Death and Adjustment - The Hypothesis- Part - VIII
Till now I am discussing about the criteria for death that are all based on or linked to life, living or existence on earth that is perceivable in vitro and in vitro.
So it should be my responsibility to highlight at least minimally on our life.
As a basic condition, life can be described as the presence of vital functions.
But if we think purposively then life will seem to be a sequential event that can be described as a long scenario.
Think about any fictitious person's life.
His individual life on earth starts as soon as his mother has given birth to him.
Though understanding purposes of life is within the capacity of a child, he maintains his life with help of different pleasure seeking attitudes directly or indirectly.
When gains enough maturity to express himself and struggle for needs he shows several kinds of approaches; and thus practices in support of survival primarily and pleasant survival ultimately.
Very simply, two things become apparent from this sketch of life - 1)Survival 2)Pleasure Survival is the projection of existence.
So "to exist" is our basic criteria.
And pleasant existence is our basic criteria for life.
And pleasant existence is our basic goal for life.
Thus anything against survival or existence is undoubtedly unacceptable.
It's true that desire for ceasing to exist may be present in pathological conditions and it further signifies survival or existence as our mandatory criteria as human being.
So it is and should be already very clear that anything against existence is far outside the range of pleasure for us.
In conclusion, I want to mention life or living or basically - to exist as our first criteria as human.
Even, I believe, mentioning it as our single most criteria will not be wrong.
This foremost criterion gets flourished through pleasure.
So there is no scope for a human to lead his life normally with any philosophy disregarding pleasure.
After this discussion in this part it would be a lot easier for me to deal very practically with the 'Does not end / Ends' pair of the opposing criteria for one's death in the next part of the hypothesis, though it might seem like a repetition.
So it should be my responsibility to highlight at least minimally on our life.
As a basic condition, life can be described as the presence of vital functions.
But if we think purposively then life will seem to be a sequential event that can be described as a long scenario.
Think about any fictitious person's life.
His individual life on earth starts as soon as his mother has given birth to him.
Though understanding purposes of life is within the capacity of a child, he maintains his life with help of different pleasure seeking attitudes directly or indirectly.
When gains enough maturity to express himself and struggle for needs he shows several kinds of approaches; and thus practices in support of survival primarily and pleasant survival ultimately.
Very simply, two things become apparent from this sketch of life - 1)Survival 2)Pleasure Survival is the projection of existence.
So "to exist" is our basic criteria.
And pleasant existence is our basic criteria for life.
And pleasant existence is our basic goal for life.
Thus anything against survival or existence is undoubtedly unacceptable.
It's true that desire for ceasing to exist may be present in pathological conditions and it further signifies survival or existence as our mandatory criteria as human being.
So it is and should be already very clear that anything against existence is far outside the range of pleasure for us.
In conclusion, I want to mention life or living or basically - to exist as our first criteria as human.
Even, I believe, mentioning it as our single most criteria will not be wrong.
This foremost criterion gets flourished through pleasure.
So there is no scope for a human to lead his life normally with any philosophy disregarding pleasure.
After this discussion in this part it would be a lot easier for me to deal very practically with the 'Does not end / Ends' pair of the opposing criteria for one's death in the next part of the hypothesis, though it might seem like a repetition.