Is death a harm?

[Jaded Sage]

Ya know how they say "rest in peace"? That's the peace. Please shut up.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

I don't know if I'd go that far. But since Buddhists speak of suffering so much, there surely isn't any of that after death!

[Jaded Sage]

Next life, bro. It's a problem. lol

But yeah, when I say perfect, I mean like super-perfect. Plus then it's definitely indestructible.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

Rubbish.
There is no lucidity in death. There is nothing in death.

HC, you do realize that you can't 'know' that, right?

It would seem you should talk to your radiologist about his aim.

You know I'm just ribbing you, right? Is it too soon? If so, I'll back off on the radiation jokes. Let me know buddy, because you're my favorite antagonist!


Happy Holidays!

[Jaded Sage]

Dude, don't encourage that shit lol

[Hobbes' Choice]

I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

Rubbish.
There is no lucidity in death. There is nothing in death.

HC, you do realize that you can't 'know' that, right?


Happy Holidays!

There is nothing to suggest that lucidity is a thing that can be associated with death. There is no evidence that lucidity accompanies death. The concept of lucidity is one that is completely antithetical to our understanding of death.

Death and lucidity are logically disparate.

Fuck off and get a life.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

Rubbish.
There is no lucidity in death. There is nothing in death.

HC, you do realize that you can't 'know' that, right?


Happy Holidays!

There is nothing to suggest that lucidity is a thing that can be associated with death. There is no evidence that lucidity accompanies death. The concept of lucidity is one that is completely antithetical to our understanding of death.

Death and lucidity are logically disparate.

Fuck off and get a life.

My point was simple, you cannot 'know' what accompanies death with respect to your consciousness, you can only 'speculate,' because you'd have to die and come back to say you 'knew.' It's just a fact!

I'll take the fact that you edited my words as a sign that it's too soon for you to laugh in the face of your potential death experience. I'd do it right away though. There's a book titled "The Biology of Belief," that definitely applies here. You should check it out!

You know I think it's quite funny that you seem to be far more pissed at me than I am at you.

[Hobbes' Choice]

My point was simple, you cannot 'know' what accompanies death with respect to your consciousness,....

Simple things please simple minds. If I chose to define death and an ultimate end then definitively death does not include lucidity.

If you were capable of contributing rather than just sniping from the sidelines, I might be more inclined to pay you heed.
Until then you can continue to fuck off.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My point was simple, you cannot 'know' what accompanies death with respect to your consciousness,....

Simple things please simple minds.
You should know! As it takes one to project it upon one!

If I chose to define death and an ultimate end then definitively death does not include lucidity.
Your choice of definition has nothing to do with the reality of it. I might define HC as a brain dead moron, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have at least an IQ of 1 and maybe 10 working synapses. Obviously my choice of definition would not have a truth value that agreed with the facts. It would merely be a 'slight' exaggeration!


If you were capable of contributing rather than just sniping from the sidelines,
That you ignore my contribution because it's usually in your face, has absolutely no bearing on my contribution.

I might be more inclined to pay you heed.
You say that as if I care what you pay, I don't!

Until then you can continue to fuck off.
But I prefer to fuck on! Please HC, can I please fuck on?

[Hobbes' Choice]

My point was simple, you cannot 'know' what accompanies death with respect to your consciousness,....

Simple things please simple minds.
You should know! As it takes one to project it upon one!

If I chose to define death and an ultimate end then definitively death does not include lucidity.
Your choice of definition has nothing to do with the reality of it. I might define HC as a brain dead moron, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have at least an IQ of 1 and maybe 10 working synapses. Obviously my choice of definition would not have a truth value that agreed with the facts. It would merely be a 'slight' exaggeration!


If you were capable of contributing rather than just sniping from the sidelines,
That you ignore my contribution because it's usually in your face, has absolutely no bearing on my contribution.

I might be more inclined to pay you heed.
You say that as if I care what you pay, I don't!



Until then you can continue to fuck off.
But I prefer to fuck on! Please HC, can I please fuck on?

death
dɛθ/Submit
noun
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
"he had been depressed since the death of his father"
synonyms: demise, dying, end, passing, passing away, passing on, loss of life, expiry, expiration, departure from life, final exit, eternal rest; More
the state of being dead.
"even in death, she was beautiful"
the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.

QED the end of lucidity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My point was simple, you cannot 'know' what accompanies death with respect to your consciousness,....

Simple things please simple minds.
You should know! As it takes one to project it upon one!

If I chose to define death and an ultimate end then definitively death does not include lucidity.
Your choice of definition has nothing to do with the reality of it. I might define HC as a brain dead moron, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have at least an IQ of 1 and maybe 10 working synapses. Obviously my choice of definition would not have a truth value that agreed with the facts. It would merely be a 'slight' exaggeration!


If you were capable of contributing rather than just sniping from the sidelines,
That you ignore my contribution because it's usually in your face, has absolutely no bearing on my contribution.

I might be more inclined to pay you heed.
You say that as if I care what you pay, I don't!



Until then you can continue to fuck off.
But I prefer to fuck on! Please HC, can I please fuck on?

death
dɛθ/Submit
noun
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
"he had been depressed since the death of his father"
synonyms: demise, dying, end, passing, passing away, passing on, loss of life, expiry, expiration, departure from life, final exit, eternal rest; More
the state of being dead.
"even in death, she was beautiful"
the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.

QED the end of lucidity.

Look you know I'm no religious freak. But in fact we don't know if anything is left after death or not. Sure it seems to just be wishful thinking, tied to some antiquated religious dogma. But all I'm saying is that to 'know' something, by definition, i.e., "Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning," you have to experience it. So while I believe as you do, that you're probably correct, it is a falsehood for either of us to say that we "know" it as a "fact." Because we can't! In truth we can only speculate! Even though that speculation 'seems' to be 100% accurate.

[Hobbes' Choice]

A Bunch of stupid insulting crap

PLONK!!!.

[SpheresOfBalance]

A Bunch of stupid insulting crap

PLONK!!!.

So you've given up again! You do realize that remission won't last very long if you don't dig deeper to become a major warrior. You've got to fear nothing, especially some words in a forum, they're just words after all!

[Hobbes' Choice]

A Bunch of stupid insulting crap

PLONK!!!.

So you've given up again! You do realize that remission won't last very long if you don't dig deeper to become a major warrior. You've got to fear nothing, especially some words in a forum, they're just words after all!

You are unworthy.
Plonk is the sound of me no longer bothering to read the shit you write.

[tbieter]

David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

I came upon the text below in my reading. It contradicts Professor Benatar's thesis. Do you think it applies to Benatar? Do you think he enjoys Mozart at the symphony? If so, do you think that the total amount of his pleasures exceed the total amount of his sufferings each day? If so, how does this result affect his thesis?

"Nothing is more widespread among men than the certitude of the all-importance of existence: as the saying goes, a living dog is better than a dead king. But we also know that, what they know as men, philosophers are liable to forget as philosophers, ..." p. 45
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Some-Philos ... ilosophers

Here is the text from Scripture, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV
This morning I was watching the news program on ABC. A segment featured a homeless vet who lived in a tent in a small patch of woods in Washington, D.C. He said that his most valued possessions were his books, especially his mother's Bible, which he got when she died. He opened the Bible and pointed to "his favorite passage," which was Ecclesiastes 9:4-6! He said that the words came true. He was then shown in an apartment which he was getting from a charitable group that helps homeless vets.

Which is preferable: the vet's theology, or Professor Benatar's philosophy, for the ordinary man?

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 King James Version (KJV)

4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain