[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2181 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 (again) - repeat ], [ 4 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ill_omened]

So it's better people remain ignorant to the truth, then actually face up to it?

That does not seem like a particularly healthy approach.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a very healthy apprach, actually.

Human society wouldn't function without little comforting lies here and there.

[(Anonymous)]

The afterlife is really one of those things that false or not, it really doesn't matter. It there isn't an afterlife, the only people who could know, won't.

[(Anonymous)]

Hah! That was always my argument. I believe in an afterlife, my brother doesn't. I told him that if we both die in a car crash, if I'm right, I get to say "neener neener" in the afterlife. If he's right, we never find out (and so I feel like I still win). :)

[(Anonymous)]

What truth? Or lies, for that matter? The only thing anyone can say with certainty about the afterlife (or lack thereof) is "I don't know." Funny how rarely anyone actually says that.

[(Anonymous)]

but FAITH, the whole basis of western religions, means you have to accept it as truth

[ill_omened]

Epistemology!

Very good anon.

But srsly, in any and all meaningful ways we know

(there isn't one)

[deadtree]

but what if it IS the truth? You certainly don't know. No one else does either, but neither do you. Since none of us know, there's no reason to be on a high horse about it.

[ill_omened]

It's not.

Like I get you think this is some tremendously insightful agnosticism because you can't like know know man.

Yet,

in all meaningful reasonable fashions we do know.

The thing that constitutes you as a self contained person breaks down and becomes part of everything else.

[deadtree]

while I agree with your last point, honestly-- I DO think that's what happens after we die-- we really can't know one way or the other. And it's uncool to act superior no matter *what* it is you believe, because we could all be wrong. Look me up after you're dead and maybe we'll chat about it, who knows.

[ill_omened]

So you reject absolutely the idea we can make any categorically true claims then?

I do not think this is a road you want to be going down.

[(Anonymous)]

Why not?

We genuinely can't say we 'know' anything about the afterlife because so far, we haven't been able to both enter the state to acquire data and then return to share our findings. All our 'knowledge' about it isn't actually knowledge, but merely supposition based on what we personally think is likely, given what we know about the world as we experience it.

So no, we cannot make categorically true statements about the afterlife, not until we have a provable dataset regarding it.

Of course, as you intimate, it is arguable that we can't make categorically true statements even then, given subjective vs objective reality, and the question of how much of anything is actually real or just a phantom of our perceptions. And that is a thornier set of issues, and maybe one that doesn't have much practical bearing when it comes to surviving daily life.

However, even if you don't reject the idea of categorically true statements altogether, rejecting 'true' statements regarding something which we genuinely have no data on is still not unreasonable. Regardless of what we think is likely about what happens after death, until we have proof, it still doesn't count as knowledge. So it is not disingenous to say we know nothing about it, and thus cannot make categorical statements regarding it.

Saying we don't know anything about the afterlife is not the same as saying we can't know anything at all. We don't have to go all the way to 'NOTHING AT ALL IS REAL' just because this one specific issue is one we genuinely do not have data on.

I'm slightly confused why you would think we would.

[ill_omened]

What do we not have data on?

You seem to make this comparatively minor quibble under the assumption we know nothing of the afterlife because we have not personally perceived it happening to us, which is true in a fashion.

We do, however, have rather vast knowledge of exactly what happens to the human body when you die, what causes consciousness, and so forth. Empirically whilst our understanding of the human body is far from perfect, we have a strong grasp on it as a system, and leading to the creation of what we perceive as 'us' - a distinct biological entity.

Unless you're suggesting a pineal gland, I fail to see how we don't therefore have knowledge of what happens after we die?

[(Anonymous)]

So you know what happens after we die and if there's any sort of afterlife, the question that mankind has been asking since, forever? Wow.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, you'd think they'd be making crazy money off displaying the proof for all humankind to marvel over by now.

[ill_omened]

We've known for a pretty long while to be honest.

People just don't like the answer.

[(Anonymous)]

Too bad people just aren't smart like you.

[(Anonymous)]

People have theorized. There's a difference.

[(Anonymous)]

Basically.

[(Anonymous)]

Haha, this.

The panicked anons attacking you are so cute... :,)

[(Anonymous)]

Ever heard of the placebo effect? Sometimes a lie can be more beneficial than the truth to a person's ability to function.

[ill_omened]

Ever heard of the ethical issues regarding the placebo effect, and just how morally problematic the medical field considers implementing it?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

The issue (in the point I was making) isn't whether it's right or wrong, but whether it helps, and in some cases, it does. Plus, morals are about as grounded in incontrovertible fact as spirituality is, but we certainly do need ethics in order to function as a society, so that's another example of how concepts with no basis in objective truth can be beneficial to people. It can also be very harmful, but that comes down to different ways to use the same tool.

[(Anonymous)]

This is basically the only comment in this whole subthread that was worth the time it took me to read. Yes, exactly, thank you.

[chardmonster]

Oh hey look Ill_omened is talking down to the normals again

Did you not notice that Ill_omened's fandom is Ill_omened

Ill_omened/Ill_omened OTP