Kevin's Watch

Ok, I just watched the video. Yes, he needs to stop making that noise with his mouth.

But he has a good point. There are good people with whom we disagree vehemently. I respect you all (well, most of you ) and think that we have more in common than we have in opposition. Being good is (often) more important than being right. Well, unless your good intentions leads to lots of suffering. Then you're just a berk (to borrow a term from WF).

wayfriend wrote:

SoulBiter wrote:

wayfriend wrote: Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).

It's that POV thing again.

Exactly! It is the POV thing again. I dont think you have taken to heart what you were supposedly taught. Maybe you should get a refresher. It appears as though you are saying that any attempt at speaking of religion to you in any form is rude and arrogant. If that is the case then you have quite a chip on your shoulder along with not being able to see the POV of the person who trys to plant the seed, no matter how innocuous and simple.

I don't think the phrase "often enough" implies "any attempt, in any form" to anyone. So all this chip talk is off the mark as well as too much about me.

Cybrweez wrote:That's true. And the same may be applied by the alcoholic, or drug addict, to the person that tries to tell them they are hurting themselves and others. So, should that person stop?

Hang on. I don't think I said anything that sounded like any effort to help another any time, any where is a bad thing. (But I can see how you'd think that I did if you read what Soulbiter says I'm saying instead of what I'm saying.)

I don't think intervening with someone with a dangerous drug addiction is necessarilly wrong. (Allthough I think anyone could show examples where it would be out of line.) And yet, I think that intervening with someone because you think they have the wrong religious beliefs is usually wrong.

Those two things are so substantially different as to reasonably allow a different response. I don't feel nailed.

So tell me this. Can any person of religious conviction attempt to tell you that it would be good for your soul to pay attention to God (any diety)? Regardless of how subtle or polite?

Rawedge Rim wrote:So tell me this. Can any person of religious conviction attempt to tell you that it would be good for your soul to pay attention to God (any diety)? Regardless of how subtle or polite?

Of course they can attempt that. Heck, they can successfully tell me that. Basically, it's anybody's right to try to tell me anything they want to. It's just that it's my right to reject what they're saying, and ask them to stop trying. And I do so politely. Some people do so rudely, but I see no need for that. Either way, though, the person knows that the intervention is unwelcome.

Generally, I have found, the best response to *any* unsolicited piece of advice is just to smile and nod.

Altho whimsically changing the subject also works. Hey, y'know that Bugs Bunny episode where the guy has a flea circus? I wonder if there really *is* such a thing...

I think people are mainly put off by those that are trying to convince them that they are right right then and there. And people get put off when being hammered with someone elses POV that they dont agree with. I think the guy who approached Penn with the bible did the right thing and we could all learn from it. Plant a seed and walk away. You cant force the plant to come up and produce fruit right then and there and most likely if you over-tend it, the plant dies.

I thought the idea is that it would make sense for a religious person to tell others of what they believe is a serious problem. No one's saying you have to listen and respond in any way. So when Fist says he has the right to reject intervention, of course! I don't see anyone claiming otherwise. The thread was steered into a straw man direction.

So, in the case of an addict, from his POV, "you're being a arrogant, rude, insufferable busybody who has no authority to dictate someone elses way of life". I don't think anyone's claiming he has no right to that POV. However, Penn's point, you must hate that addict if you don't intervene. Taking the addict's POV into my POV, I would approach w/tact, but I wouldn't quit b/c he may find me rude.

Malik23 wrote:

wayfriend wrote:

How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believe that there is a truck bearing down on you, and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point at which I tackle you. And this is more important than that.

Suppose I had a vision that said God will destroy the earth next week unless everyone I see gives me five bucks.

Do I hate everyone if I don't accost them for money screaming that their life depends on it?

Very good.

I'm hard pressed to try to top it. Oh well, here it goes: suppose I had a vision that the Flying Spaghetti monster were real, and would save us all? How much do I have to hate everyone not to try to convert them to this belief?

Just because someone is trying to "save" me doesn't mean they are automatically sane or should be heeded. Maybe they are hallucinating a truck bearing down on me. How grateful am I supposed to be that they keep tackling me every time I turn around just because they imagine there are trucks bearing down on me everywhere? At some point, I'm going to have to whack them in the head to get them to stop, or I'll spend my life being tackled "for my own good."

How much do I have to hate someone who sees imaginary Mack trucks everywhere not to get them into a mental institution before they hurt themselves and everyone else around them?

[I didn't watch the video. I hope this is appropriate.]

I think that's overall sensible, Malik. However, you're basically describing people/situations that are incompatible with reason.
The obvious question is, are they rational overall? Do you find that when you examine them that they are just fruitcakes or that they have a rational basis which you just happen to disagree with?
It's easy to present extreme cases and defeat straw men. But if someone has a case that is pretty tight, and for you it falls apart at some point because you happen to disagree with a POV that can't be proved one way or the other, then I'd say that even if you disagree, they ought to be taken seriously. You just need to make sure that you really are right at the point where you disagree - part ways - with them.

Fist and Faith wrote:Yeah, there's two issues here, rus.

1) Is the religion in question a proposition of truth?
Obviously, there are many people, yourself included, who believe their religion is, and all others are not.

2) Even if it is a proposition of truth - even if I have reason to believe that religion is true, though I don't know much about it - am I "justified in rejecting intervention"?
Yes, I am. Nobody's beliefs have the right to tell me I am not. Only I can allow them to tell me I am not.

Hi Fist.
Your number 1) does not represent what I am saying here. I'm talking about all propositions of truth, including ones that I disagree with.

On #2) - You are speaking about beliefs here as fundamentally POV, and not at all as propositions of truth, to be accepted or denied. If their proposition is that there is an authority greater than our (space bar) selves, then that proposition should be examined. If true, then your assertion of "only you" turns out to be wrong. This is a very hard saying for people who hold the individual as the supreme authority, but the question is whether it's true (on an absolute level - for everyone, regardless of their opinions) or not.

I believe that there is a huge difference in approaching someone and saying something along the lines of "God Loves you and would like to see you back in the fold" vrs. "If you don't convert heathen, then you're going to hell you godless bastich".

The first is polite (I hope) and leaves the decision to you. The second is a demand and a denounciation, and is certainly impolite.

Frankly, having read the Bible several times, I see no place where it states that Believers must convert by the sword. It states that you preach the Word, and live your life in a way that makes others want to emulate your life.

Whether or not there is a supreme deity or not is immaterial to belief.

Rawedge Rim wrote:So tell me this. Can any person of religious conviction attempt to tell you that it would be good for your soul to pay attention to God (any diety)? Regardless of how subtle or polite?

Can they? Sure. Will the recipient think them rude, etc? Probably.

Here's another thought experiment.

What if there are two diametrically opposed religions? And a person of one faith is trying to "not hate" the person of the other, while the person of the other is trying to "not hate" the first person.

Whoa. Could be messy. Can they both be right? And if they both proceed to convert the other, is there a matter-antimatter explosion?

I think that this proves very well that the "not hate" argument leads to self-contradiction.

I'm pretty sure that we had a lot of wars, butchery, misery, and pain in this world until many of us came to believe that we don't have to convert the non-believers.

Cybrweez wrote:I thought the idea is that it would make sense for a religious person to tell others of what they believe is a serious problem. No one's saying you have to listen and respond in any way. So when Fist says he has the right to reject intervention, of course! I don't see anyone claiming otherwise. The thread was steered into a straw man direction.

So, in the case of an addict, from his POV, "you're being a arrogant, rude, insufferable busybody who has no authority to dictate someone elses way of life". I don't think anyone's claiming he has no right to that POV. However, Penn's point, you must hate that addict if you don't intervene. Taking the addict's POV into my POV, I would approach w/tact, but I wouldn't quit b/c he may find me rude.

I was responding to this:

rusmeister wrote:If I could just offer a thought, wayfriend, that is very POV. If the religion is a proposition of truth, rather than merely a matter of opinion, then you must address the question of whether it is true or not. Obviously (it seems), your prepared answer is "not". But if they are right and you are wrong then it follows that they could be right to intervene. As long as you refuse to address the religion as a proposition of truth you will not be able to deny that. It is only if you engage with the religion and conclusively determine that it is not the truth that you could be justified in rejecting intervention.
(I could have misread your position. But that's how I see it now.)

In the sentence I made red, rus says I do not have the right (am not justified) to reject intervention, unless I go about it in a certain way. My point is that I am justified in rejecting intervention any time I want to. There are no circumstances under which I am not justified in doing so, because I am the one who decides what I will and will not listen to. Doesn't matter if the person is polite, rude, or anything else. They can be talking about God, music, or ice cream, and I am justified to say, "I don't want to have this conversation." I don't have to justify not wanting to have the conversation. It can be a whim of the moment, or a deep-rooted feeling. I don't have to go through any sort of process. I am justified in exposing myself to whatever ideas I want to, and in not exposing myself to whatever ideas I don't want to.


rus,
I believe the things I've said in the many threads we've interacted in form a proposition of truth; you believe it's all just my POV. You believe your faith is a proposition of truth; I believe it is just your POV. If there is any way of demonstrating whether or not either of us, or any other POV, is true (on an absolute level - for everyone, regardless of their opinions) neither of us knows it. And nobody else I've ever read or interacted with knows it. That's why we are still on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Rus, my point was that I don't necessarily have to view something which I think is a mythological fear as an act of kindness or love. I think it is arrogance, not love, which brings people to my door on Saturday mornings to "spread the word." They think they are so right, that they feel they can't rest until they convince every stranger living in their neighborhood of their beliefs. I think if atheists went door-to-door trying to change people's minds, it would be viewed very differently, and Christians wouldn't be grateful for this act of "kindness." Just look how people got upset about a sign on a bus.

Basically, I thought that it was a bad analogy to compare trucks bearing down on me to unverifiable beliefs about the afterlife. Penn may be an atheist, but he's not too bright.

If God knows how much I hate it when his followers wake me up on Saturday mornings by knocking on my door to invade my personal space with the purpose of trying to change my deeply personal views, and that this is the worst possible way to ever convince me of anything, then why would he tell his followers to do this?

If he's not telling his followers to do this extremely irritating invasion of my privacy, and yet they think that he is, that is irrational, arrogant, and "delusional" (I'm trying to come up with a less offensive word, but I honestly can't think of a way to describe this mythological fear). Since I can't believe God would be so stupid as to try to save me in a way that only enrages me and pushes me further away from his religion, I have to go with the option B: irrational, delusional arrogance. In this case, I think it's a safe bet to assume these people don't see a "truck."

Malik23 wrote:Rus, my point was that I don't necessarily have to view something which I think is a mythological fear as an act of kindness or love. I think it is arrogance, not love, which brings people to my door on Saturday mornings to "spread the word." They think they are so right, that they feel they can't rest until they convince every stranger living in their neighborhood of their beliefs. I think if atheists went door-to-door trying to change people's minds, it would be viewed very differently, and Christians wouldn't be grateful for this act of "kindness." Just look how people got upset about a sign on a bus.

Basically, I thought that it was a bad analogy to compare trucks bearing down on me to unverifiable beliefs about the afterlife. Penn may be an atheist, but he's not too bright.

If God knows how much I hate it when his followers wake me up on Saturday mornings by knocking on my door to invade my personal space with the purpose of trying to change my deeply personal views, and that this is the worst possible way to ever convince me of anything, then why would he tell his followers to do this?

If he's not telling his followers to do this extremely irritating invasion of my privacy, and yet they think that he is, that is irrational, arrogant, and "delusional" (I'm trying to come up with a less offensive word, but I honestly can't think of a way to describe this mythological fear). Since I can't believe God would be so stupid as to try to save me in a way that only enrages me and pushes me further away from his religion, I have to go with the option B: irrational, delusional arrogance. In this case, I think it's a safe bet to assume these people don't see a "truck."

To me the invasion of your personal space is a separate issue (and a valid complaint) from the content and validity of their beliefs. Although I personally think it is a clue that something is wrong with their beliefs, the question of those beliefs as a proposition of truth still stands separately, and you're back to the question of whether they seem rational in every other measurable way. If they are, then there is a possibility (however small it may seem to you) that their beliefs are rational as well.
Of course, the invasion of personal space is wrong, and for me it is sheer contrast between the proselytizing Baptist faith I grew up with and the Orthodoxy that limits itself to "Come and see!". Put a more Biblical way, such Christians forget that the eunuch sought out Philip, not the other way around, etc etc. If people have no desire and just wish to be left alone, there's not much you can do for them. First the desire (to seek God) must be awoken, and as you correctly point out, it ain't gonna happen with Saturday morning knockings at your door.

FWIW, I was in the subway (in Moscow) this last week and a young man (American) heard me talking to my daughter (I was taking her on a trip to the mega-cool Tretyakov Gallery en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretyakov_Gallery *) and approached and asked if I was American. He was wearing a name tag in Russian that told me he was a Mormon. Very pleasant, but as soon as he heard that I was a regular church-going Orthodox Christian, he jumped out at the next stop.



*If you love classic art, you definitely want to check out the masterpieces you can link to and view. Just scroll down to the external links.

rusmeister wrote: To me the invasion of your personal space is a separate issue (and a valid complaint) from the content and validity of their beliefs. Although I personally think it is a clue that something is wrong with their beliefs, the question of those beliefs as a proposition of truth still stands separately, and you're back to the question of whether they seem rational in every other measurable way. If they are, then there is a possibility (however small it may seem to you) that their beliefs are rational as well.

Of course, the invasion of personal space is wrong, and for me it is sheer contrast between the proselytizing Baptist faith I grew up with and the Orthodoxy that limits itself to "Come and see!". Put a more Biblical way, such Christians forget that the eunuch sought out Philip, not the other way around, etc etc. If people have no desire and just wish to be left alone, there's not much you can do for them. First the desire (to seek God) must be awoken, and as you correctly point out, it ain't gonna happen with Saturday morning knockings at your door.

FWIW, I was in the subway (in Moscow) this last week and a young man (American) heard me talking to my daughter (I was taking her on a trip to the mega-cool Tretyakov Gallery en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretyakov_Gallery *) and approached and asked if I was American. He was wearing a name tag in Russian that told me he was a Mormon. Very pleasant, but as soon as he heard that I was a regular church-going Orthodox Christian, he jumped out at the next stop.



*If you love classic art, you definitely want to check out the masterpieces you can link to and view. Just scroll down to the external links.

Wow, that was fast!

I was going to go back and edit my post, trying to find a way to take out "delusional." It sounds so harsh, and I don't think it's accurate because delusions are actually signs of mental illness, and I don't mean that.

I see what you mean about "are they rational in other areas of their lives." Honestly, I don't know. But even if they weren't, that wouldn't prove anything. Sometimes I'm irrational. And even if they were perfectly rational all the time, that wouldn't prove anything, either.

I think you're missing my point, and I'm not making it any better by including other stuff beyond my point. My point is the second paragraph you quoted: Basically, I thought that it was a bad analogy to compare trucks bearing down on me to unverifiable beliefs about the afterlife. Penn may be an atheist, but he's not too bright.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:I thought the idea is that it would make sense for a religious person to tell others of what they believe is a serious problem. No one's saying you have to listen and respond in any way. So when Fist says he has the right to reject intervention, of course! I don't see anyone claiming otherwise. The thread was steered into a straw man direction.

So, in the case of an addict, from his POV, "you're being a arrogant, rude, insufferable busybody who has no authority to dictate someone elses way of life". I don't think anyone's claiming he has no right to that POV. However, Penn's point, you must hate that addict if you don't intervene. Taking the addict's POV into my POV, I would approach w/tact, but I wouldn't quit b/c he may find me rude.

I was responding to this:

rusmeister wrote:If I could just offer a thought, wayfriend, that is very POV. If the religion is a proposition of truth, rather than merely a matter of opinion, then you must address the question of whether it is true or not. Obviously (it seems), your prepared answer is "not". But if they are right and you are wrong then it follows that they could be right to intervene. As long as you refuse to address the religion as a proposition of truth you will not be able to deny that. It is only if you engage with the religion and conclusively determine that it is not the truth that you could be justified in rejecting intervention.
(I could have misread your position. But that's how I see it now.)

In the sentence I made red, rus says I do not have the right (am not justified) to reject intervention, unless I go about it in a certain way. My point is that I am justified in rejecting intervention any time I want to. There are no circumstances under which I am not justified in doing so, because I am the one who decides what I will and will not listen to. Doesn't matter if the person is polite, rude, or anything else. They can be talking about God, music, or ice cream, and I am justified to say, "I don't want to have this conversation." I don't have to justify not wanting to have the conversation. It can be a whim of the moment, or a deep-rooted feeling. I don't have to go through any sort of process. I am justified in exposing myself to whatever ideas I want to, and in not exposing myself to whatever ideas I don't want to.


rus,
I believe the things I've said in the many threads we've interacted in form a proposition of truth; you believe it's all just my POV. You believe your faith is a proposition of truth; I believe it is just your POV. If there is any way of demonstrating whether or not either of us, or any other POV, is true (on an absolute level - for everyone, regardless of their opinions) neither of us knows it. And nobody else I've ever read or interacted with knows it. That's why we are still on opposite ends of the spectrum.

There seems to be confusion here between having a right to reject intervention (which I support) and being justified in doing so (my actual words). Put another way, to have a right to do a thing does not mean to be right in doing it.

And no, there is no way of empirically demonstrating (an event you would wait for in vain) faith. It is a choice which you are free to make, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
The central problem is not the evidence. It is how it is interpreted. But my POV says that you have free will, and are free to reject faith and live for yourself until death claims you, and that God-given right to reject Him cannot be taken away.

LATE EDIT: I'd like to correct you in that I have, in general, taken your claims as propositions of truth - which I disagree with. I do not accept mere "POV", or as the false analogy of the blind men and the elephant ignores the possibility that someone could perceive the entire elephant. (It's an important difference - the general assumption behind POV is that there is not absolute truth.)

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote: To me the invasion of your personal space is a separate issue (and a valid complaint) from the content and validity of their beliefs. Although I personally think it is a clue that something is wrong with their beliefs, the question of those beliefs as a proposition of truth still stands separately, and you're back to the question of whether they seem rational in every other measurable way. If they are, then there is a possibility (however small it may seem to you) that their beliefs are rational as well.

Of course, the invasion of personal space is wrong, and for me it is sheer contrast between the proselytizing Baptist faith I grew up with and the Orthodoxy that limits itself to "Come and see!". Put a more Biblical way, such Christians forget that the eunuch sought out Philip, not the other way around, etc etc. If people have no desire and just wish to be left alone, there's not much you can do for them. First the desire (to seek God) must be awoken, and as you correctly point out, it ain't gonna happen with Saturday morning knockings at your door.

FWIW, I was in the subway (in Moscow) this last week and a young man (American) heard me talking to my daughter (I was taking her on a trip to the mega-cool Tretyakov Gallery en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretyakov_Gallery *) and approached and asked if I was American. He was wearing a name tag in Russian that told me he was a Mormon. Very pleasant, but as soon as he heard that I was a regular church-going Orthodox Christian, he jumped out at the next stop.



*If you love classic art, you definitely want to check out the masterpieces you can link to and view. Just scroll down to the external links.

Wow, that was fast!

I was going to go back and edit my post, trying to find a way to take out "delusional." It sounds so harsh, and I don't think it's accurate because delusions are actually signs of mental illness, and I don't mean that.

I see what you mean about "are they rational in other areas of their lives." Honestly, I don't know. But even if they weren't, that wouldn't prove anything. Sometimes I'm irrational. And even if they were perfectly rational all the time, that wouldn't prove anything, either.

I think you're missing my point, and I'm not making it any better by including other stuff beyond my point. My point is the second paragraph you quoted: Basically, I thought that it was a bad analogy to compare trucks bearing down on me to unverifiable beliefs about the afterlife. Penn may be an atheist, but he's not too bright.

The truck quote was posted by Soulbiter.
My quote was from Puddleglum - which, for me, is still the final answer to the atheist view that says this world is all there is. (I suppose I could go into acknowledgements of what is good and beautiful here, and that life IS sacred, but the response is to the final end of all that is good, specifically, our mortality.)

rusmeister wrote:I still think that the best response to an atheist's views comes from Puddleglum, in Lewis's "The Silver Chair":

"One word, Ma'am. One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Rus... You've posted this quote several times, and each time I think to respond but haven't.

I'm sure we're looking at this from two different sides... what I'm reading is basically, We've imagined a better place, and even if it's not real, it is better than this, so we'll keep believing that what we imagined is real...even if it's not real.

I know that's over simplified...but ,if you would expound on it, I'd read and listen.

In general to this thread, if someone is telling me they are saving me from an onrushing truck, I expect to see a truck flying by as we lay on the roadside.

Don't give me nebulous images of what is or is not there...proof is expected in important life situations.

To believe you're saying my immortal soul is in danger requires of me a bit more than your opinion.

Dromond wrote:In general to this thread, if someone is telling me they are saving me from an onrushing truck, I expect to see a truck flying by as we lay on the roadside.

Don't give me nebulous images of what is or is not there...proof is expected in important life situations.

To believe you're saying my immortal soul is in danger requires of me a bit more than your opinion.

The truck analogy isnt as apt as a reality because you cant tackle someone and 'save' them. But as with the truck you also dont stand there and do nothing. That something could be something simple like asking someone to come to church... or maybe a Christian rock concert, or maybe just giving thanks over a meal in public and living your life as a window of what Christianity is about. Perhpas its giving them a pocket Bible and then walking away.

I think too many people have been tackled and have become gun-shy around Christians because of that. Not every Christian will beat you over the head or try to hold you under the water until you repent.

Dromond wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I still think that the best response to an atheist's views comes from Puddleglum, in Lewis's "The Silver Chair":

"One word, Ma'am. One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Rus... You've posted this quote several times, and each time I think to respond but haven't.

I'm sure we're looking at this from two different sides... what I'm reading is basically, We've imagined a better place, and even if it's not real, it is better than this, so we'll keep believing that what we imagined is real...even if it's not real.

I know that's over simplified...but ,if you would expound on it, I'd read and listen.

Thanks, Dromond.
I think that a reply will only be useful if it is understood that the prime consideration is that life ends. That when it is over there is no more appreciation, or value. All arguments in that direction always transfer the appreciation and value to another person. By necessity - but that's the whole point. No matter how pleasant you hold your life to be at this point in time, it must come to an end. And most likely you will have to experience the death of loved ones who will precede you. (As long as they are grandparents, it may be perceived to be natural, no big deal, but when it is contemporaries and, God forbid, children, the point becomes clear.) The most significant fact of all that was good is that it is over. That it WAS, and not IS. The reasons for why I should be good, why I should love and be more selfless in the first place also become considerably vaguer and harder to defend.

If this is really how it is, then it is black indeed. So the point is that if what you espouse is real, then it is so unsatisfying, the end is so black - when we have divested it of the colors of life, which, uh, ends - that yes, it IS preferable. I prefer a world where there is a reason for my existence, there is a reason to be good and choose selflessness that is external, that assures me that my objection to death is right and proper, and is not entirely dependent upon my imagination. That it is NOT merely imagination is another kettle of fish.