As very expressed INTJ I will say that am discussing the absolute truth.
This assumes a few things; that there is an absolute truth, that the human mind can understand and that the human has the means to uncover it.
What makes you think that a cold rational evaluation, devoid of emotion and spirituality, is anymore likely to figure out the answer to this cosmic question? As we do not know that answer, you do not know that it can be uncovered through rational thought and empirical measurement (considering empirical can't provide an explanation for more than 5% of the matter we know must exist in the universe I'd say it has a good way to come yet). It is as likely that some deep spiritual meditation may reveal the true nature of reality as some hard cold science. I do prefer the science approach, it at least often gives result people mostly agree upon.
All I'm suggesting is that your rational quest for enlightenment may be running down the wrong path and you'd be as immune to see how as the spiritual guru is of seeing your route, if you do happen to be on the true path to understanding reality.
That's the thing though, thought IS a large part of my life. Trying to just go through life mindlessly doing without reflection would be as bad as telling your husband to become an emotionless automaton! Not only is it unlikely but it's also likely to get a rather emphatic response in the plane of NO.
No one has told me to become an emotionless automation! Though I reject the implicit suggestion that I'm a mindless bundle of emotion that doesn't reflect upon his life or his choices. In the same way Xander, no one has told you to become a mindless bundle of emotions either, merely suggest that they are concerned that you sound like you're trying to be an emotionless automation.
Jennifer said:
Well, to me, it's because I find value in the experience.
I think one of my driving questions in life is "What does it mean to be human?" so that I can truly understand the big picture and live the most fulfilling life.
I never even understood why people asked that question never-mind any of the answers. What does it mean to be a dog? Well it means you're a dog... that's kind of cause and effect there. All else is individual in my opinion. The only reason for non biological correlation is cumulative chance in my eyes.
So you're answer to the question "what does it mean to be human?" is that it means you are a human? That rather stumps self actualization in it's tracks. So much for introspection, and there's your answer... it means you are a human, death should hold no fear, and thus there is no point to your life! Welcome to the Nihilistic Desert, please drive dangerously.
So back to the OP (ish)
Death, what's the problem? There is no problem it will definitely happen and while I expect that nothing may happen afterward I have no way to know that. All I do know is that everything that seems real and certain to me ends there. Whatever comes after, be it nothing at all or some form of afterlife, probably bears Little resemblance to this life. In other words, this is my only shot, the only chance I have to learn as much as I can about me and how the universe appears to me!
This means that I naturally don't want to die, because I'm not satisfied with the experiences I've had so far. These experiences, compared to the almost limitless opportunities for new ones that my mind can perceive leaves me very dissatisfied with the thought of the story end now. I've lived though; I've no regrets in that manner, but I want more. If I went now I'd be happy with what I made of the time I had but I'd desperately wish I'd got a fuller share. When people talk about having something to achieve that they haven't yet. It is the thought/feeling that there was so much more left to do, not a sense of having done everything. I'd guess I'd feel a little cheated, I expect that over time I'd still want longer to live but that feeling, of being cheated of the full human experience, would diminish.
It also means I don't want others to die (this is all the philosophical point of view, not emotional, and is general not specific). Their death removes opportunities for a unique experience for me, and for a new opportunity for me to learn about myself. This would be selfish, if there lingering would extend their pain, that is something I'd not want. But death is the ultimate end of the road, all that is left is memories, they are great and can sustain a love for someone but they don't add to our understanding of the world like new interaction would. Emotionally I hate death, I totally hate it, that hatred extends to most of the causes of death, so encompasses the pain that often comes with the process. I accept it, but accepting it doesn't mean liking it.
I think the most futile thing ever said to someone grieving is "It's OK". You know what, it isn't bloody OK, it's bloody wrong, it's bloody fucked, that man/woman/father/son/mother/daughter/lover/friend that has died is gone! How can that be OK? I'll never see them again in this life, and the hope of the next? that is rather vain isn't it? It is not alright, it is not OK. Is it normal and natural, of course it is! Is it selfish to wallow in such emotion? I doubt it, who is it hurting? Wishing it can't actually bring someone back to suffer more pain (not that I'd want to do that ever, I'd rather they were gone than have them suffer on indefinitely, and not that that is what we want when we wish they were still here) but that is just it they are gone. If that isn't worth crying about then nothing is.
All this sounds rather like I'm hung up on it! I'm not, I just think things need some perspective, death is not evil in or of itself, but in others it makes my experience of the world smaller by one personality, in myself it makes it smaller by ending it. So the mourning is both selfish and altruistic, selfish in that I no longer have access to this person, this experience that I loved, and altruistic because they no longer have any experience at all (please remember that the pain associated with dying is generally local to that process, being alive doesn't equal constant intense pain). I remember crying about a stepbrother(ish) of mine, who was killed in a car crash (In New Zealand) when he was 16, I remember how I'd promised to buy him his first pint when we was 18... I remember the conversation to this day and it makes me want to cry; cos he never got to have a beer in a pub, a simple normal experience for most of us. Is that OK? Is that right? should we comfort ourselves that that is just life? Of course it just life but that doesn't mean we have to like it! Similarly, but on a larger scale your sister feels that way about your mum and Brandon, that your mum never got to know him. We do mourn for their loss as much as our own.
How we react to it is for ourselves to decide what is right, I pick my fluffy F (probably quite dramatic way) over some of the more repressed or reserved approaches I've wished. When Pete died, we cried (I less than I wanted too as I felt I need to be strong for my mum which was probably a stupid concern) but we also celebrated his life. His service was full of his music and our fond memories of him in the full flush of his not half heartedly lived life! It was good, because it meant that we recalled who he was, not what killed him, how he had lived, not how he had died. I've been to funerals since where no one talked about it, no one talked about the man who'd died (which made it harder for me as I didn't know him at all). What was remembered was how he was supposed to be leaving hospital that day for home, (for palliative care but no one seems ready to admit that either). They did not join together and share their memories to help fix the good times in their minds, they dwelt on the finality of the moment and the awfulness of his last days. If I thought they were adjusted to the loss I'd not criticize someone else's approach but this didn't appear to me to be the case.