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.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/21/17043695-200-strangers-attend-british-marines-funeral-after-facebook-plea?lite

This makes me think about people we have warhoused here without friends or family. I've done volunteer work at old folks homes and it's sad to see these kind of people forgotten.

Touching though it might be, I can't help but wonder what the point is. I've always thought about funerals being generally for the benefit of the mourner.

The deceased isn't really in any position to care at that point. If there's nothing after, then they are in nonexistence. If they're in heaven, then they're with their loved ones. If they're in hell, then they probably have larger concerns. If they're reincarnated, then they likely don't remember.

Historically, the point of funerals, monuments, et cetera has generally been to honor the dead with remembrance.

 deathholydeath wrote:
Historically, the point of funerals, monuments, et cetera has generally been to honor the dead with remembrance.

Right, but who does that benefit?

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
Historically, the point of funerals, monuments, et cetera has generally been to honor the dead with remembrance.

Right, but who does that benefit?

You asked what the point is, not who it benefits. Things don't necessarily have to benefit anyone to have a point.
But, if we're going to play with this idea some more, I'll point out that your after-death scenarios only include a very limited scope of post-life scenarios. Take popular Confucianism or Shinto's dedication to the ancestors and the honorable dead-- the dead very clearly receive benefits from mourners in these systems.

My opinion? This case is about honoring a dead soldier-- it's an exercise in community building and patriotism. I think the reverend's message (and the fact that it was sent primarily to the Royal Marine's Association) makes it pretty clear what the point is:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, In this day and age it is tragic enough that anyone has to leave this world with no one to mourn their passing, but this man was family and I am sure you will agree deserves a better send off. If you can make it to the graveside for that time to pay your respects to a former brother in arms then please try to be there."

If we have a veteran that is actively dying and not a single friend or family is there I try to make it a point to be at bedside as much as possible. I have no idea if they know I am even in the room, but I just don't like the idea of somebody dying all alone with nobody else there.

 daedalus wrote:
Right, but who does that benefit?

Civilization.

Exactly.

I suppose the people who went to this funeral might have got some strange sense of self-satisfaction by standing in the cold for an hour for some person they never knew personally, yet I think it is more likely they wanted to honour his memory for its own sake, because they felt it was the right thing to do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Exactly.

I suppose the people who went to this funeral might have got some strange sense of self-satisfaction by standing in the cold for an hour for some person they never knew personally, yet I think it is more likely they wanted to honour his memory for its own sake, because they felt it was the right thing to do.

Most of the mourners were from the Royal Marines association as the man being buried was a former RM. On that grounds I think the main reason for their attendence was simple solidarity. There is also a large ex RM population in Portsmouth so I would imagine that most of the mourners would have been local as well.

d-usa wrote:If we have a veteran that is actively dying and not a single friend or family is there I try to make it a point to be at bedside as much as possible. I have no idea if they know I am even in the room, but I just don't like the idea of somebody dying all alone with nobody else there.

“The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.”

For you, sir.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:If we have a veteran that is actively dying and not a single friend or family is there I try to make it a point to be at bedside as much as possible. I have no idea if they know I am even in the room, but I just don't like the idea of somebody dying all alone with nobody else there.

“The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.”

For you, sir.

If only that were to apply in this case.

But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Why does that not apply?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Why does that not apply?

Because this: “The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.” Is predicated on an actual person, not a corpse.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

I write poetry as a release of emotion, so I get my release, just in a non traditional way.

Crying does not do me any good, and i realized it does not do any good, so I stopped. It was like a switch when I realized it, I just flipped the switch and stopped crying.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Why does that not apply?

Because this: “The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.” Is predicated on an actual person, not a corpse.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

I write poetry as a release of emotion, so I get my release, just in a non traditional way.

Crying does not do me any good, and i realized it does not do any good, so I stopped. It was like a switch when I realized it, I just flipped the switch and stopped crying.

The way someone handles this is clearly a matter of personal outlook, as the series of posts here demonstrate. I myself hate funerals and really don't want one when I die. Funerals, though are a means for others to cope with the passing of an individual, as you no doubt well know.
I'm sure there could be as many differently stated reasons for why they attended the funeral as there were people there. Maybe some felt a measure of gratitude for the sacrifices and chances James McConnell took on behalf of Britain. Perhaps others were curious and yet others have lost loved ones in the service of their country and this was a way to reconnect or say the goodbye they wished they had.
We've all been around the block enough to know there's no single answer to people's motives, but these are my thoughts on the matter.

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
Historically, the point of funerals, monuments, et cetera has generally been to honor the dead with remembrance.

Right, but who does that benefit?

Everyone. We feel better when the dead are respected, at least when they don't deserve otherwise, whether we knew or cared the least bit for them or not. I suppose it is, ultimately, self-serving in that regard, though in the socially beneficial way (like not stealing because you'd suffer guilt at having caused harm, and because it's in your interest to encourage an environment wherein theft is not common, and every bit as subconscious a calculation).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

The act of crying causes a drop in stress hormones, resulting in feeling better faster, though once the levels have detiorated anyways there's no real difference between having done so or not.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Why does that not apply?

Because this: “The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.” Is predicated on an actual person, not a corpse.

So, what you are telling me is, this corpse is no longer deserving of respect for his actions in life?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

The act of crying causes a drop in stress hormones, resulting in feeling better faster, though once the levels have detiorated anyways there's no real difference between having done so or not.

Oh, I was unaware that relieving stress had no long term benefits. Who knew.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the "people who can't do him any good" in this case was a corpse, and not a person, so that really does not apply.

Why does that not apply?

Because this: “The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good.” Is predicated on an actual person, not a corpse.

So, what you are telling me is, this corpse is no longer deserving of respect for his actions in life?

The person and memory thereof, if he had respectful actions, is deserving of respect.

A corpse is just lifeless meat.

The two things are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The person and memory thereof, if he had respectful actions, is deserving of respect.

A corpse is just lifeless meat.

The two things are different.

But some express their respect of the person and their memories with how they handle the lifeless meat.

The corpse and paying respect to the person don't have to be mutually exclusive. Of course they don't have to be related either and you can pay respect to the person and memory without worrying about the corpse at all.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

The act of crying causes a drop in stress hormones, resulting in feeling better faster, though once the levels have detiorated anyways there's no real difference between having done so or not.

Oh, I was unaware that relieving stress had no long term benefits. Who knew.

There is a world of difference between long-term stress and a momentary excess of related hormones. In the first case, the proper course of action is trying to mitigate the stress to the extent the situation allows, in the second the only course is to simply bear it until it subsides.

 daedalus wrote:
Touching though it might be, I can't help but wonder what the point is. I've always thought about funerals being generally for the benefit of the mourner.

The deceased isn't really in any position to care at that point. If there's nothing after, then they are in nonexistence. If they're in heaven, then they're with their loved ones. If they're in hell, then they probably have larger concerns. If they're reincarnated, then they likely don't remember.

Its also a respect thing towards the dead. That person life is now over, its respectful to be there and acknowledge they once were alive like you and I are.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Interesting story, but personally I was over Funerals years ago. I only go to family funerals because I am expected to go. I do not cry anymore as I realized that does not do any good.

Actually, the release of emotion is good for you.

The act of crying causes a drop in stress hormones, resulting in feeling better faster, though once the levels have detiorated anyways there's no real difference between having done so or not.

Oh, I was unaware that relieving stress had no long term benefits. Who knew.

There is a world of difference between long-term stress and a momentary excess of related hormones. In the first case, the proper course of action is trying to mitigate the stress to the extent the situation allows, in the second the only course is to simply bear it until it subsides.

True, there is. But you are just basing this on the physical aspect of this. Mentally crying helps a person move on and cope with a loss. This keeps a person from going through that long-term stress. Because when a person does not properly grieve for someone they have lost, when they bottle it up and move on, it tears at them mentally, causing stress.

Now, crying is not the only way to properly grieve, but it is a way to do it and it does have benefits.