Is there life after death?

To me it would appear some time and effort would have been expended on nonsense which could have been more productively used experiencing real life and real knowledge

I not sure who your piss poor teacher was because I was not there in your life classroom. I would think you would know who he / she / what was

If you paid for any of the lessons I suggest you ask for a refund

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So according to you, then.
Okay.
Your view is not necessarily the truth.
It seems to be simply your belief in a way to alleviate what you consider to be suffering.
Yet the question remains: how does this have bearing on there being life after death or not?

Eh?
Relevance?

Those problems would be there whether there is life after death or not.
The existence of those problems while we are alive does not equate to there being life after death.
Care to fill in the gaps that lead from one to the other in your worldview?
Or is the notion of life being a temporary part of a much bigger picture (that includes some form of life after death) simply your way of coping with the temporary nature of existence?

That doesn't mean that your worldview is necessarily correct, though.
It might simply be your coping mechanism, or simply the circle of belief in which you have found yourself.
It certainly doesn't necessitate there being life after death.

But surely you're just assuming it's a movie and not reality that one is engrossed in?
You claim to everyone else that it is just a movie, and that you can see that it is an illusion.
That worldview requires it to be an illusion for the worldview to make sense: you believe it is illusion thus you have a way of thinking you recognise it as illusion which reaffirms it as illusion.
Unfortunately there is the opposing worldview: belief it is not an illusion, thus you don't see any illusion which reaffirms that it is not illusion.
How do you actually demonstrate that one particular worldview matches reality?
Is it possible to do that without requiring the person to step on your particular cycle of circular reasoning, whichever that may be?

Go forth where, exactly?

Sure, but the question is whether it is a slaughterhouse from which one can escape or simply the only reality that actually exists, pleasant or otherwise.
Yes, the example of slaughterhouse has the implicit assumption of possible escape, and is thus loaded in that regard, but ignoring that, the question stands.

Ah, so you do see life after death as being the solution to suffering?
And you don't see this simply as wishful thinking?
A few questions, though:
- how does one get from concluding on the desired solution to proving that it is correct, and that it is not simply a quest for the impossible?
- why is life after death necessarily the solution, rather than just a possible solution?
- why do you think that something having a conceptual solution means that that solution must be a reality?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will get back with a detailed response probably after 12 or so hours. Just skimming through your response, it appears that you are suggesting that the notion of suffering in this world is merely a subjective view that one can choose or not choose to subscribe to. Admittedly that notion is a popular pop-psychology/instagram subject ("how to feel good about one's self" .... ).

Before I compose a reply it would be good to get some more clarification on what you perceive to be (or to what degree you perceive it to be as such) the universal platform of suffering in this world (suffering that is uniform in all human societies ... or even arguably any community of living entity .... regardless of culture, technology etc).

And after that establish a range of solutions.

Its a bit confusing because you talk of proposed ideas of suffering or solutions as but one of many possible options, but you don't give any info on what those options are .

I get that you don't think the notion of suffering is a prerequisite for understanding anything beyond this life... perhaps I will get to that later. At the moment I am just trying to get us on the same page.


You are repeatedly saying there are numerous ways to solve or view the problem of suffering, but are short in explaining what they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Die. Find out. Report back.

 

Somewhat of a red-herring, to be honest.
What I think of suffering, and what I think of solutions or not, are irrelevant to the issue that you are not explaining how your view of suffering, and your view of a solution leads to the necessity of there being life after death.
You know, the question that is at hand in this thread.
You are the one making the case for there being life after death.
At the moment you have asserted words to the effect that there is the problem of suffering, that life after death is a solution (or at least that the solution leads to the conclusion that there is life after death).
Maybe you don't see the gaping hole in your explanation?

So you can continue to evade and move the issue to whether there are alternatives to the views you are positing with regard suffering and solutions thereof, or you can actually show how at least your views conclude with the necessity of life after death.
Once you have done that we can then, perhaps, examine whether the views you posit are the only valid ones.

So please, no more evasion.
To be clear: my views on suffering and solutions thereof are irrelevant to your argument.
Once you have detailed your argument then perhaps we can explore differences we may have.

 

As I said, I will get back to a detailed reply later when I have more time. The problem is that you seem to challenge the very notion of suffering in this world, so it would seem to be fruitless to waste time
trying to explain anything further.

Its not a trick question. I am just trying to clarify what your stance is. If you don't want to clarify your stance, I will just interpret your reluctance as a confirmation that you dont accept that this existence awards an unavoidable element of suffering.

When discussing an idea, one has to constantly regress it to the point of finding common ground between parties... otherwise nothing begins and its just the equivelant of online scream therapy or something.

 

Nobody challenges the notion of suffering. It's just that nobody sees the relevance to the issue at hand.

 

How does my belief in an afterlife entail no effort was expended on experiencing "real life" and "real knowledge"? How does anyone get thru life without experiencing real life and real knowledge?

You're the one that mentioned some teacher. How do you know I had a teacher?

 

As gmilam said, it's primarily the issue of relevance.
Until you can show that it is relevant, what point continuing to discuss the issue.

Once again, my view has no bearing on your argument.
You posit your premises, your logic, your conclusion.
We can perhaps discuss my position later, once you detail how life after death is a conclusion from your view of suffering.

In positing your premises for your argument you will provide the necessary framework to discuss your argument.
At that point one might conclude that the logic is valid and thus if one agrees with the premises one must also agree with the conclusion.
At that point we can also discuss whether those premises are indeed accepted, believed, reality, or whether alternatives might be the case etc.

You don't need to know my view or have agreement with me for you to put forth your argument.
And at the moment you have seemingly merely claimed that there is life after death because of the issue of suffering.

 

Do you agree that the benefits of eating (relief from hunger, satisfaction/rejuvenation, etc) are self evident or do you think even that conclusion is subject to further regression (eg "But, after eating how do you know you are not hungry?")?

This point of suffering came up as a response to the challenge that one should be able to directly perceive the phenomena of reincarnation (in order to render the act of reincarnation as a meaningful mechanism and hence reveal some over-arching game plan .... as opposed to pointless recycling of the same events, beginning each life with a clean slate).

At that point, it seemed relevant to indroduce the buddhist 4 noble truths, noting how and why it begins with the first truth (the picture of suffering), as opposed to 2nd, 3rd or 4th one.

It introduces the proposal of a correct way to perceive suffering as the first necessary step in breaking the cycle (hence the word "truth" ... how to perceive the act of suffering in this world, as it actually is)

If one cannot perceive that, one cannot even begin to perceive the mechanism of the cycle in theory.

When you suggest that even this basic premise of the mechanism of suffering is but one particular world view and is in no way universal, it then follows that you offer some suggestion how it is so.
In other words, for the discussion to progress, it follows that you should give some example or understanding of the notion of suffering that renders this explanation invalid, rather than simply saying "No, it is not valid, it is but just one of many possible ways to view it"

If one is suggesting that there is only one reality and not an element of illusion that warrants the suspension of belief, then there is "no movie to watch", so to speak. If you take that stance, I'm not sure how you could ever distinguish one point of view from another, other than to say they are different. This leaves you with the problem of not only being unable to demonstrate reality, but also being unable to resolve the inevitable conflict between differing views outside of political systems (ie, if I am stronger than you, my view is more valid than your view).

So, in such a system, an individual professing a layering of reality is no more disturbing than an individual professing a like for blue jackets (maybe one's livlihood depends on the production of red jackets, so upon hearing their point of view, one immediately gets agitated and sets them straight "on the facts" .... but other than that, what would their point of view matter?)

The point of introducing the movie theatre with two people was to introduce how a functioning illusion includes not only a type of aversion or distraction from reality, but also a similar type of insulation against 3rd parties operating outside of the illusion.
As such, to be willfully engaged in illusion and to request a demonstration of its supposed illusory nature represents a conflict of interest.

tl:dr . In the matrix, if he took the blue pill, it probably wouldn't have been a trilogy.

Going forth to applying solutions. Obviously the first step in problem solving is perceiving a problem exists.

Then one is left to the activities of forgetting about the inevitable for as long as possible while making the best possible arrangement for 24hr access to a mouthful of hay ... which is arguably an escape plan, just not a satisfactory one.
The slaughterhouse illustrates not only the opportunity of escape, but also the wasted opportunity to do so due to engagement in sub-standard satisfaction (aka, illusion). The first requirement for the animal to escape lies in being disatisfied with the mouthful of hay.

Because most people don't have an accurate understanding of the problem of suffering, all of their remedial efforts are wishful thinking.

It is kind of like eating. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Whether we eat more or less depends ultimately on our level of satisfaction, but we experience it through the act of eating.
In the absence of regular eating, one can become used to being hungry, but we would argue that it represents a lower level of satisfaction. So some levels of satisfaction can be revealed as being superior to others.

We are a complex network of desires and agendas, some born out of noble gestures and some less so, all of which demand our attention to be satisfied. At the end of the day, we can only move in the space afforded by our estimations of satisfaction.

In otherwords, an element of dissatisfaction represents the first opportunity for something else to manifest. It represents the space to move. Armchair philosophy only succeeds in getting one out of the armchair if it culminates in revising or updating one's estimations of satisfaction.

 

58 years of life on earth has taught I would think "taught" implies a teacher

Could be self taught i guess, or taking experience of something being a learning lesson

If real life taught you there is life after death i would be interested in the method by which real life did this

In 40 years of nursing I never saw this phenomenon. I did see a preponderance of live people who were unwell and required assistance to become more healthy

Also saw a significant number of dead people, none of whom came back to life

This life after death of which you speak. Does it kick in as soon as you die, or is there a waiting period as in like after a transfer of files to a new computer the reboot can take a time period to fire up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah..you were the one saying I had a teacher. Guess you fucked up.

You didn't answer my questions.

Again:

How does my belief in an afterlife entail no effort was expended on experiencing "real life" and "real knowledge"? How does anyone get thru life without experiencing real life and real knowledge?

 

If during your 58 years on Earth were taught - that inplies a teacher

If Earth was teacher then you cannot blame Earth for being piss poor because Earth is non sentient and only teaches reality

If you ignored reality and went off into fantasy land when you combined yourself as teacher/pupil (note you do count as teacher) then you have failed yourself on both counts

Also again

If real life taught you there is life after death I would be interested in the method by which real life did this

In 40 years of nursing I never saw this phenomenon. I did see a preponderance of live people who were unwell and required assistance to become more healthy

Also saw a significant number of dead people, none of whom came back to life

This life after death of which you speak. Does it kick in as soon as you die, or is there a waiting period as in like after a transfer of files to a new computer the reboot can take a time period to fire up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Del dup

 

Relevance?

And you have yet to offer anything that counters that notion.

Relevant to you, perhaps, but you have failed to explain the relevance to anyone else.
Care to do so yet?

You need to give your audience some credit, Musika.
They may not agree with your premises but you need to accept that they can still follow the argument from your premises to your conclusion.
So please, enough stalling.

We can perhaps explore that after you have concluded your argument.
You set out the argument (that there is life after death) first, then we can discuss the agreement of otherwise with the premises and/or the logic.

You are simply stalling.
Please don't.
How do you get from your position on suffering to there being life after death?
For the last time: lay out your argument with whatever premises you see fit.

I am quite comfortable with their being elements of illusion; but if you can not demonstrate that you see through the illusion, of what point is your claim to truth?
You then have mere opinion, as valid as anyone else's that can also not demonstrate their view conforms with reality.

Not true, when one is a matter of subjective viewpoint with no claim to an objective truth, and the other is such a claim.
"I like blue jackets" is a wholly subjective opinion.
"Blue jackets are better than red" is a claim to an objective truth.
If one can not demonstrate the latter to be true, it becomes nothing more than the former.

Not at all.
One can enjoy an illusion at face value while appreciating the work that goes into producing it, and wanting to know how it is done.

And the question never asked: how do any of them know that taking the red pill leads to the reality as opposed to just another layer of illusion.
None of them can know, or do know.

You have state that suffering is a problem, yet you have thus far failed to explain why/how this leads to the conclusion of there being life after death.
Care to do so yet?

Indeed, your example contained the implicit notion that it is possible to escape from it.
If you wish to start with such an a priori assumption in your argument for life after death, just say so.
Otherwise you need to acknowledge that if you remove that property from your example, thus unloading it, the example is rendered impotent.

Ah, so now you are insisting upon your understanding being accurate rather than being wishful thinking.
Okay.
So how do you get from your understanding of suffering to there being life after death?

Proof of what is in the pudding?
The proof of eating?
Or do you mean that the proof of the pudding is in the eating?

I don't wish to appear rude but are you ever going to actually answer the questions?
To repeat them:
- how does one get from the desired solution to proving it is correct, and that it is not just a quest for the impossible?
- why is life after death the solution rather than just a possible solution?
- why do you think something having a conceptual solution means that that solution must be a reality?

Shorter version: state your argument, please.
We can discuss the acceptability or otherwise of premises, and the logic used, after the argument is presented.
Can you do that much, please?

 

Do you get the feeling you are being preached to?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The short version of the argument:

The more one comes to conclusion that suffering can not be mitigated by reorganizing temporary things in a different manner, the closer they come to the possibility of seeing the self as distinct from the body.

And conversely, the more one comes to conclusion that suffering can be mitigated by reorganizing temporary things in a different manner, the closer they come to the possibility of entering an almost seamless illusion of bodily identification (and its ensuing madness).

I say "almost seamless", because this world has a habbit of knocking the wind out of even the most stubborn of gross materialists. For instance, its challenging to relive the pride one had in one's muscular and healthy 23 year old body when one is 85 with a broken rib caused by sneezing too violently in a hospital bed while the lawyer of one's fourth wife is on the phone taking one to the cleaners.

 

You will learn the truth of this matter when you are ready for it in your life grasshopper. But your attitude here and mannerism tell me you're not there yet. Hint: make a deal with someone you love to contact you after they die. Then pay attention. Have a good day sir.

“I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”
-Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

 

Seeing the self as distinct is a long way from it actually being distinct.
Do you have anything to show that it is more than just a possibility, more than just wishful thinking, more than just what the perceived solution requires?
Or do you think that if the perceived solution requires it that it must be solvable in reality, and thus there must be life after death?
Perhaps the solution is conceptual only, no more provable, no more true, perhaps, than any other unfalsifiable solution.
It seems that to jump from the possibility based upon a perceived solution to claims that it is the truth is rather wishful thinking, but I'm sure you can provide something to assure me it is not?

There is also is the possibility of seeing the self as distinct without the need to go through the argument of suffering in the manner you have.
One simply needs to be indoctrinated into any Christian religion, for example.
I'm not saying that the argument is as strong, or any weaker, but their argument for a life after death is not one from suffering.

Further, seeing oneself as distinct from the body does not equate to there being life after death.
While one might see the self as eternal and thus surviving the material body, it might be that the self, while distinct, is contingent upon the body, and thus dies when the body dies.
Just as the flame is distinct from the candle, both disappear when the candle runs out.

And, this also takes us back full circle, it seems, to the issue of memory.
If we are distinct from our body, and this means life after death in the manner of reincarnation, how does reaching the conclusion in one life have any bearing on the next?
Surely each time we are reset at the beginning, at least in terms of our thinking?
Or is there some form of memory being retained that leads you ever forward?

Or one accepts, perhaps, that suffering is an inherent part of what it is to exist, that it will always be around in some form or other, and that at best we can strive to mitigate it as best we can while we exist, through material means or otherwise, through conceptualising the self as distinct from the body or through other means.

Some, for example, consider that biotechnology is the only way forward to mitigate suffering, through adjusting the pleasure/pain axis via technology.
Why seek a suffering-free enlightened state through what may be just wishful thinking when a simple implant may provide just the same?
Okay, a tad facetious, but the point is there.
One might require the conclusion that there is life after death, but the other does not.
What is your argument for your view being the reality of it?

 

Duplicate