That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

I appreciate his enthusiasm and look forward to perceptive criticisms. PreambleI’d like to start with two points on metaphysical inquiries:1. “Every metaphysical question encompasses the whole range of metaphysical inquiries. ” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 93)2. “Every metaphysical question can be asked in only such a way that the questioner as such is present together with the question, that is, placed in the question. ” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 93)These two points can be stated summarily as: “Metaphysical inquiry must be posed as a whole and from the position of the existence that questions. ” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 94)Why Is There Everything Rather Than Nothing? This isn’t, strictly speaking, a question (just interrogative) as it precludes any answer whatsoever. That is to say that, quite literally, by the logic already posed by the question, any answer is already out of the question. The reason for this is that it acts similar to the kid who will indefinitely ask “why”. As everything encompasses, just that, “everything”, you would have to go beyond everything to obtain an answer and this is patently impossible. At the same time, there is more than one way to interpret this ‘question’. The first interpretation supposes everything always existed, and there was no movement from a state of nonexistence to existence. The second supposes that there was some sort of movement from nonexistence to existence. The following argument will be given assuming the latter interpretation. The first interpretation will be addressed in the section labeled "clarifications". I bring this metaphysical question (interrogative) up because it has some utility when transposed into a more specific articulation (though I’d like to point out that the specificity of the novel articulation doesn’t ruin its inimitable generality; the would-be-answer would be the same to both the specific and generalized form). The specifying transposition brings the question of why there is everything rather than nothing to, why do I exist rather than not exist? That these two metaphysical questions are essentially the same should be more or less understandable, but should someone object, I’d like to remind everyone of our two points in the preamble. Specifically, the first point shows that because they already encompass the whole range of metaphysics, these two questions are essentially the same: to answer one is to answer the other. They both fall into the a special category of questions, namely, metaphysical questions as they both are really just interrogative statements and preclude any possible aswer. Finally, that their reason for unaswerability is identical; the scope of both questions encompasses everything which leads to infinite regress. Why Do I Exist Rather Than Not? At this point, I’d like for our readers to consider five points of fact from my frame of reference: 1. I exist as a conscious and experiencing being. 2. There was a time when other conscious, experiencing beings ostensibly existed, but I cannot recall any consciousness or experience at that time. 3. There was a time when other conscious, experiecing beings ostensibly existed that precedes any and all recollections I have. 4. You must be a conscious, experiencing being to form something recollectable. 5. There was probably a time when I was not a conscious experiencing being, videlicet, the time that precedes all my recollections. It should also catch our notice that these facts can be taken as a syllogism. The reason I add “conscious and experiencing” is to distinguish states of existence. Perhaps I existed, beforehand, as some dispersed probability, disembodied but present. However, this distinction is made only in order that we might keep it in line with our original question, that is to say, that this hypothetical, objective probability state would share its origin with everything; that it doesn't 'escape' the question. (Why Everything Instead of Nothing? ) What these points of fact illustrate is that there was a time that I did not have the same kind of existence that I do now. Rather, when speaking in terms of consciousness, there was a time that I did not exist. More importantly though, was that this state of nonexistence ultimately led to my current state of existence. Here I want to make a quick clarification: I am not ascribing a causal status to my nonexistent state. Instead, it should be considered a known prerequisite of sorts. In short: Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms. The terms (with respect to consciousness and experience) 1. There was an interval in which I did not exist. 2. The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence. Asymptotic Causality Here we move to the usefulness I spoke of regarding the metaphysical question “why do I exist rather than not? ”. As I already demonstrated, this is, indeed just a transposition of the more general metaphysical question “Why is there everything rather than nothing? ”. Additionally, I’ve shown that this is a special kind of question in that it cannot be answered. Therefore, the causal link between a state of nonexistence to existence, in light of this question, is infinitely distanced from us. The causal link between nonexistence and existence is a veritable asymptote. If there is no answer to the metaphysical question, then, it follows, necessarily, that an answer cannot be found. So, the search for any answer, especially in terms of cause and effect, is a thankless task. Furthermore, as long as a definite answer isn’t found, what can be said, whatsoever, about the metaphysical question will be given as a possibility. It isn’t a long haul now to get to our resolution. Death is the ostensible end of my present state of existence, that is to say, I will no longer be a conscious experiencing being. In other words, at death, there is reason to believe there will be an interval in which I do not exist. With that, I will satisfy the first term of my present state of affairs which gives me reason to believe that it is possible that an interval of consciousness and experience will follow. Thus, there is reason to believe experience after death is possible. Clarifications That “Why is there everything rather than nothing? ” is not a question: The very notion of question presupposes the notion of answer and, as such, one component cannot be absent. Phraseology doesn’t establish functionality. Any possible solution to this interrogative is already a problem for it and would just as soon fall into question, ad infinitum. That the first interpretation poses no problem for the possibility of experience after death: Should existence be preponderant to nonexistence is already evidence that existence is a more likely state than nonexistence which is reason to believe that experience is possible, if not probable, after death. Furthermore, even if this was the case, the foregoing argument could still be made as the preponderance of existence doesn’t present any overt conflicts with it. Works CitedHeidegger, Martin, and David Farrell. Krell. Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008. Print.