Dread of death

Originally posted by dottewell
A friend recently asked how an atheist should deal with the prospect of death. I admit I was at a bit of a loss - it is ultimately a very upsetting thought indeed.

Any comments?

Death isn't upsetting. It just seems that way because people get their knickers in a twist about things they just haven't observed clearly enough.

Everything dies. End of story. Yes, you can hope for ever lasting life in Gods, grails and stasis, but the truth of the matter is everything, including you, is gonna die.
Instead of fighting it, accept it.

All say after me: "I'm going to die."
See. Now that you've accepted the final conclusion, it's not that bad. It's what's supposed to happen. You're going to die. Nothing you say, hope for or will is going to change this (it's pretty much like taxation).

And don't die in your sleep! You're only gonna die once, make sure you're there to experience it! It's going to happen anyway, best to realize it's happening. Enjoy it.
If you know something is going to happen whatever you do, there's no longer any need for fear.

Fear is there to protect you from the choices you make. Death isn't a choice. So fear has no place. Accept it. Enjoy it.

That's life... doobedy doobedy bop.

Originally posted by Palynka
To fear a transition is different from fearing the following state. It could be fear of leaving the current state.

I don't think I fear the event itself at all. I fear the loss of what I have and what I hope to have in future.

Originally posted by Starrman
Grow up.

Stop being a sheep parading the same stereotypical "erudite" views. You're actually an intelligent guy so think for yourself for a change. Whenever I confront you with something that doesn't conform with those types of views you're unable to argue for your position. Maybe that should tell you something.

What I've said here is indeed my view. I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I defended it, provided the reasons why, showed you how even you have described death as a transition and what did you do? You just huffed and puffed and buried your head in the sand. I think you're better than that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think I fear the event itself at all. I fear the loss of what I have and what I hope to have in future.

What is death if not the end of life?

Because it is the end of life is what causes the loss of what you have and what you hope to have in the future. These are irrevocable consequences of death/end of life. If you fear them, then surely you fear death.

Edit - Just saw that you wrote this on the previous page:
Yes, I agree, it is the fear of loss not so much the fear of the actual event of death or state thereafter, but it is still correct to say we fear death, when it is the loss of current life or loss of potential future life that is implied, even when said future life is not even an option.
I agree completely and that was my point. Please forget this post.

Originally posted by shavixmir
All say after me: "I'm going to die."
See. Now that you've accepted the final conclusion, it's not that bad. It's what's supposed to happen. You're going to die. Nothing you say, hope for or will is going to change this (it's pretty much like taxation).

But there is no hard and fast rule about when I am going to die. I will do what I can to try to postpone it for as long as possible.
I have avoided tax before, and would be afraid if I heard that the taxman was comming for a visit. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
But there is no hard and fast rule about when I am going to die. I will do what I can to try to postpone it for as long as possible.
I have avoided tax before, and would be afraid if I heard that the taxman was comming for a visit. 🙂

Why would you postpone it as long as possible at all costs?

So, not at all costs.

Which means the cost is more important that the actual timing of death. And there is certainly something to be said for that. I find it totally credible that children are frightened of death. I find it absurd when 80 year olds cling on to life like pro-lifers at an anti-abortion rally.

Perhaps if one lives to the max, one has less regret about dying?

Originally posted by Palynka
Stop being a sheep parading the same stereotypical "erudite" views. You're actually an intelligent guy so think for yourself for a change. Whenever I confront you with something that doesn't conform with those types of views you're unable to argue for your position. Maybe that should tell you something.

What I've said here is indeed my view. I'm not argui ...[text shortened]... ust huffed and puffed and buried your head in the sand. I think you're better than that.

I've argued for them, you've dismissed that arguement because it doesn't fit into your view. How is that any different to what you're accusing me of? I think your view on death is simplistic and born out of generalisations, both epistemic and social, you think my view is a strawman. The difference between our standpoints is that I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about who's winning the arguement, whereas you come across as a pitbull intent on the kill. Have fun winning.

Originally posted by Starrman
I've argued for them, you've dismissed that arguement because it doesn't fit into your view. How is that any different to what you're accusing me of? I think your view on death is simplistic and born out of generalisations, both epistemic and social, you think my view is a strawman. The difference between our standpoints is that I'm not in the slightest the arguement, whereas you come across as a pitbull intent on the kill. Have fun winning.

1. Death, as an event, is the transition from being alive to being dead
2. Fear can be defined as apprehension or nervousness about a possible, probable or inevitable event
3. Fear of an event is well-grounded or "rational" in proportion to two things - the likelihood of its object occurring, and the negative impact of its object occurring.
4. Death is inevitable
5. Being alive is (infinitely?) better than being dead

Which one of 1-5 do you dispute, and why?

Originally posted by dottewell
1. Death, as an event, is the transition from being alive to being dead
2. Fear can be defined as apprehension or nervousness about a possible, probable or inevitable event
3. Fear of an event is well-grounded or "rational" in proportion to two things - the likelihood of its object occurring, and the negative impact of its object occurring.
4. Death is ...[text shortened]... ng alive is (infinitely?) better than being dead

Which one of 1-5 do you dispute, and why?

1. I don't see death as an event, that reifies it and allows us to attach qualities to it which I don't believe exist. Death is a lack of anything, it's nothingness. We only reify it because we are currently not dead and have trouble dealing with a zero. There is no transition from alive to dead except as held by the still living, since we have a body to look at, emotions to deal with etc.

2. I think there's more to it than that, I think fear is directly tied to the consequences of the event. I remember a debate about being eaten by a lion a while back. I maintain that the fear of lions was not in their essence, but in the consequences of lion-action upon you. A lion in itself was not to be feared, the pain of lion induced damage was.

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Starrman
1. I don't see death as an event, that reifies it and allows us to attach qualities to it which I don't believe exist. Death is a lack of anything, it's nothingness. We only reify it because we are currently not dead and have trouble dealing with a zero. There is no transition from alive to dead except as held by the still living, since we have a body to n itself was not to be feared, the pain of lion induced damage was.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, however

(a) if someone else's death (e.g. yours) is an event, then surely so is mine?

and

(b) I suspect you would rather be badly mauled by a lion than killed (quickly and painlessly) by a lion... Why would that be? Perhaps because I can know and consider (now) the consequences of an event, even if I will not be able to know and consider them after/as a result of that event.

For example, if some sadist is standing over me about to perform a (unnecessary and unwanted) lobotomy, it will be no great solace to be told the experience will be painless.

Originally posted by dottewell
It does make sense, however

(a) if someone else's death (e.g. yours) is an event, then surely so is mine?

and

(b) I suspect you would rather be badly mauled by a lion than killed (quickly and painlessly) by a lion... Why would that be? Perhaps because I can know and consider (now) the consequences of an event, even if I will not be able to ...[text shortened]... and unwanted) lobotomy, it will be no great solace to be told the experience will be painless.

I think I would rather be killed quickly by a lion than mauled and mutilated. Depends on the degree of mauling and the quality of life afterwards.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Why would you postpone it as long as possible at all costs?

So, not at all costs.

Which means the cost is more important that the actual timing of death. And there is certainly something to be said for that. I find it totally credible that children are frightened of death. I find it absurd when 80 year olds cling on to life like pro-lifers at an anti-abortion rally.

Perhaps if one lives to the max, one has less regret about dying?

I think it has a lot to do with the inevitability issue.
My grandmother, before she died at the age of 89, said she was tired of life and was ready to move on. (She was Christian). But I think that it had a lot to do with the fact that her life was no longer that enjoyable and she saw no prospect of that improving. If however a 90 year old was told they would have a fit and healthy and enjoyable life up to 150, I do not think that they could be blamed for clinging on to life just as hard as 5 year old child.

What is living to the max? I certainly haven't and probably never will experience everything I want to experience in life. I will always want more.

Originally posted by Starrman
1. I don't see death as an event, that reifies it and allows us to attach qualities to it which I don't believe exist. Death is a lack of anything, it's nothingness. We only reify it because we are currently not dead and have trouble dealing with a zero. There is no transition from alive to dead except as held by the still living, since we have a body to ...[text shortened]... n itself was not to be feared, the pain of lion induced damage was.

Does that make sense?

1. You say there is no transition from alive to dead, yet you identify these two states. It's incoherent.

2. The agent is the cause of those consequences. If you fear the consequences then necessarily you fear the agent.

Originally posted by dottewell
It does make sense, however

(a) if someone else's death (e.g. yours) is an event, then surely so is mine?

and

(b) I suspect you would rather be badly mauled by a lion than killed (quickly and painlessly) by a lion... Why would that be? Perhaps because I can know and consider (now) the consequences of an event, even if I will not be able to ...[text shortened]... and unwanted) lobotomy, it will be no great solace to be told the experience will be painless.

a) To a third party; yes. But how, as a first person, should we think of the nothing beyond life other than by reflecting a third party view? I don't think you can. There's no first person experience, no event.

b) That depends on whether the mauling was severe enough to make me desire an end to the experience. I'm not saying that it is not preferable to live than to die, only that there shouldn't be any fear of death. I can want to live far more than I want not to live without placing any fear in the end of my living experience.

I think it would be solace to know it was not painful. Overriding my socially learned fear of crazed sadists and their actions would be difficult, but I think I can safely say that I'd be a lot more scared if he said it would be very painful indeed. I can prefer painless labotomy to painful labotomy. Are we talking labotomy as removal of my conscious mind or would I still have some awareness?

Originally posted by Starrman
a) To a third party; yes. But how, as a first person, should we think of the nothing beyond life other than by reflecting a third party view? I don't think you can. There's no first person experience, no event.

b) That depends on whether the mauling was severe enough to make me desire an end to the experience. I'm not saying that it is not preferable ...[text shortened]... e we talking labotomy as removal of my conscious mind or would I still have some awareness?

My argument requires only that my death is, in fact, an event. I'd be sceptical of any philosophy that suggests (as you seem to be doing here) that if I do not experience my death from all sides, as it were(i.e. before, during, after) then it doesn't count as an event.

It may be a relative comfort to learn that your unwanted lobotomy will be painless; I doubt it would make you feel indifferent towards the prospect, or significantly less fearful. (Let's say the lobotomy in question removes your self-consciousness entirely).