Funerals & honor

[Aaron Mathis]

I'm actually living with my parents at the present time as my mother has dementia and my father needs help in looking after her. So in a sense, things have come full circle.

(and then later.....)

There's a lot to be said for euthanasia and the enforced killing of old people. My mother's mind is just about gone, her life is all but non-existent, and yet she is still consuming resources and requiring other people to look after her. Perhaps a system in which people who reach 60 or 70 have to show that they are enlightened and wise, or else be put to death, should be put in place. It would diminish the drag on the world's resources and might even encourage people to seek wisdom.

David's non-chalant emotional indifference when he spoke about his mother's condition and his thoughts on euthanasia was both unsettingly and inspiring.

It provoked me to think about how I'm going to handle my parents death.

Obviously my aunts, uncles and the friends of my parents are going to expect a funeral, and they would feel guilty if they didnt go.

But I don't think I'll be particpating in any more funerals.

And I think I shall be looked upon as a devil for it. It is quite disturbing and amusing.

I already wrote up my will and my demands are that no funeral service be held and that my body is to be donated to science. (I've already filled out the papers and droped them off at the university)

Has anyone else thought about this?

PS: And David! What about you? Is your father going to be participating in your mothers funeral? And is he expecting you to attend? Are you going to attend? Will he be upset if you dont?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes, no one would be bothered to come to my funeral anyway, and I have my papers drawn up.

Very few people came to my mother's funeral, and actually the ceremony was quite ridiculous. My father wanted a funeral, so as a dutiful daughter, I held one, but I cast his ashes alone.

[David Quinn]

My father and sister will attend her funeral, but I probably won't. I've already said to them that I don't believe in funerals, that it was my opinion that the human race needs to grow out of ritualizing everything.

At core, my position is that I would only participate in the funeral if it simply consisted of overseeing the cremation of the body. In other words, I recognize the practical need of disposing of the body, but that's as far as I will go. I won't participate in any eulogizing or religious ceremony.

To his credit, my father has some sympathy for my position and only wants the simplest of funerals for himself. He may take a different stance when it comes to his wife's funeral, however.

But I don't think I'll be particpating in any more funerals.

And I think I shall be looked upon as a devil for it. It is quite disturbing and amusing.

Yes, things like funerals really bring the animal side of human nature to the fore. I'm sure your family will be very upset if you deliberately snub their orgy of pleasure-grieving. It's a brave stance for you to take.

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

It's probably a good idea for stoics to avoid funerals. Particularly if they intend on visiting any Algerian beaches. You never know when you might accidentally kill an Arab...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David,

If your father goes first, will you attend for the practicality of helping with your mother?

[David Quinn]

Only if it involves the simple process of overseeing the cremation. If not, my sister can take her if she wants.

-

[Aaron Mathis]

To his credit, my father has some sympathy for my position and only wants the simplest of funerals for himself. He may take a different stance when it comes to his wife's funeral, however.

Have you mentioned to him anything about donating his body to science?

Cremation is kind of a waste of money and time. Bodies can be put to good use.

And so what about you Dave, are you being cremated or have you made plans to give your body over to science?

[Kevin Solway]

I already wrote up my will and my demands are that no funeral service be held

Funerals are for the benefit of those people who have an emotional attachment, and are not actually for the dead person. So the attached people will do whatever they like, regardless of the wishes of the dead person.

Kierkegaard stipulated in his will that he not be given a Christian funeral, but they gave him a Christian funeral anyway.

Funerals are a violent affair.

[Dan Rowden]

I agree. It's the final act of violence we perpetrate against the individual. It's funny that we pretend to honour them with a eulogy whilst competely dishonouring them by ignoring their request that no such thing occur. It kind of shows what we really thought of them - which is to say, not very much.

[Jamesh]

Isn't it just as egotistical not to go? These people after all will never change, they are not the 1 or 2% of people, who are capable and masculine enough to be hero's of truth, so why hurt them.

I think treating this as a matter of principle falls down a bit because of the pointlessness of not attending. In the end you won't attend because YOU don't want to, not because it will achieve anything.

Admittedly it is hard for me perosnally to sit through all the christian hogwash associated with funerals, and to witness all the people who are only there because they feel they have to be - but this sort of thing should not affect an enlightened person at all.

Sure it would be better for someone not to go if they are likely to say things that would upset people. But if you really wanted to be consistent with your irrational principle that truth is the only thing of importance, then you go there and stick it up them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I don't see that as violence. It is obviously disrespectful to not honor the wishes of someone who did not want a funeral, but it was alsoselfish of Kierkgaard to not want one when his family did. As Kevin said, the funeral is for the benefit of the living.

A classmate of mine was dying of AIDS, and that is one nasty way to go, and he did not want life-prolonging measures to be taken. I couldn't blame him, he could barely move, barely speak, and was quite uncomfortable. Nevertheless, his family insisted it was AIDS dementia making him say that, and insisted he was not competent to make that decision. That, to me, is closer to violence, but does not quite fit the description.

Another one, a doctor's mother was dying, and she knew she was dying, and she had one heck of a rectal bleed running. There was no way to stop all that bleeding, and I swear, there is no smell worse than that of a rectal bleed. The woman kept saying, "Just let me die." We were pouring blood into her constantly, and the rectal bleed was so bad that I was sticking a fresh bedpan under her right as I was removing the full one. But it was the mother of a doctor that worked there and he couldn't let go, so we tortured that poor woman to life. Again, that is closer to violence, but still not quite it.

The needles were placed in their arms to save the lives they did not want, but it was not done with what I would consider violence, they were coerced into taking their medication... I felt it was wrong, but I don't look at it as true "violence."

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Isn't it just as egotistical not to go? These people after all will never change, they are not the 1 or 2% of people, who are capable and masculine enough to be hero's of truth, so why hurt them.

I think treating this as a matter of principle falls down a bit because of the pointlessness of not attending. In the end you won't attend because YOU don't want to, not because it will achieve anything.

Admittedly it is hard for me perosnally to sit through all the christian hogwash associated with funerals, and to witness all the people who are only there because they feel they have to be - but this sort of thing should not affect an enlightened person at all.

Agreed. There are many people who do not go to funerals because they can not - it is too emotional for them, or they are afraid they will get emotional there, and they do not want to show emotion.

[Aaron Mathis]

I agree. It's the final act of violence we perpetrate against the individual. It's funny that we pretend to honour them with a eulogy whilst competely dishonouring them by ignoring their request that no such thing occur. It kind of shows what we really thought of them - which is to say, not very much.

Haha, yes agreed.

And yet I feel sorry for them.

That's pretty much the reason I've been thinking about this.

I just put myself in their shoes, imagining how my relatives are going to feel about having to deal with my death. They are going to feel anxiously obligated to perform some service for me, some guy who was a shame to the family. Some guy who they have to pretend had some redeeming qualities. My mirror neurons make me wince just imaging their terrible ordeal.

Out of empathy and a bit of guilt I want to save people the discomfort and fakery by handing my body over the the researchers and prohibiting a service.

But my efforts may fail to achieve the aim. Oh well, fools will be fools. What can you do.

[Dan Rowden]

Isn't it just as egotistical not to go?

Only if one's reasons for not doing so are egotistical.

These people after all will never change, they are not the 1 or 2% of people, who are capable and masculine enough to be hero's of truth, so why hurt them.

What? Are you serious? If your family were members of the KKK and they wanted you to attend the lynching of a black man would go just because it's what your family does? What about the ritualised rape of a woman?

I think treating this as a matter of principle falls down a bit because of the pointlessness of not attending. In the end you won't attend because YOU don't want to, not because it will achieve anything.

So what? I don't want to attend the ritualised rape of a woman either. I don't care how much the participants need it for their own egotistical reasons.

Admittedly it is hard for me perosnally to sit through all the christian hogwash associated with funerals, and to witness all the people who are only there because they feel they have to be - but this sort of thing should not affect an enlightened person at all.

It's not about whether such a person is affected by it but whether there is any reason for them to attend at all. Their very attendance will simply shore up the egotistical delusions of the other participants. I don't recommend it.

Sure it would be better for someone not to go if they are likely to say things that would upset people. But if you really wanted to be consistent with your irrational principle that truth is the only thing of importance, then you go there and stick it up them.

Those two sentences seem to be contradictory. But really the best way to make a point about funerals, if indeed you're trying to do so, is to not go and say why. But mostly there's just no reason to go at all.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh well, fools will be fools. What can you do.

Other than not joining in their folly, not a great deal.

[sue hindmarsh]

Funerals are another of the insane worldly practices (weddings, christenings, birthdays, Christmas, etc) that I refuse to participate in. People say that they are paying their respects to the dead person, but they are just using them to satisfy their own emotional hunger. Events such as funerals also supply the emotional glue that helps maintain and foster bonding amongst people.

The thing I find most detestable about funerals is all the lying that goes on about the dead person. I remember the last funeral I went to a couple of decades ago was that of my ex father-in-law. He was a right bastard - and yet the priest and an old acquaintance stood up and said that yes, he did have some problems with alcohol and violence, but that under that he was really a good chap. At hearing this, sniggering was heard. I tried hard to stifle a laugh, but it came out anyway. People turned to me with disapproving faces, but this only made me laugh all the more.

Another example of this type of insanity is that of my brother Peter. He died suddenly at age 31, fifteen years ago. I did not attend the funeral, which caused a stir then, and which continues, even to this day, to cause a rift between his two sons and I. They cannot understand why I didn't pay my respects to my dead brother, and think that my philosophical stance about funerals is "mean spirited". Also, they cannot understand why I don't hold Pete up as a figure of absolute virtue, instead saying what I really think of him: such as, that he was screwed up about a lot of things, which explained why he smoked pot most days.

Seeing how people use their dead family members to gain emotional pleasure from them shows just how emotionally unstable and insecure most people really are.

.

[Carl G]

I don't see that as violence...

.... so we tortured that poor woman to life.

...needles were placed in their arms to save the lives they did not want....

.... they were coerced into taking their medication...

Forcing people to live who want to die is not violence? That may be your opinion, but if it was happening to me, I sure would consider it violence. Reminds me of the thread where Rory/Katy was arguing that humiliating people wasn't violent.

Anyway, a funny thing we do after a person's death is say we are burying or cremating them: "The Nation laid President Ford to rest today." No, the man's gone; this is dealing with his body.

[Dan Rowden]

Funerals are another of the insane worldly practices (weddings, christenings, birthdays, Christmas, etc) that I refuse to participate in.

Weddings and funerals are essentially the same - either way, someone had died.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't see that as violence.

There are many forms of violence - violence against the body, against the spirit, against reason and decency and so forth.

[Jamesh]

Dans KKK and rape examples - I do not accept those other examples as being relevant. They are about causing harm to others.

So what harm is there in funerals. Not much if you ask me. A bit of discomfort for all concerned. You will say it is harmful because of the rather immense delusions that surround funerals and death generally. Let me tell you something you already know – no amount of rational thinking will ever remove this or egotism from the human race, even without religion.

Your aims are pointless. You guys are just too hardcore to be rational. I can assure that you will achieve nothing lasting when you are so anti-herd in all ways. You need to re-learn compromise.

Your rationality has made you insane. You are not doing the things that would best provide for what you desire – enlightenment for many.

Answer this question. At what point is something not egotistical? Playing sport is egotistical, buying an expensive ice cream or coffee is egotistical, going to work is egotistical.

Remove all these herd things and there would be nothing left to do. Nothing at all – people aren’t going to sit under boddhi trees all their life contemplating nature. There is no reality to what you seek. There is of course rationality is tempering human greed and so on, and removing delusions like religion, but to completely remove the herd from an individual just won't happen, and nor should it.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I actually see something beautiful in the pageantry we undergo to deal with the dead. Yes, it's for the benefit of the living, but I really think it ought to be. I've always liked Irish wakes for that reason. What better then death to remind us that we're still alive? A funeral, and the usual gatherings prior to and afterwards, afford a fine opportunity to congregate with those we know, tip a few a back, and share stories about the deceased. They afford many people a sense of closure that might otherwise go lacking. I would never suggest that someone should be forced to attend one, but to scoff at those who do doesn't make you a super special snowflake.

Jamesh,

Remove all these herd things and there would be nothing left to do.

Exactly.

[Unidian]

This thread is pretty outrageous. Apalling, really.

Perhaps a system in which people who reach 60 or 70 have to show that they are enlightened and wise, or else be put to death, should be put in place.

You can't be serious... and yet I'm quite sure you are.

[Dan Rowden]

Dans KKK and rape examples - I do not accept those other examples as being relevant. They are about causing harm to others. So what harm is there in funerals. Not much if you ask me.

Well, you're not looking too hard then. Do you know how often children are forced to attend funerals? No harm there, eh? Do you know how often even adults are forced to attend funerals via social pressure? That's a pretty potent force even for a fairly strong willed person. But, no harm there either I suppose. And people shoring up each other's delusions isn't harmful? It may not be to them but we know better (well, I do, but you seem equivocal about it).

A bit of discomfort for all concerned. You will say it is harmful because of the rather immense delusions that surround funerals and death generally. Let me tell you something you already know – no amount of rational thinking will ever remove this or egotism from the human race, even without religion.

That may be so, but we're talking about whether a sane person would or should attend a funeral, so that's somewhat irrelevant to the generality of human delusion.

Your aims are pointless. You guys are just too hardcore to be rational. I can assure that you will achieve nothing lasting when you are so anti-herd in all ways. You need to re-learn compromise.

No, I don't need to re-learn anything at all as my so-called "aims" are not my overriding concern (wherein you mean the aim of changing people). The chips can fall where they may on that one. My main aim concerns myself.

Your rationality has made you insane. You are not doing the things that would best provide for what you desire – enlightenment for many.

You are just tossing your ego around here. In my estimation not attending a funeral is better than attending one in terms of making a statement - if that's even on one's agenda, which it wouldn't necessarily be. I just don't do funerals. End of story.

Answer this question. At what point is something not egotistical?

Um, let me think......when there's no ego involved?

Playing sport is egotistical, buying an expensive ice cream or coffee is egotistical, going to work is egotistical.

Most of those things would be egotistical, though going to "work" needn't be. It just depends on the work and the values and mentality underlying it.

Remove all these herd things and there would be nothing left to do.

Does your bum hurt after typing that? You really need to get a better source for your opinions.

Nothing at all – people aren’t going to sit under boddhi trees all their life contemplating nature.

Ah, no kidding.

There is no reality to what you seek. There is of course rationality is tempering human greed and so on, and removing delusions like religion, but to completely remove the herd from an individual just won't happen, and nor should it.

It's not about perceived benefit. It's about Truth. Removing the herdliness from the herd is a natural consequence of truthfulness. What the practical consequences of that are for the herd is up to them.

[Philosophaster]

This thread is pretty outrageous. Apalling, really.

Uh oh, I predict this response from somebody is about to appear:

"Of course it is 'outrageous' to people like you who are still overcome with ego and wandering around in the animal realms."

I will wait and see how good my psychic abilities are.

[Dan Rowden]

This thread is pretty outrageous. Apalling, really.

Perhaps a system in which people who reach 60 or 70 have to show that they are enlightened and wise, or else be put to death, should be put in place.

You can't be serious... and yet I'm quite sure you are.

Well, I admit that did seem a bit over the top. David could have at least made it 80 or 90. But then he also has to consdier that he thinks those over 30 have just about worn out their ability to become wise so he could just as easily make it 40 - 50. I think there's some work to be done on that concept.