Is death a harm?

[Greta]

In the past fortnight I've been to three funerals, all of people I've known for over thirty years. Funerals are not for the dead. Only death is for the dead. Funerals are for the living to find meaning in being alive.

Yep, a gesture to the living, letting others know that you valued and appreciated the deceased. It's akin to tribal hunters apologising to their dead quarry and explaining that they needed their meat to feed their families. It's likely that the animal doesn't care at that point but it's important to the hunter to make the gesture. In that sense at least, their behaviour was considerably more civilised than that of most people in "civilised" societies.

Walking in the bush with the dog is a good example of such a meaning and I always do plenty of that.

Casually patrolling your territory on a beautiful day with your favourite pack member - love it :). It's a more useful and healthful pastime than searching for oblivion. Still, a thirst for oblivion is natural because we all thirst for oblivion nightly.

[alpha]

I don't think those questions "resolve" anything. I think the question that is more telling is "WHO defines the idea of superior"? You are the one deciding whether needs are good or bad. For some people, needs may be an awesome experience compared to nothing.

ok, but i really think if someone truly comprehends what 'nothing' is, he/she wouldn't argue against it. keep in mind that i'm talking from a strictly logical/philosophical sense, not an emotional or psychological one.

... I was talking about "assigning values and labels as you see them" -- are you denying that you do such a thing?

i assign values and labels based on what i can argue, not as i feel.

That's just my colorful language to describe something beyond our typical thinking and concepts. What seems more of a FOREIGN concept to me is that we would think that what we are currently attuned to see is all there is.

you're confusing my deductive reasoning with what people generally see/experience.

my thoughts exactly; which is why some of us consider this world worthless.

And which is why some of us consider this world/life intriguing and worthwhile. We don't "toss it" based on surface appearance at any point in time.

are you suggesting that i'm "tossing it" based on surface appearance? i don't think that deductive reasoning can be called "surface appearance".

Activities, religions, credentials, all of it... surely pale in comparison to who/what a person actually is and does with their energy... yes?

this is based on the unsubstantiated idea of "freewill", so naturally, i disagree.

Really? You think all that surface stuff identifies the person?

that's not what i said. i said that no matter what "identifies a person", a person is still meaningless in the absence of genuine freewill. you may believe in true freewill, or consider being a puppet as something significant, but i don't.

Has humankind expanded it's understanding and awareness over time? Could you have fathomed everything you know now at age 2... or age 18? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN BE THINKING THAT THERE'S NOT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE STILL THAT YOU DON'T FATHOM? Please explain this to me. I honestly don't understand what kind of logic people are using to be convinced that they've arrived at their monumental point of seeing and "knowing", considering ALL there is over the span of time (and one's life) that would so easily and obviously suggest otherwise.

i never dismissed the possibility of there being "significantly more still that i don't fathom". i'm dismissing a couple of things, though, based on deductive reasoning. 1- freewill cannot possibly exist, because it defies the principle of sufficient reason and the law of causality. 2- that no needs, is better than needs. those who believe in god, frequently claim that one of the reasons god is superior, is because he doesn't need anything. my argument is that any nonexistent (and even inanimate things. basically anything that isn't alive) also has no needs, and therefor superior to anything that has life, which would automatically entail many needs.

Thanks.

thank you, also.

[alpha]

i guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

That reminds me of Buddhist thought. Buddhism originated in Asia, which has been crowded, competitive, dangerous and uncomfortable for a long time. In context, the notion of non-existence being preferable is logical.

However, the ancient Asiatics lacked modern means so they did what they could to be happy. Since they couldn't avoid significant problems in the physical world they worked on their mental world. If they could eliminate the ego/self they could at least create the feeling of non existence, free from life's trials.

The ego is deeply involved in two areas of life - safety and pain. Meditation was traditionally a risky pastime because one is obviously less alert to threats while meditating than if fearfully watching and waiting. Being absorbed, "in the zone" or Zen - the temporary disappearance of the self while absorbed in a task - is similarly risky. The sculptor absorbed in creation on a rural property will be less likely to notice a killer creeping up on her from behind than one who is fearfully sitting on her balcony, nervously making sure her loaded gun is nearby.

Who will live longer - the sculptor or the vigilant defender? Who is having the better time? Who is taking the greatest risk? I would say that the sculptor will probably live longer, is having a better time and taking less of a risk (the other risk being wasting your life with pointless hypervigilance).

People have long wondered why a deity would bother making an imperfect creation that had to struggle its way to perfection. Why not do a proper job from the start and save everyone a lot of time and trouble? Nearly every single organism on the planet that's every lived is dead. 93% of humans who have been born are dead. No doubt most suffered in ways we have never known before they died. For what did all these innocents suffer and die?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if none of it happened? It would seem easier. The problem for nihilists is that, irregardless of their druthers, all this does exist. Things don't come into existence for no reason. There is always an underlying pressure that leads to larger events. I expect that before the big bang was some kind of built up pressure in the existent reality beforehand. Likewise, irresistible chemical pressures seemingly preceded abiogenesis....

So, it would have not have been easier if nothing and no one existed. There would have been an unsustainable buildup of pressure of "something" and it had to be released. This is how reality arrives - either gradually or in sudden bursts when progress is stoppered for a while and then explosively released. This natural dynamic is echoed by capacitors in electronics, combustion engines, volcanoes, supernovas, many things.

So, since this life and existence appear to have always been necessary and inevitable....

"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing? basically your argument hinges on the necessity of there existing things that were infinitely old (uncaused), to which underlying pressure can apply.

... it makes sense to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative.

"to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative" might simply be a defense mechanism rather than something that truly makes sense.

Besides, we don't know what happens when we die so we don't ultimately know how helpful or harmful death is.

so we should just go with the flow, and not question things?

another matter is that if one's ambitions are no more than walking a dog, or seeing family, etc., then if these needs are met, they'd consider life worthwhile. those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

If your "depth" is making you miserable then it's not true depth, but illusory. I am old enough to have been there done that. I had plans when I was young and I fancied myself as smarter and deeper than most too. Then I gradually opened my eyes and started to notice the depths and intelligence present in others that I'd been too self absorbed to notice. That's where you appear to be up to, no offence meant. I wasn't a bad person when I thought that way either, but ego was an issue that I needed to resolve to better enjoy life.

you're making assumptions by comparing me to your younger self. my problem isn't with "plans", nor is my goal "to better enjoy life". one might suggest that being delusional can increase a person's quality of life and overall satisfaction, but that doesn't really solve anything.

Bushwalking with a canine friend is an extremely pleasant and grounding activity. Try it.

thanks, but i think i'll pass.

[alpha]

Is death a harm?

Is this even a question? Death is a fact of which no questions need be asked.

is that so? is that your argument?

You're quite right, Greta. Walking in the bush with the dog is a good example of such a meaning and I always do plenty of that. Today is my grandson's birthday, which is another good example. There are many such examples and the secret of living is to find them and embrace them.

i don't know how people think that claims can take the place of evidence or arguments.

[alpha]

1- my main argument about nonexistence being superior to existence is a philosophical one, which has nothing to do with my circumstances. i said that something that doesn't exist has absolutely no needs, whereas something that does exist has countless needs. even if the existing thing had all its needs met, it would still be inferior to something that had absolutely no needs at all. now compare that to something that has a million needs, with only a fraction of them met. ...

Er!? Philosophically something can't be inferior to something that doesn't exist? No needs or not.

you're making a claim based on the preconceived notion that existing things are automatically superior to non-existing things.

... those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence

Surely not? As they have lofty sights to aim for. Are you saying it's because they can't achieve them?

i guess that's what i'm saying, yes.

If so they should learn to set realistic achievable ones.

lower life forms (such as animals) have no problem setting lower goals. being a higher life form entails setting higher goals. the fact that many humans don't do that is irrelevant (it's not really irrelevant, but i'm just being polite).

[Obvious Leo]

you're making a claim based on the preconceived notion that existing things are automatically superior to non-existing things.

Dingbat

[alpha]

you're making a claim based on the preconceived notion that existing things are automatically superior to non-existing things.

Dingbat

meathead.

[Lacewing]

What seems more of a FOREIGN concept to me is that we would think that what we are currently attuned to see is all there is.

you're confusing my deductive reasoning with what people generally see/experience.

No, I'm talking about your reasoning based on what you think you know. Isn't your reasoning based on what you currently think you know? And haven't we agreed (at least) in the "possibility of there being significantly more still that we (and you) don't fathom"? And if you were to find out more, wouldn't your reasoning adjust to it? So isn't our current state of deductive reasoning temporarily based on what we think we know, and isn't it unreasonable to think otherwise?

And which is why some of us consider this world/life intriguing and worthwhile. We don't "toss it" based on surface appearance at any point in time.

are you suggesting that i'm "tossing it" based on surface appearance? i don't think that deductive reasoning can be called "surface appearance".

Yes, I am suggesting that. Isn't EVERYTHING we are presently aware of potentially considered "surface appearance"? What ELSE do you think your deductive reasoning can be based on? My intention is not to insult your deductive reasoning! Such applies to my deductive reasoning too. Yes, I know... I'm not to confuse what I do with what you do.

It appears to me that we simply are NOT EVER seeing all there is to see for OURSELVES (let alone for the whole world), and it is unreasonable to ever think that we are and to base any of our ideas on such a notion. Simply acknowledging and including this "little detail" in our reasoning, can surely change the rules, which can change the world for us. Whereas NOT including it allows us to stay fixated on, and in service to, whatever absolute view we have adopted based on our limitations at any point in time.

no matter what "identifies a person", a person is still meaningless in the absence of genuine freewill. you may believe in true freewill, or consider being a puppet as something significant, but i don't.

Okay, what I'm about to say might make your head explode. I don't think it matters... as far as we're concerned... whether we have freewill or not. Whatever space we are in... whatever this is... it just is what it is. If I am a lab rat in some alien's giant science experiment, so be it. If I am a puppet for some fiendish god, so be it. I don't care, because WHATEVER THIS IS, it is my experience... and I will keep exploring all the corridors looking for bits of cheese which I am somehow able to do... and I will keep dancing like a happy little puppet which I am somehow able to do... and when I die, that's fine too. But while I'm here, I might as well see what I do and what I enjoy with the experience (even if it's all predestined like a movie), because there is nothing to rebel against or toss out, except for whatever limitations I come across RIGHT HERE. If I keep kicking them out of the way only to discover a dead end... I don't care. I am experiencing the process to the best of my ability on all levels that I can be aware of. And I love myself for whatever I am, and I love all else for whatever it is.

[Arising_uk]

you're making a claim based on the preconceived notion that existing things are automatically superior to non-existing things.

Er! No, I'm basing it upon the notion that non-existent things cannot be in any form of relation?

i guess that's what i'm saying, yes.

If you mean the latter then they need to learn how to set and achieve goals.

lower life forms (such as animals) have no problem setting lower goals. being a higher life form entails setting higher goals. the fact that many humans don't do that is irrelevant (it's not really irrelevant, but i'm just being polite).

We are an animal? The other animals, in the main, don't set goals in the way this animal does and if they do they tend to set ones they can achieve and if they don't then they don't worry about it but just try again until they succeed or die. All human animals set goals, not sure what you mean by 'higher'?

[Obvious Leo]

not sure what you mean by 'higher'?

Me neither. I don't even know what meaning we are to attach to the distinction between "lower" and "higher" life-forms. Perhaps alpha could elaborate on this distinction and offer us the deductive reasoning on which it is based.

[A_Seagull]

i assign values and labels based on what i can argue, not as i feel.
.

You can't argue against statements like that..... but you can have a good laugh!

[alpha]

i assign values and labels based on what i can argue, not as i feel.

You can't argue against statements like that..... but you can have a good laugh!

i'm pretty certain that lower life forms don't have a sense of humor, so they can't "have a good laugh".

cheers.

[alpha]

before i answer, i must mention that if you're a relativist, i can tell you in advance, that i can accurately predict that we can never reach any resolution (i will always know this, even if my knowledge becomes infinite).

What seems more of a FOREIGN concept to me is that we would think that what we are currently attuned to see is all there is.

you're confusing my deductive reasoning with what people generally see/experience.

No, I'm talking about your reasoning based on what you think you know. Isn't your reasoning based on what you currently think you know? And haven't we agreed (at least) in the "possibility of there being significantly more still that we (and you) don't fathom"? And if you were to find out more, wouldn't your reasoning adjust to it? So isn't our current state of deductive reasoning temporarily based on what we think we know, and isn't it unreasonable to think otherwise?

are you saying that one day far into the future, it might be possible for people to realize that 1+1 may equal something other than 2? personally (being a realist or conceptualist), i know for certain, that such a thing can never happen. this applies to any logical principle, such as the principle of sufficient reason (i disagree with it being called "a controversial philosophical principle", on which i base my argument for determinism. i can also use the physical law of causality for those who don't believe in the metaphysical.

i accept that in many areas, our knowledge is very limited, or even nonexistent, but not when it comes to raw logic, or basic math. if we start questioning everything, including these, the outcome would be even more devastating than determinism or anything else.

And which is why some of us consider this world/life intriguing and worthwhile. We don't "toss it" based on surface appearance at any point in time.

are you suggesting that i'm "tossing it" based on surface appearance? i don't think that deductive reasoning can be called "surface appearance".

Yes, I am suggesting that. Isn't EVERYTHING we are presently aware of potentially considered "surface appearance"? What ELSE do you think your deductive reasoning can be based on? My intention is not to insult your deductive reasoning! Such applies to my deductive reasoning too. Yes, I know... I'm not to confuse what I do with what you do.

like i said, i believe that certain things, including logic have nothing to do with time, advancements, knowledge, etc.. they are, and will always be absolutes. if you wanna dispute neuroscience, or biology (among many other sciences, or pseudosciences), that's fine, but not logic.

It appears to me that we simply are NOT EVER seeing all there is to see for OURSELVES (let alone for the whole world), and it is unreasonable to ever think that we are and to base any of our ideas on such a notion. Simply acknowledging and including this "little detail" in our reasoning, can surely change the rules, which can change the world for us. Whereas NOT including it allows us to stay fixated on, and in service to, whatever absolute view we have adopted based on our limitations at any point in time.

again, depends on what we're basing our argument. see above.

no matter what "identifies a person", a person is still meaningless in the absence of genuine freewill. you may believe in true freewill, or consider being a puppet as something significant, but i don't.

Okay, what I'm about to say might make your head explode. I don't think it matters... as far as we're concerned... whether we have freewill or not. Whatever space we are in... whatever this is... it just is what it is. If I am a lab rat in some alien's giant science experiment, so be it. If I am a puppet for some fiendish god, so be it. I don't care, because WHATEVER THIS IS, it is my experience... and I will keep exploring all the corridors looking for bits of cheese which I am somehow able to do... and I will keep dancing like a happy little puppet which I am somehow able to do... and when I die, that's fine too. But while I'm here, I might as well see what I do and what I enjoy with the experience (even if it's all predestined like a movie), because there is nothing to rebel against or toss out, except for whatever limitations I come across RIGHT HERE. If I keep kicking them out of the way only to discover a dead end... I don't care. I am experiencing the process to the best of my ability on all levels that I can be aware of. And I love myself for whatever I am, and I love all else for whatever it is.

i respect your philosophy in life, but mine is drastically different, as is evident.

[alpha]

you're making a claim based on the preconceived notion that existing things are automatically superior to non-existing things

Er! No, I'm basing it upon the notion that non-existent things cannot be in any form of relation?

i disagree... but perhaps if you elaborate....

lower life forms (such as animals) have no problem setting lower goals. being a higher life form entails setting higher goals. the fact that many humans don't do that is irrelevant (it's not really irrelevant, but i'm just being polite).

We are an animal? The other animals, in the main, don't set goals in the way this animal does and if they do they tend to set ones they can achieve and if they don't then they don't worry about it but just try again until they succeed or die. All human animals set goals, not sure what you mean by 'higher'?

by "lower life forms" i mean creatures with less intelligence/awareness/consciousness/knowledge. "higher life forms" are the opposite of that. i'm suggesting that ambition is proportional to intelligence/awareness/....

[A_Seagull]

i assign values and labels based on what i can argue, not as i feel.

You can't argue against statements like that..... but you can have a good laugh!

i'm pretty certain that lower life forms don't have a sense of humor, so they can't "have a good laugh".

cheers.

Well that's pretty clever for a lower life form to work that out for itself!