Comments on: Life After Death – A Philosophical Discussion

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:41:00 +0000

I’m looking for some considered philosophical feedback on http://andycox1953.webs.com/, a blog that sets out a vision of how we might live. The fundamental proposition is that there is no such thing as life after of death and so therefore, given that happiness is the point of our existence, we should strive to create conditions most conducive to happiness – in my view, a world of free access to all goods and services and common ownership of the means of production – as, with the extinction of our individual lives, other subjective realities come into being, who experience the world just as we did – from an ‘I-standpoint’. I describe this idea as ‘quasi-reincarnation’. So, if anyone has any thoughts on this, I would be grateful for your input.

By: Southern Buddhist

Southern Buddhist — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:03:00 +0000

Wow, thanks for introducing me to Academic Earth. It’s still small, but it looks like a great site.

By: Corinne

Corinne — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:44:00 +0000

Hah, that’s a coincidence, I just finished listening to his lectures a few days ago.

By: Steve S

Steve S — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:29:00 +0000

Just noticed that my last word should have been “conscience”.

By: nutmeag

nutmeag — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:32:00 +0000

I was thinking similarly to Steve S on this one. It made me think back to my favorite college philosophy/theology/literature course.

The best thing about that class (besides the awesome reading material) was that our prof never once gave us his own opinion on the subject we were studying. Yes, I’m sure it came through in his teaching (you can never objectively teach this subject matter), but still he never told us what to believe, or even what he believed. He asked a question at the beginning of the semester, let us ruminate on it during all of our readings and discussions, then had us write a final paper discussing our findings. He asked us to answer the question based on what we read and believed. To me, that’s the best way to handle philosophy.

By: Steve S

Steve S — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:24:00 +0000

Took over 36 minutes before I heard in his lecture what I had suspected all along. The fact that early on he equates the mind with the soul gave me a clue. The problem with this stance is that he is giving a lecture about a philosophy or belief that he knows little about. Philosophize all he wants, one person can never give a equally balanced argument for both sides. His belief will outweigh the other in the end.

Let’s not take this into the argument of whether or not one believes in a soul. That’s up to one’s own belief but for those who do, dualist doesn’t fit the description of a believer. Tri-ist might be a better characterization – the belief of a body, mind and soul. Some may call it a conscious.