Dostoevsky was a believer in God, a firm believer in fact. He was very critical of the Ivan type of atheists.Dostoevsky's characters reflect a man with many contradictory perspectives. — darthbarracuda
How is this a repression?Sure, if the majority was unable to repress, the human race wouldn't exist. — darthbarracuda
No, this would be an argument from desire.Are you trying to pull an ontological argument here? — darthbarracuda
How is this a repression? — Agustino
No, this would be an argument from desire. — Agustino
Someone gave me this awhile ago, and I've become a lot more sympathetic to it over time than I was at first.Can you spell this out? — darthbarracuda
But on the contrary, why would death be a bad thing on atheism? As Epicurus illustrated, if atheism is true, death is nothing to us. So why would there be any kind of existential crisis surrounding death whatsoever? I think that quite the contrary, death anxiety is a manifestation of theism - namely you are afraid of what comes after death, as Hamlet put it in his soliloquy.I am speculating is that theism is a form of psychological repression that has origins not only in the economic structure of society but also existential crises surrounding death and annihilation. — darthbarracuda
As Epicurus illustrated, if atheism is true, death is nothing to us. So why would there be any kind of existential crisis surrounding death whatsoever? I think that quite the contrary, death anxiety is a manifestation of theism - namely you are afraid of what comes after death, as Hamlet put it in his soliloquy. — Agustino
LOL - then why did Hume think that death is nothing to be feared, and died in a very peaceful & calm manner, such that even his enemies were impressed? Clearly, Hume did not think the Epicurean position was anything abstract at all - at least not in practice.But we need not be Epicureans if we are atheists, and in fact this Epicureanism is the same sort of thing that Hume is complaining about - it doesn't actually help in reality. — darthbarracuda
It does - because people are irrational.Epicurus' principle does not explain why people so desperately cling to life, nor does it help alleviate their suffering. It is just another mantra. — darthbarracuda
An Epicurean would ask - what is there to annihilate? As would Hume.Death may not harm us in any empirical sort of way, but it surely does still hurt us in the form of annihilation. — darthbarracuda
That happens even within life.Losing one's identity, having one's projects foiled by the inevitable échec, our downfall, that is bad. — darthbarracuda
That's not the only issue. Suicide is prohibited almost universally across the different religions. It is up to God to decide when to call someone back. As for why a theist would be sad upon death, it is merely because they will be temporarily separated from the people that they love who remain behind in the world.I could retort that the continuation of existence is atheistic in that the person does not have enough trust or faith in God to expect deliverance after death. God, predictably, has commanded everyone to live and breed, so maybe that criticism doesn't work. But you get the idea. — darthbarracuda
What about the Book of Job?The failure of theodicy forms a key aspect of God's mysterious ways. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.