Death is maybe the most powerful bond all humans share. It doesn't matter if you're Black or White, Eastern or Western Democrat or Republican, Religious or Atheist, Happy or a New York Mets fan. (Damn Mets...you'd think I'd have learned by now...oh well, football and hockey are coming back, I'm SURE the 49ers and Ducks won't cause me any heartache...yep...I'm totally sure...*sigh*)

But in all seriousness, we do all have to admit to our great leveling, potentially humbling, fact about each and every one of us.

You will die.
So will I.
So will everyone.

It's not up for debate like other issues, so it's not a quesion so much of "if it exists" so much as "how do we deal with it?"

What is death?

Think about that for just a moment, it might be harder than you think, and I say this because I thought that was relatively simple until I listened to the Yale lecture course on Philosophy of Death (which is 26 parts and I HIGHLY recommend to anyone interested in this stuff and has an MP3 and time to kill driving or to have something thought-provoking on at work or school.)

When the heart stops? Well, the brain might still be functioning, and surely if we get a heart transplant and our old heart stops and dies we're not apt to say we've died.

When our brain dies? Does that mean the brain-dead are, well, dead? Their body can still operate in cases, and most would call them alive.

When our memories/personality dies? Then what of Alzheimer's patients, or if someone changes so radically as to utterly change their personality?

When the body dies? Which part or parts? Cells die all the time. How much? If my brain dies but, to use a sci-fi trope, my memories can be "downloaded" into a robot body and fired up, am I alive still?

When our soul dies? What's a soul? How can we prove it? And how can it *die?*


Seems complicated to me...

I'm more apt to fall in line with the memory/personality take, as a body view doesn't seem to really be a workable view for me as its so replaceable and even cloneable, whereas your memories and personalities seem more unique, more "you." Obviously that has its own issues, but I suppose then my response would be to seperate physical death from mental one, with the mental, ie, the personality's and memories' deaths being the "higher" and "final" deaths.

I would say there could be some big differences between how religious/atheists view death as opposed to most other groups.

As to what is death:

I'd say Brain Death is pretty good. Other organs (heart) can fail and be replaced. You certainly aren't dead even if you have sever Alzheimer's. But, imho, a brain dead person is dead and really just a waste of money to keep "alive."

Now, I do have to be careful about that statement, because brain death isn't always clearly defined and there have been cases of brain death where people do recover. I think it's more a matter of sloppy terminology than anything else.

What about someone with amnesia? would you say they died?

P.S.

Don't say "more" unique. You should know better : )

@abgemacht:

I agree that death can be a good thing, but not inherently, for it can be bad as well- I think that the WAY in which you die, and WHEN is what decides it, not population and all that, as concievably one day we could pull a Star Trek and colonize other worlds, it may not happen in your lifetime or mine, but I think in the next few centuries, sometime, it will, because of the pressures we face population-wise.

Just because it's an easy way to articulate my view, I'm going to call my idea of a "good death the Klingon Way and a "bad death" the Yoda way or the Baby way. I'm not being so blase as to link death soley with them but you'll see waht I mean.

Klingons like to die in battle, to go out at their peak and in a blaze of glory. I think that's exactly how life should be led and death should be- you live to try and reach this great peak, perform as many great feats as you can, and then die doing one, die in battle or for research or, I don't know, if you were an immensely dedicated actress, REALLY sheath a dagger into your heart as Juliet. (Actually, that's sort of a funny thought, some actress would be so committed to the scene to do that...) ;)

Why the peak? To avoid old age. I hate the idea of it. Not fear it, just hate it. The idea of growing so powerful, accomplishing so much, to grow, and then have it taken away through no fault of your own but simply because you were so good at living you lived "too long?" I hate that idea.

The Greek heroes all go out like that. King Arthur and all his Knights go out like that. Robin Hood. Hamlet. Hedda Gabler. Spock (for a Vulcan he was still young at 60 or so.)

We like to see heroes die young, not...

A bad death is dying either too soon or too late. Either we never reach that peak, or we fall of it, and all must look upon us and sigh with sadness, and see not the hero they came to love and know, but rather a shriveled corpse walking that is instead but a shadow of that hero- that is, indeed, shadowing his once-bright memory.

Mozart and Kierkegaard and Lennon- died far too young.
King Lear- an old king, and he accomplished so much, but old age dulled his senses and sensibilities, and he died in madness and disgrace.
Yoda- he was once this great little two-toot ball of lightning and wisdom, and by the end of his lfie he could barely speak or open his eyes.

So that's my take on death's goodness and badness, not due to population, but circumstance, the same way atheletes have careers cut short or hang around so long we forget how great they once were, so too is bad death- but to "retire" from life at the right moment can be powerful and perfect.

I was gonna type out a long response, but reading all the text gave me a headache

If I became I giant American Football star, the best ever (probably not gonna happen, but it doesn't hurt to dream) I would rather die at fifty-five, after retiring and still in good health, then die at 80, have arthritis and Alzheimers, hardly remember what I did or accomplished, then appear on Sportscenter as dead and with a picture of a dead old man.

That very interesting.

The Klingon motivation is understandable. You're very likely to die in battle, so it makes sense to glorify it to help against fear.

But, does it really make sense for other things? First off, I'd say there are few people (and this is good, imho) that have a burning passion for one and only one thing. So, how would you chose which to go out on? Furthermore, for the vast majority of professions, it makes no sense to die at your peak. First, it's impossible to tell when your peak is until after you've passed it. Second, most fields you can still do great work after your peak.

I feel like not only are you taking life for granted with that attitude, but you're also selling yourself short on what you may be able to do later in life.

@killer

So you're saying you wouldn't want to coach and pass down your experience? You wouldn't want a family and if you did, you wouldn't want to see your kids graduate college or have kids of their own?

I hereby change age of death to seventy, before Alzheimers and Arthritis. I become a famous coach and all my kids become NFL stars also. Much happier life.

@abgemacht:

Two points of response on my behalf to your good response:

-I agree not many people have a burning passion for what they do...and that, as I've said before, is one of the greatest problems in the world today. People live for that tommorow land instead of today, and I don't say "live for today" in the frivolous, don't-care-about-tommorow-just-eat-drink-and-be-merry-now way, but rather in the sense that when you have something you're passionate about, every day seems to be something to live for, and not to skip past. I, as you can tell, really have a burning passion for all things literature, theatre, and philosophy, as well as a deep love of Star Trek and operas and my sports teams (though at this point I'm not quite sure why) so every day I get up to live that, to live for today in the sense I mean it is to pursue what you enjoy and what you can do domething for the world doing every day, even if it's just writing a few pages of your own philosophy or reading a couple more chapters of your Nietzsche book or posting threads adn debating. That's not too hard or too much for anyone to do, a bit a day, but a lot of people seem to have that "live for the weekend" mentality, or "live for that next job" or "next paycheck" or "vacation" or, to throw in one of the things I hate most about dogmas of any religions that offer it, "living to die and go to heaven someday." I'm not saying that heaven is good or bad, or believing in one is good or bad, but personally I know people who hate their jobs and lives but refuse to act out of anger to quit, not because they can't get a job, they've had offers, but because this anger would be "bad" and they're living to go to heaven someday, and THEN they'll enjoy their lives...when they're dead.

-I maybe was a bit slippery on what I meant by "dying at your peak" so let me clarify- obviously if you have more you can do you shouldn't die, so maybe dying just after you pass that peak, rather than at your peak, would be more along the lines of what I mean, or better still, dying when you can no longer even approximate what you were at your peak. I actually liked killer's example of the football player- better to die in still good shape and remembering and being remembered for your glorious playing days than to die a withered old man with a faded memory of that time. Now, here's where I disagree with killer, agree with you, and make my points about the past-the-peak thing and the passionate-about-something thing come together. If Joe Smith loves football with all his heart, won four Super Bowls, and retired as one of the best quarterbacks ever, at his peak, then he's still going strong...but he still loves football, and still can be involved, can he not? Like you said, abgemacht, he can still coach. Can still do color commentary on TV. So he can still experience football and still contribute to teh football world something, so he can add to his legend; we'll still maybe feel some sadness watching his once-gret physique grow old and slowly decay with age, but that will surely be offset by his continued output into the football world via his coaching or boradcasting accomplishments. Now, when Joe Smith, aged eighty, wakes up one moring to find he can no longer walk to the bathroom, let alone out of bed and to a stadium, is wetting himself constantly, and has forgotten or is fuzzy on so much about football that once made his life clear...maybe then it's time to hange it up for good in life. There is of course one caveat, if Joe Smith has a family he loves as much or close to as much as football, then he still has a purpose, and should still live, we'll be very sad to see a former hero so decayed and ruined, but somewhat comforted he at least still has comfort himself in his family. But if all he had was football, or if ne day Joe Smith slips into an irreversable vegetative state and can no longer actively anjoy or contribute to football or family, waht made his life worthwhile and what he contributed back to, then yes, at that point, it's time for Joe Smith to say goodbye for good. That's leaving at or past your peak, and what I meant, as long as you have something to live for, do, but when you have nothing left, rather than just drag out the inevitable and watch your image and self-image crumble before your eyes...go out in a blaze while you still can.

Obiwan, you should write a book. A book that would keep all your long paragraphs and headaches out of the forums. Just kidding. BTW, and i'm just wondering, Where do you come up with the name Joe Smith?

I'm not sure how many, if any, share this view, but I really hate the idea of an afterlife. I've thought about it a bit, and can't see that many benefits. When you first get there (assuming your life has been worth living) you'd be too pissed off you'd left life behind to properly enjoy the next stage. But far worse, as you live the afterlife it will begin to dominate your pre-death life. All the greatest moments of your life will lose significance as they make up an ever diminishing part of your existence. I would greatly prefer oblivion over an eternal afterlife in which my happiest achievements become as significant to my dead self as winning a gold star for maths in year 2 of school does to me now.

Of course, it could well be that the afterlife me will be somewhat more enlightened and see the universe completely differently to how i see it now. However, if that's the case it won't be "me" as I understand me, and so I might as well be dead dead anyway.

@killer:

Joe Smith just seemed generic, like John Johnson or Jane Doe...and I am writing a book, or at least a very rough draft of it that'll be revised like hell, essentially dealing with the increasing feeling insignificance or anonymity that most feel in some form or another (ie, the hundreds of white collar, red tie, Dilbert-like workers in the maze of cubicles, working on menial tasks or tasks that could be performed by others easily and so contain little to no trace of a unique output on their part, leading to a sense that, coupled with the questions against God via existentialism and Darwin, human beings are not quite so "special" as they once thought they were, and are not creating or living unique or fulfilling lives as a result) and respond to that by essentially suggesting Life via Artistry, meaning that in the same way a painter paints and is master over the work rather than but a speck of color within billions of specks that make up the painting, man should strive to create for himself an identity which is distinct rather than indistinct and transcendental, meaning it will survive the bodily life of the Artist in the same way we can say John Lennon "lives on" in his music and as such is nearly ever-present, such is the power and impact of his music, rather than incidental, meaning to live a life perhaps a bearing in the moment but not beyond it, for example, if you think of life as a football game, to be transcendental would be to have such an impact on the game that it goes beyond THIS game and can affect others via a rule change, say, or simply remembrance of your deed, whereas to be incidental would be to accept "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," focus just on winning the game and nothing more, and so you might win Game 3 of the 1996 NFL Season...but who's going to really remember that "feat" in 2010, let alone 2110, unless it was an AMAZING win, an ARTISTIC win in which you performed a feat that lives forever in football lore, or the rules had to be changed for it, to be transcendental- the Afterlife of the Artist.

That was a ridiculously long run-on... ;)

@Octavious:

I half agree with your take on the afterlife. Assuming we're talking about a Judeo-Christian heaven, or some concept of the afterlife similar, then I definitely agree that the after can overshadow the before, your living life- while you are living it, no less, and that's exactly what I don't like about it most, living to die, so to speak, so you can go to heaven.

But I do think that in such a heaven the case of your feats being reduced in significance wouldn't be- if heaven were like my idea of the Transcendental Artist, where the artist, long dead, lives on through the work.

When I think of heaven...personally I think of two things, a more realistic version and then a "that'd be kind of awesome...if it could be" version:

-You die, but live on through your works; whether or not you're "awake" or "sentient" to "see yourself" be lauded in these works I don't know and don't think matters, the fact that Dante's words will be read again and again or Shakespeare's plays seen again and again or Mozart's music...the fact those things are omnipresent, due to their great reah in popularity and influence, coupled with the fact those are DANTE'S ideas or SHAKESPEARE'S ideas or MOZART'S ideas, not some one elses, being spoke again and again- your mind, then, does live on, if not indirectly, and that's a sort of afterlife, your mind and ideas living on, detached from any body, forever.

And the "damn that'd be cool...if it could ever happen..." version:

-You die, and find yourself at the pearly gates. Peter's a waiter, and "shows you to your table." At it are all the folks of the craft that you took part in- when Puccini died, he found himself taking a seat in between Verdi and Beethoven while Mozart raised a toast and Gilbert and Sullivan were bickering over who was the greater genius; near the bar are all the philosophers, having a sorely-needed drink, and instead of just enjoying themselves, now they're arguing whether or not this really is heaven, Aquinas and Descartes and Locke happily asserting they were right all along while Plato contends this is more like his idea of the Forms and thus his heaven concept while Nietzsche and Hume and Hobbes contend that this still isn't heaven, just something else...so when you die you get to sit at one of the tables, where you had your contributions, and maybe get up every now and again to visit another table and your friends there, if they weren't seated at your table (and to complain to Peter the Waiter there's a fly in your soup, which has offended Arthur Sullivan that he should dare be served a fly in his soup and has sparked a debate at the bar where Hume now exclaims this can't be Descartes' Christian heaven as what God of Restaurant Management would allow for an imperfect soup, let alone the presence of evil via the fly in the soup...

Or something like that. :p

@obiwan

"I agree not many people have a burning passion for what they do...and that, as I've said before, is one of the greatest problems in the world today."

Is it always, though? For some people, it's OK to put everything else in life on hold and focus on that one thing that gives them meaning. Unfortunately, if everyone was like that, civilization would collapse. Thankfully, most people aren't like that and are simply content with the number of things they do in life. I really don't see this as a bad thing. If there's one thing that drives you, that great. If not, that's also fine. I don't think it makes a person any less filled with life or meaning.

"obviously if you have more you can do you shouldn't die, so maybe dying just after you pass that peak, rather than at your peak, would be more along the lines of what I mean, or better still, dying when you can no longer even approximate what you were at your peak."

Why? I only have one shot at living and who knows what might happen in my future. I don't want to throw this gift away just because I've past my prime. Maybe something completely new an unexpected will arise. Why would I risk missing that?

@abgemacht:

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say people should have a burning passion- yes, people nshould ahve a burning passion, but should not, as your response suggests I imply, focus SOLELY. I listed not one but a number of things that I am apssionate about, not just one, like you seem to have interpreted it. While I think that everyone should have that one thing that is their chief drive, their greatest love, this can only be achieved, of course, if there are other passions, other loves in their life as well- how else can the number one passion be number one without numbers two, three, four, etc.?

Like I said, literature/theatre/philosophy might be my number one passion, my "calling" (or at least I hope it is) but I also love opera and sports and The Late Show and going on adventures and all that.

So no, I don't mean everyone should be so specified to the point they only follow their chief passion- just that people should have one.

To adress your other quote-

If you're 55 and still ahve years to do things and have things occur in your life, I agree.

I'm talking about if you can't get out of bed anymore, you need a diaper, have Alzheimers, and you're nearing 90- THEN maybe it's time to think about going and going out in a blazr before you just totally degenerate or become a vegetable.

@obiwan

OK thanks for clearing that up. Yes, that makes much more sense.

As to the second point:

I would agree that it would be no fun to wither away in that state. But, by then it's probably too late to go out in a blaze of glory. You've mentioned two extremes; how do you find the sweet spot?

I'll try and cite what I mean, but this is just a pop culture citing, and not the best example of my full meaning behind the "go out in a blaze of glory while you can" idea.

Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars.

The guy is old.
He's somewhat decrepit, not bed-ridden or anything yet, but clearly not up to being at all what he once was, he even says he's "getting too old for this sort of thing," and he's only going to get older and feebler.
And he has before him a young pupil who's good and eager, and an old pupil who hates him with all his mechanical heart.

So what does he do?

Go out in a blaze of glory by sacrificing himself to have an enormous impact on Luke, look how much it does, his dying at the right time:

-He gets to give Luke and his friends time to leave the Death Star
-He gets to give Luke a first-hand, early demonstration of all the "selflessness" and "live without fear" mantra the Jedi (ie, he and Yoda, prequel, ie, crappy Jedi don't count) preach about, and what it really means to be selfless and unafraid of death
-He gives Luke one more incentive to fight Darth Vader
-He gives Luke one more incentive to blow up the Death Star
-He gives Luke one more incentive to not let his sacrifice be in vain and to become a Jedi
-He gets to guide Luke as a sort of semi-omniscient spirit guide

(That's not bad for a then-called "simple-summer-sci-fi-flick," amazing how deep Star Wars could be before Lcuas decided to ruin what could have been the modern day equivalent to Homer's epics or King Arthur.)

But all science fiction trappings aside, the point is all those points, except the last one, can be conceivably achieved by any person dying at the right place at the right time doing the right thing for the right reason.

Granted not everyone's going to sacrifice their life in old age to take down a huge fascist empire, but the general point stands, I think.

One notable response airs quite readily and naturally from this- "'Dying at the right place at the right time doing the right thing for the right reason?' Doesn't that sound rather particular and impractical as a goal for most people, with so many variables?"

Not at all.

Yes, there are many variable to a good death, as the place, time, reason, and action all have huge effects on determining whether your death was good or not. But this shouldn't be a deterrant, rather, it should be an encouragement to plan ahead, to plan your death, really think how you would like to go ahead of time and then try and make it come true as close to your vision as you can, and if you think that sounds odd, consider that plenty of people make burial arrangements or cremation arrangements or sign forms to donate their bodies to science and write wills...all long before their death.

We already do plan for death, I don't think it's too much of a leap to propose planning for death a bit more or, to put it another way, to think about how you would prefer to go and then when the time comes, when you are "too old for this sort of thing" as Obi-Wan states he is, then you make a conscious effort to fulfil your plans.

Maybe your dying act is to write a work of literature or fiction that you could never live with in your lifetime it's so controversial, and yet what you have to say must be said...for an example of this sort, consider David Hume's posthumously publishing a philosophical work of his, a dialogue concerning natural religion and what would today largely be classificed as the creationist/intelligent design argument, as the dialogue seriously challenges intelligent design, but as the character closest to Hume's point of view in the dialogue expresses viewpoints that not only go against the Christian tradition and the ingelligent design argument but argues for natural selection and just touches on a theory of evolution (this many decades before Darwin) instead- as atheism and views of this sort would have been scorned heavily if not outright punished in Hume's day, he left that work for after death, a dying act.

For something not so drastic, maybe you love your family and someone in particular, and they're struggling with an issue, ie, alcoholism or drug abuse, and you die, they're sad, and you make it your dying wish they quit and clean up their life- and they do.

If you want to be really deep and play a huge and potentially volatile card-

Jesus dying as a martyr for his cause on the Cross works in this sense...it certainly seems the right place, time, and the right reason; whether or not this was the right thing for Jesus to do is debatable (again, if he is the Son of God, I have a bit of trouble believing with such amazing power this was the ONLY way he could cause the good aspects of Christianity to arise and gain support as it did) but the others certainly hold.

The same can be said, accidental as it was, of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, right after his "I've Been To The Mountaintop" speech.

But those are just some examples of what I mean by accomplishing a good death and telling when it's time...every life is different, and so every death, to be good, should be different in kind as well, even if the same aspects- when, where, reason, and action- are more constant.