Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Sooner or later we all face death. Will a sense of meaning help us?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
https://aeon.co/ideas/sooner-or-later-we...ng-help-us

EXCERPT (Warren Ward): . . . When the Australian palliative care nurse Bronnie Ware interviewed scores of people in the last 12 weeks of their lives, she asked them their greatest regrets. The most frequent, published in her book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying (2011), were:

• I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me;
• I wish I hadn’t worked so hard;
• I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings;
• I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends; and
• I wish that I had let myself be happier.

The relationship between death-awareness and leading a fulfilling life was a central concern of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger [...] Heidegger lamented that too many people wasted their lives running with the ‘herd’ rather than being true to themselves. But Heidegger actually struggled to live up to his own ideals; in 1933, he joined the Nazi Party, hoping it would advance his career.

Despite his shortcomings as a man, Heidegger’s ideas would go on to influence a wide range of philosophers, artists, theologians and other thinkers. Heidegger believed that Aristotle’s notion of Being [...] was flawed at a most fundamental level. ... Heidegger argued that, before we start classifying Being, we should first ask the question: ‘Who or what is doing all this questioning?’

[...] While Western medical science, which is based on Aristotelian thinking, sees the human body as a material thing that can be understood by examining it and breaking it down to its constituent parts like any other piece of matter, Heidegger’s ontology puts human experience at the centre of our understanding of the world.

Ten years ago, I was diagnosed with melanoma. [...] For me, this realisation, this acceptance, this awareness that I am going to die is at least as important to my wellbeing as all the advances of medicine, because it reminds me to live my life to the full every day. ... Most Eastern philosophical traditions appreciate the importance of death-awareness for a well-lived life...

[...] As a doctor, I am reminded every day of the fragility of the human body ... As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, however, I am also reminded how empty life can be if we have no sense of meaning or purpose. An awareness of our mortality, of our precious finitude, can, paradoxically, move us to seek – and, if necessary, create – the meaning that we so desperately crave. (MORE - details)
I think having lived a meaningful life, of which there is a real development of one's mind and soul, prepares us for our death. It becomes understood as the inevitable ending and closure to all we have been in this life. Whether one views death as just eternal nonexistence or as a transition to another phase of existence, the lesson of death remains the same--unconditional letting go of all we have come to value and cherish. The mindset of the dying must become one of peaceful resignation and embracing of the mystery. Death welcomed as the ultimate freeing of oneself from the sufferings and attachments of material being.
(May 14, 2020 10:52 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]I think having lived a meaningful life, of which there is a real development of one's mind and soul, prepares us for our death. It becomes understood as the inevitable ending and closure to all we have been in this life. Whether one views death as just eternal nonexistence or as a transition to another phase of existence, the lesson of death remains the same--unconditional letting go of all we have come to value and cherish. The mindset of the dying must become one of peaceful resignation and embracing of the mystery. Death welcomed as the ultimate freeing of oneself from the sufferings and attachments of material being.

In a physics realism context, everything is immortal.[*] General relativity being assimilated by a future construct for quantum gravity apparently won't even change that.

But from an internal perspective, our everlasting existence will not be personally encountered and verified. The last state of consciousness before death really would be the curtain fall for whoever we are at that stage identity-wise, since unlike still-existing past versions of ourselves there are no viable brain conditions after that for supporting awareness and further development. And since memory relationships seem fundamentally oriented future-ward (or that's how memory and language make sense), there's unlikely to be a temporal reversal of "flowing" in the opposite direction experience-wise (which would really be incremental dismantling of that final stage of identity, anyway, rather than adding more developments to it).

But speculatively, of course, such doesn't necessarily rule out a semblance of either afterlife or parallel life. If there was a multiverse, and it sports worlds with stranger possibilities than we might typically imagine -- like some being prone to anomalous events or regulated by bizarre, loose laws -- then quantum immortality might actually become feasible. (I.e., there could be universes where one is still alive or where one spontaneously materializes in like a Boltzmann brain with a posthuman body. Even if, with respect to the former, having to incrementally mutate "sideways" into a younger or radically different alternative, physical version of one's self in the course of also gradually losing the memories of "this current body and its world".)

Or a quantum computer simulation run by a benevolent archailect might successfully simulate one's life (along with everyone else's) and append a new netherworld body following the death-point of the old body. (Doesn't have to be an Omega Point scenario of the Frank Tipler variety.)

Or the nondualism of Eastern philosophy or this naturalist take on generic subjectivity might be the case. It wouldn't literally be reincarnation or "transmigration of a soul" but simply the background consciousness still enduring as the experiences of surviving living things. As the latter, one is already distributed "in those other bodies" (so to speak) without private exchanges of information taking place while alive or transference of personal information after death.

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Is time physical? (Robert Lawrence Kuhn): Huw Price, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, claims that the three basic properties of time come not from the physical world but from our mental states: A present moment that is special; some kind of flow or passage; and an absolute direction. "What physics gives us," Price said, "is the so-called 'block universe,' where time is just part of a four-dimensional space-time … and space-time itself is not fundamental but emerges out of some deeper structure."

We sense an "arrow" or direction of time, and even of causation, he said, because our minds add a "subjective ingredient" to reality, "so that we are projecting onto the world the temporal perspective that we have as agents [in this environment]." [...] Time is tenseless, all points equally "real," so that future and past are no less real than the present.

[...] "We can portray our reality as either a three-dimensional place where stuff happens over time," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Max Tegmark, "or as a four-dimensional place where nothing happens [‘block universe’] — and if it really is the second picture, then change really is an illusion, because there's nothing that's changing; it's all just there — past, present, future.

"So life is like a movie, and space-time is like the DVD," he added; "there's nothing about the DVD itself that is changing in any way, even though there's all this drama unfolding in the movie. We have the illusion, at any given moment, that the past already happened and the future doesn't yet exist, and that things are changing. But all I'm ever aware of is my brain state right now. The only reason I feel like I have a past is that my brain contains memories."

[...] To Julian Barbour, change is real, but time is not. Time is only a reflection of change. From change, our brains construct a sense of time as if it were flowing. As he puts it, all the "evidence we have for time is encoded in static configurations, which we see or experience subjectively, all of them fitting together to make time seem linear."


From here to eternity (Tim Folger): Julian Barbour is convinced we are all immortal. Unfortunately, in a timeless universe immortality does not come with the same kind of perks that it does on Mount Olympus.

In Barbour's vision, we are not like Greek gods who remain forever young. We still have to buy life insurance, and we will certainly seem to age and die. And instead of life after death, there is life alongside death. "We're always locked within one Now," Barbour says. We do not pass through time. Instead, each new instant is an entirely different universe. I

n all of these universes, nothing ever moves or ages, since time is not present in any of them. One universe might contain you as a baby staring at your mother's face. In that universe you will never move from that one, still scene. In yet another universe, you'll be forever just one breath away from death. All of those universes, and infinitely many more, exist permanently, side by side, in a cosmos of unimaginable size and variety.

So there is not one immortal you, but many: the toddler, the cool dude, the codger. The tragedy— or perhaps it's a blessing— is that no one version recognizes its own immortality. Would you really want to be 14 for eternity, waiting for your civics class to end?
Well I guess if we knew there was an afterlife better than this life then logic would dictate taking the easy way out.
(May 10, 2020 08:10 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]https://aeon.co/ideas/sooner-or-later-we...ng-help-us

EXCERPT (Warren Ward): . . . When the Australian palliative care nurse Bronnie Ware interviewed scores of people in the last 12 weeks of their lives, she asked them their greatest regrets. The most frequent, published in her book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying (2011), were:

• I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me;
• I wish I hadn’t worked so hard;
• I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings;
• I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends; and
• I wish that I had let myself be happier.

The relationship between death-awareness and leading a fulfilling life was a central concern of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger [...] Heidegger lamented that too many people wasted their lives running with the ‘herd’ rather than being true to themselves.
  ...

Since I find determinism to make the most sense of my reality, I don't think the last point Ward reported on from the patients is realistic.  I can't let myself be happy, the way my life goes might make me happy.  I never understood the concept of how choosing happiness can make it real.  I always chose it but was, and still am, unhappy.

Like Heidegger was suggesting is what I tried my best to do, and I'm glad I did, yet I still found happiness elusive.
(May 15, 2020 10:40 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 10, 2020 08:10 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]https://aeon.co/ideas/sooner-or-later-we...ng-help-us

EXCERPT (Warren Ward): . . . When the Australian palliative care nurse Bronnie Ware interviewed scores of people in the last 12 weeks of their lives, she asked them their greatest regrets. The most frequent, published in her book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying (2011), were:

• I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me;
• I wish I hadn’t worked so hard;
• I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings;
• I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends; and
• I wish that I had let myself be happier.

The relationship between death-awareness and leading a fulfilling life was a central concern of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger [...] Heidegger lamented that too many people wasted their lives running with the ‘herd’ rather than being true to themselves.
  ...

Since I find determinism to make the most sense of my reality, I don't think the last point Ward reported on from the patients is realistic.  I can't let myself be happy, the way my life goes might make me happy.  I never understood the concept of how choosing happiness can make it real.  I always chose it but was, and still am, unhappy.

Like Heidegger was suggesting is what I tried my best to do, and I'm glad I did, yet I still found happiness elusive.

Nietzsche maintained that happiness should not be your goal.

I have a question for you elte. When you’re judging life as bad, is it actually you that sees it that way or are you judging it through other people’s eyes? In other words, do you judge your life based on how you believe others would judge your life?

If you truly believe in determinism then shouldn’t you understand that it’s neither good or bad, it just is?

Personally, I don’t think that believing in determinism means that you can never change things. I think that maybe you have the ability to realistically perceive things but that you may lack the awareness of your perceived helplessness as a contributor to your negative outlook. Even if there are areas in your life where your perceived absence of control is real, there are likely many areas where your perceived lack of control is not real, e.g., your judgement—your perception of life itself.

What do you think, elte? Am I wrong?
(May 17, 2020 03:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Nietzsche maintained that happiness should not be your goal.

I have a question for you elte. When you’re judging life as bad, is it actually you that sees it that way or are you judging it through other people’s eyes? In other words, do you judge your life based on how you believe others would judge your life?

If you truly believe in determinism then shouldn’t you understand that it’s neither good or bad, it just is?

Personally, I don’t think that believing in determinism means that you can never change things. I think that maybe you have the ability to realistically perceive things but that you may lack the awareness of your perceived helplessness as a contributor to your negative outlook. Even if there are areas in your life where your perceived absence of control is real, there are likely many areas where your perceived lack of control is not real, e.g., your judgement—your perception of life itself.

What do you think, elte? Am I wrong?

S. Nietzsche maintained that happiness should not be your goal.

E. That seems odd to me.

S. I have a question for you elte. When you’re judging life as bad, is it actually you that sees it that way or are you judging it through other people’s eyes? In other words, do you judge your life based on how you believe others would judge your life?

E. It's how I see it.

S. If you truly believe in determinism then shouldn’t you understand that it’s neither good or bad, it just is?

E. True, it just is.  Overall things are actually bad for humanity.  But it seems worse to me than people generally see it.

S. Personally, I don’t think that believing in determinism means that you can never change things. I think that maybe you have the ability to realistically perceive things but that you may lack the awareness of your perceived helplessness as a contributor to your negative outlook. Even if there are areas in your life where your perceived absence of control is real, there are likely many areas where your perceived lack of control is not real, e.g., your judgement—your perception of life itself.

E. Realities vary from person to person.  It's pretty subjective because humans each have their own brains.  For there to be a truly correct view of reality requires an all-knowing mind.

S. What do you think, elte? Am I wrong

E. Secular Sanity, I thnk the things you expressed to me above are largely wrong (to my mind).
(May 17, 2020 05:34 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 17, 2020 03:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Nietzsche maintained that happiness should not be your goal.

That seems odd to me.

Why? Happiness is a feeling, a fleeting emotion. If that was your only goal, as soon as you found it, you’d have no reason to maintain the struggle. It’s an elusive pursuit.

Secular Sanity Wrote:
elte Wrote:If you truly believe in determinism then shouldn’t you understand that it’s neither good or bad, it just is?

True, it just is.  Overall things are actually bad for humanity.  But it seems worse to me than people generally see it.


Would you consider yourself an antinatalist like Benatar?

"Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation."


elte Wrote:Realities vary from person to person.  It's pretty subjective because humans each have their own brains.  For there to be a truly correct view of reality requires an all-knowing mind.


Yeah, it’s just a matter of opinion, I suppose.

And Secular Sanity saw everything, and, behold, in spite of the bad, it was very good.
And elte saw everything, and, behold, it was very bad.

Either way, it will end for both you and I.
S. Why? Happiness is a feeling, a fleeting emotion. If that was your only goal, as soon as you found it, you’d have no reason to maintain the struggle. It’s an elusive pursuit.

E. The struggle is the default nature of life.  Having food, clothing, shelter--life maintenence, especially health--is a constant struggle.


S. Would you consider yourself an antinatalist like Benatar?

"Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation."


E. Yes I'm an antinatalist.  A way for me to put it is the suffering in life trumps the pleasure. 



S. Yeah, it’s just a matter of opinion, I suppose.

E. I think so because it is based on feeling.

S. Either way, it will end for both you and I.

E. It will some time. In the meantime my genes push me to not let it happen
(May 17, 2020 11:51 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I'm an antinatalist.  A way for me to put it is the suffering in life trumps the pleasure.
 
What if there was a singularity like in that film I Am Mother? What if "its" decision was based on the knowledge of good and evil instead of pure ethics like in the movie. Say it was capable of reviewing all of our thoughts and perceptions and then they were weighed on Judgment Day. Our Judgement Day would literally be based on our judgment. That would be wild, wouldn’t it? I’ve suffered. We all have but I’m not one to compare battle wounds. I like a good fight. I wonder, though, which would prevail. There is a lot of suffering in the world but there is also a lot good. 

elte Wrote:It will some time. In the meantime, my genes push me to not let it happen.

Good, then we do have something in common after all. We’re both evolutionary puppets.

We’re different but I like your honesty. I hope you continue to post and share your thoughts. 

Good day to you, elte, and thank you!
Pages: 1 2