Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bumharmony t1_j20y6jd wrote

Reply to comment by Hehwoeatsgods in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

There is neither anyone left to observe. It is impossible to meet death because it would require an oxymoronistic self to observe the process of dying and the post mortem status. How is nothing absurd or insane? Unless you have learned sayings by heart and now you are only repeating these mental scripts that don’t have a meaning.

2

Hehwoeatsgods t1_j21j2vu wrote

Humans are free to give anything meaning, even death. Life is required to give meaning.

9

bumharmony t1_j21tcaa wrote

But it does not belong to philosophy. Since philosophy is the study of the world, not study of the judgments about it as not all of them are very good. We know logically that not-life is not same as death starting after life. The meaning of life is to exist. So when it ends, the discussion about something existing ends. So we don’t even need empurical dispute about it, because it is conceptually coherent to say that after life there is nothing.

Life is every one’s viewpoint but death is the viewpoint of an outsider. But it has no value to the discussion.

−1

Hehwoeatsgods t1_j21xhes wrote

At this point I don't even know what you are saying. Meaning is just as made up as 1+1=2. You can't put meaning on a table and physically examine it to be true. Human language is all metaphoric, none of it actually exists except in one place, your mind. Anything we accept as truth has meaning because life grants it. Death kills meaning. Life does the opposite.

5

bumharmony t1_j23q885 wrote

Yeah but apart from mathematics, symbols must have a concrete target it is connected to. If death is nothing then it cannot cause even any feelings, unless we have conditioned and suggested ourselves with that particular word, "death" so it causes for example fear. Of course the culture does this for us.

1