Talk:Eternal oblivion

Dictionary Definition vs the article here

I've looked it up in several dictionaries and none of them have ever said what is stated here. Yet, when the word oblivion is used it does seem to mean in the way the article describe, in the context it is used. I once heard a quote that said "What is the true death?" "The true death is non-existence" "Sounds like oblivion, why would anyone want that?" or this quote "I would choose oblivion to his existence" But, no dictionary has ever defined it as a state of unconscious non-existence, they describe it as "being forgotten" what does being forgotten have to do with being unconscious and non-existent? I don't think those two quotes are talking about someone/something being forgotten at all. The snare (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Eternal oblivion literally means: lack-of-awareness forever. The term is used in philosophy and theories of body/mind. There are other terms used which are virtually interchangable like "permanent non-existence" or "eternal nothingness" etc. Shabidoo | Talk 09:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We/you could make a new word/facet of philosophy to disambiguate this theory.

IE: Obliviationism or Oblivianism. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

eternal oblivion and soul sleep are interchangeably. Happypengirl (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Philosophically Impossible

The article claims that some people find afterlife philosophically impossible, but it fails the acknowledge that equally there are people who believe that oblivion is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.11 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One needs search no further than G. K. Chesterton.

Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' ...

My notes tell me this comes from The Everlasting Man. My notes also remark on how Chesterton is so readily willing to presume agency before material existence. I can almost see the logic of his position if you get agency for free. — MaxEnt 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oblivion before birth

Just as a Turing machine can have a single-ended infinite tape, or a double-infinite tape (with no end in either direction), one must also consider the Cantoresque topology of oblivion. If oblivion after death is believed to be impossible (by some) does that necessarily mean that such a person also believes that oblivion before birth is impossible? If not, what amazing property of time differentiates the two cases? (Physicists are having a great deal of trouble putting the proper arrow into time.) I think it would be useful to find a citable source to incorporate these issues into this article. It strikes me as odd how people speculate a great deal more about just one end of the tape. — MaxEnt 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suppose their flawed argument would be that whatever force brought them into the world would have had the seeds or sparks of their soul waiting in storage before they were born and so their pre-existence wasn't oblivion and that for those who believe in no beginning...that their pre-existence was also eternal. I don't remember every reading any arguments like this but it would be great to find one. Do you have access to online journals? I might be able to get you 24 hour access. Shabidoo | Talk 00:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Is an separate article on this subject even necessary? there is basically nothing to write about, which is reflected in the fact that there are no good sources from which someone could write a decent wikipedia entry. The afterlife article is different in that there is obviously a lot to write about - about the various afterlife conceptions for example, and a lot of sources for that.

So i propose that this article be deleted. At best it deserves a mention as a subsection on the afterlife page. - Ironrage (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This article certainly does not need deleting. But you are right, we could definitely improve the article and find better references. There have been some articles written on it recently in philosophy journals and this has been treated in some prominent books by philosophers in the last year or so. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

After some searching on the internet, i think i found something. In philosophy the view of "eternal oblivion" actually seems to be called the the termination thesis. There are also books on death that mention it. - Ironrage (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I have these articles and I'm trying to find the title of a book by and most notably a recent book by Samuel Schleffer called Death and the Afterlife. I'll certainly add some material from his book and some snippets from the articles.Shabidoo | Talk 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"and I'm trying to find the title of a book by eISBN: 978-0-7735-9488-3"

If you google that number you get this.

Also, if the actual name for this view of "eternal oblivion" is the 'termination thesis', shouldn't the article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fieldman is one of the very few authors who discusses it using that term and he actually argues against it (with some rather silly arguments) claiming for example that as long as the body remains mostly intact we can still consider it, in a sense, as "somewhat a person" or "somewhat an animal". Oblivion is the term widely used by humanist organizations and philosophers. Shabidoo | Talk 21:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"The termination thesis" isn't the same thing as the idea that death is eternal oblivion because you can reject the termination thesis and still think that death is eternal oblivion: "On this view (rejecting the TT), if you and I are animals (as animalists say) then we could survive for a time after we are dead, albeit as corpses. In fact, we could survive indefinitely, by arranging to have our corpses preserved." Obviously you can think that death is eternal oblivion whether our corpses are immediately vaporized by an A-bomb or preserved like Lenin's! Eternal oblivion is usually called annihilation, personal extinction, or pure mortalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:2:114C:D1E6:A336:95B5:4613 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"In philosophy" section

Modern scholars' reading of classical sources is badly needed in this section. In its current status, the text is just a user's interpretation of these authors, in violation of WP:NOR.--Darius (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Biblical support for oblivion after death

There is biblical support for unconsciousness after death (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,11) and (Psalms146:3,4) unlike the support for afterlife which has no scriptural support. We as Jehovah's Witness,support the belief of unconsciousness after death but death is not necessarily end as the Bible promises resurrection.

• Here is one scripture: (Ecclesiastes 9;5,6)

5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.

6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going.

• Psalm 146:4

4 His spirit* goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.

I will try to to edit this article because nonreligious people are not the only ones who believe it we as Jehovah's Witness believe to because there is scripture support for it contrary to what (many religions teach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy10038 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If a notable scholar considered reliable has discussed oblivion and religion, an "in religion" section may be appropriate. It's important for the material to be sourced to reliable, ideally secondary, sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The afterlife is mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament and is frequently mentioned in the new testament. I read the passages you included here. These two passages could probably fairly be interpreted if one wanted to as a statement of eternal oblivion but I have no doubt most religious people take these statements as an explanation of what happens to the corporeal after death, while the essence or soul lives on in a different way, or whatever argument they might make trying to explain it. On the other hand you can find numerous passages in both testaments that clearly and unambiguously talk about an afterlife. The only religion I know that vaguely hints at maybe no afterlife is Taoism, but the supporting scripture is as shaky as the passages you've copied here and they would have to be interpreted in a very cold, rational, secular way which is hardly the norm. As general knowledge, abrahamic religions and eternal oblivion are completely incompatible but if there is some notable sect that does believe in it that would be extremely interesting. As Neonate said, we would need a proper source to include this if you wouldn't mind linking it. Shabidoo | Talk 21:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventists believe much the same way. The dead know not anything. They believe in a resurrection and that a select number will then be taken to heaven, but those who are not allowed into heaven will then die a permanent death, an eternal oblivion. They do not believe in an eternal hell.

ThreeRocks (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Do they believe as the Jehoviah’s witnesses that the dead will be resurrected on a perfect earth. Bjoh249 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Eteranl oblivion after death is not the end of a non physical souls or spirits or eternal oblivion after death as souls sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypengirl (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge?

This article seems to have a lot of content and conceptual overlap with Consciousness after death. Should the two be merged? Editor2020 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not for this. They are opposites. Shabidoo | Talk 23:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a very profound theory and is a huge point of contention for all of humanity, it definitely deserves its own page. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Pity that the Consciousness after death link was merged with Afterlife, because now Afterlife just lists Near-death experiences under the Science section, completely ignoring the strongest scientific evidence against an afterlife or for eternal oblivion: https://web.archive.org/web/20240114055936/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death#Neuroscience

Should that evidence be restored to the Afterlife page or this Eternal oblivion page? ~2026-31687-15 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

“Eternal oblivion” imaginary depiction is wrong

Granted, the picture does say “could”, however, this is an insert of the self into nothingness, which, as the article states, nothingness and a person will never intersect. It would be no better of a depiction of being deceased than a picture of Saint Peter. I propose that a more befitting depiction would be to remove the image entirely, leaving a blank Wikipedia (admittedly still white) page in its stead or, in a method depicting more clarification, a small sentence or text clarifying that the imagining of death is to imagine the concept of not imagining. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If no one provides a counterargument soon, we'll go ahead and remove the image. Zoozoor (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The article title is easily misunderstood

It looks like several editors misunderstood the page title. There's nothing "eternal" about the end of conciousness. If you're using words like "eternal", you're not thinking about death as it's understood based on current scientific knowledge. The first source in the article argues against ideas like those inherent in the term "eternal oblivion". Maybe Socrates and Plato believed in something like that, but most modern scientists and philosophers who were mentioned in the lead almost certainly don't. I rewrote the lead in an attempt to clear this up. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted all those things because that version of the article wasn't very good.

For example compare the opening paragraph of the article before your changes to the opening sentence. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Which parts of the old version were better? Please explain. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

the parts where it actually tried to explain what eternal oblivion is and didn't go "it is just an expression" without actually explaining it. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

compare "Eternal oblivion is an expression sometimes used to describe what might occur after death." to "Eternal oblivion (also referred to as non-existence or nothingness) is the philosophical, religious, or scientific concept of one's consciousness forever ceasing upon death. Pamela Heath and Jon Klimo write that this concept is mostly associated with religious skepticism, secular humanism, nihilism, agnosticism, and atheism. According to most modern neuroscience theories of consciousness, the brain is the basis of subjective experience, agency, self-awareness, and awareness of the surrounding natural world. When brain death occurs, all brain function forever ceases." and you will see that one is clearly better than the other because it actually explains what eternal oblivion is and means. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that version is better, and I explained why in #The article title is easily misunderstood. The first source we cite explicitly says that the term "eternal oblivion" is misleading. Expressions like "forever ceasing" are similarly misleading. There's either "forever" or there's "cease", but not both. I agree that we should try to explain what "eternal oblivion" is supposed to mean, but our words have to make sense. "Forever ceasing" doesn't make sense. Can you think of another expression? Maybe explain in your own words what you think "eternal oblivion" means. Or provide a source that tries to define it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The end of conciousness IS eternal and it IS forever. Because you don't exist and will continue to not exist, forever. You won't experience anything in such a situation but it will continue to happen to you, forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"it will continue to happen to you, forever" Our first source says that this is a mistaken idea:

And here, in a nutshell, is the error contained in the view: It is to reify nothingness--make it a positive condition or quality (e.g., of "blackness")--and then to place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally. It is to illicitly project the subject that died into a situation following death, a situation of no experiences, of what might be called "positive nothingness."

— Chrisahn (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

what? no i'm saying you would cease to exist, FOREVER, there would be no blackness because there be no you to experience it. You cease to even be forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You said "it will continue to happen to you, forever". What will continue to happen to a person who died? — Chrisahn (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

you will continue to not-exist. There won't be blackness for you to experience because you don't exist but you will continue to not exist, forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"continue to not exist" doesn't make sense. But maybe these questions are too subtle to resolve them here, and talk pages should not be used for personal discussions, so let's get back to more concrete issues. In November 2025, I removed the following sources:

1. The Jonathan Schell Reader: On the United States at War, the Long Crisis of the American Republic, and the Fate of the Earth. New York: Nation Books. ISBN 978-1560254072. I couldn't find evidence that it says anything about "eternal oblivion".

2. Heath, Pamela; Klimo, Jon (2010). Handbook to the Afterlife. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. p. 18. ISBN 978-1556438691. I used the "search in this book" feature of Google Books. I didn't find any occurrences of "oblivion", and "eternal" only in religious contexts.

If you want to use these sources in this article, please explain why, and supply specific quotes from the books.

— Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

this article while it uses the term "Eternal Oblivion" is moreso about people ceasing to exist after death. also just because you don't understand a particular term doesn't mean you get to completely ruin said term's article.~2026-75387-6 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

From an outside perspective (and having only reverted once), the TA here has still not described which of our policies prevents Chrisahn's edits from staying. Until the TA explains further, I have to treat this as a preference by the TA to keep their version over what seems to be an improvement from an established user. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 03:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

but it's not an improvement and i have stated why. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, an easy WP:JUST reasoning here. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relevance of Neuroscience

New Editing Editor's repeated removal of a large chunk of article-relevant text requires discussion/adjudication. I don't agree that the stated reason for the reversion justifies removing the text entirely rather than at most qualifying it. The stated reason was "The section that I deleted was arguing that 'the mind can be regarded as a set of operations carried out by the brain', which some view as not conflicting with the existence of the afterlife. This section only needs to contain how that view relates to eternal oblivion." But if your brain dies and was never restored, and its informational content was never mind-uploaded to some other carrier that would at best make a copy of your mind in any case, the set of operations carried out by the brain here called the mind has eternally ceased. The argument can be found as far back as Lucretius, directly following Epicurus, who is already cited as advocating eternal oblivion in the Wikipedia article. See Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book III. ~2026-50056-19 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

== Scientific Views: Restoring Merged Content from "Consciousness after death" ==

I would like to discuss the recent removal of the text concerning neuroscientific frameworks and brain operations. Please note that this section is not independent text I just drafted; it is content that was formally restored from the "Consciousness after death" article during its merge into this page.

The consensus of a page merge dictates that the material should be integrated into the target article, not discarded. The premise that the mind is dependent on physical brain operations--meaning the irreversible cessation of brain function results in the permanent termination of consciousness--is the literal scientific mechanism behind the concept of eternal oblivion. Leaving it out completely undermines the very purpose of the merge.

To respect the editor's note that "this section only needs to contain how that view relates to eternal oblivion," I propose keeping the meticulously sourced bullet points from the merge but adding a clear connective opening sentence to perfectly align it with the section's scope:

"Within the neuroscientific framework, because cognitive processes are viewed as a set of physical operations carried out by the brain, the irreversible physical destruction or cessation of these operations necessitates the permanent termination of the mind--the state of eternal oblivion. Multiple lines of scientific evidence support this view, for example:"

Let's work together to integrate this properly rather than deleting a large chunk of previously community-approved, merged content. ~2026-50056-19 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewEditingEditor: ~2026-50237-37 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@New editing editor: Please tell me how these concepts need to be more explicitly connected in order for you to restore the deleted material and/or refrain from deleting the section in the future, especially given that the section was already approved Wikipedia content taken verbatim from the Consciousness after death page that was merged with this one.

See the Talk page discussion on the merge for the link to an archive of the old Consciousness after death page, from which this material was taken, and placed back here after whoever did the initial merge omitted it. ~2026-50237-37 (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)