Except of two persons..
But, it is an example of "afterlife."
Anything that has a function can be tested by its willingness and ability to perform that function.
If it is dysfunctional, then it often does, if it does anything at all, something else. Therefore, you can test anything with a function by its product. To test the function of a mind, write a book that requires certain levels of linguistic processing, i.e. judgment. Then, does the mind focus on its job, understand what the demand means to learn judgment, or does it cast about, making up mythologies, flattering itself with gifts, and every other imaginable thing. A equals A, and for judgment, that means it is God. So, in metaphor, man is either created in God's image, or it really is not a man at all. By the simple principles of reason itself, man is not special, everything is created in the image.
"Anything that has a function, exists for that function." Aristotle.
It is amazing how it can be said that God is the image, and it never rings a bell. The dead simply cannot hear. How in creation can a person claim an afterlife, when they never lived to begin with?
One can look up the Law of Identity on the Internet, and find fairly decent expositions of it in many places. The question is, is the Law of Identity functionally resident in a mind. Is it always so, or is it intermittent? Comes and goes, i.e. how does emotion, desire, anger, etc., effect its functionality. In what circumstances can be grasped, in what circumstances is it blocked for some psychological reason?
How do people respond to it when pointed out in discourse? When deliberately used in a literary work, such as the dialogs of Plato, or of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, can pointing it out dislodge fantasy, or does the fantasy prevail. At what age does effective learning stop?
The human mind is the slowest environmental acquisition system of the body to mature. Some judgmental abilities do not come into play until after 20 years old, some after about 36. At what age do certain linguistic functions begin to operate, and at what age to they stop?
Take any piece of literature, any one at all. One either comprehends it through functional standards of language, or one does not. It does not matter when it was written, the mythology behind it, or what branch of lit it resides in. When we examine a thing, it is not, foremost, the thing being tested.
To claim, and to know, that reason rests on the Law of Identity, and then to claim that God does not exist, is a contradiction on the most fundamental level. The mind of the person making the claim, is holding, unaware, two distinct definitions of God. One, the principles of reason by which it functions, and two, some anthropomorphic fantasy.
We are a mind. And like anything else, we can be said to be alive or dead commensurate with our ability to do our own work. It is the same criteria one uses for anything that has a function.
Once we have determined what life is, can one say that afterlife is anything other than not life? Or is one claiming an alternate reality, i.e. the real is actually only part of the real?
But, foremost, implied in the question itself is life. Can any question be answered about life to something demonstrably not functional? Like the mind of man.
So, the question assumes that one has an understanding of life on the one hand, and then assumes that the inverse of the state is the state of which it is the inverse. Now if that is not a Liar's Paradox, I don't know what is. In short, the question itself demonstrates that it is a product of the lack of judgment, i.e. Like a ghost asking, is there life?
And then there are those claiming one way or the other, who demonstrate that they cannot even comprehend the principles of language. By definition, the dead arguing about the very same proposition. That is just too rich.
If it were not a real tragedy, people should be laughing their ass off.
And, was it not said that Quantum Mechanics bested religion? That instead of one afterlife, there were an infinite number of alternate realities. Things just keep getting better. We can either live forever in the not reality, or die an infinite number of time, again, in a not reality. Amazing. God, I miss the old fashioned root canal.
And as for my bad English. I suspected as much, for after winning a couple of writing awards at LA Tech, and my English teacher wanting me to take up writing professionally, I chose other forms of labor, some technical, some manual. I told her, I would not have anything of value to write about until about the age of retirement. Anybody can write gibberish which that thing called the common man claims to be good.
nesgirl wrote:But finding out what cessation is for many people seems like a much easier route than dealing with bullying and criticism. Because then they never have to deal with it again
That is kind of a narrow minded view. They have to never do anything again. The human mind is for producing human will. Nowhere in the definition can one say that pain or pleasure is a defining characteristic. It is true, most people do not have the wit to establish a life goal, and their life, as far as the community goes, is of little consequence, but if you take that view, you are claiming that what someone else thinks is somehow part of your definition of mind, which is not true.
You spend a great deal of time pondering what you are not.
In my early studies in Lucid Dreaming, I asked my teacher about this, I called it subjective identification with one's environment, or reality. You might try that.
What may either be asserted of, or denied of, any thing, is determined solely by the definition of that thing.
When you understand that, you will understand, I am, that I am.
Can you do that without crying and playing the victim as some babies in here do?
[ Post made via Android ]
When I say "accept an opinion", I mean to ignore if you have a different one and move forward. You don't try to persuade anyone, do you? If not, the only reason that you keep talking is that you feel the need to make your one view stronger. It's just a personal thing, so I don't blame you.
Your approach tolerates ignorance and stands in the way of development and progress. What if we ignored the Nazis when they were decimating the Jews? Imagine that!
[ Post made via Android ]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest