Reasons why death may be okay

[Tridimity]

I was thinking recently about death and, while I do not support the loss of any human life, it is an inevitable fact that we will - each and every single one of us - die. Everything changes - humans are no exception to the rule. No surprises so far. Perhaps we need, as a society, to cease mourning the loss of each and every individual as if it were an isolated and encapsulated tragedy. It has been said that negative emotions are the result of our positive expectations going unmet. If this is true, then it might imply that none of us, in our heart of hearts, expects our self or our loved ones to die. Is it that we simply are incapable of imagining a world in which we no longer exist (cognitive dissonance)? Then I started thinking about the reasons why people wish not to die, which seems to be, so that they may engage in practices and behaviours that they enjoy - the strongest of which is the desire to actively love the people and things that are most important to them as individuals. And why is it that we wish to be surrounded by the people and things that we love? I think it basically boils down to being able to check that they are okay; that they are surviving. When we go to the opera, we are checking that the art form still exists. When we engage in any interest as either practitioners, observers or disseminators, what we are really doing is to check that the thing we love still is thriving. To love is to wish the thing to survive. It has oft been said, in response to a case of overreaction, 'the world will not end'. And that is just the point: once we realise that the people and things that we love will continue to exist even in our absence, we can perhaps let go, and accept death. Tchaikovsky will sound just as good, even when we are not around to listen. And musicians will continue to make wonderful pieces of music.

 

 

Some forms of death are truly tragic, such as those who lose their lives prematurely (e.g. under the age of 70 or so), or those who die needlessly as a result of lack of access to basic healthcare or as a result of violent conflict or natural disaster. The majority of deaths, however, occur naturally after a long lifetime's worth of experiences has been fulfilled. Why then, do we continue to regard death, in this natural context, as a tragedy? I do not think that it is helpful to take something which is definitely going to happen (100% certainty) and to turn it into a tragedy. This response only has the effect of increasing the emotional distress of the individual concerned and of their friends and family members. If we, as a society, learned to change our cultural psyche such that death after a long lifetime (say, 70, 80, 90 years onwards) is not deemed a tragedy but inevitable then the individual will be freed from considerations of the impact of their own death on the psychological/emotional wellbeing of their loved ones. They then need only to come to terms with the thought of no longer being around to check that the things they love still exist. In almost all cases, the death of the individual will have no impact on the physical existence of things they love. Although, it should be added, that these loved things will one day also cease being. The loss will probably be felt much more by the person's loved ones, precisely because one of their loved ones will no longer exist. However, they are likely to handle the situation better and to suffer less emotional distress if they see that their loved one has accepted the inevitability of death and is not emotionally distraught. The emotions of both the individual and their loved ones have a spiralling effect.

 

What do you think? Do Western cultures fail to accept the inevitability of death, and so fuel emotional distress?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tridimity

[GiantEvil]

The tragic death of a loved one is an event that will draw a line in the sands of time for an individuals lifetime. Barring death and mental disability, it is an event that is never forgotten. Then there is the passing of the elderly, which is still sad but not tragic. My grandmother had not provided a living will, and was unconscious and of deteriorating condition in the hospital. It was a relatively easy and unanimous decision by the family to request that extensive life extending means not be employed. From personal experience I recognize a significant difference between passing (of the elderly) and tragic death. I would say that the inability to distinguish between the two is possibly a psychological abnormality.

[Tridimity]

I would say that the inability to distinguish between the two is possibly a psychological abnormality.

 

 

But this, it seems to me, is exactly how US and UK societies regard the deaths of anyone and everyone - as tragedies. Why else would we dress in all black and be expected to mourn? We all want to live, and we all (for the most part) want others to live, and yet we are all going to die. What a paradox.

 

It might be healthier if the social taboos were removed with regards discussion on the topic of death - after all, it is going to affect us all, and does affect us all. To run away from the fact and to treat it as an anomaly of the human condition is, I think, a childish perspective.

 

I think that Buddhists have the healthiest attitude in this respect, in that they willingly accept the inevitability of change, and they are wise enough not to tie their emotions to the things that are subject to change.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tridimity

[GiantEvil]

The traditional general Western funeral does tend to be somber. That is it's nature. But then there is also sometimes an after party, in certain cultures called a wake. Wakes are never somber. I knew someone who committed suicide, they never received any official service of any kind.

Then there is a whole another end. The US is rife with examples of a callous disregard to tragic loss. Fred Phelps and his Westboro Satanist church. The day after Sandy Hook someone had posted an image of assault rifles and some asinine liberty comment on FB. I turned off that feed. Heck, any NRA propaganda is in callous disregard of human life.

[Tridimity]

The US is rife with examples of a callous disregard to tragic loss

 

 

Well, this is true - we do not want to wind up in a situation in which people begin treating the deceased with disrespect. I just don't think that it is helpful that our societies treat the individual and their friends and family members as if it is the end of their world.

 

Stoicism is probably closer to the mark.

[turionx2]

Then I started thinking about the reasons why people wish not to die, which seems to be, so that they may engage in practices and behaviours that they enjoy

This isn't true. Those that don't wish to die are scared shitless to live life or are clueless on how to live life. Those that live life in a non-reckless manner don't even think about dying, the future, and/or waste time thinking about the past that can't be changed.

 

"Practices and behaviours that they enjoy" sounds like the typical quick reward addiction without lifting a finger to earn the reward.

 

I would say that "western cultures fail to accept the inevitability of death" because they are forced to believe that life is short, so they rush through life in fear and paranoid. Look at american movies, they are made to keep people in fear of death and that a hero will show up and save their sorry asses.

Edited November 10, 2013 by turionx2

[pears]

I think grief is natural. When someone dies I want to grieve because I miss that person and I consider their death a loss. That doesn't mean I don't realise death is inevitable. I think in the west, certainly in the UK there is a great deal of stiff upper lip associated with death. I don't think more stoicism would be a good thing. Whatever emotions you have when someone dies are the emotions you have. I don't think suppressing them would be a healthy thing. If you want to grieve then grieve.

 

Just because grief is present when death occurs I don't think it means that the death is being treated as a tragedy. Death is hard. Tragedy is harder. But death is hard too.

[tar]

Tri,

 

"In almost all cases, the death of the individual will have no impact on the physical existence of things they love."

 

I think this is a false statement.

 

Consider the impact on an individual, when someone they love "chooses" to remove themselves from the situation. Not suicide, but simply leaving.

 

When we love something, when we include something in our feeling of self, that thing has our attention, that thing has our care, that thing has our protection. When we die EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY that we are making effort to sustain must continue without our support, without our efforts, without our thoughts, without our love. Its a loss, in the real physical world when somebody dies, because everything they love now must continue, without that love and attention, without those efforts.

 

Consider leaders who build and maintain enterprises through their insights and efforts. When they go, the whole enterprise is without that guidance. The character of the whole enterprise changes. The loss of the leader is a real loss. It affects reality. The hole will be filled by something or someone, but it will not be the same. A loss is a loss and people grieve for this reason.

 

They are not being silly to recognize the loss. Its OK to mourn. I think we, in any society have already addressed these issues appropriately, we let others mourn and we say "sorry for your loss", because we are sorry.

 

For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee.

 

Regards, TAR2

Yesterday was Veteran's day here in the U.S. I was recognized, my service and sacrifice was recognized. I recognized my Father's service and sacrifice. We made a difference in this world. My father fought and was wounded in the battle of the bulge and Hitler was defeated. I served in peacetime Germany protecting W. Germany from the threat of soviet tank invasion, and the wall did come down. I was at Lanstul welcoming back our hostages from Iran.

 

Today the Pacific Command is rushing to the assistance of the people devasted in the Phillipines by the typhoon.

 

If there were not people protecting other people, people would not be protected.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

What I meant is, when a person dies, that person's loved ones are not likely to kill themselves as a result - so at least the person who is dying can rest safe in the knowledge that their death will have no immediate impact on the physical existence of their loved ones.

 

Tri

[tar]

Tri,

 

Oh, OK, but that doesn't make death OK. I still think it rather inappropriate to lose the only thing you've got.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Tridimity]

I still think it rather inappropriate to lose the only thing you've got.

 

 

Well, yes, but I don't think the Angel of Death, or rather Nature, is likely to heed the appropriateness or otherwise of death.

 

The facts remain the same - my question is, is it possible or wise to alter the response to those events, so as to reduce the suffering of all involved?

[GiantEvil]

 

 

The facts remain the same - my question is, is it possible or wise to alter the response to those events, so as to reduce the suffering of all involved?

I believe it's called mood altering substances, the commonly used one in the case of a wake would be alcohol.

[Tridimity]

I believe it's called mood altering substances, the commonly used one in the case of a wake would be alcohol

 

 

I know that you are being tongue-in-cheek but, in all seriousness, the administration of drugs - including alcohol - is unfortunately not a long-term solution. In fact, alcohol may make one even more depressed (once the initial senselessness passes) and has, as you will know, detrimental effects on health.

 

Something along the lines of this Buddhist approach is what I was envisaging instead:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-03sWBmfLBs

 

"People, long before they die, they are dead, out of fear of death"

[pears]

That seems to be more about facing your own death than someone else's. I see no solution to reducing the grief at losing someone other than to care about them less. If grief is the price I have to pay for loving in this life I am happy to pay it.

 

I do however agree that in the west we are too far removed from the reality of death and perhaps this is why we don't know how to deal with it when it happens, hence the stiff upper lip and tabooness of it all. I don't think being more in touch with mortality would magicly make grief go away but it might help us to deal with it more healthily - e.g. expressing our emotions, being willing to talk about death when it happens (and before) rather than tip-toeing around the subject or sweeping it under the carpet.

[Tridimity]

That seems to be more about facing your own death than someone else's. I see no solution to reducing the grief at losing someone other than to care about them less. If grief is the price I have to pay for loving in this life I am happy to pay it.

 

I do however agree that in the west we are too far removed from the reality of death and perhaps this is why we don't know how to deal with it when it happens, hence the stiff upper lip and tabooness of it all. I don't think being more in touch with mortality would magicly make grief go away but it might help us to deal with it more healthily - e.g. expressing our emotions, being willing to talk about death when it happens (and before) rather than tip-toeing around the subject or sweeping it under the carpet.

 

Yes, the above video is about facing one's own death rather than someone else's. My hypothesis is that, if the person who is dying learns to be emotionally okay with (that is, to accept) their own death, then their loved ones' grief will be tempered by an acknowledgement that their dying loved one has reached a state of neutral acceptance. I think it is always more difficult for the loved ones to accept the death of another, if that other rather than accepting the inevitability of death, is clearly emotionally distraught at the thought of death. For example, a couple of years ago my maternal aunty's previous partner and biological father of my cousin (who, for reasons that I will not go into, had no further contact with our family than weekend visits with his son) died in his mid-50s of pancreatic cancer. Even on his deathbed, he was proclaiming to his son, "I don't want to die! I don't want to die!" I appreciate that he had clearly not accepted death, even up until the point at which he passed away, but I do not think that it was helpful for his son to hear his own Dad saying these things. I think it would have been preferable for my cousin's father to instead learn to accept death and, if this proved difficult, to at least conceal some degree of his thoughts from his son.

 

Our whole society seems to be preoccupied with the preservation of life and youth (for the most part, the age of sexual reproduction). This is quite understandable as, I think we would all agree that, although life can sometimes be fraught with difficulties, it is also marvellous. However, it seems naive and neglectful to ignore the one event that is such a significant event in life as death, and to treat it as some obscure event that happens to those unlucky ones who are forced to leave the perpetually 'youthful' society. It obviously is not an anomaly: it affects every single one of us, as the great leveller, and since we all have it in common and may feel alone at the time of death, I think it would be helpful to lift the unspoken ban on talking about death openly. Then perhaps people will not feel so isolated, alone and afraid when they are facing death.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Tridimity

[pears]

That's rough about your cousin and his dad

 

I agree, there is a certain sense of peace to be had when your loved ones are themselves at peace with death. I had relatives who were ready to go and it is a comfort. However I think the main component in grief is the sense of loss and missing of that person rather than from their own view of death.

 

I also agree our obsession with trying to stay young and beautiful can't really help us come to terms with our own mortality. I wish society was not so ageist.

Edited November 13, 2013 by pears

[tar]

Tri,

 

Then again it might be alright to live and feel a little bit concerned about losing life and consciousness. If you accept the inevitability of death, and consider it an unavoidable "part of life", it somewhat depreciates the current conditions importance. Plus, for the actual individual that dies, you can hardly call the absence of life, "part of life". Not much life goes on, after one dies.

 

In my college years, I had a girlfriend for a few months, whose sister wanted to commit suicide, and I sat with her all night and talked her out of it. It seemed to me then, and seems to me now, that dying will absolutely NOT make things better for YOU. And as I was able to also pursuade the young lady in question about, it would certainly make things a lot worse for her family and friends. And me.

 

Over the years since, I have formulated a theory about suicide, where I think people who consider suicide have lost some sort of control over their lives that they wish to regain, and somehow believe that taking control of their own death will somehow allow them to win back control. This is, in my estimation completely without basis. You can win nothing or lose nothing or have any kind of awareness of the new situation AFTER you are dead. Your say in the matter is quite no longer the question, once you cease living. Any control you might have hoped to gain, is completely gone. Therefore, at the point of death, your only positive contibution to life in general, would be to empower the living in some manner. Since you can do more about that alive than dead, the empowerment choice, is obviously to remain alive. There is no way you're going to feel better about the situation, if you have no senses left, and no heart/brain/body to feel and know the world with.

 

But this all goes to considering life a victory already, and considering death a loss of what you had.

 

And in this take, death is NOT Ok, and should be avoided. The buddist in the clip suggested that one should be mindful of life. Certainly so. To consider it "no big loss" should it end, would in my mind be saying you are already dead, or have already surrendered to death, way before the need to do so, has arrived. I can say, at the moment, that somehow I feel OK with the idea of death, and I would like to be able to say that I can look my daughters in the eye, when the time comes and assure them that "it's OK". But it's really not OK. Not OK at all. Just inevitable.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 14, 2013 by tar

[ADreamIveDreamt]

Death is like kissing someone you love for the first time.

[DevilSolution]

Death is like kissing someone you love for the first time.

 

For the first? what? hwat?

[Tridimity]

Death is like kissing someone you love for the first time.

 

In order to make any such comment on death you would first need to have died which, since you are typing, we can safely assume that you have not.

 

Please can you stop with the inappropriate comments.

TAR,

 

Loving life and accepting the inevitability of eventual death are not mutually exclusive. Death itself (non-existence of the living person) is clearly not a part of life, but the process of death (perhaps the part that we ought to worry about most, since the unconsciousness to follow is no more objectionable than the unconsciousness from which we sprang) is a part of life. I am not in any way condoning premature death or suicide - merely an acceptance that one day we are going to die. It is, of course, sensible to do all that one can to stay alive but - once the certainty of death in the foreseeable future becomes undeniable - there is nothing that one can do to alleviate the fact, what one can do is to control the psychological and emotional response to the event.

 

Tri

Edited November 14, 2013 by Tridimity

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Death is like kissing someone you love for the first time.

 

Please refrain from making meaningless comments to serious threads. This is a science forum - albeit the Philosophy section - we expect a minimum amount of logical reasoning and evidence-based argument not one line mystical pronouncements.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[GiantEvil]

 

I know that you are being tongue-in-cheek but, in all seriousness, the administration of drugs - including alcohol - is unfortunately not a long-term solution. In fact, alcohol may make one even more depressed (once the initial senselessness passes) and has, as you will know, detrimental effects on health.

 

Something along the lines of this Buddhist approach is what I was envisaging instead:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-03sWBmfLBs

 

"People, long before they die, they are dead, out of fear of death"

Actually, I was providing an example of an approach to bereavement that to my experience is common in America. As to the utility and consequences? Well I guess that's a whole other thread (where I would argue that drugs are natural to the human experience, that we've evolved with drugs as an ubiquitous element in various selection mechanisms, mechanisms which may be either helpful or detrimental to an individual). To my mind, bereavement has memetic elements and also biological ones; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8893324

 

While Buddhism offers some excellent meta-methods for consciously altering our memetic responses, what are and how do we best respond to the biological realities of bereavement? And how does it effect the social structure of a group unit to increase or decrease memetic diversity?

And I see that fear has been mentioned. How much of fear as a bereavement response is memetic and how much biological? How are we defining and quantifying fear? Also, depending on the Buddhist you ask, mind may either be dependent or independent of the brain, hence altering the perceived nature of death.

And we have yet to mention the word "suffering", which may or may not be contextual to any particular death.

[tar]

GiantEvil,

 

The memetric component, (and I don't know what that is, but figure it must have something to do with a meme) is probably not, completely unbiological.

 

Perhaps you can expand a bit on how you are using the term, or what it is we know about memes that I am ignorant of, but it seems to me that memes are part social, and part automatically understood ideas, generated by our common conditions, of having fairly identical setups of senses and brain folds and nerves and the like, as any other human born in lets say the last 4000 years had/has. That is, if you would list all the structures and organs and chemicals and nerves and parts of my brain/body/heart group, you could probably find the same list extant in any other male human that exists on the planet, except for someone with a birth "defect" of some sort, or someone that suffered some sort of accident or injury.

 

For instance, I am rather attracted to the female form. I don't think I had to be taught this. It pleases me, like there is this little pattern imprinted in my brain, that when matched, I smile.

 

Similarly if you are around someone who learns of the death of a loved one, you can feel it, like it was you that just heard. Such a thing happened to me on 9/11. I was at a ferry terminal on the Jersey side, and a young lady was on her cell and began to sob. The tears welled up in my eyes quite immediately and uncontrolably, and looking around, I found I was absolutely not the only one who felt her loss.

 

It seems to me that we communicate something important with tears. I don't think it would be useful in anyway to dull this particular sense. Again, I think it probably appropriate to mourn a loss.

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I gave up drinking while in Germany in 1980. I can name the drinks I have had since, and count them on one hand. Other than nicotine and caffine, I take no drugs. How the heck am I suppose to deal with horrible or powerful stuff. If not with tears.

Or laughter.

Edited November 15, 2013 by tar

[GiantEvil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Memes happen in the brain, which is an entirely biological thing. My breakdown for the separation of these things would be something like hard wiring or ROM BIOS as brain, and software or data in RAM as meme.

The act of crying is biological, lacrimation. My personal preference to not do so in front of people is memetic.

 

I myself haven't gone near nicotine in four or five years, and am determined to never do so again. It was the devil to quit, and even a tiny bit reinitiates a degree of the addiction. I am an admitted and intentional physiologic addict of caffeine. Most other substances that I might care for I have the rare skill of being able to flirt with, without going down the "hole". I hope no one is assuming that I either advocate or disapprove of substance use as a general coping mechanism. Really it's an individuals choice, and in a general context shouldn't be considered as superior or inferior to other grief responses or coping methods.

[tar]

GiantEvil,

 

Thanks for the Wiki link. Correlates nicely with a "thought" I entertain, that ideas, and jokes and technology spread rather easily and quickly among the population, because they work. They "fit". Good ideas get immediately intergrated and improved upon and tried in different areas and contexts, and bad ideas, that don't work, get dismissed, or discarded, or put in the try, but don't take seriously (don;t expect it to work) pile.

 

In relationship to this thread topic, I would have to suggest that the idea of death, does not work very well. You can't do much with the thought. It is completely unworkable.

 

The memeoid or some such term was used in the article to describe someone whose whole being is consumed by a certain idea, with examples of suicide bombers and such, who have somehow convinced themselves that an unworkable idea, will work.

 

I suppose we have all entertained such thoughts. There does not seem to be a workable plan for ones life and consciouness "after" one has neither.

 

Except for the one thought that you are part of something which will continue regardless of your cessation.

 

I suppose that is why we buy life insurance. 'cause we know already that there is life after death, just not our own life. This meme is workable, and serves to allow the species to survive, even in the face of the loss of a member. But it would not work at all, if the loss of a single member, was not mourned.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Death of a member remains, NOT OK. Except in certain "sacrifice for others", situations.

 

I am reminded of a certain Jeremy Glick, a former member of my town, who, along with others brought the jet headed for a Washington target, down to its fiery demise in a PA field.

Edited November 15, 2013 by tar