The tragedy as I see it has a slightly different flavor than that of my other family members: For them it’s probably seen as an ultimately inevitable end, and few perhaps hold some hope/notion of an afterlife or maybe just never thought too hard about what death entails.
Sorry for your loss, but I can’t help but note that this seems to be a quite condescending and arrogant position.
Philosophical and literary reflection about mortality has been present in all cultures, and I’m pretty sure that humans have been thinking about death well before they could write.
Thinking that the dead could be living on in different Everett branches, or in whatever variety of Tegmark’s neo-Platonic world of ideals, isn’t really much different that thinking they could be living on in a supernatural otherworld. And death still sucks for somebody who believes in Everett branches as much as it sucks for anybody who believes in a supernatural otherworld or metempsychosis, for exactly the same reason.
Burying the dead, burning them to ashes, or putting then into dewars filled with liquid nitrogen, after performing culturally-appropriate rituals which all involve some sort of symbolic “preservation”, fulfils the same social and psychological functions.
Just because other people don’t buy into your specific flavor of afterlife it doesn’t mean that they haven’t thought about death and haven’t reached conclusions similar to your own.
Meant more in the context of ‘Nothing could have been done’ vs ‘Something could have but wasn’t’. Though yes, it may read as more condescending than intended.
While humans in general have indeed been thinking about death for ages, I doubt many of the less religious ones hold strong beliefs about what exactly it entails. Not to mention those who genuinely believe in an afterlife ought not to be as sad/hurt as those who don’t.
All this ultimately doesn’t diminish the pain of loss people feel, hence the whole ‘death is bad’ thing.
Also, don’t confuse superficially similar things as being similar on a deeper level.
Sorry for your loss, but I can’t help but note that this seems to be a quite condescending and arrogant position. Philosophical and literary reflection about mortality has been present in all cultures, and I’m pretty sure that humans have been thinking about death well before they could write.
Thinking that the dead could be living on in different Everett branches, or in whatever variety of Tegmark’s neo-Platonic world of ideals, isn’t really much different that thinking they could be living on in a supernatural otherworld. And death still sucks for somebody who believes in Everett branches as much as it sucks for anybody who believes in a supernatural otherworld or metempsychosis, for exactly the same reason.
Burying the dead, burning them to ashes, or putting then into dewars filled with liquid nitrogen, after performing culturally-appropriate rituals which all involve some sort of symbolic “preservation”, fulfils the same social and psychological functions.
Just because other people don’t buy into your specific flavor of afterlife it doesn’t mean that they haven’t thought about death and haven’t reached conclusions similar to your own.
Meant more in the context of ‘Nothing could have been done’ vs ‘Something could have but wasn’t’. Though yes, it may read as more condescending than intended.
While humans in general have indeed been thinking about death for ages, I doubt many of the less religious ones hold strong beliefs about what exactly it entails. Not to mention those who genuinely believe in an afterlife ought not to be as sad/hurt as those who don’t.
All this ultimately doesn’t diminish the pain of loss people feel, hence the whole ‘death is bad’ thing. Also, don’t confuse superficially similar things as being similar on a deeper level.