4 ms·

People don't say that for her, they say that to convince themselves that death isn't as bad as it is.

by Retra 11y ago

Aloha 11y ago
Most death isn't that bad, its a quiet snuffing out, rather then a violent in the throws. Death is bad for the survivors, not for the decedent.
- Retra 11y ago
  Death is one of the worst things that can happen to you. That's a more general moral qualification, not a purely emotional one. There's a difference between how something feels and how good or bad it is for you.
  - Aloha 11y ago
    If you have cancer, and have been sick for months or years, and are in great pain, is death the worst thing to happen to you? It may be bad for your family and loved ones - but for you, it may very well be relief. Mercy and palliative care is something I think forgotten all too often in medical care in the US, we focus so much on the cure at all costs, and less on the outcome or realistic outcome rather.
    - Retra 11y ago
      When you say "you," you are failing to properly account for the dynamics of human identity. I am not just a brain in a body. I am a fully engaged social being. The "me" that dies is not the whole me. I identify as part of a human culture. And yes, if that human culture dies -- if humanity goes extinct -- then that is just about the worst thing I could imagine. You can scale that down any number of ways, but at no point will I agree that death isn't bad. I don't care if it's a single cell, a single organ, a whole person, or a whole room full of people. It's only as good as the value it produces for the whole, and my personal suffering is not a factor to that insofar as it doesn't disable my contribution. And I didn't say death is the worst thing that can happen to you.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    If you think that death is so bad, you are either going to be a very sad senior, or a suicide as aging gets more and more ominous. That said, I don't know what "general moral qualification" means.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I don't see why you'd infer that I will be emotionally distraught to the point of notability when facing bad things just because I said they are bad. Or why you think that changes anything about what I'd conclude is bad or not. I'm not in the business of pretending things aren't bad just because I prefer not to deal with them.
duaneb 11y ago
Death has no valuation. It is not good or bad. It is just the progress of time and the existence of entropy. Everything must die. Dying is scary. Death is not.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- iamme 11y ago
  My take on death is since there is no way to be certain what happens after death, all possibilities are, well, possible. Death can be extremely good, extremely bad, neutral or anywhere in between. Yes, I'm talking about life after death here. I think it's relevant to the OP's comment because what happens after death (good, bad, nothing) logically effects the valuation of death. Since it is inherently very difficult if not impossible to scientifically evaluate what the probabilities are in terms of life after death, it's pretty much a crap shoot and what we choose to believe about it is based on faith (in nothing, God, etc). Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
  - Retra 11y ago
    The concept is self-contradictory, and thus not possible. That is knowable. It's also incoherent, and thus not a justifiable position even if it weren't self-contradictory. PS: Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever. It's not a good argument for anything.
    - iamme 11y ago
      > The concept is self-contradictory, and thus not possible. Ok, let me frame it this way then. We're talking about the possibility of (a different kind of) life after physical death. My assertion is that there is no way to prove its existence or its non-existence. Therefor, any assertion about its nature or lack there of is uniformly based on faith. > Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever. Not sure I follow you on this one, but it's not central to the discussion here. Thought about it more and I think I understand your reasoning now. But I included Pascal's wager not to justify any particular belief (although I can totally see why you came to that conclusion as Pascal does come to a concrete conclusion in terms of a particular belief). I included Pascal's wager not for his conclusion but because it supports my assertion that one can not know what happens after physical death. Therefore, any conclusion about that is based on faith alone. EDIT: Addition to last point.
codingdave 11y ago
I'm sorry to hear that you believe this. It shows a lack of appreciation for people who get out in the world and really live their lives... People who do things that have risk, but would rather follow their passions than live without it. For people like that, dying doing what they loved really does make it better. They lived their lives, following their own choices. And those lives do end early sometimes. But all lives end. Sitting behind a desk for 40 years then cheering at how long you lived... that sounds like the tragedy to me.
- Retra 11y ago
  What are you implying? That I'm not "really living my life" because I don't try to convince myself death is better if I was having fun just before it happened? You really think a chainsaw juggler is going to have more fun getting mutilated by a chainsaw than dying in their sleep? Or that drowning is somehow not unbearably frightening just because you like water? Have you never heard of post traumatic stress? When you almost die doing something, it can make you not like it anymore. So why would you assume dying doing something you love isn't actually a good way to die losing the thing you love most? Because you don't want to believe it.
Dylan16807 11y ago
Nah, people like ending on a high note. It's a general thing. Nothing to do with being in denial about death.

People don't say that for her, they say that to convince themselves that death isn't as bad as it is.

by Retra 11y ago

People don't say that for her, they say that to convince themselves that death isn't as bad as it is.

Aloha 11y ago

Most death isn't that bad, its a quiet snuffing out, rather then a violent in the throws. Death is bad for the survivors, not for the decedent.

Retra 11y ago
Death is one of the worst things that can happen to you. That's a more general moral qualification, not a purely emotional one. There's a difference between how something feels and how good or bad it is for you.
- Aloha 11y ago
  If you have cancer, and have been sick for months or years, and are in great pain, is death the worst thing to happen to you? It may be bad for your family and loved ones - but for you, it may very well be relief. Mercy and palliative care is something I think forgotten all too often in medical care in the US, we focus so much on the cure at all costs, and less on the outcome or realistic outcome rather.
  - Retra 11y ago
    When you say "you," you are failing to properly account for the dynamics of human identity. I am not just a brain in a body. I am a fully engaged social being. The "me" that dies is not the whole me. I identify as part of a human culture. And yes, if that human culture dies -- if humanity goes extinct -- then that is just about the worst thing I could imagine. You can scale that down any number of ways, but at no point will I agree that death isn't bad. I don't care if it's a single cell, a single organ, a whole person, or a whole room full of people. It's only as good as the value it produces for the whole, and my personal suffering is not a factor to that insofar as it doesn't disable my contribution. And I didn't say death is the worst thing that can happen to you.
- rhizome 11y ago
  If you think that death is so bad, you are either going to be a very sad senior, or a suicide as aging gets more and more ominous. That said, I don't know what "general moral qualification" means.
  - Retra 11y ago
    I don't see why you'd infer that I will be emotionally distraught to the point of notability when facing bad things just because I said they are bad. Or why you think that changes anything about what I'd conclude is bad or not. I'm not in the business of pretending things aren't bad just because I prefer not to deal with them.

duaneb 11y ago

Death has no valuation. It is not good or bad. It is just the progress of time and the existence of entropy. Everything must die. Dying is scary. Death is not.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
iamme 11y ago
My take on death is since there is no way to be certain what happens after death, all possibilities are, well, possible. Death can be extremely good, extremely bad, neutral or anywhere in between. Yes, I'm talking about life after death here. I think it's relevant to the OP's comment because what happens after death (good, bad, nothing) logically effects the valuation of death. Since it is inherently very difficult if not impossible to scientifically evaluate what the probabilities are in terms of life after death, it's pretty much a crap shoot and what we choose to believe about it is based on faith (in nothing, God, etc). Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
- Retra 11y ago
  The concept is self-contradictory, and thus not possible. That is knowable. It's also incoherent, and thus not a justifiable position even if it weren't self-contradictory. PS: Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever. It's not a good argument for anything.
  - iamme 11y ago
    > The concept is self-contradictory, and thus not possible. Ok, let me frame it this way then. We're talking about the possibility of (a different kind of) life after physical death. My assertion is that there is no way to prove its existence or its non-existence. Therefor, any assertion about its nature or lack there of is uniformly based on faith. > Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever. Not sure I follow you on this one, but it's not central to the discussion here. Thought about it more and I think I understand your reasoning now. But I included Pascal's wager not to justify any particular belief (although I can totally see why you came to that conclusion as Pascal does come to a concrete conclusion in terms of a particular belief). I included Pascal's wager not for his conclusion but because it supports my assertion that one can not know what happens after physical death. Therefore, any conclusion about that is based on faith alone. EDIT: Addition to last point.

codingdave 11y ago

I'm sorry to hear that you believe this. It shows a lack of appreciation for people who get out in the world and really live their lives... People who do things that have risk, but would rather follow their passions than live without it. For people like that, dying doing what they loved really does make it better. They lived their lives, following their own choices. And those lives do end early sometimes. But all lives end. Sitting behind a desk for 40 years then cheering at how long you lived... that sounds like the tragedy to me.

Retra 11y ago
What are you implying? That I'm not "really living my life" because I don't try to convince myself death is better if I was having fun just before it happened? You really think a chainsaw juggler is going to have more fun getting mutilated by a chainsaw than dying in their sleep? Or that drowning is somehow not unbearably frightening just because you like water? Have you never heard of post traumatic stress? When you almost die doing something, it can make you not like it anymore. So why would you assume dying doing something you love isn't actually a good way to die losing the thing you love most? Because you don't want to believe it.

Dylan16807 11y ago

Nah, people like ending on a high note. It's a general thing. Nothing to do with being in denial about death.