Meaninglessness

[Avatar]

But it's only because you haven't thought hard enough on your impending death. If you actually realised you were going to die, well, you'd be out there snorting cocaine of hooker's boobs.

Hahaha, when I saw the start of your post quoted in the one below it, I thought it was Rus saying I hadn't thought about it yet.

Anyway, I got all that out of my system years ago. Back when I may have thought meaninglessness was a bad thing in a life. Nowadays, I find it a liberating concept.


--A

[rusmeister]

I apologize to all and sundry for delays - the illness ravaging my household has really put a crimp on everything. I think y'all have good ideas and even true thoughts that I would like to get the opportunity to agree with (before taking apart things that I see to be wrong... )
That I also believe that good should be loved for its own sake, for example; that loving good is loving God - although understandings of what absolute Good is may vary - anyone who has read "A Grief Observed" (Lewis's diary on the death of his wife) knows that Good can be very very painful and cost you everything. (For example)

What makes your view unreasonable, rus, is that you declare that one must feel as you do about it all. Everyone must find the thought of death to be awful and terrifying. No sane person can feel otherwise. Everyone must think about it to a certain degree. (I guess it would be helpful if you would specify frequency and duration.) And, of course, anyone who does find death awful and terrifying must choose your worldview as a means of coping.

The analogy I would attempt here would be the man caught on train tracks and watching a train bearing down. Now I agree, on the one hand that he should do more than merely fear - that he should either seek escape or seek to do whatever good can be done in his position (because I believe that good is right, and should be loved for its own sake and not for 'brownie points'. But if he perceives the train, and does NOT feel fear, but merely indifference, and says "Why should I fear it?", then he is not sane or reasonable. Saying that he has ten seconds or ten years until the train hits him does not change the inevitable and final fact that undoes everything that he is justifying living by.

Other than that, it's useless to say anything. To the person for whom the criteria is whether something works, then it is clear that as long as what they do have 'works', they will desire nothing else. A theory of life must cease to 'work' for such a person before they will consider anything else. I think that materialism must cease to work for the average, sane and reasonable person when face to face with death itself - which for them is the final end. The person who has faith in their own oblivion and holds onto it even at that moment is not sane or reasonable. While people can insist on finding exceptions, there is a general truth in the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes" - for most people really are sane and reasonable when faced with such things as the immediate and inevitable fact of their own imminent death. It was the man on Flight 93 who said the Lord's prayer "Our Father..." who was sane, and even the materialist who felt the final fear was - it is the one who does not who is not. Again, by "sane" I mean "mentally healthy" - and insane here means not merely wrong reasoning, but reasoning proceeding from malfunctioning mental faculties. I think people who talk about not fearing oblivion are just talking. The scene from Manalive is the truth of the sane man who has merely been fooling himself with sophistry.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZbJeHAFOSk

[Tenara]

I usually stay out of this kind of discussion, but I've been reading this with interest, so ....

My position is there's probably something after we die, but I don't have any idea what it is. This could be simply due to not being able to imagine myself not exisiting, of course. Not sure what box I'd need to tick for religion - agnostic, maybe?

The analogy I would attempt here would be the man caught on train tracks and watching a train bearing down. Now I agree, on the one hand that he should do more than merely fear - that he should either seek escape or seek to do whatever good can be done in his position (because I believe that good is right, and should be loved for its own sake and not for 'brownie points'. But if he perceives the train, and does NOT feel fear, but merely indifference, and says "Why should I fear it?", then he is not sane or reasonable.

I don't fear death. I fear dying.

If I was on that track, I would be afraid. I'd be afraid that when the train hit me, it would hurt - a lot - if only briefly. If I couldn't get off the tracks, I'd probably just close my eyes tight and hope that it - the pain part - was over quickly. (I've been close to 2 elderly relatives who were dying of cancer, and both of them were clear that they would welcome death when it came to end the pain they were suffering, so I don't think I'm alone here.)

After that ... if I'm right and there's something after we die ... well, it might be interesting. And if I'm wrong, and there's nothing, I won't be around to care about it one way or the other.

Of course, I would try to get off the tracks if I could. There are a lot of things I still want to do while I'm here. It's possible I could be reincarnated and get another chance to do them, but there's no guarantee of that, so I'd rather not die until I've done all those things.

But fear death? No. I don't see much point in worrying about things I can do nothing about.

Does that make me insane?

[Fist and Faith]

As Tenara says, when the train's coming, it's the fear of dying that's the problem, not the fear of death. And as I've said, when I contemplate the end of me, one of the things I feal is fear. But that's not evidence that oblivion isn't what awaits me.

As for "whether it works", the point is that our worldviews allow each of us to function in this world, in our societies, as well as anyone else. Therefore, neither of our worldviews is proven objectively false by how it plays out. It's not like someone believes "God wants us to honor Him by remaining absolutely motionless every moment of our lives." That's proven objectively false by the fact that the very first human would have died, and there would have been no continuation of the species. (Although God could now tell a prophet that we are all to remain absolutely motionless for the rest of our lives. It sure would be an order I'd refuse, but it could be God wants us to be done with us.)

[TheFallen]

Rus, this allegation of insanity doesn't stack up. There are no atheists in foxholes, because people in dire situations hedge their bets, just in case the religion they see as the most mainstream turns out to have been correct. This is no different to deathbed conversions.

You're mistaking a completely natural compulsion to struggle to exist as long as possible with a fear of death - although similar, the two are not the same. A desire to live is not the same as a fear to die. It's Dylan Thomas again - "Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Yes, death is inevitable - it's a traintrack that we cannot eventually get off. As Tenara points out, in some cases, death may be greeted as a welcome release, but generally it's something we all do our level best to avoid.

I think that materialism must cease to work for the average, sane and reasonable person when face to face with death itself - which for them is the final end. The person who has faith in their own oblivion and holds onto it even at that moment is not sane or reasonable.

That's just plainly wrongly reasoned and here's why.

I will grant you that the desire for life is so strong that, leaving Tenara's examples aside as exceptions, once all rational, realistic and practical efforts to stay alive have been exhausted, an individual may well at the very last minute turn to the irrational, unrealistic and impractical by suddenly reaching out for God's escape rope, just in case it exists. All this demonstrates is a purely human and totally understandable rational desire (to keep on existing) seeking an irrational method by which to achieve itself. It's escapism in its literal sense.

On that basis, I cannot see why you're being so judgemental in claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife - even if they suddenly start to hope for one to which they will have access while they're on their final breath - must de facto be insane?

Again I'm extremely uneasy with the apparent cynical marketing methodology so often used by several religions - playing on people's fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's like a badly constructed insurance scam.

"If you don't believe, you will (a) rot and be eaten by worms, (b) become nothing, (c) burn forever [strike whichever doesn't apply]. Your only possibility of avoiding this terrifying fate is by signing up to [fill in name of appropriate deity here]'s escape plan."

(Not that I am for one minute suggesting that you personally are being anything else but entirely sincere - but hopefully you'll see my point).

I personally wish religions would concentrate more on the positive - "Hey, be nice to each other, because it's what you'd like people to be towards you and it'd make the world a happier place" - instead of banging on about the clearly self-serving and blatantly brow-beating negative - "Believe or rot". I know which of those two statements gains my respect.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Rus, in a way, you seem to be saying that the only reason to do right is to stay right with God. Please tell me that's not what you mean. Otherwise "doing the right thing" here is nothing but a system of cosmic brownie points.

So, I'm just gonna quote a book that I like and ask you if ya think this opens up some new and interesting possibilities. (of how the type of worldview rusmeister is espousing might not be so "wrong" as it appears to be)

You might turn the world on its head by changing one word in your creed. The old tradition* says,

The chief end of man is to glorify God
-AND-
enjoy him forever.

"And"? Like ham and eggs? Sometimes you glorify God and sometimes you enjoy Him? Sometimes he gets glory, sometimes you get joy? "And" is a very ambiguous word! Just how do these two things relate to each other?

Ahh, precision in speech...

...this book aims to persuade you that

The chief end of man is to glorify God
-BY-
enjoying him forever.

* And my post just might be running afoul of the rusmeister right THERE, but if not, it still may make him cringe/facepalm later.

[Fist and Faith]

You might turn the world on its head by changing one word in your creed. The old tradition* says,

The chief end of man is to glorify God
-AND-
enjoy him forever.

"And"? Like ham and eggs? Sometimes you glorify God and sometimes you enjoy Him? Sometimes he gets glory, sometimes you get joy? "And" is a very ambiguous word! Just how do these two things relate to each other?

How did the word "sometimes" get thrown into the mix? I'd interpret it as:
You always glorify God and you always enjoy Him. He always gets glory, you always get joy.

[rusmeister]

I usually stay out of this kind of discussion, but I've been reading this with interest, so ....

My position is there's probably something after we die, but I don't have any idea what it is. This could be simply due to not being able to imagine myself not exisiting, of course. Not sure what box I'd need to tick for religion - agnostic, maybe?

The analogy I would attempt here would be the man caught on train tracks and watching a train bearing down. Now I agree, on the one hand that he should do more than merely fear - that he should either seek escape or seek to do whatever good can be done in his position (because I believe that good is right, and should be loved for its own sake and not for 'brownie points'. But if he perceives the train, and does NOT feel fear, but merely indifference, and says "Why should I fear it?", then he is not sane or reasonable.

I don't fear death. I fear dying.

If I was on that track, I would be afraid. I'd be afraid that when the train hit me, it would hurt - a lot - if only briefly. If I couldn't get off the tracks, I'd probably just close my eyes tight and hope that it - the pain part - was over quickly. (I've been close to 2 elderly relatives who were dying of cancer, and both of them were clear that they would welcome death when it came to end the pain they were suffering, so I don't think I'm alone here.)

After that ... if I'm right and there's something after we die ... well, it might be interesting. And if I'm wrong, and there's nothing, I won't be around to care about it one way or the other.

Of course, I would try to get off the tracks if I could. There are a lot of things I still want to do while I'm here. It's possible I could be reincarnated and get another chance to do them, but there's no guarantee of that, so I'd rather not die until I've done all those things.

But fear death? No. I don't see much point in worrying about things I can do nothing about.

Does that make me insane?

Hi, Tenara,

I think agnosticism probably fits the bill; I was one for my first twenty adult years, myself. Although in my own case I mainly wanted to focus on this life and didn't spend much serious time thinking about death or the meaning of life. I read Hesse's Siddhartha and Tolstoy (esp "The Death of Ivan Ilyich") in that period, for example, and they touched me, but didn't move me to further thought or action.

I feel that there may be a general misunderstanding (held by most?) that I am somehow advocating that we go through our lives quaking every minute in fear of death. What I am saying is much more along the lines of asking whether we consider death as more than just a future abstraction, whether we have ever tried to see it happening to ME, RIGHT THIS MINUTE. That's why I referred to Ebenezer Scrooge - an admittedly fictional character who actually DID see his death as an accomplished fact, and not as something to be waved off and ignored.

It is this that I see potential value in the monk's prayer for people here - to consider it as a 'something happening NOW' event, and 'Have I truly prepared for it?', or 'Have I just fooled myself my whole life?'.

Did you, by chance, watch the manalive trailer I linked? The larger context helps understand it better, but the essential point was that a philosophy professor held a self-contradictory view and actually taught it, but that it IS, in its essence, false when put to a final test by a crazy man with a gun. Of course, I am not saying that people here hold that false philosophy (nihilism), but that there are other false philosophies, such as materialism, that have nothing at all to offer when faced with a meaningless death, and that a person may imagine all sorts of things (an unbeliever may imagine, for instance, that he could look back on a life well-lived, by his lights, and so, have no fear or regrets, just as a believer may imagine potential comfort in an afterlife) that are revealed as nonsense in the face of an actual test - that only a resolute faith in something in the face of the perfectly normal and rational fear at that point will hold to what they believe - for both the believer and unbeliever alike. I think that for people who are actually sane, BS that they didn't fully believe in to the hilt will fall apart in the face of it.

Thinking about your comments, I would hasten to agree that we certainly do not welcome suffering and wish it to end as soon as possible. But when we 'hope that the pain (or anything) is over quickly', we also hope that the 'movie' will somehow continue. Otherwise, what does it matter whether it is over or not, if I am completely not, to experience either suffering or joy? Why does it matter if I studied Russian or not, traveled the world or not - what difference does any of my life make to me at all if I am dead?

The thing that is insane is actually standing on those tracks and not feeling any fear at all - a complete indifference to one's own life and death. I doubt anyone here actually fits that bill - but the words of some people suggest that logically, that is how they would feel (only I don't believe that they actually would when push came to shove).

I have not yet been tested. And I fear that test. And so I am training the habit of faith - sometimes poorly, like now, sometimes much more fervently - I turn to God the quickest when things go very wrong - as they did a few weeks ago. But as long as things are going well, we don't need God. We are self-sufficient, and our practical philosophy of life (such as materialist improvement of my life here) works... until it doesn't work. When you get cancer, when your child dies, when the gun is pointed at your head and all of the things of this world are about to become dust and ashes - that, unfortunately, is when we tend to finally come to our senses (and some most unfortunately of all, not even then).

I hope that clears up my meaning a little.

[Linna Heartbooger]

You might turn the world on its head by changing one word in your creed. The old tradition* says,
"And"? Like ham and eggs? Sometimes you glorify God and sometimes you enjoy Him? Sometimes he gets glory, sometimes you get joy? "And" is a very ambiguous word! Just how do these two things relate to each other?

How did the word "sometimes" get thrown into the mix? I'd interpret it as:
You always glorify God and you always enjoy Him. He always gets glory, you always get joy.

Yes, Fist. And that's the most sensible way to read it, if you're gonna add a word!

I'd say the author is taking a Devil's Advocate position... he's sort of saying, "Hey, this is what Christians often believe w/out realizing it," so he's trying to open our eyes.

Because the actual PRACTICE of MY "faith," for example, would show that - in my heart of hearts - I don't really expect that I am gonna glorify God EVERY day, or enjoy Him CONSTANTLY. And you've probably seen beaten-down, whiny churchgoers who have a pity party about the fact that "the walk of faith is no easy road." The author of that book is confronting THOSE people - attacking their heart-attitude.

If a Christian looks at those WORDS, and you're gonna put a word in, "always" DOES make more sense than "sometimes." However, A LOT of Christians hadn't considered that catechism a major document to read... and those who do probably don't think about each word in each line as though it might apply to THEIR ACTUAL LIVES.

[Fist and Faith]

Personally, I wouldn't put "always" or "sometimes". I think it's fine as it is.

The chief end of man is to glorify God
-AND-
enjoy him forever.

I'm just saying, if someone thinks "sometimes" should be added, I'll counter "always". But I understand what you mean about who his target audience is.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Personally, I wouldn't put "always" or "sometimes". I think it's fine as it is.

The chief end of man is to glorify God
-AND-
enjoy him forever.

I'm just saying, if someone thinks "sometimes" should be added, I'll counter "always". But I understand what you mean about who his target audience is.

I don't think the author was suggesting putting "always" OR "sometimes"... just pointing out the ambiguity.

Ah. I just got what you were saying, Fist. Yeah, that's a good point. I think that people's minds OFTEN insert the words that THEY want to (or expect to) hear... a little like what Av says about people being able to find what they want to believe in a religion's teachings. (though I don't go quite as far as him.)

That wasn't the word that John Piper wanted to switch, anyways.

[aliantha]

I'm not sure I agree with Piper's rewrite. I thought the Christian ideal was to *obey* God, not *enjoy* him. (I admit that I don't know who John Piper is. )

But that's not what I was getting at with my "brownie points" comment. I've known people who profess to be Christian whose reasoning boils down to, "If I behave X way, it'll be a point in my favor after I die." They're not modifying their behavior in order to glorify God, but they're also not doing it in order to obey God. It's totally a "brownie points" transaction -- "I'll behave this way because it will give me a good mark in St. Peter's book." It's quite a cynical way of looking at life. And it's different than those old ladies who believe life is nothing but trevail. If I were St. Peter, I would give the latter a "poor dears" and a pat on the head for their misunderstanding; but I would give the former a swift kick in the pants.

[rusmeister]

I'm not sure I agree with Piper's rewrite. I thought the Christian ideal was to *obey* God, not *enjoy* him. (I admit that I don't know who John Piper is. )

But that's not what I was getting at with my "brownie points" comment. I've known people who profess to be Christian whose reasoning boils down to, "If I behave X way, it'll be a point in my favor after I die." They're not modifying their behavior in order to glorify God, but they're also not doing it in order to obey God. It's totally a "brownie points" transaction -- "I'll behave this way because it will give me a good mark in St. Peter's book." It's quite a cynical way of looking at life. And it's different than those old ladies who believe life is nothing but trevail. If I were St. Peter, I would give the latter a "poor dears" and a pat on the head for their misunderstanding; but I would give the former a swift kick in the pants.

I agree with this, Ali. I don't know of any serious traditional Christian faith that teaches Brownie points - although individual and non-traditional pastors may teach whatever they want and I do not include them in the concept of traditional Christianity.

I'd say that if you were St Peter, you'd know what St Peter knew so as to be in that position and who needs what form of admonition/education (although you're referring to an extremely Catholic concept, not one held in Orthodoxy).

But I do agree with your sentiment against Brownie points as a mere form of personal gain. The Orthodox concept of salvation is far more corporate than individual. We are saved TOGETHER - so we don't speak of "Jesus as my personal Savior" - although He IS our Savior, we don't get into private ownership. That tends to work against the brownie point concept, although I'd say it still rears its head among some people in Orthodoxy in the concept of works (which is properly understood as the part required from us in our synergy with God - the things we have to do that make it possible for Him to save us, our free choice to turn towards Him (or not). But those people do NOT properly understand the teachings of their own faith.

[aliantha]

To be clear, I don't know of any Christian traditions that advocate the brownie point route into Heaven. Just that I've heard the concept from certain people who professed to be Christian, and I was kinda dismayed by it. Here I am, a Pagan, doing good things because it's the right thing to do, and there they are, doing good things because they think they can use their behavior as a post-death bargaining chip.

I know Christians aren't supposed to be perfect and all, but I'd sure like to whup some of 'em upside the head sometimes....

[rusmeister]

To be clear, I don't know of any Christian traditions that advocate the brownie point route into Heaven. Just that I've heard the concept from certain people who professed to be Christian, and I was kinda dismayed by it. Here I am, a Pagan, doing good things because it's the right thing to do, and there they are, doing good things because they think they can use their behavior as a post-death bargaining chip.

I know Christians aren't supposed to be perfect and all, but I'd sure like to whup some of 'em upside the head sometimes....

Amen, Amen, Amen!
(In Russian it is pronounced "ah-MEEN" - and it means "Let it be so!")
Indeed we are called to be better than we are, and we fail, constantly. That is a lesson of Lent.

I think that all of the major world religions have traditions that, if you study them, they eliminate most of these selfish things - only in all of the traditions, in a word, everywhere, the further you get away from the serious teaching and learning of that tradition the more you find "rubes" that have partially invented their own religion on the basis of...

Like the monk's prayer - that's not looking for a bargaining chip at all - that's a realization of how I have completely ruined myself and encompassed my own damnation. The Prodigal Son wasn't looking for Brownie points. He just wanted to be saved from the slow death of starvation and general ruin he had brought on himself. Maybe that's part of the problem of some people's perception of it? Maybe they read a plea for brownie points into it? I think we can all see the difference between avarice and simply not wanting to be destroyed. In Orthodoxy, it's represented in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (which we make a whole Sunday out of before going into Lent, generally in late Feb or early March. The Pharisee basically crowed over all the brownie points he imagined he was earning by doing good deeds and following the rules; the despised tax collector for the Roman occupiers simply lowered his eyes and cried out his repentance, "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!"

[Vraith]

To be clear, I don't know of any Christian traditions that advocate the brownie point route into Heaven. Just that I've heard the concept from certain people who professed to be Christian, and I was kinda dismayed by it. Here I am, a Pagan, doing good things because it's the right thing to do, and there they are, doing good things because they think they can use their behavior as a post-death bargaining chip.

I know Christians aren't supposed to be perfect and all, but I'd sure like to whup some of 'em upside the head sometimes....

I don't think I've ever known one personally who went by brownie points exactly [though historically, that indulgences thing..and certain aspects of protestant works..well, they're shaky].
But there are huge numbers who go by "if I obey god in X things, he'll forgive my little peccadillos for Y."
Just for fun, cuz it's in the news lately. A certain person who might run for President is on his third wife, having screwed around on the previous 2.
He's apologized for adulterating twice...ignoring the fact that he didn't commit adultery twice...but dozens, maybe hundreds or thousands of times.
And I fail to see the qualitative difference.
But closer to recent topic:
IF I were Christian, I'd say obedience to god, or at least a "good" faith effort...really being sorry for sins, and sincerely working to not do them again...in the true end "obeying" would lead to "enjoying" god...and probably, BTW, Him enjoying You as well.
And, on the actual topic:
More and more as things go on [my life, and this thread] I'm tending to think that the concept of "meaning" itself is meaningless...in cynical mode. Alternately, [about 1 day in 3 or 4], that meaninglessness is meaningless.
In "where the hell would this lead if it is so" mode [about every alternate saturday or so]...what if....and really I think this most likely even if I can't walk and talk it ordinarily, cuz I'm both subject to my experiences, and I don't know the logical end/result of it yet...what if the problem really IS that we are simply incapable of "knowing" precisely, what meaning [or meaningless] is? [like, analogously, "weightlessness"...because no matter your imagination, unless you've been in space, or in one of a few very particular technical situations, you have no idea at all what it is like].

[Fist and Faith]

I'm having trouble understanding a lot of that post, Vraith. Heh. But if, at the end, you mean what I think you mean, then you're wrong. I do know what it's like to live in a meaningless existence. That is, in an existence where there's no eternal meaning; where there's no meaning assigned by a power with the ability to do such a thing; where, even though I am as much a part of the definition of the universe as anything else in the universe is, the universe wouldn't notice if I never existed; etc.

[Tenara]

I feel that there may be a general misunderstanding (held by most?) that I am somehow advocating that we go through our lives quaking every minute in fear of death. What I am saying is much more along the lines of asking whether we consider death as more than just a future abstraction, whether we have ever tried to see it happening to ME, RIGHT THIS MINUTE. That's why I referred to Ebenezer Scrooge - an admittedly fictional character who actually DID see his death as an accomplished fact, and not as something to be waved off and ignored.

Yes, I understand what you mean, and this is probably something I've done more than most. During the 6 months my Great Aunt lived with us when I was in my late teens, death and "the meaning of life" was a very popular discussion amongst myself and family members. She was dying slowly of bowel cancer, and it was at that time my mother and I came to agree that extended life is sometimes worse than death. We talked about death a lot, and it was the first time Mum told me she'd refuse treatment if she was diagnosed with cancer, and just accept morphine for the pain. I know her, and I know she wouldn't change her mind if faced with the reality. I have dependents right now, and would do anything to live for them, including facing the horrors of chemo and radiotherapy, but I know there will come a point when I should consider my position on cancer and death, and I suspect I will decide the same as my mother. This is probably the reason I'm good in a crisis - because I've already considered most crises, including fire, flood and the collapse of civilisation, and my decisions on what I'd do are already made.

I have watched the trailer, and I did put myself in the place of the man on the stairs, but probably not in the way most people would imagine. My first thought when he told the man to clap his hands was to say, "You need to clap your hands too. We're singing this song together, so let's both take part." But then, without seeing the whole scene, it's kind of hard to know the situation. How did the man get in that position on the stairs? Did he try to get up? Did he try to at least get his legs under him? What I'm getting at is, in that situation, death is the last thing I'd be thinking about. I'd be thinking about how to get the gun away from the man. (Rather like when a car comes flying round the corner on a narrow road and my passenger asks if I saw the terrified look on the driver's face, and I reply, "I wasn't looking at the car, I was looking at the gap.")

Thinking about your comments, I would hasten to agree that we certainly do not welcome suffering and wish it to end as soon as possible. But when we 'hope that the pain (or anything) is over quickly', we also hope that the 'movie' will somehow continue. Otherwise, what does it matter whether it is over or not, if I am completely not, to experience either suffering or joy? Why does it matter if I studied Russian or not, traveled the world or not - what difference does any of my life make to me at all if I am dead?

If I cease to exist after I die, I agree that what I do in my life won't matter to me after I'm dead. But it matters to me now, while I'm living it, and that's plenty for me. I don't really understand this desire to find greater meaning in our lives. Isn't it enough to have lived? Isn't it enough to look back, at the moment of death, and feel joy in all we've done and experienced? If there's nothingness after that moment, we won't know anything about it, and we won't care.

I have not yet been tested. And I fear that test. And so I am training the habit of faith - sometimes poorly, like now, sometimes much more fervently - I turn to God the quickest when things go very wrong - as they did a few weeks ago. But as long as things are going well, we don't need God. We are self-sufficient, and our practical philosophy of life (such as materialist improvement of my life here) works... until it doesn't work. When you get cancer, when your child dies, when the gun is pointed at your head and all of the things of this world are about to become dust and ashes - that, unfortunately, is when we tend to finally come to our senses (and some most unfortunately of all, not even then).

I hope that clears up my meaning a little.

Yes, it does, and this is where we very much disagree. I don't see death, or impending death, as a test. I see it as a natural consequence of life. We live, we die. It isn't about faith, or belief, or hope. It's about nature. It's about our bodies wearing out, just as the bodies of all creatures do, and being absorbed back into that amazing system that brought them into being. From the top of the food chain, back to the bottom. If consciousness is nothing more than neurons firing, death is just an end to consciousness, and I'm not afraid of that. I fall unconscious every night and my body's systems keep running. We call it sleep. One day, I'll fall unconscious permanently, and my body's systems will stop. We call that death. The only difference is in whether or not I wake up.

I feel sad when you talk about fearing that test that I don't think is a test because I don't think anyone should fear the inevitable. But I suppose that's something that comes of having faith, rather than just shrugging your shoulders and waiting to see what happens.

[Fist and Faith]

I feel that there may be a general misunderstanding (held by most?) that I am somehow advocating that we go through our lives quaking every minute in fear of death. What I am saying is much more along the lines of asking whether we consider death as more than just a future abstraction, whether we have ever tried to see it happening to ME, RIGHT THIS MINUTE. That's why I referred to Ebenezer Scrooge - an admittedly fictional character who actually DID see his death as an accomplished fact, and not as something to be waved off and ignored.

What you are really saying is that not having the same feeling for it that you have is proof that we have not thought about it as deeply as you have. (Unless we're insane.)

but that there are other false philosophies, such as materialism, that have nothing at all to offer when faced with a meaningless death, and that a person may imagine all sorts of things (an unbeliever may imagine, for instance, that he could look back on a life well-lived, by his lights, and so, have no fear or regrets, just as a believer may imagine potential comfort in an afterlife) that are revealed as nonsense in the face of an actual test - that only a resolute faith in something in the face of the perfectly normal and rational fear at that point will hold to what they believe - for both the believer and unbeliever alike. I think that for people who are actually sane, BS that they didn't fully believe in to the hilt will fall apart in the face of it.

Thinking about your comments, I would hasten to agree that we certainly do not welcome suffering and wish it to end as soon as possible. But when we 'hope that the pain (or anything) is over quickly', we also hope that the 'movie' will somehow continue. Otherwise, what does it matter whether it is over or not, if I am completely not, to experience either suffering or joy? Why does it matter if I studied Russian or not, traveled the world or not - what difference does any of my life make to me at all if I am dead?

The thing that is insane is actually standing on those tracks and not feeling any fear at all - a complete indifference to one's own life and death. I doubt anyone here actually fits that bill - but the words of some people suggest that logically, that is how they would feel (only I don't believe that they actually would when push came to shove).

I have not yet been tested. And I fear that test. And so I am training the habit of faith - sometimes poorly, like now, sometimes much more fervently - I turn to God the quickest when things go very wrong - as they did a few weeks ago. But as long as things are going well, we don't need God. We are self-sufficient, and our practical philosophy of life (such as materialist improvement of my life here) works... until it doesn't work. When you get cancer, when your child dies, when the gun is pointed at your head and all of the things of this world are about to become dust and ashes - that, unfortunately, is when we tend to finally come to our senses (and some most unfortunately of all, not even then).

None of what you say suggests that worldviews like mine are not the truth of existence. Bad things happen to good people. And, in the end, we cease to exist. It is not any sort of "failure" on the part of my worldview that it doesn't assuage the fears and insecurities that these facts instill in you. It is not evidence that my worldview is not accurate.

[rusmeister]

I have watched the trailer, and I did put myself in the place of the man on the stairs, but probably not in the way most people would imagine. My first thought when he told the man to clap his hands was to say, "You need to clap your hands too. We're singing this song together, so let's both take part." But then, without seeing the whole scene, it's kind of hard to know the situation. How did the man get in that position on the stairs? Did he try to get up? Did he try to at least get his legs under him? What I'm getting at is, in that situation, death is the last thing I'd be thinking about. I'd be thinking about how to get the gun away from the man. (Rather like when a car comes flying round the corner on a narrow road and my passenger asks if I saw the terrified look on the driver's face, and I reply, "I wasn't looking at the car, I was looking at the gap.")

Hi again!
The context of the trailer, in brief, is that the man who is truly alive (the "Manalive" of the title) is the man with the gun, who is dealing life, not death, to a professor whose professed philosophy of nihilism has led to the profession that 'life is not worth living' (which is not terribly far from 'life has no meaning*'). He puts the professor directly up against death itself to see if his philosophy will hold - if life is not worth living, then logically, one ought to welcome death - if the person truly believes what they are saying. (In the book, at one point he shoots but deliberately misses - it had been established that he was an expert marksman.)
I think that most people who profess a lack of meaning do in fact live as if there were meaning - and that faced with the reality of an ultimately illogical philosophy might (but no guarantees) come to their senses in both senses of the expression, literally and figuratively, for the senses DO convey meaning to us.

AS to your own response to such a situation, it reminds me of Capt. Kirk in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, who had never faced death, but only cheated it. As something ultimately inevitable, the reaction of seeking to avoid it does not answer how to consider it when it finally comes and gets around all of your cleverness, dexterity and planning.

Thinking about your comments, I would hasten to agree that we certainly do not welcome suffering and wish it to end as soon as possible. But when we 'hope that the pain (or anything) is over quickly', we also hope that the 'movie' will somehow continue. Otherwise, what does it matter whether it is over or not, if I am completely not, to experience either suffering or joy? Why does it matter if I studied Russian or not, traveled the world or not - what difference does any of my life make to me at all if I am dead?

If I cease to exist after I die, I agree that what I do in my life won't matter to me after I'm dead. But it matters to me now, while I'm living it, and that's plenty for me. I don't really understand this desire to find greater meaning in our lives. Isn't it enough to have lived? Isn't it enough to look back, at the moment of death, and feel joy in all we've done and experienced? If there's nothingness after that moment, we won't know anything about it, and we won't care.

This is the crux of what I have been talking about. When one comes to the point of death, one can see that it is NOT 'enough' to have lived (an action already in the past - that's the meaning of the present perfect verb tense - I'm an English grammar teacher). Only one who sees continuation (for whom life is NOT a completed action in that final sense) can logically use the word "enough". Again, it seems to me that people who hold this view really interpose the fact that they do NOT, in fact, at the moment face death and so will continue - and so, being 'satisfied with enough' or 'being grateful for what we have been given' (by whom?) is actually counting on continuation - it is NOT seeing the final end that this philosophy predicates; it is squeezing one's eyes shut to it.

I have not yet been tested. And I fear that test. And so I am training the habit of faith - sometimes poorly, like now, sometimes much more fervently - I turn to God the quickest when things go very wrong - as they did a few weeks ago. But as long as things are going well, we don't need God. We are self-sufficient, and our practical philosophy of life (such as materialist improvement of my life here) works... until it doesn't work. When you get cancer, when your child dies, when the gun is pointed at your head and all of the things of this world are about to become dust and ashes - that, unfortunately, is when we tend to finally come to our senses (and some most unfortunately of all, not even then).

I hope that clears up my meaning a little.

Yes, it does, and this is where we very much disagree. I don't see death, or impending death, as a test. I see it as a natural consequence of life. We live, we die. It isn't about faith, or belief, or hope. It's about nature. It's about our bodies wearing out, just as the bodies of all creatures do, and being absorbed back into that amazing system that brought them into being. From the top of the food chain, back to the bottom. If consciousness is nothing more than neurons firing, death is just an end to consciousness, and I'm not afraid of that. I fall unconscious every night and my body's systems keep running. We call it sleep. One day, I'll fall unconscious permanently, and my body's systems will stop. We call that death. The only difference is in whether or not I wake up.

I feel sad when you talk about fearing that test that I don't think is a test because I don't think anyone should fear the inevitable. But I suppose that's something that comes of having faith, rather than just shrugging your shoulders and waiting to see what happens.

The trouble with ascribing meaning to the here and now and then supposing that it ends with one's death is an elaborate form of trying to have one's cake and eat it, too. Meaning is something that is ultimately NOT transitory. Even a dead language can mean something to anyone who learns it. Meaning is therefore NOT dependent on the existence of perceivers - it is transcendent; it exists even if there is (present simple tense) no one to perceive it. Even my grammatical references convey meaning to anyone who has studied English as a foreign language, and do not depend on me or my consciousness for their meaning. Since meaning is transcendent, then it means something beyong my death.

A second problem - fallacy - is the ascribing of meaning to descendants - "Well, my meaning will go on with my descendants". This puts off the problem while never answering or solving it. The descendants must die, too, and so on to the death of the very last man. The basic problem of Norse theology is that Gotterdamerung is a final end to the story, rendering it meaningless to anyone in the story - it could only have meaning outside the story, and in fact, does. Or put another way, "What is the purpose of hammers?" (Answer:) "To make more hammers." It does not answer meaning or purpose, things which MUST exist, or we could not even speak of the concepts (and couldn't even speak or think at all).

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and
unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call
a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I
comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was
bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to
be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man
feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a
fish would not feel wet.
Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument
against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the
world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my
private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not
exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was
forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full
of sense.
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe
has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just
as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with
eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Mere Christianity