Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, they do not necessarily become our goals. They are the enactment of of someone else's goals, whether they are our own goals or not.

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:If he doesn't consider his moms wish at all in his decision her wish was meaningless.

I think you mean "is meaningless" but I would still object. This is just like what you were saying earlier, if you don't mind me paraphrasing via my own counter example, that wanting to be a movie star is meaningless until you actually become one. It seems to me that you view "meaningfulness" in terms of realization. I simply object to that definition of "what matters." To me, things matter even if they are not yet realized or even if they never can be.

Let me give a further example, using your modification of the uncremated mother scenario. The son completely ignored his mother's wishes to be cremated. But the friend of the son thought badly of the son for doing so.

Things that matter to us, matter to us because we are still alive. But if you set a goal, and you chase your goal to the exclusion of all else, of course the goal matters to you. But at some point either while your alive, or the moment you die, if you never achieved that goal, then your life goal could be considered meaningless. Maybe that is to harsh a term, and there's a better way to say it? because really you can wish and work towards whatever goal you want, but that won't necessarily affect the end result of seeing that goal realized. If you achieve your goal, it worked, if you didn't, you didn't, you just never know til the end.

That doesn't mean while your alive you shouldn't set goals and work on the goals that matter to you, or plan for the future. Because if you don't the likelihood of it happening drops close to 0.

but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then? is there a better word? unrealized? pointless? without merit? irrelevant?

but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.

but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then?

Wait I never said that all of the wishes of all the people who have died end up mattering after their deaths. I objected to the statement that none of the wishes of any of the people who have died have mattered since their deaths.

Manchu wrote:

but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then?

Wait I never said that all of the wishes of all the people who have died end up mattering after their deaths. I objected to the statement that none of the wishes of any of the people who have died have mattered since their deaths.

I agree with that, my thought is the wishes of the dead only matter to the extent that the living act on or consider them. Its a case by case basis and could either be a lot, or none at all.

Manchu wrote:No, they do not necessarily become our goals. They are the enactment of of someone else's goals, whether they are our own goals or not.

I find this lack of willingness to accept ones own actions as ones own because a dead person gave you the idea quite disturbing in a street judge.

If I think or do something it is my will alone that drives the process. The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.

sirlynchmob wrote:I agree with that, my thought is the wishes of the dead only matter to the extent that the living act on or consider them.

That statement just seems to define what matters to you. You could rephrase it as "the wishes of the dead are only enacted or considered by the living to the extent that they are enacted or considered by the living." Or similarly, "the wishes of the dead only matter when they matter."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.

That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.

Manchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.

That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.

Indeed, but it only matters if a living person chooses to give the advice value. Without the living person the advice has no value. I think our differences lie with the order of will and action. I believe that the will causes the action, others disagree. IIRC it is a philosophical question that cannot truly be resolved.

sirlynchmob wrote:but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.

I've been largely passing over your posts over the last couple of pages to answer Manchu but I agree with much of what you have written.

I don't see things as only having value if I have a use for them.

Manchu wrote:I don't see things as only having value if I have a use for them.

Neither do I. Things have value if I accept or enact them, If I don't then they had less value. The difference here between less value and no value is semantic.

George Spiggott wrote:The difference here between less value and no value is semantic.

I very much disagree. Milton was no Shakespeare but he was hardly worthless.

Manchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:The difference here between less value and no value is semantic.

I very much disagree. Milton was no Shakespeare but he was hardly worthless.

I think you're going off track a bit there. Have both Milton and Shakespeare given me a piece of conflicting advice that I must choose between? This isn't a binary cremate/don't cremate situation.

Advice that you don't take can be valuable.

Manchu wrote:Advice that you don't take can be valuable.

This is getting way too broad now.

I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.

and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.

lets take my dinner plans analogy. I was wishing for pizza and beer and due to a weird twist of fate ended up having spaghetti and wine. So my wish to have pizza and beer for dinner ended up being meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Manchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.

That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.

Indeed, but it only matters if a living person chooses to give the advice value. Without the living person the advice has no value. I think our differences lie with the order of will and action. I believe that the will causes the action, others disagree. IIRC it is a philosophical question that cannot truly be resolved.

sirlynchmob wrote:but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.

I've been largely passing over your posts over the last couple of pages to answer Manchu but I agree with much of what you have written.

Thanks I appreciate that. you've been making a lot of sense as well.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.

and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.

I don't think they have to necessarily come to pass in order to impact the lives of the living. Fruitless =/= meaningless. Take Manchu's example from before, where a friend of the son is aware of the mother's wish, and winds up respecting the son less for failing to carry out his mother's request. Even if there was no third party, the son may regret disregarding those wishes and feel guilt or shame.

Mannahnin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.

and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.

I don't think they have to necessarily come to pass in order to impact the lives of the living. Fruitless =/= meaningless. Take Manchu's example from before, where a friend of the son is aware of the mother's wish, and winds up respecting the son less for failing to carry out his mother's request. Even if there was no third party, the son may regret disregarding those wishes and feel guilt or shame.

That's a consequence, that does not make the moms wish any more meaningful. In the end its the sons decision, and there is nothing the dead mom can do about it.

That's a consequence, that does not make the moms wish any more meaningful.

Maybe we're running into a semantic issue here. If there's a consequence, than the wish clearly has meaning.

You do realize that the "the dead won't mind, they're dead" thing was a joke, right?

Medium of Death wrote:What do the Atheists want to replace the cross with?

nothing special or grandiose like a cross made out of iron pipe.

Mannahnin wrote:

That's a consequence, that does not make the moms wish any more meaningful.

Maybe we're running into a semantic issue here. If there's a consequence, than the wish clearly has meaning.

and if there is no consequence then it was meaningless.

I think that's both glib and incorrect.

and if there is no consequence then it was meaningless.

No, volition and enaction aren't purely causal. The wish is meaningful because it 'means something', 'can be interpreted', 'has an impact on it's recipient's volition and mental discourse'. If there is a recipient, there is a volitive consequence (the apparition of a possibility of enaction) weither or not there is a realized consequence.

Because the interpretation is only possible if there is an essential reality which can be interpreted (an object of interpretation), logically, the wish is meaningful by itself. Not acting on a wish is an act of will(acts of self limitation).

And BTW, no, the wish of the dead are recognised as being legally binding in many society, for reasons of social cohesion. Weither that's the living giving a value to the dead's wish, or the future-dead wanting to make sure that their wishes are fulfilled, is just a question of semantics ; no matter what, all those who voted those laws in are already dead. So it might as well be that those wishes are recognized as having an intrinsic value, simply due to the fact that they are wishes coming from a dead person

Kovnik...that's about the best 3rd post I've ever seen on DAKKA DAKKA...welcome aboard!!



GG

Thanks, that made my night!

And even as a completely irreligious person (I am very interested by all conversations about the divine, and open to the possibility of its existence, but I definitely lack any faith fiber), I have a hard time not considering the wishes of the dead as something somewhat sacred. I mean, how weak of integrity, empathy and honor must you be to refuse to fulfill the last wishes of someone you cared about, as long as the wishes aren't ridiculous?

It's the closest thing to 'sacred' an almost-atheist like me can think of.

Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing).

To give contrast, here in Quebec, we have an issue with a town mayor who refused not to pray before starting assemblies, while its clearly, unequivocally against the constitution. But it's a rural town and lots of folk there are behind him, and gave him lots of funds to fight the subsequent lawsuits, and escalated it to the Supreme Court. Atheist groups fighting for the secular society as the constitution defends secularism : perfectly fine. But the shape of the gravestone isn't an attack on secular society, in itself. It's a figure marking the area where a dead lays, not the symbol of religious affiliation a students wears around the neck in a school embroiled in ethnic and religious conflicts, or the mark that may define you as the same member of a religious group as the political figure you're dealing with, leading to him unjustly giving you favors. Everyone should chill and remember this is ultimately a story about dead people, and the proper way to show them respect.

Kovnik Obama wrote: Thanks, that made my night!

And even as a completely irreligious person (I am very interested by all conversations about the divine, and open to the possibility of its existence, but I definitely lack any faith fiber), I have a hard time not considering the wishes of the dead as something somewhat sacred. I mean, how weak of integrity, empathy and honor must you be to refuse to fulfill the last wishes of someone you cared about, as long as the wishes aren't ridiculous?

It's the closest thing to 'sacred' an almost-atheist like me can think of.

Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing).

To give contrast, here in Quebec, we have an issue with a town mayor who refused not to pray before starting assemblies, while its clearly, unequivocally against the constitution. But it's a rural town and lots of folk there are behind him, and gave him lots of funds to fight the subsequent lawsuits, and escalated it to the Supreme Court. Atheist groups fighting for the secular society as the constitution defends secularism : perfectly fine. But the shape of the gravestone isn't an attack on secular society, in itself. It's a figure marking the area where a dead lays, not the symbol of religious affiliation a students wears around the neck in a school embroiled in ethnic and religious conflicts, or the mark that may define you as the same member of a religious group as the political figure you're dealing with, leading to him unjustly giving you favors. Everyone should chill and remember this is ultimately a story about dead people, and the proper way to show them respect.

Firstly no one is actually buried there, its a memorial. Here is a better article about it:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/military-pentagon-to-decide-fate-of-camp-pendleton-memorial/article_6af4e31a-efec-5ea1-b9dc-f9d25c033dd8.html

"He and his group, which claims several thousand members, say the site can stay as a memorial, suggesting the crosses be replaced with the Marine Corps globe and anchor, or some other appropriate but nonreligious symbol."
"Pentagon regulations forbid the military from promoting any religion. The Department of the Navy also has a formal process for designating memorials, which was not followed for the hilltop memorial."

Here is another cross on public property just down the road from the marines base that's going to be removed as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

"the cross unconstitutional. Judge McKeown wrote for the court, "Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla." It was a unanimous decision"

Kovnik Obama wrote:"Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing). "

It has nothing to do with the family members. Its about the actual marines who work at that base, and none of the wishes of the dead was about making a christian memorial. The dead get buried somewhere else and they can have a standardized tombstone there. Eventually a proper Iraq war memorial will be built somewhere and you can bet money that it won't have a cross anywhere on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:[ Eventually a proper Iraq war memorial will be built somewhere and you can bet money that it won't have a cross anywhere on it.

The memorial for the RAMC Iraq casualties that was erected at the entrance to the hospital in Brady lines was in the shape of a cross. It was only a temporary one though and it was removed when the hospital was closed so the official one, if it should exist, will likely be different. I never even made the religious connection; to be honest I'm not really all that bothered and I'm an atheist fundamentalist

The cross is also widely used in the UK for war memorials so it has, in this country at least, an association with honouring war dead which doesn't necessarily have any religious connotations. Perhaps the US has a similar reason as to why this particular design was originally chosen?


At the end of the day there are far more worthy battles to fight that the shape of a war memorial.

The cross on Mount Soledad seems ill advised from the get go from just the hazard it seems to be.

The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.

There is an inertia in social change which probably has preserved this tradition beyond its validity as a reflection of the make-up of the population.

While 70% of Britons still identify themselves as Christian on the census form, the number of active church goers is much smaller. Without checking it, I think there are about 5-6 million regular service attenders in the UK. That's roughly 10% of the population. There will be a larger number who might go for major services like Easter, and a fair number like me who describe themselves as S of E because that is how they were brought up, but are in fact lapsed.

I think with the number of non-Christians now in the armed forces, we will see a change towards secular or multi-faith memorials if they are requested by the non-Christian groups.

Personally I would have no issue with that. I think it is important to memorialise war dead in a way which increases rather than reduces social and national cohesion.

Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.

Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.