I think what Noble Dust is getting at, is that there may be a conception of life, within which virtue is of a higher importance than whether one lives or dies. — Wayfarer
Surely the survival of a species as a whole is not hard to conceptualize. Seriously... — Noble Dust
I can't even parse through the confusing misapplication of terms here. And I've already made my point earlier about this distinction. If survival is the highest good, than an almost comically ironic solipsism is the only way forward. Because, as you say, you only equate survival to the individual. So if survival (the highest good) is only about me, then my "good" is, in truth, the only good that exists. So it's you versus me. Given the last slice of bread left on the planet, it's fair game for me to grotesquely murder you for the sake of my own survival, since survival is the highest good (but only my personal survival, since the survival of the species is not a real thing). And you never addressed my points about suicide. Feel free to vehemently disagree, or whatever. But at least address my points about suicide in relation to this debate instead of attempting to only hit me at whatever weaker points you might perceive to exist in my argument. — Noble Dust
So all abstractions are not real then, logically? Surely you agree. — Noble Dust
You misunderstand my analogy (and analogies are imperfect, as this one surely is). When I say that survival gets me from point A to B, I mean that survival moves me along the path of my life. It's only one of the things that does so. It's surely an important driving factor. But, the analogy could be said instead like this: survival is a mechanism of life. It doesn't describe why life exists. the mechanics of the car engine don't tell me why someone might find it beneficial to use a car. Surely this is easy to understand?? — Noble Dust
I think what Noble Dust is getting at, is that there may be a conception of life, within which virtue is of a higher importance than whether one lives or dies. And I can think of no better illustration of the idea than the Death of Socrates, from the Apology. The detachment shown by Socrates at the approach of his own death, indicates that he at least believes that the death of the body is of minor consequence compared to the overall state of his soul. — Wayfarer
Again, in the traditional understanding, there are many circumstances in which death is a lesser evil than dishonour. If, for example, one had to commit some monstrous evil in order to preserve one's own life, then, given that the fate of the soul depended on the actions, it would be preferable to die than to commit such an act. — Wayfarer
The point I made, is that death only becomes acceptable to an individual when that person apprehends that the individual soul continues it's existence after the death of the body. This is exemplified by the death of Socrates, and the precepts of Christianity. What is believed in, is the continued existence of the person, the individual's soul. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure about Socrates, but that seems a fair representation of the beliefs of mainstream Christians about death.The point I made, is that death only becomes acceptable to an individual when that person apprehends that the individual soul continues it's existence after the death of the body. This is exemplified by the death of Socrates, and the precepts of Christianity. What is believed in, is the continued existence of the person, the individual's soul. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a very deep question, but I really don't see it in terms of 'survival'. I think the popular notion of living forever in some after-death state is mistaken and that existing eternally as an individual would be hell. — Wayfarer
I think in the wisdom traditions, there is an understanding that one has to die to realise the higher states. And dying is not surviving, it is not maintaining one's self or sense of identity. That is symbolised in such sayings as 'he who looses his life for My sake will be saved'. When Jesus was on the Cross, he cried out 'Why have you forsaken me?' And I think at that point, he really didn't know, he was utterly alone and bereft. (As I write this, it's Good Friday.) — Wayfarer
So I think the idea that 'I will live forever' is a comforting illusion - just as atheists say it is. But I also don't think it is what 'eternal life' actually means. — Wayfarer
In the early Buddhist texts, there are references to 'the deathless state' which is a synonym for Nibanna (see for instance here). However, that verse also says that until it's apprehended, until one attains the direct insight into it, then it is something to take on faith. — Wayfarer
So I don't think about the concept of 'immortality as 'continuing existence'. That is what the ego would like to make of it, but it is not what it means. — Wayfarer
But you have not restricted your comments to Christianity, and thereby you imply that somebody who belongs to a religion that does not say the individual retains its individuality after death, cannot accept their death. Given the very large number of Hindus and Buddhists in the world, most of whom do not believe that, and many of whom manage to accept their death with equanimity - that claim seems in direct conflict with what can be observed. — andrewk
Note however that rebirth as an individual is seen as bad - that from which we seek liberation. In that context, expectation of continuation of individuality after death could hardly be seen as something that helps one to accept death. — andrewk
We all die, but after some length of time there will be the day of judgement, upon which we will be resurrected, in our own individuality. — Metaphysician Undercover
I do believe that all major religions which adhere to the principles of continued existence after death, maintain that this is somehow the existence of the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover
Any concept, to be a proper concept, must be intelligible, coherent, and consistent, making sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe you. You are the best placed of any us at this forum to speak authoritatively about what goes on in your mind.I find this to be a questionable idea — Metaphysician Undercover
That is the point I was making about the 'undetermined questions' of the Buddha. Please take a moment to reflect on this, it is a central issue here. When asked if the Buddha continues to exist after death, the Buddha refused to answer that question. There's a reason for that refusal. — Wayfarer
What is beyond the scope of empirical sensibility and rational understanding, is by necessity non-conceptual, beyond logic. That is no slight on conceptual knowledge, which is perfectly applicable across an enormous range of knowledge.
It's an interesting fact that the undetermined questions in Buddhism, mentioned above, are very similar to Kant's antinomies of reason. (Sorry for the highly compressed post but heading off for an Easter lunch.) — Wayfarer
To say 'death only becomes acceptable to an individual when that person apprehends that the individual soul continues its existence after the death of the body' is unreasonable, because it is speaking about that which one does not know - which is what goes on in other people's minds. — andrewk
Yes, it's a question I sometimes ask myself, especially when I am feeling down. For the present, there are both internal and external reasons to go on. The internal ones include that I want to see what my children do as they make their way in the world. Should they choose to have children, I expect I will enjoy getting to know them. I also want to learn as much more as I can in my areas of interest - like maths and languages.You seem to believe that others, perhaps yourself, have found a way of making death acceptable. How do you do this without producing the notion that you might as well just die right now? — Metaphysician Undercover
When asked if the Buddha continues to exist after death, the Buddha refused to answer that question. There's a reason for that refusal.
— Wayfarer
Yeah, I've reflected on this before. It really makes no sense to offer an answer to a question when one does not know the answer. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe that things which are beyond the scope of rational understanding, that which you say is necessarily non-conceptual, can be brought into the fold of "understood" through the use of reason, logic, and the act of understanding. So there is nothing, which by its very nature is beyond the scope of understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
Christianity introduced new fundamental principles and laid the foundations for a new society, from which the solar system could be apprehended as one united entity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Re your feeling that lack of individual survival after death would render the present nonsensical: have you always felt that way, or has it evolved through life? In my case my attitude to death has undergone several major shifts in the course of my life. I wonder if that's normal, or unusual. — andrewk
Which I think contradicts the first point.
If you say 'there's nothing that can't be understood', then in effect you're saying that we're capable of omniscience, of being all-knowing. But I don't think we are; I think knowledge is determined by conditions and factors, chief amongst them the human faculties of understanding, shaped, as they are, by adaptive necessity. So that becomes the fundamental question of epistemology - what is the nature of knowledge itself. (I don't think science asks itself this question.) — Wayfarer
But historically speaking, the Christian-Aristotelean view reached its apogee with the medieval synthesis, which was geocentric and based around Ptolemy. It was that which was dissolved by the Scientific Revolution, and maybe the Christian foundations of Western culture with it; which takes us back to the point made in original post. — Wayfarer
I didn't find a way of making death acceptable to myself. I simply found that it was. — andrewk
The reasoning behind takes the loss of death to mean life's not worth living, that if it's true one's going to die, then one might as well get on to it. In effect, the argument is: "If I don't get to live forever, being here wasn't worth my time," as if we were somehow haggling with someone about our lifetime. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I think it's postering most of the time. Does MU really think their life is a waste of time if he dies? I doubt it. More likely he just has to hear himself say that, to grant him the status of a person beyond death in his own mind, as it quells fear of his own end. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't think it makes sense to talk about willingly consenting to one's death. One can only consent to something from which one has the power to withhold to consent. I can neither consent to, nor withhold my consent from, the law of gravity. The same goes for my death.Don't you find that to be unreasonable though? To accept something is to willingly consent to something. I think it's unreasonable to willingly consent to something for no reason. Don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover
That 'we' applies to Christian philosophy, and to some extent to Western philosophy more generally, but not to humans in general. I find the Taoist perspective much more natural, in which life and death are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other. To deny one is to deny the other. Isn't it interesting that this is almost the opposite of the Christian view which may, as you seem to suggest, assert that to deny one is to uphold the other.we oppose life with death ... So to consent to one is to deny that the other is important. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it makes sense to talk about willingly consenting to one's death. One can only consent to something from which one has the power to withhold to consent. I can neither consent to, nor withhold my consent from, the law of gravity. The same goes for my death. — andrewk
That 'we' applies to Christian philosophy, and to some extent to Western philosophy more generally, but not to humans in general. I find the Taoist perspective much more natural, in which life and death are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other. To deny one is to deny the other. Isn't it interesting that this is almost the opposite of the Christian view which may, as you seem to suggest, assert that to deny one is to uphold the other. — andrewk
I think the common meaning of 'accepting' something, where that something is not a contract between agents, is to not be emotionally disturbed by it. Think of the stages of grief, of which the last one is Acceptance. That doesn't mean consent, as consent has no meaning in that context. It means to no longer be significantly emotionally disturbed by the loss. — andrewk
I'm afraid I cannot tell you how it happens. I can only observe that it does. In my case I was disturbed by the notion of death for the first forty years or so of my life, then one day I found that I wasn't. There are all sorts of factors that I can think of that may have been relevant: reading Buddhist and Hindu writings, reading Epicurus and the Stoics, taking up bike riding in a busy, non-bike-friendly city where I feel my life is in danger every day, my children getting old enough that I no longer felt my death would create major financial and logistical stress for them and my partner, ceasing to believe in Hell. But it's all guesswork. All I know is that something changed so that I no longer fear it, and that I do not believe in individual survival after death. Indeed, I feared death the most when I believed in post-death survival - because of that RC Hell thing y'know.How can one be satisfied with the thought of one's own impending death without referring to the individual's after death experience? — Metaphysician Undercover
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.