ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: mikehepro on June 13, 2013, 11:01:30 am
-
Hey guys I'm having this weird thoughts lately.
I came across the inevitable question: what happens when we die?
We are basically removed from this whole world and the only thing remains is memory.
Heaven? Hell? Rebirth? Nothingness? But those are all only theory with no solid evidence.
So why are we here at all?
Disturbing question.
Any thoughts?
-
I've actually always wondered what happens when we die - it is indeed a scary thought.
Option 1) we fall into "nothingness". Just complete and total 'blackness'.
Option 2) we become like Dumbledore at Kings Cross Station. This would be my optimum death :)
-
Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.
So if a person dies and fall into "nothingness", really all the effort and everything you did in your lifetime is....pointless? People tries really hard and earn money etc, but really you can't take any of them with you when you die. It's not like you can spend it in a possible "other" world :P
-
Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.
There is not.
-
Have...have you been reading Dan Brown?
-
The interpretation of a soul being a physical thing is extremely interesting, and leads on to rather strange conclusions.
-
There is not.
Ahhaha this guy did a research on it, but it might not be accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)
-
That research is not accurate.
-
Remember that time before we were in the womb? Me either. That's where we go when we die ;]
-
That research is not accurate.
I agree the fact that this experiment might not be accurate but there's several experiments with the same attempt and different results, but their conclusion are similar: that "soul" do have a weight. It might be true that various factors might affect the outcome of these experiments. But do you believe soul as a physical thing? From birth, most people have been taught that soul is a spiritual thing, so it might be the reason that a "physical" soul is so hard to believe. Meh it's really something we can't justify.
-
Uh. I think the science you're referring to is probably closer to pseudoscience. How they would isolate a soul as a variable is beyond me.
Your previous post also just assumed that there is a soul, I mean, by asking "do you believe soul as a physical thing" - you're assuming that it IS a thing, but still trying to decide if it is physical or not.
I'm not too sure that I believe in a soul.
-
Just assume there isn't, and if there is, you'll get a pleasant surprise. It's not something knowable, so why worry?
-
Just assume there isn't, and if there is, you'll get a pleasant surprise. It's not something knowable, so why worry?
Hmm, going by this logic, wouldn't it be better to assume there is one and have your expectations pleasantly fulfilled, because if they aren't fulfilled it's not like you'll ever know about it? (Pretty much just summarised Pascal's wager)
-
I agree the fact that this experiment might not be accurate but there's several experiments with the same attempt and different results, but their conclusion are similar: that "soul" do have a weight. It might be true that various factors might affect the outcome of these experiments. But do you believe soul as a physical thing? From birth, most people have been taught that soul is a spiritual thing, so it might be the reason that a "physical" soul is so hard to believe. Meh it's really something we can't justify.
Can I see some links to these experiments and their findings, thanks. The soul as a physical thing is not something that is accepted or commonly investigated.
-
Can I see some links to these experiments and their findings, thanks. The soul as a physical thing is not something that is accepted or commonly investigated.
Yes.
And seeing that we've just about scanned the entirety of the human body, we must be missing something quite important if we can't find the soul.
A physical soul is a silly proposition. On the other hand though, a metaphysical soul may exist, and there are damn good arguments for it (philosophical zombie)
-
Can I see some links to these experiments and their findings, thanks. The soul as a physical thing is not something that is accepted or commonly investigated.
http://www.dapla.org/pdf/whs.pdf
There's another experiment on the soul issue, but it does go to further talk about the dark matter and dark plasma theory, that's another thing all together.
Edit: there's really too much factors on this issue, these experiments might not be true after all and soul might not even exist at all, who knows.
-
Hmm, going by this logic, wouldn't it be better to assume there is one and have your expectations pleasantly fulfilled, because if they aren't fulfilled it's not like you'll ever know about it? (Pretty much just summarised Pascal's wager)
That's brilliant. But I've never believed in an afterlife, and it would take some damn convincing evidence to persuade me otherwise.
-
(philosophical zombie)
http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf
:D
"According to this argument, it is conceivable that there be a system that is physically identical to a
conscious being, but that lacks at least some of that being’s conscious states. Such a system might
be a zombie: a system that is physically identical to a conscious being but that lacks consciousness
entirely."
-
re: Polonium/Lolz, Chalmers' zombie argument isn't really about the soul at all - it's more just trying to suggest that physiology and consciousness possess different properties, which is quite a distinct thing from saying that there exists a physical body and a metaphysical soul.
-
Heaven/hell.
-
Heaven/hell.
What do you think determines where people go? Like, does an atheist go to hell simply by virtue of being an atheist, even if they live a Christian way of life? (Or whatever morally righteous way of life you choose?). P.S not attacking you, I'm just curious.
-
Good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell.
How would you define 'good' and 'bad'?
Just curious about what you guys think.
-
*I have split some discussion that was occurring into this thread and moved it into Rants.
-
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).
-
Good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell.
How would you define 'good' and 'bad'?
Just curious about what you guys think.
it seems clear to me that morality is nothing but a human construct. the supposition that moral properties are objective/universal is just pure speculation, since in order to verify the truth of such a proposition, one would have to go beyond the limits of experience, which is, quite plainly, impossible. the words 'good' and 'bad', like all words, correspond to something in the world of experience. after a bit of meditation, you will inevitably discover that the words describe merely those attributes which are common to all human wills. furthermore, the words, like all words, are discovered through experience, this time of a specific sort. we develop our conception of 'good' and 'bad' through experience of moral imperatives (think of the first time you were castigated by your parents). since different people have different experiences, there is a good chance that the words 'good' and 'bad' mean slightly different things to different people. an indigenous australian would in all likelihood subscribe to a moral code that is markedly different from that espoused by, say, a person of asian descent, etc. the important thing to glean from this is that moral properties reflect merely the innate and learned preferences of a collectivity, and not something objective, whatever that term may mean.
-
Brightsky, did you just make an argument for moral relativism?
-
Brightsky, did you just make an argument for moral relativism?
I'd say he is more arguing moral nihilism. Moral relativism implies that there is still some meaningful standard people can follow - brightsky is going beyond good and evil.
-
I'm confused between the opening line (moral nihilism) and the latter half of the post is talking about learned preferences if a collectivity (which suggested relitavism to me)
-
Brightsky, did you just make an argument for moral relativism?
well, i don't really like declaring allegiance to any particular philosophy, given that there is a good chance that my beliefs do not coincide entirely with any pre-existing philosophy. moral relativism is quite intuitively unappealing, because it appears at first bemusing how an act can be simultaneously good and bad. i'm not prepared to make any metaphysical statement other than 'i exist'. i'm simply arguing that an act can be perceived as good by one person and as bad by another. on this point, there is little dispute. some people consider abortion to be morally objectionable, others deem it morally permissible. i don't think it is at all justified to say stuff like 'killing is wrong', since such statements already assume that there exists a set of objective rules dictating what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, an assumption that is unjustified for reasons i have discussed in my previous post. and the sad thing is, very often, when people condemn others and say stuff like 'killing is wrong', they don't mean simply 'i perceive killing to be wrong, by virtue of the experience i have had, etc.'; they help themselves to the aforementioned assumption. also, bear in mind that i am not writing off all moral codes as preposterous; i genuinely think that moral codes are necessary to bring about the good life. i am simply calling for a renewed appreciation for what exactly moral codes are: they are not objective codes, but are artificial, man-made, put in place so that the chance of happiness for all might be maximised.
I'd say he is more arguing moral nihilism. Moral relativism implies that there is still some meaningful standard people can follow - brightsky is going beyond good and evil.
i haven't actually read 'beyond good and evil', but the argument that nietzsche advances in 'genealogy of morals' is not very compelling at all. he is quite a slippery philosopher...and i think a certain someone agrees...
-
I'm confused between the opening line (moral nihilism) and the latter half of the post is talking about learned preferences if a collectivity (which suggested relitavism to me)
He is being a descriptive there, as opposed to being normative (which is what the usual usage of moral relativism implies). He's saying that what we construe to be morals are context-dependent; this is not a claim about what we SHOULD do, and is just a deconstruction of reality.
-
i haven't actually read 'beyond good and evil', but the argument that nietzsche advances in 'genealogy of morals' is not very compelling at all. he is quite a slippery philosopher...and i think a certain someone agrees...
A certain someone being DMac or my brother? :p And you'll have to explain to me what is disagreeable with Nietzsche - I think he has a weird way of cinceptualising things, but at the same time I think his fundamental principles (or at least, what I think to be the basic ideas behind his philosophy) are quite compelling.
-
A certain someone being DMac or my brother? :p And you'll have to explain to me what is disagreeable with Nietzsche - I think he has a weird way of cinceptualising things, but at the same time I think his fundamental principles (or at least, what I think to be the basic ideas behind his philosophy) are quite compelling.
the former...although i'm not quite sure because she refrains from judging other philosophers...
for obvious reasons i've only read sections of genealogy. in his account of the origin of christian morality, nietzsche makes several generalisations, the most unsettling of which is the assertion that humans can be divided into two types. he goes to great lengths to describe the characteristics of each type, but never takes on the task of actually justifying this rather simplistic division. i think most people would agree that every individual is unique, and thinks slightly differently; there are either many more types or no types at all. furthermore, nietzsche opines that morality stems from ressentiment, a claim which lacks historical justification, and is therefore pure speculation. it doesn't even make sense from a psychological perspective. nietzsche also commits the genetic fallacy when he argues that christian morality is without merit simply because there is a likelihood that it may have originated from something not to be exalted. his theory of the self is also problematic too but to really explain its problems requires too much time and effort...
what do you think are the fundamental principles of nietzsche's moral philosophy?
LOL OFFTOPIC
-
the former...although i'm not quite sure because she refrains from judging other philosophers...
for obvious reasons i've only read sections of genealogy. in his account of the origin of christian morality, nietzsche makes several generalisations, the most unsettling of which is the assertion that humans can be divided into two types. he goes to great lengths to describe the characteristics of each type, but never takes on the task of actually justifying this rather simplistic division. i think most people would agree that every individual is unique, and thinks slightly differently; there are either many more types or no types at all. furthermore, nietzsche opines that morality stems from ressentiment, a claim which lacks historical justification, and is therefore pure speculation. it doesn't even make sense from a psychological perspective. nietzsche also commits the genetic fallacy when he argues that christian morality is without merit simply because there is a likelihood that it may have originated from something not to be exalted. his theory of the self is also problematic too but to really explain its problems requires too much time and effort...
what do you think are the fundamental principles of nietzsche's moral philosophy?
LOL OFFTOPIC
I'd broadly agree with your objections actually - some I think come down to issues of interpretation perhaps, although others (eg the slave vs master binary) I agree and categories in my "weird way of cinceptualising things" group.
I think the fundamental principle is that everything is will and that beauty in life is attained through embracing said will. Tbh I think that principle is also expressed in Plato (enlightenment is reached in seeing the good; everything is, in fact, the good), just that their particulars vary and that's where philosophy perhaps gets a bit more technical but also interesting.
And yes, lol #offtopic.
-
I'd broadly agree with your objections actually - some I think come down to issues of interpretation perhaps, although others (eg the slave vs master binary) I agree and categories in my "weird way of cinceptualising things" group.
I think the fundamental principle is that everything is will and that beauty in life is attained through embracing said will. Tbh I think that principle is also expressed in Plato (enlightenment is reached in seeing the good; everything is, in fact, the good), just that their particulars vary and that's where philosophy perhaps gets a bit more technical but also interesting.
And yes, lol #offtopic.
that all sounds good and well, but after reading nietzsche a few times, one cannot help but ask the question: what the hell is he trying to say? nothing much at all. there is merit in his theory of the self, and his argument sounds quite fancy - "there is no agent behind the doing, there is just the doing" - but when you actually think about it, he isn't really saying much at all. is he denying the existence of the subject? no he doesn't appear to be. what is he denying then? he seems to be denying free will, but then again he's refuses to be classed as a determinist. he claims that we must cease from thinking in terms of binary pairs, but how do you go beyond 'free will and non-free will'?
i'm not much of an aesthete so i can really relate to this 'beauty of life' concept, and i fail to grasp its philosophical relevance. nietzsche indeed seems to be suggesting that we embrace the chaotic forces of life. but what the hell does that mean? how are we to embrace a force? essentially, how should we live? he doesn't answer any of these questions explicitly and therefore adequately. he writes eloquently and his works are a joy to read, especially when he bags the slaves, etc. but the thing is, they don't say much at all if you read it with a philosophy cap on.
-
that all sounds good and well, but after reading nietzsche a few times, one cannot help but ask the question: what the hell is he trying to say? nothing much at all. there is merit in his theory of the self, and his argument sounds quite fancy - "there is no agent behind the doing, there is just the doing" - but when you actually think about it, he isn't really saying much at all. is he denying the existence of the subject? no he doesn't appear to be. what is he denying then? he seems to be denying free will, but then again he's refuses to be classed as a determinist. he claims that we must cease from thinking in terms of binary pairs, but how do you go beyond 'free will and non-free will'?
i'm not much of an aesthete so i can really relate to this 'beauty of life' concept, and i fail to grasp its philosophical relevance. nietzsche indeed seems to be suggesting that we embrace the chaotic forces of life. but what the hell does that mean? how are we to embrace a force? essentially, how should we live? he doesn't answer any of these questions explicitly and therefore adequately. he writes eloquently and his works are a joy to read, especially when he bags the slaves, etc. but the thing is, they don't say much at all if you read it with a philosophy cap on.
Depends on what you mean by philosophy cap. I think it's also very easy to look beyond free will/non-free will as a binary as well - if you go back to the question of the self, and frame it in terms of denying the subject, but moreover, denying anything but the will, I think it's easy to do it (essentially you just have to accept free will/volition just doesn't make any sense, because there is no self that is making decisions).
I would also say that embracing life makes sense to me as well. At this point I'd probably quote Cam/Aurelian and also say Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher you rationalize, but rather, somebody you have to "feel". Cam's advice is to listen to some Eminem for a bit - apparently it helps in understanding Nietzsche.
-
Brightsky, did you just make an argument for moral relativism?
You say this like there's something wrong with it :(
-
You say this like there's something wrong with it :(
Hahahaha, are you a moral relativist, Russ? Like Brightsky, I find it very intuitively unappealing.
-
Fundamentally yes, but it's not something I spend a lot of time worrying about
-
Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.
This therefore makes the assumption that someone's "soul" has a weight and therefore is a physical thing that can be found or at least in some way quantified.
And yeh, that sentence needs a citation.
-
For me, the journey is more important than the destination. I don't believe we go anywhere in particular when we die, i have no reason to. The more important thing is how you live your life before you die and make the most of it.
It reminds me of a quote attributed to Epicurus - I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care.
There was a time when you weren't here, you didn't previously exist and you didn't care. You're here now, enjoy it. Death is nothing to fear because (according to him anyway) it's returning to that same state of absolute nothingness like before you were born, you simply did not exist. Death is nothing to be feared because it is literally nothing. If you have any anxiety about dying, it'll sure as hell go away once it happens, it's the perfect cure.
Another perspective is if you ask a Buddhist, becoming attached to things cause us suffering because nothing is permanent. If you become attached to the idea of a Ferrari, you will be sad because you want one and you don't have it. If you get one, you will become sad because it'll one day stop working and the anxiety of looking after it and maintaining it will likewise cause you grief. You will be then anxious and sad about or upon losing it. There's a similar perspective to life and death. One of the things you must get rid of your attachment to is life itself. We hang onto life with such a tight grip that the thought of death causes the very act of living to cause us pain and anxiety.
Then we wind up with people writing things like this:
“Likewise and during every day of an unillustrious life, time carries us. But a moment always comes when we have to carry it. We live on the future: “tomorrow,” “later on,” “when you have made your way,” “you will understand when you are old enough.” Such irrelevancies are wonderful, for, after all, it’s a matter of dying. Yet a day comes when a man notices or says that he is thirty. Thus he asserts his youth. But simultaneously he situates himself in relation to time. He takes his place in it. He admits that he stands at a certain point on a curve that he acknowledges having to travel to its end. He belongs to time, and by the horror that seizes him, he recognizes his worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, whereas everything in him ought to reject it. That revolt of the flesh is the absurd.”
-----------------------
Hey guys I'm having this weird thoughts lately.
I came across the inevitable question: what happens when we die?
We are basically removed from this whole world and the only thing remains is memory.
Heaven? Hell? Rebirth? Nothingness? But those are all only theory with no solid evidence.
So why are we here at all?
Disturbing question.
Any thoughts?
All depends on what you believe happens when you die since it's not like we can actually tell.
Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.
So if a person dies and fall into "nothingness", really all the effort and everything you did in your lifetime is....pointless? People tries really hard and earn money etc, but really you can't take any of them with you when you die. It's not like you can spend it in a possible "other" world :P
The soul is usually thought of as a metaphysical object or substance in all existing religions as far as i know (Christianity and the one's we're familiar with but there is a somewhat similar idea in Hinduism as well). Be kinda weird if it was physical because that means we can find it or it could conceivably be destroyed in a fire or something.