Hamad Waheed

UWRT 1102-064
Suzanne Thomas
4-11-15

How do people in different time periods react to death?

In a society where uniqueness is not uncommon we all share one remarkable

similarity, the gift of life. However, we are all well aware that with the gift of life,
comes the confrontation of death. Death is essentially a phenomenon of timeless
curiosity. Although, the real question isnt why do people die? rather how do
people react to death? Moreover, how do people in different time periods react to
death?
Before we begin, the inquiry of death is within itself correlated with death
because it reflects human nature. Human beings are the only animals that ponder
death. Charles Tilly, a doctor of sociology and psychology says We might even
define human beings as reason-giving animals. While, by some definitions, other
primates employ language, tools, and even culture, only humans start offering and
demanding reasons while young, then continue through life looking for reasons why.

According to Tilly, this characteristic sets apart the humans from the animals .
Intelligent animals exist, but only human beings are intrigued with variables other
than that of immediate needs. Another characteristic only humans have is practical
knowledge. Tilly also states that In everyday life, we all deploy practical knowledge.
We draw practical knowledge not only from individual experience but also from the
social settings in which we live. Practical knowledge ranges from logics of
appropriateness (formulas) to credible explanations (cause-effect accounts)(21).

It is safe to assume that everyone will eventually die , no matter what race,
gender, occupation, etc. The significance lies in the fact that all major cultures and
religions interpret death in their own way and have some sort of ritual regarding it .
That being said, we have an endless amount of people associated with these groups
that can serve as a basis for primary research. We must still keep in mind that there is
no definite common outlook in terms of passing , and that is not necessarily a bad
thing. The diverse ideology in our world is the essence of humanity.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum describes the Holocaust as
a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million
Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Needless to say, a worldwide reaction
would be imminent? Right? Wrong. When word first got around, the majority of the

population refused to believe it, and I applaud them. Why might you ask? Its not
because of an undeniable acceptance of a large-scale bystander effect , I can assure
you. Rather, the denial affirms the peoples doubt that a fellow human could do such a
thing. And what would people do when they realize the actuality of the situation?
They wonder what significance the reaction to this event would hold .
Death has been done and dealt with in a number of ways over the years . The
way people die changes how the person reacts to it. A gruesome death would cause
more of a commotion than a regular death. Perception is key in understanding the
influence that a casualty creates. In centuries past the life expectancy was far lower
than that of current day, therefore people were more used to each other dying from
disease, famine, disaster, or murder. In todays society there have been so many
forms of modern medicine and law put in place to keep death restricted to old age but
when someone dies young it is news. Today when disease breaks the barrier of
modern medicine it both concerns and intrigues people because they wonder how
their society, held so high, was brought down by a simple deadly cause.
As time progresses people become more confident in their advances and with that
people become more frustrated with death, which breaks this progress or creates
another obstacle. When mass murder or even murder of an individual occurs , people
ask each other how someone could bring themselves to kill with such strict laws

against it in place. With disease or disaster taking lives , people naturally prepare
themselves with cures and precautions. In Centuries past, these occurrences were
merely a fact of life, accepted by people without rhyme or reason thanks to religion .
And although modern advances in science and technology deem religion illogical , it
still holds significance, especially when a reaction to death is anticipated.
Heider Fritz was an eighteenth century philosopher who obtained his PhD at
the young age of twenty-four. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations is just one
of his multiple publications. In his piece, he proposes a theory regarding human
relations, stating that These intuitively understood and "obvious" human relations
can, as we shall see, be just as challenging and psychologically significant as the
deeper and stranger phenomena (1). This description indicates the significance of
mundane relationships. Furthermore posing the question, to what degree does this
shape us? Heiders principle suggests a conceptual point of view . The behavioral
aspect of his ideology highly resembles that of philosopher B.F. Skinner.
In Skinners book Science and human behavior he states, We want to know
why men behave as they do. Any condition or event, which can be shown to have an
effect upon behavior, must be taken into account. By discovering and analyzing these
causes we can predict behavior; to the extent that we can manipulate them , we can
control behavior. Its interesting to see how skinner correlates a vast measure of

external variables to something as profound as the manipulation of human behavior .

In any other context this proposition would sound illogical , but given Skinners
magnitude of authority one can only speculate. Although as we look into the past, I
am sure that we can find an example that pertains to skinners ideology , even before
he fabricated it. The death of a past king or of a religious figure could be a
prospective case, and a questionable one at that.

Before we dive deeper into the topic lets take a step back from Skinners
intuition. Hypothetically speaking, ones intention to kill in order to provoke a
reaction is obviously premeditated; therefore it must have been a construct of human
conscience, more commonly known as an idea. In one of Lockes essays, he
illustrates the concept of an idea. His statement that Everyone is conscious to
himself that he thinks; and when thinking is going on , the mind is engaged with ideas
that it contains exclusively demonstrates the foundation of his philosophy . Locke,
much like Skinner, represents an influential component to present-day thinking . That
being said, Lockes conclusion is mystifying to the philosophical mind in the sense
that it is a paradox. Comparatively, the aforementioned remark only elaborates
Lockes ideology, considering that it is a conception existing in conscious . So if what
both Skinner and Locke are saying is true, then when we speak of the killer of death
in this hypothetical situation, wouldnt the paradoxical attribute of his idea conclude

to nothing other than divine intervention? This just shows everything is a matter of
perspective. These profound ideologies are widely accepted, yet they are unique in
their own way. Even the end product of connecting these philosophies is
controversial, and it only proposes more questions.

Over the years there have been claims that individuals have experienced death
and have came back to life. Now Im not saying that what these people are saying is
true. But only after looking at modern societies unquestionably initial source of
information, also known as YouTube, do we realize that these allegations are as close
as we can get to an answer. The fact of the matter is, we cannot equate the entity of
death with anything in the world.

Another perspective we can take a look at is that of Robert Lepp , a mid 1900s
philosopher and psychiatrist. In his book Death and Its Mysteries he states,
Everyone agrees that death can have meaning only on condition that life does ,
(134). Keep in mind that Lepp is also a Roman Catholic Priest, and while it is
unclear who the target audience is, the religious opposition in such a time period
deems his work prejudiced. Nevertheless, it doesnt hurt to at least give his
philosophy a second thought. Not only does the statement question the implications
concerning purpose in the prevalent life-death correlation , it also exemplifies Lepps

ability to set forth an interpretive connotation . Thus, if anyone was to argue, the fact
remains. According to Lepps philosophy, people who have had a societal impact
have purposeful deaths. If that is the case, then Will Smith and Oprah are in the clear.
While the inquiry of how people in different time periods react to death
remains unanswered, humans in the past have still attempted to communicate with
future generations via monuments. The message that these monuments carry is open
to interpretation, but the significance of the communication still exists . That is also
the case with us today, and while there are concerns regarding our success with this
endeavor, a future societal impact is still a possibility . Lepp would be proud.
Additionally, Gregory Benford, author of Deep Time, proposed ideas concerning the
communication of mankind in distant time periods. In his publication Benford states
intellectuals think in terms of ideas. Most people do not, (59). This is just one of
the present day variables preventing communication . Benford also indicates that
language changes over time and even if we can invent a method of communication
unaffected by these variables, it would be useless considering that future generations
might perceive our time period as an outlier in the linear advancement of mankind .
Although this theory is plausible, it infers that mankind will eventually overcome its
negligence and economic view. If that were the case then would our current
interpretation of death be of value?

In conclusion, given the facts of history, people have opened their eyes to
the real affect death has and how precious life is. People began desensitized to death
but have grown more aware and have acquired strong emotion when death becomes
normal in life. People will continue to be shocked by death as time goes on and
medicine and law will continue to progress. Death is merely a fact of life, and the
significance of death is highly correlated, if not unified, with the significance of life.