Life through Death

“The boundaries between life and death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where one ends and where the other begins?” – Edgar Allen Poe

It is usually argued that death is one of the most terrifying ordeals any living thing, particularly a human being can encounter.  For most people, the very idea of dying develops feelings of anxiety and torment, while for others it is a moment which will be well received, like in the case of Socrates.  The argument on the uncertainty of death has left a deafening feeling of confusion and rivalry amongst ancient and contemporary philosophers.  Yet, it has continued to remain an uncomfortable discourse for many people, and as such the question of death is hardly a starting point for any healthy conversation. But initially, we all know that it will happen one day, for there is some element of truth in the proverb: “the living know that they shall die.”

But what is Death?  Is it possible to know what it is?  Many people have claimed to have a ‘moment’ with it. But what is this thing which seems to be a looming question within most, if not all, human beings.  In most societies death is perceived as the end of one’s life; the ultimate end, while in others, it is only the beginning.

Nevertheless, if one is nurtured within some religious doctrine, like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, then there is some hope that it may not be the very end after all. The aim of this essay is to probe into the various idea of death, and to assess whether it is possible to be experienced.

In the medieval times, many philosophers have provided their personal percepts of death. Some believe that the human body was only a ‘holding temple’ for the soul and at the moment of dying, they insisted that the soul and the body will separate from each other. For instance, in the Phaedo (translated by Benjamin Jowett), Socrates argues that “And now I will make answer to you, O my judges, and show that he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world. […] And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation; when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul — that is death,” (pp.47).   For Socrates, death is the mere transition of the soul being released from the body. He reasoned that the soul is the guiding principle of the body; such that it has the ability to obtain the ultimate reality.  The term ‘reality’ in this context means that the world is an illusion. Socrates believes that “And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself, out of all the courses of the body; the dwelling in her own place alone, as in another life, so also in this, as far as she can; the release of the soul from the chains of the body?”(pp.49).

This separation is the true destiny of the human being; the essence of living. Thus, Socrates provided a detailed description of death. He illustrates that:

Whether the souls of men after death are or are not in the world below, is a question which may be argued in this manner: The ancient doctrine of which I have been speaking affirms that they go from this into the other world, and return hither, and are born from the dead. Now if this be true, and the living come from the dead, then our souls must be in the other world, for if not, how could they be born again? And this would be conclusive, if there were any real evidence that the living are only born from the dead; but if there is no evidence of this, then other arguments will have to be adduced. (pp.50).

Socrates maintains that there is good reason to believe that the soul continues to exist after death. He noted that the soul continues to exist because of its incompositeness. In other words, Socrates contemplates that the soul was a constant and invariable entity while the body was a composite entity which was inconstant and variable.  Furthermore, he adds that “when soul and body are both in the same place, nature teaches the one to serve and be subject, the other to rule and govern. When the soul and the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve,” (p.63).

In this dualistic world, Socrates maintains that “that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable,” (pp.64).

Thus, Socrates claims that “The soul is a long-lived thing, where as the body is relatively feeble and short-lived. […] Otherwise everyone must always feel apprehension at the approach of death for fear that in this particular separation from the body, his soul may be finally an utterly be destroyed. [….]  Death is the destruction of the soul after it has gone through several earthly bodies,” (pp.69-73).

He goes further to describe an afterlife which he claims occurs when an individual dies, his/her soul enters into the ‘other’ (transcendental) world.  There, he/she is guided by his /her guardian who had been assigned to him or her.  During this period, the soul is judged. Socrates provides a vivid description of the events of this “after-life” world.  He explains that:

The wise and disciplined soul follows its guide and is not ignorant of its surroundings, but the soul which is deeply attached to the body, as I said before, hovers round it and the visible world for a long time, and it is only after much resistance and suffering that it is at last forcibly led away by its appointed guardian spirit. (pp.90).

Thus, for Plato, dying is phenomenal entity whereby the soul is not longer trapped and enters into a world of supra-natural existence.

In addition, Aristotle also postulates an immortality of the human body where the soul survives after the process of dying is completed. Though, their argument varies in the characteristic of the soul, they however maintain that the soul is enduring.  Aristotle’s argument on the entity of the soul is usually known as Hylomorphism. It is a belief that there is a relationship between the body (matter) and the soul (form/substance).  The term’s ethnology derives from hylê meaning matter while morphê can be interpreted as form or shape.  From his writing entailed On the Soul, (translated by J.A. Smith (1956)),” Aristotle proposes an account of the soul by noting that “It is substance in the sense which corresponds to the account of a thing,” (Pojman: 263).

For Aristotle, the soul is what makes something alive; that which places it into its actuality.  Given his account of matter and substance (form), he maintains that there is a distinct difference between the two. He claims that matter is potentiality while substance (form) is of actuality.   This actuality which the soul (form/substance) possesses has two main characteristics: knowledge and reflection.  Aristotle reasons that “Now given that there are bodies of such and such a kind, viz. having life, the soul cannot be a body; for the body is the subject or matter, not what is attributed to it. Hence the soul must be substance in the sense of the form of a natural body having life potentially within it. But substance is actuality, and thus soul is the actuality of a body,” (Pojman: 262)

Furthermore, Aristotle analyzes his theory that all living things possess a soul, including plants.  However he does acknowledge that “So the soul plus the body constitutes the animal,” (Pojman: 264).  He declares that the term substance can be distinguished in three ways: as   form, as matter and as a combination of both.  Accordingly, Aristotle believes that the soul provides the body with the essence of life, such as the sensation, thinking, movement and nutrition of the body. As such he concludes that “Since then the complex here is the living thing, the body cannot be the actuality of the soul; it is the soul which is the actuality of a certain kind of body. Hence the rightness of the view that the soul cannot be without a body, while it cannot be a body; it is not body but something relative to a body. This is why it is in a body, and a body of a definite kind,” (Pojman: 264).

Tem Hortwitz describes his dying experience in My Death. As he provides a vivid description of his death, Hortwitz was confident that there was also a life after death.  For him, death was a living thing, something with a transitional essence between the world of living and the afterlife. In this summary, he depicts the dying entity which he experienced:

Roaring. Thunderous. [...] Sounds. There was only one sound component of this experience. At what I take to have been one of the stages of my biological death there was a tremendous roar that came from out of nowhere. It felt like I was hearing my body from this inside, listening to the roar of my heart and my vital organs. There was no beat, like the beat of the heart, just a tremendous all encompassing roar. The sound of water rushing through a gorge. I felt the fury and the rage and the potency of death, not my awareness of death, but death itself. (pp.6-7).

Hortwitz notes that in during this experience, there was nothing but a “great nothingness” where he and this entity (death) were the only participants of this experience.   He writes, “I supposed that this is what death is – a realm without space, without time, without definition, without stimulation. In this realm there was no longer a sense of self, ego, consciousness, body. There was no longer the same observer to observe for there was no distinction between the me and the it, the place, the me and the not-me. […] No boundaries, no beginning, no end, no starting point, no definition. Infinite, limitless, uncompounded, simple, clear unrestriction Space,” (pp.8).

He further describes his observation of colors during his death. To grasp his experience, he says:

It is very difficult to describe time through this sequence. It ceased to be the medium through which I was moving. There was no forward, no backward, no future, no past-only a present that contained everything. All eternity was in the present. Next, colours. One colour at a time. The colours blending into one another. Each colour occupied the entire field of my perceptions. Each colour had a physical dimension and presence as well as a visual dimension. […] Absorbing colours- I was part of them, undifferentiated from them. (pp.9).

In this world, according to Hortwitz everything became one; such that his entity/being was merely a part of an ultimate whole.   In the end, he insists that death is a living thing with a life of its own.  The images experienced during this dying experience are not new as many other individuals have claimed have similar experiences.

In Near Death Experience: A Holographic Explanation, Oswald Harding argues that near-death and out-of -body experiences suggested that there is a possibility for one to experience dying/death.   In essence, his argument is one which is also suggestive that out-of-body experiences and near -death provide some evidence that the entity (death) can be experienced and extraordinarily many have lived to share their experiences of it. He quotes Carl G. Jung’s near-death experience that later became the central focus of his work. In this essay, Jung describes his death (near-death) experience as “The vision and experiences were utterly real…. They all had a quality of absolute objectivity ….I can describe the experience only as the ecstasy of a non-temporal state in which present, past  and future are one,”(pp.3).

From this instance, both Jung and Hortwitz observe that in their near-death experience, time become one entity and not separated as in our ‘reality’.  This ‘non-temporal’ environment and the human (or non-human) entity becomes the essence of this world.

Captivated by Jung’s belief, Harding infers that the near-death experiences was not characteristic of a certain group or individual; but on the contrary it was experienced by people of all different walks of life and religious backgrounds; including children. He adds that in many recorded cases, groups of people experienced near-death and out-of body experiences together, all providing the same and similar details of an after-life.  They vividly related their experiences of seeing dead family members or supreme being/beings. Harding articulates that “In short, the perception of death results not in a physical ejection from one’s body, but in a psychological detachment from one’s (apparent) fate,” (pp.6).

Furthermore, Harding supports the view that out-of-body (OBE) was usually experienced by individual who had or experienced near-death. From his research, he came across a pediatrician, Melvin Morse who argued that near-death experiences are also experienced by children.  Harding claims that Morse from his book called Closer to the Light argues that when the children in this research retold their near-death experiences; it was very similar to those of adults who had near-death experiences. He provides an instance where an ill child during an operation had an out-of –body experience. He adds that the child was able to summarize the entire operation; even the African- American doctor who was called in to assist at the last minute. Morse notes that this was only possible if a person was in the room. Hence it was possible that the child had an out-of –body experience.

He argues that the child was accurate on the description and it could not be something of the imagination because of the profound details.  Essentially, Harding ends this chapter on near-death by maintaining that, “It is important, however, to differentiate between clinical and biological death because it is possible to be resuscitated from clinical death as in NDE cases. Biological death is irreversible unless one believes in supernatural powers,” (pp.16).

Simon Critchley also in Very Little…Almost Nothing: Death, Philosophy and Literature postulates that death is an entity which most literary works have advocated its presence by individuals who have experienced it. He writes:

Now, if (and this is a vast qualification) death is not just going to have the character of a brute fact, then one’s morality is something in which one has to find a meaning. In the vocabulary of Being and Time, death is something that one has to project freely in a resolute decision. […] For the early Heidegger, death is something to be achieved, it is the fundamental possibility which permits is to get the totality of existence, and hence authenticity, into our grasp -the possibility of impossibility. The human being is death in the process of becoming. (pp.25).

Accordingly, Critchley insists that when night comes, the human being and his/her Dasein may either go to sleep or come into contact with death (the object of dying).  With his argument, he supports Heidegger that death is the ultimate stage of the human being; the stage of becoming. This possibility of impossibility is the human being destiny.  Death in his view should be well-received as it completes the cycle of ‘life’ and the beginning of ultimate living/reality. He quoted Reading Blanchot’s suggestion that suicide is the stage where an individual is hoping to find an alternative other than life; a ‘life’ in which he is unaware of but one which his/her Dasein wishes to participate in.  In the case of suicide, the individual’s main concern is to end’s one life, such that he /she may experience the events of dying. Yet, Critchley believes that in most cases, the individual does not experience death in the proper sense of the word, but at the moment of death, he /she may not recognize his/her Dasein.

Additionally, Critchley saw a strong relationship between philosophy and death, whereby philosophy is aspired to understand and complete the cycle of life i.e. death. He notes that “Writing interrupts the  dialectical labour of the negative , introducing into the Subject a certain impotence and passivity that escapes the movement of comprehension , of philosophy’s obsession with meaning: the desire to master death and find a fulfillment for human finitude,”(pp.33).

Mastering death is to master one’s Dasein (becoming-to- being), having freedom of one’s ultimate consciousness.

In essence, he concludes that in philosophical thought “Death is therefore the most fundamental possibility of the Subject, which enables consciousness to assume its freedom. This is why Blanchot writes that ‘death is the greatest hope of human beings, their only hope of being human’. Death is a civilizing power and the condition of possibility for freedom, projection authentic existence,” (pp.66).

Thomas Nagel in Death argues that “If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is bad thing to die,” (Singer: 9). For Nagel the argument on death has remained a contentious one with modern philosophical discourse. He notes that for some the concept of death is an illusion one while others believe that we should all prepare for its coming, as it is an inevitable facet of human beings.  Nagel argues that many people consider death as something horrible /bad because they ‘may’ no longer able to enjoy the experiences of life.  He writes “But if death is an evil, it is the loss of life, rather than the state of being dead, or non-existence, or unconscious, that is objectionable.[…] If death is a disadvantage, it is not easy to say when a man suffers it,” (Singer: 11).

Nagel however does not support the Socratic or Platonic position that the soul existed prior to birth.  He infers that “None of us existed before we were born (or conceived), but few regard that as a misfortune,” (Singer: 11).

In his essay he attempted to resolve the presumed misconception of death. He notes that it is common to most thinkers to believe that they can image being dead; however there is mistake in their view because, according to Nagel it is as impossible to imagine a state of unconsciousness.  He adds that “But this diagnosis is evidently false, for it is just as impossible to image being totally unconscious as to image being dead (though it is easy enough to imagine oneself, from the outside, in either of those conditions),” (Singer: 11).

For Nagel, Death is an evil because it derives us of life‘s enjoyments. He concludes that “If the normal life-span were a thousand years, death at 80 would be a tragedy. As things are, it may just be a more widespread tragedy. If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in store for us all,”(Singer:18).

John Hinton in Dying states that death is an aspect of life that all societies have tried to deal with; however in most societies it is socially accepted as an ill for human beings.  In his book, Hinton attempted to draw attention to the various stages of death and dying.  He notices that:

The personal significance of death is still warded off; the description of tragic death are heard with distant interest, murder stories are read for pleasure and serious thoughts about personal death do not often get far beyond making financial provision ‘just in case’. Reluctance to face death brings one undeniable evil. (pp.13).

Hinton adds that fear is the most common feeling towards death. This feeling, he noted is usually accompanied with a feelings of guilt and anger.  For Hinton, death is an emotional turmoil that not too many people are willing to confront. Even in children, according to Hinton, death though not fully understood, can be grasped as early as five years old.

Hinton notes that “It has been found in many ethnographic areas –and clearly described among the Indonesian peoples by the social anthropologist Hertz-that death is not regarded as an instant change from mortal life to spiritual eternity. Although the spirit leaves the body at the time of death, all is not over; the spirit has not reached its destination. It will not do this until the dead body reaches a certain state, usually that of clean dry bones. […] The soul remains on earth in the vicinity of the body,” (pp.25).

In this case, according to Hinton, death is a process and not an experience as such. He adds that some psychoanalyst have maintained that all fears can be reduced to one fear- the fear of death.

Hinton concludes that in most societies there is the concept of an after –life i.e. a life after a physical death. He argues that “Most societies, however, have comforting beliefs that temporal life on earth is but one aspect of total human existence.  In pre-history this view appears to have been held; at the burial of the dead, companions often placed objects beside the body, presumably thinking that these gifts  could still in some way be used or appreciated by the dead person,”(pp.34).

He argues that many archeologists had found items such as food, gold and even a king/queen body with his /her the entire members of his/her court.  For instance he maintains that Egyptians had an extraordinary belief in the after-life. For death was not the final stage of the human being. Accordingly, they (Egyptians) placed a greater importance on the life after death than the ‘ordinary’ life of the physical world. He concludes this chapter by noting that “Many take comfort from a belief in eventual rebirth after death, with the promise that death only interrupts life, and that there will be a return to the wanted familiar world.[…] Death , in this context, only a further condemnation to the transmigration of the soul and continued existence,”(pp.37).

Sir Wallis Budge in Egyptian Religion notes that the concept of a life after death was embedded within Egyptian teachings.  He asserts that the Egyptians believe that “The Egyptians expected a resurrection of the physical body. But the body of which the incorruption and immortality are so strongly declared is the SĀHU, or spiritual body, that sprang into existence out of the physical body, which had become transformed by means of prayers that had been recited and the ceremonies that had been performed on the day of the funeral, or on that wherein it was laid in the tomb,” (pp.100).

For them, death was a transition between the two worlds but also a judgment point how he /she will live in the other life. In some cases if he/she has been evil, he/she may not experience this other life.

Budge infers that in some passages in the Egyptian’s writing, there is a held belief that there is an existence after death. He writes, “The idea of the existence of a place for departed spirits wherein the souls condemned in the judgment might dwell, but it must be remembered that it was the enemies of Rā, the Sun-god, that inhabited this region,”(pp.137).

He states that the Egyptians upheld a significant belief in this after life and death was seen as the human transition to the other world; a world which was very similar to what they were used to.  He further adds that the soul was called the BA which meant ‘noble’ or ‘mighty’.  Budge writes that “The BA dwelt in the KA, and seems to have had the power of becoming corporeal or incorporeal at will; it had both substance and form. […] It had the power to leave the tomb, and pass up in heaven where it was believed to enjoy an eternal existence in a state of glory; it could, however, and did, revisit the body in the tomb and from certain texts it seems that it could re-animate it and hold converse with it,”(pp.191).

The Egyptians believed that the human being has eight parts: the body, double, soul, heart, spiritual intelligence or spirit, power, shadow and name. Budge adds that these eights were usually reduced into three: the body, the spiritual intelligence or spirit and the soul. After death, the spirit and the soul of the righteous (good) continues to exist. Hence he concludes with the Egyptians famous argument “The soul to heaven, the body to earth,” (pp.193).

Another famous philosopher, David Braine in The Human Person: Animal & Spirit notes that “In giving philosophical development to holistic ways of speaking about the soul there have been two tendencies: the one to speak about the soul in more concrete and phenomenological terms; and the other to speak about it in more abstract terms related to explanation,” (pp.481).

Braine infers that these views were embedded within Aristotle’s doctrine of the soul. From his sub-title “The Phenomenological Conception of Soul” Braine argues that “Additionally the sorts of predicates which we apply to inanimate bodies as well as to human beings or animals obviously do not apply to the soul. In short, the soul does not eat or walk, and does not weigh ten stones. In the ways of speaking involved the soul is a subject of many concrete predicates, consciousness-involved predicates of human beings and animals. I call them concrete predicates because we predicate them of concrete things or substances,” (pp.482).

Accordingly, Braine, the soul is an existing entity which becomes detached from the body at the moment of death.

In essence, the arguments on death are still very controversial.  Can we know or experience death? Do we live after death? As most philosophers have maintained death is aspect of life, which only gains importance during its moment, i.e. dying. Given the arguments from philosophers Harding and Jung, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that death is an entity of activities whereby the human body and the ‘soul’ is interacting. Death can be viewed in various ways, but ultimately, only the individual dying can truly experience it.

Death has been interpreted in both negative and positive discourses; however, most admit its importance as a ‘life’ activity.  There can be no living without death, and conversely.  One strongly supports the Braine’s thesis that human beings are by nature an element of animal and spirit which influences its perceptions of life and death; whether consciously or not. Hortwitz descriptive experience of death provided a frightening vision for one, as death in his view was a place of uncertainty, a unity of unknown objects (temporality), colors, roaring sounds. It leads one to conclude that death (the thing itself) may react differently by one of us. Perhaps, it is similar to childbirth, whereby different women experience different things.

Additionally, Socrates’ belief that a philosopher’s life is a preparation to death synchronizes well with Heidegger’s Dasein (our coming into being). It provides a personal touch towards death, such that only the individual can experience his /her own death; such that one becomes the main character in this activity.   Is death a scary ordeal? Not exactly. If one knows what is expected, then one should have no hesitations but if not just take it as it comes. What can be worst, the point is you are already dying.  It has to happen any way and can happen anytime. However, ‘The Tibetan Book of the Dead’, claims to provide signs of death; both physically and spiritually, which one can monitor periodically or impulsively.   One thing most of us are all grateful for; is the experience of living. Anything which opposes life becomes an inherent evil. Who knows, death might be the greatest thing for human beings to experience as suggested by Heidegger and ancient philosophers. It is in one’s belief that the death has had a long –lived meaning which must be re-evaluated and destructed, in order to capture its true beauty.

In essence, death is an obscure entity which should be continuously investigated and philosophically discoursed. Perhaps the out-of-body experience, or near death experiences is a starting point.   But what is known, is that death is real, and exists.  Conceivably, you and I may enjoy our dying.  Then we can have a good laugh about the ‘death fear’ and re-edit the role of the Grim Reaper, who knows.

This essay is my tribute to those who have fully understood death in its entirety. Those living can only image what it would be like, even those who have had near-death and out-of-body have not truly experienced death in its entirety; only  a brief sample of the real thing.  Death is a being; a being with its own essence and properties. Only death knows when and how it will visit its keeper. Only the keeper will know death in its true being.