Should we fear death?

Assuming we are all just moving dead stuff.
Which sees death as a complete stop of the originated dynamic. (But could during it's lifecycle substain, end or create other dynamics of chemical phenomena.)
We could rather just be feared about things causing our death and not death self. Because we all know it's going to grab you and your mother's ass.
Religion is just a way to give that motherfucker a name and worship the ones who can 'protect' us from the causes death. Or are the ones to create such causes. It's just because the universe doesn't even care about anything that lives and isn't even able to reconize what is 'alive' since it's all just a dynamic of chemical changes.

Just try to make the best of what you have left. Because I think it'll be quite fucking boring after it.

We don't know what it is and there's no way to find out (or verify if you have a belief) until it happens. Ergo nobody should fear it; though it might be inevitable that we all fear it at some point or another.

It's a waste of time to think about it.

>We don't know what it is
You think you're making a neutral statement but in reality this makes a bunch of huge assumptions.

Oh I'm sorry, [i]statistically speaking[/i] there is an unknown chance that some person or a group of people might be right. Is that better?

It's pretty simple to say "muh oblivion," and while that is the simplest scientific theory of what could happen (and I accept it as a possibility), there is no way to verify what happens to your sentience in the process known as "death" because the branch interested in studying the nature of reality (Physics) is more interested in the fabric of the latter than the perspective of an individual.

It's still a waste of time to think about because there is no way to prove it.

Why not? I mean life is pretty cool, right?

I have eternal life.

For some of the world, sure

>It's pretty simple to say "muh oblivion,"
But even saying that makes a bold assumption, the assumption that there is some magical entity that necessarily has to undergo an unknowable translation.

Nigga I don't know what you're talking about; I'm saying nobody can know for sure and it's a waste of time to think about it.

I'm saying that "nobody can know" is a position that makes unprovable assumptions, and thus the truly neutral position is "nothing happens". And "nothing happens" is not the same as oblivion.

How is 'nothing happens' not making unprovable assumptions?

Nothingness seems horrible. But I've heard it best described as the feeling you had before you were born. Which is nothing.

'Tis not death we should fear, but the Reaper.

don't fear the reaper
also not Veeky Forums

Because its the position that makes the least amount of assumptions.

Not necessarily. Since we really don't know what comes after death, specifically saying 'nothing' seems more presumptuous than saying 'could be anything'.

>cause heaven and souls and stuff

But in order to say that it could be anything, you have to actually define death.

>'Tis not death we should fear, but the Reaper.
Fine:
>“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”
That's Marcus Aurelius.

The definition of death is the end of a life, I don't see how that's relevant. Up to now saying 'it's nothing' is still sounding less neutral than 'who the fuck knows what it is'

You can't define life either. It's arbitrary.

The fuck? 'Either' is wrong since I just defined death and again, irrelevant to the subject. Which is seeming more and more like mindless semantics.

Every position on death makes assumptions that cannot be proved, yours is that nothing happens. You cannot prove that nothing happens to the sentience of the person because we don't have a thorough-enough understanding of what sentience is. Not to mention our modern physics (the study of the nature of reality) has only been around for about 300 years.

In fact when dealing with translating or modifying sentience all we resort to is thought-experiments. This should give you an idea of how little we know of it.

"Nobody can know" is a self-controlled argument, meaning nobody can know [i]including myself[/i]. So hey, I may be wrong, but maybe it's all these other people who are wrong (that'd be you). There is currently no way to verify other than by dying yourself.

It's still making assumptions.

There's nothing wrong with assuming but in the case of death where it is not verifiable it is a waste of time.

Especially since you talk of "nothing happens" which is similar "boring blackness," "oblivion" etc... These give a false perception of what death is like, because if it was that case there would be no sentience.

The latter means people think it feels boring, or dark, or any other number of negative emotional feelings, yet they fail to see that in true oblivion there is no sentience and therefore no perception of any negative and positive emotion. Like infinity, this cannot be grasped by the human brain.

Still this in itself is an assumption on the nature of reality, since you're ABSOLUTELY embracing materialism. Which is fine, most Scientists do, but it's healthy to have at least that 1% skepticism in you in case any other of the infinite afterlives turns out to be true.

That being said you seem to be up relativity's ass way much more than me
Yet you still have a fixed belief that "nothing happens."

You seem either very confused or dumb to me, and seeing your replies it seems your belief in death is religion-tier. Gnite

You defined nothing. Your entire argument rests on the idea that certain terms have definite meanings when in reality they are vague as fuck. I've seen people use this trick a hundred times
>thing is because thing
>define "thing"
>thing is stuff
>define "stuff"
>wtf dude, stop arguing semantics

>Every position on death makes assumptions that cannot be proved
Only if you believe that "death" is actually defined in the first place.

Why are all of your quotes made up for the purpose of giving yourself the illusion that you've been talking sense?

Your entire argument is 'nothingness after death is somehow less presumptuous than not knowing what comes after death'. Nobody seems to agree with you, oddly.

>Only if you believe that "death" is actually defined in the first place.
>mfw
I'll take what is "The English Language?" For 300 Alex
>muh semantics
Go shove the entirety of Wittgenstein's work up your asshole or pick up a fucking dictionary. Christ, I hope for your sake your job isn't related to philosophy

no no, he's the sole arbiter of reason in this thread

You're using "death" expanded to mean something more than its technical definition. You're using it to mean "the separation of the soul from the body", but you also turn around and say that you don't believe in souls because doing so would reveal that you're making unfounded assumptions.

>You're using it to mean "the separation of the soul from the body"

Citation needed. I didn't see him say or imply that.

What? Where have I alluded to souls?

My definition of death is that which comes after life, anything else on what happens or doesn't happen is an assumption

There are multiple people arguing against you, not that I'm surprised with the arguments you're presenting

It's implied by "nobody can know what happens [to the soul] after death".

He likes to put words into peoples mouths then base his arguments off of this newly found fiction. Now there's a word for that...

>It's implied by "nobody can know what happens [to the soul] after death".

You can't just add 'to the soul' to that, that's dumb even by your standards. Again, you're the one making the presumptions.

So then what IS the thing being referred to in that space? You can't just say "what after..." without specifying something.

>It's implied by "nobody can know what happens [to the soul] after death"

That's not how language works

Stop making implications from what I say to what I mean, what I mean is literally written there to be taken at face value

You are worst than my girlfriend

The sentient conglomeration of thoughts that forms a person

It is meant as generally encompassing

That's the ENTIRE point, nobody knows. You're over complicating this to be stubborn, but that doesn't make you any more right. Nothing is being referred to in that space, nothing needs to be.

This is also technically right, since we don't know what exactly it is we're referring to other than sentience

In fact, I'm probably wrong in saying thoughts

>The sentient conglomeration of thoughts that forms a person
If you insert that, the question makes no sense because the answer as to what happens becomes obvious.

You clearly have a set of properties in your mind associated with that space though.

>You clearly have a set of properties in your mind associated with that space though.

AND THATS THE PROBLEM

THOSE ARE ASSUMPTIONS

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ITS LIKE I'M TALKING TO A 5 YEAR OLD

Thanks, I was gonna say.

Not only are you doing that repeatedly, (which is whatever) but you're getting these assumptions about people wrong, and that isn't any good.

Yeah I'm done

I've never been able to help somebody whose deep into semantics/relativism

Good night to you Veeky Forumsentist

Sleep well knowing you can reason

night dude

When somebody refuses to elaborate, the only thing you can do is guess at what they're trying to say.

When somebody says "nobody can know what happens after death", they are taking a complete system and shoehorning unknowns into it. It's like saying that modern biology can't explain life force.

Hell is nothing to be scared of. The only thing that burns in Hell are our memories and attachments we hold on to but if we let go of all those feelings and emotions then those demons are really angels freeing us from our troubles.

>When somebody refuses to elaborate

I've 'refused' to elaborate because almost all of your posts have consisted of strawmen, misquotes, and general refusing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. It destroys your credibility, especially when you do it to multiple people. I haven't seen anything from you that seems worth elaborating for, you're very closed minded.

Here, let's take this post of yours from earlier

>I'm saying that "nobody can know" is a position that makes unprovable assumptions, and thus the truly neutral position is "nothing happens".

(he said know for sure, you only quoted the part you wanted)

Now let's rearrange your quote so it makes more sense

>I'm saying that "nothing happens" is a position that makes unprovable assumptions, and thus the truly neutral position is "nobody can know (for sure)".

Unless you have something that isn't garbage to say, then I too am done with this.

The magnitude of the statement doesn't matter because there is no reason to assume these extra unknowns exist in the first place. Unless you can give a reason why I should think that these unknowns exist.

Nobody 'assumed' that at any point. In fact the entire point was that nothing is assumed. This has clearly gone way over your head and I have concluded that you are indeed not worthy of conversation. Goodbye.

Everyone that's ever been born has already been dead for an eternity so I say no, there is nothing to fear.

The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death

jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/617/630

...

death? don't talk to me about death...

Live life to its fullest, then you will not have to fear death.

>Live life to its fullest, then you will not have to fear death.

That's a very human way of thinking.

That was an interesting read. I fear that idealism is just that though, especially when evidence to support the theory is psychedelic trances and near death experiences.

nah fuck that void seems chill as fuck fa.m

i assume we'll have to face eternity, so we might as well be there to experience it (afterlife). nothing wrong with hoping with that

and youd have literally all the time in existence to cope with eternity, if you are afraid of it

Don't know. Impossible to know what happens afterwards. A strictly mechanical, reductionist approach can never meaningfully resolve this question if you're entirely honest with yourself.

Life is constant misery. As far as I'm concerned, this is hell. But you never know, perhaps something far worse than my earthly faculties can conceive of awaits.

>Impossible to know what happens afterwards
Uh, actually nah. Science knows exactly what happens afterwards. You're dead.

My initial statement already addressed your response. I'm not sure why you've posted.

The mechanistic approach is fine, but it's ultimately incapable of being a veritably complete description of reality. It's just as faith based as any religion, at its core.

Goodbye moonmen...

It's really late and I'm sick so I'm not gonna argue semantics with you right now, but I'll just say, myself as an 18 year old, you sound very new to philosophy

I'm 23, have been awake 28 hours and have to leave for a long day at my dead end job that already isn't paying the bills, in 3 hours, and I'll just say it is near certain the inverse.

Think about the notion of a logical framework, composed of chains of reasoning where each elements is interdependent on another. Look for proof and proof of your proof long enough and it becomes clear what's really at the core. And pro-tip, memory of a given machine is not proof.

Reminds me of my teacher once saying "Man's greatest tool is reason, because with it he can make sense of anything - save reason itself."

I completely agree with you

He's not saying science is "wrong," he's saying that while the scientific afterlife of oblivion is the most probable due to all the evidence and reasoning behind it, there is still no way to actually prove or verify such a thing

It's not semantics, it's literally absolutist materialism vs measured skepticism

You hold a belief, apparently from what I can read of your posts, that our current understanding of reality through Science is a near-perfect representation of reality itself

>Should we fear death?

If you mean should we embrace and seek out death, perhaps a fool would.

Do I fear death? No, it is inevitable, I have no choice, no one does, everyone who has ever and will ever live will eventually die.

The fear should be the manner of your death, slow and agonizing, sudden and painless, from a long or a short illness, at the end of a long and fulfilled life or just as you start out.

Will you meet death on your feet and ready for either a new adventure or simply nothingness.

Will you face death hiding in a corner, crying and begging for one last breath, one final moment.

Those that fear death have not lived a life, they have merely existed.

Am I ready to die, yes, I have been prepared since I watched my grandparents burn to death in a car accident, trapped and screaming, one moment on the way home from getting ice cream, singing as the late summer air poured in the window, the next lying in a heap at the side of the road watching them die.

Fucking Christ, user

How are you doing these days?

We can prove using history and basic understanding that despite our existence, the universe still existed before we were born.

Therefore, the feeling of "not existing" is a familiar one to us, since for billions of years your life was not an entity in the universe.

So when you die, you are simply returning to that familiar feeling of "nothingness"

So I don't really think you should fear death, since you won't be around to feel it or even recognize you are dead, you will simply be nothing.

Neither of the death-related things people fear are actually required for dying. All of them are required for living.

>does it really fucking matter?

t.someone who is already dead

Ignore all other replies. This is the only objectively true answer

w̵̭͓̥͇̰ͤ̿̀̚͘͢ȟ̥̮̬̖͈̥̰͎́ͧ̈́̿̌ͩ̾̚̕e̶͍̤̭̣͒̽ͬ̈́̓̋͜n̢̼̦͎̮̫͙͗̾ͬ̿̿̕ ͉̟̱̜̱̲̼ͦͯ̋͡ͅy̴̧͓̦͕̬ͨo̝͔̜̦̲̦͉̞̾̑ͮu̼̝͎͔͍̲̳͑ͭͤ̽̓̕͜ ͕̜̜̜̆ͮ̈͆̇̀ͅd̴̡͓̖̪̰̟͓̭͌ͭͭ̌ͣͣͭ̍ͪ͢í̭̖̥͇̺̜̳̖̋͝e̢̡͈͔̫̩͖̭̯̓̊͌̃̃͆ͮ
̸̟͇̼̻̞ͪ͛̒̊͘y̬̭̼͔͖̎̆ͬ͜o̱̰̭͕̮͙ͯ̋ͧ̓ͧ̓ͅu̙̦͖͂̍̍ͤ͋̃͊̑͘͜r̝̘̂̓ͨͮ͂̽͞ ̮̼̙̈ṣͣ̇͜͜ͅh̲̹̓ͧ̎̈ę̷̬̠̻̗̱̬̭̻̅̓ͩ̾̈̃̒͛͌l̠͙̖̙ͭ̿̀̚͝l̴̥̩̬͕̲͕ͩ̐ ̧̣̘͇̮͍̳̊̎̓ͨ͐̽̂͝ͅi̘̪͉͈̭̜̠̜̟̊̿s̟̯̭̞͚̃ͨ̋͋͠ ̢̧͉̬̹̇́l͉̘̙̤̻̖̒̎̄ͫę̩̭̫͇̺̤͇̘ͯ͗̿ͩͭ͡f̜̂ͯ̾̓̕͟t͚̪̲̫̱̏̾̏̕ ̸̟̬̘̥͂̅ͪ̓̏͝b͙͎ͣ̑̍͋̒̾̂͗ͪ͘͘̕e̶̙ͮ̀ͧ͗͝ȟ̷̬̮̜̮͚̩͕͈͆̿͗́̾͢į̧̬̤̤̅͌ͬ͊͠n̠̼͓̙̄̉ͮ̔̆͐͟͞d̵̪̝̬̪̝̙̣͓͔͋̅ͯ͂̌ͬ̓̅̕
̘̫̦͍̚͡w̵̵̡̦̤̞̖̩̹͓͚ͮ̽ͭͮ̇͊h͖̥̩̟̲̥̥̘̪͊ͪ̉͊ͩ́̿̒͆͡͡į̞ͣ̓́̽l̳͎̭̭̤͛͛ͬͅè̫̘̝̮̳̲͓̱ ̙͓͎̟̯̼̦͐̽͊ͣ͠ÿ̴̱͎̹́̿͗͑̋̐̽̀͟ơ͉̼͔̼͈̐͋̅̑̽̆̓ͤ͋͟u̡̳̳͈̝̥̘̓̂͐͐̅̌̍́͠r̤̖͕̆ͯ ̷̴̝̞ͨ̐̔̈́͋́c̢̖͇̝̉́͞o̵͓̳̥̯̒̃̇͌͂͒̅̇͟͡n̟̜͙ͬͮ̔ͪ̚s̷͕̺̰͖̗̒c̩̻͉͓̑̊͌̉̉̄͡i̠̜͂̿ͮ̾́͡ȍ̴̼͈̘ͮ̿̂͋̅̕u̼̥ͮ́͠ṣ͔ͭ̎̏͑ͨͬ̈́͠ ̡̢̖͍̤̼̼̖̥̱̅̔ͨ̑ȩ̥̫͎̺̥̜̹̖ͯ͂ͦͯx͚̰̖̺̲̪͖̠ͦ̈̃͊ͫp̣̮͇̯͖̠̪̖͆̂ͩ͂a̪̠͇̱̖͒̚͘ͅń͓̭̮̻͕ͪͩ͌͟d̼͓̪̼̓̂́̏̇̿̂͘ͅs̳̞̭̥̻͐ͫ̀ͯ ̛̘̟̋̉̔ͮ̒ͭ̏ḁ̢͎̥̭̣ͅn̸̨̝̙̼̘͇̱ͩͫ͛ͮ̀ḏ̨͎̤̺̹̻̦̝̌̋̋̌̇̉ ̤̫̖̲͍͕̏ͩ̏͗̀̅ͩͮ̕s̷̙̻͋ͭͅo̺̼̻̫̱̟̱͍ͣ͐ͩͨ̑a̦͖̺̞ͨ͋͑ͫͭ̈́ͮͧ̒̕͡r̢̠ͮͤ͊ͩ͛ͣ̎͟s̶̪̦̿̑̾
̻͇̲̖ͣ͑͡ͅ

How did you feel before you were born, what did you see?
>nothing
So how do you think you'll feel after your dead? What will you see?
Probably also nothing

athiesm...........................................................................................................................................................
.

Agnostic, and how does thinking death is nothing imply I dont believe in god?

agnostics are like bisexuals. They can't pick a side. They're straight when it suits them and gay when it suits them. Truly degenerate

Nothing wrong with reaping the rewards of a flexible view point user

ITT: brainlet central

It's called adaptability and it is the most important trait any living organism can have

You can come up with value systems like many human beings have in the course of history (honor, honesty, consistency), but what ultimately matters is how each of us adapts to our environment

Your 'degeneracy' is nothing but a made up set of negative values you can impose on others

Wouldn't expect a brainlet to understand of course

>How did you feel before you were born
I literally can not grasp why people bring this up in relation to death. Fear of death stems (for me at least) from the cessation of existence, it has nothing to do with being afraid of feeling shitty after I'm dead.

Should a germ cell fear hell?

> we "shouldn't" operate based on instinct

Brainlet confirmed.

>Science knows exactly what happens

A phrase no one familiar with philosophy of science ever uses.

Well, under that model, it's not as though you'll be around to panic over the fact you no longer exist. So...

Really, I can't imagine any more total release than that, and have trouble imagining why anyone would want it to be any other way.

It's all this "eternal afterlife" shit I find absolutely terrifying. I've no idea why people go to all the trouble do that to themselves. Thankfully it seems pretty fanciful and unlikely, as do most of these models of life after death.

Though that reincarnation thing has a certain consistency to it that's kinda worrisome.

Dubs agree

>while the scientific afterlife of oblivion is the most probable due to all the evidence and reasoning behind it
>most probable
Retard spotted

There is "should". It's meaningless. It can't be answered because "should" is a relative and artificial construct.

I don't think we should fear death.
Oh, someone else thinks we should fear death.
Oh, "fear" and "should", even "death" itself are entirely dependent on our own minds constructing definitions for them.

There is no objective, not even relative-objective answer to this question.

From a continued propagation point of view, fearing death is a useful function. It being a useful function doesn't really imply "should" or "shouldn't" though, it just is.

Exactly how I feel

Depends on one's personal outlook of the universe.

Nah, hell is a meme.

>what is the theory of forms
Relativism is a meme

Theory of Forms is in contrast with science, you numbskull.

You fear death thinking you live