|
On May 26 2012 10:57 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 10:47 sikeTM wrote:On May 26 2012 08:40 RodrigoX wrote:
This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong. Out of everyone here this is the comment I felt made the most sense for me. I don't really have an opinion on these kind e things I've always felt that in our current stage of the human experience we just don't have the proper tools to form an answer to many certain questions. It is the human experience to keep trying to find out though. As long as it takes people will always look for an answer. I felt this comment, however, made the most sense to me. I agree with everything you said. Well put. I have to agree as well. there had been a time when I decided to think about all these "deep" stuff until I realize that at the very end, you just have to pick one and believe, despite others might sound more believable to some others or even to yourself. If anyone really care about how they would be like after they were dead, then you can know that at the minimal is our friends, enemies, family will all be affected. Which is why rather than thinking what will happen to us, it is better to think what kind of message we will pass onto them when we die. (in buddism, nothingness doesn't mean you have nothing, but rather, because you have no desire, no differences, no wants, no thoughts, therefore you also have everything that you could ever "need, want, have, etc" which is why they say by having nothing, you have everything)
added this to main page
|
a)To a human being, he basically states that life is what you make it. All the nuances in life don't matter. A side point: I think that most people actually don't have true beliefs. When you view religion intelligently, you understand that it's just a substandard of a belief. A belief is supposed to be a proper reason to doing something; by a proper, intellectual understanding, you initiate actions based on a belief. Whereas with religion, initiatiation of an action goes by an assumption, and you create will by a generic belief.
b) I think, "What do you believe happens when you die," is more appropriate to your post; the op orbits around beliefs, rather than thoughts.
What I think happens when we die, we become a part of the cosmos again: reverted to our basic state, apart from our intelligence, back to the big soup, that is the universe.
c)I think allan watts has a point, but I don't truly believe in it. If you truly believe in what he was saying, you wouldn't be able to experience life very well. If you consciously question whether or not that your actions hold no weight, then everything you do will appear meaningless, and you'll fall into nihilism.
|
On May 26 2012 12:30 Revolt wrote:
c)I think allan watts has a point, but I don't truly believe in it. If you truly believe in what he was saying, you wouldn't be able to experience life very well. If you consciously question whether or not that your actions hold no weight, then everything you do will appear meaningless, and you'll fall into nihilism.
The whole point of meditation is to escape thoughts of meaninglessness. Just because you close your eyes, doesn't mean the world stops existing as it is. Which is why Buddhism is inherently a nihilistic belief system -- rather, "rejectionist" is fairer since the questions (morality, existences, truth) that we imply when we throw around the catch-all "nihilism" are not so much refuted as they are avoided. "Enlightenment" is a hypnotic mental state where you don't care about these questions: which philosophically is as strong a panacea as nihilism.
|
On May 26 2012 10:57 ETisME wrote:
I have to agree as well.
there had been a time when I decided to think about all these "deep" stuff until I realize that at the very end, you just have to pick one and believe, despite others might sound more believable to some others or even to yourself.
If anyone really care about how they would be like after they were dead, then you can know that at the minimal is our friends, enemies, family will all be affected.
Which is why rather than thinking what will happen to us, it is better to think what kind of message we will pass onto them when we die.
(in buddism, nothingness doesn't mean you have nothing, but rather, because you have no desire, no differences, no wants, no thoughts, therefore you also have everything that you could ever "need, want, have, etc"
which is why they say by having nothing, you have everything)
I hear that bolded statement a surprising amount, which I really do not think is the case. This concept of picking one and believing is just so off in my opinion. The only reason this statement exists, is because of this concept of the supernatural or the opposite of human perceptions.
Right, the reason people would say "Just pick one" is because of this: Alright, say someone sold you on the idea, that we have to go outside of our own human senses, to adequately describe everything (imo not the case). Right, so lets say there is something that exists outside of our ability to perceive it that would describe the universe. Right there we have a logical impossibility. We are saying something exists, that as a human cannot say exists. Somehow, people get past this, and we apply this concept of faith. That there is something in the supernatural, despite the obvious contrary. So now, that we established that there is a supernatural, well.... what do we do? What do we put our faith in to describe everything? Unfortunately, as per definition, the only reason the supernatural exists, is because we put our faith in it, hence if something to exist IN the supernatural we need only put our faith in it. Essentially, we can make up whatever we want, because the dependent factor of something existing in the supernatural, is our own faith. So welcome to Scientology!
And lets say we avoid this faith concept entirely, you know, we wouldnt just say pick one and put faith in something. We can use our own experiences as our definitions for things (whilst defining our experiences by other people's experiences) and have the least amount of faith possible, that other people have the same senses we do (which really isnt faith, because we could look at a grip of people and discover that in comparing us to them, we have the same sensory tools)
(Of course its not as simple as this, because Christians and other faiths would argue that things happened in our perception (such as the cross) therefore we can specifically point to things existing in the supernatural, and it is not just a willy nilly thing)
I mean basically, the human effort or experience is an effort to make a perception of ALL our sensations no matter the cost. So in terms of death, a human will go for any explanation possible that he on a psychological level likes, just because of the severity and pertinence of the question.
|
finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
|
I've always believed that if there is no God, then once you die you will instantly wake up as another creature. I don't actually mean incarnation either in terms of religion, I mean I will wake up instantly in a scientific way. Once you die, you lose concept of time, once you have lost that concept, there will be an infinite amount of years to recreate your mind whether or not your mind be in the form of a frog, or some weird creature in another galaxy.
|
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote:finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly. my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it. Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless. There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong? the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands) but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right. the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Comitting violence against a fellow member of your society is dangeous. Humans can't thrive in a solitary existence. The 'inherent' practicality is the greatest argument for 'inherent' good.
/edit
Also, ITT: Nothingness being discussed by (living) things. Bravo TL, bravo.
|
From my perspective the only thing you can be sure about is an existence and if you are not aware of that existence anymore then you can't assume that that existence is dead. If you believe in that you are a human being then the only way you think you know death is by the fact others tell you a person has died. So to believe in death you must believe in the existence of other beings and then that they are telling the truth. In a philosophical sense both concepts, truth and the existence of other beings, is both up for discussion which makes death an ever more difficult concept to grasp. As a result of my proposition I don't think that we can be so sure about death and what may or may not happen if either you or someone else is classified as dead.
|
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote:finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly. my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it. Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless. There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong? the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands) but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right. the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Pseudo intellectual dribble, it took you so long to explain something simple. You use adjectives which aren't neccesarily suitable for the noun you are trying to describe.
Your argument is wrong, the definition of right and wrong comes from our evolutionary traits. It is counter productive in terms of evolution if we are beating on our peers. Thus our mind set defines what is right or wrong. Obviously there are grey areas, but there is a foundation in which you can legitimately say is right or wrong.
|
If we really did know what would happen after death, imagine the consequences. Religions legitimized, mass suicides, apathy towards this life, nihilism justified, mankinds ambition dampened. No need to strive in this world, we can just wait for the next.
|
On May 26 2012 16:03 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote:finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly. my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it. Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless. There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong? the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands) but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right. the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it. Comitting violence against a fellow member of your society is dangeous. Humans can't thrive in a solitary existence. The 'inherent' practicality is the greatest argument for 'inherent' good. /edit Also, ITT: Nothingness being discussed by (living) things. Bravo TL, bravo.
I'm sorry, were you expecting the trees to converse over the topic? Please, like a user earlier who didn't understand the point of this thread, refrain from posting here. You'll see below your post someone who decided to respond in a constructive way about "inherent" good/bad already has. Also, since you deem living things talking about "nothingness" as a joke, you have no purpose here but to spam, please again, do not post in my thread.
If you decide to add something constructive, then by all means please post.
|
On May 26 2012 04:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:A) After watching the video, what do you take away from it? Do you agree, or disagree? Does it affect your own belief structure? (if it doesn't, that is totally fine!) B) What do you think will happen when you die? When family members die? (Please, you can just say what you think, but try and back this up with something (religion/science/void etc... literally anything, but I kind of want this to be deeper than just "well I hope this is what happens", this isn't about what you hope, but what you think) C) Do you believe that Alan Watts has a valid point? Does our universe come from nothingness, and that all of our petty fears don't truly matter because in the end it's all nothingness? (off topic slightly, but based on how all our achievements are nothing but dust, "monopoly from zeitgeist" + Show Spoiler + so it may be interesting to listen to.
Interesting video. Anyway,
A) Of course it affects my, but only because of the music and the way he speaks. If he was talking in the same way about anal sex without lubricant being wonderful while quoting some porn star, I'd probably feel the same way.
B) Define "to die" or "death". That's already pretty hard. The world is complex. We human beings are incredibly limited in our cognitive abilities. Because of that, we use simple terms which noone can define and which include a lot of information. Religion, spirit, intelligence, politics, state, economy, capitalism, socialism, life, death, and so forth. Everyone has an idea of what they are supposed to mean, but there will never be a precise definition. These terms are used to name sets of similar yet distinct phenomena which we hopefully can (someday) define each for itself. So using these terms and asking "what do you think of xyz" is rather stupid. If you cannot PRECISELY state what you are talking about, every discussion is pointless.
C)"Define nothingness".
|
I will start by saying : I do not believe in religion, god or any "higher being". I wil try and keep everything in neat simple sentences.
I believe religion give living purpose by preaching moral values and creating a "system" where good is rewarded and bad is punished. It empowers humans to make the right choice either by coercion or reward.
The punishment that comes with disobeying a religion's values are often enforced by the people who believe in the particular religion ( see Christianity through the ages, fairness of Islamic law towards woman. ) Throughout the years, I was never shown heaven or people going to hell, just punishment (or reward) dealt by humans to humans in the name of their religion.
Why do we believe in religious teachings passed down from hundreds of years ago when there is really no "proof" that backs these claims ( not the miracle water kind, the "God made a PSA stating we need to get our shit together kind"). Why are we so desperate to believe that a higher power created us, that there is a "second stage" after our lives that necessitates us to comply with whatever religious laws.
I believe that in the end there is indeed "nothingness". I believe humans live their lives seeking solace in religion whilst the most likely answer left undiscussed ( there is no purpose/when you die, its game over). I believe humans are not special, our actions have no effect on ourselves after death and we do not have an obligation to do "good things" in life.
My opinion of "the Truth after death" is that I can go buy a gun, go out and shoot as many people I want and the ultimate price I pay is my life. There is no "going to hell" after that, which is scary. ( Hypothetical scenario, dont call the FBI please)
I actually think Christianity/Judaism was created to give the people something to believe in, a coping mechanism for the finality of death/release of obligations.
People I know that converted to religions are often disillusioned. They question the purpose of life (often after suffering or went through living hell) and they accepted religion without regard for the legimitacy of the claims.
Not really structured coherently or in a logical manner, but the main points are there. If I offended you, then I am offended that you are offended. It is an opinion, not an "apologize now" card.
|
United States42609 Posts
On May 26 2012 20:17 BlindKill wrote:
My opinion of "the Truth after death" is that I can go buy a gun, go out and shoot as many people I want and the ultimate price I pay is my life. There is no "going to hell" after that, which is scary. ( Hypothetical scenario, dont call the FBI please)
I actually think the author of the Bible a.k.a Jesus ( not the Divine Jesus, just a scrawny man with a beard) created Christianity/Judaism to give the people something to believe in, a coping mechanism for the finality of death/release of obligations.
I just want to address this misconception. Jesus did not write any of the Bible and had very little to do with the writing of it or, to be honest, the ideas expressed in it. The Old Testament obviously predates him and the New Testament including our modern concept of Christianity owes more to Paul (Greek school of thought, never met/heard Jesus) and Constantine (power hungry Roman Emperor 300 years later) than anything else. That's not to say that the ideas in the Bible are necessarily bad, this isn't a criticism of Christianity, just that there's pretty much no reason to consider anything but a few small parts of Acts/4 Gospels as having any relevance to Jesus himself.
|
I used to salivate over this discussions in the classroom and with friends over mugs and mugs of beer until sunrise, especially during my freshman year. But the more I "grow" into philosophy and the practical rigors of the discipline, I tend to veer away from these abstractions, which to my belief is the worst disservice that could be done to such a noble and useful profession. I believe in Philosophy as an act of enlightenment, as a device to make clear the problems we have on the many levels of our social involvement. The worst kind of philosophy for me is ones that deliberately or indeliberately obscure a problematique only because there are ambiguous philosophical borders to be exploited.
In this regard, I subscribe to Rorty, I paraphrase from memory: "language is a tool for social action, if it does not do this, it is mere wordplay".
|
i don't understand the fascination with death.... it's totally irrelevant.
every second you 'think' about death, is a second of your life wasted. unless it brings you joy, which would be weird.
|
On May 26 2012 20:40 shizna wrote:
i don't understand the fascination with death.... it's totally irrelevant.
every second you 'think' about death, is a second of your life wasted. unless it brings you joy, which would be weird.
Personally, since you are dead for a longer period of time than alive, I deem thinking about death rather relevant and not a waste, especially when it compares theories. It can become a very interesting debate/discussion. I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.
Death is fascinating because you can only know the answer once you're dead, so in a technical sense, right now... No one can possibly know the answer, it is just assumed (unless religious faith dictates your beliefs, then you do know the answer in your own mind whether shared by others or not)
So the "ultimate question" seems rather interesting to think about.
But if you feel it is a waste of time, please do not continue posting here, anything relevant you wish to bring to the table or discuss then be my guest.
Thanks.
|
It's easy. When you die, you no longer are alive. The only way you could imagine that for yourself is to try remembering your experiences from the time before your birth/conception. There aren't any. Sucks then if you like your experiences. That's why i'm not going to die. It seems like a bad idea with incredibly boring consequences.
|
Since the concept of a consciousness doesn't contain any discovered neuronal correlates yet (meaning that you can observe neuronal activity when someone feels something, but you can't tell where the quality of that feeling comes from, it's not written in the neurons),
I have adopted the belief that there is a general consciousness behind everything, and that our bodies and minds are a little part of it, like a rented one.
When we die, our part of consciousness becomes a part of the greater whole again, and if the sum of consciousness suffered, we will suffer too. That would be hell by traditional definition.My concept is pretty related to the karma concept, except that i don't know if you can escape that aggregate of consciousness like described by the concept of nirwana.
|
After reading the OP, I watched some additional Alan Watts speeches in order to further educate myself on his philosophy and things that somehow have to do with "nothingness".
I think nothingness is the state of perfection. Nothingness is absolute joy and harmony. Where there is nothing, it is perfect in every possible level, and everything is in harmony, because there isn't anything to be in disharmony, simply. Or on a personal scale, nothingness is when you have nothing to worry about, whether you self-induced it or not, and not only are you happy, but you are at peace with yourself.
Nothingness in my opinion is, after watching some Alan Watts, understanding that there is nothing to find, nothing to chase nor to reach in the Universe. Merely wanting to accept that fact is already the wrong way to go. "How do I reach Nirvana?" is the wrong question to ask, because you already have it inside you but you chose to ignore it, because of different stimuli from your surrounding medium. Nothingness on the other hand is the way to go. Nothingness, in a non-religious sense, will free you from the stimuli of the world. That for me is nothingness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
