Do you fear death?

[Chris OConnor]

JeremyQuote:I have noticed that I, personally, fear death. I also understand that it is quite irrational. No matter how bad things get, humans rarely commit suicide. I attribute both facts to the same source: evolved survival attributes. Not killing ones self and fearing death both have survival value.Excellent point. Odds of survival would surely not be enhanced if we had no fear of death. Sometimes when I say things like that I feel the need to back up and clarify. Not that you need the clarification, but my articulation of an idea needs to be cleaned up. It sounds like I'm saying "Mother Nature/God instills in us a desire to avoid death so as to increase our odds of survival." When in reality, natural selection is completely inanimate and indifferent. Those organisms that possess a strong desire to live would obviously have a higher probability of survival, thus an increased chance of passing along this trait of fearing death.Quote:Neither is especially rational. If your kids don't need you, why not just off yourself whenever life becomes inconvenient? After all, what difference does it make? But we don't, because our instincts tell us to cling to life.Bloom points out in "The Lucifer Principle" that people do indeed lose the will to live when they feel unwanted or detached from the superorganism of which they belong. Just because your kids don't have a physiological or financial dependency on you anymore doesn't mean you aren't needed on a higher or more sophisticated level. Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" comes to mind.Ok, so your kids don't need you anymore. Lets pretend you have a falling-out with your children and never speak to them again. So is your life worthless? Hardly. We are all cogs in the great wheel of life. Your kids don't need you, but I'm sure you feel a sense of value in some other relationship within the superorganism.It is when we place such a strong value on one particular relationship that we run into inherent dangers should that relationship be severed. When an elderly man or women dies it is very common for their spouse to soon follow. Their life has lost its value. They had limited relationships outside of their spousal pair-bond. I guess this is a double-edged sword. An intimate relationship with a spouse relies on an extreme interdependence, but then when that interdependence is broken by a death the remaining individual is screwed. I liken it to putting all your eggs in one basket.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 12/29/02 4:07:24 pm

[muzadi]

One of the problems I have with many religions is their focus on worlds beyond this one. Whether they exist or not (and I am inclined to think not) this is the world we live in now, and this is the existence that defines us now.Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net

[GregFla]

I don't fear death. I admit to not fully understanding it. Infinity is a fantastic theory and I wish to be a part of it.Am I? I sincerely doubt it. I am fascinated, however, with the idea that here I am, a pimple on the immense ass of time, and I am alive in this millisecond , here on this place.Life is a pretty cool event. Blink enough and it is over. I wish to be around longer, but alas, I just blinked again. Edited by: GregFla at: 1/4/03 4:08:39 pm

[auswiq]

One of the problems I have with many religions is their focus on worlds beyond this one. Whether they exist or not (and I am inclined to think not) this is the world we live in now, and this is the existence that defines us now.Yes, if approached from a purely existentialist point of view.But I still contend that whether or not we accept or try to deny the fact; we are inherently conscious of an eternity -(do animals have and exhibit this awareness? -they certainly do not appear to - they dont have elaborate funeral ceremonies for their dead for example). Ok, it might be argued that we extrapolate eternity from our full ' I' awareness in context of past, present and future, but to me, it leaves questions unanswered as to why we then strive forpurpose, betterment, for 'something beyond our current selves' if indeed there is nothing but a 'hole in the ground at the end' - in other words, why are we striving for ideal of a better world' if death is the final curtain on existence - our death as well as the supposed 'heat death of the cosmos?

[muzadi]

I don't buy that consciousness is the sole determinant of being part of eternity and infinity - however one chooses to define those terms. What is simply is - existence is there whether we are thinking about the philosophical ramifications of existence or not.I would say we strive for the ideal of a better world because in the end, if that wasn't hardwired into our DNA, we'd still be little amoeba bumping around a nutrient bath ocean or two. I don't say this to be depressing, because I don't think it is depressing. On the contrary, I find it absolutely awe-inspiring that something like life can grow, change, and wind up creating things on its own. Consciousness, too, is an incredible, if bizarre, thing.I said in an earlier post that I emotionally fear death, but I also recognize intellectually that it is a function of my hardwiring, and doesn't make any rational sense beyond the organism that is me having built into it the desire to continue its existence.Time is just another arbitrary line we've drawn to make it easier to approach the universe. The important things are that we exist, and the individual choices we make, as individuals and as societies.Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net

[Timothy Schoonover]

Auswig:Of which particular theology, if it should happen to have a name, are you so convinced?Muzadi:Quote:I said in an earlier post that I emotionally fear death, but I also recognize intellectually that it is a function of my hardwiring, and doesn't make any rational sense beyond the organism that is me having built into it the desire to continue its existence.Saying that it is irrational to intellectually fear death is to say that it makes no difference whether you or anyone else lives or dies, intellectually. Society could cease to exist, and intellectually, it makes no difference. The point is, I don't think you can differentiate the emotional and intellectual in such a way, nor is it healthy to do so. On the intellectual hand, ascribing value to life is irrational--a mere function of biology, and on the emotional han, the exact opposite. Whether anthropocentrism or not, I think there needs to be a unification between the emotional and the intellectual that does not require one to live their life in continual contradiction.Religion is one attempt to bridge this divide, but as most of us would agree, it has failed. Various philosophies also have tried, many have failed. I am so tired of the rhetorical and the sloganistic answers to such a *complex* issue, and if there is not let's not pretend that there is. Otherwise, you're better off in an open-minded, tolerant church.

[muzadi]

Actually, I would disagree.Saying that it "is irrational to intellectually fear death" is not, as you say, to say that it makes no difference whether you or anyone else lives or dies. It does make a difference, since by that the universe is different, and, more personally, from the point of view of the people who you interact with, it will also be different.I also don't think it's an issue of there being a contradiction between the intellectual and the emotional, since if both are simply ways of perceiving. Neither changes the actuality, just how an individual interprets something, in this case, death. Emotion is perfectly logical within its own framework, and this doesn't contradict or fight the intellect - it's just a different vantage point.Philosophy and religion are ongoing ways of addressing the issue of death, among other issues. They are memetic constructs that interact on an individual level with each person; as such, they function at a personal level, not a societal level, when we are talking about perception. Individual philosophies and religions fail for individual people only.I would agree, certainly, that few philosophies and religions have proven successful from *both* a rational and an emotional perspective, and I do think that to be ultimately effective and useful, a philosophy/religion must work on both of these levels. Some have gotten close - Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Sufi, Pantheism (particularly, I think, Heretical Pantheism).Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net

[Timothy Schoonover]

MuzadiQuote:Saying that it "is irrational to intellectually fear death" is not, as you say, to say that it makes no difference whether you or anyone else lives or dies. It does make a difference, since by that the universe is different, and, more personally, from the point of view of the people who you interact with, it will also be different.Certainly you do not think that my use of the word "difference" implies merely alternative outcome? Of course there exists difference when an individual lives or dies, in the purely technical sense of the term. A world where I exist is most obviously different than a world were I do not exist. The point was, there is really no meaningful (and please don't misuse that word) difference, intellectually, between one state of the universe and another. For example, in one universe I die in a plane crash, in another I survive unharmed, and in another I survive as a paralytic. Intellectualy we have no basis by which to discriminate between these universes other than to describe their inequality, if as you imply, it is intellectually irrational to fear death. Not until we approach the issue on the emotional level do we have any basis by which to evaluate the alternative states, which is why I think you say, "and, more personally, from the point of view of the people who you interact with, it also will be different." It's as if you're justifying your objection to my argument by slipping an emotional appeal in the back door. (i.e. bait and switch).Quote:I also don't think it's an issue of there being a contradiction between the intellectual and the emotional, since if both are simply ways of perceiving. Neither changes the actuality, just how an individual interprets something, in this case, death. Emotion is perfectly logical within its own framework, and this doesn't contradict or fight the intellect - it's just a different vantage point.Well, to say that the intellect and the emotion are various ways of perceiving reality is a pretty big assumption. First of all, that statement flies in the face of the notion of objective reality, which I am not going to affirm or deny here. However, I think that there are many, far more knowledgeable than I, who would would take issue with your assertion that reason (i.e. the intellect) does not represent actuality. There are other difficulties with this as well. It's easy to justify your emotion as a valid means of percieving reality when it comes to death, but what about speaking in tongues, or the salvation experience, or prophesying, or hearing from God? Are those emotional experiences also "perfectly logical within their own framework" in such a way that "doesn't contradict or fight the intellect." I find it ironic that as a scientist, you are willing to so easily throw away the scientific method's claim to reality.The problem is, we are both emotional and rational creatures. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to compartmentalize the two aspects. We can never be free from our emotion any more than we can be free from our reason. To say one is "perfectly logical in its own framework" blindly ignores the fact that neither can exist entirely alone in that framework.So again I would assert that the solution to problems such as this will be found in an integration, rather than distinction, between emotion and reason in such a way that does not unduly subjugate one to the other, or it will not be found at all.

[Jeremy1952]

Timothy, Responding to MuzadiQuote:Well, to say that the intellect and the emotion are various ways of perceiving reality is a pretty big assumption. First of all, that statement flies in the face of the notion of objective reality, which I am not going to affirm or deny here. However, I think that there are many, far more knowledgeable than I, who would would take issue with your assertion that reason (i.e. the intellect) does not represent actuality.I didn't take the original statement that way at all. It is true that intellect is a way of perceiving reality; how does this imply that there is no objective reality to perceive? It is also true that emotion reflects an underlying reality. Example: a man is telling you that you can trust him. Everything you know about him, intellectually, tells you that he is trustworthy. Your intuition, however, is screaming "NO!" There is nothing mystical about this; numerous real facts

[muzadi]

Timothy, I suspect we are agreeing more than we're disagreeing, though I think we're using different definitions, which is obscuring the issue.You wrote, "I find it ironic that as a scientist, you are willing to so easily throw away the scientific method's claim to reality."I don't throw away the scientific method's claim to reality, rather, I am putting in perspective. Kant made the point that it is impossible, using reason, to escape the perspectives, assumptiong and interpretations of one's own psychology. This doesn't mean that there is not objective reality, only that our attempts to understand and approach it are always going to be filtered through the lens of our own experience and psychology.This does not reject the scientific method, but simply says that we need to understand that our understanding is always going to be colored by our perspective. It's much like the idea of a paradox - two things can seem to be contradictory (take quantum mechanics and general relativity) but in fact are not - each is simply looking at the same thing from two different angles.From a more philosophical angle, look at the concept of "bad". If I do an action, it may be "bad" for me personally, but "good for someone else", so is the action bad? Or good? It's both - depending on the perspective. Similarly, I am not saying that there is no objective reality, only that we, as sentient creatures, are limited by our ability to sense and understand, and indeed, simply by our point of view. We should of course continue to use the scientific method, but just be aware of the limitations of perspective.You also write:"The problem is, we are both emotional and rational creatures. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to compartmentalize the two aspects. We can never be free from our emotion any more than we can be free from our reason. To say one is "perfectly logical in its own framework" blindly ignores the fact that neither can exist entirely alone in that framework."I think we're talking around each other here, because I do not see any contradiction. We are both emotional and rational creatures, or, more precisely, our emotion operates from a different perspective than our conscious reasoning - it's still logical, it is just worried about different things and has its own perspective and own experience.In other words, I'm agreeing with you. :-)Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net