Column

Preface

Whether one believes in annihilation or life-after-death is fundamentally whether they are essentialist or existentialist, whether they are monist or dualist.

The absence of working biology is what death is; if the existentialistwhich supposes that functionality comes from structure - believes the mind comes from the brain then must also believe: when the brain dies so does the mind, when the sensory organs die so do their function. Therefore by the existential framework death is the absence of senses and the interpretation of those senses, thus annihilation. The connection of essentialism with life-after-death is a commonsense one.

There is a common idea for those who are secular, and unspiritual to believe in complete annihilation after death. The issue of this statement is that since all answers to the question are infallible by the very nature that we are the absence of death; and the secular answer is explicit and defined, this relation brings those people under epistemological hypocrisy. With that hypocrisy comes scrutiny of the type of people who adhere to it “as the most rational answer”. Annihilation came as a response to the metaphysical ideals of life after death - with its footing just as rational as the former - makes me deduce that there is a societal implication for what you believe. Its societal purpose is as a renouncement of religion.

Death is to relive forgotten days

With this preface I decided - for the comfort and peace of my mind - to view the problem in this lens; in short: death is the 14th wednesday of 2009.

What happened that day?

What was its date?

This day occurred most definitely, and things surely happened. Though, however much we try and try to recollect the events it never comes. On that day you did not exist, because of that fact. It is void, you were void that day. You cannot bring together your senses of that day back for a meaningful experience. That day is truly nothing.

The comfort of this idea comes from the fact that I do not actually care what happened that day, the experience of void that comes from that day does not make me feel sad nor happy; because ‘void’ intrinsically implies no emotions. The metaphysical comfort of this idea is - though I do not carethat day is, in a small part (the totality of life is the summation of its parts), impactful to me this very day. One of many pragmatic examples of its significance is: that day was a habit forming day. Death, though void of everything, is still impactful.

This idea unites the cold annihilation of existentialism, and the warm meaningfulness of essentialism. I will talk personally now. There is no real evidence that death is actually to relive forgotten days, but the phrase is a nice one. It acts as both common beliefs. Annihilation as the void of everything on that day, and life-after-death as it still brings you somewhere rather than nowhere.

Further, when I say this idea to others - when asked “what happens after you die”- it is commonly met with confusion and/or curiosity; whereas the other ideas have a societal connotation to it. For example, if I were to say annihilation I would be thought of as renouncing God, and if I said I believed in life-after-death I would be seen as irrational or based on faith. In saying this unique idea, people do not have the societal influence in their judgement, and thus can judge me more accurately. The idea gives off a metaphorical undertone, which denies it the postmodern criticism of being explicit and defined as a response to a question that does not allow for clarity.

Ishaan Ambavane