LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks...
February 26th, 2008, 10:03 AM
...
February 26th, 2008, 10:07 AM
I don't think we are meant to know the answer to this question.Originally Posted by al_zaine
If people knew for sure there was life after death then they wouldn't bother as much in this life, and unfortunately even with this lack of knowledge people still either don't bother or go on wishing their lives away or wasting it.
Make the most of every day and if there is life after death, well you haven't got anything to lose then either way have you?
February 26th, 2008, 10:21 AM
No
Yes
Makes me more free
No
As above
...
I do not believe in life after death....though, as said, we will never really know until we die. It does effect my life in the way that I appreciate the fact that I am alive and here to think and philosophize. It doesn't make me more cautious.....if you live your life cautiously because of this, you may by alive physically, but you are dead mentally.
I am not scared of death at all; as someone else stated here a little while go, being scared of death is childish.
I talked to a religious person about this a little while ago, and he told me that life would be very depressing if he didn't believe in an after life. I find that pathetic really, that most people need to be guaranteed immortality to consider life worth living.
Another discussion went on either here, or on another forum about how it is impossible to be immortal. The argument was that even though you may be able to live forever physically, you will still die every 150 years or so. This is due to what defines you as you...your memories and positions on things. Over time your memories will fade and your personality will likely change so radically that you might as well have died, and created a new person from yourself that only shares the same body.
Yes, immortality, the fantasy of so many. . . well, don't count on it ever changing from fantasy to reality. It is nice to have such a lofty goal for humans, but it is really just quite arrogant. Death will never be obsolete until there is no more life. And the assertion that in a mere 20 years we will have conquered death?! That is quite laughable.The scientist talking alot more about attaining immortality, so in 20years from now, Death(obsoleteness) will be obsolete.
As to the original question. . . I side very much with the great philosopher Epicurus. He says that death doesn't even concern us, because when we are, death is not, and when death is, we are not. It never hurt anyone to not exist did it? Well, that is what it will be like after death, so what's the big deal. The only people it matters to are the ones living that cared about us. . .but that's pretty much it. Nothing matters to us after we die, and that statement doesn't even make a whole lot of sense, because it is referring to us. . . after we die. . . .but at that point we are not. . . .so there's no us!
I do not live more cautiously because of my views on this. I try to be cautious, I try to stay prepared, but I certainly do not restrict myself in any sense.
February 26th, 2008, 07:48 PM
...
One might say death is part of the evolutionary process. If it is possible to engineer the human genome to the point where we can cure diseases, eliminate birth defects, negate aging, produce tissue regeneration and a host of life lengthening benefits then would this be considered adaptation or possibly the next step in human evolution?
So far, death seems necessary for the tiny steps of evolution to take place over millions of years but are millions of years really necessary when you can do it yourself?
February 26th, 2008, 09:11 PM
...
If we didn't die then I think we wouldn't be needing too many replacements. I don't think it entirely 100% possible to prevent death with accidents and such. I agree that someday it may be possible to engineer humans for long space flights or to inhabit different worlds.
...
February 27th, 2008, 12:33 AM
I sure as hell hope so, else this ride isn't exactly worth it. :?
Ah, now we get to the root of the question (and problem).
That would depend on how you believe this life effects the next (if it does at all). If you believe this life has an impact on the next, then what is needed to be done in this life, for the next? What kinds of things are relevant to that concern?
If you don't believe this life effects the next, but do believe in life after death, what are the implications? Wouldn't any concern about such an "after life" be meaningless, since nothing you would do would effect the next life?
Lastly, define "life after death." Is this supposed to be the ultimate reward and the end of the journey (ie Heaven)? Or is the after-life chained in a sequence of existences that never end?
Unless I consider that my dreams and subconscious may be effected by one or more past lives, then the only effect there would be, would be the effect of the preparation for the next life.
Of course, I also have to consider what I believe the results of my actions will be.
All depends on what I believe will happen between this life and the next.
Although "caution" has it's problems.
1. You could assume that your actions in this life, effect the result of your after-life. For instance, if you believe the afterlife is Heaven or Hell, you might be inclined to position yourself in this life, such that you end up in Heaven, vs Hell.
2. If you believe that your next life builds off of the results of this life, you might be inclined to find ways to ensure that your next life is more agreeable. (This brings with it the question of whether or not your past life, previous to this one, existed, and if so, what its effects are on your decision now. Further, what are the implications of a past life that leads you to go further against success in your next life?)
3. To what level am I prepared to affect this life, in order to positively affect the next? (For example, if I believe that the next life is actually Heaven, and thus more or less "end game" then I might be less concerned about the time I spend focusing on setting myself up in the after-life. On the other hand, if I believe the next life is merely a chain of "lives," I would probably be less inclined to "waste" this life to ensure the next.)
That's kinda moot, if I consider that if I'm not aware of my next life, it's technically not "me." Although that's probably arguable. :P
February 27th, 2008, 02:25 AM
On a religious ground (Sensitive answers), those influenced by Buddhism would be affected by this..reincarnation. Because they beleived in lives as either human or animal after death, they would wish to have good [/i]karma[/i]in order to have a better birthplace, better enviorment for them to strive ect.ect. They would be more cautious of their deeds and make sure they follow cloesly to their beliefs so as to not have a harder life (as an animal etc) next time. Only after all their deeds are fully repaid then can they be freed from this cycle.
Every living things understand the need for reproduction, to ensure that their species would not die out. The main aim of reproduction is to (quoted) replace those dead, therefore we could safely assume that death is inevitable or else there would be no reproduction methods, since there's no need to replace anyone. So it's quite pointless to be trying to conquer death.
The only reason I would want to live forever would be so that I could acquire an insane amount of wisdom. Already, I have said everything to myself that I have read in books by "The great philosophers" such as Plato, Socrates, Kant, Thoreau, Ralph Emerson and others...as in, nothing I have ever read has even slightly surpassed by cognitive abilities. This is to say that I currently am equal to at least 8 philosophers (Only in terms of pure knowledge....their level of articulation still supersedes my own) , completely through my own will and way. If I had another 300 years to think, I would acquire such amazing thoughts, that I cant even begin to comprehend. Unfortunately, it will not be me, but someone else 300 years from now (Assuming that we do not destroy ourselves by then) that will, hopefully, completely surpass me or whoever is by my definition the most objective and wise person of our day.
Who here posses philosophical wisdom that comes only from themselves? As in, the knowledge did not come from reading books or from any other outside source? Most people to my knowledge only know what they know from outside sources; although you may know as much as another person whose thoughts only came from themselves, they still have a great advantage over you; asking questions is more important than answering them, and the ability to reason to your level independently of the world gives you a great advantage-It means that you can surpass everyone else, while the person who got their information from books can only be a follower of what is published, which is very limited compared to what the other person is capable of.
.......I guess I cannot help going off topic sometimes.
February 28th, 2008, 01:11 AM
That would only make sense if the physical body had any meaning.
In most conceptions of life-after-death, the body doesn't factor into it. Although there is, of course, those who believe that the body and the afterlife are tied by the transmission of status and belongings. Such beliefs can be found in ancient Egyptian religious, Viking religions, as well as certain native tribes of the Americas. I suppose in those cases the body would be relevant, but again the actual physical body isn't really important.
...
For me, the issue is black and white. There's no middle ground. If there isn't anything beyond the pallid existence of our senses and hormones, then there is no meaning. Compared against the scale of the universe, whatever supposed significance there is to "life" is washed away under such a position.
On the other hand, if there IS an afterlife, its significance can be measured the same, since that afterlife may be another minuscule part of "life" as well. Ten trillion lifetimes compared to eternity does not make any difference.
It is enough, for me, now, to hope that there is something more to life...although there doesn't really seem to be a choice. What is true is true, whatever it may be.
It's important (at least I think so) to be flexible in your beliefs, because no single ideal is total. However, if you spend your whole life never taking any direction, then nothing you do has much meaning. In order to achieve, you must accomplish.
With viewpoints on the afterlife, what is it that you accomplish by switching viewpoints? If you choose to believe in one ideal today, and another tomorrow, and yet another the next day, you're essentially just actively lying to yourself. A great exercise in exploration and education it may be, but unless you're accepting that you are "searching" for an answer to your question of an afterlife, you're just wasting your time.
There's a group of people out there somewhere, I forget their name at the moment, who believe that we are all instances of the same being, and that being is essentially the "god" we all seek or deny. It's an interesting viewpoint that certainly deserves some consideration.
I ran into a concept while in a lengthy discussion on angels and souls some years ago. The idea was that there are a fixed number of souls, and like bits of memory in a RAM chip, they keep getting recycled through the "system". Each time through they experience some new facet of existence, but as soon as their time is up, the facet changes and the bit gets new information. Again, another interesting concept that deserves some consideration...
Fair enough.
I will not disclose the nether regions to which any conversation can travel, that I have experienced in my life. The nights I've spent without sleep, having ongoing conversations with good friends...in retrospect, probably some of the best moments of time I've spent in my life. :P
| « The Nature Of Time | Mom and dad were heroes » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
