Rejection Of Axioms And Fear Of Death

[Patrick N.]

I just had a thought.

Perhaps the deepest root cause of evasion is fear of death. Maybe people evade facts in an attempt to escape the reality of death? Do they refuse to acknowledge the axioms of Existence and Identity, either implicitly or explicitly, in an attempt to escape the fact that man is man, and man by his very nature must eventually die? Consider if one accepts that Existence exists, things are what they are, and reality is absolute, one must also accept and acknowledge the harshest realities. By pretending that certain facts don’t exist, subconsciously one may be attempting escape or “put off” certain upsetting facts—evasion becoming an attempt to escape or ignore that which is unpleasant. And nothing is more unpleasant than contemplating one’s own death.

In short, fantasy and dishonestly seem easier to this mentality than facing a reality which is sometimes harsh. Perhaps this is the reason so many people reject rationality with an almost incomprehensible hatred and embrace so many incredibly absurd ideas?

[dark_stranger]

I just had a thought.

Perhaps the deepest root cause of evasion is fear of death. Maybe people evade facts in an attempt to escape the reality of death?

What you are describing is called "Terror Management Theory" (TMT) as put forth by a cultural anthropologist named Ernest Becker in the middle 1970's. Jeff Greenberg (University of Arizona), Tom Pyszcynski (University of Colorado) and Sheldon Solomon (Skidmore College) all do research on this theory. They have done a number of clever studies on the topic (some of which I helped to administer as an undergraduate working for Greenberg). They have even published a popular press book on the topic: In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror

In short, TMT says exactly what you describe: that people realize they are going to die, and this scares them. The theory further states that people create a "cultural worldview" as a buffer against that fear. The worldview is inclusive of laws and ethics, and must provide a promise of immortality. Immortality in this context can mean different things to different people: literal right-hand-of-god immortality, figurative immortality (like getting into the history books), or abstract immortality (such as propagation of one's genes to their offspring). The theory is used to offer an explanation for in-group/out-group biases (racism) and most importantly as an alternative to Realistic Group Conflict Theory for explaining political strife.

Essentially those who act in accordance with TMT are engaging in "evasion by design" by ignoring their eventual death. I can only believe that it is the result of mixed or uncertain philosophical principles as rational people acknowledge their own deaths and prepare for them accordingly. The lack of good or explicit principles then leads to the need for TMT; no rational person would engage in TMT and let it change his philosophy accordingly.

d_s

(edited to fix spelling mistake)

[Sherlock]

I can only speak to my own experience: I found the opposite to be true. When I attended a Baptist church in my twenties, I found that I thought more about what happened after I died, and how I could best live to obtain heaven. Meaning, these thoughts affected what I did and did not do. Becoming an atheist was to take a much easier road: no heaven or hell, no alteration necessary in lifestyle.

[The Durande]

I can only speak to my own experience: I found the opposite to be true. When I attended a Baptist church in my twenties, I found that I thought more about what happened after I died, and how I could best live to obtain heaven. Meaning, these thoughts affected what I did and did not do. Becoming an atheist was to take a much easier road: no heaven or hell, no alteration necessary in lifestyle.

In other words, you don't think ethics plays a role in the results you get here on earth. You think that as long as one doesn't believe in heaven or hell, why live by any code of ethics?

Have you read ANY of Ayn Rand's writings, or are you just here for the hell of it????

Or have you read Ayn Rand's works, and just disagree profoundly with her and felt like coming here to tell us that you disagree?

Anyway, point noted.

[Patrick N.]

I have found the discussion of death by Epicuris (341–270 B.C.) to be very helpful.

He said: "Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?"

And: "Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore -- the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist. It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer are."

[Solomon Eagle]

I have found the discussion of death by Epicuris (341–270 B.C.) to be very helpful.

He said: "Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?"

And: "Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore -- the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist. It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer are."

Is Epic. equivocating here? He first identifys the problem as the fear of Death but ends with Death itself. At any rate, the problem is with the living human's death anxiety. The idea that this is not present after death isn't consoling since it only underscores the fact death annihilates not only all fears but all anything. And this is exactly the cause of the anxiety to begin with, that is, future, personal non-existence. On second thought I don't see equivacation, but I do strongly suspect causistry.

[Patrick N.]

Is Epic. equivocating here? He first identifys the problem as the fear of Death but ends with Death itself. At any rate, the problem is with the living human's death anxiety. The idea that this is not present after death isn't consoling since it only underscores the fact death annihilates not only all fears but all anything. And this is exactly the cause of the anxiety to begin with, that is, future, personal non-existence.  On second thought I don't see equivacation, but I do strongly suspect causistry.

I think his point is that once one realizes death is nothing, one's anxiety over it ought to melt away. Future, personal non-existence is not an issue once it occurs. Thus the only issue which matters is how to best live one's life while it still exists, and not to worry about one's own death.

[Solomon Eagle]

I think his point is that once one realizes death is nothing, one's anxiety over it ought to melt away. Future, personal non-existence is not an issue once it occurs. Thus the only issue which matters is how to best live one's life while it still exists, and not to worry about one's own death.

And my point was that this old argument is sophistical, but I'm withdrawing that charge. I see that it's just a bad argument because it proves the opposite of what it intends. That death is nothing is the problem, is the very bases for the fear in the first place, pointing this out , therefore , can never be solicitudinous. ..."not an issue--once it occures"... Sure, but the problem is one of living--occures in life.

An equivalent and more revealing form of the argument would be, "It's silly to worry about death, you'll be dead soon". There's some kind of logical

slight-of-hand going on here I'm not clever enough to isolate. Perhaps I was correct at first in claiming a basic equivocation at work. Your mentioning of the term

"Nothing" draws my suspicion. Is Epic. saying to the person afraid of death, "don't be affraid of becoming nothing (as in non-existence) anyone can see that death is nothing (as in unimportant)? Is there a trained logician in the house? ... --- ... !

[ds1973]

Perhaps it is not being dead, but the fear of the act of dying that is the problem. For example, I hate pain and I would prefer to die peacefully in my sleep rather than tortured by a madman.

Since no one is really sure of the how and when of their death, this may be the greatest fear. Perhaps the promise of a peaceful eternity in heaven gives people the courage to face the unknown process of dying. The church does a wonderful job, I think, of playing off of this fear. They preach that your time of death is Gods will and that the greater your suffering in this life, the greater your reward in the kingdom of heaven.

This is also an interesting perspective on the objection to "physician assisted suicide". If people have the option to choose the how and the when of their death, that is one less thing "God" has control over in your life. That can't be good for church business.

There's got to be a psychological study out there for this. Hasn't it been shown that church attendance increases during uncertain times (as in post-9/11)? I'm an engineer, so this is a bit out of my realm of expertise.

Demetrius

[Sherlock]

I posted here quite a while ago and did not revisit this thread, and so did not see the response my post elicited.

The Durande,

I think you are jumping to conclusions (and hostile conclusions at that) based on what was a simple and honest statement on my part. But to answer your sneering questions:

1)Yes, I have read Ayn Rand.

2) No, I am not here for the hell of it. I'm attempting to learn more about Objectivism, and hopefully sort out questions and problems that I have.

3) Pretty much covered by my responses to 1 and 2.

I have a couple of question for you: are you always this quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and put the worst interpretation possible on a person's comments? Do you have any friends left, or are you capable of suspending this attack-mode long enough to maintain friendships? Do you claim to speak for Objectivism, or is this just your personality?