Which comes first - life or death

Sort:
Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

Does death follow life or does life follow death?

Before you answer, doesn't the death of the past lead to the birth of the present?

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

Law Phallus Contract (Will)

Avatar of anastasia333

I think it's irrelevant

Avatar of RonaldJosephCote

      That's a dam good question but the wrong forum. A mystery lock in a riddle disquized as a conumdrum.Undecided

Avatar of anastasia333

One has to answer what is life and who exactly is alive.  Then you can go on talking about death and who dies )  and what is the sequence between them- if there is any

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

i am just asking which comes first. because everyone says life does but clearly the past must die before we reach the present

Avatar of Nipplewise

We were dead before being born. The molecules making up our bodies scattered on the Earth's surface, atmosphere and meteors. "Memento homo, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris."

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
Nipplewise wrote:

We were dead before being born. The molecules making up our bodies scattered on the Earth's surface, atmosphere and meteors. "Memento homo, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris."

so then is the observed belief that we die only after we live a fiction? (an illusion)

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

why do we say death follows life when clearly life follows "death"

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
anastasia333 wrote:

One has to answer what is life and who exactly is alive.  Then you can go on talking about death and who dies )  and what is the sequence between them- if there is any

this is maybe the question..... the sequence of course is temporal..... we are born in the present and die in the future. but isnt death present, opening up for a future life??

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

and also what about the past????

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:

Law Phallus Contract (Will)

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:

and also what about the past????

either life or death seems to recede into the past...... so either life or death is extended to create a sort of past/present...... but future is always outside the temporal sequence by nature, so it stays in a constant state

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

it seems we can never dominate the future by nature, since it always exceed the temporal subject. but what if future was that separater that got us from past to present...... well then we need to redefine our whole past/present togetherness...... split self!

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

otherwise we will be dragging the past with us at the present..... we dominate future in order so it serves us to split off

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

by repeated actions customs habit we can predict and thus dominate the future

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic

future exceeds our (temporal) knowledge but yet we can know it, with experience/repetition

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:

Law Phallus Contract (Will)

Avatar of Harley-Rebel

death follows life and life follows death. sometimes people live while dead.

it's like chickens and eggs, the egg came before the chicken and the chicken came before the egg.

Avatar of Trash_Aesthetic
Harley-Rebel wrote:

death follows life and life follows death. sometimes people live while dead.

it's like chickens and eggs, the egg came before the chicken and the chicken came before the egg.

so the truthful answer is relative??????