On the Value of Death

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Let’s start with the premise of the thread: in order to live a good life one has to love death and everything related to it (such as risk, uncertainty, loss, pain and the like.)

An average man, however, values his biological existence more than anything else in his life: he has an absolute aversion toward death.

My question: how do we go about explaining our intuition to him? Is it even possible? If not, why so?

Why is it important to love death? Why is mortal life better than immortal? Why is courage so important?

My immediate answer: because in order to move toward a goal, one has to accept negative possibilities. He who fails to do so will start moving away from the goal i.e. he will give up on his goal and replace it with another one, possibly simpler one. The greater the goal, it seems to me, the worse the negative possibilities are.

Another answer would be that people who are not used to negative possibilities – in one word, to loss – are prone to self-delusions of all kinds (such as optimism and pessimism) which, although they help them survive in the short-term, make them weaker in the long run (since people end up being dishonest with themselves, and thus, dumb.) He who cannot endure negative thoughts becomes restless and rushes his way out of the uncomfortable state via some sort of ad hoc rationalization: unable to repair his logic and DISCOVER the correct decision, he prematurely ends his period of indecisiveness by arbitrarily PICKING “the right” decision and then justifying it by inventing the logic that stands behind it. In fact, I will go so far as to say that all logical fallacies, all defense mechanisms, all major mistakes of thought are nothing but a consequence of one’s inability to accept risk.

None of this, however, seems to be enough. They need something more.

2

Life and death are deeply intertwined.

Death has raised the standard of life. It continually pressures the living to rise to the occasion.

Without death, life would have stagnated long ago.

To discredit death, to attack it, is to deny part of existence. To undermine part of existence.

One can’t truly appreciate life as it is, without also appreciating all which has moulded it and defined it.

It’s not in the spirit of life to be overwhelmed and call defeat. Rather, to live, is to flow along the river of affect and flourish in it’s streams. To revel in the journey, the experience, the opportunity.

That which is incapable of doing this, isn’t well adjusted to living. But we are powerful beings, and can readjust accordingly. Once again rise to the occasion.

3

Magnus Anderson

Maybe “love” death is not such an accurate word to use. If one actually loved death, one might wish to die or commit the act of suicide.
But death’s value is in seeing life’s finitetude. We don’t love those things you mention above but we do see their worth in relation to human evolution.

I’m not sure that that IS possible. That’s something that perhaps has to grow within him on its own through living life and however life chooses for him to come to terms with his own mortality. We experience, sensate, “see” things differently from one another - I think that comes from our own inner experiences and also how our brains interpret things. One thing I will say - I absolutely affirm that living with profound gratitude for one’s life, even toward the little things, helps to assuage the fear of death. The more we are living in the present and valuing it, the less power death has over us - except as the push to live more fully. Aside from that, contemplating the positive perspectives of others can become embedded within their mind and psyche.

You mean to value what it can teach us?
Who can answer the second question - we don’t know if we’re immortal? BUT for now mortal life is ALL we’ve got so it’s better. :laughing: You know the saying: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. :stuck_out_tongue: We’re always seeming to look toward that bush instead of seeing what it is in one’s hand. We don’t value “what is”.
Courage is important because it allows us to transcend or to plow through so much, despite the fear.

That might depend on one’s perception. Another might think the greater the goal, the more positive possibilities.

None of this, however, seems to be enough. They need something more.
[/quote]
Perhaps what they need to do is to detach from the results a bit; work toward the goal; have stick-tuitiveness; have a reasonable examined faith in one’s ability to accomplish what they want, and yes, risk taking, within sane reason, is important. And to realize that “not succeeding” does not spell failure.

4

Second Father

Life is a precious gift, and to our knowledge, it has scope. It’s not endless.

To desire something with all your heart and being, yet to say no to it, is truly a great crime.

When one is told they can’t do all in one life time, what is the reaction?

To order and prioritize one’s interests, values, desires, hopes, dreams.

Why?

Because if one understands what one values most, one can decorate each day with one’s highest interests, goal, values.

What is implied by the motivation to prioritize your time?

That you love life. That you respect it enough, to want to do it right, in spite of whatever adversity is thrown your way.

If I were to describe the most fundamental aspect of my being, it would be of one who loves existence. That is my core and inspires and molds EVERYTHING I do.

Stressing over death and it’s impact, is again a perfect illustration that one is a healthy loving being. Well adjusted to living.

Suffering highlights malpractice. When one suffers, it’s because a core need is being neglected or abused.

Suffering is a blessing - Assuming one can resolve the source.

To deny your highest ideal, is to say you’re not worth it, or life’s not worth it. Both of these are wrong. We’re all beautiful, powerful beings and life is a gift beyond measure. And we can give that gift to others. We can create a new living being, a universe - can give a gift of immeasurable value to others. And live amongst others - sharing, maximizing and respecting the gift. To grow and journey together, hand in hand, hearts in unison.

This is the value of Life.

Again, I love all of you and I hope you can share the meaning of these words with me.

5

Joe, As long as, we do not understand the meaning of life, the total, comprehensive meaning of it, there is no possible way to even come close to trying to figure out and accept it’s negatives. If life is a pleasant experience for most people, then it’s negative can not be anything but unpleasant, as long as we see contradiction in the negation. To do so otherwise, could entail only one possible choice, the sensitivity training toward death as a pleasant experience by applications long regarded as masochistic. In effect we would all need to become masochists, and learn not only to accept but to enjoy the idea and the actual process of our demise.

 The OP may be better served by a title such as "On the negative value of Death", until the time when it is understood, for what it is, in an entirely positive light.  

  The closest analogy and actual recorded event of this type of quandary, was E.K.Ross's example, when working with a dying patient, who was petrified of passing away.  She proposed a project to her, to sculpt an artistic funeral urn, into which her ashes would be placed post humorously. It was of immense help to her, according to the same author, to go through this srt project, and she worked the emotional issues, as of literally objectifying her fears through her fingers' application.  Perhaps , this type of art-therapy may be the key, to objectify fears, by visualization.  But no kidding aside, for those people, who believe in traditional funerals, perhaps digging one's  grave,would be equally beneficial? Or designing the votive candles and flower holders?  Perhaps.
6

I’m tired and cranky, if I come off as being an asshole, it’s because I am.

You’re saying I don’t know the meaning of life?

Life doesn’t have objective meaning. Meaning = what goal was intended to be accomplished by the existence of said thing or what are the circumstances that led to the creation of said thing. As an Atheist, I don’t believe we were intended by a greater being. We’ve no intended function.

We’re all mutants who were well adapted to survive in our environment. There’s so many other types of mutants that lived before us that weren’t suited to survival and are now extinct. They also had no objective meaning. Along with every other form of life that exists or has existed.

Why are we here?

Our parents had sex. Didn’t get an abortion. Maybe wanted us. Maybe didn’t want shame. That’s their meaning for our lives.

If anyone else intended us to be born, then they’ve got their own meaning for our lives.

We continue to live, so we’ve got our meaning for our lives.

But there’s no great hidden meaning to our lives, or life is general - from the perspective of Atheism.

Why?

It’s the living that create meaning. Therefore, meaning didn’t exist before life arose.

Happy?

Or would you like me to spew out my personal meaning for life?

Is that what you’re accusing me of being ignorant of?

7

The “Meaning of Life” is the subsistence of Life, thus the non-existence of Death.

To value Death, is to devalue Life.
…your own life included.

8

Hey Joe, no such thing. I am not accusing You f anything. Starters We all think we know what life is, biochemically, neurologically, anatomically, psychologically, emotively, intuitively, religiously, historically, archeologically, even philosophically: objectively and subjectively, …

However do we really KNOW? What is knowledge ? of life, or of anything else, for that matter? An idea gathered by the limited application of data, whether be they verifiable, or unverifiable, hypothetical, or dogma induced. We can never really know life, because we are part of it. As soon as we examine it, we change it.

That is all i meant, not to infer anything else then the absolute Cartesian doubt, that even that, has been shown to be due to circular reasoning. We can not get out of our self to study us. We can study someone else, but that’s not “us” It is only based on similar data.

Studies done on similar models, do not work this inductive way, we have to differentiate others in order to study ourselves. The study of;others is not a process to gain primary knowledge, hence we can never really know. We study another human ‘object’, and it may as well be an inanimate cadaver, we can not feel what he feels, maybe nothing. Sensation as an objective study is really devoid of sensation, feeling etc, so we can only make hypothesis, about the way we;think the other might feel, think, perceive etc.

The only other so called objective way we can know is by assuming an intuitive attitude, but that is , really not ‘objective’. It is assumptive, again using the argument that, (i feel this and this way, and he looks like me, therefore, he must also think and feel like me.) But, this is erroneous, and it is in this sense, that we really can’t get to know life ABSOLUTELY.

Until an absolute knowledge is arrived at, the same goes for death, which is even more unknown variables removed from Certain knowledge. We can only experience our own death, never that of someone else. And we really can not experience our own death either, because we are never conscious when the process is completed.

We can develop more positive attitudes toward death, but we can not ever become totally comfortable with the idea, until, we absolutely know, what it is, what is the aftermath.

I honestly hope, You don’t believe, i was trying to bait You into believing that i had any doubt about what You described in a very cogent way.

9

I think that is because people are only capable of seeing, i.e. understanding, two positions: you either love life or you don’t, in which case, you love death. There is a middle position, however, that they don’t see, and that is the position where one loves both life and death.

I think that most people are confused as to what consititutes the optimal path of one’s life. The optimal path is a risky one – that is what I contend. It should not, however, be confused with a path of a suicidal maniac. There is an optimal level of risk that one should expose oneself to, where going above that level is consider suicidal (or overly-ambitious) and going beyond that level is considered cowardly (or under-ambitious.) Though, of course, strictly speaking, both paths are coward’s paths, but I don’t know of any other terms by which I can distinguish the two types.

What is optimal is that one preserves one’s mental integrity. Acting against one’s wishes, that is what I want to avoid. Once you start acting against your wishes, you start straying away from your real destiny. Here, the risk is necessary in order for one to preserve oneself from submitting to undesirable self-tyranny.

To endure suffering inflicted by the circumstances, not to give into it, not to replace an immediate death with a slow death. I’m speaking of labour, of course, which is a masochistic enterprise for most people, I think.

10

Wishing to act against your wishes: a desirable self-tyranny. Should not be confused with acting against your wishes, which is an undesirable self-tyranny. Man is by nature self-tyrant, I think, so he needs noone else to tell him what to do – he will seek other people’s opinions when the time for that comes. Most people, however, are masochistic in this regard: they seek other people’s opinions even when they do not want to do so.

Nietzsche had fancy words for this phenomenon. He called them “action” and “reaction”. To act is to act in accordance with all of one’s instincts, it is to act with integrity; to react, that means to act against one’s instincts, to destroy one’s integrity. Slave, he said, that is a “reactive” man i.e. a man whose actions are basically reactions.

EDIT:

What I think separates a master from a slave is that a master is perfectly honest with himself: he knows what he can and what he cannot do. Slave, on the other hand, is incapable of being honest with himself, for in order to avoid death at all costs, he has to deceive himself into thinking that he’s capable of doing what he’s incapable of doing. And there you go, he either becomes a cowardly overly-obedient slave or a suicidal overly-disobedient maniac.

11

Sorry obe,

I was trying to help someone a couple of hours ago, giving them this information, and they did insult and bait me for it.

Still in the mindsst of being treated like shit, so when I read that, I felt you were doing it too. I like you, so I felt pretty shit.

====

Slightly different than James, my meaning of life - Life’s A Ride

12

Absolutely understandable.

13

For your amusement, and my relief -

A reasonable conversation with Satyr

14

Magnus Anderson

Your premise - “in which case, you love death” doesn’t hold too much water. That would depend on the individual. But I do agree with you that there is a middle position. People are not “emotionallly fixed in time”. Life is not always perfect so we are capable of sliding back and forth between the two. At times we love life and at times we hate life. Hmm, that’s not necessarily wanting or wishing for death though. I’v neveer reached the point where I love death - but I do see the wisdom of pondering it at times. That is a tool for a better lived life. You know - “a life unexamined…”

.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that but i would say that the optimal life ALSO encompasses risk. There can be no real growth or optimal life without risk at times. The way you have put it, you almost sound like an adrenaline junky. :laughing:

True.

The under-ambitious are perhaps more lazy than cowardly. I suppose it all depends on one’s own perception or also on the perception of many to get at the truth of it.

But would you agree that it’s a good thing to re-examine one’s wishes, one’s higher aspirations, at times? Wishing something is not the same as “willing” it and following through. Sometimes we do bite off more than we are able to chew. Self tyranny - now that is a really good expression. I like it. We humans do that to ourselves.

As long as that suffering has a higher purpose to it, a good intention to it, I agree. Masochism for masochism’s sake is not healthy in any way.

Perhaps I don’t quite grasp you meaning here. If you could better explain the last …"To endure suffering inflicted - ad continuum. …

15

For myself, I’ll respond to this soon. But I hope here that you were not saying that a slave, any slave, is not capable of self-honesty. If so, you’ve missed the mark.

16

Actually, you would have a separation there itself. The spirit of self-preservation at all costs already marks out the slave from the master.

“I want to preserve myself at all costs, therefore I am dishonest with myself.”

rather than a mere, “I am unable to preserve myself, therefore I am dishonest with myself.”