While it might be true for most things, it doesn't hold for ourselves. We can't assign any value to our own non-existent state. It is a meaningless concept. To be able to assign value we must be able to experience it. If we can't experience it, if we don't even exist to be able to apply value, then the notion of value of that state is meaningless. All we can do is apply value to what we can experience... I.e. our state of living. Anything outside of that holds no meaning. If it is meaningless, why have a problem with it? Much like asking what happened before time began. As someone once said to me: "If I don't know that I don't know something, how can I have a problem with not knowing it?" Non-existence is akin to the absolute bliss of absolute ignorance.... if only the non-existent could experience them.
Hence the absurdity of coupling "existence" and "non existence" on equal or even comparable value. If one says non existence does not impair their value (sans douchey bravado), it is just another way of saying their existence has no value (which makes one a candidate for receiving counseling).
Well maybe; and what if the problem could not be solved? Can you predict the future? Is there a future without death?
Then it says more about one's limitations and/or frustrations, and less about the inherent value of ceasing to exist. As they say, "hope dies last".
At this stage in the discussion, moral perogatives are neither here nor there. One may be contemplating suicide because they ran out of strawberry icecream. Determining strawberry icecream shortages to be an in/valid pretext for euthanasia has no bearing on an individual's assessment that the association of strawberry icecream is an integral element of valid existence. At least in their mind, life with strawberry icecream trumps nonexistence.
Then don't couple them. I don't think Gmilam did, and I certainly haven't. But you seem intent on doing so. No, it really isn't. It is acknowledging that value only has meaning while one is alive. While one can experience. While one is capable of actually assigning value. Without that capability, without the ability to experience, without existence, "value" has no meaning. It is fallacious to compare a period when "value" has meaning to one where the word has no meaning. To do so is no more coherent than asking "what happens an hour after time ends?" Most assign a value to their own existence. Why then be concerned about a state where such is meaningless. The only thing to fear, IMO, the only thing that is a problem, is the awareness of deteriorating. That frightens me. That's a problem for me. Precisely because I can experience that decline. Whether it is the slow process of becoming more fragile, more frail, of the body not being able to keep up with the mind, or the gradual confusion brought about by mental deterioration, or even the far more painful decline of illness or injury. Those I fear. Not the state of death itself. That will only come once I am gone and can no longer experience. But hey, that's all false / douchery bravado, right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or, more accurately, those who worry incessantly about death are driven to the platitudes of religion to ease their fears.
None of that twaddle changes the fact that you distorted Spidergoat's post: Just as your reply "incorrect + ensuing twaddle" was a distortion of what I wrote. What I have not fathomed, to date, is your obsession with the opinions of advertising executives. WTF should we care what they disagree with?
What does advertizing have to do with the afterlife? I have not seen a lot of advertizing in my time for afterlife perks. In fact, what does anything you said there have to do with afterlife?
I may be insane. How would I know? Don't get me wrong, I am in no hurry to die... But I don't fear death itself. Dying, on the other hand, could be quite painful. Depends on the situation. But death, not so much. It's not possible to experience non-existence.