Sunday, October 30, 2005

Unthinkably Imperceptible

Epicurus believed that human beings should not fear death, since death is simply the deprivation of sensation. If we cease to exist and nothing more, what is there to terrify us? This is logical enough, I suppose, but unpersuasive, because it does not take into account the human need to be perceived. To be dead is to be in a state of unthinkable non-being. We know no other reality than being perceived, but the perception of ourselves exists only through our own agency. Deprived of our senses we are deprived of ourselves. Is that comforting? Is it even conceivable? Here is a telling question to ask yourself. Would you rather retain your consciousness after death and be tortured and tormented for all eternity or lose your consciousness entirely? I suspect that a suggestive number of people would choose the former.

8 comments:

Nimiwey said...

Lose my consciousness entirely. Please. I just want to know that it ends some day.

Gopher said...

New pic! Lose consciousness entirely as well. I have no fear of death either though. I have difficulty understanding people who do.

brainmarket said...

This is one of my arguments against the death penalty. If death marks the end of sensation, then how would one experience the loss necessary to define a "penalty"? For one to be worse off after being executed, one would have to pass into a state similar to the judaeo-christian "hell." Such a theory of punishment by death would violate the First Amendment prohibition against the government promoting religion.

Nimiwey said...

Oh bull. It's supposed to act as a deterrent to crime in that people fear death. It has nothing or little to do with an afterlife consequence. Death is the consequence. Sheesh, daddy.

brainmarket said...

I agree that the death penalty might act as a secular deterrent to those who fear oblivion. What I meant was that it is not a "penalty" in the traditional sense. Maybe they should call it something else.

Nimiwey said...

A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.

How is it not a penalty?

You and your fuggin' semantics.

Nature's Rebel said...

This is beginning to sound similar to the debate over guns that Brain's unrelated post started. Interesting problem though. Is the actual execution a punishment, in that the one executed is unaware of his condition? It does remain a punishment in the eyes of others, however, and therefore it retains its semantic status as a punishment, doesn't it?

I actually think it's arguable that all criminal penalties serve as deterrents and nothing else. If you didn't carry through, it would cease to work as such. You have people who commit the crimes regardless, and in a sense it doesn't matter from their perspective what the penalty is. But without the deterrent, many others who are unwilling to face jail or death would commit crimes, too. Crime would increase a hundred or perhaps a thousand times. Look at any situation that gives people the sense of lawlessness. I think that has to be the argument in favor of any punishment, not the effect (whatever that might be) on the criminal.

I might add that I engage in this reluctantly (sort of). The structure of our society has created crime on a mass scale, and debates like this are an after the fact matter.

Nimiwey said...

Umm how has the structure of our society created crime?