Death

**Death** is the cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include aging, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. In most cases, bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.

Death – particularly the death of humans – has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the presumption that it is a loss of something valuable, and from the perspective of others, the affection for the being that has died and the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased. Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade. Many cultures and religions have the idea of an afterlife, and also hold the idea of reward or judgement and punishment for past sin.

Death is an unavoidable staple of life, being the other side of its coin. Life is a state things can be in, and so being able to begin, it also has the ability to end. Essentially all life has a natural lifespan, though even if one did not age per say, death would still be seen as an inevitability over time unless some means were to avoid it. As such, it is a major topic of interest for philosophy, asking whether it is a harm, how much, whether it is possible for things past your death to count as harms to you, and of course the question of meaning, living in a world where you know you will have to face your inevitable death. Questions of death then focus on both when it can be said to occur, as well as what the ramifications of its occurrence can be said to be.

Death is of course also a topic in megaten games that is often addressed. Most notably, persona 3's main topic is death, and reactions to or approaches to it. But many of the games focus on it a bit in general. While an aspect of the topic of death is also the question of whether some or any of your identity can be preserved past death as well, and while this is a topic addressed in the megaten games, those topics are instead on the philosophy of mind page, with this page being mainly focused on just the topic of death itself.

## Philosophy of death

### Death and being

Part of the difficulty of defining death comes from the difficulty of defining life. While the biological deaths of biological organisms are easy to note, if there existed an AI that could be stopped and started, functioning as if it still continued, this makes it more difficult to understand. Likewise, it has been noted that defining death as the loss of life leaves ambiguity, because a case similar to this can already exist for biological organisms, such as when they are frozen and later thawed. While the technology for this is not yet great, it will raise the question eventually of whether people who are frozen should be counted as "dead" during this time, and if a frozen body were to be destroyed whether it would be meaningful to count the time of death from that time when there was no biological functions since long before then.

While the idea of death seems like it might be something irreversible, not only the AI example, but other examples can call that into question as regards biological beings. For instance, if there were nanomachines or some other form of process that could restore life to a specific dead body. Does it make sense to think of death as irreversible still in such a case? Given the possibilities of restoration and revivification, some say that it seems
best to refine the loss of life account, as follows:

*Dying* is the loss of a thing’s life—the loss of
its capacity to perpetuate itself using vital processes. A thing dies
at the time it loses this capacity. It is *dead* at all times
afterwards, except while that capacity is regained.

Death is constituted by the loss of our capacity to
sustain ourselves using vital processes. This characterization of
death could be sharpened if we had a clearer idea of what we
*are*, and the conditions under which we persist. However, the
latter is a matter of controversy. While biological death may be something easy to determine, the philosophical approach focuses on the identity of an individual. Asking when that individual arrives at death.

There are three main umbrellas of: **animalism**, which says that we are
human beings; **personism**,
which says that we are creatures with the capacity for self-awareness;
and **mindism**, which says that we are minds. Animalism
suggests that we persist over time just in case we remain the same
animal; mindism suggests that we persist just when we remain the same
mind. Personism is usually paired with the view that our persistence
is determined by our psychological features and the relations among
them. Some of these views can lead to ambiguity. For instance, if a biological organism survives, but its mental content is totally deleted and replaced with something new, does it make sense to consider it the same entity, or did the old person die and get replaced. Or is the answer some kind of combination, with fuzzy borders? Is it possible for your mind to survive in a different body, or would it still count as you surviving if it did? Megaten has its own approach to this topic, which will be described down below.

These topics have various applications, such as determining whether braindead bodies can still be counted as the person they are associated being alive, or in what sense this is the case. But they also overlap into other topics.

### Death and sleep

A common saying among some jewish rabbis is that sleep is a sixtieth of death. Meaning that as far as the ramifications of what death are are concerned, sleep is considered continuous with it. It might seem like sleep is not directly related, but there are reasons to think it should be considered together. For instance, if we are talking about the death of the mind, then when bodies are in dreamless sleep it is s true fact that the mind in that sense does not properly exist. As something that emanated from workings of the brain, your active conscious only really exists at certain times, and so if it stops it raises questions of how to approach its existence. If it can stop and continue in specific bodies, can it do so between different bodies? If you are your mind, what does it mean to kill your body when your mind is not active? Are you your body? Or if it makes sense to say you are your mind, does it still make sense to say that the body is something you emanate from.

Note that questions of the body mind distinction do not only apply in worldviews that presuppose a distinct spiritual soul. Because even in naturalist metaphysics, the distinct properties of body and mind, even if they supervene on eachother are different things to place value in.

### Death and harm

An important question of the philosophy of death is whether it is a harm to those involved. Epicurus says that where you are death is not and where death is you are not, and so it cannot be said to constitute a harm to you. And so views death as not being a harm. Most do however consider it a harm. Something called **the harm thesis**. The questions that come up are not just whether it is a harm, but for what reason. Is it death itself that is a harm, or is it the absence of life, reducing your value to zero. If death was no harm at all, it would be difficult to imply why killing is wrong when it does no harm to those involved.

An important question is if death is a harm whether it is always a harm, or only at some times. Is there an ideal lifespan for beings to have? Would immortality be the ultimate good, or an evil? Or would it actually be little different from mortality. If a being were to live for eternity, would the changes they undergo over time be effectively the same as new generations existing anyways?

If death is not always a harm, one has to ask when it is not. there is a concept called a **life worth living**, which talks about what life is good to continue to exist. If life were to contain enough suffering to not be worth continuing, or for some other reason be deemed as no longer such, it is said that it would not be worth living. The question about mortality versus immortality is whether at some point a life would no longer be worth living. Or whether it could even meaningfully be considered the life of the same being over time.

### Death and meaning

This ties to another important aspect. Whether it is possible to have meaning in a world where death exists. Some worry that the existence of death ultimately makes their actions meaningless. Because at some point their life will be reduced to zero. An important question comes from whether this double sided coin has value regardless of its end. Or what types of things give it value. Would life have value even if it were limited? Or is the problem in how we view life in general? Since new generations are new lives and new bearers of value of the world, even though the form changes.

Note that while there are reasons to talk about the continuation of value, it is generally presumed in philosophy that even if it were limited it would still have value. Simply for the same reasons that anything else that has limited value still has it. There is no reason to restrict the options to infinite value or zero, so even if a limit were to exist, that value would still exist. And in the terms of countless cycles of reality and preservation, there is reason to think value continues past death regardless, even in terms of relations to yourself. While your specific form might be lost, value can still ebb and flow.

Note the eternalist suppositions of the idea that death could make life meaningless. Namely that that implies that your death would harm you before it even occurs, changing the connotations of past events. Something that is considered highly sketchy.

### Death and continuity

A major question about death is whether past our death we in some sense continue to exist. Or whether something sufficiently related to us does that continues being valuable to us. **Thick survival** refers to survival in which we preserve our identity. Past death, the idea that we could have thick survival tends to be associated with religious views. **Thin survival** refers to the idea that while our identity is lost, things sufficiently continuous with us exist, that still count as related to us. This form of survival post death is compatible with naturalist views, and is a bit harder to define. It has to do with the constructed nature of the individual, and how the essence of any individual thing from the world still continues past the loss of the form.

An issue related to either of these of course is how to view the harm of death in light of them. If death was followed by thick survival, very little would even meaningfully be lost from it. Thin survival, while it can still imply continuity has an easier time explaining death as a harm, since while some abstract continuity still exists, much is still lost, such as your memories and distinct being. Megaten likewise addresses some of this exact question.

Another aspect to consider is whether thick survival even persists over the lifespan of an individual that is still in one body. For instance, the mind of an infant and that of an adult are certainly not the same mind. So identity is totally shifting over this time, even if there is a strong line of continuity. If thick survival does not even exist moment to moment, the idea of death as a tragedy is almost lessened, since it can become a matter of degree more than of nature. This being a big focus in the works of parfit.

Parfit also talks about thin survival at times when the distinction is less. If your brain was split into halves and both survived, neither would be identical to your old self, and so it is death in a sense, yet one that is not necessarily infinitely removed from survival, since much of your identity was preserved, even if not as a single thing. So the concept of these more abstract concepts of death is also relevant.

Interestingly, later zen buddhism noticed this as well. They noted how in a sense people die and are reborn even moment to moment. And so the different archetypes of godly beings and demons they believe in can also represent the mind-states of people at different times. When you wake up angry you are in a very real sense a different person than when you wake up calm. Even if not by as large a degree as larger shifts. This is not meant merely as metaphor, but a literal metaphysical statement about how full identity is not preserved over time. Your death and birth across time are merely a microcosm of the flow of identity in the world at large to them.

## Mainline

In terms of megaten, it is important to understand its metaphysics of death and identity to understand its concepts of death. First, the identity of beings seems to be based on their form and mind. But to likewise also be based on their essence. So it is a mixed view that does not hold to only a single aspect, but saying that identity comes from what we might consider multiple sources.

First note that at times fusion is referred to as death. Demons imply that it is dying in a sense, and especially for humans, who are not used to it. This is because their distinct form is lost. At the same time though, demons don't tend to treat it as a huge loss. And the resultant fusion is also implied to bear continuity from them. The result is also able to constitute summoning of a distinct being by taking their form. But note also that the identity of essence is considered relevant too. Which is why impersonal souls are seen as things able to reincarnate and the new being being related to the old. So it considers identity related to multiple of the umbrellas.

Likewise, note how it is addressing the concepts of death that are less extreme than normal. Demons that are fused lose identity, yet often do not mind since the result is continuous with them, and can be an equivalent gain. This ties heavily to the concept of thin survival. Identity is preserved in different degrees at times, and it is not always easy to follow.

Thin survival is also relevant in iva. Krishna talks about how him and asahi have different definitions of death. She focuses on death of the body, whereas he focuses on continuity of the soul. This is important for framing the metaphysics of death they use into context. Unlike fusion, total death of the body is a much bigger loss. But at the same time, not an absolute one. The game points out that your specific life is specifically valuable to you. Something that you don't want to lose, even knowing that your essence will to some degree live on. This allows death to be seen as a major loss, one to definitely avoid if possible, yet not an absolute one. Your current identity is for your current self, and these future lives while they may be you in a sense are not in another. This is even highlighted with how the different endings both show more or less relation to your former incarnation as akira. Yet in neither case are you totally identical.

Note how different incarnations for some beings can preserve more identity. Demons who are restored to the same form as an earlier incarnation function like a series-person, who does not consider their death as big a deal. But beings who are less able to be restored to a specific form have more to lose on death however. For instance, lucifer is a well known demon archetype. And so for as long as that archetype is supported by human thoughts, it is easier for a later incarnation to obtain a similar form. But if human thoughts shifted, it would effect the later incarnation, changing the connotations of one's death. For instance, note in strange journey how you have the option to restore a yhvh to being a complete being, but they talk about how the new restored version is not identical to the old, but has been cleaned of some of the corruption involved.

The question of a life worth living comes into play with the white. They believe that as a whole the lives within their world are not worth living. And so they believe that death for all beings would actually be preferable, and an active good. Obviously, the ideal outcome for any side being depicted as rejecting this logic. There is even a side mission showing walter and johnathan agreeing that a demon who preaches salvation in death is taking the wrong approach. Showing it as a universal understanding. Shinado from raidou 2 is similar to the white, thinking destruction as a solution to keep mankind from the suffering of reality. Depicted as giving in to despair.

Interestingly, SMTIV describes the afterlife as where the dead go to endure nothingness before their next incarnation. Which implies that between lives nothing much is experienced by them. But that their essence is ultimately recycled. There is ambiguity here however, since returning to nature is not implied to be nothingness per say. Leaving ambiguity about what is meant for this case.

Mainline also brings up the question of how to morally assess death in light of people's ability to be brought back. For instance, in nocturne the world ends, but one option is to reset it to before that state. But the question that comes up is how to morally approach such an issue. If you do, is it like they never died? Is it better or worse in terms of death than making the world in any other state? If resetting it would make it like they didn't die, are you accountable for the death if you do something different? Or from that point is there no moral distinction?

## Persona 3

By far the most developed theme of death in megaten comes into play in persona 3 though, however, with the main theme and phrase of the game being given as memento mori. Which is the call to remember death. Various persona games have different themes, with death, and the human reaction to it being the theme of p3. In p3, nyx represents death itself, with death even being a term used for a herald of it in game. In game, it is presented as a being that at some point will cause the fall, also known as the end, which is the end of the world. In-game this represents not just the death of the individual, but the inevitable fact that every being will ultimately die. Various characters in-game represent different reactions to the reality of death.

Nyx is described as the source behind the archetypes that give rise to personas in-game. This ties to an idea called **terror management theory.** Terror management theory proposes a basic psychological conflict that results from having a self preservation instinct, whilst realizing that death is inevitable and to some extent unpredictable. This conflict produces terror, and the terror is then managed by
embracing cultural values, or symbolic systems that act to provide life
with enduring meaning and value.

The simplest examples of cultural values that manage the terror of death
 are those that purport to offer literal immortality. One example of this is of course, religion, which ties how the game describes nyx as the source of the development of these archetypes. However, TMT also argues that other cultural values – including those
that are seemingly unrelated to death – offer symbolic immortality. For
example, value of national identity, posterity, cultural perspectives on sex, and human superiority over animals
 have all been linked to death concerns in some manner. In many cases
these values are thought to offer symbolic immortality either a) by
providing the sense that one is part of something greater that will
ultimately outlive the individual (e.g. country, lineage, species), or
b) by making one's symbolic identity superior to biological nature.

Note that tmt is a psychological theory, rather than a statement about value. None of the above is meant to imply that life lacks meaning, and so that these are fundamentally incorrect drives. Rather, it is simply the focus on that people have this tension within them, and so it is one of the drives that causes them to want to work for something larger. In the end, value theorists consider value to be real, and so this focus to be well placed.

Early in game, the main characters are of course not aware of any of the reality about nyx. Which is of course a depiction of the unreflective perspective as regards death. That of simply not taking it into consideration, or thinking about what it means for one's life. Strega, one of the groups of antagonists in the game, represent one way to react to the reality of death. Strega, seeing life as ephemereal chooses to keep themself from having any attachment to it. Since it can be lost, they want to prepare themselves for that reality, by being ready to die at any moment, seeing no loss in doing so. This does not mean they rush to commit suicide however, merely (at first) that they seek to have no attachments. Almost like an inverted dark interpretation of buddhism. Later in the game however, strega becomes aware of nyx, actively seeking to prevent anyone from preventing the end. This showing a suicidal mentality that cam come from a lack of attachment to life.

An interesting thing happens however, due to one of the members' of strega's interactions with the heores. Chidori, one of them ends up growing an attachment to Junpei. This creates in her a fear of death. But this fear of death is presented by the game as a good thing. She finally finds something that she actually fears to lose. And so it shows this attachment in a positive light, even in the face of the larger reality. This theme leads into the larger questions of life and death. The game depicts it in a sense, like the yin and yang of reality. While death has to be accepted as an aspect of life, that does not mean you have to ignore its reality as a negative. Simply accept that negatives and positives are inherently tied together. Which is a very eastern and taoist focused approach.

Later in the game, the heroes are offered a choice. They are aware of the existence of nyx, but are offered the chance to forget this, so that they can spend their remaining time in happiness. This of course focuses on a different approach to death. The wilful refusal to think about it or consider its ramifications. Notably, they are told that even if they do not do this, they have no chance of defeating nyx. So they can live in ignorance in happiness, or struggle in vain in misery. The struggle being against something you cannot defeat, as a parallel for death, which you cannot escape.

They choose not to live in ignorance, and to face death head on. Which is the depiction of the view of focusing on death in reality. But the conclusion goes a step beyond this. The main character is depicted as finding the answer to life, and as having a realization. They sacrifice themself to protect the world, not because they don't value their own life, but because they realize that the value that exists in their life actually exists in all life. And so its loss here is not a statement of its lack of value, but of the value of life in general as something worth protecting. The game depicts themself as the archetype of the messiah, which is the one who dies for the sake of others.

Note that in-game his sacrifice only seals nyx, rather than destroys it. This has the important thematic point of the fact that death is ultimately something you can never truly defeat. Not in the sense of erasing it from existence that is. However, it is something you can overcome. Which is an important distinction. Its unavoidable reality does not mean an unavoidable block on your ability to find meaning. The ultimate depiction of the interrelation between life and death here is of course an optimistic one. It makes the point that while death is an unavoidable negative tied to life, that life has value in spite of this, and one can rise to meet the reality of death, overcoming its hold on one's ability to find value in life.