»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What if..
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What if.. |
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois 
|
There wasn't a life after death. No reincarnation. Or anything of the sort. No spirit world or bigger being hidden behind pearly gates. No fiery realm where we're bound to suffer as a consequence to our actions. What if science was wrong? And the world didn't blow up at the end of time. What if? |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Zach Booker-Scott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
There's no evidence that there is anything like reincarnation or life of any sort after death. And science doesn't say that the world will blow up at the end of time, or at any other time if it comes to that. So it's more like "What is" than "What if" . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: What about when someone eats something? Doesn't part of what he eats become part of his living body and thereby achieve life after death and reincarnation in a new body? |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
"Doesn't part of what he eats become part of his living body and thereby achieve life after death and reincarnation in a new body?" True. That's basic food pyramid right there. But I think of what people mean in "reincarnation" is that your soul is in a different body, if I'm not mistaken. So your half right I suppose.  |
||
Alison
since 2008-01-27
Posts 9318Lumpy oatmeal makes me crazy! |
Zach, I'm not much into the philosophy of it all - I wonder about "What is" All I know is I am going to make the most of the time I have now. Who knows what comes next - I believe in the present. Alison |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Only if you accept that you are what you eat. Life certainly can continue after death, there's simply no conclusive evidence that it continues for the entity that dies. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Zach, Probably the most logically consistent of philosophers who ever attempted to answer your question with some seriousness, was Freidrich Nietzsche. Though he did not often address the question of life after death directly, he addressed the question of God, which is organically related. His response was coined by later thinkers as "nihilism" because he frankly said that when God isn't God, then dying finite man is. The result, for him, was that things taken for granted like purpose, value, and morality, are seen-through for completely artificial and arbitrary ... and would thus erode with time. He himself attempted to escape common notions of morality by suggesting that it is best to create one's own morality, one that must be buttressed by sheer strength, not by any presumed universal obligations. He referred to this notion as "Will to Power". He is just one of many thinkers who explored the modernistic assertion that there is no God, no divine, no here-after ... that life is essentially meaningless as far as objective reality goes ... and that meaning, therefore, must be created, rather than discovered. Existentialism is the name of this philosophical tendency. I personally find value in the philosophy, since they've tended to take the question seriously. They are useful in describing what must be come to terms with, if life without Faith-in-God is chosen. Its more than slightly interesting that their descriptions of eternal orphanhood, sound a lot like the biblical descriptions of Hell. (Jean-Paul Sarte's "No Exit" and "Nausea" are good examples- or some of Franz Kafka's descriptions) So to me the big issues are human purpose beyond the transient-subjective, morality itself, and hope. To ask "what if...", is to ask "what becomes of these"? Evidence is a whole different question. Someone like Grinch, being an atheist or hard-agnostic, will say that there is none, or has been none. Of course, interpreting evidence often depends upon one's assumptions already held. There is much that I would call persuasive evidence, which he would call "twaddle". But as for me, someone who (according to their own a-theology) is merely a product of an irrational nature with no free-will whatsoever, claiming that they have sufficient reason to think they can tell the difference between twaddle and truth (or that there even really is such a distinction beyond cortex kaleidoscoping), is utter poppycock. I would recommend Christianity, as that which holds the truest answers to these questions (though certainly not easy answers). But wherever it leads for you Zach, I commend you for bringing up an important question that's worth exploring further. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Soren Kierkegaard. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Dear Stephanos (sp?), Freidrich Nietzsche sounds like a realistic thinker to me. Somehow like I am. Ahh Christianity. Well that's the reason for me posting the topic. I don't really know what to believe in and if I want to in the first place. To follow blindly seems foolish to me. (I only say 'fallow blindly' because there is no proof besides a book and human belief that says it does.) Maybe I'm agnostic? I don't know. I might find a religion later in life but until then, I'll be on my own. Thanks for your thoughts. -Zach |
||
|
GBride Senior Member
since 2009-07-02
Posts 538 |
Zach We don't have to wait to the end of time. A comet will hit us before then. One large enough to destroy all life. We are overdue now. Living on barrowed time. I think that Dostievsky was correct, "If there is no God all is permitted." Many will saw no because there is a humanistic morality. But a humanist philosophy is just whatever you want it to be. Stalin and Hitler had their humanistic philosophy. Each thought of himself as a good man. In short, if there was no God. We would turn into violent thugs, murdering each other. Look back to the Roman Empire. Their only belief was in the state. Otherwise each person did as he pleased. b |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear G. McBride, I don't think you have your history of the Roman Empire down, sorry to say, and certainly not your theology. There is a Roman Pantheon. Not only did it include latinized versions of the Greek Pantheon, but as Rome conquered territory they tended to include the Gods of the new conquests into the traditional set. They ran into considerable problems with the Jews, who had that pesky first commandment, but generally their practice worked fairly well. Some of the Romans were actually fairly superstitious, and paid a lot of attention to auguries — readings by priests of various traditions of entrails of various animal sacrifices. As for only paying attention to the state and otherwise doing what they pleased, Law was a function of the State then as well. It too was flawed, of course, but I think it's saying a lot to say the equivalent of, as long as you obey the law, you can do what you want. You might have noticed that people tend to have trouble with doing that much, with obeying the law. A lot of doing what they please will get them in trouble with the law, for example cheerfully expressing yourself by killing somebody doesn't require the hand of God to restrain you. Law in practice generally is enough for believer and unbeliever both, right? And that's discounting the fact the the Empire as a whole converted to Christianity with the Emperor Constantine. Whey you quote Dostoyevsky, it's important to take the quotes in context. It's like quoting Shakespeare. Nobody knows what Shakespeare himself thought, all the talking was done by characters representing different points of view in the plays. People like to quote, "First kill all the lawyers" from, I believe Henry VIII, as though Shakespeare had that as his personal opinion. They forget to mention that he puts the lines into the mouth of Watt Tyler, whom Shakespeare thought was a dangerous idiot. So, where did Dostoyevsky find space for your quotation, and what was the context? Who was doing the talking or thinking, and which? other Characters was Dostoyevsky playing them off against? As for your definition of a humanistic morality, I would suggest to you that you may have something of an idea of religious philosophy and morality. I would suggest to you as well that your understanding of eastern religion and philosophy stops very short. Confucian philosophy, Taoist philosophy and Buddhist philosophy do not require the presence of a God in them. All three have very powerful ethical and moral stances. Would you call them humanistic? By your definition, they certainly could qualify, as could Catholicism and charismatic Christianity. As you've said, ". . . a humanist philosophy is just whatever you want it to be." As for Hitler and Stalin having "Humanistic Philosophy," if in fact you're going to create a definition that actually distinguishes it from such things as are not "Humanistic Philosophy," you'd probably have to exclude them both. Being, both of them, totalitarian in nature, they were more interested in the State and in economics rather than in what is human and personal. Their model was economic man and man as an organ of the state. The model of the humanists is more frequently that of Psychological Man or of Man as Person. I would ask you to consider at least the possibility that Humanistic philosophy is perhaps as far away from Totalitarian philosophy as you can get. The panic about living on borrowed time seems to be essentially a waste of time. This is time we need to plan and act to change those outcomes we can change, and to live as compassionately and as fully as we can. Time spent in panic is time you steal from that. If your time is religiously informed, I wish you all the good in the world. We need compassion and love wherever we can create it or find it or share it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Falling Rain: quote: Do you agree with Nietzche in regard to morality and human meaning, then? Bob: quote: Bob, I'm aware that you don't like people throwing quotes around too easily. I share that sentiment, though we've probably all done it. However, to be fair, I have to insist that Dostoevsky is not as ambiguous as Shakespeare. Yes, it's true that we have atheistic arguments and Theistic arguments vying and jostling around in his stories, in the mouths and minds of different characters. (Dostoevsky seems to have been anything but a 'blind-faith' kind of believer, and so liked to pit his faithful arguments against 'the other side of things') The above quoted was from Ivan Karamazov the compassionate atheist tormented with theodicy. However, we know of the author's officially Orthodox faith (if somewhat unorthodox in a number of ways), and have a fairly unambiguous statement of who his "hero" was in that book, recorded in the preface ... Alyosha, the humble believer. So, while I share your distaste for over-confident quote-slinging .. I think McBride's use of Dostoevsky here was in fact correct. But knowing you, you weren't so much refuting, as pointing out how terribly much was taken for granted. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Pascal's wager . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
