Yuku free message boards

Let's consider the most simplistic possibility for the afterlife: That there isn't one.

If you granted that assumption, would that be the end of the discussion? I've met a few people who said, "I don't think there's an afterlife. When you're dead, you're gone, that's it. Eh." Like that was all there was to it.

I have to be skeptical that many people truly believe, with 100% of their hearts, that there's no afterlife. How would you have any motivation to keep living?

Anything I (or anyone else) have ever done only has meaning in that I can remember it now. If someone suffered through a traumatic experience ... assuming it didn't cause permanent physical disfigurement, who cares after it's over? It's not happening anymore. On the other hand, why bother to go to an amusement park? You'll be there a day, but then it's back to a life of drudgery.

Of course, that's now how people think (especially for the traumatic incidence example). Things matter because we remember them. If there ever comes a time when we cease to remember, because we cease to exist, then our lives retroactively become meaningless.

You might say other people remember. Who cares. It does Shakespeare not one bit of good that his plays are still remembered now if he no longer exists in any form. He wouldn't even be able to know that his plays are remembered.

So, it seems that if people really believed that there was no afterlife, then they would know that whatever they are doing now is meaningless, and they would act accordingly. Suicide could be more common. Though even if you believe your life is meaningless, you still might fear death or instants of pain. In that case, you might be expected to try to find escape in alcohol or drugs or become homeless or something. Or maybe just a dull inertia propels some people through life.

There is another possibility. If you loved life, even if it was meaningless at the end, you would still have no reason to actively end it or stop experiencing it. Before I really knew who Stephen Hawking was, someone told me something about a scientist who was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair, but he loved life so much he wanted to keep living it. So, I guess that's one empirically verified example of a person who loves life that much. I'm not sure how many other people would be like that. I feel pretty comfortable in predicting that I would not.

Like I said, maybe you wouldn't commit suicide if you're afraid of death. But it's not possible to live forever. If your number 1 goal in life is to keep living, you know that you will inevitably fail. So, your number 1 goal in life is pointless, and, ultimately, everything is hopeless. That should led to a little bit of mental illness. People don't normally or willingly take up goals that they know they have absolutely no chance of succeeding at.

Or they could try being a scientist who would research extending life spans. Maybe by now, people think that genetic death could realistically be "cured" within a lifetime. But it's not like a lot of people seem to be pushing for that.

But there's something to be said for just enjoying life while you have it.

I mentioned that as a possibility. Look at the last paragraph of my first post on this particular subject. Then I guess the question is, "How much do people really enjoy life, if this is all you get?" I personally would be surprised if people were really satisfied with what their lives if this is all they got. How many people really and truly live each day as if it were their last? I could be wrong; it's hard to prove. That's why I named the Stephen Hawking example: He apparently loves life almost independently of what his life has in store for him. (You could argue that's not completely true -- he still gets a lot of respect and attention, for example) My contention is that that is unusual.

The reason I've seen some people give for wanting to do something significant in their lifetime is so that they'll be remembered for something after they're gone. Whether or not that person even believes in an afterlife would seem irrelevant to that thought anyway.

You'd have no possible way of knowing if you really were remembered, or for how long (what if Shakespeare's plays were lost if there was a massive fire in England?), and being remembered isn't gonna do anything for you anyway if you don't exist.

I don't think so, but I have a hard time rebutting that argument since I don't feel personally invested in it. A few years ago, someone made some arguments in favor of amorality. My first response to them was sheer horror, but after I got used to the idea I thought, Why DO people need morality?

My first line of thought was similar to what I said about the afterlife, that if people didn't believe in morality, they should act totally differently. Then I thought, Why? I have empathy, and while that's similar to morality, it's not the same. I think empathy is probably more important than morality, in terms of creating a world I'd like to live in.

Then I thought, "How often do I really make a moral decision, or use some sort of morality to guide my decisions?" Like, never. Maybe if I was a more powerful person I would have to make decisions with moral implications, but I'm not and I don't. So, I'm not sure that people really do need morality.

So, I think you're wrong but probably can't offer a rebuttal myself. Maybe someone else can pick up the slack.