[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

Should we fear death?

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 131
Thread images: 19

File: r&m.jpg (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]
r&m.jpg
48KB, 500x500px
Should we fear death?
>>
Instinctively everyone fears death. It's our biological imperative to stay alive that keeps us from killing our selves.
>>
>>8791217
True, didn't answer the question though
>>
we should fear hell
>>
>>8791227
Maybe to an extent, but the way I see it Hell isn't so much 'one of the things it could be' as much as it's just a possibility in the same way anything else is. Heaven and hell certainly aren't what i'd bet my money on.
>>
>>8791217
In other words, we "shouldn't" fear death because we "shouldn't" operate based on instinct.

Problems arise when people try to treat their instincts as something more, like the "muh oblivion" fags.
>>
>>8791220
My personal opinion is no, cause heaven and souls and stuff. But I could be wrong.
>>
>>8791259
But if you believe in heaven and souls then shouldn't you also believe in hell, which would make death scary?
>>
>>8791211
It's generally healthy to do so.

"Should" depends on your end goal... Is it efficient and effective towards a particular goal to avoid death?

In most cases it is, but I suppose there are certain goals where it might not be.
>>
File: 1490164882171.jpg (66KB, 500x509px) Image search: [Google]
1490164882171.jpg
66KB, 500x509px
>>8791211
Not at all. The sweet release of death should be embraced. Every exit is an entry somewhere else.
>>
File: rick.gif (2MB, 301x454px) Image search: [Google]
rick.gif
2MB, 301x454px
>>8791211
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.
>>
>>8791211

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.
>>
>>8792081
>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.
>>
>>8792098

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.
>>
>>8791211
Why not? I mean life is pretty cool, right?
>>
>>8791211

I have eternal life.
>>
>>8792183
For some of the world, sure
>>
>>8792165
>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.
>>
>>8792241

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.
>>
>>8792283
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.
>>
>>8792302
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.
>>
File: The_Reaper.jpg (418KB, 740x1081px) Image search: [Google]
The_Reaper.jpg
418KB, 740x1081px
>>8791211
'Tis not death we should fear, but the Reaper.
>>
>>8792356
don't fear the reaper
also not /sci/
>>
>>8792324
Because its the position that makes the least amount of assumptions.
>>
>>8792374
Not necessarily. Since we really don't know what comes after death, specifically saying 'nothing' seems more presumptuous than saying 'could be anything'.
>>
File: 1429498524303.jpg (6KB, 294x200px) Image search: [Google]
1429498524303.jpg
6KB, 294x200px
>>8791259
>cause heaven and souls and stuff
>>
>>8792385
But in order to say that it could be anything, you have to actually define death.
>>
>>8792372
>'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.
>>
>>8792392
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'
>>
>>8792400
You can't define life either. It's arbitrary.
>>
>>8792407
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.
>>
File: grimreaper0911-400x262.jpg (15KB, 400x262px) Image search: [Google]
grimreaper0911-400x262.jpg
15KB, 400x262px
>>8792302

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.

>>8792374

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
>>8792407

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
>>
>>8792414
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

>>8792421
>Every position on death makes assumptions that cannot be proved
Only if you believe that "death" is actually defined in the first place.
>>
>>8792441
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.
>>
File: 00a597d71eb304bc90af1b2840b585d5.jpg (128KB, 1024x513px) Image search: [Google]
00a597d71eb304bc90af1b2840b585d5.jpg
128KB, 1024x513px
>>8792441
>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

>>8792461

no no, he's the sole arbiter of reason in this thread
>>
>>8792468
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.
>>
>>8792476
>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.
>>
>>8792476

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
>>
>>8792486
It's implied by "nobody can know what happens [to the soul] after death".
>>
>>8792490
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...
>>
>>8792491
>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.
>>
>>8792507
So then what IS the thing being referred to in that space? You can't just say "what after..." without specifying something.
>>
File: f63.png (491KB, 442x600px) Image search: [Google]
f63.png
491KB, 442x600px
>>8792491
>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

>>8792516

The sentient conglomeration of thoughts that forms a person

It is meant as generally encompassing
>>
>>8792516
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.
>>
>>8792527

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
>>
>>8792525
>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.

>>8792527
You clearly have a set of properties in your mind associated with that space though.
>>
>>8792544
>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
>>
>>8792548
Thanks, I was gonna say.

>>8792544
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

>>8792552
Good night to you /sci/entist

Sleep well knowing you can reason
>>
File: 1490593728039.jpg (465KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]
1490593728039.jpg
465KB, 1920x1200px
>>8792556
night dude
>>
>>8792552
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.
>>
File: adwlt.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]
adwlt.jpg
13KB, 480x360px
>>8791227
>>8791233

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.
>>
>>8792563
>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.
>>
>>8792580
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.
>>
>>8792585
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

http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/617/630
>>
File: IMG_3693.jpg (24KB, 559x263px) Image search: [Google]
IMG_3693.jpg
24KB, 559x263px
>>
File: you.jpg (19KB, 210x355px) Image search: [Google]
you.jpg
19KB, 210x355px
>>8791211
death? don't talk to me about death...
>>
>>8791211
Live life to its fullest, then you will not have to fear death.
>>
>>8792673
>Live life to its fullest, then you will not have to fear death.

That's a very human way of thinking.
>>
>>8792628
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.
>>
>>8791211
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
>>
>>8791211
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.
>>
>>8793154
>Impossible to know what happens afterwards
Uh, actually nah. Science knows exactly what happens afterwards. You're dead.
>>
>>8793158
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.
>>
>>8791211
Goodbye moonmen...
>>
>>8793162
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
>>
>>8793176
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.
>>
File: OQkg6mG.png (119KB, 332x277px) Image search: [Google]
OQkg6mG.png
119KB, 332x277px
>>8793182

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

>>8793158

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
>>
>>8791211

>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.
>>
>>8793296

Fucking Christ, anon

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.
>>
File: IMG_0716.png (207KB, 651x315px) Image search: [Google]
IMG_0716.png
207KB, 651x315px
>>8791211

>does it really fucking matter?

t.someone who is already dead
>>
>>8791227
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
̻͇̲̖ͣ͑͡ͅ
>>
>>8791211
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
>>
>>8793678
athiesm...........................................................................................................................................................
.
>>
>>8793702
Agnostic, and how does thinking death is nothing imply I dont believe in god?
>>
>>8793708
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
>>
>>8793712
Nothing wrong with reaping the rewards of a flexible view point anon
>>
ITT: brainlet central
>>
>>8793712

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
>>
>>8793678
>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.
>>
>>8791227
Should a germ cell fear hell?
>>
>>8791253
> we "shouldn't" operate based on instinct

Brainlet confirmed.
>>
>>8793158
>Science knows exactly what happens

A phrase no one familiar with philosophy of science ever uses.
>>
File: death_in_caps.jpg (469KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]
death_in_caps.jpg
469KB, 1920x1080px
>>8794064
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.
>>
File: 1384804104367.png (149KB, 464x352px) Image search: [Google]
1384804104367.png
149KB, 464x352px
>>8794188
Dubs agree
>>
>>8793273
>while the scientific afterlife of oblivion is the most probable due to all the evidence and reasoning behind it
>most probable
Retard spotted
>>
>>8791220
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.
>>
>>8793340
Exactly how I feel
>>
Depends on one's personal outlook of the universe.
>>
>>8791227
Nah, hell is a meme.
>>
>>8794188
>what is the theory of forms
Relativism is a meme
>>
>>8794697
Theory of Forms is in contrast with science, you numbskull.
>>
You fear death thinking you live
>>
>>8794463

In what sense?
>>
>>8794763
Science is materialistic, it has no space for abstract forms, neither does it think that an object is a shadow of a perfect form of that object which encapsulates multiple objects. For science, object is just that - a collection of particles that share similar properties and are organised in a special way.
>>
>>8791211
No, we should embrace it
>>
You should not fear death, it's inevitable. Similarly, you should not fear taking large cocks up your rectum, it's inevitable.
>>
>>8794768
You must still be in high school, because anyone that works in actual science positions knows you have work in abstracts sometimes.

We had to account for abstracts when we went to the moon. You really have to define what you mean by abstracts because isn't that what our thoughts are?

If you take the Scientific Method and apply it to a seemingly random phenomena. In this case we will say you are testing if women can get pregnant by just looking at them. It can be considered an abstract thought to have the hypothesis in the first place, because it isn't actually taking place in the real world. In the real world we see the evidence of chemicals and electricity, but we don't know how to translate it fully just yet. There is math behind everything that works in ways we still don't understand. Limiting science to materialism is disrespectful.

Brainlets really need to stop shitposting so much...
>>
>>8794768
>implying numbers aren't abstract
>>
File: 1023821381.png (515KB, 543x417px) Image search: [Google]
1023821381.png
515KB, 543x417px
>>8794768

Science is materialistic, but it isn't literally materialism

people seem to forget that one of the key principles of Science is to always have at LEAST a modicum of skepticism

I hate how Science serves as the brainlet plebs's new religion

>For science, object is just that - a collection of particles that share similar properties and are organised in a special way.

You fucking retard

You sound like the old philosophers in Greece who used to say "A tree is but a tree, nothing more." Maybe you forgot that there are different branches of Science which study the world from different perspectives and are all valuable to the general understanding the world. I would've let this go if you said "For Physics,..." instead of "For science,..." but you're so far up materialism's ass that you think Science is some dogmatic religion that spouts the perfect truth instead of measured observations of reality by the logical tools of evolved monkeys

Don't think for a second I look down on Science, no. I look down on you who totes it as the absolute truth instead of an evolving observation of reality
>>
>>8795344
>Science is materialistic, but it isn't literally materialism
Yes it is, how can you not comprehend this? It's a tool which looks at everything through particles and how they interact with eachother.
>people seem to forget that one of the key principles of Science is to always have at LEAST a modicum of skepticism
There technically is skepticism, but it's there's so little of it that we might as well say it doesn't exist. Theory of Evolution is basically accepted as being the objective truth by many. No wonder though, as for science to function, it needs to accept that it's objectively right, at every moment. Before science knew some things it does now, it operated under the wrong assumptions related to the things it didn't know about, still thinking it was in the right. Not to mention there's the problem of induction, which will always exist no matter what science does.
>Maybe you forgot that there are different branches of Science which study the world from different perspectives
Different perspectives don't matter, it's all related to particles through that viewpoint. Yes, physics examine the particles and for example, medicine doesn't, but the things in medicine (interaction of chemicals, the structure of cell membrane etc) are all related to those particles, everything revolves around that.
>but you're so far up materialism's ass
I'm an idealist, you retard, I was just commenting on how science looks at the world.
>you think Science is some dogmatic religion
It can be, if a person looks at it like that, instead of just a tool, but we're on /sci/ after all.
>instead of measured observations of reality by the logical tools of evolved monkeys
You're using science for dogmatism again.
>Don't think for a second I look down on Science, no.
Judged on the previous thing of yours I paraphrased, I think the opposite, you fucking cretin, you're a contradicting faggot who is into scientism, but mixed Plato in there, who doesn't fit at all.
>>
>>8796018
>Different perspectives don't matter, it's all related to particles through that viewpoint. Yes, physics examine the particles and for example, medicine doesn't, but the things in medicine (interaction of chemicals, the structure of cell membrane etc) are all related to those particles, everything revolves around that.

nah m8 its important to think of something as a "thing" rather than just a collection of particles depending on field

say for example you're studying a particular tree's reproductive strategy. you dont need to model every atom of every molecule of every tree of that species to do it. just think of a tree as a tree
>>
>>8796126
>just think of a tree as a tree
That doesn't change the fact that it's made of particles, and that, at the elementary level, reproductive strategy of the tree is dependent on the particles. You can't ignore them, no matter what you study, even if you don't mention the particles explicitly.
>>
>>8791211
We should fear life
>>
File: pathetique.png (153KB, 462x346px) Image search: [Google]
pathetique.png
153KB, 462x346px
>>8796018

YOU FUCKING NORMIE PIECE OF SHIT, STOP REGURGITATING EVERYTHING YOUR
COMMUNITY COLLEGE-TIER PROFESSOR TELLS YOU AND TRY TO ACTUALLY LEARN

Reason (or Logic, if you prefer) is a tool; Science is a collection of our beliefs of reality.
See "scientia," Latin for knowledge (This should already tell you how wrong you are).
Particles are a modern scientific concept. Can you not get it through your denser-than-a-neutron-star skull that our knowledge, Science, evolves with us?

Our method of analysis and the tools/terms we use change constantly. The goal, however, is always the same: To find a pattern in reality.

But just because some very dedicated, smart men theorized and proved that particles are fundamental to all physical interactions
doesn't mean that you can go around quoting particles as the be-all-end-all of Science. Before modern Science which focuses on a
smaller scale of interaction, Science studied patterns in every-day natural processes like the rain cycle.

Ultimately you come across as any other pop-sci atheist with no respect and/or knowledge for what you're talking about.
You lurk /sci/ a few days a week and see the word "particles" then regurgitate it with a disgusting amount of reductionism
thinking you have the ultimate truth or that you will add something new to the conversation. You come across as the men of old
do, willfully ignorant of any other perspective but self-assured in their own. "Ah, but brother, do you not see the earth is at the center? The sun, the
moon, and all the planets orbit around it." And what were they doing wrong? They were observing, and their chief "Scientists" at the time
(Church Scholars, who actually contributed a great deal to astronomy) agreed with them. It took many a great Scientist to be skeptical
and challenge conventions.

Your misrepresentation of Science, your dogmatism, and your blind pride is a complete disgrace to the pursuit of truth.

Educate yourself in humility you fucking degenerate.
>>
>>8796018
not >>8796298

but read some fucking popper while you're at it. Problem of induction my ass.
>>
>>8796298
>You come across as the men of old
do
Respect your elders which have built what you are standing upon, not to mention the old age had way more erudites than it has now, because it didn't have internet and other things.
>willfully ignorant of any other perspective but self-assured in their own
Of course everyone is self-assured in their own position, but not everyone was ignoring of other perspectives.
>and their chief "Scientists" at the time
(Church Scholars, who actually contributed a great deal to astronomy) agreed with them
They burned them at the stake you fucking retard.
>It took many a great Scientist to be skeptical
and challenge conventions.
Back then, but nowadays you just need to say "scientifically proven" and everyone will believe it like it's the second coming of Christ.
Why are you even talking about all this, how did you think this was relevant to my comment?
What's with the Simpsons meme image, are you baiting? What kind of position do you even hold? You sound like an edgy atheist, yet it seems you aren't, because you agree with Plato. How can you be so fucking contradicting?

>>8796309
>read some fucking popper while you're at it. Problem of induction my ass.
Pathetic. It's existent and will always be because of the nature of existence, and Popper didn't solve shit.
>>
>>8791211
define 'should'
>>
>>8796018
Why are you so fixated on particles? What about fields and waves? What about larger systems that have been studied before it was known that things really were made up of atoms? It doesn't matter how abstract an idea is. If it can be used in a falsifiable hypothesis, it can be used in science.

>>8796298
>Science is a collection of our beliefs of reality
Science ought to be understood as a method of forming and testing models of reality, not the models themselves. Calling the beliefs we acquire by applying the scientific method "science" lends itself to pop-sci nonsense.
>>
>>8796142
>That doesn't change the fact that it's made of particles, and that, at the elementary level, reproductive strategy of the tree is dependent on the particles. You can't ignore them, no matter what you study, even if you don't mention the particles explicitly.

dude we dont even have the complete picture of how those particles behave and interact with one another. if you tried to do all research by the particle level, you wont get any useful info about how that tree reproduces. you have to look at that macro level collection of particles(tree) and study that. at this point your not studying the particle level, but the collective behavior of that particular group and arrangement of atoms, molecules.

the botanist doesnt really care about that kind of stuff, he just wants to see how that tree got there
>>
>>8791355
Where to buy this thing?
Such a weird way to kill yourself
>>
>>8791211
What set of ground rules are we dealing with here?
Should we fear death, from what perspective?
>>
>>8796142
>Dude, all matter is made up of particles, thus anything dealing with any sort of matter is ultimately about particles.
What are you smoking? By this line of thinking, Music Theory is about Particle Physics, cuz musical instruments, the air they cause to vibrate, and the neurological accords that in turn creates in the brain are all made up of particles.

Hell, even physics rarely gives a shit about actual particles - and theoretical physics, only half the time.

>>8796018
>or science to function, it needs to accept that it's objectively right, at every moment
For science to function, is has to accept that it's potentially wrong at every moment.
>>
>>8796726
>For science to function, is has to accept that it's potentially wrong at every moment.
Not only at every moment, but at every link of the supporting chain of evidence and reasoning a given thought is composed of. Every element of a logical framework. All of it existing in inherent uncertainty, a constant need for error control, weighting by probability based on known and known unknown sources of error. It's less of a hard framework and more of a tree.

Let's face it, most people just don't feel like it and can't be expected to handle it properly. Humans in general don't handle it well long term. Planck said it best, progress happens one funeral at a time.
>>
Never having consciousness ever again doesn't seem fun to be honest.
>>
>>8791211
Subtle frog post?
>>
I bet death is really comfy and nice, like taking a long nap.
>>
>>8791211
only if you are athiesitc.
>>
>>8791211
What we should really wonder is why you asked, do you know? We can't answer if we would fear it, or how anything should be, but I think the reason you asked is because you were bored, I don't think you will have to worry about that when you are dead.
>>
>>8791211
Death is so inevitable theres really little reason to fear it. You can't run from it, no matter how hard you think or theorize or experiment.
>>
What if time slows and you experience your last seconds of pure agony for all eternity, perspectively speaking.
>>
>>8797076

We'll have to wait and find out anon
>>
>>8792184
Amen.
>>
>>8792184
Sure, buddy
Thread posts: 131
Thread images: 19


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.