Nathan (vovat) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Because I could not stop for Death, he kindly stopped for me

I've seen people say things about celebrities dying in threes, but which three are we counting at this point? Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson dying the same day is an eerie coincidence (although it would have been more so if the two of them had anything to do with each other), but did a third celebrity die that day? People want to make it Ed McMahon, but he died two days earlier, so I'm not sure why he would count as part of the trio. This site mentions that Sky Saxon of the Seeds died on the same day as Farrah and Michael, but I know I hadn't heard of the guy while he was still alive. I did know about Billy Mays, but I'm not sure how widely he'd be considered a celebrity, and his death was three days later anyway. So, as creepy and disturbing as it is to see so many famous people dying, I don't think there's any pattern in it.

I've also seen complaints about how people talking about dead celebrities is taking the place of real news. I guess my question there is who defines "real news." I guess they mean stuff like who won the football game and whether any morons are sending in teabags with their tax returns, right? I don't know; I also get annoyed when the same story is covered for days on end, but I think what's important is a subjective thing. That said, I think news is supposed to be about things that happened, so making guesses about what's going to happen to Jackson's estate doesn't really count. On the other hand, it's not like discussions of, say, the war in Iraq DON'T include a lot of guesswork. In a world as rich and event-filled as ours, do the media really need to cover the same topics over and over again? Also worth noting (and it has been many times, but I'm still going to reiterate it) is how the prevailing attitude of not speaking ill of the dead is definitely coming out with Michael, whom no one seemed to mind speaking ill of in the recent past. I guess death has a tendency to make us think of what we liked about a person, rather than what we thought was creepy.

So, in conclusion, death sucks. Actually, that's not a conclusion at all, but it's still true. Yeah, I know it relieves some people of their pain (well, unless you believe in eternal torment in the afterlife), and some deaths could be argued to be no big loss to the world, but I think these are the exceptions. It's frightening to think how easy it is for the life of someone you know to just end. And I don't believe in an afterlife; I consider death to be the end of the existence of the individual person. As I've said before, even if there IS such a thing as a soul, why would it carry on the personality of its last host? Isn't that a product of the brain, which is part of what stops functioning when you die? Is that a bleak idea? Well, kind of. I know the prospect of consciousness simply ceasing is rather disturbing. But isn't it even bleaker to never enjoy the life that you KNOW exists in hopes of having it better in one that might or might not exist?
Tags: current events, philosophy

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.