unless of course Muzadi or yourself should seek to pursue the satisfaction of hearing an opponent's concession, and if that is the case, I will gladly oblige in that regard; although it is by no means a desire of my own, which, in addition to reasons the reasons stated above, is why I am choosing to ignore your second objection. Tim S. |
|||
|
|
||||
