Jack: "Mourn" this guy? (Bleep!) MOURNING, let's celebrate, drink, be merry. I hated the (deleted) and finally he's dead.
Irene: Did you know our friend personally? If not then how can you have hated him? Or do you mean that you hated the image of him that you got from the perception of him, and what you heard people saying about him?
Try to be decent enough to remember he was someone's son, and another person's husband, so at least keep your sick opinions to yourself.
Robert: Why are they sick? They're his, and they're honest. Me, if Washington was nuked this morning, I'd be dancing in the street. If someone else wants to mourn, fine.
T : Remind me not to lend you my pick up truck. Hey, is that an ATF agent over there?
Robert: Do you mind?
T : No, please go on, this is sounding promising already.
Robert: It is his opinion, and he's welcome to it. No amount of arguing is going to change his opinion one whit. Doesn't anyone else see this?
T : Except that he is not talking to himself as he is saying this, but has sought out an audience. If he wishes to argue in support of an idea, or reaction, and thereby seek to win support for it, then that entitles us to argue against it.
Do you believe that Jack has more of a right than anyone else to be heard, regardless of the merits of what it is that he has to say? Because, if his ideas are never subjected to scrutiny, how are those around him to determine what those merits are?
Robert (smiling): So, how do you know that you're entitled to the same rights that Jack is? Just asking.
T : If you wish to argue that such a priviliged position can exist in a moral context, then how, logically, is the identity of that individual occupying the priviliged position derivable from the structure of the reality that we inhabit - from first principles?
If you can't find such a derivation, then are you not postulating the existence of an entity - that priviliged position - contrary to the dictates of Occam's razor? Further, is it not the case, that for something to be true, it must be impossible for it to be the case that it is false? A moral principle is a thing without physical substance. If it lacks a logical foundation, what is the basis of its existence, that would exclude the acceptance of a contradictory principle?
In our case here, why would it be that the unexplained phenomenon that exalts one, would fail to exalt another to the same degree? What would maintain this asymmetry in the moral structure of reality, that is implied by the alleged recognition of a privileged moral position? To exalt all, is to exalt none, so for such privileged moral positions to exist, our metaphysical granter of special rights, couldn't be distributing them evenly.
How would this unspecified process even decide who to bless, and who to pass by, and how would we determine who its grace had thus been bestowed upon? How, in the course of an argument, do we distinguish between that person, and another with the same or similar qualities and history of conduct, aside through reference to that pattern of meaningless sounds or symbols that we used to construct a label - a name - for that person? Can we derive real moral knowledge from an analysis of a string of sounds or symbols that may be assigned, almost at random?
If our bestowal of privilege is the same whenever the aforementioned qualities and history coincide to a significant degree - then aren't we really basing our moral considerations on these, rather than the identities (rhetorically ungraspable as entities distinct from the labels used for identification) of those so blessed?
But which such qualities in this case, create that special entitlement to the floor? If their alleged presence should be the rationale for granting one, rather than another, the right to speak, how are we to ascertain their presence? Or are we simply to take your word for their presence, and not ask ourselves what makes us so sure that your claim is a valid one? Why should we so freely place our judgement in your hands?
Robert: Go back a bit. Oh, and I think that you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
T : Not at all, Bob. I merely considered the logical implications of shifting one's view of reality in such a way as needed to make your demand reasonable. The strangeness of the view of reality so generated would suggest that your demand is an unreasonable one.
To say that the analysis is unreasonable because of the strangeness of the conclusions drawn from the disputed premise, or the volume of them, is to say that the more absurd the implications of a theory are, the less subject that theory is to valid criticism. This would seem to be an inversion of good sense.
If my response seemed a little roundabout, it was a very fundamental thing being questioned, and the less that one is allowed to assume, the more one has to put into building up the conceptual framework needed to base one's arguments on.
But, please go on. I think that I interrupted you.
Robert: Yes, you did.
How do you know that reality even has a moral structure? Does what happen, necessarily have anything to do with what's right, if we buy your point of view?
T : If it doesn't, then on what basis can you place a demand on me, and expect to be taken seriously?
But as for your second question ...
The dictates of morality do not have to be respected to be real, any more than do the dictates of common sense. The actions that men take do not become just, merely by benefit of having been taken.
To continue, though, considering another possible explanation for that which you've seen fit to leave obscure, so far - is it your point, that the first person to take a position on an issue, is entitled to do so without rebuttal? Would this be a productive approach, for people to take, in general? Isn't that going to leave the floor of discussion exclusively in the hands of those who take the least time to think out their positions before blurting them out? Is that approach likely to lead to the promotion of good sense or that of rash lunacy?
Robert: OK, here's what's confusing me. I know you believe in some kind of God, or gods, or whatever. Don't you think it's disrespectful for you to be questioning the way they run things? I mean, if somebody's dead, it's because they said so, right? And it's going to be for the best, so why not just trust them, and not worry about it?
T : Because belief is not knowledge. I may, and in fact do believe that there is an afterlife, but I have to face the reality that I might be wrong. Given that what is at stake, is someone's very existence, I have to take even a small chance that I'm in error very seriously, and I wouldn't be so cocky as to declare the probability of my metaphysical speculations being in error, to be that low.
Robert: What would be so wrong with nonexistence? Sounds fairly peaceful to me. A total lack of consciousness wouldn't be scary. A total lack of consciousness would imply that "I" wouldn't be there to experience it. The very concept of terror implies that there is someone there to be terrorised.
So, if death should lead to oblivion, then why would it be so bad? If there's nothing on the other side of death, then "I" snuff out along with my body. So, nothing bad can be happening to me, right?
I mean, don't get me wrong. It'd be cool, living a long, healthy life. I'm not some crazy person, who's going to step in front of a bus. But if it's not going to happen for someone, I just don't think that it's anything to cry about. When it's over, it's over, and there's nothing more to be upset about.
T : There is a bit of sloppiness in your thinking on this point. In effect, you're equating the concept of something being "bothersome", or "unpleasant" with that of it being "unfortunate". "Well, I won't mind my nonexistence, because I won't be there to be upset about it, so how can it be bad?" No, the correct question, would be, "so how could it be a source of unhappiness for me AT THE TIME", (as opposed to "how could the thought of this, be a source of unhappiness for me, now), which is not the same thing at all. It is the difference between something being a rational undesirable option, if one should be given the choice, and it being a current source of negative stimulation, at the time of occurence. One is scrambling the tenses involved, in asking the question.
It is a fallacy that comes from taking the quirks of the language, to be a source of fundamental truth. "If I do not have a mind, then my state of consciousness can not be spoken of". Nonsense. That's like insisting that zero is not a number. While you are not conscious, it is meaningful to speak of the state of your consciousness, and to indicate that a cessation of existence, is what describes that state. And, one might then ask, if one would be asked if, at some future date, one would prefer that to be the applicable state, there is no internal contradiction, to then be found in the word "no". To say such, is to indicate that the state, while not unpleasant, would, nevertheless, be an undesirable outcome, though you would not desire another at the time.
Here, we have encountered a linguistic mirage. This word we use, "desirable", captures two different meanings. One, is that which one should choose. The other, is that which one would choose. These are not the same, and while some would offer disagreement, almost none would truly mean it, if confronted. For example, would it be OK for me to introduce a drug into a woman's drink that would make her agreeable to all of my wishes, if I made sure that she would never be off of that drug, for the rest of her life? While she would clearly desire the continued application of that drug, given my wishes, such an outcome could not be called a desirable one. The moment that choices cease to be free, they cease to help one determine what desirability on any sort of rational level, is. The obliteration of consciousness is the ultimate loss of freedom, for one then has absolutely no range of options. One must ever do, think, and feel the same thing - nothing at all. And thus, the lack of a wish to live again, tells us nothing of whether or not oblivion was an undesirable fate for the one who would have faded into it.
Elaine: Have you ever had a time when you became lost in something not yourself? I've found that they tend to be some of the most pleasant in life (to address one religious perspective indirectly).
At any rate, I don't think it really matters if there is another world on the other side of death, because I think that what works spiritually here would reasonably extrapolate over. If my conscience is truly clean and my internal resources are strong here, that won't vanish when I 'pass over'. The people to feel for are the ones left behind.
T : Because you say so, right? Apparently, the need to provide "whys", is something that only those who would disagree with you and Bob, should feel.
During the times you recount, you were conscious, You can't compare nonexistence to relaxation, or even to meditation. During the latter, your senses still work, your neurons still fire, and you can not help, but feel, and be aware.
Relaxation, itself, is an experience. A more valid comparison, would be to that of being in a coma. Not to be mistaken, with that of coming out of a coma, a different matter, altogether. If you lack consciousness, then, by definition, you can't be losing yourself, in something not yourself, because there is no "you" to lose. And there can be no pleasure, because you are not there to experience it.
Some have spoken of the refreshment that comes with the oblivion of deep slumber, but that isn't felt until one awakes. If someone has passed over into death, and oblivion, the alarm is going to be set a little late for him, I'm afraid.
Elaine: OK, but isn't it true, that worrying about something that you can't fix, like death, is going to leave you upset? So, why should you decide to care about this sort of thing?
T : Why one should care, if one is unable to change matters?
Aside from observing that one can easily draw that conclusion too hastily, I would point out that life, to be experienced fully, must be lived honestly, and a little bit of pain is an unavoidable part of that.
I would add, that even if one believes eventual death to be a guaranteed thing, that the time when it comes, in general, is not immutably fixed.
Robert: So, why should that matter? You die today, you die fifty years from now, either way, you're dead. So, what's the difference?
T : The difference is your state of being, during those fifty years, a reality which the events following that half century are unlikely to alter. You were alive, then, rather then dead, during that period.
If you are in the middle of a party that you are enjoying, do you walk out of it early on, because the party is going to end eventually, regardless, and your experience of it will be over by tomorrow? This would be foolishness. To do so, would be to say, that since you didn't have all that you might wish for, in this regard, you would throw away that which you were able to have.
Why would this make sense? You lose something through this approach, but what do you gain?
Robert: So, you still haven't told me, why do you feel that nonexistence would be a bad thing? Why should the thought bother one? Besides which, we all have to die sometime, so what's the big deal?
T : Let's go back to that last comment, later on.
Each of us, in his own way, assents to the presence of some value in his own existence, by merely continuing to exist, and breathe. To do so requires a certain amount of attention and care, throughout the day. We must make sure that we don't step in front of any cars as we cross the street, if nothing else. In expending even the slightest effort, we show that we feel the goal pursued - our own continuing survival, in this case - to be worth the effort expended in its pursuit. Anyone who sincerely disagreed with the notion that his existence had at least some value, would not be here to express that disagreement. Let us note that the effort expended at work, to earn the money needed to purchase the food and shelter needed to keep body and soul together, is usually far from trivial, meaning that a placing of serious value is implicit in a person's actions.
Robert: Which implies that people think that their existence has some value. But how does this lead us to the conclusion that they're right?
T : How does one define desirability, apart from the knowledge of what it is, which is desired?
Desirability is not a thing purely defined by that which we question the desirability of, but also by the states of mind, actual and potential, of the one or ones we wish to determine the desirability of that something, for. Objectivity does not imply universality. While the desirability of something, for a given individual, is a matter of objective reality (that is to say, independent of his or anyone else's opinions on the subject) - as we know given how often people have been surprised by their own reactions or sensations - it may not be the same for all, given their differing natures.
This should be no cause for astonishment. If ethical considerations took no notice of the natures of those involved, we should be speaking of the moral rights of pebbles, and the misfortune of the drying mud puddle. The very changes in those natures involved in a situation whose desirability is under consideration, and the impact of that situation on those involved, are part of the very situation being analysed. If we speak of the desirability, or undesirability of an event - that is to say, the morality or immorality of a conscious being who would bring such an event to pass - similar arguments must apply.
By studying what people seek, without prompting, we gain understanding of those inner natures which determine what desirability is, for them.
Elaine: I don't see what your issue is, with what Robert is saying.
Have you read any books that indicate "ashes to ashes, and dust to dust"? They illustrate the fleeting nature of human life in the big picture. Elton John and Tim Rice illustrated it in their song "Circle of Life", as well.
T : You're taking your philosophy of life from a song in "The Lion King"?
Charming. What's next? Maybe we can learn about the afterlife by watching a few episodes of "Scooby Doo" on Nickelodeon!
Elaine: Why so hostile? Now, admit it : Isn't it true, that we are organic beings, and we take our life from organic materials. Wouldn't it seem only fitting that when life leaves us, that we should return back from whence we came, in order to nurture and nourish Life anew?
T : Sorry, no, I think that a human life is more than a loan of a little compost. Besides which, it's a fallacy. The materials that made up your body, even 10 years ago, returned to the soil a long time ago. Mortality is not required for the Carbon cycle to function. Excretion guarantees that. A natural process that I have no desire to prevent.
Robert: Thank you, Elaine, but I can handle this.
Shall we get back to the subject?
I still don't feel that you've answered my question. Even if I were to grant that we know that non-existence was a misfortune, which I haven't, this still wouldn't tell us why it was a misfortune.
T : If you believe that a "why" is needed, or called for here, let me pose an alternative question. Why do you prefer pleasure to pain?
If all statements must have reasons, to be valid, then so must that. The preferability, the great preferability, of existence to nonexistence is as much a self-evident given, as the preferability of that which is pleasant to that which is unpleasant. To ask for a "reason" for something like that, is to ask for a collection of sentences which, if read, would render the insane, sane once more. It is unlikely that such a thing could exist. This is not something that has a reason, it is one of those things which reasons themselves find their foundation in.
Anyone who would ask such a question in a nonrhetorical fashion, would seem to be truly lost in a nihilistic fog, asking himself why he should care about anything. Again, turn the question around. When someone asks it, what has really been asked? Well, what it is, about the situation in question, that would make it so important, that it is worthwhile to spend effort or emotional energy on it. Implying that the expenditure of effort, or emotional energy, is important enough, to require justification. So the reverse question is, why should you care about the expenditure of effort?
On a gut level, you know the answer to that question, even if it is too fundamental to even be expressible in words. It is one of those places in which reason begins. But it is not the only one. Nihilism is not a philosophy, it's an expression of emotional fatigue, of being too weak, to find the strength to care about one's own existence. Now there's a failure of will, for you - the inability to expend such an effort.
The sort of person who asks questions like the one above, in real seriousness, strikes me as the sort of person who, if confronted by a man with a knife, would fall quiet, and allow his throat to be slit without a struggle, never seeking to flee, or fight for his life. It takes more than a offhand choice to do so. It takes a level of passion, to strongly hold on to one's life. Those who lack it, have a way of finding themselves face down on the pavement, or the victim of another's negligence.