There’s a youtube video of Richard Dawkins addressing the question “Is there nothing more than this?” - referring to life and reality as we know it - I’ll be sure to post it if I can find it - and he responds with “What more do you want?”
But what if the whole reason we want more is because we love life - that is, we like what we see and we’re not satisfied that it’s limited, finite, that it will end one day?
I mean, what regular of the theater doesn’t yell ‘encore’ after a great performance? What heroin addict doesn’t want just one more hit? What thrill seeker is satisfied with just one stunt - one bunji jump or one sky dive?
The fact of the matter is - if you love life and appreciate reality for what it is - you will want more. Those who are satiated with life and reality, and don’t crave more, have experienced nothing worthwhile from it.
I’ve not seen the video - but I’ve seen several humanist/atheist science opinions, including Dawkins and Feynman, who’ve asked “what more can you want?” not in the sense of “be satisfied with what you have” but in the sense of “the universe is fantastic, incredible - go and discover it!” Namely, that all the wonder you could wish for is there.
You can love a person without wanting more and more all the time. You can love chocolate cake while realising there’s a time to stop eating it before it makes you sick. And some people get to the end of life satisfied with their experiences and achievements; that they don’t rage against the dying of light doesn’t say they’ve not had a life worth living.
Yes, I follow what you’re saying completely. My point though was that not all who believe in an afterlife or a ‘beyond’ do so because they yearn for a substitute to life. Some, like myself, believe in it because they are amazed and enthralled by what they find in life.
It’s true that we can be satiated, but satiation is never permanent. Desire always rears its head eventually. The dying man who looks back on his and is satisfied with it may indeed be resigned to the fact that he has reached the end of the line and that it was a good ride, but this doesn’t mean he wants nothing more - more likely, it means simply that he has accepted the fact that he can’t have more no matter how much he rages. Acceptance is different from not wanting. If he really did enjoy his life, I’d imagine that he’d answer the question “Would you do it again?” or “Would you prolong your life?” with “yes, of course”. I’d find it very odd for him to answer, happy with life as he claims to be, “No, I’m through with this”.
Maybe it’s the context of the discussion… are you saying you believe in the fact of an afterlife because you enjoy life so much you’d like there to be one? I certainly think that ‘not wanting to stop’ is a reason behind the existence of very many religions - combined with an emotional need for justice that the world as is does not cater to, probably the major one. I wouldn’t say it’s a good reason to believe, though, although I’m sure William James would disagree with me.
This is a good point… I think wisdom should generally rule desire, and so do many religions. I suppose in their case, they have two approaches to comforting people facing their mortality, whereas I have only one.
Well, I was hoping we wouldn’t bother assessing our reasons for believing in an afterlife or a beyond - at least, not whether those reasons are logically justified or backed by incontestable proof - just whether our reasons, or I should say motives, stem from a resentment of life or a love for it.
Having said that, I’ll grant you the courtesy of an answer to your question: the reason why I believe in an afterlife is because of a certain metaphysics I came up with that suggests there is one. What that has to do with the theme of this thread is that this metaphysics is based on what I’ve experienced in this life, this world. People come up with wild and speculative theories all the time - some scientifically testable, some not - some with a materialist bent, some with a metaphysical one - but the most important question - at least for our purposes - is whether the theory stands or falls based on accepting or rejecting what we find in this life, this world.
To be more specific, my metaphysics starts with my studies of the brain, my own mind, and some experiences with psychedelics - I’ll spare you the long drawn out details, but I’ll say that I concluded with a theory that says there is consciousness, or at least different qualities of experiences, associated with any physical system undergoing some activity. Therefore, no conscious being ever really dies - that is, no one’s experiences ever really cease - just as the brain undergoes decay and is recycled back into the storehouse of organic material in the environment, so too do our minds undergo a corresponding (yet unimaginable) transformation in the qualities of the experiences constituting it. I also believe this process results in a loss of a sense of individuality, and so we become “one with the universe” so to speak.
Furthermore, not only is this theory grounded in the facts I have learnt of the neurosciences and what my subjective experiences feel like (whether on or off psychedelics), but it has given me a much more in depth appreciation for life and this reality. It has open my eyes to how rich the world is in its qualitative diversity. In fact, I have coined that term - “qualitative diversity” - and decided it is my favorite thing in the world. What my theory suggests is that for all the diversity in quality that we find in the world around us, it is only a fraction of the qualitative diversity that mind in general can experience. The sum total of possible experiences - and thus qualities - are infinitely diverse - and this I call the ‘beyond’.
For the full exposition of this theory, see my website: mm-theory.com
Understood. I’d say it’s a combination of the two - being in love with something (or someone) that can treat us so cruelly and unfairly, you naturally dream of getting the good stuff without the bad.
I’m slowly but surely looking through your website I’ll get back with comments when I’ve been through your arguments. Would you prefer to do that here or by email?
Oh, doesn’t matter. Quite frankly, I’m surprised you’re reading it at all. Most people recoil at the shear volume of the website (it is roughly 500 printed pages). But it’s great that you’re interested. If you really want a discussion on it, I’d recommend reading only the Basic and Advanced theories - the rest is supplimentary though still very relevant. I’d also recommend reading the first half of Preliminary Concepts if you don’t feel you have a good grasp of the basics of the brain sciences. That in itself is a loaded task, but if you enjoy the read, by all means do so and get back to me - but don’t sweat it; it’s there only if you want it.
There is what ‘this’ came from ~ always. Our mr dawkins [whom I admire greatly] and similar people, seam to think there can be the universe as complex and amazing as it is, and there is absolutely no reason why? To me it would seam something equally as glorious is behind it all.
Knowing what that is would be what I for one would want more of.
I’m not sure what ‘loving life’ or ‘satiated with life and reality’ even means, since they’re both fairly ambiguous concepts that mean something different to different people. And ‘more’ of life and reality sounds like a projection to me, not reality. Reality is what it is. My view is that the activities and pursuits of humans, in some cultures more than others, are probably driven as much by repressed or denied feelings about death as by anything else…certainly they’re not as much about being ‘satiated with life and reality’. My approach to this is influenced considerably by the experience of meditation and mindfulness and the continued practice of developing awareness of psychological attachments and how I construct a ‘self’. Accordingly, I interpret Dawkins’ meaning similarly to another poster, in that over time, the deeper experience of ‘the here and now’, or the experience of this life day-to-day, is a rich, infinitely fascinating and inherently fulfilling thing.
I think it’s a mistake to focus only on life and avoid the process of facing death, because what happens as a result can be a lot of useless or pointless activity that detracts from or robs meaning from life. The culture of celebrity is an example of such activity. I think it’s important to do whatever necessary to reconcile oneself with the reality of death, to try and overcome the fear and loathing of what is a natural and inevitable part of the life cycle. (And I’m not talking about inventing a story about the afterlife, just coming to terms with dying itself.) The process of facing it can be liberating in this life, in the here and now.
Indeed. it’s a perplexing notion, that there is never a complete set of things or that reality always has something extra beyond what we think the whole is. This is why people in science [esp] shy away from open ended understandings, it doesn’t fit into the given box.
I believe that life is pointless. Personally, I would like to be immortal and live in this world until human extinction, watching the world as it progresses, but you and I both, alongside the entire human race, will someday die. Anyway, I’ll end this response with a simple question:
Ive heard it said that people who have lived long and satisfying lives, on their deathbed feel like this was enough, that it is perfect for it to end here. I guess life is, to a human, ultimately also tiring. Maybe it is comparable to sleep after a long day. I’m just guessing, I would look forward to any kind of afterlife I could imagine.
I’ll get back with comments when I’ve been through your arguments. Would you prefer to do that here or by email?