I've seen this image posted around here many times and I think it warrants its own thread for discussion. It really gives a good visual summary of Schopenhauer's philosophically grounded idea of reincarnation:
>Only by a false illusion does the cool shade of Orcus allure him as a
haven of rest. The earth rolls on from day into night; the individual
dies; but the sun itself burns without intermission, an eternal noon.
Life is certain to the will-to-live; the form of life is the endless present; it matters not how individuals, the phenomena of the Idea, arise
and pass away in time, like fleeting dreams.
>When we die, we throw off our individuality like a worn-out garment
In short, according to this position, life is the permanent condition of this world. When you die, you may lose your self (your elevated perspective) but not selfhood in general. As long as there is a perceiving subject, it is (you) that is perceiving as transmuted consciousness. What is compelling about this idea is that it doesn't depend on the existence of an immortal soul or spirit in order to be true.
So my question is, do you find this position plausible? If yes, does it scare you?
Honestly I find it both plausible and nightmarish in its consequences, because it entails that there is no rest, no peace and no release from the torments of this world, not even for a minute. The moment you are gone, there is not even a pause before you are violently brought back to be tortured, gutted, and consumed once more in the cosmic slaughterhouse.
Your suffering is originating from your mind, not your soul.
Losing your sense of self has always sounded horrifying. Why can no description of heaven or the afterlife be comforting? It's because existence itself is bad.
How many times are you gonna post that?
I too am tired of seeing this.
It reminds me very much of image related. The first time I saw it was on /x/, which to me says it was made/posted for laughs if anything.
When I was really depressed and anxious in my early teens the thought of ego death calmed me for a bit, but then it made me really directionless, nihilistic and apathetic.
Every possible afterlife, even eternal bliss in heaven, eventually becomes horrific the more you think about it.
That's because you're attempting to understand immortal Truth from a flawed temporal mindset.
isnt this the backstory of elder scrolls
Those two are just from different perspectives
First is from the indifferent universal timeline, the second is from your own consciousness
I've read near death experiences that say people get bored in heaven.
There's no conjecture one can make that is not one's consciousness.
I find the idea of getting "bored in heaven" downright retarded. If heaven is defined as a place of eternal bliss without any negatives, then boredom wouldn't be a thing, as that is a negative experience. Maybe if your mental picture of heaven/paradise the layman's Christian idea of being on top of the clouds in white robes singing in praise of God all day everyday, sure, I would see how you could think that's boring. But thinking outside of the box on what a positive afterlife could be like, it could be like a really long if not eternal good dream where outlandish novel shit happens all the time.
I think people have in their heads where they think that we "need" some level of suffering in order to be happy, and being in perfectly ideal circumstances would be boring. Like we need pain in order to tell what joy is. This is stupid and I hate every normalgroid that says something like this. Happiness and suffering are not like hot and cold where one sort of implies the other. Happiness is not not-suffering and suffering is not not-happiness.
Never being able to feel negative emotions sounds horrifying as well.
Non-life going for an infinite amount of time in either direction does not imply that a finite life cannot exist in between. Take, for example, the following sets of natural numbers:
1. the negative numbers below -5
2. the positive numbers above +5
3. the numbers between -5 and 5
Now, 1 and 2 extend infinitely in either direction, and 3 is between the two, but 3 is finite and definitely still can exist.
The conclusion at the start of the second paragraph is therefore wrong.
As long as I get annihilated we're all good
I figure if reincarnation is true and some essence of me is preserved next time, I'll learn to suicide faster and earlier next round. If otoh there is no memory, experience or learning. then future life is not me at all anyway
>Schopenhauer's philosophically grounded idea of reincarnation:
well im reading Vol 3, and he talks about how lightly death is treated in the animals, like going to sleep
he seems to see the continuation of the species as a kind of immortality, with the individual not mattering
"If in autumn we consider the little world of insects, and see how one prepares its bed to sleep the long, rigid winter-sleep; another spins its cocoon to pass the winter as a chrysalis, and awake in spring rejuvenated and perfected; and, finally, how most of them, intending themselves to rest in the arms of death, merely arrange with care the suitable place for their egg, in order to issue forth again from it some day renewed;—this is nature's great doctrine of immortality, which seeks to teach us that there is no radical difference between sleep and death, but the one endangers existence just as little as the other. The care with which the insect prepares a cell, or hole, or nest, deposits its egg in it, together with food for the larva that will come out of it in the following spring, and then quietly dies, is just like the care with which in the evening a man lays ready his clothes and his breakfast for the next morning, and then quietly goes to sleep; and at [pg 268]bottom it could not take place at all if it were not that the insect which dies in autumn is in itself, and according to its true nature, just as much identical with the one which is hatched out in the spring as the man who lies down to sleep is identical with the man who rises from it.
Let one ask himself honestly whether the swallow of this year's spring is absolutely a different one from the swallow of the first spring, [pg 274]and whether really between the two the miracle of the creation out of nothing has repeated itself millions of times, in order to work just as often into the hands of absolute annihilation. I know well that if I seriously assured any one that the cat which now plays in the yard is still the same one which made the same springs and played the same tricks there three hundred years ago, he would think I was mad; but I also know that it is much madder to believe that the cat of to-day is through and through and in its whole nature quite a different one from the cat of three hundred years ago. One only requires truly and seriously to sink oneself in the contemplation of one of these higher vertebrates in order to become distinctly conscious that this unfathomable nature, taken as a whole, as it exists there, cannot possibly become nothing; and yet, on the other hand, one knows its transitoriness. This depends upon the fact that in this animal the infinite nature of its Idea (species) is imprinted in the finiteness of the individual. For in a certain sense it is of course true that in the individual we always have before us another being—in the sense which depends upon the principle of sufficient reason, in which are also included time and space, which constitute the principium individuationis. But in another sense it is not true—in the sense in which reality belongs to the permanent forms of things, the Ideas alone, and which was so clearly evident to Plato that it became his fundamental thought, the centre of his philosophy; and he made the comprehension of it the criterion of capacity for philosophising in general."
I mean in the simplest terms he seems 2b saying
that in our conventional understanding of reincarnation we expect the ego soul :ghost: to survive. But in the bug and cat, its not so important that the soul survive as the behavior. The cat outside my window might be the same from 300 years ago.
And while we like to pride ourselves that humans are more unique
in fact we all share the same will to life as other organisms
so reincarnation is in fact the similar behavior of all life forms across infinite generations
whether a same soul is in it, is indifferent
>Let us now think of that alternation of death and birth as infinitely rapid vibrations, and we have before us the enduring objectification of the will, the permanent Ideas of being, fixed like the rainbow on the waterfall. This is temporal immortality. In consequence of this, notwithstanding thousands of years of death and decay, nothing has been lost, not an atom of the matter, still less anything of the inner being, that exhibits itself as nature. Therefore every moment we can cheerfully cry, “In spite of time, death, and decay, we are still all together!”
Schopenhauer's philosophically grounded idea of reincarnation is based on the counterintuitive idea that individuality is an illusion.
well I had my own thought experiment
that who says reincarnation is linear in time
that i must be reincarnated into a future self
perhaps i can be reincarnated into a past or even present self
and then that starts to get close to Schop, that all humanity, all life is my reincarnation
well suppose I wanted 2b reborn as chad
I wouldnt want any of my negative personality or memories to darken my new life as chad so wipe all that out
so if im reborn as chad into this current world
then it could just be that chad over there across the street
and the old me still exists in this body
boom wish granted by the evil genie
i wished 2b reborn as chad, and i was, as that chad over there, with none of my memories or personality, as that would only hold me back.
This could be true under two conditions>The universe doesn't end by big rip
Consciousness is transitive
I.e if you stepped into a teleporter, would you see yourself in the other end, as the information is identical, or would you just see black while a clone thinks it's you?
If it's the former then it's probably inevitable you'll be alive again. In big bounce or heat death the universe will always restart again. Infinite time means you'll wake up as infinite Boltzmann brains.
Actually that's kinda petrifying so I hope that isn't true
What actually happens is that when you die you lose consciousness forever and that's about it. Don't be fooled by this pseudo-philosophical idea that you reincarnate or some bs. Its all meant to scare you from suicide. Suicide is the biggest weapon a person has against this prison/enslavement called life.
Consciousness != personality
>Suicide is the biggest weapon a person has against this prison/enslavement called life.
So why haven't you done it yet? Let me guess, "I'm predetermined to not kill myself because I feel scared of death and I don't want to work to overcome that emotion."
>>234751>you lose consciousness forever and that's about it
>>234751>What actually happens is that when you die you lose consciousness forever
I hope so
>>234751>you die you lose consciousness forever and that's about it
I hope you're right
I can't prove a negative. You need to prove to me that consciousness continues after death.
Threads like these would be much shorter if more people knew what an unfalsifiable claim is.
Why should there being no afterlife be the "default" position? Even if an afterlife can't be proven, why do you believe in eternal oblivion in the first place?
why cant it be finite before and infinite after?