This is a blind-spot for me, and honestly is the reason I tried to get some smart people together to talk. I know it’s uncharitable, and I feel like I’m strawmanning my opposition, yet I just can’t seem to wrap my head around how this viewpoint even exists. The panel didn’t help much with that, but that was mainly my fault.
You’re the host, your introduction primed the debate on religion, which is among the least interesting aspects (to me), and made Brin talk about monasteries later on. Thanks …
I’m also uninterested in the religion aspect, but I was trying to tie it into the con’s theme of atheism/religious-skepticism. It’s how I pitched it to PZ in the first place, so I didn’t feel I could abandon it once the show started. If I didn’t think it was necessary for inclusion in the con I wouldn’t have bothered.
The technical meaning of “I don’t understand” is “I do not comprehend the processes by which this thing (in this case death-ism) occurs.” It’s an invitation to explanation, for the sake of increasing your own understanding.
However, in rhetoric, the meaning often alters to “I am so strongly opposed to this viewpoint that the very fact that anyone considers it valid dismays me. The viewpoint is in fact so ridiculous that I doubt anyone who subscribes to it can give a coherent explanation as to why.” It’s also an invitation to explanation, but in this case the purpose of the explanation is to force the opposing argument to articulate what you perceive is a hopelessly weak point which which will be shown to be self-evidently false via the very process of articulation.
Kawoomba thinks that using “I don’t understand” by the rhetoric definition is inherently insincere, and he assumes that you are using it in the rhetoric definition as well. (For the record, I am neutral concerning whether or not using the phrase rhetorically is inherently insincere.)
yet I just can’t seem to wrap my head around how this viewpoint even exists.
Were you, then, truly using the technical definition? Do you actually feel you do not understand the mental processes and lines of thought by which people decide that immortality is undesirable? If so, it’s worth discussing because it’s generally bad form to give a strong dismissal a viewpoint that you know you don’t fully understand.
Were you, then, truly using the technical definition? Do you actually feel you do not understand the mental processes and lines of thought by which people decide that immortality is undesirable? If so, it’s worth discussing because it’s generally bad form to give a strong dismissal a viewpoint that you know you don’t fully understand.
I was using it in both senses. I’ve tried doing a lot of reading and talking about the subject, and it hasn’t helped. The panel was an effort to further that as well. I really am trying to get it. I almost feel like I need Yvain to write a “Deathism in a giant planet-sized nutshell” post.
Can you explain what you find unsatisfying about the usual explanations of Deathism? Usual explanations being (listed from weakest to strongest reasons to support mortality)...
1) Belief in an immortal soul or afterlife
2) Misunderstanding of the premise (thinking that immortality would mean living forever but in gradually deteriorating mental and physical health)
3) “Death gives life meaning”, presumably by instilling a sense of appreciation and urgency
4) Concerns about the demographic and sociological implications of importality
5) Fearing the psychological effects of immortality (boredom, madness, etc)
and lastly, the argument I’ve actually got a lot of sympathy for (notwithstanding my belief that we shouldn’t let biology dictate mortality)
6) Concerns about redundancy (As in, do I actually prefer a far future which contains at least one being which shares continuity with my present self more than I prefer universes in which those resources were put to other purposes?)
This is a blind-spot for me, and honestly is the reason I tried to get some smart people together to talk. I know it’s uncharitable, and I feel like I’m strawmanning my opposition, yet I just can’t seem to wrap my head around how this viewpoint even exists. The panel didn’t help much with that, but that was mainly my fault.
I’m also uninterested in the religion aspect, but I was trying to tie it into the con’s theme of atheism/religious-skepticism. It’s how I pitched it to PZ in the first place, so I didn’t feel I could abandon it once the show started. If I didn’t think it was necessary for inclusion in the con I wouldn’t have bothered.
note—this is without having watched the video:
The technical meaning of “I don’t understand” is “I do not comprehend the processes by which this thing (in this case death-ism) occurs.” It’s an invitation to explanation, for the sake of increasing your own understanding.
However, in rhetoric, the meaning often alters to “I am so strongly opposed to this viewpoint that the very fact that anyone considers it valid dismays me. The viewpoint is in fact so ridiculous that I doubt anyone who subscribes to it can give a coherent explanation as to why.” It’s also an invitation to explanation, but in this case the purpose of the explanation is to force the opposing argument to articulate what you perceive is a hopelessly weak point which which will be shown to be self-evidently false via the very process of articulation.
Kawoomba thinks that using “I don’t understand” by the rhetoric definition is inherently insincere, and he assumes that you are using it in the rhetoric definition as well. (For the record, I am neutral concerning whether or not using the phrase rhetorically is inherently insincere.)
Were you, then, truly using the technical definition? Do you actually feel you do not understand the mental processes and lines of thought by which people decide that immortality is undesirable? If so, it’s worth discussing because it’s generally bad form to give a strong dismissal a viewpoint that you know you don’t fully understand.
I was using it in both senses. I’ve tried doing a lot of reading and talking about the subject, and it hasn’t helped. The panel was an effort to further that as well. I really am trying to get it. I almost feel like I need Yvain to write a “Deathism in a giant planet-sized nutshell” post.
Can you explain what you find unsatisfying about the usual explanations of Deathism? Usual explanations being (listed from weakest to strongest reasons to support mortality)...
1) Belief in an immortal soul or afterlife
2) Misunderstanding of the premise (thinking that immortality would mean living forever but in gradually deteriorating mental and physical health)
2) Sour grapes
3) “Death gives life meaning”, presumably by instilling a sense of appreciation and urgency
4) Concerns about the demographic and sociological implications of importality
5) Fearing the psychological effects of immortality (boredom, madness, etc)
and lastly, the argument I’ve actually got a lot of sympathy for (notwithstanding my belief that we shouldn’t let biology dictate mortality)
6) Concerns about redundancy (As in, do I actually prefer a far future which contains at least one being which shares continuity with my present self more than I prefer universes in which those resources were put to other purposes?)