Why are people afraid of death?

[Jay R]

As a small child, I was once unplugging something from the wall socket, and touched the prong, getting a strong electric shock. For the next few days, I wouldn't get within ten feet of that plug, even though I knew walking by it was safe. According to Mark Twain, a cat who has sat on a hot stove lid will never sit on one again, but he will never sit on a cold one either. Call it "superstition" if you like. This is pattern recognition, and even if the specific pattern is inaccurate, the process of doing it is a survival mechanism. [The cat doesn't get burned again; I didn't get shocked again.]

But on the main topic:
The truth is, most explanations for why people fear death are banned by the forum rules. So no, we can't make it clear.

[2D8HP]

....The truth is, most explanations for why people fear....

Like many things @Jay R is likely right, but for fun here's:

Spoiler: This comic

Show

Source here.

[AMFV]

As a small child, I was once unplugging something from the wall socket, and touched the prong, getting a strong electric shock. For the next few days, I wouldn't get within ten feet of that plug, even though I knew walking by it was safe. According to Mark Twain, a cat who has sat on a hot stove lid will never sit on one again, but he will never sit on a cold one either. Call it "superstition" if you like. This is pattern recognition, and even if the specific pattern is inaccurate, the process of doing it is a survival mechanism. [The cat doesn't get burned again; I didn't get shocked again.]

But on the main topic:
The truth is, most explanations for why people fear death are banned by the forum rules. So no, we can't make it clear.

I don't know I think that the inherent fear of death isn't inherently superstitious or religious. As a matter of fact, most religions and philosophies attempt to mitigate or reduce that fear. Which I think I can say without violating any forum rules.

I think though that we can delve into the fear of death somewhat. It's a fear of the unknown in large scale, and that's one of the big primal fears. Which is why religious and philosophical thought tends to mitigate it, because you no longer consider that a part of the unknown, or you believe there to be sufficient proofs for your own perceptions of it. And even if you have a solid belief that it's only oblivion that would likely be comforting, as was I take it "The Eye's" stance on the matter. It' when you inject uncertainty that it's an issue.

Also we have the fear of failure, most accidental or premature death involves some kind of personal failure, and so that's part of it. So that's wrapped up in the fear of the unknown. And once you are dead, basically you fail in all of your future obligations and so that's a reason to be concerned about it.

[Donnadogsoth]

Like many things @Jay R is likely right, but for fun here's:

Spoiler: This comic

Show

Source here.

That's an interesting comic and thanks for posting it, but colour me nonplussed. I don't understand how people can possibly equate "small" with "insignificant". Is a baby less significant than me? Is a drop of cyanide less significant than the glass of milk it's in? Are you less significant than an allosaur? Why should man be less significant than the mighty wave? This is rank anti-humanism, part of a drive to extinguish the fighting spirit in man when he confronts the wonders of the Unknown.

[The Eye]

That's an interesting comic and thanks for posting it, but colour me nonplussed. I don't understand how people can possibly equate "small" with "insignificant". Is a baby less significant than me? Is a drop of cyanide less significant than the glass of milk it's in? Are you less significant than an allosaur? Why should man be less significant than the mighty wave? This is rank anti-humanism, part of a drive to extinguish the fighting spirit in man when he confronts the wonders of the Unknown.

Tell that to the ant you stepped on and didn’t notice, oh wait… You can’t because you didn’t notice it, so insignificant it was. We are too arrogant, notice your own insignificance before the universe or before divinity if you are religious, stop being so narcissistic and self-centric, we are insignificant, we existed for but a fraction of history, when you die life will go on and nothing will really change in the great scheme of things.

[Donnadogsoth]

Tell that to the ant you stepped on and didn’t notice, oh wait… You can’t because you didn’t notice it, so insignificant it was. We are too arrogant, notice your own insignificance before the universe or before divinity if you are religious, stop being so narcissistic and self-centric, we are insignificant, we existed for but a fraction of history, when you die life will go on and nothing will really change in the great scheme of things.

Self-fulfilling prophecy of suicidal anti-humanism.

[AMFV]

That's an interesting comic and thanks for posting it, but colour me nonplussed. I don't understand how people can possibly equate "small" with "insignificant". Is a baby less significant than me? Is a drop of cyanide less significant than the glass of milk it's in? Are you less significant than an allosaur? Why should man be less significant than the mighty wave? This is rank anti-humanism, part of a drive to extinguish the fighting spirit in man when he confronts the wonders of the Unknown.

You've never been out on the water if you don't agree with the comic. The challenges of confronting the unknown are a big part of the thrill of it.

[Suttle]

Self-fulfilling prophecy of suicidal anti-humanism.

You do agree that humans are flawed... Don't you? Or do you think we are perfect?

[Aliquid]

That's an interesting comic and thanks for posting it, but colour me nonplussed. I don't understand how people can possibly equate "small" with "insignificant". Is a baby less significant than me? Is a drop of cyanide less significant than the glass of milk it's in? Are you less significant than an allosaur? Why should man be less significant than the mighty wave? This is rank anti-humanism, part of a drive to extinguish the fighting spirit in man when he confronts the wonders of the Unknown.

Who said anything about "small"... where in the comic, did you get "small"... that is an odd conclusion to jump to.

I don't need to be arrogant and self absorbed to have a "fighting spirit". I don't need to "confront" or conqueror everything I come across to stoke my ego. I create and explore out of curiosity, out of a fascination and a respect for the wonders of the Unknown.

[veti]

What other understanding is there? Either one knows one will die or one does not. Saying one knows that other things die is irrelevant. One has to understand that oneself is mortal, and that knowledge opens the door to {RULES}, etc..

Once again, the assumption that intelligence (or awareness, or sentience, or sapience, or whatever the mot du jour is) must, inevitably, force its possessor to be psychologically indistinguishable from humans. This is a position that you assert over and over, but have cited neither logic nor evidence to support.

It seems to me that you take it as a matter of faith that there is something magical about the human mind, some property that cannot be produced by mere natural processes. Am I right?

[Donnadogsoth]

You've never been out on the water if you don't agree with the comic. The challenges of confronting the unknown are a big part of the thrill of it.

The comic leans on the tired and demoralising, "Terra is just an insignificant speck orbiting an unremarkable Sun" crap. Yeah, we suck, we're stupid, let's jump off a bridge for a "thrill."

Sol is capitally significant because TERRA orbits it. Terra is capitally significant because it has PEOPLE on it. Thinking otherwise is suicidal dreck.

[Donnadogsoth]

You do agree that humans are flawed... Don't you? Or do you think we are perfect?

It's a matter of intention. Our understanding is to the perfect truth, what an inscribed polygon is to a circle. As we learn, we increase the number of sides on our polygon, making our understanding more like the circle. We are capable of approaching this circle but will never reach it. This capacity to become ever closer to the Truth, and transform the Universe in the process, is what makes us sacred. In a real sense the only thing that matters is the human mind. So, yet, we are irremediably flawed, at the same time we are capable of improving ourselves and our technological expressions to no temporal limit.

[warty goblin]

It's a matter of intention. Our understanding is to the perfect truth, what an inscribed polygon is to a circle. As we learn, we increase the number of sides on our polygon, making our understanding more like the circle. We are capable of approaching this circle but will never reach it. This capacity to become ever closer to the Truth, and transform the Universe in the process, is what makes us sacred. In a real sense the only thing that matters is the human mind. So, yet, we are irremediably flawed, at the same time we are capable of improving ourselves and our technological expressions to no temporal limit.

You literally just said it has a limit.

[Donnadogsoth]

Who said anything about "small"... where in the comic, did you get "small"... that is an odd conclusion to jump to.

I don't need to be arrogant and self absorbed to have a "fighting spirit". I don't need to "confront" or conqueror everything I come across to stoke my ego. I create and explore out of curiosity, out of a fascination and a respect for the wonders of the Unknown.

You didn't read the comic. It belittles Terra and Sol and equates physical volume with importance. I guess men are more important than women because they have more physical volume on average. In a real sense the physical extent of infrastructure can be said to be more important the larger it is, but only because it relates to the human enterprise of transforming the Universe for our benefit.

You're making up a straw man based on words like "confront" and "conquer" as if classical humanism is about destroying Nature, maybe shooting elephants and lions so we can mount their heads on our walls or something. Nature is a monster. It is not our friend. It needs to be confronted and wrestled into submission so that it will serve us to our benefit. Don't believe me? Disconnect your water supply. Raze the hospitals. Return everything to the swampland that it was before man conquered it.

[Donnadogsoth]

Once again, the assumption that intelligence (or awareness, or sentience, or sapience, or whatever the mot du jour is) must, inevitably, force its possessor to be psychologically indistinguishable from humans. This is a position that you assert over and over, but have cited neither logic nor evidence to support.

It seems to me that you take it as a matter of faith that there is something magical about the human mind, some property that cannot be produced by mere natural processes. Am I right?

I have given the logical evidence: if animals could "sneak up behind their own minds" and see that they themselves, personally, were the subjects of inevitable death, this would have an effect on their personalities and behaviour of having them respond to their knowledge in some way analogous to how humans respond to it. They would have {RULES}, and even if some members of a given species were indifferent or thoughtless, the species itself would produce evidence of thought, feeling, and behaviour on the order of magnitude due a profound sense of one's personal mortality.

All the evidence given animals understand death is other's deaths. "Beings I like stop moving forever" and "that makes me sad".

[Donnadogsoth]

You literally just said it has a limit.

Huh? Please reread and compare to the question it was answering.

[warty goblin]

Huh? Please reread and compare to the question it was answering.

The limit of the area of a polygon inscribed in a circle as the number of sides tends to infinity is the area of the circle. Ergo our understanding is limited because it will never surpass the area of the circle, and, according to you, tends towards it in time. It is therefore limited in time, in precisely the same way that y = e^x/(1 + e^x) is has a limit in x as x -> infinity.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Donnadogsoth: that's not evidence, that's a slippery slope argument. It fails on empirical grounds because you still have not demonstrated that mere fear of death will lead to all the things you claim. You fail doubly because you fail to meaningfully address empirical evidence to the contrary, such as Koko the gorilla. Instead, you go back to stating your belief as fact, making you the one who is begging the question.

I mean, your argument is homologous to:

Premise: Wings are necessary for flying.
Observation: some creatures cannot fly.
Conclusion: those creatures do not have wings.

But what, exactly, prevents the existence of a winged creature that cannot fly? To riff on you: "because it is the manifest destiny of winged creatures to rule the sky! Surely, if the non-flying had wings, the would understand the glory of motion in three dimensions, and do everything on their part to do barrel rolls in the sky!"

This kind of argument falls flat in the face of a single ostrich, or even just a raven that had its flight feathers clipped.

Of course, if we were talking about wings and flight, I would expect you to start moving goalposts instantly: "clearly, you do not understand the glory of wings. Wings grant not only flight, but knowledge of aviation and {AERODYNAMICS}! Do ostriches have a grasp of {AERODYNAMICS}? Clearly not. Hence, they do not having wings, only feathered appendages that they flail around uselessly."

And after me pointing out how ridiculous this is, you'd go: "sure, ostriches, so feathery and winged. Yet all they can do is run on the ground."

Tl;dr: the material world does not commit to human reason, so logical proofs without empirical backing are not evidence, they are armchair philosophy that no-one needs to take seriously.

EDIT: Also, because your reading of the comic is hilariously off:

Man is not insignificant because he is small. Extreme differences in scale just serve as one of the handier demonstrations of it.

Man is insignificant because man only has power in man's own imagination. In truth, man never conquered nature, never left nature behind. The existence of man in its totality was captured by nature before the first man set foot on Earth.

To tie the lesson to another comic posted in this thread, there is no destiny save for cause and effect. Man is neither winning nor losing, because there is no game. Just blocks shuffling around.

[Aliquid]

You didn't read the comic. It belittles Terra and Sol and equates physical volume with importance.

The comic did not say that or imply that... that interpretation and assumption was totally created by you. You might as well start saying "that wave was blue, therefore the comic assumes all things blue are more important than those that are not blue"

You're making up a straw man based on words like "confront" and "conquer" as if classical humanism is about destroying Nature, maybe shooting elephants and lions so we can mount their heads on our walls or something. Nature is a monster. It is not our friend. It needs to be confronted and wrestled into submission so that it will serve us to our benefit. Don't believe me? Disconnect your water supply. Raze the hospitals. Return everything to the swampland that it was before man conquered it.

You are the one that uses words like confront, conquer, submission, and "serve us". You are the one using language that implies a sense of superiority and entitlement. None of those mindsets are needed for social or technological advancement.

[Donnadogsoth]

The limit of the area of a polygon inscribed in a circle as the number of sides tends to infinity is the area of the circle. Ergo our understanding is limited because it will never surpass the area of the circle, and, according to you, tends towards it in time. It is therefore limited in time, in precisely the same way that y = e^x/(1 + e^x) is has a limit in x as x -> infinity.

Yes, our knowledge cannot be perfected, but it is eternally perfectible.

[Donnadogsoth]

@Donnadogsoth: that's not evidence, that's a slippery slope argument. It fails on empirical grounds because you still have not demonstrated that mere fear of death will lead to all the things you claim. You fail doubly because you fail to meaningfully address empirical evidence to the contrary, such as Koko the gorilla. Instead, you go back to stating your belief as fact, making you the one who is begging the question.

I mean, your argument is homologous to:

Premise: Wings are necessary for flying.
Observation: some creatures cannot fly.
Conclusion: those creatures do not have wings.

But what, exactly, prevents the existence of a winged creature that cannot fly? To riff on you: "because it is the manifest destiny of winged creatures to rule the sky! Surely, if the non-flying had wings, the would understand the glory of motion in three dimensions, and do everything on their part to do barrel rolls in the sky!"

This kind of argument falls flat in the face of a single ostrich, or even just a raven that had its flight feathers clipped.

Of course, if we were talking about wings and flight, I would expect you to start moving goalposts instantly: "clearly, you do not understand the glory of wings. Wings grant not only flight, but knowledge of aviation and {AERODYNAMICS}! Do ostriches have a grasp of {AERODYNAMICS}? Clearly not. Hence, they do not having wings, only feathered appendages that they flail around uselessly."

And after me pointing out how ridiculous this is, you'd go: "sure, ostriches, so feathery and winged. Yet all they can do is run on the ground."

Tl;dr: the material world does not commit to human reason, so logical proofs without empirical backing are not evidence, they are armchair philosophy that no-one needs to take seriously.

EDIT: Also, because your reading of the comic is hilariously off:

Man is not insignificant because he is small. Extreme differences in scale just serve as one of the handier demonstrations of it.

Man is insignificant because man only has power in man's own imagination. In truth, man never conquered nature, never left nature behind. The existence of man in its totality was captured by nature before the first man set foot on Earth.

To tie the lesson to another comic posted in this thread, there is no destiny save for cause and effect. Man is neither winning nor losing, because there is no game. Just blocks shuffling around.

What is it with gaming sites and suicidal misanthropic nihilism? Renounce your anti-humanism and we'll talk.

[Donnadogsoth]

The comic did not say that or imply that... that interpretation and assumption was totally created by you. You might as well start saying "that wave was blue, therefore the comic assumes all things blue are more important than those that are not blue"

THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HIS LIFE
EVEN THE MIGHTIEST EMPEROR REIGNED OVER BUT A STONE
THE SUN, THE TINIEST AND MOST UNNOTEWORTHY OF STARS
HIS STONE CAN BE TURNED TO ASH ON ITS SLIGHTEST WHIMS

You are the one that uses words like confront, conquer, submission, and "serve us". You are the one using language that implies a sense of superiority and entitlement. None of those mindsets are needed for social or technological advancement.

Oh my goodness, is that what it's about? "Entitlement" talk? Fear of "superiority"? Have fun breaking the sewer system flushing that crap.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Donnadogsoth: That shows you read neither my earlier posts in this thread nor the comic all that carefully. Now, I can't wax poetic about Buddha, but I can point out that your cries of "anti-humanism" ring extremely hollow when it is you who consistently places armchair logical idealism above empiricism, and you who extol various superstitious and obsolete beliefs with near-dogmatic fervor. Indeed, it only makes sense if I assume you've confused humanism with anthropocentrism, which is a more apt description of your philosophy.

[Donnadogsoth]

@Donnadogsoth: That shows you read neither my earlier posts in this thread nor the comic all that carefully. Now, I can't wax poetic about Buddha, but I can point out that your cries of "anti-humanism" ring extremely hollow when it is you who consistently places armchair logical idealism above empiricism, and you who extol various superstitious and obsolete beliefs with near-dogmatic fervor. Indeed, it only makes sense if I assume you've confused humanism with anthropocentrism, which is a more apt description of your philosophy.

"Just blocks shuffling around"

[Frozen_Feet]

*Yawn*

(In case someone else forgot what is being referred to.)

[Aliquid]

THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HIS LIFE
EVEN THE MIGHTIEST EMPEROR REIGNED OVER BUT A STONE
THE SUN, THE TINIEST AND MOST UNNOTEWORTHY OF STARS
HIS STONE CAN BE TURNED TO ASH ON ITS SLIGHTEST WHIMS

And? So? Why does this threaten you so much?

Oh my goodness, is that what it's about? "Entitlement" talk? Fear of "superiority"? Have fun breaking the sewer system flushing that crap.

No, that's not what this is "all about"... I'm pretty sure you are blind to what this is "all about". And I'm not even sure where you got the whole fear of superiority thing...

All I can really say is dial down the pride and work on a bit of humility.

[thorgrim29]

So... here's my take on this increasingly pointless discussion, and it keeps happening in most threads you're involved in Donna as far as I remember. You go up "against" people who are broadly (I don't want to make assumptions about other people but I think this one is pretty safe) coming at the question from a materialist/existentialist point of view. We're having a discussion based on that foundation and you're objecting by saying that we're wrong because you disagree with that basic point of view, but instead of explaining why you do you attack the conclusions as being wrong because they are different from the ones you came to based on a completely different starting point. Then we go into greater detail in our reasoning and you keep getting angrier and weirdly archaic until the whole thing degenerates into screaming and/or the thread gets locked.

I get that this sucks for you because a side effect of the rules on religion on these boards is that they give an unfair advantage to people coming at debates from a materialist point of view because we can explain everything without breaking them and you can't, but I don't really see a way out of it...

Also, since we're quoting, here's Tim Minchin:

Isn't this enough?
Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable, natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?
If you're so into your Shakespeare, lend me your ear:
"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw perfume on the violet... is just ****ing silly"


And also Sagan, as a rebuttal of the suicidal nihilism thing:

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

[lio45]

It is therefore limited in time, in precisely the same way that y = e^x/(1 + e^x) is has a limit in x as x -> infinity.

Not important for your point, but the limit of that is 1, not x, as x -> infinity.

[veti]

I have given the logical evidence: if animals could "sneak up behind their own minds" and see that they themselves, personally, were the subjects of inevitable death, this would have an effect on their personalities and behaviour of having them respond to their knowledge in some way analogous to how humans respond to it.

That is not logic, that is just another restatement of your assumption. You are not giving any reason why the one thing must necessarily lead to the other, merely saying "it must be so".

[Kyberwulf]

Why do people fear death? That is simple. Dying sucks. It's the only thing in life that is forever. Forever, and we don't know what happens to us when we are dead, if anything happens at all.