How do you come to terms with death?

[WICKES]

Can you? So far as we know, we are the only species in the universe that is aware all its life that it is going to die.

Do you think there is anything after death at all?

[Jozanny]

As to your second question, I think physical viability breaks down within hours of clinical death, but biological advances continue to surprise. The brain does not die immediately in certain cases, upon clinical death, and it is this which may have given rise to the various mythical forms of afterlife which have chased human civilization since pre-recorded history, I am sure.

But if you are talking about conscious identity surviving, no. Living matter seems designed to recycle, which makes sense when you think about particle theory. When I die I will not know that eventually I will create a nutrient rich topsoil to feed new grasses and plants--that is the only sense in which the life cycle continues on earth until our sun novas.

As to coming to terms with it, death is a part of life, and I have suffered so much that I do not fear cessation. I may occasionally get angry that matter made me only to unmake me over time, and I don't know why the atoms in my keyboard organize into shiny plastics and metals and the atoms in me organize to ingest living things so that I continue to live until it is time for entropy, but there are limits to what can be explained.

I am tired of being in pain, and unhappy. People more content probably do not even dwell on their mortality. Are you going through a phase or something, may I ask? If you need to believe in an afterlife, there is no shame in that. I simply do not because I see no evidence of additional metaphysical forms of ontology outside of the three dimensional space life and its central processing units already inhabit.

[RichardHresko]

In the Middle Ages the great fear was not of death but of sudden death. This is because leaving life unprepared could result in damnation. For example, consider Francesca de Rimini in Canto V of Dante's Inferno with Pia in Canto V of Purgatorio. Both die after being caught in flagrante but Pia was able to repent in the moments before death. Consider also Othello's wishing to be sure Desdemona has prayed before he strangles her, or Hamlet's worry that if he murdered his uncle at prayer that his uncle would be sent to Heaven.

I think this desire to comes to terms with our failures in life as we approach death is perhaps the most healthy attitude we can have. After all much of what we have done and regret we can not undo, but we can in a sense rise above ourselves by sincerely acknowledging we have failed.

As a New Yorker I can not resist ending with a line from the Columbia Spectator
from years ago, "Life in New York is the unending quest to die of natural causes."

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.
--- John Donne

[qspeechc]

You come to terms with death when you realise the Absurd- life has no meaning. All we do is take part in a very convincing game. In fact, I quite look forward to death, then I'll be over with this life (I had to make an efffort not to swear).
This question won't actually matter when you're dead, because when you're dead you're dead; there is no after-life.

Believing in life after death is only natural- everyone wants to believe they will live forever, and the fact that they cannot come to grips with the fact that their life will definitely end is the cause of beliefs in an after-life. All we have is this brief time on Earth and then it's all over.

Sorry, I don't mean to be depressing or anything, just my opinions.

[Jozanny]

You come to terms with death when you realise the Absurd- life has no meaning. All we do is take part in a very convincing game. In fact, I quite look forward to death, then I'll be over with this life (I had to make an efffort not to swear).
This question won't actually matter when you're dead, because when you're dead you're dead; there is no after-life.

Believing in life after death is only natural- everyone wants to believe they will live forever, and the fact that they cannot come to grips with the fact that their life will definitely end is the cause of beliefs in an after-life. All we have is this brief time on Earth and then it's all over.

Sorry, I don't mean to be depressing or anything, just my opinions.

I don't think it is depressing, and this coming from a writer with depressive episodes!!!:p:p

The problem, however, when we try to deal with this issue in chatting with each other, is epistemological paradigms break down. I'd hazard, perhaps incorrectly, that even rational, or more sensible, theists like Richard acknowledge that "faith in the divine plan" is irrational, because not one of us really has a narrative about death as event. Ted Koppel said it is the one thing we all have in common and yet no one can say anything about, except pathologists using purely clinical terms over when a corpse becomes a corpse, and even I might manage that when Joey and Vinnie catch the rodent pests who nest in the building. There is little I can do to stop the drama of cat and mouse from my chair, but I can't really watch either--not so much out of pity for the mouse--it is just not easy to watch the process of killing in action--or even the progression of death on television when we document, for ourselves, the narrative of cancer, or other diseases. Some see the fraility of our dead flesh as evidence that God must be running some kind of show.

Me? I am just amazed that a piece of meat evolved into bipedalism and such rapid brain complexity for such unnecessary accouterments which leads us to our sense of exceptionalism. It may be shocking to consider, but the human mind, the human history, the human culture, the human life, really doesn't amount to much.

I also don't think, despite the advance of our genetic knowledge, that we will not alter the process of life to such an extent to ensure our species will last as long as the dinosaurs did.

But, I do not protest the "irrationality" of death anymore, that is simply the selfishness of self-recognition, one, and two, I try not to freak out--at 45, I want to finish doing some things before I run out of time.

[RichardHresko]

I don't think it is depressing, and this coming from a writer with depressive episodes!!!:p:p

The problem, however, when we try to deal with this issue in chatting with each other, is epistemological paradigms break down. I'd hazard, perhaps incorrectly, that even rational, or more sensible, theists like Richard acknowledge that "faith in the divine plan" is irrational, because not one of us really has a narrative about death as event. Ted Koppel said it is the one thing we all have in common and yet no one can say anything about, except pathologists using purely clinical terms over when a corpse becomes a corpse, and even I might manage that when Joey and Vinnie catch the rodent pests who nest in the building. There is little I can do to stop the drama of cat and mouse from my chair, but I can't really watch either--not so much out of pity for the mouse--it is just not easy to watch the process of killing in action--or even the progression of death on television when we document, for ourselves, the narrative of cancer, or other diseases. Some see the fraility of our dead flesh as evidence that God must be running some kind of show.

Me? I am just amazed that a piece of meat evolved into bipedalism and such rapid brain complexity for such unnecessary accouterments which leads us to our sense of exceptionalism. It may be shocking to consider, but the human mind, the human history, the human culture, the human life, really doesn't amount to much.

I also don't think, despite the advance of our genetic knowledge, that we will not alter the process of life to such an extent to ensure our species will last as long as the dinosaurs did.

But, I do not protest the "irrationality" of death anymore, that is simply the selfishness of self-recognition, one, and two, I try not to freak out--at 45, I want to finish doing some things before I run out of time.

Preamble -- I never claimed to be a theist. All I have done is provide background about what the tradition sets forth philosophically and historically, and explain concepts and stances within that tradition.

Main Post -- It is important to keep in mind the difference between irrational and non-rational. The former is against reason and the latter is independent of reason.

The Scholastics, such as Aquinas and Scotus, would and did argue that it is rational to believe that there is something beyond the powers of human reason to discern, and that therefore acceptance of things beyond the physical plane as being real is a reasonable position.

Turning to Ockham there is a development that amounts to a shift. For Ockham matters of faith involve concepts that are not required by philosophy (the famous "razor"). Acceptance of these matters of faith is therefore non-rational. The reason acceptance is not irrational is that, as has been discussed earlier, the truth of premises can not be shown (generally) by logic.

To head off some difficulties let's bear in mind what Ockham's razor does and does not do. The razor says that we are not entitled to posit superfluous details. If something can be explained using three things, we are not entitled to assume a fourth. This does NOT mean that there are in fact only three things involved. There may be seventy-two things, but we are entitled to only the three barring specific knowledge external to logic.

It would seem to be inevitable that if one starts with the premise that life is meaningless that one must come to the conclusion that death makes no sense. Whether one can 'bootstrap' oneself into creating a meaning is one that some existentialist philosophers have struggled over. Perhaps jgweed, with his demonstrated knowledge of Nietzsche, can shed some light on that enterprise.

[ShoutGrace]

I have tended to regard death in a couple of different ways. One is domineered by an incontrollable irrational fear of annihilation, and the other attempts to reflect on the process of death rationally and with a sense of detachment.

Regarding the second way, there are numerous philosophically nuanced thoughts and arguments that I've run across in even my light reading which have bolstered the view that death is not to be feared. Here are two simple ones:

“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?” – Epicurus

“Now we must consider the fourth objection to being old: one which might be thought well calculated to worry and distress a man of my years. I refer to the nearness of death . . . If, during his long life, [a man] has failed to grasp that death is of no account he is unfortunate indeed. There are two alternatives: either death completely obliterates human souls, in which case it is negligible; or it removes the soul to some place of eternal life - in which case its coming is greatly to be desired.

The act of dying, it is true, may be accompanied by certain sensations, but if so these only last a very short time. After death, feelings are either non-existent or agreeable. From our youth upwards we should bear that in mind, since the thought will encourage us to regard death as of no account, a conviction without which we can have no peace of mind. For we cannot avoid dying - perhaps even this present moment. Since, therefore, death is an imminent possibility from moment to moment, you must not let the prospect frighten you, or you will be in a state of perpetual anxiety.” - Cicero


Regarding the other view of death, just one or two of Philip Larkin's poems (or fragments of poems) will suffice as a summation of the terror of death (in the second, he actually references the Epicurus thought above):

Only one ship is seeking us, a black-
Sailed unfamiliar, towing at her back
A huge and birdless silence. In her wake
No waters breed or break.

- from Next, Please



Aubade


I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anasthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

[Jozanny]

Preamble -- I never claimed to be a theist. All I have done is provide background about what the tradition sets forth philosophically and historically, and explain concepts and stances within that tradition.

This was my misunderstanding then.:idea:


Main Post -- It is important to keep in mind the difference between irrational and non-rational. The former is against reason and the latter is independent of reason.

The Scholastics, such as Aquinas and Scotus, would and did argue that it is rational to believe that there is something beyond the powers of human reason to discern, and that therefore acceptance of things beyond the physical plane as being real is a reasonable position.

Turning to Ockham there is a development that amounts to a shift. For Ockham matters of faith involve concepts that are not required by philosophy (the famous "razor"). Acceptance of these matters of faith is therefore non-rational. The reason acceptance is not irrational is that, as has been discussed earlier, the truth of premises can not be shown (generally) by logic.

To head off some difficulties let's bear in mind what Ockham's razor does and does not do. The razor says that we are not entitled to posit superfluous details. If something can be explained using three things, we are not entitled to assume a fourth. This does NOT mean that there are in fact only three things involved. There may be seventy-two things, but we are entitled to only the three barring specific knowledge external to logic.

It would seem to be inevitable that if one starts with the premise that life is meaningless that one must come to the conclusion that death makes no sense. Whether one can 'bootstrap' oneself into creating a meaning is one that some existentialist philosophers have struggled over. Perhaps jgweed, with his demonstrated knowledge of Nietzsche, can shed some light on that enterprise.

The clarification is useful, yes. I am somewhat disenchanted with existential defiance against ontological conditions, at least basing this on my introduction to Camus and Sartre in 11th grade.:p Aside from the fact that I apparently need to remind myself of my middle age, I offer the qualification because I am not really a student of philosophy. I sort of have the course summary versions. I may or may not have pushed myself a little further online than I otherwise would have, but I need to stress I have no *first source* grasp of anything, even Wittgenstein. I've gotten him from his contemporary supporters and though I'm interested in The Investigations I am realistic enough to suspect my second life isn't going to involve much of a shift from literature to metaphysics up through post-structuralism.

That said, I did not mean to imply that death makes no sense. As an evolutionary process it is an experience which seems necessary for life to continue to function. What I was attempting to indicate is we cannot say anything about the experience of death itself. Dying yes, but not the actual cessation; it is here any kind of paradigm forsakes believer and non-believer alike--which is not to say I want to keep chasing my tail over the same old terrain....:yawnb:

[jgweed]

Epictetus provides a different perspective on death.

"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles."

"If you wish your children, and your wife, and your friends to live for ever, you are stupid; for you wish to be in control of things which you cannot, you wish for things that belong to others to be your own. So likewise, if you wish your servant to be without fault, you are a fool; for you wish vice not to be vice," but something else. But, if you wish to have your desires undisappointed, this is in your own control."

"Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible be daily before your eyes, but chiefly death, and you win never entertain any abject thought, nor too eagerly covet anything."

[blazeofglory]

This is a wonderful idea and this is all what we keep on asking ourselves and of course we keep on asking this question and we never arrive at the answer we are seeking.

No one in reality can come to terms with life and death, for both questions were asked too many times and they were never answered and we have written volumes of philosophies and we have libraries of books and we have schools of philosophers and societies of different knowledge but never ever any one fully and perfectly could answer this question.

No scientists, no prophets, no spiritual masters or philosophers could answer this question, and I do not think anyone henceforth can arrive at the answer that can satisfy us.

Nevertheless we stop asking the question, for we have an inquisition to find an answer or answers to this question in life.

I know there can not be an answer to this question, and yet I do not drop the idea of leafing through books and of musing over deep thoughts.

[RichardHresko]

This was my misunderstanding then.:idea:



The clarification is useful, yes. I am somewhat disenchanted with existential defiance against ontological conditions, at least basing this on my introduction to Camus and Sartre in 11th grade.:p Aside from the fact that I apparently need to remind myself of my middle age, I offer the qualification because I am not really a student of philosophy. I sort of have the course summary versions. I may or may not have pushed myself a little further online than I otherwise would have, but I need to stress I have no *first source* grasp of anything, even Wittgenstein. I've gotten him from his contemporary supporters and though I'm interested in The Investigations I am realistic enough to suspect my second life isn't going to involve much of a shift from literature to metaphysics up through post-structuralism.

That said, I did not mean to imply that death makes no sense. As an evolutionary process it is an experience which seems necessary for life to continue to function. What I was attempting to indicate is we cannot say anything about the experience of death itself. Dying yes, but not the actual cessation; it is here any kind of paradigm forsakes believer and non-believer alike--which is not to say I want to keep chasing my tail over the same old terrain....:yawnb:

One can get a lot of mileage second-hand. Augustine was a Platonist who never read Plato at all (as far as anyone can tell).

Strictly speaking the evolutionary process is not rational (I am speaking here of the process, NOT the theory!). There is no guiding intelligence required. This is not to say that evolution can not be comprehended, nor by saying this am I saying that evolution is not the way life developed. I am just cautioning against any implication that there is any purpose at all in any evolutionary operation, including death.

[NikolaiI]

Since so many people have described seeing light on near death experiences, I think that it will be an epiphany if we are even somewhat peaceful when we die. Why then to be fearful?

[Jozanny]

One can get a lot of mileage second-hand. Augustine was a Platonist who never read Plato at all (as far as anyone can tell).

Strictly speaking the evolutionary process is not rational (I am speaking here of the process, NOT the theory!). There is no guiding intelligence required. This is not to say that evolution can not be comprehended, nor by saying this am I saying that evolution is not the way life developed. I am just cautioning against any implication that there is any purpose at all in any evolutionary operation, including death.

Granted, but by the same token, the same can be said for religious doctrine. Most of it attempts to impose order on the irrational, even doctrines which aren't orthodox, like Judaism or Catholicism.

I do not think any self-aware creature, whether human or some other species, can say why life is life and a star is a star. We know the star has chemical reactions until the energy and matter exhausts itself, and we can say a few things about all life. Most living things move, even plants have some limited capacity there. Most living things need to absorb energy to continue on, and most living things make copies of themselves or reproduce, and eventually perish, with some exceptions. Biologists are discovering that some species do not necessarily age, or die by that process.

Is the atom in a living thing intrinsically different from an atom in a non-living observer? It can be infuriating and lead to mass consumation of chocolate.:p

[Scheherazade]

Since so many people have described seeing light on near death experiences, I think that it will be an epiphany if we are even somewhat peaceful when we die.Or just a wishful thinking?

[DapperDrake]

I don't think we ever really accept our mortality, we just build psychological barriers against its reality, we may come to terms with it for brief periods but I think that to accept mortality is to truly want to die.
Anyone who is at least content to continue living is demonstrating that they value life over death and thus view death as a negative, as a loss. In short I would say that practically everyone alive fears the reaper, perhaps not overtly but still so.

Personally I struggle with it constantly, life is absurd but that alone does not remove the fear of death. I cope now mostly by wilful ignorance, even in talking about it i'm still insulating my mind from the reality. When I was younger I was on strong medication for years, I used to just sit consumed by the abyss of dread, doom, darkness of mortality - unable to eat, barely able to move (at the worst points anyway).

[RichardHresko]

Granted, but by the same token, the same can be said for religious doctrine. Most of it attempts to impose order on the irrational, even doctrines which aren't orthodox, like Judaism or Catholicism.

I do not think any self-aware creature, whether human or some other species, can say why life is life and a star is a star. We know the star has chemical reactions until the energy and matter exhausts itself, and we can say a few things about all life. Most living things move, even plants have some limited capacity there. Most living things need to absorb energy to continue on, and most living things make copies of themselves or reproduce, and eventually perish, with some exceptions. Biologists are discovering that some species do not necessarily age, or die by that process.

Is the atom in a living thing intrinsically different from an atom in a non-living observer? It can be infuriating and lead to mass consumation of chocolate.:p

Here I think you misunderstand me. Evolution as a theory gives a rational explanation of how life came to have its forms, etc. The evolutionary process, as conceived by the biologists, does NOT involve any purpose or direction. So therefore one can not say the same about the process as conceived by Jews and Christians (by the way, Roman Catholics are orthodox, just not Eastern Rite or 'Greek'). Orthodox and Jewish belief is that there is a direction behind the succession of events.

The comment on atoms in living and non-living things comes from a reductionist position which has as its premise that things are ultimately the sum of their parts. Reductionism has its place, but is not likely to be a complete explanation of all phenomena.

[Judas130]

answering the question of the thread personally, i cope with death by not mourning, but celebrating the life that existed. It really changes perspective, but im never sad when people die, I'm happy they lived to touch me in the way they did and in the life they led.

but everyone deals differently.

[WICKES]

Aubade


I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anasthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

God that poem is magnificent. It had a tremendous effect on me when I first read it. Larkin really was one hell of a poet.

[WICKES]

After death, feelings are either non-existent or agreeable. .

Why? If this world is anything to go by it would be far safer to assume that an afterlife would be extremely unpleasant! When you look at the horror and suffering that fills the natural world, not to mention the pain of human life, from bereavement to daily injustices etc I see absolutely NO reason to assume life after death will be nice.

[blazeofglory]

Why? If this world is anything to go by it would be far safer to assume that an afterlife would be extremely unpleasant! When you look at the horror and suffering that fills the natural world, not to mention the pain of human life, from bereavement to daily injustices etc I see absolutely NO reason to assume life after death will be nice.

This is so true. Life is full of hardships and we have little joy and much agony in life. When we have moments of joy in this life and when we are stormed with all kinds of miseries and challenges in this life, and thinking of having a joyful another life is a sheer imagination and nothing else, Indeed to be birthed here means going through cycles of pains and tortures.

You are right, friend, nature is dreadful, and human life is full pains. Seeing to the beautiful and carefree life is to fancy something that is a mere unrealizable fancy and nothing else.

[RichardHresko]

This is so true. Life is full of hardships and we have little joy and much agony in life. When we have moments of joy in this life and when we are stormed with all kinds of miseries and challenges in this life, and thinking of having a joyful another life is a sheer imagination and nothing else, Indeed to be birthed here means going through cycles of pains and tortures.

You are right, friend, nature is dreadful, and human life is full pains. Seeing to the beautiful and carefree life is to fancy something that is a mere unrealizable fancy and nothing else.

But, if this is true and if you still maintain life is an illusion, are we then to conclude you have a dreadful imagination?

[blazeofglory]

But, if this is true and if you still maintain life is an illusion, are we then to conclude you have a dreadful imagination?

Not at all. There are dreads and fears everywhere and so are hopes and aspirations to cover up them at the same time. Life is a mystery and we know little of it.