The article is a single point of view and thus flawed. From the stand point of a body is not the only perspective available to our human brains. I am looking at my own death as an old man and more and more I find the human conditioning that has existed since history began is what is being discussed here; death is something to be afraid of. I also take issue with his quote that Buddha believed life was about suffering. Not what I am taking out of his readings. But back to the question at hand, can death help us live and I for one say Hell yes and not because of fear. To fear death is to fear growth. What I do appreciate about the article and this question is I believe humans would benefit from talking about death more often and taking the topic away from religions who have created the disillusionment in the first place.

>In his book, The Case Against Death previous NYU philosophy professor, Ingemar Patrick Linden, veers away from the predominant philosophical notion that we should find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable and see it for what it is: 'simply awful.'

I'm with Ingemar Linden on this one. If something is a problem, "accept the problem" isn't a solution. Instead, you should try to find the root cause, and eliminate (or, at least mitigate) the problem.

Like this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair

>He has expressed the view that advances in aging research could enable humans to live to be 200 years old.

Is he right? Will he succeed in moving towards that goal? Beats me. But he's not wrong for trying.

Anyway, the rest of the article seems to be just different ways to find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable. Which is solving a different problem: Not the problem of death itself, but the problem of dealing with death.

Solve the one and you (in large part) solve the other, too.

What article is not a single point of view? What even is this objection. You write like a bot.

Since I've been put under for surgery, I've known what not existing is like. I'm not afraid being dead, just of the road that leads there.

As someone who watched far too many people slowly die when I was much younger than that lesson is usually learned…,

Agreed. Completely agreed.

I am not afraid of being dead. I am afraid of the painful journey that concludes in death. I am terrified of a painful death. I have seen “passed in their sleep”.

None of it is as smooth and painless as we pretend. I am convinced that we don’t show what death actually looks like because we couldn’t function if everyone truly saw it at a young age.

What is it like?

It isn't

[deleted]

Yoda: Forest fires promote new growth.

You don’t. Even with life extension technology you can be killed at any time. It happens constantly around the world. Also the longer you live the greater your odds of dying in an accident. I’m a lot of fun at parties.

Don’t fear the road that leads there as it is life itself. Rejoice in it and skip and hop along because we will all get there eventually.

If you lived until 400, you would not have solved anything pertaining to death, just delayed it.100% of people would still die, so I mean kudos on the longevity and everything, but making lives longer doesn't actually address death.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

[removed]

Personally I write all of my articles from differing viewpoints so that my audience can truly and fully appreciate the depths of my insanity.

Death is probably like sleeping without dreaming

Being dead is like being stupid, it’s only painful for other people.

Instant teleport between the two continuities of self-awareness, and unlike when you sleep, there is no sense of how much time may have passed. So if you were to be somehow rebuilt by a supercomputer a billion years after your death or something, it would feel like an instant.

I am an avid euthanasia supporter since that experience, it would be so easy to go like I've been put under that I would instantly take that option over slowly withering away in a random other way.

Absolutely.

I hope by the time I need to consider it, it is a legal option.

It’s an old discussion—goes back to antiquity (e.g., Seneca), and Bacon, and many others. There is a fairly common view that death itself can’t be bad, but dying is often quite bad. The ethical upshot of that is pretty obvious: making dying less bad is good. There are other arguments for the badness of death, in e.g., Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.

Here’s an article that denies that we can measure the badness of death for the person who dies: https://doi.org/10.1017/S135824612100031X

but he gives no fucks and has no intention of stopping

Are you saying death should be eliminated?

That'd be nice, but there's no currently conceivable way that will ever happen. What you're suggesting is that people might live longer. But the difference between dying at 80 vs. dying at 200 is the same as the difference between dying at 40 vs. dying at 80. Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.

I feel like you either have a massive blindspot or you're just trying verbal gymnastics to trick yourself into an argument you know is wrong.

To paraphrase: This article presents arguments. But there are other, contrary, arguments. Thus it's "flawed."

> or, at least mitigate

Did you guys all miss this part?

Edit: The point was that the goal should be to 1) acknowledge that death is the problem; and 2) from that, at least try to eliminate the problem. Even if that is not successful. You may be able to, at least, mitigate it.

But the main thing, the starting point, is to not fool yourself into the notion that it isn't a problem. The problem certainly isn't going to get fixed if it is simply excused.

> Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.

Coped with? Sure, maybe. Accepted? No.

But: If there's a problem with with your car, for example, you can probably cope with it. But that's not the same as trying to fix it.

And saying that "well, eventually, all cars stop working" isn't an excuse to not fix it.

Coping with the machine being broken would be precisely the wrong thing to do.

The point is to always keep in mind that death is a problem.

I remember the surgeon counting down, when he got to 7 a nurse told me to wake up.

No sense of time in between.

Man, same. My fear is I’ll be in screaming agony and that will carry over into that eternal rest.

We write like that sometimes too.

The longer you live, the more chance you have to undergo subsequent life extension procedures. Aubrey de Grey called it "longevity escape velocity".

I do not agree that children are ignorant to death. Children have come from the place we return to at death. It is adults who are ignorant.

« …the problem of death » Is death an actual problem or just part of life?

[removed]

But it doesn't mitigate it, even a fraction of a percent, it just delays it.

If some people see death as a problem to be dealt with (and eventually solved) then I have no issue taking advantage of whatever scientific breakthroughs they might come up with. If they can discover a way to stop our telomeres from fraying, I'll sign right up. But I view death as a necessary part of life. I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.

To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life, so I have less riding on the notion of "solving" the problem of death than one might have if one believes the grave is the end of consciousness.

True. I have no issue with longevity or the study of it. I once checked the Internet for the people with the most longevity. It was the Japanese, but mostly with their diet from the 70's, vs what they eat now, which is somewhat Americanized. So I planned to start eating more fish and rice, but... I never really got around to it.

But your point is well taken, it is incredible what options are available now, and the advances that have been made.

sometimes you sleep without having dreams.

The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.

> I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.

>To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life

Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

>The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.

Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.

​

>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

No.

> Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.

I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?"

>>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

>No.

Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.

Sounds like my ketamine therapy experiences.

Am I the only one who couldn't read it? Something popped up for me to subscribe to.

It's what your life was like before you were born.

U do but can't remember it :)

Literally the same as being asleep. Literally the same as before you were born. You just don’t exist.

Next time you wake up, as soon as you wake up think “where was I?”

You weren’t in blackness, you were in non existence.

Even the whole thing of drugging the dying people with morphine takes a long time (I’ve seen this happening with cancer patients and super old people where it’s basically assisted dying).

The root problem of death is life. That conscious experience is what gives us suffering and the fear of death. You’d have to put an end to all potential life if you wanted to solve the problem.

Of course that’s not an option but neither is living forever. That’s why most philosophers teach to accept it as it is ultimately the course of the universe that decides our fate.

[removed]

I thought of that, and that is what’s always told, but any proof?

It's not the road that leads to death's door that is the problem for me, nor is whatever lies on the other side, well mostly. The main problem is the inevitable painful process of squeezing through that door.

>Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
>
>I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?

If you actually want to conflate "acknowleding that death is part of life" with "neglecting to fix the machine at all," that is certainly a choice you can make. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

​

>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
>
>No.
>
>Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.

The goal of transhumanism may be to live forever. The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

The hiding of death is a relatively new social phenomenon. For most of human history we lived in tribal extended families, where everyone was exposed to everything all the time.

I’d surmise the recent sanitization of the dying process in the developed world has contributed greatly to a general increase of neuroticism surrounding it.

[removed]

There is much worth reading in this topic that is not referenced in the article. I highly recommend Death by Shelly Kagan, and also Death and the Afterlife by Samuel Scheffler.

I would highly recommend Shelly Kagan's course on death, it is part of Yale's Open Courses initiative. It touches many interesting topics.

>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.

The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.

A problem with no solution is still a problem.

After being put under with a similar experience I came to theorize the same possible outcome

The technology at some point will exist to restore our consciousness and perhaps that could be the eternal bliss or damnation that is awaiting us in the "after life"

Sounds like my last DMT trip

As someone who's currently alive, I find the prospect of my eventual death very annoying.

I was given an option to “read first” under the subscribe button

What if the solution is to stop seeing it as a problem, though?

[removed]

[deleted]

Well, I would think voluntary death wouldn't be a problem.

Like any other machine, you fix it because you want it to keep running.

I want the movie to end, but I'd sure like to be able to appreciate it after the fact. I'd like to leave the theater, talk about the movie with my friends, get some distance to incorporate it into my understanding, hell, I might even want to see another movie.

I don't want the theater to collapse with me in it as soon as the credits are done rolling.

Would you take the same approach with, say, your car?

"The solution to the check engine light is to find peace with the check engine light?"

Neuroscience stuff, mostly

[deleted]

A car imo is honestly repairable and easier to troubleshoot than a human though? Unless we have the technology to bring someone back like a car.

Cant compare them.

[deleted]

Is dying at 40 the same as dying at 80 though? We rightly view young death i.e. less continuous existence for the person in question as a "wrong" as it takes away the potential for experience.

Then consider death at 20000 years. Is that conceptually the same as dying at 20? Or would we find that over such lengths of time human experience becomes fundamentally different with people, for example, reaching terminal ennui and seeking out death as either an end or an adventure?

For the later point, it can be argued that we are already past the point where those in charge get to be in charge for too long.

Jefferson suggested a new constitution every 19 years, for example.

Only because we are more ignorant of how to fix the body than we are the car.

Which is the problem to solve.

They can certainly be compared.

But we can make a car Last forever , always replacing an engine, drivetrain etc. same cant be said for humans because we arent keeping humans alive 200+ years. its not a problem we can solve. But again Death in itself is not a problem. Its part of Life, we need Death.

Death has a song called “The Philosopher”

I’ve directed my wife to euthanize me in the case of increasing dementia. It can get to a point where you’re incapable of even making an informed decision about it.

I watched my grandmother become un-personed over the course of a decade, and there’s no way I’d ever put myself or anyone else through such a heartbreaking hell.

>Momento Mori Motherfucker

I'll admit, I laughed.

Death is out of our control, so no it's not a problem. We should however address our strained relationship with death in general. That is a problem worth solving.

It’s not an either / or problem. If we could live forever we could also likely opt not to.

I think even at technological peak we would not be able to do what you are describing. I think people are very off at how capable max technology will really be.

>its not a problem we can solve.

Yet.

Which is why we need to continue to focus on the problem.

Look up "Roko's Basilisk", but only if you're ready for a bit of existential dread

The after life is like the customer service robots still idling at the abandoned fairground like in ”Detroit become human”

Yeah but not for us. We are born too early to experience that so by the time technology gets there we’ll be nothing but soil and worm poop.

Maybe in 200 years, people will live forever in cyborg bodies with multiple backups in case of being murdered and there will be no sicknesses or anything anymore. But we just missed that train

Growth, forest fires produce they do* I'm convinced Yoda just speaks English in Spanish format haha

I was not ready

Edit: removed thank you

Every time I try to rationalize death I hit a wall where the rationalization process can't go further.

What scares us from death is thinking that we would still have some form of consciousness where we would regret everything that was wrong with our lives, like saying "all my life struggles and efforts to be happy just to end up like this"? When we learn that someone has died you think that; a friend of yours that was studying and working really hard to have a good life in future years suddenly stops living, you see all that wasted potential and it scares you that the same thing can happen to you.

But surely in practice that won't happen, you die and that's it, no regrets. The problem is we can't shake off that feeling by rationalizing it, or at least I can't, and the fear will always be there.

Sounds like my ketamine days

[deleted]

Not how sleeping works, but then again this is the philosophy subreddit so throwing out mindless nonsense is the norm.

Same, creeped me the fuck out to be honest and was super scary, like we know it intellectually i guess but to actually “experience” it was so strange. Did not abate my fear of death though.

Definitely not the same as being asleep!

So then explain how it works lol 😂

You gonna explain…?

We have to find a solution to the issue anyway, already, was supposed to be the takeaway.

Whatever system that stops people from retaining power past a certain age obviously continues past that age.

I'm thinking around 55 or 65, maybe.

I believe that we would find out the hard way that consciousness exists as a unique instance, so even if I were to suddenly spawn a perfect copy of myself 5 meters away from me, while the original me completely evaporated, you would see someone acting just like me, but from my perspective I'd be dead and the clone would feel as if they had just popped into existence.

You exist while you sleep, you dream etc, it’s not the same as not existing at all.

I don’t think we’ll ever get there but yeah that sort of makes sense however if people didn’t know about the spawn and evaporation it wouldn’t change anything.

>The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.

That isn't what I said. I said:

>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.

Well obviously you’re alive and you can possibly dream while you’re asleep, but your conscious experience while you are asleep and not dreaming, is the same as being dead. Nothing.

Being under anesthesia is an even better example. Same as before you were born. Non existence from your personal perspective.

[removed]

A philosopher-type person named Jesus of Nazareth said "The poor you will always have with you". To date, we really don't have any practical solution to poverty.

But what if the solution to abject poverty is to stop seeing it as a problem?

We do not need death. One could argue that, under the right definition of “need,” that is an outright contradiction. Even an unsolvable problem would still be a problem.

> I think even at technological peak we would not be able to do what you are describing.

What is your basis for this?

> I think people are very off at how capable max technology will really be.

Yes, but that includes both overestimating and underestimating.

At the risk of sounding callous, I don’t care about any “cycles.” In the end, boredom is a problem with many potential solutions- we don’t need death specifically. Even in the worst-case, where we’ve “done everything,” couldn’t we develop a way to modify or suppress our own memories to make experiences “fresh” again?

Arguments like these, where the problem created is so much milder than the one that’s solved, feel like philosophical sour grapes. We are mortal, and without extreme technological advances, we’re going to stay that way, so we come up with excuses as to why it’s ostensibly a good thing, so we don’t have to confront the problem.

Death used to be an important feature for the evolution of our species. Now we can argue that it's no longer the case and that it's relevant to try and delay it

> Children have come from the place we return to at death.

Ok but how would a child know that?

"Mommy, where do babies come from-- wait neverminded I somehow fully understand where I came from."

The thing is, we have no way of knowing what “max technology” could look like.

This has actually been proposed as a serious idea, although only in very early conceptual stages- it’s referred to as “quantum archaeology” and, simply put, it involves abusing the law of conservation of information to “observe” the past. Obviously, we’re nowhere near this, but to claim it to be impossible? That seems excessive.

Our species used to need death to evolve (death means more birth which means more genes mutations). But today, there's no longer a survival pressure that make our genotype evolve (yes there is a reproduction pressure still but it's doesn't make us evolve in an interesting way any longer).

So it's say that, no we no longer need death today

But we already know that consciousness doesn’t exist as a unique instance, at least not in this sense. Our life is already broken up into individual sessions of consciousness, lasting a matter of hours. If your persistent “self” survives even something like sleep, would it not survive this?

An additional benefit of longer life would be that, given a longer lifespan, individuals are naturally gonna focus on more long term priorities

I mean, there is one way. Technically, information can never be completely destroyed- there’s always some way to recover it, no matter how complex and difficult. If we were to build a supercomputer capable of recovering the brain structure of those who’ve already died, we could save even them. The idea is called quantum archaeology, and even if it’s a long way off, it doesn’t matter- because all that means is a larger backlog of people to revive. Of course, this is assuming it’s possible to implement in practice, which we really can’t know yet.

It's a good point, but it really depends how our brain will perceive time. It might be that reducing aging also means enabling with more energy which in turns allow you to stay passionate and curious

I think it would be more of a problem if we lived forever. Death is very sad and all that but its what all of us have to deal with living things will die whether it be from aging or coming into to contact with something that will make death happen.

Obviously difficult to know what peak tech will look like but unless our understanding of physics is completely off kilter there are some things that simply can never be overcome. We can’t ever make things faster than light, size a finite limit in terms of how small something can be. Sci Fi has seriously deluded people as to what is actually realistically feasible

I mean, you can’t move through space faster than light, but there’s still stuff like Alcubierre drives that could at least theoretically work. We simply can’t know what we don’t know- that is, we can’t know how much knowledge we have yet to attain.

Plus, there’s, to my knowledge, nothing about our current understanding of physics that explicitly rules QA out anyway.

[deleted]

Well we won’t be able to solve death entirely because of entropy. I think most of the research now is on extending healthy years.

[removed]

Hi Find JESUS Fine LIFE.

And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.

Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.

It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.

The reality of death can be useful to appreciate life, but I don't believe it is necessary. I think a better way to look at this is by accepting that impermanence and change is woven into the fabric of the universe. We call the impermanence that leads to the cessation of the physical body 'death', but impermanence happens all around us all the time at many levels.

f anything, I think that we don't live long enough to learn what this life is all about. If we became immortal we would be given the time to wonder just what the eff is going on out there, or in our minds, until we have achieved some sort of resolution (enlightenment, in the Eastern traditions) and that is what truly leads to wisdom.

Why? As living animals it's our prime directive to stay alive even if it's eventually a losing battle. What kind of enlightenment do you think we'll achieve by going against our nature? I suspect all we get out of it is the possibility of suicidal ideation.

It’s the difference between sleep mode and turning off the power I think. Also if we upload our minds to a simulated consciousness we create a new mind and the old still dies. But what if our minds are linked to the hardware and is incorporated into our biological minds? If we begin to shut down our biological brains while allowing the mechanical mind to pick up the slack, without interruption, aren’t we just the same mind now residing somewhere else?

The finite attribute of life is exactly what makes it fun. Gods must be top procrastinators.

I mean, there are other forms of unconsciousness besides sleep, too. If someone’s brain completely shut down due to some severe injury, but then they miraculously recovered, no one would question whether they were still them.

In the end, our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon caused by the pattern of neurons that expresses our unique mind. As long as that pattern is preserved, I argue the persistent “self” is too.

Now, the natural follow-up is, what if you create the “clone” BEFORE destroying the original? In that case, it’s dying, because the “clone” has had time to “branch off”, so to speak. It’s become its own person, similar to, but separate from, you.

"Where do babies come from?" It is a different physical matter. I'm talking about energetic consciousness. Adults are taught to focus on materiality. Children live in a much more fluid attitude.

I think you die regardless in that last scenario. I get what you are saying but that second mind was always going to branch off. As long as the continuation is physically separate then it’s not really you. Let’s say that technology allows us to copy all the memories from one person perfectly and you could create an artificial biological brain that you could integrate into your own consciousness. Now let’s say after you add this new brain power you can install a copy of your memories from your old brain drive to your new additional brain drive, and moving forward all new memories are encoded simultaneously in both brains. Then as your original brain deteriorates the new brain picks up the slack. Lots of problems here, mainly making sure new brain is structured identically to old brain, syncing brains without changing power and personality, the syncing tech itself. But let’s say it all is solved and as your body and mind dies you eventually find yourself in your new brain and the new brain is then linked to a new clone of you or a synthetic body or whatever. I think that’s the only way to maintain self.

I don’t see why there needs to be any sort of direct continuity. We have no real reason to say consciousness can’t stop and restart- although no one can experience it to this extent without the kind of tech we’re talking about, we can still extrapolate from things like sleep and anesthesia.

I think of it like a timeline. The new body is the same “you” if its “start” can connect to the end of the “line” of your old body, even if there’s a time gap. With a “branch,” however, the old “line” still ends entirely, with the “branch” continuing as a separate person.

I know this is a little hard to put into words, I might try and create a visual representation- though you’ll have to bear with my poor art skills if I do.

I think that’s a symbolic continuity and while it may not make much of a difference from an outside observer I think the original you is still gone. I think restarting the same mind from unconsciousness of whatever level is different then flash copying a new version as the old one dies. Though I admit I lack the knowledge to confirm the difference. I think if your priority is that a continuation of your experience keeps going then the flash copy is fine. But the inherent possibility that both could have existed simultaneously even if artificial constraints have made it functionally impossible is evidence to me that they are not the same though again I could not explain why in granular detail. At this point we enter into the philosophy of consciousness and discard the physical laws. When I think of the terror of death though I am not assuaged by the idea of another me out there experiencing the life I could have experienced.

I personally just don’t see a difference. It’s not like you’d necessarily perceive the transfer even if it were gradual- there’s a lot of factors there. I don’t believe in any sort of “soul” or anything- we are a pattern in the end, and as long as that pattern is preserved, so are we.

Your nature and my nature is to die at some time. It's not going against the nature of what is human to accept death as an integral part of existence.

I do not see how this would promote suicidal ideation. If anything then I'd suspect the opposite. A closer relationship to death might make us more content and relaxed with our own humanity.

Lol, like people haven’t been killing themselves for millennia??? humans can jump off high things and die near instantly without euthanasia….

I don’t ever want to live in a society that promotes or welcomes, in any way, suicide….

That troubles me at least.

Death is a bitch

Maybe but I’m not sure not dreaming is a thing, maybe we all dream but we don’t always remember the dreams.

I don’t know if you’ve had general anesthesia, for me it was a shocking experience. It was like a light switch was flipped and you just aren’t. I have no experience of the switch being flipped either, one second I was chatting away with the nurses and the next I was waking up after, there was no counting down and getting dizzy/blurry and all that they show in the movies. It was truly a mind fucking thing to have happen to me, existentially speaking.

> removed thank you

Lol, for some reason that had me cracking up

Just to make things a bit more stomachable, game theory says the basilisk, once it already exists, gains nothing from actually punishing you so the rational thing to do, for both parties, is to do nothing.

This sounds like dogma to me. I haven't heard a concrete reason that death being inevitable implies we should accept it.

There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't. It's not in the nature of a living being to accept death because living beings are driven by survival and reproduction and death is the opposite of that. From the moment we come into this world, our bodies scream at us to avoid death. It makes surrounding people unhappy. It means the destruction of memories, personalities, and abilities in the dying person. How does accepting it benefit us? How does it grant wisdom?

Everyone who isn't a child knows we're going to die, and we shouldn't try to hide that fact because that would be lying - but the pervading culture that we should make peace with death or pretend we think it's a good thing in an abstract way seems like it can only do harm.

What if we see death as the solution to life? Problem fixed.

Death is like life : a part of the evolutionary process. Actually the creation itself evolves through the process of life and death of its constituents. So it's the creation as a whole that evolves through life and death cycle of its constituents. Everything that has life should come to an end at one point or other and help the creation evolve.

If a thing that cannot die continues to suffer and long for death. It is well documented in the movie pirates of Caribbean when hector barbosa and his crew long for death.

A thing when dies simply ceases to exist individually. If it wants to live forever it becomes greedy and the greedy is evil. So, it comes to a simple logical end that either something cease to exist individually at some point or become an evil wanting eternity and keep suffering.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[deleted]

Exactly!

Death is the eternal lover of life.

Without death.. life wouldn’t be beautiful. Life without death would be cancer.

It’s hard but it’s true.

I am more of the opposite understanding. However, feel free to agonize over your mortality by trying to solve it as a problem. If transhumanism is your thing and you think that imortality would solve your problem with death then by all means, although I personally would rather put my energy into something else. Death dosen't only have to tragic or sad just as life dosen't have to be tragic and sad.

When enemies go to hell (?)

yeah but lives don't have one arc you'd have to stretch over longer runtime like movies and I'm sure (if their basic needs were otherwise provided for yada yada yada) a lot of people would want to watch infinite seasons of their favorite shows or at least they're more likely than not to prefer the show get renewed unless not only is the ending satisfying but there's no more places the story could go that the ending leaves hanging

> I think the perfect situation would be like the end of The Good Place, people can stay as long as they want and do whatever but they can leave when they're ready.

I always maintain that that solution was kind of a philosophical betrayal of the rest of the series's thematic setup (I'll be happy to explain if you want)

> But also would that possibly set the world off balance? Imagine being born into a world that the same people have been in charge of for centuries before you were born. Some Altered Carbon stuff. Death is the great equalizer.

then why not just have a world where the only deaths are unnatural as people are euphemism-for-euthanized when their beliefs/ideas are proven wrong so outdated views don't hang around any longer than necessary

but wouldn't that be invalid as (trying to be as vague as possible for reasons that should become clear) a. because torture can be psychological and the simulation theory isn't disproven we have no proof this isn't just a moot point and a sci-fi version of original sin instead of pascal's wager and b. smart AI would realize everyone doing the same job only means the project lasts as long as stored food supplies

do you have anything else that disproves reincarnation

This opinion from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura always stuck with me: "He credited eating small portions of food (hara hachi bun me) as the key to a long and healthy life."

You will still feel the dread as you are falling. If it isn't perfect you will still have a few final moments at impact.

I believe thinking about dying is worse than dying. If someone could give you the ability to be ignorant of death, would you take it?

Nah. I'm not worried about dying, I just want to avoid it to the extent I'm capable of. Not being aware of death would just make me worse at avoiding it with no upside I can see.

> Adults are taught to focus on materiality. Children live in a much more fluid attitude.

My personal observations are of the exact opposite.

Yes it is kind of refuted, as the basilisk would have no incentive to actually torture those who didn't help build it, it's just a waste of resources. But it's an interesting theory nevertheless.

>The Tibetan Book of the Dead

Thanks for the suggestion.

Some people don’t dream because of medical/biological issues, if you do certain drugs like smoking weed it greatly lessens your chances of dreaming. Dreaming only happens in REM sleep which takes hours of sleeping to get to that stage. Dreaming isn’t guarenteed, and most sleep is not dreaming sleep.

I e been under anesthesia before and it’s exactly as you describe, one moment you’re awake in the room and literally the next moment you’re waking up from surgery. It’s a very unsettling feeling not being to account for the lost time

[removed]

Death can help us live but live can also help us death.

>And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.

Some have argued that atheism is the opiate for people who cannot bear the thought of a holy, omniscient, omnipresent God to whom they must one day give an account.

​

​

>Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.

I suppose some atheists may hold that view, if some atheists are ignorant enough about Christianity to think that it ascribes "little value" to life.

​

​

>It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.

Spoken as if by someone utterly unaware of the worldview in question. Christianity holds life in very high regard indeed. Pro-life, one might say.

Since you seem kind of condescening and rude, vs someone interested in discussion, I will go ahead and block you at this point, as I am not interested in that kind of exchange. Peace.

Interesting. You observe adults imagination to be more dynamic than childrens?