6
   

All Fear Is The Fear Of Death

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:09 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
The kitten turns fight the tom without comprehension of death, out of a sense of its life which carries the instinctual fear of death. As Lincoln put it: an ant holds his life in the same regard as you do yours. .


As much as I respect Lincoln, I tend to doubt that. Don't you? I don't think that ants hold anything in regard.
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:11 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
:)What is this thing you would term the causality of response and what do you mean by saying fight or flight is a secondary thought, or am I misunderstanding you? Fight or flight are instinctual responses and cannot really be considered a common thought process, they are if anything something of the first order, there is no time for abstract thoughts ect.., here, when danger is immediate, so too must the respones be immediate.


First, I was trying to say that fight or flight IS a first order response, so we agree there.

Second, I used "causality of response" trying to say that a fear response could be caused by stimuli that come to us on a second order thought level, a level of fear that did NOT threaten death but still ilicit the fear response.

Third, If I understand correctly, your consideration in this thread is not a tautology because it is not premis? I'm new to philosophy, so 'm trying to better understand thees concepts like, tautology. Thanks for your understanding:).
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 10:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
As much as I respect Lincoln, I tend to doubt that. Don't you? I don't think that ants hold anything in regard.

And since the question was brought up by other kids heaping coals on the backs of terripins to free them from their shell we might presume they held little in regard as well. Each planet has its orbit, and we might say the same of people that they hold little in regard. So when we see them suffer, and die it is not out of their store of meaning that we give their lives meaning, but out of our own supply based upon our feelings of our own lives. Those who do not hold their own lives in high regard do not do so with the lives of others. It would be strange if the did. But it is a mark of understanding to do so.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:53 am
@Fido,
Hi everyone,Smile

:)If one doubts the animal world can grasp the concept of death, one needs only take a stroll through the woods. Animals are almost constantly on the alert for the dangers of a predator, one relaxes in nature at ones own peril, the foolish perish and do not pass on their genes. Nature, red in tooth and claw, animals live in the awareness of life lives on the life, or more fittingly, life lives on the death of others, or life consumes itself, one of god's wonderful designs. :eek: What a revolting development!! -----lol!!Wink
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:02 pm
@ogden,
ogden wrote:
First, I was trying to say that fight or flight IS a first order response, so we agree there.

Second, I used "causality of response" trying to say that a fear response could be caused by stimuli that come to us on a second order thought level, a level of fear that did NOT threaten death but still ilicit the fear response.

Third, If I understand correctly, your consideration in this thread is not a tautology because it is not premis? I'm new to philosophy, so 'm trying to better understand thees concepts like, tautology. Thanks for your understanding:).


ogden,Smile

:)Where is this premise to be found in the history of western philosophy or perhaps, eastern philosophy?

:)This secondary level of response you mentioned, no doubt exists, but does not negate the premise. All of reality is process and this is no acception, my point being that this particular process is built upon the fear of death, the rest, is the process of realization.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:28 pm
@ogden,
ogden wrote:
First, I was trying to say that fight or flight IS a first order response, so we agree there.

Second, I used "causality of response" trying to say that a fear response could be caused by stimuli that come to us on a second order thought level, a level of fear that did NOT threaten death but still ilicit the fear response.

Third, If I understand correctly, your consideration in this thread is not a tautology because it is not premis? I'm new to philosophy, so 'm trying to better understand thees concepts like, tautology. Thanks for your understanding:).


A tautology is a truth by definition like "All brothers (biological) are male" since that really just come down to, "All male siblings (def. of brother) are male. And that is just a verbal truth. Tautologies are true, but only because they are true by the meaning of the words, and not because it is what happens in the world which makes them true. On the other hand, if someone says, for instance, that all brothers are loyal, that if it were true, would not be merely a verbal truth, a definitional truth, but would be true because all brothers are (in fact) loyal. And, in order to discover whether that was true, we would have to do some investigation into the world, and it would not be enough just to know the meaning of the word, "brother". All brothers are, by definition, males. But it isn't true by definition that all brothers are loyal.

The importance of the difference between tautologies, which are definitionally true, and non-tautologies which, if true, are not definitionally true, is that sometimes, in philosophy, what are really tautologies, are really passed off as non-tautologies, so that the attempt is to have the truth of a tautology, while pretending the statement is not a tautology. If, for instance, I tell you that all rabbits eat lettuce, and if I place lettuce in front of a rabbit, but the rabbit refuses it, I may not admit that my statement that all rabbits eat lettuce is false despite the rabbit that refuses the lettuce. I may simply tell you that the animal can't be a rabbit, because it refuses the lettuce. If I do that, then I am defining being a rabbit in terms of eating lettuce, and then my statement that all rabbits eat lettuce, although it appears to be a non-tautology, has been made into a tautology by the way I have defined the word, "rabbit". The original statement that all rabbits eat lettuce was not a tautology. But if I now tell you that it is true that all rabbits eat lettuce because when a rabbit refuses the lettuce I just define it as a non-rabbit, I am trying to pass off a tautology as a non-tautology and trying to make you believe that the original statement is true because the tautologous statement which looks like it, is true. It is just "bait and switch".

Now, consider the original proposition, "Everybody (or all actions) is selfish" (or "everybody is really selfish" the "really" is a tip off that there is going to be some verbal fancy-footwork). Suppose I point out that a man who sacrifices his life to save his comrades isn't selfish. And suppose that the reply is that such a person is "really" selfish because he is doing what he "wills", and if anyone does what he wills, that is selfish. Now, notice how the term "selfish" has been redefined so that whatever anyone does voluntarily becomes a selfish action. It is now a tautology that all actions are selfish since "selfish action" has just been redefined as a voluntary action, and so, of course, All voluntary actions are (guess what) voluntary actions. Big deal! But, the original "all actions (or people) are selfish" which was supposed to be a non-tautology, is said to be proved true, because it has been transformed into a tautology, and, of course, it is the tautology, and not the original statement, which has been proved true.

I expect that those who claim that all fear is fear of death will do the same kind of thing. Define all fear in such a way as it turns out to be fear of death. Of course, that is a pointless semantic procedure. And hypocritical on the part of those who claim to disdain "semantics".
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:52 pm
@kennethamy,
:)Do not carry your personal feeling about a person into a new topic well referring to the old. Its not nice Stanley!!!Wink :p:rolleyes:
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:53 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi everyone,Smile

:)If one doubts the animal world can grasp the concept of death, one needs only take a stroll through the woods. Animals are almost constantly on the alert for the dangers of a predator, one relaxes in nature at ones own peril, the foolish perish and do not pass on their genes. Nature, red in tooth and claw, animals live in the awareness of, life lives on the life, or more fittingly, life lives on the death of others, or life consumes itself, one of god's wonderful designs. :eek: What a revolting development!! -----lol!!Wink

They don't grasp concepts. They act on instinct, and while that instinct can be redirected, it is not done so with the use of concepts. And life does not consume itself. Ultimately life depends upon inert minerals and the light of the sun. So, it is abundant. Every year, for example, five times more carabon compounds are created by the sun than are used by humans. We are not completely cannibals.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:59 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
In my opinion you are going about this in the wrong way. Have you stopped to realise the different parts that humans consist of? Because I think you have not a because of that become a little tied up within yourself.

A quick question to get things started: do you see the difference between what a person is and what a person thinks he is?


Arjen,Smile

:)If you believe you have a better approach to the same principle then lead the way! What a person is, is a given at birth, what a person thinks he/she is is always subject to error, but, the error is often what is acted upon.Wink
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:20 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
They don't grasp concepts. They act on instinct, and while that instinct can be redirected, it is not done so with the use of concepts. And life does not consume itself. Ultimately life depends upon inert minerals and the light ofhte sun. So, it is abundant. Every year, for example, five times more carabon compounds are created by the sun than are used by humans. We are not completely cannibals.
:confused::confused::confused:

Fido,

:)Much of humanity has a limited idea about what knowledge is or where it is to be found and in what form, its agreed, the animal world does not function on the same level. Instincts I would think are those concepts ingrained into the fabric of life to insure immediate response to immediate danger. The process seems to have been condensed, does it not? There is no time for abstract thought when you can feel the predators breath on your neck or, make out the pattern of its form through the bushes.

Smile"Life does not consume itself." Well, you are not really it touch with reality then are you. You are into photosynthesis are you, then you have no need to buy groceries, must be great. "Life lives on life," Big fish eats little fish. The symbol of the snake consumeing its own tail called the, Ouroboros. This is the symbol of the concept of life consumeing itself, or harsh reality.

:)There are certain organisms found at the bottom of the ocean, whom indeed do live upon the free mineral content of the volcanic vents on the ocean floor, these I believe are the only acceptions to the rule, life lives upon life. If you have other examples of acceptions to the rule, I am all ears!!!Very Happy
0 Replies
 
mtneves7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 12:59 pm
@boagie,
I really think me and you are on the same page so I'll talk to you about it. I'm working on a book involving this concept as part of another larger concept. That Aside I'm thinking that the fear of death isn't limited to what we normally categorize as fear. Things such as bad,evil,gross etc are all just synonyms of fear of death. Anything that could bring the potential of death is bad and anything that promotes life is good. Studies conducted on children's tastes in food is the most obvious evidence of this, Young kids tend to be picky eaters they use words like gross or yucky to describe food they don't like and good or awesome for things they do. A bitter food item is usually unpopular among-st kids this is because this is an instinct we have carried for a long time without it we would not of survived as well as we did a lot of things that are poisonous are usually bitter and understandably most things that are poisonous do in fact have the potential to kill you. Eventually however in time people can learn to overcome this and then learn to love things like broccoli. The fact that this isn't often seen in the psychological community is because its hard to see it for yourself Its like seeing a destroyed room and an elephant and then not connecting the two are related. If you have had no frame of reference you wouldn't be able to conclude the elephant made the mess unless someone showed you and you see it for what it is. Sucks that we are blind to what is right in front of us, and our psychologists are just as human as we are and are not exempt from this.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:49 pm
@mtneves7,
You are about 4 yrs late.
0 Replies
 
otiose
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 02:33 am
@boagie,
Apart from the fear of cliche, my greatest fear might, and only might, be a fear of dying and not a fear of death. How can one be afraid of that which one will never know?
0 Replies
 
amorea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2012 01:44 pm
@boagie,
It is not a simple subject. It has many layers of thinking about it.
Yes most people have fear of death, but there are those who know or believe that they don't die. Only their body dies, but they remain intact as individual souls.
Then there are people who are too sick or too old and tired of living who are not afraid, even wellcome death.
But most people are really fear of how they die, the pain of dying. But if you tell them they just have a heart atteck they are OK with it.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:13 pm
@boagie,
To my thinking, all emotions derive from love. Fear of death is love of self. Fear for a son's safety is love for that son. Everything I fear threatens something I love. I define irrational fears as those that I cannot find what threatens.
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 02:05 pm
When one considers the complexity of the ever growing branches of the psychological tree in it's understanding of human fears, one realizes the objects of fear then, are all but limitless. I still maintain the source is singular in nature, If a human fear cannot find its object it makes no sense to us, if that same fear is attributed to the baseline fear of our own mortality, no matter how obscure or far removed the modern fear may seem, mortality is the mother of all fear, temporarily, the source of all sorrow.

Side note: mtneves7 ----- your post is not lost upon me. You might checkout Spinoza he has some interesting stuff to add to this.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 11:31 pm
@boagie,
If I were not mortal I would be tortured by the knowledge that inevitably I would be alone in an expired Universe. What a ghastly ego-trip.
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 02:23 pm
it is unfortunate that u think so wrong that obviously it is impossible for u to b right

im sure u r not even aware what u r doing here, while u r hundredpercent with its end

u r giving life to lies that state everything being only one always, urself which is ridiculous but u love it dont u especially what is ridiculous in shape of possible life, as long as u can lie and pretend watever suit u alone

fear do not exist in truth, that is how fear is about else agressions, when else in truth is always the positive reason, agressions is an unknown concept in truth that is why it is a source of fear since to exist basically u must know ur reality first

being aware is always about the realisation of else existence then oneself existence become evident as else too
while for u u dont need that, u r over it forever since god force that there is nothing but u, so u fear death u love tot u **** fart uuuu all is about u individually and u love it especially when u have to say o so guilty yes it is my fault of course sorry i will do better promise

it is never about u never, put that in ur head straight that someone said it loudly, u must get back and think ur basics ur god didnt do any absolute new base to expressions wills, im here sayin it loudly, any exist bc else exist then anything and everything is always objective independant to any existence while through relations of existence resolved in superior terms

pur logics of human perspective that happen to b honest provin that all what u think that god did is false so a lie of u

u might enjoy urself very much but still u dont matter and objective is the only matter sources
Looking4Truth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2013 10:53 am
@imans,
Is it possible to eradicate all fear from your heart? Inhabition is fear. The opposite of fear would be to embrace. Embrace all things to fear nothing. All things were created. By who or what? This story is his story, or history. Embrace what happens next. It will all come to pass. So, we walk in darkness (confusion). This too will come to pass. Any who can see or hear, let them. Know this; You walk thru a valley of dry bones. Darkness will come to pass.
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2013 04:04 pm
@Looking4Truth,
u r evil that is why u mean to create not only urself reality but mostly first everything ends in order to create urself wills life

embrace wat is that word embrace urself out of anything else which is never called but out of facts maths, hey there is smthg called truth while there is nothing but truth, the fact that u deny it is ur problem alone moron

how dare u mean to come to an individual that clearly know well to judge urself above enough to tell him the wrong he is himself and what he should b to sound better from ur perspective of him
u r such insolent in all means and ways, while fear is not of ur kind piece of freak living from all evil powers in absolute terms possessing existence

wat is darkness how darkness is smthg to talk about, which show the exclusive evil u r

u r so disgusting that u have no shame to mean clearly another individual known being true so somehow in contact with everything real, and u mean him just to ask for smthg more to do, freak a true individual is existing right that u must respect, not someone to force to what u want since he is true so he must b used as symbol giving u smthg u want

fear is what u cant know piece of freak, since u r not a conscious right at all
fear is constant humiliations mind state and constant increasin physical disgustin pains

like i said fear is never about death, this is u and ur cheapest insistence to define anything hopin that noone has the time to contradict u

 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/09/2021 at 04:35:54