I'm just not sure living a life of near-constant anxiety is something practical, — Erik

I'm really not sure that that's what Heidegger is advocating. Constant anxiety does not strike me as in the least bit compatible with an 'authentic' life. Like the whispering of 'memento mori' contemplation of one's ultimate destination is surely intended to keep you on the path to authenticity not turn you into a quivering wreck by the side!

According to Spinoza, a free man thinks of nothing less than death. — Erik

I will start by saying both that this is a topic that has interested me (personally and I have dealt with anxiety related to death as well), and also that I side mostly with Spinoza - and strongly disagree with Heidegger.

Regarding Spinoza's point, thinking about death can be debilitating. — Erik

Indeed it can be. While we think about death, we're certainly not concerned with how we can make our condition better, how we can help our family, or how we can do something for our society or for our world. We're stuck just considering what is ultimately an inevitability, which isn't in our control. So we're effectively throwing away the time which has been granted to us, instead of gratefully using it for higher purposes. I know you probably are not religious, but I will take this moment to explain why Christianity condemns anxiety as a sin - and this is precisely the reason, namely that when one is anxious, one is ungrateful - and wastes their time dealing with what is ultimately not in their control. They could've used this same amount of time doing more useful activities.

First, I had a good friend - one much younger and seemingly healthier than myself - inexplicably drop dead about three years ago. — Erik

This is possible and it is very unfortunate - but many times there are warning signs that people ignore or simply don't know how to check. It is also significant to note that in today's world people are relying on doctors with the same absurd faith that they used to place in the priest. In the end we alone are responsible for our health - we must be well informed, we must have adequate knowledge about potential conditions, we must be able to read our own blood tests for example, understand how to assess liver function, understand the body's vital functions and how to measure them, etc. Most people do not bother though - they leave it all to the doctor, they don't even know what AST (SGOT) test result on their blood tests measures or indicates. They go to their doctor, and their doctor's word is law. This is not a safe approach though. Your health is your responsibility, a doctor is to be used as a tool to help you, but you must have some knowledge yourself. Firstly, routine blood tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, liver function, thyroid function, kidney function, lipids/cholesterol/triglicerydes, prostate tests if you're a man) these are things you can do yearly. Second there's lots of tests which you can buy and do at home - you can do glucose test (blood sugar), blood pressure check, urine test (to check urinary tract, bladder, kidney - it will also check things like blood in the urine that you cannot see with the naked eye), stool test (will check blood in the stool water, which you cannot check with the naked eye - and which will very likely be present in either bowel cancer or stomach cancer), check your blood oxygen levels by acquiring a pulse oximeter. These are just a few options and there are more. Obviously you won't do these every day - but you can set say 1 weeks a year when you undertake all these tests on a daily basis to see and understand your condition. Blood pressure and pulse you can check weekly - in fact it's good that you do. Third - one needs to understand symptoms of disease, and be able to spot if there likely is a problem, or the symptoms are due to anxiety, etc. Fourth - one must have a 12-lead EKG, probably once a year, to check that everything is alright with the heart. In addition, every few years you can have an echocardiogram as well, to check how your heart beats. A doctor should also listen to your lungs once a year. If there are signs something is wrong with your heart, have a Holter monitor it for awhile. You can learn to read the EKGs yourself too - doesn't take that long to understand.

Now you can build a health monitoring program for yourself - then you will understand your body very well - much better than most people - and be able to help both yourself and those around you. You will be better than the GP almost :) . This will minimise your risk of "dropping dead" or finding out that you have an incurable disease when it's too late. Of course, the risk is still there - but you're doing your best. These are practical steps you can take, which will give you power over your own body, stop your utter dependency on doctors, and give you some degree of control.

Then, about six months after that, my 43-year-old sister was diagnosed with stage IV cancer after complaining of abdominal cramps. A death sentence, basically. — Erik

It is very unfortunate - nothing much we can do except being next to the person and helping them through the struggle though... And always have faith - there always is a small chance of recovery - and if there is a small chance, then you must play it, and play it to the maximum - your salvation may cling on it.

These traumatic events precipitated a an unhealthy dwelling on death, or, more specifically, on the precariousness of life. — Erik

Life is indeed very uncertain - there are things that we can do to minimise the uncertainty - such as I have recommended above. But there will always be some uncertainty. The fact is that - despite trying to sound like they know - even doctors have relatively little knowledge and understanding of the human body. It is very complicated. Doing our best is simply all we can do.

I started to feel extremely anxious and began experiencing some troubling physical symptoms, like shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and frequent light-headedness. — Erik

Ok time to have a way to separate your subjective state of your health from the objective state of your health. Anxiety can make you feel any symptom - if you are anxious about your heart, you will have palpiations, you will be short of breath when climbing stairs, you will be dizzy when getting up, etc. It is important to be able to understand the physical origin of this sensation if there is any, and if there is none, then attribute it to anxiety. What could cause this list of symptoms that you have experienced - an issue with the heart - an arrhythmia. A heart attack. An issue with your lungs. Anemia (low hemoglobin or iron levels). Wrong levels of electrolytes. Low/high blood sugar. Problems with your thyroid gland.

Arrhythmia and heart attack, you take your blood pressure, take your pulse, and check your blood oxygen level. If you feel very anxious, then your blood pressure the top number can be higher, but bottom number will generally be lower. Say you have 150/90. Pulse can be high, but will quickly become lower if you calm yourself somewhat - so try doing that and check. Say it's 140bpm, and then reduces to 110bpm - still high, but definitely not dangerously high or indicative of anything bad. Then you look at pulse oximeter, you see a regular pulse, and oxygen saturation of 95%+ - that means no arrhythmia, and likely no heart condition, or issue with your lungs. That's sorted. Next. Since you do your blood tests yearly, you will know if you have a tendency towards anemia or not. So that is sorted too. If you think something is wrong with your electrolytes, have a drink of rehydration salts, which will fix that - they cause no side effects and no harm. If you think it's your blood sugar - then measure it yourself and see - and adjust accordingly by eating sugar or drinking water. If you think it's your thyroid, you have done a blood test once a year for it. Check to see. Now you have literarily verified all possible conditions. If it's likely none of them, then it is anxiety.

Now your worries will vanish, because you have dealt with them rationally. After you do this a few times, you will never be bothered by such anxiety again. You can do this with all symptoms too. Once you have an adequate understanding of the human body - which you can build by studying during your own free time. Say 30mins a day.

These, along with frequent intrusive thoughts, led to a paradoxical situation in which an all-consuming fear of death led to an inability to cope with life, which led to suicidal thoughts (as the only way to overpower the fear of dying), and the downward spiral began. — Erik

Yes - so you have to take your life back. Take responsibility for your conditions and take practical steps to improve it. Understanding the objective state of your body is the first step. Then you have to understand your mind - why it gets anxious, when it gets anxious, and how to control it or simply ignore the feeling when it is present. This requires a bit of practice - I found mindfulness helpful. But over time you can somewhat detach yourself from your anxious mind and have a more clear eyed view. Not always possible. Just sometimes. But that is better than nothing. Don't fight the thoughts - let them be there, disprove them rationally when you can, form a plan for dealing with uncertainty. And for the uncertainty that cannot be eliminated, one must learn to ignore it and live with it. Have confidence that regardless if what you fear happens, you will be able to deal with it.

I should have probably added somewhere that it matters if you can think like a doctor - in medicine if you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras :) . So these are my more practical recommandations. My philosophical recommandations I will share soon, but this post has already grown too large, so I will put them in a different post.

As you can see above, I think anxiety can be somewhat useful. It can push you to learn a lot of useful information. Things that people should be taught at school - but they're not - instead they're taught how to solve second order differential equations, as if most of them are ever going to do that after they get out of there... Anyway.

My favorite philosophy piece on death are Plato's dialogues about the death of Socrates, especially the Phaedo and the Apology. I adopt the Socratic attitude. Either death is the end, or death is the continuation of life - the return to the gods. Like Socrates, I too hope, without knowing, that there is an afterlife - an afterlife in which I will get to meet all my loved ones, in which all the tears will be wiped away, and in which goodness will reign supreme. But it's my hope. Why do I hope? Because it's better to hope and go meet my death with goodness and gladness in my heart is it not? It's better to hope and be deceived than not to hope at all for fear of error. We can go wrong both in believing and in not believing - that's another lesson anxiety teaches. You go wrong when you don't believe that everything is fine with you, even though it is. By being uncertain you don't save yourself from error. You may actually be plunging head-on into error because you remain so attached to uncertainty. Even not making a choice is a choice. There really is no fence on which one can sit. That's why there always is some existential anxiety - one never knows if they are completely right. And yet one must choose - and not choosing is another choice. So there's another anxiety at play - the anxiety of not choosing, because you understand that that too is a choice. But time is running out - one must choose.

Now going back to Spinoza - yes I think his point is right. Our existence on this Earth isn't here for us to spend thinking about what is not in our control. The free man doesn't think on death at all - he is only concerned with what is in his freedom. You can't be concerned about your freedom and death at the same time - for if you were concerned with your freedom, then you would be concerned only with things that were in your control. But death is not in your control - for the most part. Thus, for the most part, if you are concerned about death you are not concerned about your freedom. The free man is the one who has understood that there exists a Natural Law which is above and beyond himself and loves this Natural Order because he understands that this Natural Order has arranged things for the best. He is only a small part of this Natural Order - he cannot hope to understand all its intricacies. He must obey it, because it knows better. Even if death ends all. Spinoza ends his Ethica totally courageous in the face of death:

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning [...] Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them — Benedictus de Spinoza

It allows us to 'become who we are' through the call of conscience, which can draw us away from the empty chatter and distractions of the anonymous crowd and towards possibilities of existing that we find more meaningful for ourselves. It has a positive function in that we no longer chase after the approval of others, and therefore gain a sense of freedom much more significant than the ability to do whatever we want, free of external constraints. In short, it makes life much more profound and meaningful, even in its seemingly mundane and trivial aspects. — Erik

I disagree very strongly about this. Death is not needed. One must not be moral out of fear. That is an inadequate idea per Spinoza. If one is moral because of death - because of fear, then one is just deceiving oneself - cheating himself that he is moral, when in fact he isn't. One must be moral because of one's love and thirst for the Good. Because of Amor Dei Intellectualis. Spinoza would disagree with the modern conception of freedom "doing whatever we want". That to him is bondage to our lusts - not freedom. The only freedom is the freedom to approach our fulfilment - which is precisely in Christian terms doing the will of God, ie being moral. We are all free to be moral - not all of us achieve that freedom though. We are all free to drop the chains of greed, of ambition, of lust, and to be entirely self-directed as Spinoza would say. And we are self directed when we act in accordance with the law in our hearts, which is the same law that governs the whole of nature. One Substance.

Thanks for the informative response and practical advice on how to manage stress, Agustino. I've taken the necessary steps to educate myself about the similarities and differences between symptoms caused by anxiety and those which can be traced to a condition of, say, the heart or lungs.

I would obviously like to live a long and healthy life, but I think my main concern for bringing up these very personal events/symptoms is with the possible responses they can elicit once those immediate symptoms subside and we reflect upon the fragility of life. The results could range anywhere from a weary resignation to a joyful affirmation of our existence. I find myself vacillating between the two in fact. So while getting a handle on those obsessions is indeed important, in a strange way I find myself being thankful for them - at least to a certain extent.

Now some people may find this view masochistic and suggest I get some medication to alleviate my worries and symptoms, but I believe that being open to anxiety may have an uncanny way of cutting through much of the bullshit in our lives. This in turn may leave us with a sense of awe and wonder and even thankfulness for our existence, or being generally, and so seems the ground of genuine philosophy and the possibility of a life well-lived. It's the 'attunement' which inspires and corresponds to the examined life. It plays out in practical ways too as we no longer merely put on the mask and go through the motions. So if we can appropriate our being-towards-death properly - not being overwhelmed by it but also not ignoring or dismissing it - it harbors an almost 'spiritual' function. I don't want to speculate or embarrass myself too much on a topic whose literature I'm largely ignorant of, but I intuit the genuine self which calls out during anxiety as being closely aligned with some mysterious divine presence. I won't go further with this here but, as mentioned previously, I have a deep respect for mystics and other spiritual seekers in their endeavors to tap into this source.

I guess I'm with Wittgenstein (and even Nietzsche, I think) in that while I may not be a religious man, I always find myself interpreting things from a religious point of view. I may not have been granted any grace from God, but, at the very least, I've been gifted with an intense and turbulent awareness of the strangeness of existence, and do not take things for granted. On all this I agree with Heidegger. But again, there are times when it seems all-consuming and physically and emotionally draining, not in the service of life but at its expense, and in that I see Spinoza's point. So yeah, it seems like I'm in the process of trying to appropriate these events into my life in a 'positive' way without succumbing to a morbid fixation on death itself. On this your practical advice on how to get some control over irrational fears was extremely helpful, and there was some information and advice there that I may try to implement. Thank you!

"I'm really not sure that that's what Heidegger is advocating. Constant anxiety does not strike me as in the least bit compatible with an 'authentic' life. Like the whispering of 'memento mori' contemplation of one's ultimate destination is surely intended to keep you on the path to authenticity not turn you into a quivering wreck by the side!"

Good point. I do think he felt anxiety was/is an important aspect of a 'genuine' life, but to be consumed by it in the way I described definitely does not amount to authenticity. Thankfully these feelings are fleeting, with the occasional flare ups causing a temporary paralysis of sorts, but generally lurking just below the surface and largely kept in check. Now that I have a little distance from the sensations I can try to assess their significance, if any, and that's where I'm at right now. But again this is stressful position to be in since life is by its nature precarious. I've looked into the Stoics and Buddhists and other 'schools' that seem to start from a similar position. I'm intrigued by Spinoza's ideas and feel that much of the anxiety may dissipate if I only had the right perspective. But would that even be a 'good' thing? I'm not so sure.

The idea of "saving" oneself has a strong hold. To think one is taking action to prevent death or become meaningful is incredibly powerful. It has an aesthetic no amount of Spinozian wisdom can give. Be a wretch and you can experience the wonder of being turned from something unspeakable into the just.

In a literal sense, it is to say, "I am better." Merely saying: "I am the best" of "life is the best," as Spinoza does, simply cannot compete. It has no rescue or superiority. Compared to tales of transcendent rescue, it is boring. It doesn't give someone a desired outcome. I'd say that's the difference. Not the elimination of a particular thought (e.g. thoughts about death) or sensation (e.g. a desire not to die) per se, but the idea existence owes you something.

Erik, I don't think Spinoza's and Heidegger's views are actually contradictory when properly considered. Heidegger does not advocate morbidly thinking about and fearing death, and when he speaks of death he is not even referring to the death of the body, but rather to the radical possibility of our own nothingness, that is the nothingness of what we cling to with our current images of self, that comes with the changes each authentic significantly transformative existential choice brings. As Wittgenstein points out the death of the body is something that can never be experienced; and it is in view of this that the free person, per Spinoza, never thinks of it.

And I believe that neither Wittgenstein nor Heidegger would recommend the kind of obsessive, even pathological, preoccupation with gaining control over our own physical destinies that Agustino seems to be advocating.

For me, the most crushing thought would be that life is devoid of essential meaning, that there is no overarching purpose shared by all souls that is inherent in human life. On this I agree with Agustino, that it is best to try to cultivate a faith in yourself that human life has a profound spiritual significance; such that all your learning, struggling and suffering in life will not merely come to naught, that it will not be annihilated by death; but will somehow serve a purpose in the larger scheme; a purpose that, due to our limited understanding, cannot be fully known at our present stage of spiritual evolution, but may be more or less vaguely imagined, intuited.

And I believe that neither Wittgenstein nor Heidegger would recommend the kind of obsessive, even pathological, preoccupation with gaining control over our own physical destinies that Agustino seems to be advocating. — John

I don't see any pathological thing about understanding your own body, and taking responsibility over your own body. This should be something taught to everyone in schools. You don't have faith in your priest for your spiritual health - but then you go having complete, blind faith in your doctor for your body - that's a bit crazy. As for Wittgenstein and Heidegger - probably they wouldn't give such advice, though they were philosophers. A philosopher's job is not to give life advice generally. For that YOU John read Dale Carnegie don't you? ;)

I agree there is nothing pathological about understanding your own body, but I do think monitoring your pulse and blood pressure and even performing your own blood tests betrays a pathological concern about your physical destiny, and an equally pathological distrust of doctors, who obviously know much more than you about bodies in general, even if not about your particular body. Find a better doctor, would be my advice to you. I don't say that one should blindly follow what doctors advocate, either; you are ultimately responsible for your own body, to be sure.

And you are twisting my words, as usual. I didn't say that W (actually that should have been Spinoza anyway) and H would not advise, I said they would not advocate; which means that such advocation would not be consonant with their philosophies. This is because Spinoza was at heart a kind of Stoic determinist, who believed that the only thing which can be changed is our attitude to our destinies ( and he recommended a total acceptance) and Heidegger advocated an authentic abiding with anxiety and thrownness, rather than inauthentic attempts to alleviate anxiety by means of fostering vain illusions of being in control.

To anticipate an objection that may come due to your tendency to think in black and white; I am not suggesting that one should have no concern for, or take care no of, one's health; but I do think one should try to avoid obsessive thoughts and behaviors, when it comes to health. And that is coming from a self-acknowledged well-seasoned hypochondriac. :)

I don't understand the stupid comment about Carnegie; I would never read such drivel; but it doesn't surprise me that you would make such a comment; such methods are common among politicians, and I confess that is predominately what I tend to see you as being. Perhaps you missed your vocation.
;)

And that is coming from a self-acknowledged well-seasoned hypochondriac. :) — John

I don't understand the stupid comment about Carnegie; I would never read such drivel — John

You don't have to be shy - he has quite a good book called How to Stop Worrying and Start Living :D

Well, I meant that I have experienced hypochondria in the past and now have it pretty much tamed, so I have no need of Mr Carnegie's self-help pontifications (which is not to suggest that I believe that.they would have been much help in any case).

But, again, just like a politician, it seems like you don't want to miss any opportunity to slip in the sly dart, instead of focusing on dealing with actual arguments.

Muriel Spark wrote a wonderful short, dry comic novel back in the 1960s, "Momento Mori" [Remember you will die--part of the meaning of the Ash Wednesday service]. It was about some elderly people who started receiving anonymous, untraceable, phone calls informing them that they would die. No threat was made, no date, no means given. Just, you are definitely going to die.

The old folks responded variously, but the main character, Charmaine, a frail, quite elderly and once-famous actress, found the call quite stimulating and perked up considerably for a year or so. She was like a dying plant which when finally watered and lighted properly, does well for a while. Charmaine died, of course, as did all the folks who received the call, some in the way they particularly didn't want to die.

There can't be a formula for "the authentic life" because everyone has to find, in their own circumstances, what "authenticity" is. Anything from a fixation on death to not responding at all to the certainty of death just can't be specified in advance.

That said, it seems like good advice to heed the warning of the telephone call: Just remember, you are going to die. Then get on with it. Live your life as you see fit, bearing in mind (without obsessing about it) that you won't live forever. Let that be a liberation rather than a burden. Some people are going to die too soon, much too soon, and that will be painful to their survivors. But sooner or later, all of us will die, regardless of how much yoga, long distance running, low-fat dining, no-sugar snacking, frequent check ups, perfect diet, the alleged power of positive thinking (don't believe in it myself, but that doesn't mean I want to hear you all whining all the time either) we can manage.

Thank you for your thoughtful response(s). Do you feel there's any significant difference between our death and our own nothingness? This may sound completely unsophisticated and outdated, but I'm inclined to think of my body as a sort of vehicle which is intimately linked to something higher or more spiritual which animates it. My body could linger on while 'I' am no longer there. I think of Nietzsche in his last years or others who've gone insane or succumbed to Alzheimer's or some other sort of significant brain damage. They are essentially dead.

So maybe it's not physical death that induces anxiety but the possible annihilation or nothingness of the embodied 'self' or 'soul' that we are. And this subsequently leads to thinking about the nature of the finite self, which can in turn exacerbate the anxiety since it doesn't seem to be a 'thing' we can easily grasp or understand. It appears instead as something much more mysterious and profound than is generally acknowledged.

I do think Heidegger places a lot of emphasis on the role of anxiety (about our nothingness) in disclosing our relation to being. It need not lead to despair or a morbid fixation on death, but could also result in a thankful and appreciative stance towards the life and world we've been thrown into in all its frailty and unpredictability. This is the 'positive' or affirming flipside to the awareness of death/nothingness which pervades our being. Akin to the paradoxes of Heraclitus' perhaps - sickness makes health sweet; without injustices the name of justice means what? While social conventions and myths may be tranquilizing, to exist 'authentically' and to be truly free from illusions would seem to amount to facing the uncanniness and mystery of existence (Being) squarely and, as you said, abide in the resulting anxiety. Maybe it's a precursor to a form of creativity that glorifies and celebrates the event of Being in its myriad (and mutually-dependent) aspects.

Anyhow it should be pretty obvious at this point that I share your view of the spiritual significance of our lives. I have a vague faith in that at least. Part of me feels I'm on the verge of some sort of religious conversion/radical leap of faith which recent experiences have prepared me for. Oddly enough I've felt tremendous joy recently - definitely not all doom and gloom all the time - the likes of which I had not felt before in my life. Not sure what's going on. Wishful thinking? Slipping into 'madness'? Some sort of survival mechanism? The divine crashing in on my life? The call of Being?

And by the way, I don't mean to imply that the death of a friend and the harsh diagnosis of a loved one were events that were somehow concocted for my sake in order for me to find meaning (or God) - which would be incredibly egotistical - but rather that they shook me from complacency and led me to this spiritual crisis. The question now is whether to persist in the turbulence (Heidegger) or strive to attain some sort of stoic detachment from it (Spinoza). I'm not quite sure these two possible responses to our predicament can be reconciled. In fact the more I think about it the more they seem radically opposed. But you probably have a much better grasp of these thinkers than I do.

power of positive thinking — Bitter Crank

The great Norman Vincent Peale...

In the events you described there's more going on than just death. When a younger person dies it's unnatural death. When someone you love dies, love itself can feel like a wound.

Were either Heidegger or Spinoza talking about afflicted death? Or just death in general (which can manifest as something happy and natural.)

I think I'm looking for some Aristotelian golden mean between the extremes — Erik

I think this is where ritual can help. The Stoics recommended once a day, preferably at the same time, briefly but deeply reflecting on one's mortality and that of those we love. I think I read about it in William Irvine's wonderful book 'A guide to the good life: The ancient art of Stoic joy'. That practice seems to work well for me.

I don't know if this is relevant but recently I've been finding my idea of death - which we can never understand in any complete rational way - gravitating towards an idea of reincarnation. Not as far as having conscious memories of a past life but in the sense of one's consciousness somehow merging with a universal consciousness which then re-emerges in particular ways in new consciousnesses.

It is 'only' a metaphor, but then so is every other belief or perspective that we have.

I don't know if this is relevant but recently I've been finding my idea of death - which we can never understand in any complete rational way - gravitating towards an idea of reincarnation. Not as far as having conscious memories of a past life but in the sense of one's consciousness somehow merging with a universal consciousness which then re-emerges in particular ways in new consciousnesses. — andrewk

I find this interesting. Typically though I tend to associate beliefs in reincarnation with those who somehow want to sugar-coat death, but I am certain that since you are very rational based on your posts and you have used Stoic practices and are at peace with the idea of death as final end, this isn't the case here. So I feel the need to ask you if you don't mind... how have you arrived at such a belief in reincarnation? I am interested in the journey and evolution of your thought towards this idea, including reading or experiences that have led to it if you don't mind sharing of course. I'm not asking to criticise I'm just curious about such experiences, and changes of belief from the belief of death as final, to a conviction that something like reincarnation is true.

Also if you would clarify if this idea of reincarnation entails the "migration" of any traits, or features or really anything that form part of your consciousness today. In other words, I'm guessing I'm asking what reincarnates according to your view? The consciousness I understand, but what is included in that? Does it include your fundamental character traits? Your fundamental desires and ideals? Or what exactly?

Do you feel there's any significant difference between our death and our own nothingness? This may sound completely unsophisticated and outdated, but I'm inclined to think of my body as a sort of vehicle which is intimately linked to something higher or more spiritual which animates it — Erik

I think Spinoza would say that we are nothing (not what we think we are; i.e. not radically free) in the sense that we are already nothing more than manifestations of the 'one': “God, or Nature”, Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface). Spinoza's is ultimately an entirely mechanical view of nature and God.

I think Heidegger would also say that we are not radically free beings (contra for example Sartre) because we are finite, factical, historical beings thrown into this world. Heidegger tries to focus us on the possibility of authentically feeling the anxiety inherent in this thrownness. But in another sense the anxiety is on account of the kind of a radical freedom inherent in having no ultimate guide for our decisions, that is if we reject the inauthentic mode of being of adherence to "das Man" or 'the they" which means basically not adhering to any generalizations about 'what one does", then we must face the existential dread of being radically responsible for our thoughts and actions .

So, I would say that for Heidegger, every decision, every move in one direction annihilates all the other directions; it is in this sense that those other possibilities and also what we were prior to the move, become nothing. Living this is what Heidegger calls 'being towards death', The death of the body does represent the ultimate possibility of our nothingness; but this is not what he is concerned with. In authentic action we become something else and what we were becomes nothing. In the death of the body we may or may not become something else, but of course just like all other movements, and perhaps more radically in this extreme case, what we were becomes nothing. On the other hand some of what what we were of course will be carried over into what we become, this is so in our everyday movements and may be so in death itself; it is only the parts of us that are not compatible with the movement that must be nihilated.

I don't believe Heidegger was concerned with, or asserting, any theory about what happens after the death of the body. Spinoza said that we may live on in God, but only if we have come to see "sub specie aeternitatis" which means roughly 'from the perspective of the eternal". For Spinoza this is the highest form of knowledge; a kind of pure rational intuition. (All of these interpretations are my own' so they may well not agree with any consensus views held by scholars).

The question now is whether to persist in the turbulence (Heidegger) or strive to attain some sort of stoic detachment from it (Spinoza). I'm not quite sure these two possible responses to our predicament can be reconciled. In fact the more I think about it the more they seem radically opposed. — Erik

I don't think Heidegger would insist that we must deliberately cling to grief, or rule out the idea that it is helpful to find ways to think about loss that help us to cope with the emotions that inevitably come with it. As I said, my interpretation is that Heidegger recommends an authentic life which consists in facing and responding to particular events on their own terms and not in terms of generalities about those kinds of events. If it is your authentic response to a particular event to feel it, and to think about it in your own particular way that involves ideas however 'spiritual', that truly speak to your own being, then what can be wrong with that? Suffering for the sake of suffering, or merely for the sake of not appearing to ourselves, and/or others, to be callous, I believe Heidegger would see as inauthentic responses. There is a certain "stoic detachment" involved in seeing just how we do honestly feel and think about events and people. It is not always easy to come to see this because of the mass of introjected 'das Man' ideas about 'how one should feel and think', that we all carry with us.

Gday Agustino.
I find it impossible to accurately describe my stance towards the notion of reincarnation. It is not a belief in the sense of a proposition. I don't think it is even cognitive - although I sometimes wonder whether I am sure what I mean by cognitive.

All I can say is that, out of the various metaphors that are used to describe death, from the cessation described by reductive materialism, to the rebirth of Christianity and Islam, to the Kali Yuga destruction and reimagining of Hinduism, to the non-self of Buddhism, and many others, I find that reincarnation resonates in some inexplicable way with me. On a very banal level one could liken it to the Circle of Life from the Lion King. Perhaps it's a mix of the 'Brahman's dream' notion of Hinduism with the Buddhist non-self - notwithstanding that Nagarjuna's non-self (anatta) doctrine was apparently primarily intended as a rejection of the Hindu notion of atman, which I guess is associated with Brahman's dream.

I don't believe any stuff about persistent traits, dispositions, inclinations or memories. But I have been exposed to all those things I mention above, having been raised a devout RC, spent a few years as a passionate anti-religious person, read and listened to lots of Alan Watts and Buddhist podcasts (Free Buddhist Audio, Insight Meditation Centre, esp Gil Fronsdal, sometimes Tara Brach).

You're right that it's consciousness that I think of as being recycled in some way. I tried to describe it in this essay a while back. It's all so shrouded in metaphor and fundamentally inexpressible. That's why I view mysticism as the most fruitful approach to philosophy for me.

I'll have one more go (which will of course fail, because the subject is impervious to assault by mere words):
I am not important. It is not important that this body continues to live. What is important is that there be life. And every instance of that ongoing life will be 'I'.

Great stuff guys. I'll try to respond in more detail later, but it's given me a lot to think about and there are a few contributions here that I can maybe even appropriate pragmatically into my life. I was hesitant to post this topic, in large part because of its highly personal nature, but I'm happy I did so now.

Quickly though, one of my issues is that while I think these things through quite a bit, I've never been able to arrive at set, unshakable positions on the 'big' questions. I'm referring of course to things like the meaning of life and the nature of existence. I have plenty of opinions on 'worldly' topics like politics and economics, but I see extremely intelligent and sincere people (not only here but amongst the 'wise' throughout history) disagreeing on pretty much everything. This being so I cannot convince myself that anyone has found the Truth. If that's the case for the 'smaller' practical issues then it's surely the case for the larger and more speculative ones.

As for me, well, Socrates' knowledge of his own ignorance and Zen Buddhist (as I understand it) dismissals of metaphysical speculation have always resonated with my acute awareness of intellectual and personal limitations. Trust me, I really want to believe that I have the answers to the riddle(s) of life and death, or even to dismiss the idea that there are any riddles to solve - but I don't have anything more than some fuzzy and ambiguous intuitions about the 'spiritual' significance of life. And even that's a relatively recent development largely borne out of these tragedies. Maybe that's enough, but it's remarkable to me how resilient people of faith (not only religious faith) can be in their responses to tragedy. I'm a bit envious of their ability to place things within a larger and ultimately edifying holistic framework.

That young friend who died -- his parents (Christian missionaries) have a firm belief that their son is with God in Heaven and that they will see him again in some glorified state. And make no mistake, these are not 'stupid' people. The father in particular is an engineer by training who moved the family to Bolivia for about ten years and taught rural villagers how to generate power (along with working on their souls) through the use of various cheap materials. He has a YouTube channel of tutorials, and some of them have over a million hits. Not that that's the gold standard for intelligence but...

For those of us who lack faith in any coherent and all-encompassing worldview, we don't have the palliative effect of strong religious or even scientific belief to fall back on. Ultimately 'I don't know' seems the most honest answer to life's major questions - of which unanticipated death brings to the forefront - even if not the most efficacious or emotionally satisfying. To rest content in this perplexed state, which incidentally is about as far from indifference as possible, is something that takes more courage than I currently have, I think.

In a strange way just talking honestly about these things, and seeing how each of you comes to grips with your mortality (and the mortality of those you care about), has taken away some of the sting and loneliness. There's enough anonymity (and intelligence) here that I don't feel the need to project strength (like I do with my wife and boys) and pretend that I'm not hurting deeply.

Thanks again.

Thanks.