3 ms·

I'm struggling to observe any consistency on your part. You say we are hypersensitized to death, yet also think it's not a big deal. We are trying to solve th

I'm struggling to observe any consistency on your part. You say we are hypersensitized to death, yet also think it's not a big deal. We are trying to solve the problem of death, yet in doing so we are disconnected to it. The implication being that the drive to achieve immortality and/or extend lifespans is some recent phenomenon that emerged in the last century, which is patently false, and that trying to reason about ending a phenomenon means we are oblivious of its true nature, which is again false, and odd. In addition, I'm skeptical of your implication that the rate of emotional sensitivity to death increases with more exposure to it. It should be the opposite.

astine 11y ago
You say we are hypersensitized to death, yet also think it's not a big deal. The GP didn't say that we think death is no big deal, he said that we are attempting to convince ourselves that it is no big deal. We are trying to solve the problem of death, yet in doing so we are disconnected to it. You have the causality backwards. In addition, I'm skeptical of your implication that the rate of emotional sensitivity to death increases with more exposure to it. It should be the opposite. The GP said the opposite. The GP's argument is that because we as a society are less connected to death that we are therefore more afraid of it than ever, that the commonality of death in the 1800s made it something less fearful, more banal, to them than to us.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  My first statement was admittedly ambiguous: I meant that the GP implies that the figurative "we" think it's not a big deal from his position, not that the GP themselves think that. We are disconnected from death, and in doing so we are trying to solve its disputed problem? Doesn't seem to be the case, as human desire for immortality is quite ancient, precisely because of how visible death was. As for the last statement, the GP contradicted themselves w.r.t. whether we are desensitized or hypersensitized in the beginning and end of their post, respectively.
  - orthecreedence 11y ago
    > they all desensitize us .. to death, or a certain view of it This could probably have been written better. I was saying that we are desensitized to the idea of death but not to death itself. The two are logically relatable but not the same.

astine 11y ago

You say we are hypersensitized to death, yet also think it's not a big deal. The GP didn't say that we think death is no big deal, he said that we are attempting to convince ourselves that it is no big deal. We are trying to solve the problem of death, yet in doing so we are disconnected to it. You have the causality backwards. In addition, I'm skeptical of your implication that the rate of emotional sensitivity to death increases with more exposure to it. It should be the opposite. The GP said the opposite. The GP's argument is that because we as a society are less connected to death that we are therefore more afraid of it than ever, that the commonality of death in the 1800s made it something less fearful, more banal, to them than to us.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
My first statement was admittedly ambiguous: I meant that the GP implies that the figurative "we" think it's not a big deal from his position, not that the GP themselves think that. We are disconnected from death, and in doing so we are trying to solve its disputed problem? Doesn't seem to be the case, as human desire for immortality is quite ancient, precisely because of how visible death was. As for the last statement, the GP contradicted themselves w.r.t. whether we are desensitized or hypersensitized in the beginning and end of their post, respectively.
- orthecreedence 11y ago
  > they all desensitize us .. to death, or a certain view of it This could probably have been written better. I was saying that we are desensitized to the idea of death but not to death itself. The two are logically relatable but not the same.