Should we have a "So it goes" perspective on death?

In the context of Slaughterhouse Five, the 'so it goes' perspective on death is used as a shield against the horrible emotions and memories that are associated with WWII. The rationalization is simple: there is nothing about death that makes it inherently a terrible thing. What is the core logical difference between the death of a human and the death of a bottle of champaign? If our only goal is to protect ourselves from feeling the weight that comes with witnessing death and knowing our own mortality, a 'so it goes' perspective works well.

However, it may not be possible for us humans to continue to exist with a 'so it goes' type of nonchalant attitude about death. If death were not important, if it were not to be feared and detested, would there be any reason to avoid our own death? Without fear of death, we may find little reason to continue living. Is it even possible for us not to prefer existence to nonexistence? That perspective requires a kind of apathy that would probably make our lives into misery, like it did the life of Billy Pilgrim. The only instance in which I can see the potential for it to make our lives better is if, like Billy, the alternate was to face constant suffering at the hands of our memories. 

So, many of us cannot, and probably should not have a so it goes perspective on death. Do you agree? 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I'm an Atonist

I consider myself an Atonist, for the most part. I subscribe to many of the Atonist values--rationality skepticism hard work seriousness science--and while I can easily name a bunch of writers in the english literary tradition, I'd be hard pressed to name even 1 from another culture, least of all from anywhere on the African continent. Not to mention, I couldn't carry a tune to save my life, and the sight of me dancing could easily be mistaken for the random twitching of muscles that comes from being electrocuted. However I do disagree with the Atonists on a number of points. They seem so obsessed with stamping out African culture for no reason I can relate to. Just because I can't dance, that doesn't mean that no 1 can. No 1 thing (culture object etc.) is inherently  better than another.  (What does it mean for a thing to be inherently better or worse? That combination of words seems like gibberish to me.) A thing can only be better than another thing for achieving a...
Read more

Are we better people?

Butler writes Rufus such that the reader could feel sympathy for him, despite his rape of Alice. Rufus is unfortunate to live in a time in which it is not appropriate for a white man to love a black woman. However, if we imagine a parallel case in which Alice and Rufus grew up in the current day, Rufus would still face the same problems that he did before. Rufus' insane and unrequited love of Alice and Dana is his problem, and that wouldn't change even if he were born after slavery were abolished. It is only that in the time of slavery Rufus is able to get part of what he wants by raping Alice, thus causing Alice unimaginable suffering, which would not be allowed today. There is no reason to believe either that Rufus wouldn't have his insane love or Alice would love Rufus if the environment were changed, only that the way Rufus acts on that love would different in that different environment. If we were to believe Rufus to be a terrible person in the past, and his core per...
Read more

What if we knew everything?

The question I'd like to think about today is "What would history look like if we knew everything about the past?" To answer that question, we have to start from the basics. What does it mean to 'know everything about the past'? In the study of history, there are two main components: the events themselves, and the cause and effect relations between the events. In the modern conception of history, having the events on their own isn't really that interesting: we need those causes and effects. However, when we think about knowing all of history, we generally are talking about knowing all the events, rather than all the cause and effect relationships. Trying to find all those cause and effect relationships is generally left to science. On the other hand, if we really knew all the events of the past, it probably wouldn't be that difficult to create some theories for some of the causal relationships, due to the vast quantity of data at our disposal. But back to ...
Read more