I once had a conversation with my brother about whether it's nicer to be sick and in bed, or be healthy and have to go to work (or school). He chose the former, I chose the latter. Obviously, I'd rather be in bed than at work, but in my experience, sickness just isn't worth it. I was wondering today about the difference in our perspectives, and knowing his philosophies on life and death, I figured it must be because I have a natural fear of mortality, whereas he probably feels that any reminder of the fragility of life is a positive feeling. (Feel free to correct/nuance my interpretation.)
And I thought to myself, I hate being sick because it makes me feel vulnerable. It makes me feel closer to death and it reminds me just how fragile my existence is. I won't argue that life is pain and that death is a release, but I'm still too attached to life (as I have always been) to let go of it just yet. The way I see it, my approach is a pragmatic one.
I will state first that, obviously, the following conclusion hinges on the data (whether proven or assumed) I have at my disposal. As far as I can tell, death is permanent. There's no undo, and I have yet to see any evidence for reincarnation (and if you're reincarnated without any possible knowledge of that reincarnation, then it's, in a practical sense, no different than eternal death). As far as anything that comes after death, beyond this world - there's no evidence of that either. Maybe it's so much better that noone's ever thought to come back. Maybe the powers that be knew people would abuse death if they knew what came after it, and so forbade the passing of that knowledge to living mortals. Or maybe there is something after death, but it's still a strictly one-way door (due to physics principles or whatever else).
The point is - as far as I can tell - death is a one-way door. Once you die, there's no returning to life. Now, on the other hand, there is no point in life where the door to death closes, and you lose that opportunity to die (barring the phenomenon of immortality, which is also unproven). As long as I live, death remains an option to me. Once I die, life has been sealed off for good. So, it only makes sense that I should continue to live as long as possible (and as long as the pain doesn't exceed the pleasure and the promise of living), and take on death only after life has nothing at all left to offer me.
Of course, if life really is that painful to you, or if you have different beliefs about death, you may come to a contrary conclusion. And I respect that. But for me, I think I'll hold on as long as it continues to make sense for me to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
P.S. I was just thinking about the argument that, if death really is perfect oblivion, then no dead person could ever feel regret about dying, and thus it can't be a bad option.
ReplyDeleteI love that argument, and I think it's really sleek, and it has some definite merit, but it's unpractical because it only makes sense once you're dead. As long as you continue to live, you can have regrets and it does matter. Thus, though it's an elegant argument, it's not one that can be consciously chosen without contradiction (unless you really don't care about anything in life either). So, though it's true that if all life was wiped out, there would be no pain and no suffering, and especially no regret, we can't choose that option. It has to be chosen for us. Perhaps by some ultimately good-willed eccentric standing outside human nature, with his finger on the button.
Suddenly I understand the motives of all those old Final Fantasy Big Bosses!
"Salvation through oblivion."
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present and invent for myself unspeakable glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Hmm... my memory is foggy so I'll give you the win. But in my recollection, my stance is that it's better to be sick *enough* to stay home from work than to be sick AND have to go to work. Never getting sick in the first place would be most ideal. I like work when I'm healthy, I just can't stand being sick AND at work, it's the worst. So rather than a small cold, I'd rather be bedridden where I can put on the TV, take a bunch of medicine and just mentally "check out." I find that most people disagree even with this more pragmatic view.
ReplyDeleteBut you're 100% about the positive feeling. There's nothing I find more comforting than the meaninglessness of life, and the fact that everything we do here is destined for obscurity after death. What it means to me (among other things) is that all the inane worries, all our crippling neurosies amount to nothing. It means that I can enjoy life in my own way and I don't have to WORRY about it. Because in the end it will be nothing, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the present, and to invent for myself staggering glories.
I agree, your view is a pragmatic one. Life isn't that painful for me and I do not hold a differing view of death. But I would be considered an unpragmatic man on many accounts.
Our divergence emerges at the point of life's inherent worth. You seem to hold the highly pragmatic view that because life is limited, you want to hold on to it. And I've no doubt that life is incredibly worthy for you and that you would not want to give it up.
Me, I adore life. Often to the point where I am literally giddy with joy. What was once the mere fabrication of a carefree joyous youth which I maintained for appearences' sake, has actually become the real, live me! But would I choose to live, if death was socially acceptable? Probably not. If so, than merely because I can, and only for a brief period.
I'm a nihilist "when questioned," but I'm more of an existentialist in my daily life. I do not believe life has any inherent worth, nor meaning, nor divinity, nor point, nor goodness, etc. Life to me is a bundle of nerves (what we call "human") wrapped in a bundle of nerve-triggers (what we call "environment") which meticulously invents for itself a massive network of delusions to sustain the notion of worth (what we call "society," or even, "life"). For me, this is unspeakably uplifting. Others seem to take it as negative, for reasons I can't discern.
We experience things... pain, joy love, you know the rest. Staggering idyllic glory and the ineffable thrill of exciting new conquest. Emotions are dear to my heart, I coax them daily. But to be without them is, to me, no bigger a deal than if a rock in the rainforest gets kicked. Honestly, I'm trying to explain it further, and I just can't. I do not value life. It's meaningful and fun and all that good stuff. But why should I care if it stops or goes, ebbs or flows, jumps or crawls? Most people probably have a hard time taking the ultra-scientific view of life to heart, but despite not even fully trusting science, it inhabits the recesses of my heart in totalum. I'd just as soon never experience joy again. It just doesn't matter to me. I don't know what else to say. I'm not impressed with experience to the point that I believe it worth sustaining, and this is said with full knowledge of the staggering glories I have beheld.
Oh good god almighty. I'm terribly sorry about the preposterous spam. Blogger kept telling me I can't post n shit. Massive malfunctions and I assure you it was their grubby fault.
ReplyDeleteHere's the finale to my (what should be) ONE post, however:
For your P.S., yes now you see why Kefka is my moniker! :D
But I disagree that we can't choose that option just because life contains potential for regret. The fact is, we possess the capability to understand the perfection of death. Surely we're not all going around with 100% immediacy, we can use our logic and reason to temper our view. I mean, my entire life is about tempering my view, so perhaps that's why I'm the first to jump on the 'death is good' train. To me it's about looking at things from different angles and using the innate absurdity of life to internally defend the lessening of the influence of raw emotion and irrational thought. (Or, if you want to take the more negative view of my character, lessen the influence of whatever viewpoints happen to be inconvenient to me).
If one understands that once they become dead, their regrets and worries will disintegrate into obliterating nothingness, could this fact/belief not itself provide the very courage they require to visit death upon themselves? If they WANT to hold on to their worries, that's their choice. But they can also choose to ignore them in face of their inevitable disintegration.
10 comments? 10 COMMENTS?!
ReplyDeletehahaha I wish. Surely you can delete the excess. I'd do it myself if I had the option.
ReplyDelete