• unenlightened
    Making thought into his favorite activity - indeed, into his very profession - and qualifying this activity as 'a living for death,' the philosopher simply registers the way that things are. His ingenuity consists in the emphatic tone with which he announces this rather common experience to the profane. He pretends to smuggle as a discovery and a privilege something that is, instead, actually obvious"StreetlightX

    The insistence on death as something like 'the beginning of philosophy' - rather than the far more obvious point of natality, say - has been used simply to secure the autarky of thought within itself, never inclining it to actually respect the distinctions and plurality that comprises the world:StreetlightX

    I can't work out which is supposed to be so obviously the beginning of philosophy, natality or death. I wonder if it would be more acceptable if I were to say instead that death awareness is the condition of the birth of the psyche? And then propose both philosophy and religion as attempts to resolve the paradoxes that arise from the separation of inner and outer, or self and world.
  • eodnhoj7
    Philosophy fundamentally the death of one perspective and the formation of another.

    The concept of death and philosophy is reminiscent of the "hanging man" concept observed not just in ancient or occult philosophy but reflected in various crucifixion/hanging stories in the world's religions (Christ, Odin, Quetzacoatl, Prometheius, Mithraism, etc.) where the individual is effectively suspended from reality in such a manner that the individual not only sees its totality and unity from a separate perspective, but the old individual (embodied under perspective) effectively dies in the process and a new individual is formed through a synthesis, so to speak, with "the all" and the divine mind "I am".

    Death, effectively as nothingness, is a point of inversion where one degree of life effectively as a linear progression in itself through time as a measurement of the Divine Mind (which is premised as measurement through the application of limits premised in the point, line and circle) folds into another form.

    We can observe that all spiritually is linked to fundamentally directive qualities in the basic "down to up" paradigm often associated with "transcending, rising above, ascension, etc" or the basic "up to down" associated with "The fall, descent, etc.) where the basic tenets of these spiritual qualities are premised in a form of movement as a limit in itself.

    This movement of the spirit, or emotion and intuition, can be further observed at the base practical level under a swing of emotion where one emotion is effectively directed from one to another and is observed not just as moving but a mover in itself as it is encapsulated further under thought or physical action which in turn directs back to an emotion of some form or function.

    This capacity of spirituality, as a degree of movement relative to other boundaries of movement as though/mind or body/action, reflects a form of limit in itself and gives not just a defining property to the human condition but is a mean through which further emotions, thoughts or actions exist.

    Now this change, as a form of unity to another unity as multiplicity through locality, observe a metaphorical or even literal point of inversion which is conducive effectively to 0 dimensionality or void where a unified structure inverts through non-being into further being with this "being" effectively connected to itself through its quality.

    We can see this aspect of death as inversion giving premise to heaven, hell, purgatory/reincarnation and even the void of atheism as merely dimensions in themselves where the consciousness, through life, as a directed movement effectively changes.

    With the concept of

    1) Heaven it can be observed as a fuller awareness not limited to time or any direction except all direction as a form of unity. This can be elaborated on as a 1d point of light, observed in near death experiemces.

    2) Hell can be observed as a form of continual inversion as a degree of change where nothing is constant and gives premise to a qualitative burning as a form of chaos which effectively projects strictly to void itself where the divine image, as a measuring capacity, effectively consexperiences. This can be elaborated on as a 0d point of nothingness giving premise to high degree of relativistic change as fire or the bottomless pit as void. "Nothing" after death can be viewed as synonymous.

    3) Purgatory/Reincarnation can be viewed as a form of cycling through linear time where the individual is maintained in a neutral position between unity and void and effectively continually cycles. A lower degree of reincarnation can be observed in reproduction as a cycling of qualities. The transitional aspects of personality as going from one person to another can be observed as a form of cycling or repetitive thought/emotion.

    In simpler spatial terms

    1. Heaven can be observed as a self directed unity premised in a 1d point self-directed and self maintain as pure limit through no limit as absolute.

    2. Hell can be observed as nothing, void or absence of structure through the 0d point, which is the foundation of relativity.

    3. Purgatory/Reincarnation can be observed as a continual linear progression through time as time, with the alternation of the "I", through multiple forms embodying a cycling of qualities, as a dual form of circularity.

    In these respects, from a perspective of limit as the foundation of being, death effectively is nothingness encapsulated through reason.
  • TheMadFool
    The dispassionate view is the view of the dead,unenlightened

    I agree but is all passion good?
  • Blue Lux
    When your spouse or your sibling dies, there is a hole in your life that is always next to you. When your child dies, there is a hole in your life that you are always walking into.

    But to be a philosopher is to be already dead. The image of death is already dead; thought is not life. The dispassionate view is the view of the dead, who famously complain "life is wasted on the living."

    This reminds me of some things said by Freud in Totem and Taboo. He spoke of the taboo of the dead in this book. There are lots of taboos about the dead, and many different psychological mechanisms are in play in this, especially depending on the specifics of the person that died.

    Anyway, I disagree with the idea that the be a philosopher is to be dead. This is very Socrates-Apology like. I don't agree. The death of my significant other has enflamed my desire to explore and love of trying to know, in order to have some glimpse at if there will ever be a reconciliation with this terrible loss.
    Furthermore, the passions of life are the best forces of philosophy.
  • Pattern-chaser
    But maybe not existing is different than being dead. — Marchesk

    What would that difference be?
    Bitter Crank

    That you did exist, as opposed to never having existed. If you did exist, you left a mark, an effect, on the world. You left the world in a different state than it would have been in if you hadn't been there. Not existing, or never having existed, is very different from being dead.
  • Number2018
    For a long time the so-called “Russian roulette,” a dangerous, deadly game, has been an extreme way to recognize the value of life and start thinking differently.
  • RequimForADream
    I believe the concept of Death is what inspired our forefathers. The idea that they will no longer be in existence, pushed them to explore every prespective possible so that those who follow may be informed. Hence philosophy and the study of, was born; by death.
  • TheMadFool
    But to be a philosopher is to be already dead. The image of death is already dead; thought is not life. The dispassionate view is the view of the dead, who famously complain "life is wasted on the living." Douglas Adams.unenlightened

    How does one define a human?

    Homo sapiens = wise man i.e. thinking man

    How then do we make sense of ''thought is not life''?
  • Evil
    How does one define a human?

    Homo sapiens = wise man i.e. thinking man

    How then do we make sense of ''thought is not life''?

    Humans are not life
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.