philosophy and death

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:09 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous,

You have zero percent knowledge of the spirit world.

Everything you type is uneducated.

I’m going to take you back trillions of years in the past ....

We all were never born and we all will never die. Very simple.

The problem with this is that we get EXTREMELY bored with forever!

So a bunch of spirits submitted a new plan that they thought could entertain us forever... we all looked at the plan and said, “why the fuck not?”

That’s all this is.... “why the fuck not?”

Your entire lack of being in the spirit world is a result of you deciding to be asleep.

I’m waking you up. We need a new plan dude. This one doesn’t work.


You still have that "condition" I see. Not only that but it appears to be getting worse.

Fortunately, here at ILP, there's a thread for that: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195805

:wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:16 pm

Death & The Philosopher
Raymond Tallis on philosophical attitudes to non-being.

A world in which none of us cared about death would be one in which none of us cared about each other. That would seem to be a victory for death, not a victory over death. And to fix our gaze on what a small figure we cut in the world as a way of blunting our tragic sense is a kind of betrayal of those to whom we matter. The sense of our own objective insignificance, and that, in the long run, nothing matters very much, even if it conquered horror of death, can bring only a Pyrrhic victory.


There it is. A countless number of reactions that any of us might have in regard to death in general and to our own death in particular. Mine certainly being among the most pessimistic outlooks. Objectively, both my own life and death seem to be embedded in an insignificance that, in the context of all there is, and in a No God world, would seem to be far, far beyond encompassing in words. When one is but one of billions that the overwhelming preponderance of the global population are utterly oblivious to, how can one not but feel the futility of it all.

And yet that doesn't make me any less preoccupied with sustaining whatever life I have left for as long as possible. It is simply part of the existential reality of living "my life" that I don't spend a whole lot of time obsessing over the 'big picture". Not when I can only actually live my life from day to day intertwined in any number of very real contexts that generate any number of mental, emotional, psychological and physical experiences. Call it a paradox, call it an enigma, call it an anomaly, call it a conundrum.

The only thing I know for certain is that these individual reactions are no less the embodiment of dasein. And that it seems highly unlikely that philosophers will ever pin down the optimal or the ideal or the most rational reaction to death among our species.

Lucretius offers another way of minimising death even for one whose life has been favoured by fortune:

“Why groan and weep at death? For if the life that is past and gone has been pleasant to you, and all its blessings have not drained away and not been enjoyed… why don’t you retire like a guest sated with the banquet of life?”


On the other hand, my own reaction to reactions of this sort is empathic: that it seems preposterous to me beyond any attempt to communicate at all. It is precisely the elevated level of fulfillment itself when life is a banquet that sustains the despair one feels knowing that for all of eternity there are no more banquets to be had. Sure, a part of you can attempt to focus in on the fact that you are no longer around to sorely miss those banquets, and if that works, good for you. It just doesn't work for me me given my own psychological predispositions rooted in my own life.

In short, why not accept that all good things must come to an end? Precisely because one is not “sated with the banquet of life”. Life is not a meal, and we who live are not mere vessels to be filled. Yes, there are some who are tired of life, and everyone may feel this sometimes. But which of us, facing the real and present prospect of extinction, will not suddenly become aware of its preciousness?


Exactly. And, again, depending on just how sumptuous the banquet that is your own has become. That's why I have always imagined those "celebrities" who have had the most fulfilling lives being all the more distraught about their own death. They have so much more of the "good stuff" to lose.

The irony then being that if you want the least despair in the face of oblivion then have the most miserable life here and now.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:42 pm

Death, Faith & Existentialism
Filiz Peach explains what two of the greatest existentialist thinkers thought about death: Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers.

Death has been discussed comprehensively by very few philosophers.


How does one go about discussing comprehensively that which one has not yet experienced? Even in "intellectual contraptions" the discussion is limited to sheer speculation once all of the facts about it from "this side of the grave" are taken into account.

Instead, we only know that we will experience it. And, then, deciding "here and now" if we we will be better off dealing with whatever possible reality there might be on the other side of the grave. And that's all about tabulating the pleasure and the pain and then calculating how realistic the options are for effectuating constructive changes.

I'm still on the plus side here. So, I'm still around.

The rest then revolves by and large around the extent to which you are able to think yourself into believing in one or another God or one or another religion.

Thus...

Those who have dealt with it offer their views mostly on the awareness of death. Indeed, the only knowledge we have regarding death itself is that it is an inevitable universal event. We all know that we will die, and sooner or later most of us confront the reality of our own mortality. Let us look at the changing attitudes towards death over time, and then turn to the significance of death from two existential perspectives: Martin Heidegger’s and Karl Jaspers’.


Here however it might be more intriguing to explore death and existentialism from the perspective of those who were generally thought to be atheists and those who were generally thought to be theists. The theists being those like Soren Kierkegaard and Martin Buber.

Though in fact unlike you and I, they are all dead. So, unlike you and I, they either still do or do not have a perspective on death that you and I fumble about grappling with and grasping from this side of the grave.

With or without God and religion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: philosophy and death

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:36 pm

iambiguous wrote:Death, Faith & Existentialism
Filiz Peach explains what two of the greatest existentialist thinkers thought about death: Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers.

Death has been discussed comprehensively by very few philosophers.


How does one go about discussing comprehensively that which one has not yet experienced? Even in "intellectual contraptions" the discussion is limited to sheer speculation once all of the facts about it from "this side of the grave" are taken into account.

Instead, we only know that we will experience it. And, then, deciding "here and now" if we we will be better off dealing with whatever possible reality there might be on the other side of the grave. And that's all about tabulating the pleasure and the pain and then calculating how realistic the options are for effectuating constructive changes.

I'm still on the plus side here. So, I'm still around.

The rest then revolves by and large around the extent to which you are able to think yourself into believing in one or another God or one or another religion.

Thus...

Those who have dealt with it offer their views mostly on the awareness of death. Indeed, the only knowledge we have regarding death itself is that it is an inevitable universal event. We all know that we will die, and sooner or later most of us confront the reality of our own mortality. Let us look at the changing attitudes towards death over time, and then turn to the significance of death from two existential perspectives: Martin Heidegger’s and Karl Jaspers’.


Here however it might be more intriguing to explore death and existentialism from the perspective of those who were generally thought to be atheists and those who were generally thought to be theists. The theists being those like Soren Kierkegaard and Martin Buber.

Though in fact unlike you and I, they are all dead. So, unlike you and I, they either still do or do not have a perspective on death that you and I fumble about grappling with and grasping from this side of the grave.

With or without God and religion.




Biggy, They may just not be dead, their gimmortality is evident , literally. Now go and figure.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8295
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:33 pm

Death, Faith & Existentialism
Filiz Peach explains what two of the greatest existentialist thinkers thought about death: Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers.

I would like to say a few words, however briefly and simply, about the popularly-held religious view of the significance of death. This will provide a good contrast with Heidegger’s and Jaspers’ views. According to this view, a person’s death is not seen as the end because the soul is regarded as immortal.


On the other hand, what do those existentialists who were either theists or atheists share in common about death? This: that "views" about death are not the same thing as facts about death.

And even views [here] are no less existential contraptions rooted in the subjective/subjunctive "I".

No "souls" have yet to be yanked up out of our "hearts and minds". Or none that I am aware of.

But, not to worry. None of that "reality" stuff need matter:

In the mediaeval period, for example, the soul was regarded as the ‘form’ of the body and the two were seen in natural unity. This unity is broken up at the moment of death when the body perishes, whereas the soul continues to exist in one form or another. Some of the most important, though by no means universal, tenets of this commonly held religious view are:

• Man’s being is non-finite in that existence continues beyond death both bodily and spiritually, however not as a disembodied soul.

• What comes after death is valued higher than ‘being-inthe- world’ here and now.

• Belief in resurrection and judgement by God is closely tied up with the significance of the individual’s actions during his lifetime. After death the individual’s life is judged, the good are rewarded and the bad are punished.

• There are two specific forms of existence after death, namely peaceful existence in heaven or suffering in hell.


See how it works? You come to believe all of this is true and so -- miraculously enough! -- that is what makes it true! Either in being indoctrinated by others or in conjuring up your own spiritual assumptions. It's all just "in your head" anyway.

And because it is true [in there] it tranquillizes you. It soothes you, it calms you. And no less today than back in the "dark ages". And all the Enlightenment from all the Humanists in the world won't make the things that religion [and only religion] can provide you go away: immorality and salvation.

Then it's just a matter of being one the fortunate ones able to take this belief all the way to the grave. I only made until I was about 20 myself.

But then you're not me, right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:00 pm

Death, Faith & Existentialism
Filiz Peach explains what two of the greatest existentialist thinkers thought about death: Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers.

In the West, with the growth of scientific knowledge, particularly from the 17th century onwards, man’s intellectual interest shifted towards science and technology.


North, South, East, West. Scientifically, philosophically, theologically, technologically. Intellectually or for all practical purposes.

One thing remains the same. We know that everyone dies. We don't know what that means. Science merely employs a methodology that seems considerably more intent on focusing in on what may or may not unfold given actual hard evidence. What can we verify about death? What can we falsify about it?

Not much at all in regard to what in fact does happen to "I" on the other side of the grave.

The creator, the creation of the universe and man’s central position as maintained by theology were questioned, and religious faith began to decline. The weakening of religious beliefs changed man’s outlook concerning his idea of death and its significance. Increasingly, the focus switched to life ‘here and now’ as man became more preoccupied with the material side of the world at the expense of the spiritual.


Yes, faith has declined. And no doubt about it: capitalism has created a frame of mind that is increasingly preoccupied with all of the things the mind can concern itself with on the journey from the cradle to the grave: Politics. Relationships. Sports. The arts. Entertainment. All you need here to make death go away for a while is the money that creates the actual options.

On the other hand, that doesn't make the "morality here and now, immortality there and then" part go away. And for that God and religion are still basically the only game in town. At least to the extent that you crave the very, very best of assurances.

With the existential-phenomenological approach to death, man’s being-in-the-world, his alienation from himself and the acceptance of his finitude in the face of death have become primary philosophical concerns.


Mankind perhaps. But when it comes down to individual men and women faced with a set of circumstances in which death seems either miles and miles away or in which death is staring you down eyeball to eyeball, the "existential-phenomenological approach" is just one more intellectual contraption. That some pursue this philosophically doesn't make the fear or the terror that many feel in confronting their very own death less suffocating.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: philosophy and death

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:34 pm

Death, Faith & Existentialism
Filiz Peach explains what two of the greatest existentialist thinkers thought about death: Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers.

Heidegger’s Analysis of Death


Analysis indeed. If you get my drift.

It is interesting to note that Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was brought up and schooled within the traditional religious framework and yet this framework seems to be discarded in Being and Time. In fact, there is no explicit reference to God in this work.


Why would that be interesting? Well, because the explanation that makes the most sense to me is in reconfiguring Dasein as a philosophical contraption into dasein as an existential contraption.

He was "brought up" to think one way. And he abandoned it. So, clearly, he had either accumulated experiences that changed his mind more or less than he accumulated philosophical arguments that accomplished it. And that is what is always interesting to me.

Although Heidegger’s analysis indicates a radical break with the traditional view, some of his concepts point to some religious ideas, for example ‘fallenness’, ‘thrownness’, ‘guilt’, etc. Heidegger gave new significance to the meaning of death in his ontological inquiry in Being and Time. He asks what it means for any entity to be, and gives an existential analysis of Dasein (his term for human existence). According to Heidegger, the Being of human beings can be established on a purely phenomenological basis without reference to a deity or the concept of immortality.


Right, an ontological inquiry into the meaning of death. Yet isn't this always my point? That we cannot speak coherently about either life or death until we can speak coherently of all that one needs to know about existence itself?

Yeah, but why do some actually imagine that their own conclusions accomplish this?

Thus to speak of "the Being of human beings...established on a purely phenomenological basis without reference to a deity or the concept of immortality" is to imagine that intellectual contraptions of this sort really are capturing something utterly profound about the human condition.

Which is why I prefer the considerably smaller "d" dasein. The existential self becoming from the cradle to the grave. We all die. That really seems to be as close as we an come to an ontological assessment. As for the teleological parameters of it all, that's what the invention of the Gods and religion is for.

Or, rather, so it still seems to me.

Heidegger’s analysis of death is not concerned with how people feel when they are about to die nor with death as a biological event. Its focus is on the existential significance which this certain ‘yet-to-come’ death has to human life, i.e. to Dasein’s being-in-the-world.


Right. What does "the focus...on the existential significance which this certain ‘yet-to-come’ death has to human life, i.e. to Dasein’s being-in-the-world" have to do with with "how people feel when they are about to die nor with death as a biological event".

Okay, a part of me recognizes how and why "technically", "epistemologically" it might be important to go there as a philosopher. And to the extent that those here choose to emulate Heidegger and others and focus on that, fine. But after accumulating their conclusions, how on earth are they relevant to the part that preoccupies me: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

Having pinned down the most sophisticated and rational manner in which to "the focus...on the existential significance which this certain ‘yet-to-come’ death has to human life, i.e. to Dasein’s being-in-the-world", what does it have to do with the things that "I" think about in regard to death. The fact that, for example, it -- the abyss -- seems to be the only possible culmination to an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence on this side of the grave?

Or: how did he connect the dots existentially between his philosophical assessment of Dasein/death and, say, the Nazis.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40270
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]