what do you mean by soul?
what do you mean by seeking death?
To me, anyone actively contemplating death is doing real philosophizing. Believers of souls may question the dissociation with the physical. In this method I think there is a cool analytical process that removes a greater amount of the fear emotion from the concept. I don't think real philosophers necessarily believe in souls that enter and leave bodies. The ones that do are unlikely in my eyes, to try to die to release the soul without fear.
Many of my response points are taking different interpretations of the three questions before the paragraph.
fatalism -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/
existentialism (both atheist and theist in nature, among others) -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/
from the SEP article on existentialism:
Another term for the groundlessness of the world of meaning is "nothingness." Heidegger introduced this term to indicate the kind of self- and world-understanding that emerges in anxiety: because my practical identity is constituted by the practices I engage in, when these collapse I "am" not anything. In a manner of speaking I am thus brought face-to-face with my own finitude, my "death" as the possibility in which I am no longer able to be anything. This experience of my own death, or "nothingness," in anxiety can act as a spur to authenticity: I come to see that I "am" not anything but must "make myself be" through my choice. In commiting myself in the face of death — that is, aware of the nothingness of my identity if not supported by me right up to the end — the roles that I have hitherto thoughtlessly engaged in as one does now become something that I myself own up to, become responsible for. Heidegger termed this mode of self-awareness — awareness of the ultimate nothingness of my practical identity — "freedom," and Sartre developed this existential concept of freedom in rich detail. This is not to say that Heidegger's and Sartre's views on freedom are identical. Heidegger, for instance, will emphasize that freedom is always "thrown" into an historical situation from which it draws its possibilities, while Sartre (who is equally aware of the "facticity" of our choices) will emphasize that such "possibilities" nevertheless underdetermine choice. But the theory of radical freedom that Sartre develops is nevertheless directly rooted in Heidegger's account of the nothingness of my practical identity.
when i finish editing my journal, i can show you how i illustrated some of these concepts, if you'd like.
but i'd also like to have the clarifications that dp asked for.
what does that mean? philosophy isn't an ideology--it's a field. clearer yet, a philosopher is a person who loves knowledge.
> By seeking death I mean dieing
do you disagree with aristotle's claim that all humans are mortal? if not, does it follow that everyone seeks death?
> take the question for what it's worth I suppose
could you provide more context?
this can't be accomplished if the other person doesn't understand you because you're being too abstract.
here you go, if you like.
march thirty-first, 2:42am
the other way in which she made me feel human was the nausea! sartre’s nausea! like when we were about to break up and i’d talk to her or was about to see her, i’d feel like vomiting. or even after breaking up, i’d listen to music that i shared emotionally with her and i’d feel it. that’s why i made my user title on ttf be ``these words and notes are going to make me vomit.’’ and what’s more human? it’s that feeling of despair (forlornness? i don’t remember sartre’s terminology nor kierkegaard’s.) just like when dc was dying and i felt the urgency of something i was about to lose forever and how important my pending actions were. except i realize it’s not just with those high-stakes moments that so much is on the line—very moment is paramount and can be as great or as miniscule as i make it. luckily i don’t feel the nausea all the time. but i do always strive to make the most out of every moment. i am also criticized for that, though. they say that i can’t just relax and not make everything deep and meaningful and intense. i don’t think that’s necessarily bad. nausea is the feeling of responsibility that results from freewill. these are my moments and i can make them as good or as bad as possible. it’s just that for me, the ultimate goodness is discussing my issues with the world. why? probably to love and to be loved. why? because moments lost in that emotion are the best moments. define love as you wish, i’m not sure what it is for me ideally or realistically. but that’s my main motive.
This experience of my own death, or "nothingness," in anxiety can act as a spur to authenticity: I come to see that I "am" not anything but must "make myself be" through my choice.