Is Death the End?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Is Death the End?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:01 pm
How many on this forum actually believe when you're dead your dead?
All that is you just disappears and that's all there is for you. No such thing as eternal life. Nothing about you continues. That's it!

Now if this is true, then where in the world could the idea of eternal anything come from? Considering everything that has ever lived, dies? Usually an idea sparks from something that is in our memory that is familiar with it and we add to it creating a new idea.

Ideas spring up from what our senses are telling us. We either see it, smell it, hear it. taste it or touch it. The idea of eternal life escapes all of those senses so where could it have possibly originated? Common sense sorta tells us that but who's to know what a common sense was way back when? It's difficult to identify even now.

Understanding in our scientific research we have proven and determined that matter can neither be created nor can it be destroyed. But this idea of immortality has been around forever as best we know; well before science determine that little tidbit beginning with as Wiki notes "THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH". I am sure there are others as this is a timeless tale that has been duplicated, plagiarized, and told over and over again in some tale or the other. Each and every culture has their own rendition.

If we can't find it's origin, then it must be an innate sense not attached to the other five. We are programmed to believe that! If that is the case then why is it some 'must' deny it? By far in he extreme case most all believe it and why religion as such a hold and do their utmost to capitalize on it to the point of threatening that eternal life if one does not believe all that religion dictates.

But you can't blame religion on that because this notion was around long before we started organizing religious thoughts. Long before.

I am not a man of academic credentials and do not use complicated words to reach only those who can understand those complicated words as many do. Could it be that is what anti-matter is. That which opposes matter or all that matters. Did we in our disbelief create that term? Is there evidence anywhere that anything that would not be matter or matter, exists? Is there such a thing as nothing and what are the consequences of those who believe that unprovable thought of anti-matter? What could be the consequences of trying to find that which does not exist? The anti-social, the anti-thesis, the anti-christ, anti-establishment; the anti-anything. If we are responsible for all that could that mean we could eventually become anti-human matter? It is said he that searches for the Yeti, Sasquatch or Abominable Snowman, becomes one. They will create that they wish to destroy, in themselves? That's suicide, isn't it? I have mentioned before, we don't die, will kill ourselves.

I watch a movie the other night, a remake of THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN. The movie in typical fashion brought up a new technology call "vent mining". I had never heard the term before. Essentially it is going to hell to find an energy source that is plentiful and cheap. Taping deep sea crevasses, lave and such because there is life in that and rare metals also. Hmm? We have abundant and renewable resources on top of the ground that are available to us. Always have had. Does this indicate how so very greedy we are to avail ourselves of something that is so treacherous, we would go to those depths and extremes to get at it to make a buck?

Michael Creighton is kinda of a renegade doctor who has written many books all of which speak of extremes that people will go to profit from those discoveries in medical research. He had nothing to do with this remake, but it is safe to assume he agreed or they could not have used the same name. Or it could be they paid an handsome fee for doing so. Don't know? I would like to think the former.

Now I'll ask again, in light of what I have offered and only ask that you consider it if you do still think that "dead is dead", why is it that you think that?

Thank you for your comments. Oh and by he way please, if you can help it, refrain from the use of backup support to offer your stance unless it is definitive in all cases and I know there are none. I used wiki to note what was said that was thought, as best we can determine, more that 3000 years ago and I will admit now I have no idea of where Gilgamesh came from either. It's all supposition I think in all cases. But it does seem that notion of our being immortal has been around forever........just like us.

Thanks,
William
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:04 pm
@William,
I do believe that this is the only life we have and that death is the end of our existence. The faith in an afterlife is based upon wishful thinking and it's posited by those who refuse to accept the inevitable tragedy that is life.

Ideas don't just spring up from things that we can actually sense. There are innumerable things that humans have imagined but have never sensed. The idea of the eternal is conceived by humans due to their discontent with the temporality of life and time. The idea of an eternal existence that is free of suffering is indeed sparked by our sense of suffering in a temporal world. I, however, choose to accept this world with a warm embrace.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:26 am
@hue-man,
There may be an afterlife; the question can not be answered with absolute certainty and hope springs eternal but I would not count on it. My advice is strongly consider that this may well be your only life (that death is the end of new experience) and plan and live accordingly. Would you live this life differently if you thought there was definitely an afterlife? How and in what way? Carpe Diem.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:22 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;148093 wrote:
I do believe that this is the only life we have and that death is the end of our existence. The faith in an afterlife is based upon wishful thinking and it's posited by those who refuse to accept the inevitable tragedy that is life.


your belief in death as the end of existence is just as valid as those who believe in some sort of afterlife and requires just as much faith.
Remember that to err on the side of caution is still to err.

xris;147911 wrote:
Ideas don't just spring up from things that we can actually sense. There are innumerable things that humans have imagined but have never sensed. The idea of the eternal is conceived by humans due to their discontent with the temporality of life and time. The idea of an eternal existence that is free of suffering is indeed sparked by our sense of suffering in a temporal world. I, however, choose to accept this world with a warm embrace.


I do not think that we conceive of any ideas. We contemplate ideas and formulate thoughts about them, but no single individual has the ability to fully understand an idea let alone conceive of one.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 04:53 am
@William,
The idea of 'eternal life' might be a completely different idea from that of a life after death. Perhaps the eternal life is to awaken to a life beyond time, not a life of endless duration. I know of sages that regard speculation about past or future lives as meaningless. They will say, ask who is entertaining these ideas, what is the nature of him that seeks to know. In any case, whether there is a life beyond of not, whatever form it takes is determined by your actions and intentions in this one. Perhaps that is all we need to know.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 08:56 PM ----------

"Most of us are afraid of dying, because we don't know what it means to live"

Krishnamurti
 
sarek
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:16 am
@William,
Perhaps the biggest fallacy of all is the tendency to link our life to our body. Perhaps our concept of life or existence is simply way too narrow.
I for one have no reason whatsoever that this particular body I am walking around in now has any kind of eternal durability in whatever way.
Simply consider a single cell of our body and imagine it asking if there is life after death. What would be the answer then?
And is there, in the greater scheme of everything that is, even room for such a concept as an individual? And if not, how can we still speak of the death of an individual.
What we perceive as an individual life that WE live and that belongs to US may very easily be the result of our limited perspective.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:24 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148130 wrote:
your belief in death as the end of existence is just as valid as those who believe in some sort of afterlife and requires just as much faith.
Remember that to err on the side of caution is still to err.


Nonsense. What kind of "faith" is required to believe that death fits its own definition? Please define your use of the word faith here? My belief that death is the end of my existence is grounded in the science of biology, the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the psyche of the animal that conceives of an afterlife.

You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 11:34 AM ----------

It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:18 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;148093 wrote:
I do believe that this is the only life we have and that death is the end of our existence. The faith in an afterlife is based upon wishful thinking and it's posited by those who refuse to accept the inevitable tragedy that is life.


Wishful thinking? You have to have something originally to base that thinking on or the thought would have never appeared in the first place. Now you see I never thought of life as a tragedy as a whole and it's impossible for me to do so. My senses have told me the elation of it far beyond my understanding and in that respect I think the tragedies are only temporary. It's not a perfect world yet because we are in it and we are perfect we just don't know how perfect we are..............yet in that we excuse that we deem infallible as fallible. We excuse ourselves by expressing "I didn't mean to" and that is true. We just didn't know any better for takes time to adjust to this sentient life and all it is offering. We're just new to it is all. Just as a child. it takes time for him and his new environment to become acquainted with each other. Part of that environment is US, and we can be that child's worst influence and perhaps we are because we just don't know any better. We tell the child they should know better but they see us breaking our own rules all the time.

Hue-man there is no way I can know or anybody else what YOUR senses have offered you. Only you know that. But the are so many who think different and that is what WE are all about to help those that do think like you and think that life is a tragedy. If that is indeed all you feel it is then that is all your going to sense in it and of it.

People draw to them that they feel most comfortable with even those that have witnessed and treated the worst giving definition to "miser loves company" and that is why I turned off my television set. That is the most negative influence in the world. I have traveled all of my adult life and never ever have I personally experienced any of what it depicts as life. Never! My heartbreak is witnessing and hearing what people think of other people and that is a tragedy. But not all do that. Believe it or not those that don't are those that have a faith in their continuance and that is the one good thing that religion offers. Granted there are those who do go to the extreme and point fingers but by in large they are just a molehill and not the mountain some make them out to be and why one such member here noted in another thread that "religion" was man's greatest regret. If I had my choice, I would far prefer to be with those of faith in their continuance than those who think otherwise if only because they are a happier lot of folks. I find no comfort whatsoever in associating my self with miserable people. I haven't been inside a church except for a handful of time since I was 12 years old. Imagine that.

William
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:24 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148130 wrote:
your belief in death as the end of existence is just as valid as those who believe in some sort of afterlife and requires just as much faith.
Remember that to err on the side of caution is still to err.



I do not think that we conceive of any ideas. We contemplate ideas and formulate thoughts about them, but no single individual has the ability to fully understand an idea let alone conceive of one.
i dont recall making this statement but then who am I?

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 12:30 PM ----------

hue-man;148221 wrote:
Nonsense. What kind of "faith" is required to believe that death fits its own definition? Please define your use of the word faith here? My belief that death is the end of my existence is grounded in the science of biology, the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the psyche of the animal that conceives of an afterlife.

You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 11:34 AM ----------

It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.
what if you based your belief on experience rather than wishful thinking or faith? For the individual who honestly believes that his experience was relevant. Objectively he could be called delusional but subjectively how does he answer the question from a well founded belief.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:32 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;148221 wrote:
Nonsense. What kind of "faith" is required to believe that death fits its own definition? Please define your use of the word faith here?


Actually, I use the same definition of faith as everyone else. However, you may have your own version so I will tell you what the definition of faith is as applied here, A belief for which there is no proof. You have to have faith to believe that death is the end of existence. There is no proof it is. Granted there is no proof it is not and thats why any "belief" on the subject is rooted in faith. Your science of biology does nothing to answer this question since science has only ever demonstrated the effects of thought on the body but not yet the origins of thought.

You have no evidence to support an argument that the "self" is constructed of the body alone. If you think you can find some evidence I would love to read it.

hue-man;148221 wrote:
My belief that death is the end of my existence is grounded in the science of biology, the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the psyche of the animal that conceives of an afterlife.


We have already covered why this is wrong.

hue-man;148221 wrote:
You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.


That's a clever way to completely misrepresent an ideology. Buy once again, you are quite mistaken. I am not agnostic, and I do not have faith in an afterlife. I know the truth of the immortality of the soul just as much as you think you know that you are real.

.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 11:34 AM ----------

hue-man;148221 wrote:
It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.


You certainly have a warped view of reality. Of course so do all atheists, it probably stems from an inattentive father figure.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:55 pm
@xris,
xris;148249 wrote:
what if you based your belief on experience rather than wishful thinking or faith? For the individual who honestly believes that his experience was relevant. Objectively he could be called delusional but subjectively how does he answer the question from a well founded belief.


I base my disbelief in the existence of an afterlife on the science of biology. The science of biology is based on actual experience. Wishing for something and disbelieving in something is not the same thing. I do wish that I could live forever in my apartment, but I know how unrealistic that is so I don't believe that I will live forever in my apartment.

You cannot believe in A and disbelieve in A at the same time. This is precisely why agnosticism is redundant. Either you believe in A or you don't believe in A.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:04 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;148312 wrote:
I base my disbelief in the existence of an afterlife on the science of biology. The science of biology is based on actual experience. Wishing for something and disbelieving in something is not the same thing. I do wish that I could live forever in my apartment, but I know how unrealistic that is so I don't believe that I will live forever in my apartment.

You cannot believe in A and disbelieve in A at the same time. This is precisely why agnosticism is redundant. Either you believe in A or you don't believe in A.
Hue..have you never changed your mind , your views? Is everything that certain? Im an atheist of sorts but I am prepared to change my mind given the evidence.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:19 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148251 wrote:
Actually, I use the same definition of faith as everyone else. However, you may have your own version so I will tell you what the definition of faith is as applied here, A belief for which there is no proof. You have to have faith to believe that death is the end of existence. There is no proof it is. Granted there is no proof it is not and thats why any "belief" on the subject is rooted in faith. Your science of biology does nothing to answer this question since science has only ever demonstrated the effects of thought on the body but not yet the origins of thought.

You have no evidence to support an argument that the "self" is constructed of the body alone. If you think you can find some evidence I would love to read it.


More nonsense. The measure of proof is apparently still up for debate to most people, but saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that the biological decomposition of an organism is the end of the organism's existence is clearly false. What reason is there to believe that an organism's brain survives the decomposition process other than one's discontent with temporal existence? More importantly, you don't need faith or wishful thinking to disbelieve in a proposition for which there is no evidence. Disbelieving in something does not require that you leap. Either you believe in an afterlife or you don't believe in an afterlife. If you're not sure then that means that you don't believe in an afterlife. Agnosticism is a smug cop out for precisely this reason.

trismegisto;148251 wrote:
That's a clever way to completely misrepresent an ideology. Buy once again, you are quite mistaken. I am not agnostic, and I do not have faith in an afterlife. I know the truth of the immortality of the soul just as much as you think you know that you are real.


Well thanks. I thought it was clever as well, but it doesn't misrepresent the ideology and just stating that it does doesn't make it so. Claiming that you know the truth of the immortality of the soul as much as I know that I'm real is OK rhetoric, but it is an empty statement unless you can provide evidence. Stating that something is a fact without having evidence of the fact means that it is not a fact, therefore it would be wise not to state it as if it were a fact. You are now contradicting your previous criteria for the justification of a belief or disbelief.

trismegisto;148251 wrote:
You certainly have a warped view of reality. Of course so do all atheists, it probably stems from an inattentive father figure.


Getting a little testy are we? My father would be very surprised to find out that all this time he's been inattentive. I guess I overestimated your character, because I really didn't expect you to get so personal. I guess that's what you have to do when your arguments are as weak as baby wipes.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 04:23 PM ----------

xris;148314 wrote:
Hue..have you never changed your mind , your views? Is everything that certain? Im an atheist of sorts but I am prepared to change my mind given the evidence.


Xris . . . I am willing to change my mind when the evidence for the existence of the supernatural is provided to me. As long as the arguments for the existence of the supernatural rely on claims of personal experience, anecdotes and hope, I will continue to be skeptical of such claims.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:32 pm
@xris,
I am not trying to offend anyone with my opinion so please do not take it in a hateful way. I do not know if there is life after death in the way that many of you may be thinking. I can only guess that the idea has been made up and for many different reasons but even this I am not sure of.

I am not sure that after we die that we could all turn into easter bunnies but it does not seem to me that we would. Our minds are able to think up all sorts of things, and we are able to believe that some of the things that we think up are true.
I do not believe that illusions or delusions are bias, they do not choose their host intellectual or unintellectual. The mind is a terrible thing to waste so use it and be happy, just do not hurt yourself or others when you do so.Smile
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:38 pm
@hue-man,
Then hue you are no diferent than I, except my delusion is very impressive, impressive enough for me not to discount the possibility. Sorry I cant argue my position, however frustrating it is. I have developed a type of logic to try an answer my quandary, is that also a delusion? The only argument that annoys me, is me being accused of wishful thinking, that is far from my desires, I hope. But then trying to be honest , it does occur to me on occasions but then the experiences reaffirm my reasoning. I'm a born skeptic with an impossible quandary, pity me.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:43 pm
@xris,
xris;148319 wrote:
Then hue you are no diferent than I, except my delusion is very impressive, impressive enough for me not to discount the possibility. Sorry I cant argue my position, however frustrating it is. I have developed a type of logic to try an answer my quandary, is that also a delusion? The only argument that annoys me, is me being accused of wishful thinking, that is far from my desires, I hope. But then trying to be honest , it does occur to me on occasions but then the experiences reaffirm my reasoning. I'm a born skeptic with an impossible quandary, pity me.


You're akin to me on this subject, but I'm more affirmative. I will not, however, pity your disposition. Pity will only further weaken an already weary spirit.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:39 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;148320 wrote:
You're akin to me on this subject, but I'm more affirmative. I will not, however, pity your disposition. Pity will only further weaken an already weary spirit.
Well at least understand that my position is not one choice but of circumstance. I so often find that understanding others views is so often tainted with a lack of academic compassion. I hear others experiences and to be honest I find them hard to believe at times but by my experience I do have pity for them or should I say compassion without contempt. It colours their views blurs their logic, they are impossible to ignore, certain experiences.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:37 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148251 wrote:
You have no evidence to support an argument that the "self" is constructed of the body alone. If you think you can find some evidence I would love to read it.


The Buddha had some interesting things to say on this topic. He taught that what made up the person is nothing more than five aggregates. All of these aggregates seem to be closely connected to the body. The first is form, which is obviously connected to the body. The next is feeling, then perception then intention and last consciousness. I can't see any of these working without the body. Yet at the same time he says that these five things are what make a person, but there is no substantial self in any of these.

trismegisto;148251 wrote:

You certainly have a warped view of reality. Of course so do all atheists, it probably stems from an inattentive father figure.


I like how theists like to come up with completely asinine arguments for why someone would believe something. I am an atheist yet I have a very close relationship with my father. So are you saying that I am an exception to your argument, or how about a more realistic explanation. That your argument is completely without basis?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:21 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;148315 wrote:
More nonsense. The measure of proof is apparently still up for debate to most people, but saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that the biological decomposition of an organism is the end of the organism's existence is clearly false. What reason is there to believe that an organism's brain survives the decomposition process other than one's discontent with temporal existence? More importantly, you don't need faith or wishful thinking to disbelieve in a proposition for which there is no evidence. Disbelieving in something does not require that you leap. Either you believe in an afterlife or you don't believe in an afterlife. If you're not sure then that means that you don't believe in an afterlife. Agnosticism is a smug cop out for precisely this reason.


Well, I mean if that is what you CHOOSE to believe thats fine but you are clearly wrong. Since science cannot prove the location of thought within the brain only the areas that are affected by thought, it is simply not science to believe that the brain is the origin of thought. But like I said, if you want to have FAITH that science will someday find the origin of thought in the body, thats entirely up to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.



hue-man;148315 wrote:
Well thanks. I thought it was clever as well, but it doesn't misrepresent the ideology and just stating that it does doesn't make it so. Claiming that you know the truth of the immortality of the soul as much as I know that I'm real is OK rhetoric, but it is an empty statement unless you can provide evidence. Stating that something is a fact without having evidence of the fact means that it is not a fact, therefore it would be wise not to state it as if it were a fact. You are now contradicting your previous criteria for the justification of a belief or disbelief.


Facts don't cease to be facts simply because you choose not to believe the fact, thats on you. And if thats how you wish to work, fine.

You main problem, at least the obvious one, is that you still think that science is going to answer all your questions. If you want to discuss topics of the body, science is great, but if you wish to discuss topics of the soul you will find little answers in your faith in science.



hue-man;148315 wrote:
Getting a little testy are we? My father would be very surprised to find out that all this time he's been inattentive. I guess I overestimated your character, because I really didn't expect you to get so personal. I guess that's what you have to do when your arguments are as weak as baby wipes.


Thats weird, that's what I was supposed to write here. Maybe you are telepathic or just self loathing. Anyways, when you come up with a real point let me know.

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 02:29 PM ----------

Krumple;148511 wrote:
The Buddha had some interesting things to say on this topic. He taught that what made up the person is nothing more than five aggregates. All of these aggregates seem to be closely connected to the body. The first is form, which is obviously connected to the body. The next is feeling, then perception then intention and last consciousness. I can't see any of these working without the body. Yet at the same time he says that these five things are what make a person, but there is no substantial self in any of these.


These are the ways in which we interact with the universe through the body. The Buddha was attempting to cleanse the self of the body so that the self would be freed from suffering. Suffering, being the body.



Krumple;148511 wrote:
I like how theists like to come up with completely asinine arguments for why someone would believe something. I am an atheist yet I have a very close relationship with my father. So are you saying that I am an exception to your argument, or how about a more realistic explanation. That your argument is completely without basis?


I am sorry that my joke was above your ability, it was an allusion to his lacking of a relationship with god. However, it was not intended for you so your offense is of your own doing.
 
BennySquire
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 09:31 am
@trismegisto,
Quote:
Originally Posted by hue-man http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
More nonsense. The measure of proof is apparently still up for debate to most people, but saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that the biological decomposition of an organism is the end of the organism's existence is clearly false. What reason is there to believe that an organism's brain survives the decomposition process other than one's discontent with temporal existence? More importantly, you don't need faith or wishful thinking to disbelieve in a proposition for which there is no evidence. Disbelieving in something does not require that you leap. Either you believe in an afterlife or you don't believe in an afterlife. If you're not sure then that means that you don't believe in an afterlife. Agnosticism is a smug cop out for precisely this reason.

Quote:

Well, I mean if that is what you CHOOSE to believe thats fine but you are clearly wrong. Since science cannot prove the location of thought within the brain only the areas that are affected by thought, it is simply not science to believe that the brain is the origin of thought. But like I said, if you want to have FAITH that science will someday find the origin of thought in the body, thats entirely up to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.



Do you consider what 'thought' is? A thought is always thought in a language, right? You think 'in' a language - if a human was never taught a language, isolated from all others, when would they begin thinking - as soon as they gain the ability to do so (which brings another question, can babies think?) or when they begin to make up their own language?

Also, @hue-man, just out of interest how do you spend your time on this good earth? If death is the end, what are your priorities?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Is Death the End?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/11/2019 at 03:51:32