The 'Problem' of Mortality: Is Death the End of Everything?

[JackDaydream]

The issue of whether death is the complete end of everything is an issue which I wrestle with and I am aware of other people who think about it a lot. Mortality is a problem which lurks in the background as the issue of what happens at death in one's individual life and of those close to us. It is also the silent enemy lurking behind Covid_19 and fears of mass destruction through war.

The issue of death has been answered in varying ways. In religious perspectives there have been answers to the problem in forms of afterlife, including the idea of the immortal soul and resurrection in Christianity and, in Eastern religions, the idea of rebirth or reincarnation. There have been differences of opinion in those traditions as well as some crossovers between Western and Eastern ideas. However, with the advances in science and understanding in philosophy many do not believe in life after death at all.

I see the question as complex, and I do realise that it involves speculation because it is not as if science measure anything beyond this life. There are areas such as near death experiences but these do not clearly prove that life after death exists. However, lack of proof may not mean that it doesn't exist.

Many may sidestep the question because it is hard, but, on the other hand, whether this life is all there is or not may matter philosophically. Some may wish that there is life after death and be fearful of the end of existence. Or, alternatively, some may be fearful of immortality. Nevertheless, one wishes for and what is, are two different matters entirely. I am asking how the question of life after death can be considered as a general philosophy problem.

Also, if people think that there is no evidence for the existence of personal life after death do other aspects of the self live on culturally and in memories. Does everything that has existed remain as an aspect of eternity and as cosmic memory. Is the wish for personal immortality, based on vanity of the ego, or does it make more sense to view one's life as part of the chain, with ripple like effects for future life forms?

How may the issue of life after death be deconstructed or analysed meaningfully? I am also interested to know if people on the forum think that the issue of life matters and whether it is one which can be explored logically as a philosophical issue, as opposed to the attempts to answer it within the framework of specific religious or spiritual worldviews?

[stevie]

Does this reveal the [psychotherapeutically relevant] basis of your many "What can we think about all and everything?" topics?

[JackDaydream]

Does this reveal the [psychotherapeutically relevant] basis of your many "What can we think about all and everything?" topics?

I guess that is I do see the question of life after death as about the biggest one. I am not sure to what extent the issue of mortality, (or mortality) can be answered completed, apart from psychologically. I am sure that some may say that I try and 'think about all and everything' and I am afraid that is just how I approach life. Some people are less or more inclined to ask such questions and it is hard to know why this difference occur. It may have its roots in childhood, even anxiety based. Also, it may be that those who come from a religious background often ask these questions and I was taught that this life is preparation for eternity, which may explain why I wonder about what happens at death so much.

[stevie]

As in all similar topic cases my ethics (as guiding philosophy and principles of conduct) tells me: 'Do not speculate about the non-evident' and 'Go by the evident'.

[Angelo Cannata]

I see three essential pholosophical points about death:

1) my death is different from the death of all other people; I have no evidence that the existence of their subjectivity and its ending because of death is the same as mine;
2) death cam be considered a genera symbol of evil;
3) if we take seriously the extreme suffering experiences that people have all over the world, including death, then this world becomes humanly impossible to understand, to conceive, even think as existent. By using a paradoxical language, I would say: this world doesn't exist, it cannot exist. This way I apply to the world the reasoning that in the problem of theodicy is applied to God.

[Gertie]

The issue of whether death is the complete end of everything is an issue which I wrestle with and I am aware of other people who think about it a lot. Mortality is a problem which lurks in the background as the issue of what happens at death in one's individual life and of those close to us. It is also the silent enemy lurking behind Covid_19 and fears of mass destruction through war.

The issue of death has been answered in varying ways. In religious perspectives there have been answers to the problem in forms of afterlife, including the idea of the immortal soul and resurrection in Christianity and, in Eastern religions, the idea of rebirth or reincarnation. There have been differences of opinion in those traditions as well as some crossovers between Western and Eastern ideas. However, with the advances in science and understanding in philosophy many do not believe in life after death at all.

I see the question as complex, and I do realise that it involves speculation because it is not as if science measure anything beyond this life. There are areas such as near death experiences but these do not clearly prove that life after death exists. However, lack of proof may not mean that it doesn't exist.

Many may sidestep the question because it is hard, but, on the other hand, whether this life is all there is or not may matter philosophically. Some may wish that there is life after death and be fearful of the end of existence. Or, alternatively, some may be fearful of immortality. Nevertheless, one wishes for and what is, are two different matters entirely. I am asking how the question of life after death can be considered as a general philosophy problem.

Also, if people think that there is no evidence for the existence of personal life after death do other aspects of the self live on culturally and in memories. Does everything that has existed remain as an aspect of eternity and as cosmic memory. Is the wish for personal immortality, based on vanity of the ego, or does it make more sense to view one's life as part of the chain, with ripple like effects for future life forms?

How may the issue of life after death be deconstructed or analysed meaningfully? I am also interested to know if people on the forum think that the issue of life matters and whether it is one which can be explored logically as a philosophical issue, as opposed to the attempts to answer it within the framework of specific religious or spiritual worldviews?

Trying to imagine your own non-existence is kind of impossible, in that I am in the world, but for me the world is in my experience. But what evidence we have suggests that when your brain dies, you're gone. I don't know what to take from that philosphically, except to value the experience of being you, make it as good as you can, and try to be kind to others in the same boat. And if it turns out there is some form of experience after brain death, hope that stands you in good stead.

[JackDaydream]

As in all similar topic cases my ethics (as guiding philosophy and principles of conduct) tells me: 'Do not speculate about the non-evident' and 'Go by the evident'.

I am aware that you are opposed to speculation but to formulate the ideal in ethics seems too rigid and more unhelpful. Of course; if you choose not to speculate that is your choice but others may make their own free choices. So, I don't think that speculation should be seen as an ethical principle. That is too prescriptive and is like some kind of dogmatiism to be encountered in a totalitarian system.

[JackDaydream]

I see three essential pholosophical points about death:

1) my death is different from the death of all other people; I have no evidence that the existence of their subjectivity and its ending because of death is the same as mine;
2) death cam be considered a genera symbol of evil;
3) if we take seriously the extreme suffering experiences that people have all over the world, including death, then this world becomes humanly impossible to understand, to conceive, even think as existent. By using a paradoxical language, I would say: this world doesn't exist, it cannot exist. This way I apply to the world the reasoning that in the problem of theodicy is applied to God.

The idea of personal death is very hard for many people to accept, because it is the end of one's being. It is frequently seen as evil. I have often wondered how people are willing to die may be more possible in societies where life after death is more common. The belief is often structured in context of the idea of God, based on a sense of divine justice in the universe. In a way, it may be that it takes a more 'spiritual' approach to face death without a clear belief that it is followed by a future form of existence. A lot of people have inconsistencies in their ideas, such as believing that death is rest and a journey. Of course, such inconsistencies arise because all beings face death as an existential aspect of life. I also understand that the Buddha himself was uncertain whether death was the end or part of a path of many incarnations.

[JackDaydream]

The issue of whether death is the complete end of everything is an issue which I wrestle with and I am aware of other people who think about it a lot. Mortality is a problem which lurks in the background as the issue of what happens at death in one's individual life and of those close to us. It is also the silent enemy lurking behind Covid_19 and fears of mass destruction through war.

The issue of death has been answered in varying ways. In religious perspectives there have been answers to the problem in forms of afterlife, including the idea of the immortal soul and resurrection in Christianity and, in Eastern religions, the idea of rebirth or reincarnation. There have been differences of opinion in those traditions as well as some crossovers between Western and Eastern ideas. However, with the advances in science and understanding in philosophy many do not believe in life after death at all.

I see the question as complex, and I do realise that it involves speculation because it is not as if science measure anything beyond this life. There are areas such as near death experiences but these do not clearly prove that life after death exists. However, lack of proof may not mean that it doesn't exist.

Many may sidestep the question because it is hard, but, on the other hand, whether this life is all there is or not may matter philosophically. Some may wish that there is life after death and be fearful of the end of existence. Or, alternatively, some may be fearful of immortality. Nevertheless, one wishes for and what is, are two different matters entirely. I am asking how the question of life after death can be considered as a general philosophy problem.

Also, if people think that there is no evidence for the existence of personal life after death do other aspects of the self live on culturally and in memories. Does everything that has existed remain as an aspect of eternity and as cosmic memory. Is the wish for personal immortality, based on vanity of the ego, or does it make more sense to view one's life as part of the chain, with ripple like effects for future life forms?

How may the issue of life after death be deconstructed or analysed meaningfully? I am also interested to know if people on the forum think that the issue of life matters and whether it is one which can be explored logically as a philosophical issue, as opposed to the attempts to answer it within the framework of specific religious or spiritual worldviews?

Trying to imagine your own non-existence is kind of impossible, in that I am in the world, but for me the world is in my experience. But what evidence we have suggests that when your brain dies, you're gone. I don't know what to take from that philosphically, except to value the experience of being you, make it as good as you can, and try to be kind to others in the same boat. And if it turns out there is some form of experience after brain death, hope that stands you in good stead.

Yes, imagining one's death and coping with others' deaths is extremely difficult. It is so hard to know what to think ultimately. Most physicalist perspectives do equate death of the brain as indicating the end. One aspect which I wonder about is the view of Aldous Huxley, which is based on the philosophy of Bergson.This involves the idea that the brain is a way of reducing consciousness. This was based upon psychedelic experience on hallucinogenics, but also compatible with those who have reported near death experiences. It hints at the possibility that death may be part of the start of an awareness of a different kind of reality altogether.

I do agree, however, that is is best to focus on this life more than worry about what happens afterwards. However, I find that the issue is always there in the back of my mind. Some people seem not to think about it at all and I am not sure if that is because they are more or less happy, and it would probably be wrong to generalise about this. Of course, independently of whether there is life after this or not, it matters what happens in the here and now, in this life.

[stevie]

As in all similar topic cases my ethics (as guiding philosophy and principles of conduct) tells me: 'Do not speculate about the non-evident' and 'Go by the evident'.

I am aware that you are opposed to speculation but to formulate the ideal in ethics seems too rigid and more unhelpful. Of course; if you choose not to speculate that is your choice

That's exactly what I said: "my ethics tells me"

but others may make their own free choices.

I am not concerned about what other do in terms of (non-)speculation but encountering speculative topics I may express that it goes counter my ethics to engage in speculations about the non-evident or I may ridicule speculations uttered by others or I may condemn speculations uttered by others or I may repeatedly express the lack of evidence of speculations uttered by others or I may simply stay silent ... depending on my momentary mood.

So, I don't think that speculation should be seen as an ethical principle.

Obviously you consider speculation as part of your "guiding philosophy and priciples of conduct" which is "ethics" (see dictionary link above). And since I consider non-speculation as part of my "guiding philosophy and priciples of conduct" our ethics are incompatible.

That is too prescriptive and is like some kind of dogmatiism to be encountered in a totalitarian system.

That's nonsense in the context of my understanding of "ethics" and might apply to your understanding of "ethics" because my ethics is the "guiding philosophy and principles of conduct [of an individual]" and has nothing to do with "prescription" or your "holy commandments"

[stevie]

In terms of death there is scientific evidence of:
- the cessation of verbal utterances
- the cessation of bodily movements (incl. heart contractions, blood circulation and inbreath/outbreath)
- the cessation of brain activity
- the decrease of body temperature
- the disintegration of the body (extent and rate depending on the chemical and biological environment) into its chemical compounds by means of chemical reactions and/or biological digestions

Feel free to append items of evidence to this (incomplete) list.

[JackDaydream]

As in all similar topic cases my ethics (as guiding philosophy and principles of conduct) tells me: 'Do not speculate about the non-evident' and 'Go by the evident'.

I am aware that you are opposed to speculation but to formulate the ideal in ethics seems too rigid and more unhelpful. Of course; if you choose not to speculate that is your choice

That's exactly what I said: "my ethics tells me"

but others may make their own free choices.

I am not concerned about what other do in terms of (non-)speculation but encountering speculative topics I may express that it goes counter my ethics to engage in speculations about the non-evident or I may ridicule speculations uttered by others or I may condemn speculations uttered by others or I may repeatedly express the lack of evidence of speculations uttered by others or I may simply stay silent ... depending on my momentary mood.

So, I don't think that speculation should be seen as an ethical principle.

Obviously you consider speculation as part of your "guiding philosophy and priciples of conduct" which is "ethics" (see dictionary link above). And since I consider non-speculation as part of my "guiding philosophy and priciples of conduct" our ethics are incompatible.

That is too prescriptive and is like some kind of dogmatiism to be encountered in a totalitarian system.

That's nonsense in the context of my understanding of "ethics" and might apply to your understanding of "ethics" because my ethics is the "guiding philosophy and principles of conduct [of an individual]" and has nothing to do with "prescription" or your "holy commandments"

The question of where speculation and ethics fits together is interesting. I definitely don't have a set of "holy commandments". That would be too simple. When I left school, the course which I chose to study was 'Social Ethics', which was a mixture of comparative systems of ethics, psychology of moral action, as well as modules about philosophy and applied ethics. I chose to study this in order to get a better understanding of life, but, if anything, it opened up so many areas of thought and speculation. I am not saying that I don't see the issue which you have over speculation.

In reading some discussions in philosophy and other disciplines, I find that a problem is if people treat speculation as if it is more, as fact. Several months ago, I had a thread on the nature of belief. In that I spoke of whether or not someone chooses to say, 'I believe' or use some other way of expressing the idea which omits the wording ' I believe'. In some ways the omission of the personal conviction may appear as more objective and authoritative. On the other hand, it may be that the aspect of personal opinion is glossed over. What I am suggesting is that the problem is if personal opinion or speculation is not admitted and treated as though it were a concrete aspect of 'truth'. Even within science based arguments, it is hard to go beyond opinions because ideas are constructed subjectively as mental constructs. For example, the whole basis of ethics is based on ideas as opposed to objective principles derived from science.
.

[JackDaydream]

In terms of death there is scientific evidence of:
- the cessation of verbal utterances
- the cessation of bodily movements (incl. heart contractions, blood circulation and inbreath/outbreath)
- the cessation of brain activity
- the decrease of body temperature
- the disintegration of the body (extent and rate depending on the chemical and biological environment) into its chemical compounds by means of chemical reactions and/or biological digestions

Feel free to append items of evidence to this (incomplete) list.

I agree that the cessation of all the aspects which you refer to exist. If they did not happen, there would be no basis for believing in death at all. At face value, death appears as final and I would not say that there is any clear evidence of life beyond that. However, there are some possibilities, including near death experiences and reincarnation memories.

It is questionable how such testimonies are understood. The near death experiences are based on those who did live, and may be related to chemical processes due to medical conditions. With reincarnation memories, it may be that such explanations cannot be taken at face value. The memories, which can often be correlated with people who have may be based on memories arising from the collective unconscious. However, as you are aware even the collective unconscious is speculation. So how such experiences are understood is hard to go beyond speculation for or against, and that is the limits of knowledge. This means that there are no clear definite answers.

[Sy Borg]

The answer may come back to the definition of "self".

If we ask ourselves "Who am I?", we will end up with an answer like, "A human that does things like this". There will be many people around the world who "Do things almost like this", and some may even look somewhat like you. These "similars" will tend to fulfil equivalent roles and occupy equivalent niches to you, doing approximately what you would do in their situations, and vice versa.

So your mind - in a broader sense - will continue after you pass, unless you are as quirky AF ;)

As for your own brain, reports from people who have almost died provide some guidance. With luck, when you die you will have between about three to six minutes in which to experience a subjective eternal life in the dopamine-soaked wonderland of the dying brain. Without luck, it will just be goodnight.

It would be amazing if there is actually some strange multi-dimensional situation here, or quirky aspects of time, so we can objectively enjoy eternal life, meet dead loved ones and so forth, but the notion remains speculative.

[LuckyR]

The answer may come back to the definition of "self".

If we ask ourselves "Who am I?", we will end up with an answer like, "A human that does things like this". There will be many people around the world who "Do things almost like this", and some may even look somewhat like you. These "similars" will tend to fulfil equivalent roles and occupy equivalent niches to you, doing approximately what you would do in their situations, and vice versa.

So your mind - in a broader sense - will continue after you pass, unless you are as quirky AF

As for your own brain, reports from people who have almost died provide some guidance. With luck, when you die you will have between about three to six minutes in which to experience a subjective eternal life in the dopamine-soaked wonderland of the dying brain. Without luck, it will just be goodnight.

It would be amazing if there is actually some strange multi-dimensional situation here, or quirky aspects of time, so we can objectively enjoy eternal life, meet dead loved ones and so forth, but the notion remains speculative.

I answer, who am I? With: a person of my physical attributes who possesses the sum of my memories. There are many with similar physical attributes, but no one with my memories. I might lose my own memories and therefore cease to exist.