Attitudes towards Death

There is but one cross-cultural, objective, phenomenological truth that stands unwavering throughout the entire lineage of humanity - Death. But what is death? Who can say? The dead remain silent on the matter. Yet knowledge of our own mortality is imbued within each and every one of us from a certain age - often in our childhood. Crushed insects, breaking news, family tragedies; one rarely escapes the blissful innocence of childhood without having first been touched by the wretched tendrils of reality. Despite this, death remains and will always remain the greatest mystery of existence.

Death is a topic seldom contemplated by the youth, sporadically by the middle-aged, and always by the elderly. This fundamental nature of reality enters our minds once in infancy, sets up store, and never elects to leave. In fact, its influences on society and culture are made blatantly and shamelessly clear. Nowadays, one rarely experiences a ‘thriller’ or an ‘action’ piece of cinema without an ingrained expectation of death flashing momentarily and sporadically on screen. Crafted methodically to evoke a momentary shudder of fright, the crux lies exactly at the moment — for it is a moment, it is temporary. Where a fictional death is temporary, death in its realest sense is eternal. In our time, death in its represented form is so contrived, so trivial, that the passing of a character barely numbs the soul as it would tranquilise in reality. If society intended to emulate the actuality of death, then — it has failed. If it were to present death in the most egregiously ridiculous manner possible, in hopes of softening the reality of it, then it, too, has failed miserably. If, and only if, the object of society were to make us believe death is something so meaningless and inconsequential that it is not worth a moment of consideration — so that when the inevitable time comes we are obliterated by reality — then, in that regard, it has succeeded in the most spectacular way imaginable.

If there is no heaven, no hell, no speculated afterlife, and ontology were settled as nothing but mere coincidence, who are we to dispute that life and death are quite inconsequential altogether? Nevertheless, the contradiction remains. Representations of death and our experiences of death remain in direct and opposing tension; thus it is necessary that we examine why.

Perhaps the most dominant attitude on death, adopted and projected throughout modern society, is that of suffering itself. Here is where two similar existential truths collide. It is not unusual to associate death with funerals, or similar ritualistic processions of grievance. When one speaks of funerals, it too, is not unlikely for the listener to irrepressibly hear faint echoes of sniffled cries, tormented pleading, and wretched mourning.

Why do we mourn in the face of death?

The answer seems apparent to most - we mourn for the loss that arrives with death. With loss comes suffering; with suffering, comes cause for mourning. One who takes serious thought at the notion of death laughs at this response, does away with it, and continues in their existential reverie.

This approach to death is not, in a phenomenological sense, incorrect. I am in no position to distrust the claims of one who mourns as a result of losing their beloved. It is, however, understood that one’s emotional inclinations are simply surface symptoms of deeper mechanisms that work endlessly beneath their consciousness. It must be made clear where the subject of grievance - the suffering lies exactly. Is it the suffering of he-who dies? Is it the suffering of he-who loves, or is it — both?

If we do, indeed, mourn and cry painstakingly for the suffering that he-who dies will endure in the afterlife, and/or the suffering he-who loves experiences as a result of loss, the source of suffering needs to be identified. The suffering, in this case, is death itself, and if death really is nothing but cessation, then — mystery solved, we suffer at the prospect of losing life. We fear the prospect of losing opportunity and attachments. But is this really the case? If death were to be eternal cessation, then life would be temporary. Temporality pitted against eternity. It pales in comparison and shrivels in trifling negligibility; if we are set, and certain, on what death entails, then it really would be the case that we, as humans, are built to trip up over the smallest of experiences, and existence is nothing but pedantry.

If that is not a sufficient case for human nature, then the issue lies with the assumption of death, and death is not a certain case after all. To say that death is but the end - cessation — is not enough. What is cessation? From an epistemological point of view, all that we know and grasp originates firstly from our consciousness - I think, therefore I am - we can really only understand by virtue of an existing mind. To imagine the non-existent mind is therefore an impossibility, as it is precisely the edge of knowledge and the beginning of faith.

You are simply no more.

What does no more mean?

What is, is not.

Can you imagine what is-not?

I cannot, because it isn’t.

So you cannot imagine what it will be after death.

Because it isn’t.

Exactly.