Afterlife.......

Bump...

What is an afterlife?

Well, to me it means the idea that there is something left to experience after death......

so, how would we discuss about afterlife?

Calling it "after" life implies that life ends and something else starts. From a different perspective, death could be thought of as the departure of life from the body. This way of looking at it allows for the possibility that life continues to exist independent of the body. Materialists will find that implication implausible, but as someone who has in fact lived independently of the body from time to time, I don't have a problem with it.

'Life' doesn't exist! 'Life' is a concept, a conclusion. It is a piss-poor representation of what is between the agreed upon 'beginning' and 'end' of living. Life doesn't exist without living and life doesn't come close to representing living. Since 'life' has nothing to do with living, the 'afterlife' has nothing to do with living either. Religion was created to control large groups of people by holding their salvation in the 'afterlife' hostage. The afterlife is for those people who claim to have no religion. 'Afterlife' is nothing more than a justification for putting 'living' on hold.

Brilliantly said with one minor correction, Be-ing continues to exist independent of the body.

One other thing I find interesting. While materialists are finding that implication implausible, they are still be-ing independent of the body. "You can only fool the one who is fooling himself". Just don't take up the practice of fooling yourself and you'll be fine.

Why would misery have anything to do with a belief in afterlife? Misery wants it all to end, why would those that are miserable in this life believe the next would be any better?

Best post I've EVER read, ever. I agree completely, blew my mind.

Thank you.

Well, those who are 'living' right now(which is all you can do) shouldn't be concerned with the concept, the lie that is the "afterlife". Why would the miserable think the next life would be any better? Simple. They were told so. Probably when they were verrrrrrrry little and too young to question that sort of thing. Daisen said it best.......you can only live right now........right now is all you'll ever know.

Yeah, its NOT uncommon
for folks to return from it, in hospitals, and tell us about their experiences,
some of which were objectively verified,
including people being disinherited
because the living essence of an alleged "decedent"
went to the waiting room of his hospital and heard
some of his relatives bad-mouthing him,
while his human body was lying dead in there somewhere.

He complained to his lawyer and got the will changed.

This happens so ofen, and there r so many out-of-body experiences
( I 've had some short ones )
that it shoud be no surprize any more.

Coming back from the afterlife is old news now; no big deal.





David

I do respect your ideas of the after life, so please do not take this the wrong way but after studying neurophilosophy I have come to a understanding that our brains are capable of some very amazing things.
I can only conclude that a after life experience would be one of these amazing things.

1) naive wishful thinking.

2) why would a diety exist in nothingness, they would live in a coold place which the belivers could share.

Re: JPLosman0711 (Post 4402436)
'Life' doesn't exist! 'Life' is a concept, a conclusion. It is a piss-poor representation of what is between the agreed upon 'beginning' and 'end' of living. Life doesn't exist without living and life doesn't come close to representing living. Since 'life' has nothing to do with living, the 'afterlife' has nothing to do with living either. Religion was created to control large groups of people by holding their salvation in the 'afterlife' hostage. The afterlife is for those people who claim to have no religion. 'Afterlife' is nothing more than a justification for putting 'living' on hold.

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-4404625

Sorry if I'm messing up the formatting; this is my first attempt at quoting other people's comments.

If "life" doesn't exist, what is the difference between a live human and a corpse? For that matter, what is it that forms a live body out of "dead" minerals and amino acids and so on? I'll agree that "'Life' is a concept," in the sense that, being invisible/imperceptible, it belongs in the realm of the intelligible, but I don't believe that makes it in any way unreal, much less nonexistent.

Brilliantly said with one minor correction, Be-ing continues to exist independent of the body.

One other thing I find interesting. While materialists are finding that implication implausible, they are still be-ing independent of the body. "You can only fool the one who is fooling himself". Just don't take up the practice of fooling yourself and you'll be fine.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/163597-1

Thanks, but I'm not convinced that changing "life" to "be-ing" makes it more correct. Personally, I have a hard time imagining "being" without "being-as," but I'm coming from a perspective in which the absolutely unitary is "beyond being."

I understand what you're saying, but you COMPLETELY missed his point. He's not saying "life" doesn't exist in the physical sense, but our CONCEPT of life doesn't exist. Read his post more carefully. What I believe he is saying is that 'life' is nothing more than a term(a piss poor one at that) for living beings.

As far as I'm concerned, my take on it is that AS FAR AS WE KNOW(as individuals) we've ALWAYS been, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, we'll always be. And I feel very strongly about what he said when he said the 'afterlife' is nothing more than an excuse for putting living on hold. Albeit for financial profit, or for an individual to sort of 'escape' their living for it's misery. Like I said, read his post more carefully......

Trevor

You brilliantly demonstrated what JPLosman0711 and I are saying.

Notice that when you attempt to think 'be-ing' your 'throwness' is to change it to "being-as" (some 'thing' to hold on to). The way you interpret the world (measurability and definability) is reflected back on you while you are Be-ing and instead of making a distinction between measurability and definability (thingdom), you cover up Be-ing and represent your 'self' as a 'thing'.

Heidegger says that we have to "formulate the question of Be-ing". We have to formulate the question of Be-ing, each one of us, for our 'selves'. The 'world' (measurability and definability) and the 'they' can't give us a measurable and definable answer to Be-ing. The 'world' and the 'they' can only give us measurable and definable things. It is up to us to define Be-ing.

While you are Be-ing you use 'life' to represent 'living' and 'philosophical concepts' to replace 'thinking'. Be-ing shows up in living, working, thinking, doing, playing, running, riding, etc. Be-ing doesn't show up in the con-cept of 'life', the con-cept of 'work', or the con-cept of 'thoughts'.

Another thing, it is impossible for you to 'have thoughts". You don't 'think thoughts' as if thoughts are held in some container which is separate from who you are. You can only think and misrepresent it as 'having thoughts', in other words, you cover up Be-ing.

When you represent your 'self' as a 'thing' or as a thing called a 'concept' (a combination of characteristics), i.e, 'life', 'afterlife', 'animal rationale', 'subject/object', 'Kantian', 'Heideggerian' , etc. you are no longer thinking/Be-ing. Concepts are conclusions and they close off any possiblity of thinking/Be-ing. And you can't change 'life' to be-ing and think this will fix the problem either. An answer is just another 'thing' called a conclusion, no more thinking/Be-ing.

So much talk just to say that concepts are relative and have a context...
What is the criteria to say that "thingness" is an illusion, if it fits the purpose ?
How come something fills a role and establishes a valid function is less true ?
What is it to be true that "somethingness" does not have ?
Allot of confusion going around...

'Confusion' doesn't have the inherent ability to 'go around'. Only humans be-ing can become confused. I have found that when 'be-ing' gets confused it only gets confused when who they are be-ing gets tested by another possibility. That's a good thing. Stay with it!

The way I see "life" or my own existence is quite simple. Whatever I am 'thinking' about or whatever I am doing in that moment is exactly what and who I am.(as I said in that moment) So going forward what that way of thinking, everything is done in a moment so I literally create myself within each moment. I believe this is true for all humans and can be directly responsible for the cunfusion and "hoopla" in our world. MISCONCEPTIONS play a huge role. The afterlife being one.........which actually lead me to start this thread, as a good friend of mine happened to be talking about the 'afterlife' and Jesus and whatnot. I said something that lead him to tell me that I wasn't prepared for the afterlife(and I was under the influence at the time, which actually allows me to think more clearly believe it or not) So it just popped into my head that the afterlife couldn't be anything more than a concept, or a conclusion you can come to while you're alive, this also leads me to think - Can't you technically "come up"(so to speak) with any sort of cunclusion while you're alive, and call it whatever you want so as to support your own conclusion? Seems like narrow-minded, self interest to me.......It's just a shame we choose to "do things" this way as 'life' or 'living' COULD be and SHOULD be so much more enriching, if we would just stop being so dellusional...