philosophy and death

[iambiguous]

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

[iambiguous]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[iambiguous]

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?

[iambiguous]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

[Meno_]

The separate but partially binding liability between what is, and what ought to be, is still enigmatic.
Literally, death is solopsistic and singulad, but accounably, death dies not really exist.

I think that may figure within the Das ein.

[iambiguous]

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

For Heidegger, understanding the phenomenon of death involves grasping the Being of Dasein as a whole.

This despite the fact that, in order to accomplish this, would or would not Heidegger, a mere mortal here on planet Earth, have to acknowledge that the "Being of Dasein as a whole" is no less embedded in the gap between what he thinks he knows about the human condition and all that there is to be known about it?

In other words, not unlike you or I. And not just death, but life itself.

If Dasein is understood existentially as a possibility, then it becomes clear that Dasein’s authentic Being in its totality is ‘Being-towards-death’. Through facing death, Dasein understands what it means to be. This reflective process is the crux of Heidegger’s analysis of death. In order to clarify his views on the existential conception of death, Heidegger distinguishes between two basic forms of Being: authentic and inauthentic Being.

Back again to the "existentialist" understanding of living one's life "authentically". In order to be True to your Self, you must broach, then assess, then come to conclusions of this sort about your own Death. About your own Being.

Only [of course] very few of us [apparently] have either the intellectual honesty or integrity to embody this in the lives that we live. Instead, most either put all of their faith [indoctrinated or not] in one or another God or No God religious path, bestowing one or another rendition of immortality and salvation on the flock, or they accumulate any number earthly pleasures in the form of distractions from death and oblivion.

Or, if one must go up into the clouds of abstraction:

In the everyday mode of being, Dasein interprets the phenomenon of death as an event constantly occurring in the world. It is a ‘case’ that happens to others. The general comment is “One of these days one will die too, in the end; but right now it has nothing to do with us.” Dying remains anonymous and it has no connection with the ‘I’.

Here, however, I always come back to this: whatever works.

[iambiguous]

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

In the everyday mode of being, Dasein interprets the phenomenon of death as an event constantly occurring in the world. It is a ‘case’ that happens to others. The general comment is “One of these days one will die too, in the end; but right now it has nothing to do with us.” Dying remains anonymous and it has no connection with the ‘I’.

That's the beauty of configuring death into an intellectual contraption. It tells us both everything and absolutely nothing about our own actual existential death. On the other hand, it's not like we do much better when we come down out of the clouds. Still, I prefer dasein to Dasein here. How ought one to live knowing that "one of these days..."

How does the existential reality of oblivion [an assumption] factor into the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave. And what when those behaviors come into conflict with others. Between, for example, Nazis and Jews. What then of Dasein interpreting the phenomenon of death?

Facing one’s own death is radically different from being concerned with the death of others.

Unless, of course, given any number of circumstances, your death is profoundly intertwined in theirs. Facing death together. Or, together, one bringing about the death of the other?

You tell me: dasein or Dasein?

My own death means the end of my possibilities, the total disintegration and the end of my world. The fear of my own death comes from the fear of my extinction as a human being. This causes me a great deal of anxiety. I may be able to face other people’s death but may find it virtually impossible to come to terms with my own death. Heidegger says Dasein cannot experience its own death. As long as Dasein exists, it is not complete, that is, there are still some of its possibilities outstanding. If, however, Dasein dies, then it is ‘no-longerthere’.

Well, Dasein can go back up into the clouds here, but dasein has to deal with the day to day experiences that may or may not include death existentially.

Also, there is the God/religion option. Clearly, to the extent that one is able to think oneself into truly believing in their own immortality and salvation "total disintegration" becomes "paradise" itself.

Finally, particular daseins may opt for suicide. They choose oblivion over whatever terrible pain and suffering makes life itself unbearable.

[iambiguous]

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

How, then, does Dasein break through the mode of fallenness and lift itself up to authenticity? Heidegger’s answer to this question is: through ‘Being-towards-death’. Rising to authenticity can be achieved, says Heidegger, through a particular state-of-mind: dread (Angst). Dread is a mood which enables Dasein first to turn away from itself and then to be thrown back to confront itself.

Tell that to the Jews?

No, seriously, the actual existential deaths that we experience are always out in a particular world given a particular set of circumstances. And considerably less a reflection of all this philosophical mumbo-jumbo about dread as a "state-of-mind" that those in the death camps must learn to "turn away from...and then to be thrown back to confront itself".

Or in regard to your own more or less imminent encounter with oblivion?

On the other hand, sure, if what some accomplish with God and religion, you can accomplish with the optimal "authentic" philosophical reasoning, well, whatever works. That will always be my own mantra. Whatever you can think yourself into believing is true about either life or death...if it comforts and consoles you considerably more than what "I" am now impaled on then bully for you.

All that's left for those who are compatible with Heidegger's own "general description intellectual contraptions" here is to learn how to accomplish it:

In order to achieve this, one has to transcend one’s everyday inauthentic mode of Being. Heidegger says dread is necessary for Dasein to grasp its existential freedom and his possibilities. Death is existentially significant when one perceives one’s existence in the light of Being, not if it is merely taken as an empirical event that will happen someday. According to Heidegger, this analysis enables us to have an understanding of our finitude, and this awareness makes authentic existence possible. Heidegger does not give an explanation of death itself but offers a phenomenology of our relationship to death. His philosophy is thoughtful but gloomy. His account of death portrays a no-hope mode of Being and he has often been criticised for this.

Is this or is this not a classic example of a "serious philosopher" at work? A "a phenomenology of our relationship to death". Go ahead, the next time you come across someone who is in fact dying down here on the ground, note this for them. See if they react "authentically".

In my view, death is "existentially significant" given a frame of mind that takes into account the things that you love and cherish...the things that your own flesh and blood death take away for all of eternity; and all the pain and suffering it takes away; and that which you have managed to believe is true about an "afterlife" in regard to God and religion.

[iambiguous]

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

Jaspers’ Notion of Death

Turning to Jaspers’ approach to death, we will find that it is quite different from Heidegger’s view. First of all, unlike Heidegger, Karl Jaspers does not impose an ontological structure upon human beings.

All I can do here, given the context of "all there is", is to note once again just how preposterous it would seem for any infinitesimally tiny speck of existence -- a mere mortal here on planet Earth -- to speak of an "ontological structure" for human beings.

Not that one can legitimately criticize those who try. Heidegger and Jaspers gave it their best shot. And, in fact, we have any number of members right here at ILP who have given it their best shot in turn.

But, come on: the ontological assessment of the human condition? And that's before we get to what would seem to be the even greater prize: the teleological assessment of the human condition.

The role death plays in that.

Secondly, his break with the traditional view of death is not so radical. Jaspers offers a possibility for Existenz to merge into Transcendence, ultimate reality. This does not necessarily suggest personal immortality nor does it imply total annihilation. Although Jaspers’ views on death are not considered to be religious, certain existential concepts such as Existenz, Transcendence and Being remind us of religious concepts but under different terminology.

Capitalizing words like these in an argument is not nearly the same as demonstrating why "for all practical purposes" they deserve to be.

Existenz. Transcendence. Being.

You tell me: How is the actual and the factual "death and beyond" for those who capitalize them in philosophical assessments any different from the deaths of those who don't?

Ultimate reality here would seem to be just another more or less sophisticated Theory Of Everything.

Right, Jacob?