Philosophy

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know a nurse who says that of all the people she's seen die, none of them have died easy. She says that she doesn't believe it's possible for people to die painlessly.

All due repect to her observations, mine have been different. Maybe hospitals are just bad places to die.

[Mari]

Hehe, I should have expressed myself better. I meant that knowing all your/ the suffering ends someday can be a consolation. Just knowing that you won't have to deal with it all anymore some day. If there is no end in sight, you can't give it your all now.
The point of having an end to life is living now. So sometimes you have to gather your courage, love and faith and/or other things that can keep you going. Giving up while in the midst of your life is not living while giving it all, and I most certainly do not encourage or justify suicide. Allthough I can understand euthanasie when your in great physical pain with no perspective on going back to life.
For me a good ending, isn't the ending itself, but the end of a process. So I wasn't referring to the moment of death itself and I know there are lot of people who die in a painful or even shocking way. I was more referring to having lived without regrets.
Perhaps equaling death to dead it not a good idea, since the first includes the process and the second is the final result.

BJ, being the best you can be is always a good idea especially in life where it can still make a difference for your social circles and yourself.

About dying with or without pain: I saw two people die in my life and the only ones who felt pain where the people left behind. 1 of them died in her sleep, and the other died after 3 days of being in a coma while his last moments awake he could still say goodbye to us. I don't think they felt pain. But I can't be certain since they can't tell us anymore

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So killing in response to a perceived threat to ones life is always okay? That sounds pretty relative to me.

Self-defense sounds relative to you, BJ, because you have no other category to utilize.

So sorry that the self-interest resulted in beneficence to children. Obviously, you think it should not have any good result because it contains self-interest.

But I thought common good utilitarianism was the bene maxima of your system?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No one can ever experience non-existence, so no one will ever feel any release from their suffering in this life.

I guess, but life has never been about suffering to me. Life isn't a means to an end, it's an end in and of itself. It seems to me that thinking about death, either in a positive or negative way, is kind of avoiding the present, which is the place where we always exist.

I didn't exist before I was born, but I don't let that effect my outlook. Why should what comes after be of any more concern?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Self-defense sounds relative to you, BJ, because you have no other category to utilize.

It's relative because it's a human judgement. Many who kill do so because they believe it is what must be done to insure a better life for themselves and those they love, eventhough their understanding of a given situation may be lacking.

We can't know whether someone will pull the trigger or not. You can claim that there are absolute morals to any given situation, but you are guided by imperfect human judgement in any situation.

Even if there is absolute morality, our morality can be nothing but relative.

Originally Posted by inked

So sorry that the self-interest resulted in beneficence to children. Obviously, you think it should not have any good result because it contains self-interest.

Not at all. The success of humanity is based on the idea that we are slowly realizing that it is within our own self interest to care for one another.

The problem is not that we all act in self interest. The problem is that we do not all realize what actions are in our own self interest.

[Butterbeer]

So ..... Philosophy?

I don't seem to see much here ...

NEL, if you have read Tolkien, you have had a basic philosophy course, believe it or not!

I would have to take the latter i think.

When you say 'basic' do you mean as in the mere ability to not knock your knuckles continually against the jungle floor?

.....................


so guys/gals ........


if you cannot talk about philosophy ... or at least debate Philosophically ... DON'T.

Move your inane babbel elsewhere ..preferably up a tower ...somewhere near jericho...


................

reet' so what's the current debate then ?

[Lief Erikson]

Feel free to give this post a very long reply, Mari . If the length of my post makes things difficult for you, TOUGH .

Originally Posted by Mari

Hehe, I should have expressed myself better. I meant that knowing all your/ the suffering ends someday can be a consolation. Just knowing that you won't have to deal with it all anymore some day.

The people could stop dealing with it immediately by committing suicide. The fact that they don't shows that they don't truly believe non-existence is better than suffering, though they may think that they believe that.

I understood your point, I think, but my point was that this consolation is a false consolation. Because, (assuming still that death brings non-existence), no one will ever experience an end to their suffering. The process of dying involves suffering, or at least it does in most cases, and that's all of death that the dying person gets to experience. They never experience death, only dying, because death itself means non-existence and no one can experience non-existence. So death cannot bring any feeling of release to the one who's dead, and we know it doesn't bring a feeling of release to the one who's dying and not dead yet.

Originally Posted by Mari

If there is no end in sight, you can't give it your all now.

I agree that death can be a motivation for people to live now. And that can be a valuable motivator too. I don't think it has to mean non-existence for this to work, though. I know a man named Brian who had a very close brush with death, and because of that experience, he began dwelling upon the afterlife and what would happen to him after he died. Those concerns led him to God, and after experiencing God he came to love everyone more, and his lifestyle here on Earth changed dramatically for the better. He is far happier now. And he doesn't have to believe death means non-existence for that to be the case. I doubt very highly that death is the point to him at all, anymore. It led him to God, but after finding God, God himself can become the reason for one's lifestyle. Like BJ said, life becomes an end in itself. When I say life, there, I'm including in that word all of its good facets.

There can be plenty of other motivators for living one's all, of course. People can form loves and passions and can give it their all simply through caring, and not through looking at death. For instance, I doubt that Mother Teresa gave life her all simply because of the end of her life being in sight. I think it was instead because she cared so passionately about the well being of the children she was helping. That's a very different motivation, and I think an even better, more wholesome one.

I actually find the idea of giving one's all to life because death will bring non-existence a rather disturbing concept, in some ways. For giving one's all to life can be done in a variety of ways. For some, it might be living what they consider to be a moral lifestyle. For others, it might be pleasing themselves as much as they can in this life, because there is nothing more after this life. And for some, pleasing oneself can come at other people's expense. If there is no judge to witness one's actions and condemn them after death if they're wrong, then one can feel free to ruin the happiness of all manner of people in the course of pursuing one's own happiness, if one feels one can get away with it here.

The Bible talks about such people too, mentioning that some say, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die." They'll enjoy life to the full here while making it miserable for others in the process, because they feel that there is no penalty that will catch up with them.

If there is a very high likelihood that the government will catch up with them, or that there will be social ramifications for their behavior, maybe they'll think again. But this is simply a technical restraint, not a moral one. Death meaning non-existence actually will make many live in a less moral lifestyle than they might otherwise, I think. Not in a more moral lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Mari

The point of having an end to life is living now. So sometimes you have to gather your courage, love and faith and/or other things that can keep you going. Giving up while in the midst of your life is not living while giving it all, and I most certainly do not encourage or justify suicide.

Why not? If death is a consolation because it ends pain, then why not kill oneself while one is in pain and living? That would just be consoling oneself, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Mari

Allthough I can understand euthanasie when your in great physical pain with no perspective on going back to life.

That's just another name for suicide, and another form of it. Healthier people that kill themselves outside of the hospital generally also feel they're in great pain of some sort, even if it's not always physical (but why should it have to be?), and they feel that they have no prospect of going back to life.

Originally Posted by Mari

For me a good ending, isn't the ending itself, but the end of a process. So I wasn't referring to the moment of death itself and I know there are lot of people who die in a painful or even shocking way. I was more referring to having lived without regrets.

Well, there is that. That would be some comfort to the dying, I think. I can't see it making the dying process "happy" for the person that's dying, but I expect it would help. I suspect that dying people often tend to be more focused on what's coming up -death itself- than they are on whether or not they've lived well, unless that relates to any question of the afterlife in their minds.

I just remember this story about a pastor who went to visit a dying woman and didn't really know what to say, so he just started talking about what was going on with the woman's family and with the church, but eventually the woman told him to shut-up. She was focused on what was coming up for her, and the rest was behind her. So the pastor learned that when in the company of dying people, often they just want someone's presence. And it doesn't have to involve talking, for they don't really need that. Just being there is very important. When he just provided that presence, people were grateful.

Originally Posted by Mari

Perhaps equaling death to dead it not a good idea, since the first includes the process and the second is the final result.

Let's just use the word "dying" instead of "death" then, shall we? No one experiences the final result, being dead, but the process of dying is itself also no fun, in the experience of those that are dying.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

All due repect to her observations, mine have been different. Maybe hospitals are just bad places to die.

Originally Posted by Mari

About dying with or without pain: I saw two people die in my life and the only ones who felt pain where the people left behind. 1 of them died in her sleep, and the other died after 3 days of being in a coma while his last moments awake he could still say goodbye to us. I don't think they felt pain. But I can't be certain since they can't tell us anymore

I don't claim to have sufficient knowledge to say. The person I was talking to was a nurse, so she had firsthand experience of a lot of people dying, and I naturally respect her view as an educated one. There may be plenty of medical professionals that feel differently though, for all I know. I certainly am not an authority on the matter.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I guess, but life has never been about suffering to me. Life isn't a means to an end, it's an end in and of itself.

I'm really with Mari on this, about giving life one's all. In fact, I'm so far in favor of that position that I think how one lives is more important than it is that one lives.

To me, physical life is not an end in and of itself. It is instead a means to reach spiritual life, a life that begins in this physical life and continues after it. That spiritual life includes in it all that makes Earthly, physical life, meaningful- love, goodness, justice, righteousness, gentleness, kindness, gentleness, patience, mercy, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't refer to spiritual life or physical life, however, as means or ends. That doesn't really express my view properly. Rather, I suppose I'd think of physical and spiritual life both as beginnings. The physical life is a beginning that leads to the spiritual life, and that spiritual life is the next beginning. Then the next beginning would be death, which allows the beginning of heaven, which leads to the beginning of the resurrection of the dead, which leads to the beginning of the New Heaven and New Earth, etc. Those are all only beginnings. But the fulfillment of all and in all is Christ. Christ is the end of each of these beginnings.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It seems to me that thinking about death, either in a positive or negative way, is kind of avoiding the present, which is the place where we always exist.

I overall agree. There can be some good things resulting from about thinking of death, but I generally agree. It can be a distraction from what's really important.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't exist before I was born,

Well, that's an assumption. Plato would have disagreed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but I don't let that effect my outlook. Why should what comes after be of any more concern?

If there is nothing, it seems logical to me to be fairly disturbed by the prospect. And I know many people are. Existence is a very fine thing.

If you really don't have any knowledge as to what death holds, and some of those holding viewpoints that differ from yours claim to have evidence to back their claims, then seeing as you're going to die eventually, it is quite rational to check those perspectives out. That wouldn't be unhealthy or illogical.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

reet' so what's the current debate then ?

I see two discussions going right now. One is about perspectives on death and the other is on relativity vs. the absolute. There may be more going on, though. I haven't been reading everything carefully except that which involves the death discussion.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Feel free to give this post a very long reply, Mari . If the length of my post makes things difficult for you, TOUGH .

You really did go out of your way didn't you? I still have to go to church, so I'll have to make this as quick as possible

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The people could stop dealing with it immediately by committing suicide. The fact that they don't shows that they don't truly believe non-existence is better than suffering, though they may think that they believe that.

Death isn't a solution, it's a consolation that it will happen someday. But now you have to get yourself together and pull through. When one truly understands that death leads to non-existence as you put it, they will also know that death is not a second chance or a way of improving (your life).
My point is that knowing that someday you don't have to deal with it all can help people deal with it now.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I understood your point, I think, but my point was that this consolation is a false consolation. Because, (assuming still that death brings non-existence), no one will ever experience an end to their suffering. The process of dying involves suffering, or at least it does in most cases, and that's all of death that the dying person gets to experience. They never experience death, only dying, because death itself means non-existence and no one can experience non-existence. So death cannot bring any feeling of release to the one who's dead, and we know it doesn't bring a feeling of release to the one who's dying and not dead yet.

You're missing my point. I never said you'd have to experience death or dying to find consolation in the idea of you dying someday. Just knowing that struggling is not eternal and that there actually is a point in trying hard right NOW is the consolation it brings. It's not death itself that brings the release, but the thought that someday in the future it will end. That how terrible and unending things may seem right now, there is a future and there is an end.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that death can be a motivation for people to live now. And that can be a valuable motivator too. I don't think it has to mean non-existence for this to work, though. I know a man named Brian who had a very close brush with death, and because of that experience, he began dwelling upon the afterlife and what would happen to him after he died. Those concerns led him to God, and after experiencing God he came to love everyone more, and his lifestyle here on Earth changed dramatically for the better. He is far happier now. And he doesn't have to believe death means non-existence for that to be the case. I doubt very highly that death is the point to him at all, anymore. It led him to God, but after finding God, God himself can become the reason for one's lifestyle. Like BJ said, life becomes an end in itself. When I say life, there, I'm including in that word all of its good facets.

There can be plenty of other motivators for living one's all, of course. People can form loves and passions and can give it their all simply through caring, and not through looking at death. For instance, I doubt that Mother Teresa gave life her all simply because of the end of her life being in sight. I think it was instead because she cared so passionately about the well being of the children she was helping. That's a very different motivation, and I think an even better, more wholesome one.

I actually find the idea of giving one's all to life because death will bring non-existence a rather disturbing concept, in some ways. For giving one's all to life can be done in a variety of ways. For some, it might be living what they consider to be a moral lifestyle. For others, it might be pleasing themselves as much as they can in this life, because there is nothing more after this life. And for some, pleasing oneself can come at other people's expense. If there is no judge to witness one's actions and condemn them after death if they're wrong, then one can feel free to ruin the happiness of all manner of people in the course of pursuing one's own happiness, if one feels one can get away with it here.

I agree with you that death should not be a main motivator, living because you'll die today is not actively living, it's passively waiting for death. But it can motivate you to go on in difficult times. Most people don't think about death or dying when they are happy and when things are going well. That's good. But it can give you just what you need to go on in hard times and it can be part of other things, such as faith and love. "If I would die now, without trying my best to overcome this hardship, would God forgive me?" "If my life would end now, would I have had a good enough life for God to love me?" "If I just give up now and die, what would the people who love me think?" etc. So death is certainly not the only thing consoling people.
Perhaps for the record I should mention that I believe in some kind of afterlife allthough it is not Heaven, the way many people would describe it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Bible talks about such people too, mentioning that some say, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die." They'll enjoy life to the full here while making it miserable for others in the process, because they feel that there is no penalty that will catch up with them.

If there is a very high likelihood that the government will catch up with them, or that there will be social ramifications for their behavior, maybe they'll think again. But this is simply a technical restraint, not a moral one. Death meaning non-existence actually will make many live in a less moral lifestyle than they might otherwise, I think. Not in a more moral lifestyle.

Death has no morals, you are the one who has to have the morals and live up to them. Death most certainly isn't an excuse for making it miserable for others. I don't think that argument is a valid one.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why not? If death is a consolation because it ends pain, then why not kill oneself while one is in pain and living? That would just be consoling oneself, wouldn't it?

I've been trying to argue that knowing that someday your suffering will end can be a motivation to not give up and give it your all. That that knowledge can be a consolation in difficult times. But I'm not good at giving up and I feel commiting suicide is giving up. I can understand why some people would choose to do so, but suicide affects so many people. How about the people who find your body, the relatives, or the people in the train you jumped in front of? How can you justify giving people traumas by giving them the idea they are responsible for your death? Well, you're dead so you don't care, but what about those who do not want to give up? Death is not a problem solver in itself.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's just another name for suicide, and another form of it. Healthier people that kill themselves outside of the hospital generally also feel they're in great pain of some sort, even if it's not always physical (but why should it have to be?), and they feel that they have no prospect of going back to life.

See what I said above.
Furthermore, euthanasie is for people with physical pains that can't be remedied. Usely, this only concerns 98 year old people who suffer a great deal, can't leave their rooms or sit or eat, they can't try anymore because they tried so hard for so long allready.
Psychological pains can be remedied. If they can prove their psychological pains cannot be remedied, they can never live life to their best ability, perhaps that would be a different case, but then still.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, there is that. That would be some comfort to the dying, I think. I can't see it making the dying process "happy" for the person that's dying, but I expect it would help. I suspect that dying people often tend to be more focused on what's coming up -death itself- than they are on whether or not they've lived well, unless that relates to any question of the afterlife in their minds.

I just remember this story about a pastor who went to visit a dying woman and didn't really know what to say, so he just started talking about what was going on with the woman's family and with the church, but eventually the woman told him to shut-up. She was focused on what was coming up for her, and the rest was behind her. So the pastor learned that when in the company of dying people, often they just want someone's presence. And it doesn't have to involve talking, for they don't really need that. Just being there is very important. When he just provided that presence, people were grateful.

Fortunately I never said dying is a happy process or that knowing you've lived life to your best abilities and have no regrets will make you able to happily embrace death.
Between knowing there is an end, and actually facing that end is a big difference. It's when thought becomes reality. And even if you're 118 and knowing your time will come soon, it is still shocking. So yeah, people need to prepare for that. And a person being present acknowledging your presence and being there for you is comforting. No one wants to be alone, in the middle of life or towards the end.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't claim to have sufficient knowledge to say. I certainly am not an authority on the matter.

Neither am I, but I have thought about it a great deal ever since I was 12 or so. Nevertheless, discussing this with others, always helps clearing up your own views, it teaches me to word them and it makes me consider things I never considered before.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

So ..... Philosophy?

I don't seem to see much here ...




I would have to take the latter i think.

When you say 'basic' do you mean as in the mere ability to not knock your knuckles continually against the jungle floor?

.....................


so guys/gals ........


if you cannot talk about philosophy ... or at least debate Philosophically ... DON'T.

Move your inane babbel elsewhere ..preferably up a tower ...somewhere near jericho...


................

reet' so what's the current debate then ?

Well, for a serious debate on the academic subject of philosophy, of course you have to go to the leading centre of world thought, the University of Woolloomooloo, Australia:

Bruces' Philosophers Song

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/g...ilos_song.html

courtesy of Monty Python.

[Butterbeer]

mate, where d'ya think i graduated?

strewth!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

You really did go out of your way didn't you? I still have to go to church, so I'll have to make this as quick as possible

Thank-you very much for making your response very long and thorough. I definitely appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Mari

Death isn't a solution, it's a consolation that it will happen someday. But now you have to get yourself together and pull through.

I just don't see that that follows. "Consolation" and "comfort" are positive words, suggesting that death as an end to suffering is going to be something good for us. Else it couldn't be a consolation. My point is that it can't be good for us as an end to pain, because we can't experience it, so we'll never experience that end to pain (from our perspectives, it will never end), so it doesn't make sense for people to find it consoling.

Another necessary logical consequence of this perspective is that if death is good (for it to be consoling or comforting, it must be good) because it ends pain, then it is better to die, thus ending pain, than it is to live with pain. Thus euthanasia and suicide are fully justified. In fact, if death is better than living with pain, perhaps even murder is justified, because you'd be putting people out of their life of misery, and death is better than pain (though the murdered people might not have realized it).

For death to be a consolation to those that are experiencing pain, it must be better than living with pain. Therefore death becomes better than life, and a lot of bad things are logically justified if that idea is true.

I don't see why one should put one's all into life and pull through, if death is better than a life of pain (which is necessary for it to be a consolation).

Originally Posted by Mari

When one truly understands that death leads to non-existence as you put it, they will also know that death is not a second chance or a way of improving (your life).

They may also realize, quite rightly, that life is meaningless if death is non-existence. They need never experience the consequences of their actions, and nothing they do will last (the Earth will be consumed by the sun), in the big picture. So what's the point of anything? Why not just make oneself as happy as one can, or if death is better than pain and therefore a consolation, why not just kill oneself now?

Originally Posted by Mari

My point is that knowing that someday you don't have to deal with it all can help people deal with it now.

My point was that they never would experience the end, though, so it's a false consolation. There can be no peace at the end, and there will be no peace on the path there (dying is no fun).

Originally Posted by Mari

You're missing my point. I never said you'd have to experience death or dying to find consolation in the idea of you dying someday. Just knowing that struggling is not eternal and that there actually is a point in trying hard right NOW is the consolation it brings.

How does it logically follow that because it will all end, we should try hard right now? I can't see how that works. Some right now think that because it will all end, nothing matters right now. To me, that seems the more logical view. But I'm curious to know how yours works.

Originally Posted by Mari

It's not death itself that brings the release, but the thought that someday in the future it will end. That how terrible and unending things may seem right now, there is a future and there is an end.

That really seems to me to make death better than life. In which case I don't know why one should even bother.

Originally Posted by Mari

I agree with you that death should not be a main motivator, living because you'll die today is not actively living, it's passively waiting for death. But it can motivate you to go on in difficult times. Most people don't think about death or dying when they are happy and when things are going well. That's good. But it can give you just what you need to go on in hard times and it can be part of other things, such as faith and love. "If I would die now, without trying my best to overcome this hardship, would God forgive me?" "If my life would end now, would I have had a good enough life for God to love me?" "If I just give up now and die, what would the people who love me think?" etc. So death is certainly not the only thing consoling people.

It's interesting that each of those cases you raised for how people might find death a motivator, it's not the idea of eventual non-existence that motivates, but actually it's the idea of what comes after death. Whether that be the reaction of loved ones or one's spiritual afterlife. It's not death itself that presses one to keep living, but instead is God, in two of those cases, or family, in the other case. In other words, it's life that convinces these people to go on living and to live well. Not death.

Originally Posted by Mari

Perhaps for the record I should mention that I believe in some kind of afterlife allthough it is not Heaven, the way many people would describe it.

Good to know that . I believe in Heaven and Hell. I'm just using the language of death as non-existence so that we're using our words in the same way. Everything gets really tricky in my experience when people use the same words, but meaning different things.

On a side-note, just out of curiosity, what is your view of the afterlife?

Originally Posted by Mari

Death has no morals, you are the one who has to have the morals and live up to them.

Why?

Originally Posted by Mari

I've been trying to argue that knowing that someday your suffering will end can be a motivation to not give up and give it your all. That that knowledge can be a consolation in difficult times. But I'm not good at giving up and I feel commiting suicide is giving up.

Just giving up life. Death must be better than a life of pain for it to be a consolation, so committing suicide would be taking something better and giving up something that's worse.

Originally Posted by Mari

I can understand why some people would choose to do so, but suicide affects so many people. How about the people who find your body, the relatives, or the people in the train you jumped in front of? How can you justify giving people traumas by giving them the idea they are responsible for your death? Well, you're dead so you don't care, but what about those who do not want to give up? Death is not a problem solver in itself.

Occasionally, marriage has caused immense distress to the families and friends of the lovers. There are situations when doing what's best for ourselves or for others is worth the distress of other people.

For death to logically be a consolation to the living, it must be better than life. If it's worse than life, it's not a logical consolation.

If death is better than life, everybody should commit suicide. Those that do are doing what is best for people, therefore, and are doing what's right. Perhaps by their example, they may convince others of the virtues of suicide, paving their way for a better world. An eco-friendly one!

Sorry- I just couldn't help adding that last sentence .

Originally Posted by Mari

See what I said above.
Furthermore, euthanasie is for people with physical pains that can't be remedied. Usely, this only concerns 98 year old people who suffer a great deal, can't leave their rooms or sit or eat, they can't try anymore because they tried so hard for so long allready.
Psychological pains can be remedied. If they can prove their psychological pains cannot be remedied, they can never live life to their best ability, perhaps that would be a different case, but then still.

Who are you to say when a person's suffering is sufficient or insufficient for them to validly commit suicide?

Originally Posted by Mari

Neither am I, but I have thought about it a great deal ever since I was 12 or so. Nevertheless, discussing this with others, always helps clearing up your own views, it teaches me to word them and it makes me consider things I never considered before.

It helps me in those ways too, and I really appreciate it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How does it logically follow that because it will all end, we should try hard right now? I can't see how that works. Some right now think that because it will all end, nothing matters right now. To me, that seems the more logical view. But I'm curious to know how yours works.

I'm sure Mari has her own take on it, but for me, everything being temporal is what gives it value. It's like enjoying a book or a vacation. Would they be meaningful if they went on forever? Would you not bother reading a good book because eventually you will be done? Would Disneyworld still be enjoyable if you never left it?

I'd say that if something is eternal, any given moment loses it's value. While, the more temporal something is, the more importance we attach to each and every moment.

It's why people who find out they are going to die soon speak of "living each day like it was their last", while the young and healthy are more apt to place less value on any given day because they see their future as nearly eternal.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thank-you very much for making your response very long and thorough. I definitely appreciate that.

No problemo, I enjoy it

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I just don't see that that follows. "Consolation" and "comfort" are positive words, suggesting that death as an end to suffering is going to be something good for us. Else it couldn't be a consolation. My point is that it can't be good for us as an end to pain, because we can't experience it, so we'll never experience that end to pain (from our perspectives, it will never end), so it doesn't make sense for people to find it consoling.

Some things you don't have to experience in order to find comfort in it. The other side of the coin of knowing that you will die one day and leave it all behind, is that you're not dead yet. You're still alive and kicking, able to do things you like. And even if you can't experience that place where there is no suffering because of the non-existence thing, you can experience suffering and thus you could find the thought of it going away someday comforting. It's the same with rain; it's raining continuusly and you hate it, you've never experienced a day without rain, but when you think of a day without rain, even if you have problems imagining that day, it can cheer you up. But this may be a bad example.
I don't understand why you say that from our perspectives it will never end though. You know that someday you will be non-existent, doesn't that give an ending to a life even if you don't know the exact timing?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Another necessary logical consequence of this perspective is that if death is good (for it to be consoling or comforting, it must be good) because it ends pain, then it is better to die, thus ending pain, than it is to live with pain. Thus euthanasia and suicide are fully justified. In fact, if death is better than living with pain, perhaps even murder is justified, because you'd be putting people out of their life of misery, and death is better than pain (though the murdered people might not have realized it

Before continuing I would like to point out that death is not the only way to end pain.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For death to be a consolation to those that are experiencing pain, it must be better than living with pain. Therefore death becomes better than life, and a lot of bad things are logically justified if that idea is true.

I don't see why one should put one's all into life and pull through, if death is better than a life of pain (which is necessary for it to be a consolation).

I don't think death is a constant consolation and at the moment I can't really think of a consolation that is constant, because the times that we need consolation are only the hard times. If to me eating is a consolation, should I eat constantly? No, only in times I feel the need for a consolation. It's the same with death. I hope there are no people walking around thinking all day that they are suffering and how fortunate it is that they will die some day. That doesn't sound too healthy. Death is not a remedy for hardships, not like eating bananas when you're depressed is. Death is a finality and the banana isn't. It's the same with the idea of dying someday and being free of it all. It's not the actual thing that is consoling, but the idea. The banana and the idea and the eating are all a temporary comfort in temporary hard times.
Mind you, I am not talking about a life where everyday is filled with soo much pain, all you can think about is the pain.
Also, allthough the idea of death can be comforting, I guess some people completely freak out when they think of their own deaths, their own mortality. People generally like living and would not be grateful if someone killed them to "put them out of their misery". But in those days that you look at life and all the suffering of so many people or of yourself at that moment, you think:"Hey there will be a time when I won't have to feel all this anymore, when I'm not able to feel this anymore. But before not experiencing anything I would like to experience this or that" and you will be able to get back again. Death is not just the stopping of some things, it's the ending of all things. And being glad that someday you won't have to suffer anymore doesn't mean that you can't at the same time feel energized to do something because you know that someday you won't be able to do it anymore.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They may also realize, quite rightly, that life is meaningless if death is non-existence. They need never experience the consequences of their actions, and nothing they do will last (the Earth will be consumed by the sun), in the big picture. So what's the point of anything? Why not just make oneself as happy as one can, or if death is better than pain and therefore a consolation, why not just kill oneself now?

Why would life be meaningless if after living there is nothing? You're alive and not dead and allthough death and non-existence may have no meaning, that doesn't mean life doesn't have meaning either. Are your experiences and relations with others not worth the title of meaning? Death seems eternal, but so is life. If there is no life, there is no death. So the point of living would be life itself. Contribute to life, those of your neighbours, those of yet to come and try to become happy while doing it. And when you die you fulfill life's true meaning: ending a fulfilled life, ending your circle.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My point was that they never would experience the end, though, so it's a false consolation. There can be no peace at the end, and there will be no peace on the path there (dying is no fun).

Perhaps not, but there is a perceived peace for some people. Frankly I don't think you can speak of a false consolation, since it is personal.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How does it logically follow that because it will all end, we should try hard right now? I can't see how that works. Some right now think that because it will all end, nothing matters right now. To me, that seems the more logical view. But I'm curious to know how yours works.

Because now you have something you'll never have again: life. It's fleeting and precious. Once it's gone, you can't get it back. But life is not just your thing. Many people live at the same time. You can create new life, you were created by people like you. When you only look at death then yes, maybe people could think it doesn't matter what they do, but if they are able to look to tomorrow and the days and years after that and realize that before death comes life, I don't see how people could think that it doesn't matter what they do. And there is a basic vanity to most people: people like to leave their marks on the world. They want to be remembered. Most people want to be remembered in a good way, but there off course a few people who look at that differently.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That really seems to me to make death better than life. In which case I don't know why one should even bother.

You said yourself that death is non-existence, not experiencing. If you can experience hardships, you can experience good times. Would you really want to give up the good things because there are bad things? It's just that sometimes you need help to put the bad things back in perspective and remember the good things. But gaining perspective is tiresome. And thinking of times when you don't have to try to get that perspective back, times when it doesn't wear you out, may help you find the energy you need to go on.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's interesting that each of those cases you raised for how people might find death a motivator, it's not the idea of eventual non-existence that motivates, but actually it's the idea of what comes after death. Whether that be the reaction of loved ones or one's spiritual afterlife. It's not death itself that presses one to keep living, but instead is God, in two of those cases, or family, in the other case. In other words, it's life that convinces these people to go on living and to live well. Not death.

Aren't life and death intrinsically linked? Death is not an individual thing. When thinking of death, I can't think of myself as important enough to think that because I died, the world died. True enough, I won't be experiencing it anymore and if I could, I might feel that the world had died with me, but when one thinks of death before the actual thing, when cannot help but also think of life. I said before that most people try to leave a mark on the world. That means that they believe that even if they die that doesn't mean the world is a goner as well. People think in terms of continuation. So it's only logical when thinking of one's own death to also think of those that won't die at that time.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Everything gets really tricky in my experience when people use the same words, but meaning different things.

You can say that again!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

On a side-note, just out of curiosity, what is your view of the afterlife?

I'll answer that some other time and I would probably have to move the answer to the theological thread before I get mods angry with me.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why?

I guess you're asking me why you would need morals? Well, I guess if you believe that there is no point in living, you don't, but otherwise you need other people and morals help guide interaction. Morals also prolong your lifespan and you can reasonably expect with morals keep to their agreements, won't kill you for crossing their path, etc. Morals can function as ethical rules. When there is a basis of ethical rules, you have a nice foundation for other rules to keep the individual save in a group.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just giving up life. Death must be better than a life of pain for it to be a consolation, so committing suicide would be taking something better and giving up something that's worse.

Just giving up life? Can you really give up something while knowing that you can never get it back? And is the pain so unbearable that you can't care about the people in your life? Is there really no way out of this, isn't there another way to live? Then perhaps suicide is indeed the best course of action.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Occasionally, marriage has caused immense distress to the families and friends of the lovers. There are situations when doing what's best for ourselves or for others is worth the distress of other people.

What I was trying to convey was my dislike for selfish people who cause so much pain and trauma to others, usually strangers when jumping in front of a train. If you really feel you can't go on and want to commit suicide, I would think it to be considerate towards others if you'd do it in a different way. Overdose or slithing your wrists in a hot bath. Still not nice for the people who find you, but it is in my view better than making outsiders search for your remains or blaming themselves for hitting you with their trains.
I don't want to hurt anyone with the above, especially not those who lost someone to suicide, but it's just that I know a machinist (a traindriver if machinist is not understandable English ) who hit someone who jumped in front of his train and it really really hit him hard psychologically. It happens fairly regularly near my town, there is clinic nearby and sometimes the inhabitants try to commit suicide and succeed. But I just can't understand how someone can be so consumed with their own pains that they can't think of the pain they will be causing others with their actions and that not all of them can choose a method that causes the least damage possible to those still living.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For death to logically be a consolation to the living, it must be better than life. If it's worse than life, it's not a logical consolation

Are consolations logical?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If death is better than life, everybody should commit suicide. Those that do are doing what is best for people, therefore, and are doing what's right. Perhaps by their example, they may convince others of the virtues of suicide, paving their way for a better world. An eco-friendly one!

Sorry- I just couldn't help adding that last sentence .

I'm not going to bother replying to that. O heck, here goes:
HOW CAN THERE BE A BETTER WORLD IF EVERYONE IS DEAD AND NON-EXISTENT? And why would you want to make a better world when you know there is no one left to live in it because they all followed your example and commited suicide? hehe, guess I couldn't help myself

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Who are you to say when a person's suffering is sufficient or insufficient for them to validly commit suicide?

I'm not. I just think more things have to be taken in account then just that one person and that life is gift that should be treasured and enriched.
And I simply cannot understand how a 30 or 18 year old can say that they have seen enough of the world and don't want to even try and find more happiness then they are currently experiencing. If you climb a mountain and after a few meters you decide you don't like the trees blocking your view, do you go back down expecting it won't get any better anyway? Or will you go higher to get a better view?

If I forgot anything, sorry. I'll answer it later then. Now I must sleep. I've taken a bit too much time hehe

[inked]

Mari and Lief,

Here's a title you may want to tell Santa Claus to get you each for Christmas!

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/gen...=9780199296422

Brief descriptor ....

"Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence--rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should--they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence." ...

There are 256 pages of this.

Next step? Mass suicide? to save the planet from global warming?

[Mari]

Haha, thanks for the suggestion inked! I don't think he'd recommend mass suicide though

[Lief Erikson]

He probably would approve of mass-sterilization, though.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You know, it is kind of sad for me that healthy young people are even giving this much thought to suicide.

I believe, absolutely, that there is a reason each of us is alive. I don't believe anyone is born (or not born) except as part of a larger plan. And I don't believe we die untimely, either. I don't know why some people die before *I'm* finished with them, but I don't really understand how TV works, either.

Have a pine-scented day full of love, guys.

[GrayMouser]

Well, it's certainly been put more eloquently:

To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. -