Fear of Death: A Philosophical Inquiry into Coping with Uncertainty

[Nomy-the wanderer]

[2001] Waking Life - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017

I'm obssessed with this piece of work, I've watched it more than 1000 times.

 

[nameless]

..cool and trendy..

I found that statement so juvenile and ridiculous that it wasn't even worth serious comment.

 

[scix]

People fear that which they do not understand.

Dying, Generally hurts.. who want's to get hurt?

We have invented countless negative, scary after-lives for ourselves, I am sure no one wants to burn in "hell" forever, nor be stuck in limbo, or be reborn countless times without ever retaining a memory of the ordeal.

Basically it comes down to unknowing, we just don't understand what death is, so we will fear it.

I have come close to death a few times, and each time was different. During one of them I had a great epiphany and accepted it, I felt at peace.

The other times, I didn't want to die and struggeled to live.

I guess it all depends.

 

[Psi 5]

The question is slightly ambiguous. Does it mean fear of being dead or fear of dying? They are different. I personally don't fear being dead, dying scares the hell out of me. I don't expect to go like my grandmother in her sleep. I expect that my dying will involve a time of suffering, maybe a long time.

Being dead doesn't scare me much because I don't believe in hell even if there is something after. And if there isn't, then there is only dying.

Death is the one thing that sets us apart from all other life on this planet, we are the only species that knows what personal death is.

One thing about being dead does bother me a little. I'm a contrarian and if there is a choice to go into the light or not, I am contrary enough that I might not choose the light and I wonder lately what that would mean. Sure, we are indoctrinated to believe that the light is good but is it? No one knows for sure and maybe it isn't good, maybe it is something that consumes the soul. Maybe only the few souls that choose not to go into the light survive. Scary stuff, I hope if there is something after I don't have to choose..

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

we are the only species that knows what personal death is.

Do we?

I don't think so, we keep thinking about life, about its meaning, about death and why dying, what's afterwards, death is death, so what's death??

 

[moving finger]

Dying, Generally hurts.. who want's to get hurt?

Agreed, but the question is about fear of death, not fear of getting hurt.

I do not like the prospect of a painful (either physically or mentally painful) terminal illness, and (if in that position) I guess I would want to take something to help end it all quickly. I would then welcome death as a way to relieve/escape the mental/physical pain.

Thus, I do not fear death, but in a sense you might say that I fear pain.

MF

 

[moving finger]

Do we?

I don't think so, we keep thinking about life, about its meaning, about death and why dying, what's afterwards, death is death, so what's death??

imho, Psi should have said "we are the only species which appreciates it's mortality, which knows that death is inevitable"

MF

 

[Psi 5]

...
Death is the one thing that sets us apart from all other life on this planet, we are the only species that knows what personal death is.
...

I stand by that statement as is. The closest thing I have seen in another species of understanding what death is is in Elephants. They will go to the bones of family members and fondle them, they know who the bones belong to. This does not mean they understand personal death or realize that they will inevitably die but they do know that a family member is gone and the bones are what's left.

We fear dying because of the pain that may be involved, because of the unknown consequences, because it signals the end that may not have another beginning.

We fear death because it is the unknown, because it may BE the end.

Would you fear death if you knew for a fact that it would be nothing more than falling asleep and then waking up to a new and better world? No, you would look forward to it, not fear it.

 

[nameless]

Hello all. Please excuse this repeating of my previous post about fearing death, but I really think that the point that I made is extremely relevant and no-one really responded to my point, just about my 'poor' presentation of it.
Now that I have thought a moment, and can perhaps, a bit more intelligently, present this Truth here.
So once again in a nutshell;

There must be thought of death to fear death. One must somehow conceptualize death and then think about it somehow to 'fear' it. One cannot fear something that one cannot conceptualize. Fear of the unknown? One must populate the darkness with phantasms before one can 'rationalize' fear as an appropriate response.

If one were as completely 'in the Moment' as possible in our lives, we would be so Aware of our NOW world, so Conscious, so awed, in such bliss, etc... that we just wouldn't have any time, literally, to 'fantasize' about some potential 'future'. The less of 'you' in the HERE/NOW, the less Aware, the less Conscious, the less spontaneous in interaction, Zen, etc... Then in creep the insane creeps, like fear, hate, love, attachment, delusion, etc... There is literally no room for these mental concepts in the HERE/NOW! HERE is your 'Center', in the HERE/NOW! The further you 'wander' from your 'Center', the more 'eccentric', insane, unhappy, lost, suffering you will become.
Thats why fear sucks! Not death! which is a natural beautiful part of a natural beautiful life...

So, I'll pick 'C', that the 'fear of death' comes from a form of 'mental eccentricity' that can be healed and the 'fear' seems to disappear at the same time.

(for what it's worth...)

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

We fear death because it is the unknown, because it may BE the end.

Exactly it maybe the end, or maybe not! U donno how ur future is going to be later, u donno if ur still going to be able to dream about what u want to be, what u wnana have...Or enjoy the things u used to...

But we actually donno how is it going to be, we only know that there's something called death...It's worth fearing it.

Or at least when u r living, and dreaming of doing some certain things, or reaching a certain goal, u wouldn't want to die before accomplishing ur mission...Before enjoying a certain feeling.

It's very abstract.

 

[moving finger]

We fear death ... because it may BE the end.

In all honesty, I do not fear death.
And I do not understand why anyone should fear death if they truly believe it is the "end". It's just like falling into a dreamless sleep from which you will never awake. What is there to fear about that?

MF

 

[dubmugga]

tis reminds me of when Paul Atreides was getting tested by the bene gesserit reverend mother Gaius helen Mohaim in Dune...

...handle the pain in the box or die a certain death

LITANY AGAINST FEAR

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear - From Frank Herbert's Dune Book Series
© 1965 and 1984 Frank Herbert
Published by Putnam Pub Group

 

[Psi 5]

In all honesty, I do not fear death.
And I do not understand why anyone should fear death if they truly believe it is the "end". It's just like falling into a dreamless sleep from which you will never awake. What is there to fear about that?
MF

Because that is a possible result, I doubt anyone TRULY believes in a particular outcome, deep down everyone has doubts that the end won't be what they like to think they believe it is.

 

[Human Being]

My Take

There are many aspects to the thread author's question.
For those who believe in a paradigm like eternal glorification versus eternal damnation, fear of death would probably depend on what one thought their fate was. Someone who thinks they are "going to Hell" may fear death more because of that viewpoint. Someone who "knows" they are "going to Heaven" might fear death very little, thinking that death is part of the "plan" anyway. Thus, for some people, fear of death is fear of "going to Hell".
The process of death itself can be painless, or extremely painful. Thus, for some, fear of death is fear of extreme pain.
The process of death itself can be instantaneous, or extremely slow. Thus, for some, fear of death is fear of being aware (or being unaware) that one is dying. Going further, some people have selfless reasons for wanting to be alive, such as raising their children. Other people have selfish reasons for wanting to be alive, such as partying more. In these cases, fear of death is fear of not having accomplished enough in life. Being aware of one's own death process can be a peaceful experience, or a period of ultimate regret and sorrow. However, for some people, death occurs without their knowledge - either because it is an instantaneous surprise, or their state of consciousness prevents awareness. Some people want to "see death coming", perhaps so they can experience the whole "life flash before the eyes" thing. Others merely want to avoid being figuratively dead before they are physically dead.

 

[moving finger]

Because that is a possible result, I doubt anyone TRULY believes in a particular outcome, deep down everyone has doubts that the end won't be what they like to think they believe it is.

One could argue that "deep down" we all doubt everything, even that solipsism is false. But one must have the courage of one's convictions - otherwise we would all take Pascal's wager, wouldn't we?
MF

 

[nameless]

One could argue that "deep down" we all doubt everything, even that solipsism is false. But one must have the courage of one's convictions - otherwise we would all take Pascal's wager, wouldn't we?
MF

It is intellectually healthy to doubt everything.
What is "the courage of one's convictions"? To stand by some 'dearly held belief' despite data and experience and evidence that that belief is in error? Is that not what a 'conviction' is? I dunno, it still sounds like the kind of 'convict-ion' that makes 'convicts'! I don't think that there IS another flavor.
And 'convict' or not, no thinking person takes Pascals wager seriously as it is deeply flawed and unworthy of repetition as anything other than an example of fallacious thinking. See http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm" for a thorough refutation of his fallacious 'wager'.

 

[moving finger]

It is intellectually healthy to doubt everything.

Nevertheless it is not healthy to remain in doubt about everything for the rest of our lives (try doing that without being a hypocrite).

What is "the courage of one's convictions"? To stand by some 'dearly held belief' despite data and experience and evidence that that belief is in error? Is that not what a 'conviction' is?

Not necessarily. Where is the "data and experience" which shows theism is in error?

See http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm" for a thorough refutation of his fallacious 'wager'.

Thanks for the link to the so-called refutation of Pascal's wager - but I believe I can argue against each one of the points given there.

MF

 

[nameless]

Nevertheless it is not healthy to remain in doubt about everything for the rest of our lives (try doing that without being a hypocrite).

Doubt fertilizes the soil in which understanding and wisdom grow. Surety is intellectual death and stagnation (fossilization). I doubt and am not a hypocrite. Is this a trick question? When doubt leaves, fanaticism, fundamnentalism, zealotry, arrogance and fascism, etc... are the weeds that begin to grow, along with 'beliefs and faith' and 'convictions', instead of critical thought and current hypotheses...

Not necessarily. Where is the "data and experience" which shows theism is in error?

Really?? Please show me any data or evidence for the existence of a god? With no data or evidence, theism IS error, intellectual error anyway. Perhaps not emotional error, but that is something else. As far as I am concerned, accepting a hypothesis, such as a god, with no evidence whatsoever, to the point of 'belief' and 'faith' is emotionally needy pathology, not intelligence. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the link to the so-called refutation of Pascal's wager - but I believe I can argue against each one of the points given there.

You can argue all you like, but the refutations that I have noted are rather definitive as far as I can see. When he says that there is a lack of a third option, how do you argue that? It is a fact. Go "nanananaananananananana I can't hear you" and move on from there? The fallacies are clearly enumerated. But feel free to write your own refutation of the refutation. I'll be happy to read it. Perhaps you'll alter my perspective...

 

[moving finger]

I doubt and am not a hypocrite.

I never said that you were a hypocrite. We all doubt to some extent. What I said was “it is not healthy to remain in doubt about everything for the rest of our lives (try doing that without being a hypocrite)”.
Are you suggesting that you doubt everything and will continue to doubt everything for the rest of your life? I doubt that.

Really?? Please show me any data or evidence for the existence of a god?

With respect, science proceeds on the basis of falsification of hypotheses (read Popper). "the existence of God" is such an hypothesis, however it is NOT a falsifiable hypothesis, which strictly speaking makes it an unscientific hypothesis.
It is well understood in science that no hypothesis can ever be proven, all we can ever hope to do via experimentation is to find data which either support or falsify the hypothesis. To my knowledge, there is no data which falsifies the hypothesis of the existence of God, and (because of the way God is defined) I doubt whether it will ever be possible to falsify this hypothesis – hence it is unfalsifiable – hence unscientific.

With no data or evidence, theism IS error, intellectual error anyway.
…….. accepting a hypothesis, such as a god, with no evidence whatsoever, to the point of 'belief' and 'faith' is emotionally needy pathology, not intelligence.

With respect, you are simply displaying your ignorance of accepted scientific method here (see above). An unfalsifiable hypothesis such as “the existence of God” is unscientific, but you are wrong in your conception that science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses – it does not – it proceeds mainly by falsifying hypotheses.

You can argue all you like, but the refutations that I have noted are rather definitive as far as I can see.

At the top of this post you claim “I doubt”
I’m glad to see that you keep an open mind and that you indeed “doubt” the refutations – or is this hypocrisy?

When he says that there is a lack of a third option, how do you argue that?
It is a fact.

Oh, is it a fact indeed? What happened to your “doubt” all of a sudden?
You and the author of that article are looking at the question from a purely “Christian-centric” view. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all earthly religions and in their human-interpreted forms they are indeed incompatible. However it may be the case that the true God transcends all of these homocentric religions, therefore the question boils down simply to a choice : Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way. Simple as that. Why need there be a third option?

Go "nanananaananananananana I can't hear you" and move on from there?

I hope you will understand if I say that this rather infantile comment is not worthy of reply.
With respect
MF

 

[nameless]

I never said that you were a hypocrite. We all doubt to some extent. What I said was “it is not healthy to remain in doubt about everything for the rest of our lives (try doing that without being a hypocrite)”.
Are you suggesting that you doubt everything and will continue to doubt everything for the rest of your life? I doubt that.

Yes. I have learned that the quickest way to be 'shown the light' is to firmly think that you absolutely know something. There is and will always be an element of doubt (for me, of course) about everything. Even this. It is the only wise position to take. It is the only position if I wish to continue to 'evolve' intellectually and in understanding. Otherwise, from surety, we have fanaticism, etc... and the horrors that come with that kind of mindset. You certainly don't need me to enumerate on that?! Yes, and the only 'healthy' position to take is one of doubt of everything.

With respect, science proceeds on the basis of falsification of hypotheses (read Popper). "the existence of God" is such an hypothesis, however it is NOT a falsifiable hypothesis, which strictly speaking makes it an unscientific hypothesis.

With respect, a hypothesis requires supporting evidence to be taken seriously. Large 'claims' require large 'evidence'. The onus is on the one making the outrageous claim to provide outstanding evidence. (read Masterson, Williams, et al.) You can't possibly think that the onus would be on me to 'disprove' a claim of flying elephants? I could certainly examine your 'evidence' critically, though. Got evidence?

It is well understood in science that no hypothesis can ever be proven, all we can ever hope to do via experimentation is to find data which either support or falsify the hypothesis. To my knowledge, there is no data which falsifies the hypothesis of the existence of God, and (because of the way God is defined) I doubt whether it will ever be possible to falsify this hypothesis – hence it is unfalsifiable – hence unscientific.

It is irrelevant to me how 'scientific' the claim is, if no 'evidence' is produced along with the claim, intelligence dictates that it not be taken seriously, unworthy of refutation.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis such as “the existence of God” is unscientific, but you are wrong in your conception that science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses – it does not – it proceeds mainly by falsifying hypotheses.

This is grade school stuff. I'm not, nor have I ever said (produce quote, please) anything like 'science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses'. I'm well aware how science works. I'm really curious where you see me saying anything like this. Can you not refute something real (since you appear to be in a 'refutation' mode), instead of putting incorrect words in my mouth and pointing at 'my' error??

Originally Posted by nameless
You can argue all you like, but the refutations that I have noted are rather definitive as far as I can see.

At the top of this post you claim “I doubt”
I’m glad to see that you keep an open mind and that you indeed “doubt” the refutations – or is this hypocrisy?

Are we playing some kind of word game here? Do you have a point?
I 'doubt' the logical refutation that I have read by perhaps 3.7%. I 'doubt' your ability to refute the refutation by maybe 98.3%. No hypocrisy here.
Is this all going to be personal attack or did you have a valid point you wanted to discuss?

Originally Posted by nameless
When he says that there is a lack of a third option, how do you argue that?
It is a fact.

Oh, is it a fact indeed? What happened to your “doubt” all of a sudden?
You and the author of that article are looking at the question from a purely “Christian-centric” view.

Sorry. Incorrect. I look at NOTHING from a Xtian POV! I am not a Xtian.

However it may be the case that the true God transcends all of these homocentric religions, therefore the question boils down simply to a choice : Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way. Simple as that. Why need there be a third option?

How is it that you go from "it may be the case", to "Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way." in one breath. There 'needs' to be third options because ther ARE further options, and deliberately ignoring them to 'prove' a hypothesis is error, and downright dishonest. Shall I enumerate further options? I think that the author was rather thorough in his multitudinous logical critique of 'Pascal's Wager'. If you have something of substance, evidence of your posited 'god', any real objections to his critique, come ahead and enlighten me. But let's not waste time with word games and 'personalities'?!

Besides, I think that we have wandered rather far afield from the original topic.

I hope you will understand if I say that this rather infantile comment is not worthy of reply.

True. Apologies. I've been dealing with too many kids lately.. I could have worded that better.
<sheepish grin>
The underlying point does, nevertheless, remain.
*__-

 

[moving finger]

Are you suggesting that you doubt everything and will continue to doubt everything for the rest of your life? I doubt that.

Yes. I have learned that the quickest way to be 'shown the light' is to firmly think that you absolutely know something. There is and will always be an element of doubt (for me, of course) about everything.
………..Yes, and the only 'healthy' position to take is one of doubt of everything.

With respect, I dispute that you genuinely “doubt everything”.
For example, you do not seem to doubt the arguments put forward by the author of the website that you referred to regarding Pascal’s Wager. In your own words : “It is a fact.”
With respect, if this is not hypocrisy (ie claiming to doubt everything, yet also claiming that something is “a fact”), then what is?

a hypothesis requires supporting evidence to be taken seriously. Large 'claims' require large 'evidence'.

Hypotheses are put forward to explain experimental or experiential observations. Call this “evidence” if you wish, but at the end of the day all we have is experimental and experiential observations. The hypothesis “God exists” is just as good an hypothesis to explain our experimental and experiential observations as any other (except that it is not falsifiable, which makes it unscientific)

You can't possibly think that the onus would be on me to 'disprove' a claim of flying elephants?

If an hypothesis of “flying elephants” fits all of the known experimental and experiential observations then yes, in fact, the onus would then be on you (or someone else) to falsify this hypothesis. This is exactly how science proceeds.

I could certainly examine your 'evidence' critically, though. Got evidence?

Let’s start with “all of existence”. Everything in existence is compatible with, and nothing in existence is incompatible with, the hypothesis of the existence of God.

It is well understood in science that no hypothesis can ever be proven, all we can ever hope to do via experimentation is to find data which either support or falsify the hypothesis. To my knowledge, there is no data which falsifies the hypothesis of the existence of God, and (because of the way God is defined) I doubt whether it will ever be possible to falsify this hypothesis – hence it is unfalsifiable – hence unscientific.

It is irrelevant to me how 'scientific' the claim is

I see. Perhaps (with respect) this says a lot about your philosophy?

……if no 'evidence' is produced along with the claim, intelligence dictates that it not be taken seriously, unworthy of refutation.

Scientific method dictates that any and all falsifiable hypotheses which are consistent with experimental and experiential observations be taken seriously, and the purpose of further experiment is then to try and falsify the hypothesis. This is how science proceeds – if you think differently that is fine, but nevertheless your philosophy would be by definition unscientific.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis such as “the existence of God” is unscientific, but you are wrong in your conception that science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses – it does not – it proceeds mainly by falsifying hypotheses.

This is grade school stuff.

Yes, hence I assume you are familiar with it.

I'm not, nor have I ever said (produce quote, please) anything like 'science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses'.

You ask, so I reply :

With no data or evidence, theism IS error

Can you not refute something real (since you appear to be in a 'refutation' mode), instead of putting incorrect words in my mouth and pointing at 'my' error??

Am I in refutation mode? I am simply replying rationally to your own accusations.
I suggest we stop this silly game of “I said, you said”, it is not worthy of intelligent agents.

I 'doubt' the logical refutation that I have read by perhaps 3.7%.

I see. Thus claiming “it is a fact” does not actually mean “it is a fact”, rather it means “it might be a fact”. Thank you.

Is this all going to be personal attack or did you have a valid point you wanted to discuss?

Nothing personal here, I assure you. All of my arguments have been from a logical and rational perspective. If you wish to interpret rational arguments as a personal attack then that is (with respect) not my problem.

I look at NOTHING from a Xtian POV! I am not a Xtian.

I never said you were a Xtian. Neither am I a theist. But I do not need to be an atheist in order to view an argument from an atheistic point of view. Perhaps (with respect) if one could learn to view arguments from others’ points of view it might help one to understand them, don't you agree?

However it may be the case that the true God transcends all of these homocentric religions, therefore the question boils down simply to a choice : Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way. Simple as that. Why need there be a third option?

How is it that you go from "it may be the case", to "Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way." in one breath.

Because (a) I “doubt” and (b) I believe in the law of the excluded middle.

There 'needs' to be third options because ther ARE further options, and deliberately ignoring them to 'prove' a hypothesis is error

With respect, this is logical fallacy.
The statement “the true God exists” is logically either true or false.
What would you suggest is “the third way”?
There is no “third way”. I am not deliberately ignoring anything, I am looking at the question from a purely rational and logical perspective. To claim that this is “downright dishonest” is to reject the whole foundation of logic.

…….and downright dishonest.

Now who is indulging in “personal attacks”?

If you have something of substance, evidence of your posited 'god', any real objections to his critique, come ahead and enlighten me.

I have answered your question, and "his critique" already.
I do not posit any “god”. But I do defend the right of others to do so.

But let's not waste time with word games and 'personalities'?!

I agree, but where have I done that? With respect, I have tried to keep this to a logical and rational debate.

As always, With respect

MF

 

[nameless]

I dispute that you genuinely “doubt everything”.

When I share something of the way that I think, and you basically (arrogantly and disputatiously) call me a liar, the conversation is over.
One thing that I DO doubt is that continuing this discussion (between us) will be 'fruitful' for either of us, or anyone else, and I don't think that we aught to hijack this thread any longer.
So I'll leave you with the last word.

 

[moving finger]

I dispute that you genuinely “doubt everything”.

When I share something of the way that I think, and you basically (arrogantly and disputatiously) call me a liar, the conversation is over.

With all due respect, you seem to be taking this discussion very personally and emotionally. My remark is quite acceptable in the context of a rational and civilised debate – “I dispute that you genuinely doubt everything”” is a legitimate statement to make – it means “I do not think that you genuinely doubt everything”.
If you wish to interpret this as a personal insult then I am sorry, but that is (with respect) your problem and not mine.

And please remember, when it comes to accusing people of personal insults, YOU are the one that claimed my position was one of being "downright dishonest".

So I'll leave you with the last word.

Very kind of you.
Take care in your future posts,
MF

 

[VikingF]

Back to topic: "Why does one fear death?"


Because it's in our nature to both be afraid of and exited about things that are unknown to us. Most people feel that they don't understand the concept of death, and they are therefore both afraid of it, and interested in it.

That's atleast my theory.

 

[Niode]

I think the infamous "fear of death" is a misinterpreted fear. I believe the root of the fear isn't the act of death itself, but the mystery that lies BEYOND death. We're of the understanding that death is an "irreversible cessation of all vital functions especially as indicated by permanent stoppage of the heart, respiration, and brain activity" (cited from dictionary.com). But what we don't know is what's in store after the event of death.

Humans crave understanding and knowlege. To not know something is to not understand something, and it's human nature to fear what it doesn't understand. So in turn, we fear the unknown and the possibilies it may entail.

I think it's important to clearly define the topic of this conversation. Death can be feared on many levels. For example, does one fear: the process of dying (i.e. the sensations of a fatal heart attack), the state of death (i.e. the physical state of being dead), or (most commonly) what lies beyond death? The answer varies depending on the individual, I suppose.

On a more personal note, I don't fear the state of or the process of death. I'm not exactly afraid of what happens after I die, but I'm certainly saddened by the thought I may never see the people I love again. That's what hits home for me, and I suppose that saddening thought is one reason why I don't like to consider the possibility of reincarnation (which I guess results in losing the memory of a former life). I don't want to forget those in my life, or myself, for that matter.

 

[BeerBaron]

Humans crave understanding and knowlege. To not know something is to not understand something, and it's human nature to fear what it doesn't understand. So in turn, we fear the unknown and the possibilies it may entail.

I'd like to build on this. It is human nature to crave understanding. But through out history we have had a problem with speculating about the unknown. The Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth. Humans observed these events happening and this is what they thought, this is the product of their reasoning. As time went on our knowledge of science grew, and with it, we made closer observations and realized how things are in reality. Death was an observable phenomena, the problem is we can't observe what happens to the psyche after death, regardless of science or technology; so as usual we speculate. Depending on what an individual believes will happen after they die, will determine their emotional response to death. That is why I believe one may fear the unknown aspect of death.

 

[meL]

there is no death.
the body recycles.

The sense of the non-existant
self is fear...misery.

Have a peek.
Don't faint.
It's OK.

 

[Human Being]

I agree completely with post #44. :)

 

[moving finger]

there is no death.
the body recycles.

is "the consciousness that calls itself meL" exactly the same as (ie synonymous with) "the body of meL"?

MF

 

[meL]

is "the consciousness that calls itself meL" exactly the same as (ie synonymous with) "the body of meL"?
MF

What consciousness?
There is only repeating.

Yes, the body of meL is only repeating.

Dont faint.

ho ho ho