Why not? At present it is ideological based on the theoretical conclusions I have arrived at in my thesis.Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
"Should" and "should not" are ideological doctrines. You are professing more knowledge than you have any right to claim.
I told you many times, it is not primarily about "fear of death" though it play a secondary role. What contribute to the resultant of an existential crisis, are the proximate root elements of the "fear of death" neural algorithms in combination with other proximate root elements.It would be nice again to see you make another description of "Existential Crisis". What it is about is subjective ideas of "purpose" and "meaning", and the "value" of life. Existential Crisis is not about "fear of death", it is about lack of understanding and meaning, and coming to terms with our subjective and limited view of ourselves and our world/s.
Your description of the existential crisis is too vague as usual, 'too much foreplay and no climax'.
Nah you are wrong in the above. Not all religions focus on the fear of death DIRECTLY and openly. Initially you have insisted the concept of fear of death is not obvious in all religion. I have to prove to you the 'fear of death' is present in all mainstream religions in various degrees, even Judaism and Taoism. As for ALL religions one can trace it to the primal 'fear' of the the threat of premature death at the proximate root levels. What drives religion is not solely 'fear of death' but a resultant existential crisis.This is most certainly a huge part of the religious questions and experience, and the mainstay of religious investigations. All religions attempt to approach the issue of existential crisis.
Reference to "death" is stems from the foundation of the existential crisis the existential crisis does not spawn forth from fear of death, that is just poor reasoning and deeply bias opinion of religious people in thinking they only turn to religion, or have religious experiences, because they fear death. It is simply untrue and what, if anything, is reported and experienced in religious experience is just as often not fear of death, although some cases have visions of hell others have visions of heaven.
As I had insisted earlier, WHY NOT.On who's authority? This is not the first nor the second time you've said what people "should" do. It doesn't help your case in the slightest.The individual[s] should understand why they are driven to God and religion.
Have you been "driven" to God and religion? If so you better express this before dictating what other people who have been driven to God and religion should or should not do.
This is a discussion.
If my theoretical conclusions are proven to be practical then "The individual[s] should ..." for the sake of humanity's well being.
I was once a theist [non-religious] for a long time and turned non-theist upon understanding God is illusory.
Now that religions [especially Abrahamic] are influencing a critical SOME to commit terrible evils and violence, it is time for all individual[s] to understand what God really is and why they are clinging to a God like there is no tomorrow.
This is a side point.I guess we can ask is "death" empirical? Do I have experience of "death" or not? You can then do the reasoning from there.
Death is an empirical fact and certainty [conditional] because no humans have been observed [empirically[ to have lived more than 150 years old.
Thus the premise 'ALL man are mortal'.
or 'All humans are mortal' as a major premise.
Note Hume had argued such premise like 'ALL man are mortal' is not absolute fact per-se but merely a proposition conditioned by constant conjunction, habits and customs.