curiously, there seems to be a growing number of people experiencing some form of existential crisis in their teenage years. as odd as this may sound, i think this a good thing.
a few points though:
- in order to answer the question 'what happens after death', one must first ascertain what exactly 'death' is. death is a piece of a jargon that has been bandied about since god-knows-when, and is often used in quotidian discourse as an antonym for life. indeed, 'the cessation of life' seems to be a very intuitive definition of death. but this begs the question: what exactly is life? i shall gloss over some key philosophical debates and viewpoints, and boldly assert that if you really think about it, life is simply the persistence of consciousness (although this, i'm aware, has pretty radical implications, which i am more than prepared to accept - do we cease to live when we are unconscious?). if we accept this definition of life, then death simply becomes 'the cessation of consciousness'. now think about this. alarm bells should go off. assuming that we derive our knowledge from experience (not simply sensory experience but other kinds of experience as well), and the 'having of experience', aka perception, requires the persistence of consciousness, the concept of death, as a human construct (because the word 'death' clearly refers to something in our world of experience), is simply beyond our scope. we can theorise and postulate, but at the end of the day what do we have to work with? experiences of other 'humans' 'dying'. i feel the need here to drive a wedge and hence illuminate the distinction between subject and object; we can only ever perceive objects dying...the supposition that what applies to objects applies also to subjects is a bigger leap of faith than may initially appear...
- this next point is directed at polonium. what exactly do you mean by 'soul'? philosophers over the ages have adopted different definitions, without necessarily being conscious of the fact, and this is very bad, because what ends up happening is philosophers start to argue about different things, resulting in stagnation of the worst possible kind. by soul, do you mean the 'thing' that gives life to body? (even this is problematic because you would then have to provide adequate definitions for body and life). or do you mean 'consciousness'/ 'awareness'/ 'will'? and how meaningful are the adjectives 'physical' and 'metaphysical'? what exactly do you mean by 'physical'? if the word physical is simply used to describe a different mode of experience (i do not experience tables and chairs for instance in the way i do ideas), then i think the answer is obvious, but not anything revelatory. i can't touch, feel and smell ideas in the way i can touch, feel and smell physical objects. that is revealed through experience. no debate.
- the notions of heaven and of hell have been raised. these notions amount to nothing more than speculation. as far as i'm aware, no one has ever had any experience of heaven or hell. and all knowledge is derived from experience, as mentioned earlier. (i have an affinity for empiricism...yes...but so do the majority of people on this forum...so i think...as evidenced by the repeated demands for scientific proof.) the words 'heaven' and 'hell', like all words, are human constructs that describe something in the human world of experience. but i have a sneaky suspicion that these words refer not to particular objects, but rather 'composite entities'. kind of like the word 'unicorn', which, i'm sure many of you would agree, refers not to any particular observable object in the world of experience, but rather to a complex combination of individual objects (the unicorn derives its horn from rhinos, its body from horses, etc.). we ought to remain faithful to experience, and not let our imagination get the better of us (it is perfectly legit to posit that we all live in a matrix. it remains a legitimate possibility. but such an account of our existence reaches beyond the scope of human experience, and therefore must be considered pure speculation).
- even if we turn into 'nothing' when we die, that doesn't necessarily mean our lives are meaningless. nihilism is quite indefensible. consider what exactly 'meaning' is. if by meaning you mean 'divine purpose', then perhaps the conclusion is defensible. i shall boldly assert that lives are made meaningful by 'wills', by which i mean 'forces' which constitute the self. i don't want to make generalizations here, but i think it's reasonable to assume that all humans have wills, and therefore have certain desires, which they strive to fulfil. some are more attracted to bodily pleasures, others find 'spiritual' pleasures more alluring (there are people who like learning, like being respected by their peers, etc. etc.). the fulfilment of desires brings pleasure (or if you don't like that term, happiness), and this, i claim, is the meaning of life, the end of all ends, and the ultimate goal of all humans (by virtue of the fact that all humanity possess wills).
Home
Help
Search
Login
