2 ms·

If people stop dying, won't other people have to stop getting born? I'm just reading something by Schopenhauer on death, and he thinks it doesn't make sense to

by zupatol 18y ago

If people stop dying, won't other people have to stop getting born? I'm just reading something by Schopenhauer on death, and he thinks it doesn't make sense to fear it. Here is a better summary than I could write: http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/ http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/

zupatol 18y ago
I read that again and I'm not sure that summary helps a lot. I'll just write about what I've read turned into in my mind, where it merged with my own experience and other things I've read. Schopenhauer's main point is that death doesn't exist because time is not real. This is not very comforting unless you can imagine what it means that time is not real. I can't. He does point out that there is no rational reason to fear death. The fear of death is an instinct, like aggressivity for example, which you can repress and even overcome. It's useful in some situations, when it makes you go to the doctor because you're sick, and it's useless in other situations, like when you're terminally ill. People who know they will die can overcome the fear of death and learn to accept it. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model ) So fear of death is not a reason for avoiding death. Is there a rational reason to consider death as something to avoid? Death is as natural as birth. The process of evolution even requires the cycle of birth and death. What bothers Eliezer Yudkovski is not death, it's the suffering caused by the loss of someone dear. Making people immortal however will never rid life of suffering.
- gjm11 18y ago
  Of course there's a rational reason to avoid death (and hence, to consider death as something to avoid -- which, yes, is not at all the same thing as fearing it). Aren't there a whole lot of things you want to do? Well, if you die now then you won't get to do any of them. If you've achieved everything you want to in life, then perhaps you no longer have any reason to avoid death. Most people haven't. But, actually, I think you'd have reason even then to avoid death, if like most people you instinctively hate or fear it. It's rational to pursue things you like and avoid things you dislike, if anything's rational at all.
  - zupatol 18y ago
    You're right. The argument about overcoming the fear of death is really not sufficient to make that point. Let's leave at that: there are good arguments in Schopenhauer for not considering death as undesirable, and many of them are not necessarily dependent on his idea that time is whatever he says it is. I haven't read them carefully enough to convince anyone, let alone summarize them in a few paragraphs, but I do think it's worth pointing out this source.
  - zupatol 18y ago
    I couldn't help thinking some more about what you wrote. The things I want to do, like reading a specific book, only make sense if I am alive. If I die, my desire to read the book disappears. I would not say I want to live in order to read this book. I would say I want to read this book if I am alive. But I agree with you that people can sometimes have a sense of purpose, of things that should be accomplished in their life. I remember I had this a long time ago. I'm still working on what I then thought I should do. In the meantime I have lost the feeling I must absolutely live so that my work can be accomplished. But the fact this feeling exists does make me think there is something wrong with my argument. You are right it is rational to pursue things you like or avoid things you dislike and following your instincts. At the same time your different instincts are often in contradiction, and you rationally chose which one to repress. So the fact you have an instinct doesn't mean you should never repress it, and having an instinct of survival doesn't necessarily mean it would be good to live forever.

by zupatol 18y ago

zupatol 18y ago

I read that again and I'm not sure that summary helps a lot. I'll just write about what I've read turned into in my mind, where it merged with my own experience and other things I've read. Schopenhauer's main point is that death doesn't exist because time is not real. This is not very comforting unless you can imagine what it means that time is not real. I can't. He does point out that there is no rational reason to fear death. The fear of death is an instinct, like aggressivity for example, which you can repress and even overcome. It's useful in some situations, when it makes you go to the doctor because you're sick, and it's useless in other situations, like when you're terminally ill. People who know they will die can overcome the fear of death and learn to accept it. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model ) So fear of death is not a reason for avoiding death. Is there a rational reason to consider death as something to avoid? Death is as natural as birth. The process of evolution even requires the cycle of birth and death. What bothers Eliezer Yudkovski is not death, it's the suffering caused by the loss of someone dear. Making people immortal however will never rid life of suffering.

gjm11 18y ago
Of course there's a rational reason to avoid death (and hence, to consider death as something to avoid -- which, yes, is not at all the same thing as fearing it). Aren't there a whole lot of things you want to do? Well, if you die now then you won't get to do any of them. If you've achieved everything you want to in life, then perhaps you no longer have any reason to avoid death. Most people haven't. But, actually, I think you'd have reason even then to avoid death, if like most people you instinctively hate or fear it. It's rational to pursue things you like and avoid things you dislike, if anything's rational at all.
- zupatol 18y ago
  You're right. The argument about overcoming the fear of death is really not sufficient to make that point. Let's leave at that: there are good arguments in Schopenhauer for not considering death as undesirable, and many of them are not necessarily dependent on his idea that time is whatever he says it is. I haven't read them carefully enough to convince anyone, let alone summarize them in a few paragraphs, but I do think it's worth pointing out this source.
- zupatol 18y ago
  I couldn't help thinking some more about what you wrote. The things I want to do, like reading a specific book, only make sense if I am alive. If I die, my desire to read the book disappears. I would not say I want to live in order to read this book. I would say I want to read this book if I am alive. But I agree with you that people can sometimes have a sense of purpose, of things that should be accomplished in their life. I remember I had this a long time ago. I'm still working on what I then thought I should do. In the meantime I have lost the feeling I must absolutely live so that my work can be accomplished. But the fact this feeling exists does make me think there is something wrong with my argument. You are right it is rational to pursue things you like or avoid things you dislike and following your instincts. At the same time your different instincts are often in contradiction, and you rationally chose which one to repress. So the fact you have an instinct doesn't mean you should never repress it, and having an instinct of survival doesn't necessarily mean it would be good to live forever.