This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal oblivion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've looked it up in several dictionaries and none of them have ever said what is stated here. Yet, when the word oblivion is used it does seem to mean in the way the article describe, in the context it is used. I once heard a quote that said "What is the true death?" "The true death is non-existence" "Sounds like oblivion, why would anyone want that?" or this quote "I would choose oblivion to his existence" But, no dictionary has ever defined it as a state of unconscious non-existence, they describe it as "being forgotten" what does being forgotten have to do with being unconscious and non-existent? I don't think those two quotes are talking about someone/something being forgotten at all. The snare ( talk) 02:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that some people find afterlife philosophically impossible, but it fails the acknowledge that equally there are people who believe that oblivion is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.11 ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' ...
Just as a Turing machine can have a single-ended infinite tape, or a double-infinite tape (with no end in either direction), one must also consider the Cantoresque topology of oblivion. If oblivion after death is believed to be impossible (by some) does that necessarily mean that such a person also believes that oblivion before birth is impossible? If not, what amazing property of time differentiates the two cases? (Physicists are having a great deal of trouble putting the proper arrow into time.) I think it would be useful to find a citable source to incorporate these issues into this article. It strikes me as odd how people speculate a great deal more about just one end of the tape. — MaxEnt 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is an separate article on this subject even necessary? there is basically nothing to write about, which is reflected in the fact that there are no good sources from which someone could write a decent wikipedia entry. The afterlife article is different in that there is obviously a lot to write about - about the various afterlife conceptions for example, and a lot of sources for that.
So i propose that this article be deleted. At best it deserves a mention as a subsection on the afterlife page. - Ironrage ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
After some searching on the internet, i think i found something. In philosophy the view of "eternal oblivion" actually seems to be called the the termination thesis. There are also books on death that mention it. - Ironrage ( talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"and I'm trying to find the title of a book by eISBN: 978-0-7735-9488-3"
If you google that number you get this.
Also, if the actual name for this view of "eternal oblivion" is the 'termination thesis', shouldn't the article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Science might prove that consciousness ceases to exist within the brain, but there's no way to prove (or disprove) that consciousness itself ceases to exist. Here's a relevant analogy. If a glass holding water shatters, water will cease to exist within the glass, but the water itself will shift to other locations (as it spills from the glass).
What's more relevant is the awareness of self, or identity. If consciousness itself has no inherent form (like water or electricity) but can enter a physical body to take a form (as electricity enters an appliance to make the machine work, or water enters a glass which can be served for drinking), can that consciousness retain an integral sense of identity when it leaves the body? Or does that sense of self depend on the occupation of the body where the identity was born? These questions are outside of the realm of science.
Modern scholars' reading of classical sources is badly needed in this section. In its current status, the text is just a user's interpretation of these authors, in violation of WP:NOR.-- Darius ( talk) 16:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is biblical support for unconsciousness after death ( Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,11) and ( Psalms146:3,4) unlike the support for afterlife which has no scriptural support. We as Jehovah's Witness,support the belief of unconsciousness after death but death is not necessarily end as the Bible promises resurrection.
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going.
4 His spirit* goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.
I will try to to edit this article because nonreligious people are not the only ones who believe it we as Jehovah's Witness believe to because there is scripture support for it contrary to what ( many religions teach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy10038 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
ThreeRocks ( talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In the west, consciousness is regarded as synonymous with mind - thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions. Therefore when all these activities cease, it is assumed that the-Self or awareness ceases to exist. For this reason, few claim they still exist in dreamless sleep.
But there are irrefutable objections to this claim from Eastern philosophy, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.
First of all, thoughts and images are constantly coming and going, but the experience of knowing or being aware isn't coming and going with them: it remains in the background in order to know the next thought or image. Imagine an image in your mind, and then let it disappear. Notice - you have not ceased to exist along with it. So how can they be who you are? Thoughts and images can be added and removed from you like clothing...
Second, you are aware that you are sitting, eating, drinking, whatever, therefore you are called aware or sentient. But are thoughts and images sentient? Imagine a image in your mind, and ask: "on which side is awareness?" On your side: the experiencer, or on the side of the image: the experienced? The image isn't aware of anything. And soon it will disappear completely. You are aware, thoughts and images are not aware. So how can they be who you are?
Thirdly, the seer can never anything that is seen, it is a contradiction. These various thoughts and images are known or experienced by you. The seer and the seen, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced, can never be the same. It is a contradiction.
I think you get the point. These are 3 examples of "drig drishya viveka", a process of discrimination between the-self and the not-self.
Naturally, when all the activities of the mind stop, so there are no thoughts, no images, no feelings, no sensations, no perceptions - and there is just the irreducible, raw essence of who you are - pure-knowing... well that is my point. There is just pure-knowing. When we leave that blank state of "no-mind" and our thinking or intellect re-engages, then we are able to remember knowing or experiencing blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace and so on...
If we weren't aware in dreamless sleep we would simply haft to answer "I don't know" or remain silent when asked about our experience of dreamless sleep... But we are able to answer "blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace, no thought" and so on, precisely because it was an actual experience we had, and this is quite reasonable.
Rupert Spira, who is a proponent of the Advaita branch of Hinduism, says: "In order to claim the absence of awareness as an actual experience, there would need to be something present in order to have that experience, and that very something would be awareness itself. Therefore such claims confirm the presence of awareness, rather than its absence."
So basically, the criticism of eternal oblivion is simply that it contradicts our own experience. The irreducible, pure-awareness does not cease to exist in dreamless sleep or in any other circumstance. It's based on a mistaken identification of who we are - the mind. Only the mind ever disappears, the-Self never disappears. Not a matter of belief but experience, but it is difficult to see when you have spent your entire life thinking you are the mind or body.
88.105.218.154 ( talk) 13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to have a lot of content and conceptual overlap with Consciousness after death. Should the two be merged? Editor2020 ( talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to imply that eternal oblivion is just a theory. I'm sorry, but isn't this a scientific fact? I get that this is wikipedia, but come on, be rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9980:1810:1593:1A6C:3407:CDF9 ( talk) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Crater123 ( talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Granted, the picture does say “could”, however, this is an insert of the self into nothingness, which, as the article states, nothingness and a person will never intersect. It would be no better of a depiction of being deceased than a picture of Saint Peter. I propose that a more befitting depiction would be to remove the image entirely, leaving a blank Wikipedia (admittedly still white) page in its stead or, in a method depicting more clarification, a small sentence or text clarifying that the imagining of death is to imagine the concept of not imagining. 67.214.195.5 ( talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal oblivion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've looked it up in several dictionaries and none of them have ever said what is stated here. Yet, when the word oblivion is used it does seem to mean in the way the article describe, in the context it is used. I once heard a quote that said "What is the true death?" "The true death is non-existence" "Sounds like oblivion, why would anyone want that?" or this quote "I would choose oblivion to his existence" But, no dictionary has ever defined it as a state of unconscious non-existence, they describe it as "being forgotten" what does being forgotten have to do with being unconscious and non-existent? I don't think those two quotes are talking about someone/something being forgotten at all. The snare ( talk) 02:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that some people find afterlife philosophically impossible, but it fails the acknowledge that equally there are people who believe that oblivion is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.11 ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' ...
Just as a Turing machine can have a single-ended infinite tape, or a double-infinite tape (with no end in either direction), one must also consider the Cantoresque topology of oblivion. If oblivion after death is believed to be impossible (by some) does that necessarily mean that such a person also believes that oblivion before birth is impossible? If not, what amazing property of time differentiates the two cases? (Physicists are having a great deal of trouble putting the proper arrow into time.) I think it would be useful to find a citable source to incorporate these issues into this article. It strikes me as odd how people speculate a great deal more about just one end of the tape. — MaxEnt 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is an separate article on this subject even necessary? there is basically nothing to write about, which is reflected in the fact that there are no good sources from which someone could write a decent wikipedia entry. The afterlife article is different in that there is obviously a lot to write about - about the various afterlife conceptions for example, and a lot of sources for that.
So i propose that this article be deleted. At best it deserves a mention as a subsection on the afterlife page. - Ironrage ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
After some searching on the internet, i think i found something. In philosophy the view of "eternal oblivion" actually seems to be called the the termination thesis. There are also books on death that mention it. - Ironrage ( talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"and I'm trying to find the title of a book by eISBN: 978-0-7735-9488-3"
If you google that number you get this.
Also, if the actual name for this view of "eternal oblivion" is the 'termination thesis', shouldn't the article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Science might prove that consciousness ceases to exist within the brain, but there's no way to prove (or disprove) that consciousness itself ceases to exist. Here's a relevant analogy. If a glass holding water shatters, water will cease to exist within the glass, but the water itself will shift to other locations (as it spills from the glass).
What's more relevant is the awareness of self, or identity. If consciousness itself has no inherent form (like water or electricity) but can enter a physical body to take a form (as electricity enters an appliance to make the machine work, or water enters a glass which can be served for drinking), can that consciousness retain an integral sense of identity when it leaves the body? Or does that sense of self depend on the occupation of the body where the identity was born? These questions are outside of the realm of science.
Modern scholars' reading of classical sources is badly needed in this section. In its current status, the text is just a user's interpretation of these authors, in violation of WP:NOR.-- Darius ( talk) 16:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is biblical support for unconsciousness after death ( Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,11) and ( Psalms146:3,4) unlike the support for afterlife which has no scriptural support. We as Jehovah's Witness,support the belief of unconsciousness after death but death is not necessarily end as the Bible promises resurrection.
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going.
4 His spirit* goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.
I will try to to edit this article because nonreligious people are not the only ones who believe it we as Jehovah's Witness believe to because there is scripture support for it contrary to what ( many religions teach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy10038 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
ThreeRocks ( talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In the west, consciousness is regarded as synonymous with mind - thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions. Therefore when all these activities cease, it is assumed that the-Self or awareness ceases to exist. For this reason, few claim they still exist in dreamless sleep.
But there are irrefutable objections to this claim from Eastern philosophy, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.
First of all, thoughts and images are constantly coming and going, but the experience of knowing or being aware isn't coming and going with them: it remains in the background in order to know the next thought or image. Imagine an image in your mind, and then let it disappear. Notice - you have not ceased to exist along with it. So how can they be who you are? Thoughts and images can be added and removed from you like clothing...
Second, you are aware that you are sitting, eating, drinking, whatever, therefore you are called aware or sentient. But are thoughts and images sentient? Imagine a image in your mind, and ask: "on which side is awareness?" On your side: the experiencer, or on the side of the image: the experienced? The image isn't aware of anything. And soon it will disappear completely. You are aware, thoughts and images are not aware. So how can they be who you are?
Thirdly, the seer can never anything that is seen, it is a contradiction. These various thoughts and images are known or experienced by you. The seer and the seen, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced, can never be the same. It is a contradiction.
I think you get the point. These are 3 examples of "drig drishya viveka", a process of discrimination between the-self and the not-self.
Naturally, when all the activities of the mind stop, so there are no thoughts, no images, no feelings, no sensations, no perceptions - and there is just the irreducible, raw essence of who you are - pure-knowing... well that is my point. There is just pure-knowing. When we leave that blank state of "no-mind" and our thinking or intellect re-engages, then we are able to remember knowing or experiencing blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace and so on...
If we weren't aware in dreamless sleep we would simply haft to answer "I don't know" or remain silent when asked about our experience of dreamless sleep... But we are able to answer "blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace, no thought" and so on, precisely because it was an actual experience we had, and this is quite reasonable.
Rupert Spira, who is a proponent of the Advaita branch of Hinduism, says: "In order to claim the absence of awareness as an actual experience, there would need to be something present in order to have that experience, and that very something would be awareness itself. Therefore such claims confirm the presence of awareness, rather than its absence."
So basically, the criticism of eternal oblivion is simply that it contradicts our own experience. The irreducible, pure-awareness does not cease to exist in dreamless sleep or in any other circumstance. It's based on a mistaken identification of who we are - the mind. Only the mind ever disappears, the-Self never disappears. Not a matter of belief but experience, but it is difficult to see when you have spent your entire life thinking you are the mind or body.
88.105.218.154 ( talk) 13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to have a lot of content and conceptual overlap with Consciousness after death. Should the two be merged? Editor2020 ( talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to imply that eternal oblivion is just a theory. I'm sorry, but isn't this a scientific fact? I get that this is wikipedia, but come on, be rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9980:1810:1593:1A6C:3407:CDF9 ( talk) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Crater123 ( talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Granted, the picture does say “could”, however, this is an insert of the self into nothingness, which, as the article states, nothingness and a person will never intersect. It would be no better of a depiction of being deceased than a picture of Saint Peter. I propose that a more befitting depiction would be to remove the image entirely, leaving a blank Wikipedia (admittedly still white) page in its stead or, in a method depicting more clarification, a small sentence or text clarifying that the imagining of death is to imagine the concept of not imagining. 67.214.195.5 ( talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)