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

Yes. This is a concept that seems to have no traction in an analytic world. And there seems to be no adequate way for that concept to be sufficiently communicated to that world. An example being Metaphysician's future response to this post.

Surely the survival of a species as a whole is not hard to conceptualize. Seriously... — Noble Dust

No, I honestly cannot conceptualize this. A species is a concept, an ideal. It is an abstraction. For example, we have many existing beings which we class together as human beings. We form an abstraction and we say that there is a species called human beings, despite racial differences and other differences. The unity here is created by the abstraction, we class all the individuals together as one class, human, and this act of classing them together produces a unity which we know of as the species. Without this unity, there is no entity or "being" called the "species". So it doesn't make sense to speak about the survival of this non-existent entity. And if we speak about survival of the concept, that's a different matter completely.

The entity, the species, is just an abstraction, it has no real existence. The divisions between one species and another are based in conventions put forward by biologists, so any talk about a species surviving or going extinct, is just a reference to these conventions. There is no real entity which is the species, which either survives or does not. For instance we recognize a distinction between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. If Neanderthals are understood as a distinct species, then the species which those individuals belonged to, ceased to exist. If Neanderthals are understood as a subclass of the species Homo Sapiens, then the species which those individuals belonged to, did not cease to exist.

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

Placing survival of the individual as the highest good doesn't produce solipsism. You haven't demonstrated any reasonable argument for your assertion that "my good" is not the highest good. And the idea that my good is the highest good does not necessarily produce the perspective of "you versus me". Actually it's quite the contrary, when, with our intellects, we apprehend that cooperation is the means for getting what we need. Numerous individuals working together provide more for each individual than individuals working alone. That's what Jesus demonstrated with the bread and the fish. It seemed like there was not enough food for the thousands of people, so he collected up all the food that was there, and divided it up evenly amongst all the people, and suddenly there was enough for everyone.

I don't see your point with the suicide example, perhaps you could make it more clear.

So all abstractions are not real then, logically? Surely you agree. — Noble Dust

We can say that concepts, abstractions are "real", but we need to recognize an ontological distinction between the reality of a concept and the reality of a physical being. Because of this difference, the survival of a concept is a completely different matter from the survival of a physical being, and we cannot conflate the two, as they are completely different. A very true concept, such as the circle, is said to be eternal. To say that a species survives is to produce a nonsense conflation between the concept and the physical being.

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

"Survival" describes the primary function of life. There are numerous powers, potencies, or capacities of the soul (life) which Aristotle identified. The first one, the primary one, is the power of self-nourishment, which produces subsistence. The other powers, self-movement, sensation, intellection, are built on top of this. These other powers are dependent on that first one. Therefore that primary power, self-nourishment, which is related to subsistence and survival, is the most important power, because it supports the others.

We do not need to understand why life exists in order to understand the powers which living beings have, and understand the hierarchy of priorities of these powers. You seem to take a reverse stand point, assuming that with the intellect, which is the highest, most fragile and unstable power, we can apprehend why life exists. But our only recourse toward understanding this "why" is through understanding life itself, and this means understanding the hierarchy of powers. To say that one power, which is dependent on another power for its existence, is more important than that power which it is reliant upon, is simply wrong. Cessation of the lower power will necessarily result in cessation of the higher power, but cessation of the higher power does not necessarily result in cessation of the lower power. Therefore the lower power is more important.

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

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. When we produce an artificial, and conceptual unity of life, "The Soul", as is found in some mysticism, the importance of the individual is lost.

We can produce a morality of virtue, based in such a unity, the unity of living beings, The Soul, but the reality of this unity cannot be justified. The unity cannot be conceived of as real because of the real separation between individuals, with no apprehended principle of unity. So that unity, The Soul, when apprehended by the logical reasoning of the individual human being, remains as a pie in the sky illusion of mysticism. Then the individual perceives that entire moral system, based in such a fictional unity, as unsound, and not an adequate morality.

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 idea that the individual's soul continues to exist after death is paramount in supporting such actions. If we remove this idea, of the soul continuing to exist, then one's own death may still be perceived as an option because the nature of free will allows that each individual decides for oneself the best course of action.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

But it also should be recalled that the question of whether the Buddha continues to exist after death, or not, is one of the 'undetermined questions' i.e. categorised as metaphysical speculation, not conducive to enlightenment. The Buddha is not conceived of as 'living forever in Heaven', or anywhere, for that matter. 'Exists' doesn't apply; 'doesn't exist' doesn't apply 2. The mode of existence of the tathagatha is inconceivable.

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.

_//|\\_

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.

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.

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

OK, I agree "survival" is not the best term here, because of the very thing Noble Dust is arguing, the association of "survival" with evolution, and the ensuing connotations. But these concepts of what happens to the soul after death describe a type of survival, or something similar to survival. 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.

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

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it was argued strongly in early Christianity, I think by Paul, that it is the individual, the person, who will be resurrected, and we will maintain our individuality upon resurrection. 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.

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

What would "eternal life" mean to you then? "Life" is meaningless without the individual beings who are living, i.e. the living beings. How might we abstract "life" from particular, individual, living beings, to assume an "eternal life", when individuality is essential to living beings. It is also observed that all individuals die, so it seems like we have this impenetrable cycle. Individuality is essential to life, and death is essential to individuality. Our two possible procedures toward a concept of eternal life are 1) to remove the necessity of death from the individual, and 2) to remove the necessity that a living is the property of an individual. If we cannot remove individuality from life, we have no way of removing death from life, unless the individual may be immortal. This is the western way, to assume the immortality of the individual.

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 notice, that it is stated in that passage that we can gain a footing into the "Deathless" through discernment, so it is not necessarily taken on faith alone. The western approach, or "discernment", is through a recognition of the role of the individual, and in this approach it must be the individual who is deathless. Perhaps the Buddhist approach sees a way beyond the individual?

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

Any concept, to be a proper concept, must be intelligible, coherent, and consistent, making sense. In western philosophy, immortality only makes sense as a continued existence of the individual, so that's what the concept does mean for us. As I mentioned in an earlier post though, Christianity does introduce a discontinuity, a break after death, such that there is a period of time between death and resurrection, this was later developed as "Purgatory".

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

I disagree with this. Hinduism clearly describes a reincarnation of the individual soul. I'm not so sure about Buddhism, but I think they generally believe in some sort rebirth, and this again would be as an individual. What is at issue, is whether the individuality of the person is lost to some form of general existence as "Life", or "The Soul", in the continued existence of life after one's death. Are there any religions which have developed such principles, or is this confined to unprincipled mysticism?

You're right that they both feature notions of individual rebirth. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the ultimate goals - the attainment of Mokshah (Hindu) or Nibbana (Buddhist). That is where the notion of continuation of individuality dissolves.

In Buddhism and, I think also to some extent in Hinduism, one is condemned to be reborn as an individual until the cycle is broken by attaining the ultimate goal.

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.

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

I find this to be a questionable idea. It may be true, that such things as pain and suffering are attributed to the individual and this is why the ultimate goal of the dissolution of individuality might be posited. It might even be argued that it is the nature of having to be, to live, as an individual which is the cause of such discomforts. However, unless this suffering is so overwhelming, that it would incline one to desire death without obtaining that ultimate goal, rather than to live as an individual, your argument doesn't make sense. Only if one's life were absolutely unbearable would one choose the ultimate cessation of existence over a continuation of individuality after death.

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

Inability to accept that dogma is one of the reasons I declined confirmation.

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

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.

On the general idea of the dissolution of the individual, as opposed to eternal individual existence - that is a central theme in comparison of so-called eastern or Oriental spirituality and also neoplatonism, distinguished from Christian mysticism. Again it's a very difficult question of interpretation.

Any concept, to be a proper concept, must be intelligible, coherent, and consistent, making sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.)

I find this to be a questionable idea — 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.

What you are not in any place to do is to speak authoritatively about what happens in other people's minds.

It is entirely reasonable to say 'I find it hard to imagine how someone that does not believe in the survival of the individual can accept their oncoming death'.

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.

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

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. And that's the problem with Christian dogma in relation to this issue. Some individuals have spoken very authoritatively on this, when they really did not know what they were talking about. But notice in the passage you referred me to last time, it is stated that this issue may be apprehended through "discernment". Personally, I'd like to figure that out.

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

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. It's just the case that reason and logic have not yet been applied in the correct way to bring these things into the realm of understanding. This is the evolution of knowledge.

So things such as Kant's antinomies of reason are produced by a failure in conceptualization. I also believe that on the larger time scale, the evolution of knowledge takes place through very radical changes. These are changes to the most fundamental principles, what Wittgenstein called foundational or bedrock beliefs. The foundational principles of a society are the oldest principles, and therefore were developed by the most underdeveloped human beings of that society. The problem is that there is always a huge contingent of human beings who refuse to accept the reality that such fundamental principles ought to be subjected to skepticism. Of course that's to be expected because these people were taught, and firmly believe, these principles.

That's what Socrates expressed, skepticism concerning principles which were fundamental to his society. And his trial and death demonstrate the strength and power of conviction of those who refuse such skepticism But it was this skepticism which allowed religion to merge with the scientific principles of ancient Greece, in the form of Christianity. For example, the Greeks held that the sun moon and planets had individual orbits around the earth, each represented by a god. This fundamental representation of these bodies orbiting the earth hindered the progress of ancient Greek science. They met a dead end where much of reality was beyond the scope of conceptualization due to these faulty fundamental assumptions. So the most fundamental, basic, bedrock principles of that society (because they are the ones which are the oldest, therefore most primitive, which the culture was built upon) had to be dismantled and dismissed. 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. Those "new" foundational principles have now become ancient.

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

OK, I agree with you that I should not speak for others. I am a big defender of the idea that every human being think's in one's own individual way, despite the fact that we produce generalizations. I believe generalizations are produced through societal conventions. Societies produce norms in their "way of thinking", and children are trained in these norms through the institutions. This is how generalizations may exist

So let's just dwell on this issue of "death" for a few moments. The idea of death is unacceptable to me. I cannot conceptualize it. When I think of it, as an eternity of time without me, after I'm gone, it renders the fact that I am here now, as totally nonsensical. So either I have to dismiss the idea that my life has some sort of meaning, relevance, or I have to dismiss the idea that after I am dead, I am really gone. if it's the former, I may as well just die right now, and if the latter, I have to make sense of life after death.

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?

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

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.

The external reasons are that my continuance seems to be a net benefit to the world because I do some useful stuff. The most tangible of these are some volunteer work I do and the fact that my paid job pays well, which enables me to give plenty of money to people in need, I think that also, at least for the present, my partner and children would prefer having me around, despite my being frequently quite annoying.

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.

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

Yet you then say:

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

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.)

The Western (Christian Platonist) attitude, and the Buddhist attitude, towards the question are very different. Suffice to say the Buddhist view rejects speculative metaphysics. The Buddhist attitude is always to direct you to understand your own processes of thought and emotional reactivity, to pay very close attention to the whole process of knowledge and judgement. One 'goes beyond' that, in a sense, only by seeing through it - which is what underlies the practice of 'vipassana', insight meditation.

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

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.

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

I think you misunderstood what I said. What I said was that the concept of individual survival after death is what makes death acceptable. You said, essentially "speak for yourself", implying that perhaps you have found some other way of making death acceptable. I said death is unacceptable to me (I don't believe in individual survival after death), and I cannot conceive of a way to make death acceptable, without allowing that I might just as well die right now. So I asked you, have you a way of making death acceptable?

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

I don't believe there is any contradiction here. Assuming that there is nothing which cannot be understood does not necessarily imply that I am capable of understanding everything. Nor does it necessarily imply that "we", as human beings are capable of understanding everything. What it implies is that I believe everything exists according to intelligible order and is therefore capable of being understood.

What I believe is that human beings are not the most intelligent beings possible, and that there are things which cannot be understood by human beings, yet may still be understood by a higher intelligence. As we discussed earlier in the thread, I also believe in evolution. So I believe it is quite possible that life on earth will evolve to a higher form of intelligence. I think it is quite evident from history, that intelligence is in fact evolving. That life on earth would evolve to the point of being capable of understanding everything is highly doubtful, but this does not negate the possibility that all things exist according to intelligible order and are in principle capable of being understood.

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

My opinion is that the scientific revolution did not dissolve the Christian-Aristotelian foundations, it built upon these foundation. The foundational principles can still be found throughout the sciences, in such things as the divisions of life forms, the divisions of time periods, and how we conceive of matter and mass.

OK, I was answering the second part of your question, about how I avoid my acceptance of death making me want to end life now. The answer to the first part is easier - for me. I didn't find a way of making death acceptable to myself. I simply found that it was. Something inside me had changed. Like many aspects of my feelings that change over time, I am unable to pinpoint a specific reason for it.

I think that question is a bit misplaced.

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.

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.

I didn't find a way of making death acceptable to myself. I simply found that it was. — andrewk

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?

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

No, I am not arguing that "death" means "life's not worth living". This is because we assume that words have a meaning which is objective, or transcendent, beyond what the word means to an individual. What I am saying is that I cannot reasonably accept the impending death of myself, without committing myself to the idea that my life is meaningless.

I believe that this may be because we oppose life with death. So to consent to one is to deny that the other is important. To resolve this, it might be required to remove this opposition. Perhaps being dead is not opposed to be alive, maybe it is just different from being alive, then I might be able to accept death, as a change, rather than as a negation of my existence.

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

No, that's not the point at all. I don't think my life is a waste of time, and that's why I can't accept death. If I thought that my life is a waste of time, I'd have no problem accepting death. The issue is that I cannot bring myself to accept death without forcing upon myself the idea that my life is meaningless. Whenever I think about what will be the case when I die, i.e. the reality of my death, I am completely overwhelmed by the insignificance of my life, such that I cannot continue with those thoughts. Therefore I cannot accept my own death into my own thoughts, because it introduces great insignificance to those very thoughts, negating the will to think.

There's a brilliant essay on many of the questions considered in this thread, The Strange Persistance of Guilt. It's a very long piece with a lot to consider but, I think, repays the effort of reading. It is one of those essays I will return to many times.

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

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.

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.

we oppose life with death ... So to consent to one is to deny that the other is important. — 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.

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

There are many things which the laws of nature would incline us toward believing that they are impossible. But through intelligence we can mitigate these so-called "impossibilities". Despite the law of gravity, I can get in a plane and fly. We've also sent humans to the moon. In as much as there is "gravity", clearly we can get beyond that. What about death, can't we get beyond that too?

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

How are two sides of the same coin not opposites? If it is such that we cannot have one without the other, then they are pure opposites, absolutely, like hot and cold, big and small. This type of opposition, in which we cannot have one without the other, is the type of opposition which we need to avoid when talking about life. We need to conceive of life and death such that one is not dependent on the other. Then we could conceive of life without death. Why should an understanding of" life" be dependent on an understanding of "death"? This makes no sense, because all we need to understand life is a description of what it means to be alive. What it means to be dead is not relevant.

If we assert of something that it is dead, and this is true, then it would be false if this thing is alive, and vise versa. Likewise, of the coin, it must be heads or tails. But why do we describe the coin as having two distinct sides? The two distinct sides is in reference to the properties of the object. So with respect to life and death, then according to this law of two distinct sides, we would be assigning properties to some matter, either it's alive or it's dead. Why ought we think in this way? Why shouldn't we think of living matter as matter which is the property of a living being, and non-living matter is matter which is the property of some thing other than a living being, rather than thinking of living or not living as the property of the matter?

From this perspective, it would be incorrect to say that we cannot have one without the other, because we could have living matter without dead matter, or dead matter without living matter. Matter is a property of the thing rather then the thing being property of the matter. So there would be no reason to base the conception of one in the conception of the other, as we do with proper opposites. Living beings and dead beings are just different things. They are not opposed to one another, they are just different from each other. And of two different things, removing one does not necessitate that the other is removed, because they are different things, not opposite sides of the same thing.

So it all depends on how you conceptualize the two. In conception we cannot have hot without cold, just like we cannot have negative without positive, one defines the other. We cannot have one without the other. But when we apply this, the reverse is true. If it is hot, it cannot be cold, or if it is positive it cannot be negative. In application, one opposite excludes the other, but in conception one is not possible without the other. The distinction you refer to is just two different ways of looking at the same thing. In conception we cannot have life without its opposite, death, but in existing matter, to assign one as a property. negates the possibility of the other. This is just like hot and cold, right?

Your two views then, which you claim are different, are really the same. One says that we cannot have the concept of living without the concept of being dead, so that the ideas of being dead, and of being alive, are co-dependent, while the other says that if something is alive it cannot be dead, and vise versa. Neither of these resolves the problem because one says that you cannot conceive of life without conceiving of its opposite, death, and the other says a thing cannot be one without excluding the other.

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

OK, that's an adequate definition of "accepting". But how can you think seriously about what it means for you to die without being emotionally disturbed? Your definition implies that to accept death means wone can consider the consequences of one's own death without being emotionally disturbed. I cannot, and that's why as soon as I start thinking about what it would be like if I were dead, I have to change the subject of thought, because that type of thought overwhelms my capacity to think reasonably. So even if to "accept" something doesn't necessarily imply consent, it does imply satisfaction with the identified occurrence in the form of emotional stability. How can one be satisfied with the thought of one's own impending death without referring to the individual's after death experience?

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

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.

Your writing reminds me of a novella by Tolstoy that I have been meaning to read. What's its name again .... does a bit of Googling ..... ah, yes 'The death of Ivan Ilyich'. Apparently it's about a rich, powerful man who becomes fatally injured as a result of a silly domestic mishap, and who cannot come to terms with his impending death. I had to avert my eyes from the end of the wiki article about it, so as not to spoil the surprise about whether he does eventually come to terms with it.

It's considered a masterpiece. Let's read it. Here's a free e-book of an English translation.

Very interesting. I like Tolstoy, he had a very complex and thoughtful mind, making for some really good reading. And I've heard that "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" is worthwhile, so I'm going to try to make time for it.