3 ms·

> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never exist

> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed? > strictly speaking, when something dies, what we are left with is not a body, as only a living thing is or has a body, but the remains of what was once alive Strictly speaking, you're confidently guessing at something you don't know and have no way of knowing. That said, thank you for introducing me to Giordano Bruno, his ideas seems very interesting and worth thinking about

yellowapple 2y ago
> Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed? Correct. They don't think, therefore they ain't ;)
- pazimzadeh 2y ago
  "I think therefore I am" does not imply "anything that doesn't think doesn't exist" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡 ┻━┻
geye1234 2y ago
>> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be > Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed No, he means that when something dies, it ceases to be what it was. When a dog dies, it's no longer a dog, but a corpse, and pretty soon will be earth. Same with a person (assuming no afterlife). He doesn't mean that a dead thing is nothing at all, only that a onetime-living thing ceases to be what it was when it dies. >> strictly speaking, when something dies, what we are left with is not a body, as only a living thing is or has a body, but the remains of what was once alive > Strictly speaking, you're confidently guessing at something you don't know and have no way of knowing. Everything we observe about the difference between living animals and corpses tells us that the living body ceases to exist at death. It's a very basic observation. More systematic observation of the onetime-organism's biology or biochemistry will reveal the same thing, in more detail.

yellowapple 2y ago

> Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed? Correct. They don't think, therefore they ain't ;)

pazimzadeh 2y ago
"I think therefore I am" does not imply "anything that doesn't think doesn't exist" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡 ┻━┻

geye1234 2y ago

>> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be > Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed No, he means that when something dies, it ceases to be what it was. When a dog dies, it's no longer a dog, but a corpse, and pretty soon will be earth. Same with a person (assuming no afterlife). He doesn't mean that a dead thing is nothing at all, only that a onetime-living thing ceases to be what it was when it dies. >> strictly speaking, when something dies, what we are left with is not a body, as only a living thing is or has a body, but the remains of what was once alive > Strictly speaking, you're confidently guessing at something you don't know and have no way of knowing. Everything we observe about the difference between living animals and corpses tells us that the living body ceases to exist at death. It's a very basic observation. More systematic observation of the onetime-organism's biology or biochemistry will reveal the same thing, in more detail.