I’ve also seen those people who are like vampires—not the kind that suck your blood, but the kind that drain your energy... people you visit and leave feeling depressed, feeling awful... even wanting to die... you feel bad every time you see them.
It is difficult to give an a priori answer, but if I had to answer briefly, I would say that the only certainty we have after death is that we had no certainty that this life existed before we were born.
Austrian Economics uses a priori logic to reach a conclusion based on an argument's premises. Data measurements come later and confirm their existing proof.
Who dies when death happens? You? What is "you"? What is "I"? Some say ego. And that's also just a psychological concept given by Freud (probably).
Probably best to just observe the self, in vipassana-meditation specifically, and you see what "ego" , "I" is. Then and only then you know what life and death constitutes of. In vipassana, there's no need for concepts, or "a priori argumentation". You just see, clearly, slowly, quite difficult though, but certainly with patience, you'll see. You'll see.
I doubt argumentation, intellectualisation, words, concepts, frameworks, logic, and what have you, will work to deduce, induce and figure out what it is to just be and what it means to die. Certainly some notions of dissolving the ego is possible, and probably that is as close as we have to what it means to die. After all, you must leave your body and whatever constitutes you in the mind, be it "ego". That can be experienced, not so much argued about. There's no words for that per se. But there is a method, and that's vipassana.
If you came this far, you can try it yourself at dhamma.org. In any case, don't believe me: believe in your own experience. Believing or listening to my experience is futile.
I think it depends on what you mean by prove, and what you mean by a priori argumentation. Like, whether using a priori argumentation you can justify the use of certain empirical facts.
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
A lot of gas. Just poke the bloating dead body and see what happens.
compost after death
necromancy before death
necromancer is just someone pretending to be the dead person
It sounds like a zombie.
zombie would be person post morten by self.
it's something like a zombie. a 'living dead' or, better 'walking dead'. and it's contagious, it eats the brains of living men and makes them rot
resident zombies
they tell all in movies, videogames.. and make fun of the braindead, perfidly
if you ever said you are a person, that's the proof
maybe more accurate is a talking dead, corpse oratio, corporation
each corporation is a person, a dead entity with rights and obligations
I’ve also seen those people who are like vampires—not the kind that suck your blood, but the kind that drain your energy... people you visit and leave feeling depressed, feeling awful... even wanting to die... you feel bad every time you see them.
exactly
or giving life to the dead
like when we identify with a dead entity/person
like the one we carry in our pockets
after hearing that lawyers are necromancers I can’t disassociate it
yep, they especially, are the gatekeepers of the world of the dead
I love this. It's like "Former child, future corpse".
It is difficult to give an a priori answer, but if I had to answer briefly, I would say that the only certainty we have after death is that we had no certainty that this life existed before we were born.
😆
I can't even prove that I exist a priori.
I don't think pure logic can prove something beyond observable reality.
Austrian Economics uses a priori logic to reach a conclusion based on an argument's premises. Data measurements come later and confirm their existing proof.
No. There is a hard barrier after death. Otherwise there would be better arguments than "trust me"
Death is one of those questions where evidence matters more than deduction.
What's a "priori argumentation"
You can reach a conclusion using an argument's premises. Data measurements come later to confirm your existing proof.
Who dies when death happens? You? What is "you"? What is "I"? Some say ego. And that's also just a psychological concept given by Freud (probably).
Probably best to just observe the self, in vipassana-meditation specifically, and you see what "ego" , "I" is. Then and only then you know what life and death constitutes of. In vipassana, there's no need for concepts, or "a priori argumentation". You just see, clearly, slowly, quite difficult though, but certainly with patience, you'll see. You'll see.
I doubt argumentation, intellectualisation, words, concepts, frameworks, logic, and what have you, will work to deduce, induce and figure out what it is to just be and what it means to die. Certainly some notions of dissolving the ego is possible, and probably that is as close as we have to what it means to die. After all, you must leave your body and whatever constitutes you in the mind, be it "ego". That can be experienced, not so much argued about. There's no words for that per se. But there is a method, and that's vipassana.
If you came this far, you can try it yourself at dhamma.org. In any case, don't believe me: believe in your own experience. Believing or listening to my experience is futile.
I think it depends on what you mean by prove, and what you mean by a priori argumentation. Like, whether using a priori argumentation you can justify the use of certain empirical facts.
Valid points. I think the only answer is, as J.B. Peterson once wisely said:
"We don't really know what any of those things mean."
If you can't measure it, you can't "prove" it.
There is no amount of philosophical waxing that can ever substitute for data and statistical analysis.
nobody knows and as far as we’ve seen if you died, you died
What happens if there is no death?
John 10:28-30
A priori reasoning can build arguments, not verify the unknown.
Logic can narrow possibilities, but proof is a different thing.