Death

[Hayate]

There's a difference between "not being afraid" and "being at peace." The latter implies an overcoming of fear of death, which is what I'm addressing. The former is technically possible, I guess, but I would question how far you've thought through the problem of nonexistence if you aren't afraid of it. If you're are unafraid of death, you should be unafraid of everything.

I don't get your logic when you say that I should be unafraid of everything only because I don't fear death (which may or may not change in future when I'm old). Many sick people take death as relief from all the pain they have. Like I said I leave futher analysis of death for wiser people because I don't see the point and benefit of thinking about it. There is much more enjoyable things in life than meaningless philosophy. Think about it: if I think about nonexistence further, I may become scared of it. How does anyone benefit from that. You're right about how I can't really be at peace with death (I think that nobody who has ever thought about it really can),

Edited February 11, 2011 by Hayate

[Phoenix]

I am inclined to disagree.

Death is somewhat like what you and I have got going on here. For example, you comprehend the fact that I exist, and that it is inevitable that I, Phoenix Wright, or *Insert Name Here,* will die someday. However, that's about as far as it goes. You know no details of me, no specifics. It is much the same with death: you know it is inevitable, and you comprehend that you will cease to be, but you know nothing after that. How can you? Death is not something that is tangible, or something that can be experimented on. We cannot find out facts about death until we "experience" (please mind the quotations :)) it ourselves. We can know everything in the universe and still know nothing about death. Point being: you cannot comprehend death, you can only comprehend that it will one day happen to you.

I'm actually concerned for folks who do not fear death.

I don't really think death is something you can actually "experience" but that's because I believe in an experience'less death. And we don't have to go through everything to really understand it.

Here's how I've come to understand it. Just bare with me for a second here.

What is life?

A: ______(fill in your own definition)

What is death?

A: The opposite of life

So death is the absence of life, aka _______(yadah yadah yadah for me it was non existence). So that's not impossible to understand so much as vague IMO.

@ Bold

Why? Death has nothing on Middle Eastern torture methods.

Is death good/bad?: I feel that the inevitability of death is quite unfair. I cannot describe it as "bad" or "good," only unfair. Why must I, or anyone else, die? Why must that be a law of nature? Why is my body not a self-perpetuating machine?

Entropy will always win.

And I'm saying I can comprehend it, and I think most people can. It's difficult to explain, but I don't think it's impossible to understand. You say that we know nothing after ceasing to be, but isn't that all we need to know?

When there's no experience whatsoever it kind of narrows the whole "being dead thing" down to nothing. Makes me want to just draw the line right there. Nothing to see here, etc.

You're right about how I can't really be at peace with death (I think that nobody who has ever thought about it really can)

I'm sure there are people who can say they're at peace with death. The worse life is the easier it is to come to terms with something like death. Oh and don't forget the people dying for a cause.

[eclipse]

1) If "states of being" are defined by ending at some point, then all activities are states of being. Nonsensical. My previous analogy holds.

2) How can you not fear what you don't understand? How do you know that death is like sleep?

1. I'm currently at my computer, typing. In two hours, I will be asleep. They are different states of being. Your point?

2. Why do you fear what you can't comprehend?

[Hayate]

I'm sure there are people who can say they're at peace with death. The worse life is the easier it is to come to terms with something like death. Oh and don't forget the people dying for a cause.

I meant that death will always stay as mystery and that nobody can tell what is it go. Althought some people may have so strong believes (in god or in science) that they think that they know what will happen after death.

[PipForever]

Wow, I am surprised by the high amount of scientific, no soul responses as well.

When I was younger, I definitely firmly believed in Heaven and Hell. However, I now completely reject the idea of Hell, as it seems to make little sense to me, especially if it includes sending someone there just because they didn't pick the "right" religion in their lifetime. After my cat died over ten years ago, I started telling God to tell her that I miss her. And I still continue to do this every night. So I guess that means I believe in Heaven.

As a side note:

The strict science approach to life never really made sense to me. Why does anything exist in the first place? I guess religions and science both kind of lack an answer to this question. I actually find the concepts of "forever" and "existence" to be much more terrifying than the concept of dying.

Both sides of the idea of creation, one of which must be true, are equally baffling. Ok, big bang. Ok, God. But what about before that? And before that? Does it just keep going back forever? Why does anything exist at all? Has something always existed and will something always continue to exist, or was it created at some point? It must have started sometime, right? But then, what caused that? Its very circular reasoning that really has no way of being explained through science or religion. I once discussed this topic with someone and they said they believe that the only reason it seems that things must have a beginning and an end is because we are humans who can't fathom such matters. As in, God is beyond the comprehension of man. I still haven't quite decided whether or not I agree with this concept.

But yeah, anyway. Death seems kind of small to me when I think of things on a bigger scale. Sorry I went off on a tangent a bit, but I feel like it is closely related to the topic question.

And just in case anyone religious reads this and thinks its blasphemous, note that I do consider myself a Christian. The idea of atheism bothers me for some reason. Really? Life has no point and there is no chance that it could have any meaning? I can't buy into that.

[Hash Jar]

So what's scary for you isn't ceasing to be, but rather the pain involved with death? Hypothetical question: would you rather live a painful life, or die a painless death?

No what I meant was is that if everyone dies at say the age of 98, it wouldn't be as scary because it's expected. Surprise death is no fun.

[Celice]

Both sides of the idea of creation, one of which must be true, are equally baffling. Ok, big bang. Ok, God. But what about before that? And before that? Does it just keep going back forever? Why does anything exist at all? Has something always existed and will something always continue to exist, or was it created at some point? It must have started sometime, right? But then, what caused that? Its very circular reasoning that really has no way of being explained through science or religion. I once discussed this topic with someone and they said they believe that the only reason it seems that things must have a beginning and an end is because we are humans who can't fathom such matters. As in, God is beyond the comprehension of man. I still haven't quite decided whether or not I agree with this concept.

"Who holds up the world?

-Atlas

"Who holds up Atlas?"

-A turtle?

"Who holds up the turtle?"

-Dear friend, it's turtles all the way down!

There is ultimately no significance in an explanation until you decide there is. The the same is said for a creator--it does not matter if there is or is not, because it does not affect you until you decide it does.

[Zanarkin]

No what I meant was is that if everyone dies at say the age of 98, it wouldn't be as scary because it's expected. Surprise death is no fun.

Actually it would be, its horrible. You are expecting to die within the next 2 hours. Imagine yourself wondering whats going to happen, looking at the clock every second, time would go really slow for you. Knowing when you are going to die, atleast to me, makes it much more scarier.

[Phoenix]

Actually it would be, its horrible. You are expecting to die within the next 2 hours. Imagine yourself wondering whats going to happen, looking at the clock every second, time would go really slow for you. Knowing when you are going to die, atleast to me, makes it much more scarier.

That really depends on what kind of person you are and what you believe ... not to mention your quality of life to begin with. Not everyone is paranoid.

Eg: An Optimistic person who's lived some kind of dream life and loved every second of it might be not so ready to die, OR, on the other hand they might be perfectly ready, willing and able(of course able XD ) to go. Lead a fulfilling life, etc.

You can also have miserable people who are just waiting for the end to come, or the other extreme where they have to keep going in order to find some kind of joy/value/fill in the blank(bucket list and regret people).

[Celice]

Actually it would be, its horrible. You are expecting to die within the next 2 hours. Imagine yourself wondering whats going to happen, looking at the clock every second, time would go really slow for you. Knowing when you are going to die, atleast to me, makes it much more scarier.

This is the problem--there is no real objective approach to the concept of void and nothingness because it can only be approached subjectively. Each view and response to death is individual and unique--and to suggest a generalized reaction to death makes absolutely no sense, because of such individuality.

[Phoenix Wright]

@ Bold

Why? Death has nothing on Middle Eastern torture methods.

Is this a serious question?

Entropy will always win.

Those questions weren't for serious thought. It was more for enforcing my feeling it all being unfair. Not that that was to be taken seriously either, like Pascal's Wager.

[Aleph]

The idea of atheism bothers me for some reason. Really? Life has no point and there is no chance that it could have any meaning? I can't buy into that.

Here is the correct definition of atheism which you clearly have not grasped. I will Google it right now.

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Notice that the word "point" and "meaning" and all synonyms are entirely absent.

Also I hope Phoenix wasn't implying that Pascal's Wager has no bearing.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Obviam

[Phoenix Wright]

Also I hope Phoenix wasn't implying that Pascal's Wager has no bearing.

He did not mean for it to be a serious thought one uses to build their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[Celice]

Here is the correct definition of atheism which you clearly have not grasped. I will Google it right now.

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Notice that the word "point" and "meaning" and all synonyms are entirely absent.

"Existence precedes essence."

Likewise, I don't understand how anyone who critically thinks about their existence could proclaim there isn't something that may have created anything. Agnosticism is pretty much what most critical thought should take you to--the realization that it's more you cannot understand, in any sense, any thing, and from that, could not decide whether something such as creation could take place.

"Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life."

EDIT: I remember one individual had described an Atheist and an Agnostic in relation to the Christian Burning Bush--I always thought it was backwards though. He said the Agnostic would begin looking for a tape recorder, or some other explanation for why the voice came to be, while the Atheist would simply sit back and roast some marshmallows. Rather, this current-moment's generalized Atheist, rather, seems to continually seek reassurance that something more than reaction occurred, which spurred our current existence (and a few even bother to mention an existence regardless of human). While the Agnostic, properly placed, would enjoy the marshmallow, and simply continue their Being.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Celice

[Aleph]

Pascal's Wager is in any case modeled after simple concepts of risk management and entirely sound in construction regardless.

Celice, I'm not sure where that paragraph after your "existence precedes essence" quote was going, but I don't want anyone to mistake me for an atheist. I don't like people misusing the word or mistreating those described by it anymore than I like atheists who are more radical being condescending, so I thought I would clarify he schism between what it is to be an atheist and the belief that existence and life are meaningless. In fact I myself believe agnosticism is the only thing that makes any sense and have several points by Pascal himself that do a decent job of summarizing why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Context

That said I would probably examine the bush, marshmallow in hand or otherwise.

[Phoenix]

Is this a serious question?

It is. You don't have to answer it but I don't see what the big deal is about not fearing an absolute. Are people like that misguided or something?

Those questions weren't for serious thought. It was more for enforcing my feeling it all being unfair. Not that that was to be taken seriously either, like Pascal's Wager.

My reply wasn't all that serious either.

[Phoenix Wright]

Pascal's Wager is in any case modeled after simple concepts of risk management and entirely sound in construction regardless.

I am aware of the simple thought process that went into the wager. And I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or trying to clear something up.

It is. You don't have to answer it but I don't see what the big deal is about not fearing an absolute. Are people like that misguided or something?

Say the very second you awake from sleep, someone punches you in the face. This event is absolute, and the only change is that it's harder with every passing day (similar to how death becomes closer with each day, to keep one afraid). Because of this, you eventually fear that fist, some instantly, some over time, but the point is you fear the fist. You no longer want to be hit in the face, however the event is absolute and unavoidable, therefore you can only accept it. You will remain afraid, though. You will try to avoid that fist; sleep in different areas, try not to sleep, call the FBI. Nothing works. Ever.

Whether the analogy works or not: if you haven't noticed, I'm fucking with you.

Like torture (your example), it is completely logical to fear death.

My reply wasn't all that serious either.

ok Edited February 12, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Celice]

It's not quite a logical and unavoidable reaction, because, I don't fear death.

You're ignoring the individual aspect and reaction to death (or any other stimuli), instead seemingly suggesting everyone follows a generic reaction to every possible scenario.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Celice

[Phoenix Wright]

It's not quite a logical and unavoidable reaction, because, I don't fear death.

You're ignoring the individual aspect and reaction to death (or any other stimuli), instead seemingly suggesting everyone follows a generic reaction to every possible scenario.

True. Sorry about that. Let me change my view:

It is logical to fear death. It is possible that people fear death for personal reasons, and it is also possible that people do not fear death for various reasons. It depends.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, why do you not fear death?

[Celice]

It's more a chore to stay living than to die, and unnecessarily as well--almost entirely due to the horrible things humanity has wrought. And certainly not worth it to stick around, considering the mortality of essentially everything that can be understood. There's a lot of reasons why I don't really mind dying, and also why I'm essentially suicidal at all points--once, when talking with roommates, we realized how best to describe existence in our own manners. Mine was, "I am not enjoying this." The only reason why I haven't simply stopped is because killing yourself is becoming an issue nowadays, especially in most western societies--unless you make sure you're somewhere you can't be found, and set-up your suicide so exactly, you're more likely to survive the attempt, and be in far worse physical shape.

Robert Burton has it laid out pretty nicely in his 'The Anatomy of Melancholy.'

[Phoenix]

Say the very second you awake from sleep, someone punches you in the face. This event is absolute, and the only change is that it's harder with every passing day (similar to how death becomes closer with each day, to keep one afraid). Because of this, you eventually fear that fist, some instantly, some over time, but the point is you fear the fist. You no longer want to be hit in the face, however the event is absolute and unavoidable, therefore you can only accept it. You will remain afraid, though. You will try to avoid that fist; sleep in different areas, try not to sleep, call the FBI. Nothing works. Ever.

Whether the analogy works or not: if you haven't noticed, I'm fucking with you.

That analogy isn't even remotely good, so it's probably a good thing that you're only "fucking with me" :/

Like torture (your example), it is completely logical to fear death.

Depends on who you are. For some people, fearing death is illogical. It works both ways.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, why do you not fear death?

I feel like answering too Frankly, I've experienced worse than death in this life by my standards. Going by my definition of death(non-existence) I really can't find anything to fear about dying other than the previously mentioned "regret" thing, and that's only peripherally related.

[Freohr Datia]

Oh death...

All of my reasons for fearing death are personal/selfish reasons.

I don't like the thought of disappearing and being non-existant forever and ever.

I constantly think of how short of a life my puppy will have compared to mine (therefore I wish to spoil him utterly) and it makes me so sad because I think of how little time he has to experience the world and also especially since I'll miss him so much.

My dad is christian. He believes that he'll go to heaven and watch over us as we grow up and still support us as we go through life. I hate how I feel that he won't get what he wants. It's good that he'll die feeling happy that he can still protect us, but it's so depressing when I think it'll all be for nothing. I also hope I can never tell him how I've changed to no religion because then he'll die being upset that I won't think he can watch over me.

Those little bitty babies and kids who have extremely short lives... well their lives would've been so insignificant and it's like they meant absolutely nothing. Popping the balloon the same time it was being filled up and it couldn't accomplish anything. Couldn't float, couldn't make some other kid happy... (Was that a horrible analogy?)

The rest who I really care for... My family, any friend I have, and any others who I have strong feelings for... I would never wish death upon them.

These are my reasons for fearing death. Honestly I think those are good enough. =/

[PipForever]

"Existence precedes essence."

Likewise, I don't understand how anyone who critically thinks about their existence could proclaim there isn't something that may have created anything. Agnosticism is pretty much what most critical thought should take you to--the realization that it's more you cannot understand, in any sense, any thing, and from that, could not decide whether something such as creation could take place.

"Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life."

EDIT: I remember one individual had described an Atheist and an Agnostic in relation to the Christian Burning Bush--I always thought it was backwards though. He said the Agnostic would begin looking for a tape recorder, or some other explanation for why the voice came to be, while the Atheist would simply sit back and roast some marshmallows. Rather, this current-moment's generalized Atheist, rather, seems to continually seek reassurance that something more than reaction occurred, which spurred our current existence (and a few even bother to mention an existence regardless of human). While the Agnostic, properly placed, would enjoy the marshmallow, and simply continue their Being.

I actually considered adding how I have no problem with agnosticism. I just don't understand why anyone can claim that there is no God with certainty.

I guess I kind of view atheism as giving up in a sense. They seem like they want to say, "God does not exist! Let's move on." Whereas agnostics keep an open mind.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I actually considered adding how I have no problem with agnosticism. I just don't understand why anyone can claim that there is no God with certainty.

I guess I kind of view atheism as giving up in a sense. They seem like they want to say, "God does not exist! Let's move on." Whereas agnostics keep an open mind.

As an athiest I have a completely open mind. However, I use skepticism as a sieve. I don't believe in unicorns, ghosts, souls, goblins, boogeymen or Santa Clause, why would I believe in God? It's not giving up, it's just being realistic. I don't really want this to turn into a religion thread, but I'm just clarifying what athiesm is. We claim there is no God in the same way you would claim that the boogeyman doesn't exist. Basically, I don't believe things without evidence, and it has always served me well.

[Celice]

The reason why it makes no sense to posit a lack of a 'thing,' or in this case, a deific icon, is because your senses are skewed in such a manner that all interpreted knowledge is biased from is original source. Not only do you skew information once you observe it (and even moreso in retaining it), but the method in which you observe information alters the information. And further the organs themselves which allow you to interpret information limits and obstructs yourself from actually understanding and observing your environment.

To say absolutely there is a lack of anything is, at best, a false act--and the opposite of attempting to understand not reality, but actuality. To be a realist is, in its etymology, to accept the viewer's observation of existence.

a slightly different way of wording it, through the help of the beautiful Richard Feynman

Edited February 15, 2011 by Celice