I would argue that death is the very reason we actually have human civilization.
Humans live fairly brief lives, and once you're dead you can no longer affect the world directly. So, the ability to live vicariously beyond your actual years is a strong motivator to build something. By being part of a community, raising a family, helping your neighbors, taking on apprentices, your legacy lives on even if you, physically, don't.
A world where everyone is out for themselves and is willing to kill indiscriminately to extend their own lives is not a world that will see anything useful happen.
I am also reminded of a quote from one of my favorite TV shows: "If nothing we do matters, the only thing that matters is what we do." The context is that the hero of the show has learned that there pretty much IS no Big Plan. He was ready to give his life (such as it was) to go up against the source of evil behind the main villain organization... and learned that there is no such thing. The source of evil is the evil that people do. And yet he goes on fighting instead of giving in to despair, because if grand gestures aren't going to do anything useful, the only thing that helps is actually helping.
So why be altruistic when there is no Big Reward for being so? Because it's the Right Thing to do. A world where people act altruistically is better than one where they don't.
I can't help but respond to this and I'll take them in order:
1.) Your position that death creates society via the desire to live vicariously is, as far as I see it, an invalid argument. It's possible that given the truth of your premises that your conclusion is still false. People want to have enjoyable everyday lives and that could just as likely, I would argue more likely, cause them to cooperate in the here and now FOR the here and now. So I don't think "death causes society" is a particularly strong thesis.
2b) The opposite is also true, if how someone is remembered is what really motivates their behavior then you might have someone decide that they'll be remembered for being the most brutal, violent, despicable tyrant possible.
2.) Question begging - why does 'useful' matter? Who is defining what is 'useful'? It also doesn't take into account that by and large in our everyday lives there ISN'T a way to extend our lives, so you're not exactly comparing apples to oranges. Would be better to look at life-or-death situations. For example if there's only one parachute on a crashing plane are you going to volintarily just give it to some stranger?
4.) Not really anything there for me to comment on.
5.) This is a clearly circular point. Its better... for who? You're assuming a utilitarian-esque view of value/morality which I wouldn't grant you - and I can probably create a scenario where you wouldn't accept that concept either.
5b.) Also, I was never making a point about rewards/punishments for behavior - just the desirability of survival. A Hindu, for example, doesn't look at their re-incarnation as a 'reward' it's just something that happens, (though your life may be better or worse depending on past behavior).
Final Point: For the people who are contra-me I challenge you with this:
Organisms kill other organisms every day to survive - every one of you reading this right now has almost certainly benefited from the death of something for the sake of your own survival. Are you prepared to say that any killing, of any kind, is immoral if you're only doing it to survive 'a little longer'? Is it immoral to kill and eat meat today so that I survive for another day? Where, and how, do you draw the line? Certainly animals are innocent but I doubt any of you have any issue with eating.
TL;DR: Either killing for survival/to extend your life is OK or it's not. I do not believe you can draw a line, and if you think you can the burden is on you to show how the line you draw isn't a case of special pleading.
I'm already expecting people to try and say there's a difference between naturally extending your life vs. 'unnaturally extending your life' but I don't see how that's anything other than an ad hoc support.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
- which doesn't really have much to do with Pathfinder specifically
Since this is a Pathfinder forum, and the community management staff have asked us to stay on topic so they don't have to adjudicate interpersonal arguments that have nothing to do with their products Perhaps it's a good time to let this thread die.
...
im truly impressed but in all honesty people here seem to subscribe to deathism
Deathism a type of bio-fatalism, is a widely held believe that death is natural, inevitable or even desirable. In social psychology the idea is sometimes known as 'terror management theory'.
notice how everyone here keeps saying "you wouldn't stand a chance" "it woudl eb too hard" "you woudl regret it" etc...
yes not a single one of them speaks about what if your character made it not only to the next universe but became a outer god himself like hastur is about to become
we know nascent great old ones exists and we know from hastur that they can become outer gods
look at how urgathoa is raising zyphus to replace pharasma likely to have him send her to the next world
its far from unthinkable but regardless of how the point is what if you made it?
what if a character who became immortal eventually ascended into a outer god then usurped pharasma with a replacement and made him open the way to the next world
what if then this outer god with literally all the effort and focus in the world actually managed to escape from the cycle like the watcher
if he did became a being that is above time and space is that truly a dream not worth dedicating his whole life to achieving
people says they are comfortable with oblivion and that the world will eventually end but si that true?
we only know that because of theories that scientists made and some even predict the opposite and its likely that after millions of years things we think of ass impossible will likely become possible look at airplanes, genetics and i-phones things people thought impossible in the past
in all honesty i think there is a chance however slight that someone could make it into eternity and however small and insignificant i believe it should not be wasted hence i'm trans-humanist and very obsessed with life-extension
also can i talk to you on pm i like to you on p.m?
- which doesn't really have much to do with Pathfinder specificallySince this is a Pathfinder forum, and the community management staff have asked us to stay on topic so they don't have to adjudicate interpersonal arguments that have nothing to do with their products Perhaps it's a good time to let this thread die.
Oops, I enjoy going a little ways into the weeds myself, so I hadn't noticed just how far from the path the discussion had strayed.
To nod to the original topic, and collect a few on-topic responses before me:
The universe in the Pathfinder cosmology appears to be much built like a energy redistribution mechanism, creating continuous cycle of soul energy from the fields of the Positive Energy Plane through the mortal realms, then distributed each according to their philosophy to planes around the Great Beyond, eventually to be reabsorbed into the Antipode and funneled back into the Positive Energy Plane to begin the journey anew.
When a soul is sorted in the Boneyard's psychopomp courts, it typically ends up on one of the nine outer planes, but since many souls are sent to the domain of whatever deity they worshiped in life, and not all deities live on the outer planes, virtually every plane has petitioners living out their afterlives (whether short and violent, or so many millennia long that they eventually just settle in and never move again). Eventually their energy is siphoned away by the Maelstrom and joins the reverse River of Souls and creates a new soul to start over again.
Some notable exceptions to the cycle above: Souls sent to the First World do not become petitioners and instead turn immediately into fey, which have a functionally endless cycle of reincarnation as long as they remain on that plane. Additionally, some mortal souls may experience their own cycle of reincarnation for a number of lifetimes. Finally, a petitioner that ascends into an outsider may live even many morem millennia than a normal petitioner until they too are destroyed and their energy recycled into the Antipode.
--
PS. For the record, 'not a single person' did bring up and briefly entertain the idea of surviving to become the Pharasma of the next universe, and I personally did mention attempting to become as the outer gods, even if I didn't think of the specific example of Hastur. Rather the topic was focused on the morality of achieving immortality by any means necessary, despite resorting to such self-centred means not being necessary. If you want to be immortal, become a god, or do whatever Jatembe, Baba Yaga, or Aroden (before becoming a god) did. That these means are difficult should be no issue given your low opinion of people claiming that it would be too hard.
But that's probably the last from me on this digression.
a lot of words
Neat - but the entire premise of what I've been talking about is minimum necessary conditions for survival - not inflicting suffering that is unnecessary for survival so not much of that really bares on what I'm talking about. We're in complete agreement that *gratuitous* violence is not permissible.
I don't even really believe in reality, so getting this deep in the woods on metaphysics is just wild to me. Like there's so many more interesting things I could learn about.
Back to the topic of souls/parishioners, I like to think of it not so much as they forget everything that happened to them while alive, as it doesn't matter to them anymore.
As in all the memories you may have of your favorite stuffed animal or toy as a child probably don't mean enough to you as an adult to even warrant remembering. It is inconsequential to your current consciousness. Waiting an hour, or even 10 minutes for something when you are 6 is hard. Waiting days for something as an adult is nothing out of the ordinary.
99.9% of your life experiences mean nothing to your soul. They are no more meaningful than the 127th step on a 5 mile walk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a lot of wordsNeat - but the entire premise of what I've been talking about is minimum necessary conditions for survival - not inflicting suffering that is unnecessary for survival so not much of that really bares on what I'm talking about. We're in complete agreement that *gratuitous* violence is not permissible.I see inflicting suffering for lichdom is greedy and purely for pleasure. Same with vampires inflicting suffering for the sake of extending their curse.
Suffering to extend you life through undeath is evil. Specially in Pathfinder where undead are actively going against the flow of nature and consuming living things for no nourishment.
we got it can we please go back to the subject of where do souls end?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the different ways people approach guided imagination to be interesting. Do you see your characters as wanting to exist forever with some subset of their memories intact, but are sad because the lore doesn't allow for it? Or do you imagine them wanting to eventually let go, and are sad at the thought of that time occurring? Or something else entirely?
I like the thought of my characters existing in some capacity forever in some sort of higher existence, but if they need to give up their memories for that, it would be sad but I'm okay with that. But it's the PF cosmology as I've read it that has all souls eventually being annihilated that I have issue with.
But I've let this thread get out of control, I haven't been able to post as much as I've wanted to. Since things are getting heated, I wouldn't mind if a mod closed the thread, it's also been going into some dark places. Figures I come back after a few years and start a mess.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I've let this thread get out of control, I haven't been able to post as much as I've wanted to. Since things are getting heated, I wouldn't mind if a mod closed the thread, it's also been going into some dark places. Figures I come back after a few years and start a mess.
Barong, you didn't start a mess. Just because you set up a room, your not to blame for others coming in and trashing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Barong, I may not agree with you on the feel of the metaphysics, but I understand your opinion. It's other people that made it blow up badly, not you.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mostly annoyed that people involved in the philosophical derail agreed to take it to PM and then didn't :P (also that it devolved into them insulting everyone else as being "death fetishists" while still proclaiming really jerkish statements)
And yeah to say it for emphasis, this isn't OP's fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like that the "As Above, So Below" structure of the afterlife. You die, your body is broken down and used by everything else. With your soul, it lives on, ends, and is incorporated into everything else. Nice symmetry
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the thought of my characters existing in some capacity forever in some sort of higher existence, but if they need to give up their memories for that, it would be sad but I'm okay with that. But it's the PF cosmology as I've read it that has all souls eventually being annihilated that I have issue with.But I've let this thread get out of control, I haven't been able to post as much as I've wanted to. Since things are getting heated, I wouldn't mind if a mod closed the thread, it's also been going into some dark places. Figures I come back after a few years and start a mess.
Reiterating what others have said, none of the issues in this thread are your fault.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I may not share those same long term desires for my characters, nor perhaps see the framing of the fiction as so absolute, but I really enjoy seeing how important people's creations are to them. It shows a deep dive into the story building, which I always like at my tables (whether I'm a player or a GM).
When I consider the future of my characters, I see the long term lore of the established universe to be too uncertain to draw any real conclusions. After all, Pharasma did not foresee the death of Aroden, and prophesy is not what it used to be. My characters have a long time to enjoy the afterlife (if their personal afterlife is enjoyable to them), and perhaps have thousands and thousands of stories to experience. Maybe they will welcome oblivion after so much time. Maybe they will find a way out. Ending my time with them is sort of like sending a kid out into the world. It isn't my story anymore, and my decision to live with that uncertainty means a certain freedom for them. Even if they don't exist.
That's also how I feel about characters in my writings. Once I stop writing, they are not really mine anymore. (This is not a claim that I am a "writer" in any but the loosest terms).
On a completely different note... What happens to souls captured by demons or devils? Like a slaver demon's Enslave Soul ability. Does being cosigned to the abyss like that bypass the boneyard and the lost of memories or identity? I got some players who want to mount a rescue mission when they finish the AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a completely different note... What happens to souls captured by demons or devils? Like a slaver demon's Enslave Soul ability. Does being cosigned to the abyss like that bypass the boneyard and the lost of memories or identity? I got some players who want to mount a rescue mission when they finish the AP.
I believe these souls are used as currency--this goes for night hags, demons, and devils, as well as presumably any other scenario where a soul is fully captured or traded. In particular in Erebus souls are additionally broken down into fragments which are also used as currency, while Phlegethon forges them into weapons and jewelry. I don't know at this time whether these currency souls that are not broken down ever become petitioners as normal, but it seems likely. Larvae, the Abyss form of petitioner are thought of as a delicacy and also used as currency.
Daemons on the other hand typically consume and destroy souls completely, and if you are slain by a Final Blade of Galt or similar soul-trapping thaumaturgy your soul may be stuck delayed from its journey for a long time.
Barong you're definitely not to blame.
I'm sorry for the role I had.
I intended to have a pleasant discussion about how I view the metaphysics of reality, and then things spiraled out of control (in which I was a willing participant for a time).
...im truly impressed but in all honesty people here seem to subscribe to deathism
Indeed, it is a popular viewpoint.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that some vegan would definitely wanto to add that 'E' to the alignment of us animal-eaters. But at that point, why is surviving by killing plants not evil? Why is taking antibiotics not evil?
I mean, you either reject morality completely, or you have to draw a line. Someone draws it between animals and plants, and has got their reasons to do it; others instead draw it between sapient and non-sapient. And this point of view is what the majority of people share, today.
You, Filthy Lucre, are arguing that killing and eating your own children is ok. Most people may not be philosophically educated, but they still have a moral system, and in that system you would have a capital 'E' for doing that.
I think that some vegan would definitely wanto to add that 'E' to the alignment of us animal-eaters. But at that point, why is surviving by killing plants not evil? Why is taking antibiotics not evil?
I mean, you either reject morality completely, or you have to draw a line. Someone draws it between animals and plants, and has got their reasons to do it; others instead draw it between sapient and non-sapient. And this point of view is what the majority of people share, today.
1.) That's exactly my point - are you trying to agree or disagree with me? I say they're drawing arbitrary lines that don't seem to have any distinction, and I'm drawing a line based on an axiom/maxum that seems much more plausible than just a fiat judgement. I'm asking WHY are they drawing the line where they draw it and is their reason a good/logical/sound reason.
2.) Exactly, and I'm drawing the line at 'minimal necessary conditions for survival".
You, Filthy Lucre, are arguing that killing and eating your own children is ok. Most people may not be philosophically educated, but they still have a moral system, and in that system you would have a capital 'E' for doing that.
3.) You say that like there are multiple 'moral systems'. I understand that cultural relativism is basically an assumption today for most people but it's still just that - an assumption. Which, interestingly, if you endorse would completely undermine you trying to judge anyone for being evil because if morality is subjective and culturally/socially constructed then it's completely trivial to say that 'well in vampire culture this is considered maximally good!'.
So my take away is this, what is your problem with my argument other than: 1.) You don't like my conclusion 2.) most people don't agree with me? Because neither of those are actual challenges to the thesis. Reality isn't determined by majority vote.