5 ms·

Fearing death is utterly irrational. One simply transitions from being to non-being. In a state of non-being one cannot worry, influence, toil, think, experien

Fearing death is utterly irrational. One simply transitions from being to non-being. In a state of non-being one cannot worry, influence, toil, think, experience, or suffer. I look at death very straightforwardly: it is irrelevant to me. I will never experience death. I will therefore, from my perspective, never die. My experiences are bounded by my being and non-being, and self-referentially we are each immortal within the bounds of our own experience. I may one day experience the act of dying, but one does not know one is dying unless one is terminally ill. More often than not one simply either goes to sleep and does not wake, or one goes "gosh, what's that thing that's about to hit my head?". Of course one might worry for those one leaves behind - but in most cases, this does the living a disservice, as to think one essential in the life of another is egoistic at best, and controlling and damaging at worst. Hare today, goon tomorrow, and the world will keep turning.

philh 12y ago
Would you play Russian roulette for ten dollars? If not, what is it that stops you, and why is it irrational for that same reason to make people not want to die of other causes?
- rwmj 12y ago
  The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10, so why is it irrational for him to play Russian roulette for so little money?
  - philh 12y ago
    If OP doesn't want to do it, it would be irrational for ver to do it. That's not true of all decisions, but I think it holds in this case. But, I'm a little confused, because > The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10 would seem like an argument against playing. So I'm not sure if you were trying to say something that went completely over my head?
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  No, because the marginal utility of $10 is inadequate to me. I didn't say that not wanting to die is irrational, but that fearing death abstractedly is. Not wanting to die is rational from an anthropocentric/evolutionary biology point of view, as continuing life increases the odds of genetic and memetic propagation. It isn't rational, however, as an external observer might see it. I suppose it depends on what the "goal" of human life is. If it is simply "to be", then it's a self-fulfilling goal and of null value in an objective argument. So - what stops me is that same instinct for preserving the self and/or ones genes. It does not mean, however, that I have not accepted the fact that I will, one day, die, and the fact that it really doesn't matter. I won't be here to care.
saraid216 12y ago
> Of course one might worry for those one leaves behind - but in most cases, this does the living a disservice, as to think one essential in the life of another is egoistic at best, and controlling and damaging at worst. You are in a firefight. There are two sides to it, and you are on one of them. Your side comprises multiple people. You are shot in the head. The probability that the others on your side will also be shot has just increased. Recognizing this is neither egoistic, controlling, or damaging. It is not difficult to abstract this scenario to the entire world. What you do, and what is done to you, has consequences. These consequences do not evaporate upon your death, unless you are very purely solipsistic. You can choose to not care about these consequences, of course, but such apathy can fairly easily be framed as egoistic, controlling, or damaging.
jessaustin 12y ago
One simply transitions from being to non-being. This is probably the healthiest belief to have, but it's still an unfounded belief. How would one know this?
- jhayward 12y ago
  We "know" this because it is what we observe every time we see someone die. We do not reliably observe anything else, and have no evidence to contradict it. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.
d-equivalence 12y ago
I think people commonly fear the process of dying (especially if its long drawn out and painful) than the actual state of being dead.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  Nonexistence -- both in the sense of me not being here anymore, being forgotten, and everything connected to or similar to me disaapearing -- bothers me way more than dying. I'm also not too fond of the idea that the universe might wind down to nothing, with no future or memory of its past.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    This used to bother me. I used to fear that all that is human would ultimately be lost and unknown to a cold and dispassionate universe. It doesn't bother me any more, as my premise was wrong. I came to realise that the only way the universe can know us is through us - and that the best record of any moment is that perception of it lent there and then to those who lived through it - but ultimately the retrospective reminiscence of a gone past is but a pale shadow of the real, the here and now. Cherish life, and strive for the future for its own sake - but never forget that what matters is here and now. Come to think of it, I think what most fear is not death, but having never lived.
  - d-equivalence 12y ago
    It's just a larger scale of leaving high-school (or leaving any significant period in your life behind). Things, people, problems from back then don't bother you anymore and you remember them only a little bit better than a novel you read, being out of context. Also you dive in nonexistence everyday when in deep sleep. And the universe winding down, well, like you said, its just an idea :-)
mikeash 12y ago
I find this to be a very selfish view. There's nothing eogistic about thinking that you're important in the lives of others. Note that this is not the same as "essential." Yes, I'm sure my wife and daughter will survive and even thrive without me. And yet, I'm still terribly afraid of leaving my daughter to grow up without a father. I mean, what's the difference between "It's OK if I die, my family will survive" and "It's OK if I run away with another woman and stop supporting my children, my family will survive"? I also doubt your assertion that "more often than not" death comes quickly. Of the friends and loved ones I've had die, the vast majority went through a long decline first. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who went quickly.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  So, I totally understand how you have taken that from what I wrote, so please allow me to elaborate. The difference between the scenarios you present is voluntary action. I'm absolutely not proposing that you should pop off and go for a Burton, and actively try to leave your nearest and dearest in the lurch - rather that people are resilient, and life goes on, and that we must believe in those we are closest to. I have life insurance to at least ensure the financial safety of my family should I cease to be. I'm sorry for your experiences - most of my loved ones have met violent ends or have died of mercifully swift illnesses. Some have lingered, painfully, and wished for but could not have euthanasia. Perhaps there's an argument for voluntary euthanasia being legal purely in the idea that it comforts the living with the knowledge that they need never suffer a slow death in the future.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    The initial cause of the two scenarios is irrelevant to the consequences of the outcome. If it's bad to abandon your family then it's equally bad to die on them. And it's completely rational to be afraid of an event that has bad consequences. If you just want to say that your loved ones will survive, that life goes on without you, and you shouldn't be overly concerned about how the world will get on after you die, that's reasonable. But I completely and utterly disagree with going from that to "Fearing death is utterly irrational." Fearing death because of the negative consequences it will have on people you care about is completely rational.
meric 12y ago
That is a very Taoist view. Did you come up with that or were you inspired by Taoism?

philh 12y ago

Would you play Russian roulette for ten dollars? If not, what is it that stops you, and why is it irrational for that same reason to make people not want to die of other causes?

rwmj 12y ago
The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10, so why is it irrational for him to play Russian roulette for so little money?
- philh 12y ago
  If OP doesn't want to do it, it would be irrational for ver to do it. That's not true of all decisions, but I think it holds in this case. But, I'm a little confused, because > The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10 would seem like an argument against playing. So I'm not sure if you were trying to say something that went completely over my head?
madaxe_again 12y ago
No, because the marginal utility of $10 is inadequate to me. I didn't say that not wanting to die is irrational, but that fearing death abstractedly is. Not wanting to die is rational from an anthropocentric/evolutionary biology point of view, as continuing life increases the odds of genetic and memetic propagation. It isn't rational, however, as an external observer might see it. I suppose it depends on what the "goal" of human life is. If it is simply "to be", then it's a self-fulfilling goal and of null value in an objective argument. So - what stops me is that same instinct for preserving the self and/or ones genes. It does not mean, however, that I have not accepted the fact that I will, one day, die, and the fact that it really doesn't matter. I won't be here to care.

saraid216 12y ago

> Of course one might worry for those one leaves behind - but in most cases, this does the living a disservice, as to think one essential in the life of another is egoistic at best, and controlling and damaging at worst. You are in a firefight. There are two sides to it, and you are on one of them. Your side comprises multiple people. You are shot in the head. The probability that the others on your side will also be shot has just increased. Recognizing this is neither egoistic, controlling, or damaging. It is not difficult to abstract this scenario to the entire world. What you do, and what is done to you, has consequences. These consequences do not evaporate upon your death, unless you are very purely solipsistic. You can choose to not care about these consequences, of course, but such apathy can fairly easily be framed as egoistic, controlling, or damaging.

jessaustin 12y ago

One simply transitions from being to non-being. This is probably the healthiest belief to have, but it's still an unfounded belief. How would one know this?

jhayward 12y ago
We "know" this because it is what we observe every time we see someone die. We do not reliably observe anything else, and have no evidence to contradict it. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.

d-equivalence 12y ago

I think people commonly fear the process of dying (especially if its long drawn out and painful) than the actual state of being dead.

saalweachter 12y ago
Nonexistence -- both in the sense of me not being here anymore, being forgotten, and everything connected to or similar to me disaapearing -- bothers me way more than dying. I'm also not too fond of the idea that the universe might wind down to nothing, with no future or memory of its past.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  This used to bother me. I used to fear that all that is human would ultimately be lost and unknown to a cold and dispassionate universe. It doesn't bother me any more, as my premise was wrong. I came to realise that the only way the universe can know us is through us - and that the best record of any moment is that perception of it lent there and then to those who lived through it - but ultimately the retrospective reminiscence of a gone past is but a pale shadow of the real, the here and now. Cherish life, and strive for the future for its own sake - but never forget that what matters is here and now. Come to think of it, I think what most fear is not death, but having never lived.
- d-equivalence 12y ago
  It's just a larger scale of leaving high-school (or leaving any significant period in your life behind). Things, people, problems from back then don't bother you anymore and you remember them only a little bit better than a novel you read, being out of context. Also you dive in nonexistence everyday when in deep sleep. And the universe winding down, well, like you said, its just an idea :-)

mikeash 12y ago

I find this to be a very selfish view. There's nothing eogistic about thinking that you're important in the lives of others. Note that this is not the same as "essential." Yes, I'm sure my wife and daughter will survive and even thrive without me. And yet, I'm still terribly afraid of leaving my daughter to grow up without a father. I mean, what's the difference between "It's OK if I die, my family will survive" and "It's OK if I run away with another woman and stop supporting my children, my family will survive"? I also doubt your assertion that "more often than not" death comes quickly. Of the friends and loved ones I've had die, the vast majority went through a long decline first. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who went quickly.

madaxe_again 12y ago
So, I totally understand how you have taken that from what I wrote, so please allow me to elaborate. The difference between the scenarios you present is voluntary action. I'm absolutely not proposing that you should pop off and go for a Burton, and actively try to leave your nearest and dearest in the lurch - rather that people are resilient, and life goes on, and that we must believe in those we are closest to. I have life insurance to at least ensure the financial safety of my family should I cease to be. I'm sorry for your experiences - most of my loved ones have met violent ends or have died of mercifully swift illnesses. Some have lingered, painfully, and wished for but could not have euthanasia. Perhaps there's an argument for voluntary euthanasia being legal purely in the idea that it comforts the living with the knowledge that they need never suffer a slow death in the future.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The initial cause of the two scenarios is irrelevant to the consequences of the outcome. If it's bad to abandon your family then it's equally bad to die on them. And it's completely rational to be afraid of an event that has bad consequences. If you just want to say that your loved ones will survive, that life goes on without you, and you shouldn't be overly concerned about how the world will get on after you die, that's reasonable. But I completely and utterly disagree with going from that to "Fearing death is utterly irrational." Fearing death because of the negative consequences it will have on people you care about is completely rational.

meric 12y ago

That is a very Taoist view. Did you come up with that or were you inspired by Taoism?