AKG wrote:

@iwpoe
This might be unrelated but as a Platonist have you ever worried about where your friends/families who aren't philosophers will end up after they die? I'm asking because I'm struggling with this right now(seriously wondering if eternal oblivion would be better than the afterlife), and wondering how Platonist deal with this.

No. I want the good for all people, but one's soul is ultimately one's achievement. A man reaps what he sows is a primary lesson of life. I can aid people. I cannot do it for them. There is perhaps some kind of wisdom available to the average person. I don't know the ability or state of every soul.

Eternal oblivion is not possible for the immortal soul without special divine action and I'm disinclined to think this happens often if at all.

AKG wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

AKG wrote:

@iwpoe
This might be unrelated but as a Platonist have you ever worried about where your friends/families who aren't philosophers will end up after they die? I'm asking because I'm struggling with this right now(seriously wondering if eternal oblivion would be better than the afterlife), and wondering how Platonist deal with this.

No. I want the good for all people, but one's soul is ultimately one's achievement. A man reaps what he sows is a primary lesson of life. I can aid people. I cannot do it for them. There is perhaps some kind of wisdom available to the average person. I don't know the ability or state of every soul.

Eternal oblivion is not possible for the immortal soul without special divine action and I'm disinclined to think this happens often if at all.

No, I mean that I'm debating whether or not death with the possibility of eternal oblivion might be better than death with possibility of suffering afterwards. 

Better in what sense? If it's 'eternal oblivion' or what have you why should life before death be desirable? Why should one not go out and cause as much suffering for the living as one wishes (of course one has no objective reason to do so, but, then again there is no objective reason for anything): I've always found it odd how people attempt to use the existence of suffering as an argument against the existence of God and then demand that we should care about their suffering.

There is the idea that any action committed in this finite life should warrant eternal 'suffering', separation from God or what have you, being manifestly unfair and thus arbitrary; as far as I can see this is correct, so I reject the idea and lose no sleep over it (after all its not as if there were good arguments for it in the first place). Although I regret having to say anything offensive to Xtians belief in Original Sin strikes me as beliving being in an improvable and probably incoherent disease in order to belive in its cure.

 

Last edited by DanielCC (7/19/2016 4:53 am)

DanielCC wrote:

AKG wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

No. I want the good for all people, but one's soul is ultimately one's achievement. A man reaps what he sows is a primary lesson of life. I can aid people. I cannot do it for them. There is perhaps some kind of wisdom available to the average person. I don't know the ability or state of every soul.

Eternal oblivion is not possible for the immortal soul without special divine action and I'm disinclined to think this happens often if at all.

No, I mean that I'm debating whether or not death with the possibility of eternal oblivion might be better than death with possibility of suffering afterwards. 

Better in what sense? If it's 'eternal oblivion' or what have you why should life before death be desirable? Why should one not go out and cause as much suffering for the living as one wishes (of course one has no objective reason to do so, but, then again there is no objective reason for anything): I've always found it odd how people attempt to use the existence of suffering as an argument against the existence of God and then demand that we should care about their suffering.

There is the idea that any action committed in this finite life should warrant eternal 'suffering', separation from God or what have you, being manifestly unfair and thus arbitrary; as far as I can see this is correct, so I reject the idea and lose no sleep over it (after all its not as if there were good arguments for it in the first place). Although I regret having to say anything offensive to Xtians belief in Original Sin strikes me as beliving being in an improvable and probably incoherent disease in order to belive in its cure.

 

Well I've been thinking that if death is an eternal. dreamless sleep like Socrates, and Cicero said then is that really so bad say compared to the possibility of punishment after death? On a another note why don't you think their are any good arguments for finite actions=eternal punishment?
 

iwpoe wrote:

IIRC Socrates only says that it's like sleep on the proviso that he's wrong about the immortality of the soul.

Yeah, he says that at the end of the Apology. Okay what do you think is more worrisome in this life, living it knowing you and everyone else gets bliss/punishment afterwards or that you and everyone else goes to an eternal dreamless sleep afterwards(hope I don't sound too whiny or like a typical gnu)

ArmandoAlvarez wrote:

AKG wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

IIRC Socrates only says that it's like sleep on the proviso that he's wrong about the immortality of the soul.

Yeah, he says that at the end of the Apology. Okay what do you think is more worrisome in this life, living it knowing you and everyone else gets bliss/punishment afterwards or that you and everyone else goes to an eternal dreamless sleep afterwards(hope I don't sound too whiny or like a typical gnu)

I think this is a matter of personal disposition.  I read an essay by Miguel de Unamuno and he said that the idea of hell never disturbed him because it was so much less frightening to him than nonbeing.  C.S. Lewis, in his autobiography that describes his conversion, Surprised by Joy, says he never feared nonbeing, but mentions that Samuel Johnson did.  I for one side with Unamuno.  Maybe it's because I have not given due consideration to the torments of hell, but the idea of ceasing to exist for some reason upsets me more than any suffering I can think of.  I don't think it's a rational reaction; I think it's just something about my personal disposition.

As to your emotional reaction, I would say to trust in both the justice and mercy of God.  From what you know of God from philosophy, no punishment will be given to anyone that is unjust, and your religion teaches you that God has revealed himself to be exceedingly merciful.  If there seems to be a conflict between the existence of hell and the attributes of God, we are either misunderstanding the nature of hell or the nature of justice.

I will pray for you.  I again recommend The Great Divorce, which discusses at length why the suffering of Hell should not "veto" the joys of heaven.

This Unamuno guy looks like an interesting fellow. I'll read up on him. And thank you for your prayers. To be honest I'm not worried about being happy in heaven(if i get there) while theirs suffering in hell as I'm sure God would have something for this. It's more of living right knowing that someone you love could be in Hell, while you're in Heaven without that compensation God would bring in Heaven.