Worst (And Best) Ways to Die
I was thinking today about how I like living. This train of thought naturally lead me to think about dying, and some of the truly awful ways one can make that transistion. After careful consideration, I have chosen the five ways I'd least like to meet my demise:
1) Tortured for information by enemy spooks.
2) Starvation. Takes way too long.
3) Any type of asphyxiation: includes drowning, hanging, or being strangled.
4) Being attacked by a wild animal, or an angry mob.
5) Being drenched in, or dipped into a vat of, any kind of flesh-eating acid.
On the flip side of the coin, here are some more attractive alternatives:
5) Beheading. But only if it's done properly. Also, this is not a choice for the vain.
4) Drinking poison. Good enough for Socrates, good enough for me.
3) Lethal injection. The modern day equivalant of hemlock juice.
2) Dying of natural causes in your sleep. If the Grim Reaper was Willy Wonka, this would be your Whipple-Scrumptious Fudgemallow Delights bar wrapped in a golden ticket.
1) Sacrificing yourself for a noble cause, or to save someone's life. I have a deep-founded belief that any act of love as selfless as this will follow you into eternity. Also, even if you were a schmuck your whole life, it only takes one sacrificial death to redeem your entire existence. Yes you'll be dead, but you'll die a hero. Compare this to the empty funeral parlor and cricket chirps at the wake when you die as a crack whore, or corporate CEO who filed for Chapter 11 after he was caught embezzling and then shot himself.
Anything I missed? Discuss your personal picks.
posted by Beth Milligan @ 9:56 AM
11 Comments:
I'm only going with #2 at this point...unless laughing to death is an option! ;) Have to define poison further, as well. That one may be an option after all. How would the beheading occur too? Is it a formal one or does it just happen in an accident? Options, options.... Now if we can just talk about how to pay taxes we'll have both bases covered!
For preferred abhorrent ways to die,
I prefer (to avoid) burning to death. A SLOW burn, of course, would be much worse. (Unless it does not involve the actual burning of flesh, but rather, eyeing a significant other flirting at YOUR office Christmas party.)
Even more abhorrent is SURVIVING a death by fire, with all the sundry accompanying charms of third degree burns, i.e. massive, total-body blistering, wholesale peeling away of flesh and related infections, and screaming while the nurse performs the lovely ritual called "debriding."
These charms, of course, become more appealing when performed on the aforesaid flirting significant other.
For other, more imaginative and hideous ways to perish, please consult Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
poison?
beth, you realize that socrates died an awful horrible terrible death? after drinking his cup of hemlock, he went into convulsions, got nausiated, vomited, and then became paralyzed. that's what it does to you. nasty stuff. contrary to popular belief, socrates didn't die in quiet dignity. if he was indeed human, it would not have been possible.
that's actually pretty high on my list of "sucky ways to die".
i also disagree completely with your "#1 awesome way to die". i think we've talked about sacrificing oneself (and the incredible illogic associated with it) in the past, though.
Loren, what do you find so illogical about sacraficing ones self? I should think that if we are as candles to be snuffed out it ought best be done to the bennefit of another.
I think there would be a great objection from many a Tokugawa retainer to your view.
there is no known benefit to death, unless life itself is completely unsatisfying. to bet one's entire life on a belief that has nothing more than a warm and fuzzy feeling to back it up is scraping dregs from the bottom of the wisdom barrel.
i also disagree with your analogy to candles. it implies that our purpose is to die.
i also find the tokugawa retainers in question to be at the height of nationalistic, overzealous fervor.
Play nice, Loren.
It is not the act of sacrifice itself that is important, so much as becoming the type of person who is capable of a sacrifice. To be able to do this for another human being means not only that you have conquered your fear of death, but more importantly, that you love. Any meaningful relationship already initiates this process of selflessness, just on a smaller scale. You sacrifice so that your children might have what they need; you put aside your own wants so that a spouse might have something they desire instead. Love overrides your most basic of instincts--to think only of yourself--and replaces it not just with an instinct to think of someone else first, but with a desire to.
I don't glamorize death. I don't seek by any means to die, for I am passionate about life, but rather to live in such a way that I might love. To become this kind of person, I feel, is key to the human experience. It is a necessary part of becoming a wholly formed--and wholly alive--human being.
Well said Beth.
Loren, Perhaps our purpose is not to be snuffed out, but it is the end of us all, not considering after life. And who knows, perhaps only by understanding a persons sacrafice can we attain eternal existence.
No benefits to sacrafice, you meen to say no benefits of sacrafice to the one who chooses to sacrafice himself. Ah, that is the grind. The benefit of sacrafice is that it allows others to continue in an improved state, whether that sacrafice is ultimate or not.
Is not enlightenment the desturction of self? How might we gain such enlightenment when we will not sacrafice our selves? A candle brightly burning for a short time, to the benefit of those who recieve its light.
Beth,
There is a significant difference in “sacrificing” in the manner that any person does on a regular basis, and sacrificing one’s entire life. The minor things that we give up every day are in no way a meaningful microcosm of suicide.
That said, I’ll (more or less) argue within that assumption anyways. :-P
Any meaningful relationship does not hinge on sacrifice. It depends on mutual respect, understanding, and desire. This is not to say that some amount of sacrifice is to be avoided or shunned. Rather, it is an externality of beneficial actions. Love does not equate willingness to die for someone. That action is a sign that either the person in question is obsessed with someone to a self-destructive degree, or that the societal value for people willing to die for a cause has overridden a person’s common sense. You sacrifice for children so that you might receive a sense of pride and accomplishment when they succeed later in life, and for the good feelings that are reciprocated when your efforts are appreciated; you put immediate personal desires on hold for a significant other so that you might have something that mutually is greater than a simple personal desire, be it an increased sense of connection or something similar.
It is a terrible archaic notion of romance (and devotion) to kill oneself. Actual love is not a zero-sum game characterized by sacrifice, but rather by a valuable and strengthening cooperative effort.
whitewolfblueknife:
Perhaps eternal existence is not the goal, but rather maximizing and appreciating the experience that we have now. Perhaps societal constructs like honor are there for the greater good, rather than personal salvation.
I make no claims as to the nature of enlightenment, and I wager that even the most enlightened of individuals don’t have a monopoly on how to achieve it. Humans are notorious for their ability to delude themselves into a state of bliss.
I think that you use philosophy as a way to justify selfishness. I am not talking about any melodramatic, Romeo & Juliet, obsessive suicide pacts. I am talking about being in a situation where someone you love is in danger of losing their life, and you intervening to try and save them even if it's at your own peril. IE you push someone out of the way of a moving car, even if it puts you in the vehicle's path instead.
Certainly, if you have time to sit around and think about a decision, you can easily rationalize saving yourself. I don't disagree that it's the logical choice. For 98% of the people out there, I'd save myself first. But it's that small percent, those few people (and to counteract your archaic romantic notions, not just the boyfriend) that I truly love that allow me to comprehend a situation where another choice could be made.
I think if you are ever married, or have children, you will better be able to understand this concept. (Try asking any parent, if they had the choice to save their life or that of their child, what they would choose.) It's not that anyone wants to make that choice (I'd agree with you that that's where things become obsessive and unhealthy), but rather that they are capable of it, if absoutely necessary. As it is, I'd say your current viewpoint is just reflective of your lifestyle, and not having experienced that kind of relationship yet.
Loren whether it is in day to day actions or giving of ones life, we are still giving. We are loosing something that some one else may have it. Where does one draw the line? Is there any greater expression of love than giving your life for some one else?
Perhaps you should define love for us?
Post a Comment
<< Home