Posted: Nov 13, 2014 12:15 pm
Thommo wrote:Fallible wrote:I think this is an instance of someone being so desperate to not admit they are wrong that they begin to make clearly counter-factual 'arguments'. 'If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living'? One thing which would appear to be rather beyond dispute unless you believe in life after death is that the dead experience nothing at all, be that pleasure or pain. Quite clearly then, the living experience more suffering by virtue of the fact that the dead do not experience at all, and it is therefore worse for the one left alive when a loved one dies, simply because the loved one no longer 'is', and the one left behind is suffering.
Well no, most living people prefer life, so it is definitely not beyond dispute. I haven't seen anyone even define suffering and something like "net balance of pleasure and pain" would certainly not be particularly unreasonable. Particularly if one is to base a comparison of better or "worse" upon it.
I'm disputing the underlined part. It is not clear that the living suffer more merely by being alive - indeed Fallible said (as I would) that not all living people suffer and it is plainly illogical to compare people who are not suffering and conclude one is suffering more. It is also not clear that things are "worse" for a loved one left behind than a partner who dies. Many people left behind prefer their state to death and have it "better" by their own measure.
I'm guessing that Fallible here meant that considering only in terms of the mourning process the living have it worse and did not mean to suggest anything about their overall state of existence, however this is very unlikely to address the point that TMB was actually making, there's nothing in his posts that suggest he meant to divorce his comments from all context.
Thus without people defining what they mean by "suffering" or "better" or "worse" everyone will talk past each other ad infinitum.