5 ms·

Yes. I guess it's a psychological mechanism to cope with the horror, like Stockholm syndrome.

by nova 13y ago

kalms 13y ago
For some it's not a horror. It's grief, and to me grief are welcome. It confirms and strengthen our feelings and emotional bonds. Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love. You should stop belittling other peoples viewpoints, just because it does not align with your own.
- nova 13y ago
  You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement. And in fact I find that "viewpoint" totally incomprehensible. I can asure you, I loved my mother much, much before cancer killed her at 52. That was not a gift, that was her body malfunctioning and our ignorance about how to fix it. I have no need for death or grief to love or to value life, thank you very much. And I don't keep my mouth shut about this because I worry about the real consequences of that philosophy. At any other moment of human history acceptance of death was perhaps the only sane thing to do, because there was no alternative. But we have now a scientific civilization and we should be fighting it, instead of rationalizing it.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. We can fight to extend life at the same time we accept death as inevitable. I have a friend who's a very dedicated doctor, and a very dedicated Buddhist. So much so that they're arranging a version of the charnel ground [1] meditation. But rather than sit in an actual charnel ground, my friend has requested photos from the research facilities that study human decomposition. To the average American, that sounds hopelessly morbid. But people practicing it see it as necessary to fully understanding death. And thereby, to understand and appreciate life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    >You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement. I don't think you are being asked to be silent, I think this is a question of attachment to life yielding suffering through anger. What cannot be changed must be accepted, and to you calm acceptance looks like complacency--to the extent that you insist that _no_ one could be free from your horror at death, and anyone who claims otherwise is subject to 'Stockholm Syndrome.' I seem to hear you saying "Well excuse _me_ for being attached to life." I am of the opinion that attachment to life is readily apparent; of course we are attached to life, that is was it _means_ to live. It's just... death is just a thing. It is. And it is an experience like any other. To appreciate its unique aspects is part of life. Even should we conquer death, we cannot change the fact that death has happened. ...Now, is it insensitive to be talking about death like this in a topic about someone's death? Maybe. But I am confused, somehow, at a violent reaction to a very contemplative perspective on death.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  > Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love. I really just don't know what you mean by that. I imagine a world in which no-one dies and someone asking, 'What's life?' and people still quite meaningfully pointing to living things and going 'Well, it's that.' Just as I can imagine that people who haven't grieved can still love. Grief and death perhaps serves as a proof of love and life, I suppose. If they weren't there what would you lose? But I don't see how they're meant to have IFF relationships.
  - kalms 13y ago
    Yes, you can imagine a different existence, but life is what it is. You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt. I actually worry about abolishing death, because then what are we? What would define the human existence? Would love be the same, without the fear of loss? You said it quite well in your last paragraph actually. :)
    - nova 13y ago
      > You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt. Yeah why bother with fixing >20% infant mortality, or eradicating polio, or dying from infections we now easily cure with antibiotics. We should had accepted that as part of life and keep dying more, more painfully and earlier.
      - bargl 13y ago
        TLDR; Fixing disease is not preventing death. I don't think he's talking about improving the length of life, but instead not looking for the fountain of life, or anything else that would create those who live forever. If we all lived forever, then there would be no children, or parents really. If we really lived forever, not drastically longer lives, Earth wouldn't be able to sustain any sort of birthrate. So yes, we need to attempt to push death off for as long as possible, that's also part of living. Think about a world without babies, or puppies. Just middle aged people who don't die... It would be very different and no one can say good or bad, because humans are really bad at those kind of simulations. We are overly optimistic.
wpietri 13y ago
Not for me. Death is an essential part of life. All composite things decay. Truly understanding and accepting death was and is, for me, vital to fully embracing life. That doesn't mean I'm on death's side, or going to go rob banks for death. Life's pretty swell. But my life is much better, and each moment of it sweeter, in a way that came from experiencing traumatic, irreversible loss. I'll grant that's weird. But, then, we're made out of meat. The whole thing's weird.
VMG 13y ago
Some call it deathism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B0gger/Deathism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B0gger/Deathism

Yes. I guess it's a psychological mechanism to cope with the horror, like Stockholm syndrome.

by nova 13y ago

Yes. I guess it's a psychological mechanism to cope with the horror, like Stockholm syndrome.

kalms 13y ago

For some it's not a horror. It's grief, and to me grief are welcome. It confirms and strengthen our feelings and emotional bonds. Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love. You should stop belittling other peoples viewpoints, just because it does not align with your own.

nova 13y ago
You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement. And in fact I find that "viewpoint" totally incomprehensible. I can asure you, I loved my mother much, much before cancer killed her at 52. That was not a gift, that was her body malfunctioning and our ignorance about how to fix it. I have no need for death or grief to love or to value life, thank you very much. And I don't keep my mouth shut about this because I worry about the real consequences of that philosophy. At any other moment of human history acceptance of death was perhaps the only sane thing to do, because there was no alternative. But we have now a scientific civilization and we should be fighting it, instead of rationalizing it.
- wpietri 13y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. We can fight to extend life at the same time we accept death as inevitable. I have a friend who's a very dedicated doctor, and a very dedicated Buddhist. So much so that they're arranging a version of the charnel ground [1] meditation. But rather than sit in an actual charnel ground, my friend has requested photos from the research facilities that study human decomposition. To the average American, that sounds hopelessly morbid. But people practicing it see it as necessary to fully understanding death. And thereby, to understand and appreciate life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground
- Helianthus 13y ago
  >You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement. I don't think you are being asked to be silent, I think this is a question of attachment to life yielding suffering through anger. What cannot be changed must be accepted, and to you calm acceptance looks like complacency--to the extent that you insist that _no_ one could be free from your horror at death, and anyone who claims otherwise is subject to 'Stockholm Syndrome.' I seem to hear you saying "Well excuse _me_ for being attached to life." I am of the opinion that attachment to life is readily apparent; of course we are attached to life, that is was it _means_ to live. It's just... death is just a thing. It is. And it is an experience like any other. To appreciate its unique aspects is part of life. Even should we conquer death, we cannot change the fact that death has happened. ...Now, is it insensitive to be talking about death like this in a topic about someone's death? Maybe. But I am confused, somehow, at a violent reaction to a very contemplative perspective on death.
6d0debc071 13y ago
> Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love. I really just don't know what you mean by that. I imagine a world in which no-one dies and someone asking, 'What's life?' and people still quite meaningfully pointing to living things and going 'Well, it's that.' Just as I can imagine that people who haven't grieved can still love. Grief and death perhaps serves as a proof of love and life, I suppose. If they weren't there what would you lose? But I don't see how they're meant to have IFF relationships.
- kalms 13y ago
  Yes, you can imagine a different existence, but life is what it is. You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt. I actually worry about abolishing death, because then what are we? What would define the human existence? Would love be the same, without the fear of loss? You said it quite well in your last paragraph actually. :)
  - nova 13y ago
    > You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt. Yeah why bother with fixing >20% infant mortality, or eradicating polio, or dying from infections we now easily cure with antibiotics. We should had accepted that as part of life and keep dying more, more painfully and earlier.
    - bargl 13y ago
      TLDR; Fixing disease is not preventing death. I don't think he's talking about improving the length of life, but instead not looking for the fountain of life, or anything else that would create those who live forever. If we all lived forever, then there would be no children, or parents really. If we really lived forever, not drastically longer lives, Earth wouldn't be able to sustain any sort of birthrate. So yes, we need to attempt to push death off for as long as possible, that's also part of living. Think about a world without babies, or puppies. Just middle aged people who don't die... It would be very different and no one can say good or bad, because humans are really bad at those kind of simulations. We are overly optimistic.

wpietri 13y ago

Not for me. Death is an essential part of life. All composite things decay. Truly understanding and accepting death was and is, for me, vital to fully embracing life. That doesn't mean I'm on death's side, or going to go rob banks for death. Life's pretty swell. But my life is much better, and each moment of it sweeter, in a way that came from experiencing traumatic, irreversible loss. I'll grant that's weird. But, then, we're made out of meat. The whole thing's weird.

VMG 13y ago

Some call it deathism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B0gger/Deathism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B0gger/Deathism