Philosophical Rant

Here is my philosophical rant of the day! Take note that this argument was based on a small window of thought, and that their are most likely (and almost certainly) many holes to my logic. However, I wanted to leave it as open as I can to provoke a good argument! Here we go:

In life, inductive reasoning is only useful until proven false, making inductive reasoning always just a “good guess” except in the case of predicting what the afterlife will be. You cannot use deductive logic to achieve a pure answer as to what will happen when you die, from a self perspective, because you will be dead, and therefore not be able to apply any of your deductions to your life anymore, or for that matter possibly apply any knowledge anymore. Therefore, in life, you can only use induction to formulate what the afterlife might be.

Consider this idea: You cannot alter the past; you can only alter the present. The fact that we accept that time moves forward warrants us to do things in our present, because we know they will affect our future. When we are born, we do not understand this, and we are living purely in the moment, with no thoughts of the future (At least for the first few moments.) However, as we age, we inductively come to the conclusion that time will continue to move forward, and our death is imminent, yet, it is a fact based on induction. As our minds order and generalize experiences, time moves faster, and we are able to concern ourselves with the future more, and we still rely on the fact that time will always move forward.

By accepting in your mind that time will always move forward, you are using a very inductive path of reasoning to get to that conclusion. In all actuality, time could restart at a certain point, run in reverse, or just be playing back certain portions at random intervals for all we truly know. Therefore, if we look at the afterlife in the sense of “will I ever experience anything ever again after death?” telling those people, no you will not, would be through an inductive reasoning path as well. Science cannot prove that the afterlife doesn’t exist because even the laws of science were formulated at one point through induction, as at one point, we had no means to deduce any reasoning, and had to formulate them on our own. Therefore, couldn’t we say that induction is the only means of logic, because to use true deduction we would have to assume we know more than we don’t, which is constantly proven false.



  1. I am not a good at philosophy, but some short thoughts come in my mind:
    – It is not the pleasures of life that compel us to live longer, it is the fear of death.
    – We do not cry when somebody dear to us die, we cry because it is very clear that in the future we will be in the same situation, a corpse.
    Is it inductive reasoning?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s