• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Who Wants to Live Forever?

Handmaid for Jesus

You can't steal my joy
Site Supporter
Dec 19, 2010
25,694
33,100
enroute
✟1,467,400.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I accept your answer as part of your limited and deluded perspective, but I don't like the answer because it's poorly thought out more than that it's from a religious perspective. One could make bad arguments from a secular perspective and I'd have a similar response

Why do you invite people to participate in a discussion? You asked for other people's thoughts in your OP. Then you ridicule and call them names because their perspective is not one you agree with. IMHO you are the one who is deluded to think others have to think as you think. You are the one that is not thinking things out. Let me give you some advice since it seems you don't have manners. When you invite someone to your house, don't insult them. And if you invite people to your house just so you can insult them, which you are doing, then you are being very small minded indeed. I am unsubscribing to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Loss is a part of life, I don't see why that's such a huge problem. The fact that we possess things only temporarily is not something that is a curse, but something we should be grateful for in the limited span of time we have. Greed is what seems to be at the core, in one sense, for this desire to be immortal and never lose anything.

I would look at greed as depriving others of things they value, just so I can have all the value there is. But

Forever until death do you part. Even the traditional Christian wedding vows acknowledge death as a separation.

I'm not the most traditional fellow. ;)

Necessity can't be acquired, metaphysically speaking, you have it from the start.

That depends. Something logically unnecessary doesn't admit of becoming logically necessary. But metaphysical modality, as in the-past-is-unchangeable-once-it-happens for instance, seems to be something that an object can change its status in relation to.

Contingency is not something that is bad, it's just the nature of our existence. So what if we eventually pass away? Isn't it sensible to appreciate the things as they are, knowing they will eventually not be? That's what makes life interesting

This is too subjective. First, aren't we debating (among other things) a scenario in which people are able to become immortal, or whether people might have immortal souls already? So we're analyzing a situation in which contingency is not the ultimate nature of our existence (because it is possible for us to become immortal) or in which it is not in our nature even in the first place.

Winning one game is irrelevant and insignificant.

Depends on the game.

Competition is a lifelong thing, you win some you lose some. Contingency of winning and losing is what makes competition great. You always have a possibility of victory alongside loss.

But when victory has been achieved, and it is no longer contingent whether one has achieved it, the victory still has value, still can be appreciated despite its guaranteed standing at this point. My point is conceptual: appreciation for a physical object's value is not necessarily a function of that thing's contingency; secondly, that not all things of physical value are contingent (or they change from being contingent to being necessary, as per certain contexts).

You're clinging, one of the gravest "sins" in Buddhism, that fundamentally binds you to samsara and rebirth. Your greed, your desire to keep things as they are, is a delusion and a mistaken idea in that it goes against what the natural order has put in place. Things are transient, things change. You positing immortality is a way to deny that and gain some sense of security, seems to me.

I don't think people should submit to "the natural order," and I also don't have enough evidence of samsara to believe in it (at least, I don't have evidence that I am now or will be one day someone who is reborn in another life). And if rebirth is part of the natural order, why seek to escape it?
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Why do you invite people to participate in a discussion? You asked for other people's thoughts in your OP. Then you ridicule and call them names because their perspective is not one you agree with. IMHO you are the one who is deluded to think others have to think as you think. You are the one that is not thinking things out. Let me give you some advice since it seems you don't have manners. When you invite someone to your house, don't insult them. And if you invite people to your house just so you can insult them, which you are doing, then you are being very small minded indeed. I am unsubscribing to this thread.

If your skin is so thin that you can't take criticism of your position, then you probably shouldn't have started discussion at all. I in no way think others have to think the same way I do. Otherwise the world would be quite boring.

I "insulted" you because you don't seem to be taking the OP seriously, which was to defend your position, which you didn't do effectively in the slightest.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I would look at greed as depriving others of things they value, just so I can have all the value there is.
Greed is both depriving others so you can have more and wanting more than you already have plenty of.


I'm not the most traditional fellow. ;)
If you mean being gay, that's one thing, and I have no issue with that. But wanting to be together forever is unrealistic by any notion of relationships. They're good because they don't last forever. Think of the movie "Up". The couple was in love and the male learned to appreciate the times they had, but not cling to the past.

That depends. Something logically unnecessary doesn't admit of becoming logically necessary. But metaphysical modality, as in the-past-is-unchangeable-once-it-happens for instance, seems to be something that an object can change its status in relation to.

We weren't talking about logical necessity. And metaphysical necessity and modality are only related insofar as something is determined to be necessary from the start. If something could change its status, then seems like it's already breaking the rules to begin with.


This is too subjective. First, aren't we debating (among other things) a scenario in which people are able to become immortal, or whether people might have immortal souls already? So we're analyzing a situation in which contingency is not the ultimate nature of our existence (because it is possible for us to become immortal) or in which it is not in our nature even in the first place.
If people have immortal souls already, that's one thing, but becoming immortal can have many variances. If we have immortal souls, we're contingent in a limited sense, since we'll still die a physical death. If we're able to become physically, as opposed to immaterially, immortal, that's markedly different, because we'd basically be bound to our physical experiences as immortals instead of the alleged supernatural ones if we had immortal souls.

Depends on the game.
I can't conceive of a "game" where winning is that significant, unless it becomes a literal competition of life or death, in which case I'd cease calling it a game.


But when victory has been achieved, and it is no longer contingent whether one has achieved it, the victory still has value, still can be appreciated despite its guaranteed standing at this point. My point is conceptual: appreciation for a physical object's value is not necessarily a function of that thing's contingency; secondly, that not all things of physical value are contingent (or they change from being contingent to being necessary, as per certain contexts).
The victory is one of various possibilities, which is where we get contingency. Name something of physical value that could change to become necessary. That seems impossible if we already have established necessity is something that could not have been, meaning it could have never been contingent to begin with. And the value of something is in the appreciator, not the object itself, to a great extent, if we're discussing aesthetics.


I don't think people should submit to "the natural order," and I also don't have enough evidence of samsara to believe in it (at least, I don't have evidence that I am now or will be one day someone who is reborn in another life). And if rebirth is part of the natural order, why seek to escape it?
Rebirth isn't necessarily the ideal order. One isn't escaping the natural order, but becoming closer to it, since samsara is an artificial shackle we put on ourselves. We're seeking awakening, because rebirth is a part of our being asleep, so to speak. Submitting to the natural order doesn't suggest absolute determinism, but merely accepting that certain things should not be changed because of negative consequences.

And samsara is not universally agreed upon as to its nature. I view it as our mental limits that are born of our dispositions towards negative habits, like clinging and hatred. Rebirth is admittedly something that I honestly don't have proof for, but I'd believe it over heaven/hell/immortal soul nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Greed is both depriving others so you can have more and wanting more than you already have plenty of.

Fair enough. Then my objection is: no finite lifespan is "plenty of" life for me, at least if the value of life is intrinsic to the thing (for then it has value irrespective of its relative properties, and modal properties (not entirely the right phrase), are relative ones). But by this I would stress that I mean, then, that life would have value even if paired with extreme, perennial suffering.

If you mean being gay, that's one thing, and I have no issue with that. But wanting to be together forever is unrealistic by any notion of relationships. They're good because they don't last forever. Think of the movie "Up". The couple was in love and the male learned to appreciate the times they had, but not cling to the past.

Actually, I was referring to the form of Christianity I adhere to :D. It's a rarity, that's for sure... But anyway, I'm also a romantic idealist, I've never seen the movie Up (and am not in a position to watch it, nor has it appealed to me in the past), so, "[Relationships are] good because they don't last forever," seems self-evidently untrue to me. Well, maybe not self-evidently so, it's not like 2 + 2 = 4 or whatever, but I have to ask what your metaethical conception of value is from which you reach conclusions about how objects have value.

We weren't talking about logical necessity. And metaphysical necessity and modality are only related insofar as something is determined to be necessary from the start. If something could change its status, then seems like it's already breaking the rules to begin with.

Well first off, you did say earlier:

Necessity is applied to abstract things, not concrete things. Logical and physical laws, that sort of thing

So you *were* talking about logical necessity. Secondly, "metaphysical necessity and modality are only related insofar as something is determined to be necessary from the start" seems totally incorrect to me. Before t, x or y are both possible. After t, whichever one actually happened is now the only possibility. So x or y can "from the start" be contingent, yet end up necessary, at least in a certain way.

I can't conceive of a "game" where winning is that significant, unless it becomes a literal competition of life or death, in which case I'd cease calling it a game.

Well, last games in sports players' careers, chances to be in the Olympics, might be some examples. If you think that abstract logic is itself a sort of transcendental game, wherefore the real world is a game, well, that's also a way to look at a certain kind of winning as singularly important.

That seems impossible if we already have established necessity is something that could not have been, meaning it could have never been contingent to begin with.

The thing is: not only are there various forms of modality, but various layers of the same thing, too. For example, some things are possible only when something else is actual, so these things are both impossible under other circumstances but on a more abstract level possible (in a way that is not relative to circumstances). The difference is between absolute, relative, intrinsic, and extrinsic modalities.

Rebirth isn't necessarily the ideal order. One isn't escaping the natural order, but becoming closer to it, since samsara is an artificial shackle we put on ourselves. We're seeking awakening, because rebirth is a part of our being asleep, so to speak. Submitting to the natural order doesn't suggest absolute determinism, but merely accepting that certain things should not be changed because of negative consequences.

Being reborn would be the natural result of our being attached, yeah? That is, on your view as I understand it (which might not be very well), there is a natural law out there roughly of the form, "If you have attachments, you will be reborn." The attachments themselves might be thought of as "unnatural," but I'm fairly wary of trying to ground my sense of value, meaning, etc. on what is "natural." Is technology unnatural? It's artificial for sure.

Now you might mean that attachments result from wrong attitudes. (I think I've seen it put this way in Buddhist texts I've read.) I don't think I'd readily accept most standard Buddhist theories of wrong attitudes any more than I'd accept standard Christian ones, though. That is, I have seen great truth in both religions, and neither, in my book, is inherently superior to the other; but at the end of the day, my final court of appeal on judgments of good is not even a combination of Buddhism and Christianity, but philosophy.

And samsara is not universally agreed upon as to its nature. I view it as our mental limits that are born of our dispositions towards negative habits, like clinging and hatred. Rebirth is admittedly something that I honestly don't have proof for, but I'd believe it over heaven/hell/immortal soul nonsense.

It doesn't seem fair to refer to those ideas as nonsense. People have made decent sense of them for millennia, after all.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Fair enough. Then my objection is: no finite lifespan is "plenty of" life for me, at least if the value of life is intrinsic to the thing (for then it has value irrespective of its relative properties, and modal properties (not entirely the right phrase), are relative ones). But by this I would stress that I mean, then, that life would have value even if paired with extreme, perennial suffering.

Of course life has value even alongside the suffering that exists with it. Suffering is complementary to the happiness we have in life. Similarly, death is complementary to life as a benefit.

Actually, I was referring to the form of Christianity I adhere to :D. It's a rarity, that's for sure... But anyway, I'm also a romantic idealist, I've never seen the movie Up (and am not in a position to watch it, nor has it appealed to me in the past), so, "[Relationships are] good because they don't last forever," seems self-evidently untrue to me. Well, maybe not self-evidently so, it's not like 2 + 2 = 4 or whatever, but I have to ask what your metaethical conception of value is from which you reach conclusions about how objects have value.

I think most people like "Up". I'd like to add it to my collection, actually, since I didn't watch it in full, similar to Wall-E, which is another interesting film by Pixar.

Value is based on judgment, but that judgment should consider a few factors, one of which is practical application, but also ethical repercussions. Something is valuable because it benefits us and because it can benefit others to an extent as well.


Well first off, you did say earlier:



So you *were* talking about logical necessity. Secondly, "metaphysical necessity and modality are only related insofar as something is determined to be necessary from the start" seems totally incorrect to me. Before t, x or y are both possible. After t, whichever one actually happened is now the only possibility. So x or y can "from the start" be contingent, yet end up necessary, at least in a certain way.

If we're talking about necessary existence, but specifically applying it to beings, one of which is alleged to be God, if not the only one, then that seems to be your allegation, that we are necessary beings in some sense, but then, if you believe we're created, we're necessarily contingent and immortality is incidental, since some believe God grants immortality, we're not born with it.

Necessity as determinant results is markedly different from necessity as preceding contingency to begin with, which is what I was referring to


Well, last games in sports players' careers, chances to be in the Olympics, might be some examples. If you think that abstract logic is itself a sort of transcendental game, wherefore the real world is a game, well, that's also a way to look at a certain kind of winning as singularly important.
Logic admits of variations, though there are rules that apply to it. I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with logic as a whole to discuss it in detail.


The thing is: not only are there various forms of modality, but various layers of the same thing, too. For example, some things are possible only when something else is actual, so these things are both impossible under other circumstances but on a more abstract level possible (in a way that is not relative to circumstances). The difference is between absolute, relative, intrinsic, and extrinsic modalities.

Absolute modality seems to be related to necessity as preceding contingency overall. Relative modality is closer to contingency. Extrinsic modality seems connected to relative modality in that something depends on another thing, and intrinsic suggests necessity in that it exists of itself.

Being reborn would be the natural result of our being attached, yeah? That is, on your view as I understand it (which might not be very well), there is a natural law out there roughly of the form, "If you have attachments, you will be reborn." The attachments themselves might be thought of as "unnatural," but I'm fairly wary of trying to ground my sense of value, meaning, etc. on what is "natural." Is technology unnatural? It's artificial for sure.

Technology is a natural result of our ingenuity and developing tools. Attachment is not natural, but instinctive, maybe better phrased as habitual. We have an inclination towards it, but that doesn't make it natural any more than we might have an inclination to self mutilation or the like.

Now you might mean that attachments result from wrong attitudes. (I think I've seen it put this way in Buddhist texts I've read.) I don't think I'd readily accept most standard Buddhist theories of wrong attitudes any more than I'd accept standard Christian ones, though. That is, I have seen great truth in both religions, and neither, in my book, is inherently superior to the other; but at the end of the day, my final court of appeal on judgments of good is not even a combination of Buddhism and Christianity, but philosophy.
Buddhism would call itself a philosophy in many cases before it would call itself a religion, though the fact that we have the monastic and ascetic practices derived from it, there certainly is a religious flavor to it, and there's also the goal in some sects to spread Buddhism, albeit not as aggressively as Christians at least tended to.


It doesn't seem fair to refer to those ideas as nonsense. People have made decent sense of them for millennia, after all.
The length of time an idea has survived does not necessarily speak to its truth in any sense. It has to have some merit in terms of real concrete testing, especially when it comes to physical and natural sciences, not to mention medicine, both of which have had systems that were regarded as true for millennia, but we now regard as nonsense and rightly so.

I call it nonsense because it is nonsensical. Why would one desire a paradise? Why would one see fit to have a place where people are tortured for eternity? Or why would you make a place people send themselves that seems good for eternity even? Virtually any perspective seems to make God out to be incompetent and the prospect of either afterlife to be unpleasant and boring.
 
Upvote 0

Max S Cherry

Seeker
Dec 13, 2012
362
4
United States
✟23,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Immortality being natural from the start could potentially create a worse situation, because people would've never experienced death as something that creates a well functioning and mentally sound population and logically sound universe

This makes no sense to me. Death is not necessary to create sound mentality or a logical universe, or if it is, I am failing to see it. I see death as something that we accept because it has always accompanied life rather than because it is necessary.

If we can't discuss things in relation to how things are, seems like the discussion breaks down to pure speculation, which isn't helpful in the slightest to discussing this as a real life sort of topic relevant to us

Yes, but if we discuss it in relation to how things are now, you will continue to use the rules that may apply in this existence to how things might work in the new existence. I think that the presence of immortality would greatly alter our existence in ways other than merely extending our life. We would not be bound to our current understanding and current sensitivities, and with unlimited time to live, we might find ourselves far more happy. I am not saying that it is necessary that we would, and I am only saying that I do not see how you can propose to know and argue against the desirability of immortality. Perhaps the newness of it is one of its greatest desirable traits. Maybe that would wear off, but I doubt it.

There are many kinds of immortality, but I would argue that most, if not all of them, are fundamentally flawed and create a less than human experience of the world and diminish the significance of life itself in that there is no death, which is a necessary balance to life in our experience overall.

You see death differently than I do. As a Christian, I see it as a birth, but if I put my beliefs aside, I see death simply as a fact of life. It balances nothing for me, and the only time I ever see it as a benefit (aside from my beliefs) is when it ends someone's suffering. With immortality, the sicknesses that cause that suffering are no longer an issue, and we would be left to deal with only those sicknesses which do not *nowadays* lead to death, mental illnesses and such.

Immortality can be proposed in the Christian perspective to coexist with the experience we have now of death, so your opposition only applies to certain schemes of immortality, like ones where it is something that existed from the beginning, which I don't think is very common in discussions. It's usually accomplished or bestowed.

If we use immortality in terms of how I understand it through my beliefs, your argument will not stand at all. There is no way to even proceed with a discussion of it, because there simply is not enough information about heaven and life there to allow a debate over it. Is it desirable to me? Yes. Why? Because it is what God has prepared for me. There is no debate to that. It is desirable because it is. You disagree. That is as far as it can go.

If immortality was natural to the world, it doesn't mean I can't conceive of there being a state of things where people cease to live. It would just be a minority idea, that hardly disqualifies it as having merit.

If immortality was natural to the world and if the only death we had ever witnessed was in non-human animals, plants, and things, we could conceive death in humans just as we can conceive immortality in humans now. It would be kin to conceiving a rock that flies, but we could conceive it. We would just have no way of knowing what that conception would actually be like.

If we discuss immortality as being something that certain people have or acquire while leaving other people mortal, the desirability for immortality goes down. We then have many problems to contend with, but I have never considered myself or anyone else inherently better than others. If one can do it, all can.
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Of course life has value even alongside the suffering that exists with it. Suffering is complementary to the happiness we have in life. Similarly, death is complementary to life as a benefit.

I just meant to point out that I'm willing to accept "life is intrinsically, i.e. necessarily, valuable" even when life leads to extreme, maybe even infinite torment of some kind, so my acceptance is not based on a raw appeal to hedonistic passion or something along that line.

Value is based on judgment, but that judgment should consider a few factors, one of which is practical application, but also ethical repercussions. Something is valuable because it benefits us and because it can benefit others to an extent as well.

So does an object have value when we subjectively judge that it does, or do we judge that is has value by perceiving an objective value in it? It seems to me that we could either encode value into an object such that its value never changes, or we could perceive it as inherently valuable, then, in which case the object would not be valuable at all because it was possible for it to cease to exist.

Necessity as determinant results is markedly different from necessity as preceding contingency to begin with, which is what I was referring to

I think I'm making too much of this modality stuff... My basic question is: if we could make ourselves immortal, why not? What reason would we have not to? Now granted, some people might very well have reason not to. But for them to think that their reasons would be absolute and objective, applicable to everyone else, would seem dubious to me.

Logic admits of variations, though there are rules that apply to it. I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with logic as a whole to discuss it in detail.

Don't worry, I was just going off on a weird, semireligious tangent. The idea that life is a game is part of my ideas about the Christian Trinity, but if I were to fully bring that topic up, I would have to start rambling about Plato's Forms and transfinite numbers and a zillion other off-topic things. :D

Absolute modality seems to be related to necessity as preceding contingency overall. Relative modality is closer to contingency. Extrinsic modality seems connected to relative modality in that something depends on another thing, and intrinsic suggests necessity in that it exists of itself.

Can't say I disagree with this analysis. :thumbsup: It's a lot like Immanuel Kant's in the Critique of Pure Reason, actually.

Technology is a natural result of our ingenuity and developing tools. Attachment is not natural, but instinctive, maybe better phrased as habitual. We have an inclination towards it, but that doesn't make it natural any more than we might have an inclination to self mutilation or the like.

I guess I'm unclear on what an attachment is supposed to be.

Buddhism would call itself a philosophy in many cases before it would call itself a religion, though the fact that we have the monastic and ascetic practices derived from it, there certainly is a religious flavor to it, and there's also the goal in some sects to spread Buddhism, albeit not as aggressively as Christians at least tended to.

I think primal Christianity might have been in a sense cutting-edge political and moral philosophy, a revolution in those disciplines, at least for Jewish and Roman societies. But definitely, until the Church Fathers or the scholastics maybe, Christianity was less philosophical than Buddhism has been from the start.

I call it nonsense because it is nonsensical. Why would one desire a paradise?

To quote Dante's Paradiso, canto XXXIII (which describes heaven a lot like I think it had better be, if it exists in the first place):
Now in my recollection of the rest,
I have less power to speak
than any infant yet wetting its tongue at its mother's breast;

and not because that Living Radiance bore
more than one semblance, for It is unchanging,
and is forever as It was before:

rather, as I grew worthier to see,
the more I looked, the more unchanging semblance
appeared to change with every change in me.​
You might think of it mathematically. It has been more or less proven that there are an infinity of infinities. That is, there are different types of infinity, and in fact an infinite number of different types. Moreover, there are even different types of types of infinity. Physical objects are rather like abstract mathematical structures rendered concrete, so for all possible mathematical structures, there might correspond a possible physical object. Of course we have next to no idea what it would be like for our minds to be altered so that we could process information on such a transcendent scale, but then moksha, samadhi, and Nirvana aren't always the most understandable notions, either. (On the other hand, inasmuch as I accept Christianity as true in ways in conjunction with Buddhism, and inasmuch as I do believe in Nirvana, I will one day have to find a way to fully integrate my concepts of Christian heaven with the concept of Nirvana.)

A final remark about the threat of paradise becoming insipid: what if heaven is a place where the ability to be uninspired is taken away?

Why would one see fit to have a place where people are tortured for eternity?

I have a complicated attitude towards thinking of an eternal hell. Now some people don't think of it as a place of literal torture, but as a zone where people are allowed to distance themselves from God, forever if they wish. Yet this distancing is supposed to be a miserable state of affairs in its own right: those who do not experience the beatific vision supposedly miss out on the true glory of reality. Another idea is that hell is the same place as heaven, only it's perceived differently by the damned and the saved: the light of God is hell for the impenitent because they hate the light and are upset that they have to dwell in Its presence forever (this is what the Eastern Orthodox Church has often taught). My main issue with both these images is: so why is there this cut-off point for repentance? Although I can conceive of someone choosing, even given infinite chances, never to repent, and in that sense "deserving to go to hell forever," it is much more objectionable to me to think of people as suffering an infinite punishment for a finite choice.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
This makes no sense to me. Death is not necessary to create sound mentality or a logical universe, or if it is, I am failing to see it. I see death as something that we accept because it has always accompanied life rather than because it is necessary.
Death is necessary to create a universe where things progress naturally instead of becoming static and not progressing in any sense beyond individual growth, which leads to isolation and egotism.

If death is something required and innate to existence, one could argue it is necessary in some sense of the term.

Yes, but if we discuss it in relation to how things are now, you will continue to use the rules that may apply in this existence to how things might work in the new existence. I think that the presence of immortality would greatly alter our existence in ways other than merely extending our life. We would not be bound to our current understanding and current sensitivities, and with unlimited time to live, we might find ourselves far more happy. I am not saying that it is necessary that we would, and I am only saying that I do not see how you can propose to know and argue against the desirability of immortality. Perhaps the newness of it is one of its greatest desirable traits. Maybe that would wear off, but I doubt it.

Happiness is not necessarily increased by longevity. Personally, I see no reason I would want to live forever. Death is not pleasant, but it is something that, if we did not have it, would create an existence where war would be without any purpose, for no one could die. We would have no real appreciation for people, since they could never leave us in the permanent way death affects us. The mere novelty of something should not be an argument as to why we should desire it. Same thing applies to superpowers: they can be much more of a hindrance than a help in interaction with normal humans. Speculation can only go so far in terms of our psychological reactions to something, especially on this level. Another example might be: what if there was a universe where we had powers likened to gods? Superpowers, even? Would this be a better universe? I think not.


You see death differently than I do. As a Christian, I see it as a birth, but if I put my beliefs aside, I see death simply as a fact of life. It balances nothing for me, and the only time I ever see it as a benefit (aside from my beliefs) is when it ends someone's suffering. With immortality, the sicknesses that cause that suffering are no longer an issue, and we would be left to deal with only those sicknesses which do not *nowadays* lead to death, mental illnesses and such.
Death is a benefit in that it is a built in population control that nature has, if you will. If there were no death, people would continue to breed until we had literally no space for anyone. Death is a birth only if you believe your consciousness survives death, which I wouldn't even as a more strict Buddhist. Immortality does not negate the existence of sickness, only death from sickness. Therefore, another issue would be that immortality in no way cures us, but only prevents us from release from suffering, such as if a limb was removed. The pain would be protracted for eternity.


If we use immortality in terms of how I understand it through my beliefs, your argument will not stand at all. There is no way to even proceed with a discussion of it, because there simply is not enough information about heaven and life there to allow a debate over it. Is it desirable to me? Yes. Why? Because it is what God has prepared for me. There is no debate to that. It is desirable because it is. You disagree. That is as far as it can go.
You desire it because of a baseless and groundless faith claim. Therefore your argument is that it feels good to you, which is pure relativism and postmodernism practically.

If immortality was natural to the world and if the only death we had ever witnessed was in non-human animals, plants, and things, we could conceive death in humans just as we can conceive immortality in humans now. It would be kin to conceiving a rock that flies, but we could conceive it. We would just have no way of knowing what that conception would actually be like.

You'd have to qualify the type of immortality. Immortality in that you can't die from all causes or merely that you cannot die the natural way? Are we eternally youthful or would we simply stop at some point and cease to age then? I'm reminded of vampires as an example of immortality that can come up, albeit it's very particular in its qualifications and traits. Immortals from Highlander are interesting in that they are immortal to almost everything except decapitation. That'd be more preferable to me in knowing I could die, albeit if I was the One, that'd be a different story.

If we discuss immortality as being something that certain people have or acquire while leaving other people mortal, the desirability for immortality goes down. We then have many problems to contend with, but I have never considered myself or anyone else inherently better than others. If one can do it, all can.

You may if you are immortal and everyone else around you is not. You'd puity their weakness, or at the very least, pity that they cannot stay with you as an immortal. We at least agree in this regard: individual immortality creates isolation and despair.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I just meant to point out that I'm willing to accept "life is intrinsically, i.e. necessarily, valuable" even when life leads to extreme, maybe even infinite torment of some kind, so my acceptance is not based on a raw appeal to hedonistic passion or something along that line.
Life is valuable because we can suffer, one might say. Very Daoist or complementarian in that sense.


So does an object have value when we subjectively judge that it does, or do we judge that is has value by perceiving an objective value in it? It seems to me that we could either encode value into an object such that its value never changes, or we could perceive it as inherently valuable, then, in which case the object would not be valuable at all because it was possible for it to cease to exist.
An object can have value, even if it it subjective, in terms of aesthetics. Value in terms of function can still exist, even if it eventually may cease to exist, since that is the natural way things go, decay, entropy.

I think I'm making too much of this modality stuff... My basic question is: if we could make ourselves immortal, why not? What reason would we have not to? Now granted, some people might very well have reason not to. But for them to think that their reasons would be absolute and objective, applicable to everyone else, would seem dubious to me.

I'm reminded of a sci fi story by either Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov, I believe, where it suggests that God created humans immortal so that they could find a way to enable God to die, because God was tired of living. I think I'd eventually want to die, if only because life became boring and tiresome, more tiresome than boring. Eventually we just want to have a break, if you will. a solution was suggested in the last topic I did that we could hibernate or something, which isn't a bad solution.



Can't say I disagree with this analysis. :thumbsup: It's a lot like Immanuel Kant's in the Critique of Pure Reason, actually.
Read through that in part at least twice for philosophy courses. Dense and dry as anything, though.


I guess I'm unclear on what an attachment is supposed to be.
A better word is craving, clinging or addiction; or thirst, even. It's not the same as a bond or loyalty or love, which can be perfectly fine. It's when it's taken to excess that it becomes a problem and many times we don't realize that it has become more than it should because we construe ourselves as having the best judgment all the time.


I think primal Christianity might have been in a sense cutting-edge political and moral philosophy, a revolution in those disciplines, at least for Jewish and Roman societies. But definitely, until the Church Fathers or the scholastics maybe, Christianity was less philosophical than Buddhism has been from the start.

Buddhism was a spin off from Hinduism, which has its own philosophical tradition, but Buddhism was more secular in nature, like Confucianism to traditional Chinese folk religion and Daoism as well to Chinese folk religion.



You might think of it mathematically. It has been more or less proven that there are an infinity of infinities. That is, there are different types of infinity, and in fact an infinite number of different types. Moreover, there are even different types of types of infinity. Physical objects are rather like abstract mathematical structures rendered concrete, so for all possible mathematical structures, there might correspond a possible physical object. Of course we have next to no idea what it would be like for our minds to be altered so that we could process information on such a transcendent scale, but then moksha, samadhi, and Nirvana aren't always the most understandable notions, either. (On the other hand, inasmuch as I accept Christianity as true in ways in conjunction with Buddhism, and inasmuch as I do believe in Nirvana, I will one day have to find a way to fully integrate my concepts of Christian heaven with the concept of Nirvana.)

Nirvana is not universally agreed upon in Buddhism, ironically as heaven is disagreed amongst Christians. My best assertion is that it is a change in mind, though it's fairly radical in that you see things as objectively as possible.

A final remark about the threat of paradise becoming insipid: what if heaven is a place where the ability to be uninspired is taken away?
Then it's even worse, because as a creative, I can affirm that writer's block or the like can be a benefit, because it encourages you to become more creative because of the lack you have at that moment.

I have a complicated attitude towards thinking of an eternal hell. Now some people don't think of it as a place of literal torture, but as a zone where people are allowed to distance themselves from God, forever if they wish. Yet this distancing is supposed to be a miserable state of affairs in its own right: those who do not experience the beatific vision supposedly miss out on the true glory of reality. Another idea is that hell is the same place as heaven, only it's perceived differently by the damned and the saved: the light of God is hell for the impenitent because they hate the light and are upset that they have to dwell in Its presence forever (this is what the Eastern Orthodox Church has often taught). My main issue with both these images is: so why is there this cut-off point for repentance? Although I can conceive of someone choosing, even given infinite chances, never to repent, and in that sense "deserving to go to hell forever," it is much more objectionable to me to think of people as suffering an infinite punishment for a finite choice.

There's always universalism, where there is no hell, but merely a type of purgatory, or heaven is simply adjusted over time, I suppose. The Eastern Orthodox perspective is certainly more compelling in that it admits of the subjective
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ripheus27
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Since we've gotten to the point where I'd have to work much harder to defend my POV, and I don't expect you to wade through a sea of essays just to figure out whether that POV is justified, I'll limit my next replies to the following quotes:

Read through that in part at least twice for philosophy courses. Dense and dry as anything, though.

What happened with me is that I read it, my mind's eyes totally glazed over, I tried rereading it and was like, "Why can't I remember a single d#$n thing I read the first time?!" and then I set out to spend the rest of my life, if that's what it took, to understand the thing. I prided myself on my extreme reading-comprehension levels, so I took the book as a challenge on that count more than as a philosophy to argue for or against. But in trying to answer that challenge, I did up "converting," if you will, to transcendental idealism.

A better word is craving, clinging or addiction; or thirst, even. It's not the same as a bond or loyalty or love, which can be perfectly fine. It's when it's taken to excess that it becomes a problem and many times we don't realize that it has become more than it should because we construe ourselves as having the best judgment all the time.

I guess I don't tend to think of ethics ("what I should do") in terms of amounts of things I have/amounts of commitment. Or, I should say, infinite commitment is what my ethical theory requires of me in many cases.

Then it's even worse, because as a creative, I can affirm that writer's block or the like can be a benefit, because it encourages you to become more creative because of the lack you have at that moment.

As far as heaven goes, I meant that God might make it so that you'd never be able to get tired of being in heaven. It would never be dull because the capacity to experience anything as dull would be gotten rid of, maybe.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
What happened with me is that I read it, my mind's eyes totally glazed over, I tried rereading it and was like, "Why can't I remember a single d#$n thing I read the first time?!" and then I set out to spend the rest of my life, if that's what it took, to understand the thing. I prided myself on my extreme reading-comprehension levels, so I took the book as a challenge on that count more than as a philosophy to argue for or against. But in trying to answer that challenge, I did up "converting," if you will, to transcendental idealism.

I'll admit it's hard to keep philosophical systems straight. Religions are enough of a headache for me to keep organized in my head, philosophy would require another brain.

I guess I don't tend to think of ethics ("what I should do") in terms of amounts of things I have/amounts of commitment. Or, I should say, infinite commitment is what my ethical theory requires of me in many cases.
Deontological ethics? Categorical imperative? The idea of attachment in Buddhism, at least Zen, extends to our beliefs. We can become comfortable in our beliefs, our worldview, without challenging it in some way. That's where the idea of "killing the Buddha" comes in. You have to destroy your own preconceptions to really learn

As far as heaven goes, I meant that God might make it so that you'd never be able to get tired of being in heaven. It would never be dull because the capacity to experience anything as dull would be gotten rid of, maybe.

Again, the same problem occurs. Why would you want to not experience such things? They are what allow us to have some sense of a break, discomfort, unease. They're not pleasant, but to truly understand pleasure, we have to experience displeasure as well, do we not? Again, this boils down to a sort of dualism, albeit I'd almost argue it's nondualistic in that they're the same experience, just two sides of it. Neither one is better than the other or absolutely separate, they simply complement each other
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I think a lot of my positions on immortality and perfection as undesirable and otherwise useless things are derived from a composite of various positions set forth in fiction, so I'll post those ideas as I found on wikipedia. I'm not familiar with all of them and some are more satirical than serious, but I think the point is made much better with each example.

Since immortality is seen as a desire of humanity, themes involving immortality often explore the disadvantages as well as the advantages of such a trait. Sometimes immortality is used as a punishment, or a curse that might be intended to teach a lesson. It is not uncommon to find immortal characters yearning for death. A similar, though somewhat different theme, concerned Elves and Men in Middle-earth. While the immortality of Elves was not explicitly a curse, the mortality of Men was viewed as a gift, albeit one that was not understood by those possessing it. This was chiefly due to the Elves' clear faculty of memory, which could accumulate millennia of sad experiences.

In some parts of popular culture, immortality is not all that it is made out to be, possibly causing insanity and/or significant emotional pain. Much of the time, these things only happen to mortals who gain immortality. Beings born with immortality (such as deities, demigods and races with "limited immortality") are usually quite adjusted to their long lives, though some may feel sorrow at the passing of mortal friends, but they still continue on. Some Immortals (such as certain deities, demigods, and intelligent undead) may also watch over mortal relations (either related to or descended from them), occasionally offering help when needed.

In his short story 'The Immortal', Jorge Luis Borges treats the theme of immortality from an interesting perspective: after centuries and centuries, everything is repetition for the immortal and a feeling of ennui prevails. The immortal, who had turned so after drinking from a certain river, is set to wander the world in search for that same river, so that he can become mortal again.

In the manga Blade of the Immortal, Manji is a samurai who has been cursed with immortality. Only after slaying 1000 evil men will the curse be broken so he can finally die. His body cannot age nor can he die from physical wounds. Manji's sword skills are sloppy due to the fact that since he's immortal he doesn't need to know how to fight properly.

There is another immortal character in the Naruto series named Hidan, who claims to be the slowest attacking member in his group and is considered stupid by his partner, because he attacks without thought for the consequences. It is possible he did not gain these skills because he did not believe he would need them, being an immortal. This could hardly be further from the truth: Hidan is now a disembodied head buried under a ton of rock, and yet cannot die.

In Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, some of the inhabitants of the island of Immortals (near Japan) don't die, but they age and became ill, demented and a nuisance to themselves and those surrounding them. Swift presents immortality as a curse rather than a blessing.

The film Zardoz also depicts a dystopian view of immortality, where interest in life has been lost and suicide is impossible.

The Star Trek: Voyager episode "Death Wish" explored in depth the existence of the omnipotent, immortal and omniscient aliens Q. It is learned in that episode that the aliens were originally human-like, and somehow evolved into their current state long ago. With their new-found powers, the Q set out to fully explore, experience and understand the universe. Afterwards, the Q had nothing left to do or say, and now they simply sit out eternity in their realm. As one Q explained, you can only experience the universe so many times before it gets boring, with this Q- a former philosopher- now seeking to commit suicide as it is the only thing he hasn't done.

In the children's novel, Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt, a family is made physically immortal by drinking water from a magical spring. They are trapped at the same age forever and are invulnerable. They are hated by the ordinary people who knew them and are forced to watch as everything they cherish grows old and dies.

In the film and television series Highlander, once one dies for the first time, if they are an Immortal, they will spend the rest of eternity at that physical age. This poses a problem when one dies as a small child, or as a very old man. The same is true of the Claudia character in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, who became a vampire while still only a child, and the Blade television series.

In the Supernatural third season episode "Time is On My Side", Dean and Sam Winchester face Doctor Benton, a doctor who discovered the secret to eternal life in 1816. However, although his process keeps him alive, he must constantly replace his damaged and worn-out body parts to operate relatively comfortably; taking out his heart will only inconvenience him for a time, but his entire body has noticeable stitches all over from where he has taken organs from other people to add them to his own body. At the conclusion of the episode, the Winchesters bury him in a grave after tying him up so that he will be forced to endure an eternity buried alive.

In the film Hocus Pocus, while three witches seek immortality by sucking the life essence of children, they also curse one of their enemies, a young man named Thackery Binx, to become an immortal black cat to punish him for trying to stop them draining his sister's life-force so that he will be condemned to live forever with the guilt of not saving her. As a result, Binx remains alive as a cat for over three hundred years, capable of surviving even such accidents as getting run over by a bus- the bus killing him only for him to revive a few moments later-, until the witches who cursed him are brought back to life by a curse they cast shortly before their executions, their subsequent deaths when the sun rises ensuring that their curse is lifted.

In general, a theme seen with many variations, is the notion of an essential world weariness akin to extreme exhaustion for which death is the only relief. This is inescapable when immortality is defined as (half) infinite life. Immortality defined as finite but arbitrarily long per the desire to exist does not, as a definition, suffer this limitation. When a person is tired of life, even death is shut off to them, creating an endless torture, as evidenced in the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day, where a character is trapped in an endlessly repeating time loop that causes him to live the same day over and over again even when he tries to kill himself before the end of the cycle.

Immortality can be achieved in fiction through scientifically plausible means. Extraterrestrial life might be immortal or it might be able to give immortality to humans. Immortality is also achieved in many examples by replacing the mortal human body by machines.

In Doctor Who mythology, the Cybermen are basically human brains placed into mechanical bodies, with every emotion drained out. This process was supposed to allow the Human race to reach its pinnacle. The unforeseen downturn is that with immortality reached, there is no motivator for the Human Race to actually strive for anything more.

Another example of immortality in Doctor Who is found in the character Jack Harkness, a companion to the Ninth and Tenth Doctors, who was unintentionally transformed into a 'fact' of the timeline when fellow companion Rose Tyler temporarily acquired omnipotent power and brought him back to life after he was killed by the Daleks; unused to the power, Rose didn't just bring him back to life, she 'brought [him] back forever'. Although he ages at a very slight rate - having grown only the occasional grey hair despite having been alive for over two millennia since he was resurrected - Harkness is capable of recovering from any potentially fatal injuries within moments, although some forms of death take him longer to recover from than others; a bullet to the head only put him down for a few seconds, but he required at least a few minutes to come back after being thrown from the roof of a tall building, while it took him the better part of a day to recuperate after he was killed via a bomb in his stomach (Although the fact that he was able to regenerate his entire body when reduced to only an arm, a shoulder and part of his head should not be overlooked).

In the Doctor Who spin-off series Torchwood, Jack's colleague Owen Harper acquired a similar kind of immortality when he was brought back to life after being shot. Owen becomes technically dead, and thus incapable of eating, drinking, sleeping, having sex, and healing injuries. However, for all practical purposes, he cannot be killed, apparently lacking the need to breathe and displaying a general immunity to pain, as demonstrated by his not noticing when he cuts his left hand. Owen compares his new state to Jack by saying that, while Jack will 'live forever', he is destined to 'die forever'.

Torchwood's fourth series, Torchwood: Miracle Day, explored what would happen if the whole world became immortal, when an attempt by a mysterious group of three families to gain power resulted in all human life on Earth losing the ability to die (Although the formerly-immortal Jack Harkness became mortal at the same time). However, while they cannot die, they can still get sick and injured and their ability to heal has not been affected, with the result that a suicide bomber's body is left totally pulverized even while he appears to retain some form of consciousness, team member Rex Matheson has to deal with constant pain from the wound in his chest where he was impaled by a rebar in a driving accident, and a woman retains consciousness even after her car is crushed in a car compacter with her still inside it. This is eventually undone and Jack's immortality restored, with all patients classified as 'Category One' under the new medical rules- being fatally injured to the point where the Miracle was the only reason they hadn't died yet- being given a brief moment of clarity and peace before they died.

Megaman Zero's Doctor Weil had his memories transferred into program data and his body remodeled into that of a cyborg's as punishment for sparking the Elf Wars, using the Dark Elf to attack Reploids and humanity alike. He was then banished from nature and humanity, which eventually drove him insane.

Both series feature "ascended beings," such as the Ancients, who have learned to shed their physical body and exist as energy, making them immortal. Another species in the series, the Asgard, have mastered a form of immortality, by transferring their minds into cloned bodies when their original form sustains serious injury, but by the time they encounter Earth they have begun to die due to their genetic structure breaking down as a result of being cloned so often, the race committing mass suicide at the conclusion of SG-1 to spare themselves the pain of the death that now awaits them after recognising that they cannot save themselves.

Perry Rhodan is the world's most prolific literary science fiction (SF) series, published since 1961 in Germany. In the storyline Perry Rhodan is the commander of the first mission to the moon, where they come upon a stranded vessel of an alien race in search of eternal youth. Perry Rhodan uses the superior technology to unite the earth and then continues the search for eternal youth. Ultimately he follows the hints laid out by a higher being called ES ("it" in German) that exists in an incorporeal state. This being chooses Perry Rhodan and a select few of his companions to attain Agelessness in order for them to pursue goals set by ES. ES says "I grant you everlasting life, not rejuvenation." Over the course of the series, there is a side-plot, which focuses on the downsides of immortality: It is hard to engage in relationships, when your partner ages and dies off. Similar problems occur with children.

In the Hyperion Cantos Universe, the TechnoCore, a group of sentient artificial intelligences which parasitized humanity, created a parasite called the cruciform. It was first tested in the planet Hyperion, and it is able to regenerate a human body along with personality and memories after death. The cruciforms are a flawed success as there is a loss of intelligence and genetic decay after each resurrection, rendering asexuated humans with little intelligence. However, when the TechnoCore offers it to the Catholic Church in a secret alliance to be able to keep with the need of parasitism over humanity, any error in personality and memories in the resurrection creche fixed through a process that only some priests in the Catholic Church know. This effectively brings perfect immortality to any human who abides to follow the laws of the Catholic Church. Even in the case of a disastrous death, the smallest cruciform remnant is enough to recreate the whole human body again, given the right conditions. However, the main characters in the story debate about the ethics and benefits of immortality, reaching to the conclusion that it stalls the evolution of humankind and it's severely counterproductive to any long-term expectations.

In the LucasArts adventure game The Dig, the remains of an alien civilisation advanced enough to gain first physical and then spiritual immortality are explored and analysed. It eventually turns out that the obsession with living forever ultimately brought about their downfall; they lived forever, but lost "everything that made life worth living".

Most of the novels by Alastair Reynolds feature immortal characters of some form or another, usually made possible by advanced medical technology and periodic regeneration of one's body. One of the issues discussed in these novels, particular Chasm City, is the manner in which characters deal with their immortality and the boredom it inevitably generates. The Conjoiners, the most advanced faction, are able to modify their brains to the extent that they simply do not experience boredom at all. Unaugmented humans typically suffer intense boredom and attempt to reduce this by taking part in increasingly dangerous and exciting activities.

In the Instrumentality of Mankind universe by Cordwainer Smith, there's a drug which allows to delay aging indefinitely in humans, called stroon or Santaclara drug. However, the Instrumentality is very aware of the dangers of immortality, so every human being can only take stroon up to a life of 400 years. Although there are exceptions, for example if a person is thought to be valuable for humankind, no one is allowed to live longer than 1,000 years. Thus, although humankind could achieve immortality, they avoid it consciously.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
And there's also a bit more discussion about immortality's problems in the Wikipedia article on immortality. I'll cut out the parts that repeat what I've posted from fiction already

The doctrine of immortality is essential to many of the world's religions. Narratives from Christianity and Islam assert that immortality is not desirable to the unfaithful:

The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.'
—Luke 16:22–26 NIV Translation

Those who are wretched shall be in the Fire: There will be for them therein (nothing but) the heaving of sighs and sobs: They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord willeth: for thy Lord is the (sure) accomplisher of what He planneth. And those who are blessed shall be in the Garden: They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord willeth: a gift without break.
—The Qur'an, 11:106–108

The modern mind has addressed the undesirability of immortality. Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov commented, "There is nothing frightening about an eternal dreamless sleep. Surely it is better than eternal torment in Hell and eternal boredom in Heaven."

Physical immortality has also been imagined as a form of eternal torment, as in Mary Shelley's short story "The Mortal Immortal", the protagonist of which witnesses everyone he cares about dying around him.

Jorge Luis Borges explored the idea that life gets its meaning from death in the short story "The Immortal"; an entire society having achieved immortality, they found time becoming infinite, and so found no motivation for any action.

In his book "Thursday's Fictions", and the stage and film adaptations of it, Richard James Allen tells the story of a woman named Thursday who tries to cheat the cycle of reincarnation to get a form of eternal life. At the end of this fantastical tale, her son, Wednesday, who has witnessed the havoc his mother's quest has caused, forgoes the opportunity for immortality when it is offered to him.

University of Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn, in his essay "Religion and Respect," writes, ". . . things do not gain meaning by going on for a very long time, or even forever. Indeed, they lose it. A piece of music, a conversation, even a glance of adoration or a moment of unity have their alloted time. Too much and they become boring. An infinity and they would be intolerable."
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Deontological ethics? Categorical imperative? The idea of attachment in Buddhism, at least Zen, extends to our beliefs. We can become comfortable in our beliefs, our worldview, without challenging it in some way. That's where the idea of "killing the Buddha" comes in. You have to destroy your own preconceptions to really learn

I think the deontological-teleological distinction in ethics might be misguided. As for categorical imperatives, they have their place in the ethical theory I now accept, but even when they occupied more of a starting position, it wasn't due to prejudice or a lack of reflection. I thought I was moral nihilist, I thought I couldn't prove anything one way or another about right and wrong, for quite a while when growing up. Destroying my preconceptions is precisely what led me to look at transcendental idealism as at least closer to the truth (the truth about the questions Kant tries to answer, anyway) than pretty much anything else.

Again, the same problem occurs. Why would you want to not experience such things? They are what allow us to have some sense of a break, discomfort, unease. They're not pleasant, but to truly understand pleasure, we have to experience displeasure as well, do we not?

Well, then, just say that our ability to become tired of heaven would come and go. It would go away when otherwise heaven would be too dull to enjoy, maybe, and then come back whenever it was "needed." Anyway, first, it might be that heaven is not a realm of pleasure at all but happiness or love or even something more mystical like saudade, none of which per se might be "pleasant" in a hedonistic sense. Secondly, I don't think we need to know what displeasure feels like to know what pleasure feels like. I can see the color white without ever seeing the color black, it seems to me; I can know what is good without having to do something evil to contrast the good with.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I think the deontological-teleological distinction in ethics might be misguided. As for categorical imperatives, they have their place in the ethical theory I now accept, but even when they occupied more of a starting position, it wasn't due to prejudice or a lack of reflection. I thought I was moral nihilist, I thought I couldn't prove anything one way or another about right and wrong, for quite a while when growing up. Destroying my preconceptions is precisely what led me to look at transcendental idealism as at least closer to the truth (the truth about the questions Kant tries to answer, anyway) than pretty much anything else.
I think the idea might be closer to a consistent skepticism of sorts, rather than simply questioning some preconceptions, but not all. You have to test your beliefs, in a pragmatic philosophical method, it seems. You don't believe them merely because people say so or because of any perceived authority, as Gautama himself admonished people to avoid.


Well, then, just say that our ability to become tired of heaven would come and go. It would go away when otherwise heaven would be too dull to enjoy, maybe, and then come back whenever it was "needed." Anyway, first, it might be that heaven is not a realm of pleasure at all but happiness or love or even something more mystical like saudade, none of which per se might be "pleasant" in a hedonistic sense. Secondly, I don't think we need to know what displeasure feels like to know what pleasure feels like. I can see the color white without ever seeing the color black, it seems to me; I can know what is good without having to do something evil to contrast the good with.

Seems to me you keep requalifying this idea of heaven to fit my objections, in which case, the idea dies the death of a thousand qualifications, similar to "God" in respects to philosophical theology

Happiness and love are similar to pleasure in that they aren't experienced in their fullness without also experiencing their counterparts, sadness and hatred.

The color white is scientifically all colors and black is scientifically the absence of all colors. No one said you had to do evil to know good, but experiencing something is key to a fuller understanding of the thing in itself. Good requires experiencing the bad, right requires experiencing the wrong. It's not about action, but apprehension, to use alliteration
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I think the idea might be closer to a consistent skepticism of sorts, rather than simply questioning some preconceptions, but not all. You have to test your beliefs, in a pragmatic philosophical method, it seems. You don't believe them merely because people say so or because of any perceived authority, as Gautama himself admonished people to avoid.

Granted. But in doing philosophy, I took the Cartesian route, doubting everything whatsoever. Many, many philosophers do the same thing. I didn't become a transcendental idealist out of faith in Kant, but as a reasoned response to his arguments and observations.

As an example of my uncertainties even now, I'd be hard-pressed to say whether I was a foundationalist (knowledge is based on assertions that are self-evident or comparably justified), an infinitist (knowledge involves an infinite regress of evidence and justification), a coherentist (knowledge results from a form of coherence among all possible beliefs), or something else.

Seems to me you keep requalifying this idea of heaven to fit my objections, in which case, the idea dies the death of a thousand qualifications, similar to "God" in respects to philosophical theology

Maybe. But I think I'm just trying to showcase the logic of the concept of heaven. Heaven is defined as "a place where no negative states of mind endure." So for any negative state of mind you can come up with, heaven would "find a way" to solve for it.

Happiness and love are similar to pleasure in that they aren't experienced in their fullness without also experiencing their counterparts, sadness and hatred.

Unless we could find a person who'd only been happy or only felt love, never sorrow or hate, how would we know this?

Good requires experiencing the bad, right requires experiencing the wrong. It's not about action, but apprehension, to use alliteration

If ethical knowledge is, at its core, a priori, that is grounded in abstract thinking and imagination, then the only sense in which knowing right from wrong requires knowledge of wrong is conceptual. That is, we need a concept of right and a concept of wrong. But neither concept should be derived from experience.
_____________
Your argument from works of fiction is promising, though, or at least worth my time studying. I'll try to direct my future contributions to this thread towards that argument.
 
Upvote 0

Max S Cherry

Seeker
Dec 13, 2012
362
4
United States
✟23,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Death is necessary to create a universe where things progress naturally instead of becoming static and not progressing in any sense beyond individual growth, which leads to isolation and egotism.

You continually use the word necessary where it does not belong. Perhaps, "death creates a universe where things...," would not be objectionable, but to insist that death is necessary is to say that nothing else could possibly accomplish this task. We do not agree there. There are ways that living people avoid becoming static, and there is no reason why those ways could not continue infinitely.

If death is something required and innate to existence, one could argue it is necessary in some sense of the term.

Death would not be required of an immortal existence.

Happiness is not necessarily increased by longevity. Personally, I see no reason I would want to live forever. Death is not pleasant, but it is something that, if we did not have it, would create an existence where war would be without any purpose, for no one could die. We would have no real appreciation for people, since they could never leave us in the permanent way death affects us. The mere novelty of something should not be an argument as to why we should desire it. Same thing applies to superpowers: they can be much more of a hindrance than a help in interaction with normal humans. Speculation can only go so far in terms of our psychological reactions to something, especially on this level. Another example might be: what if there was a universe where we had powers likened to gods? Superpowers, even? Would this be a better universe? I think not.

Fights do not always end in death yet they often settle disputes. War without death would be my preferable type of war.



Death is a benefit in that it is a built in population control that nature has, if you will. If there were no death, people would continue to breed until we had literally no space for anyone. Death is a birth only if you believe your consciousness survives death, which I wouldn't even as a more strict Buddhist. Immortality does not negate the existence of sickness, only death from sickness. Therefore, another issue would be that immortality in no way cures us, but only prevents us from release from suffering, such as if a limb was removed. The pain would be protracted for eternity.

Immortality would give us the opportunity to work on these problems, if they presented themselves. I would love to see how high man could build! Where there is a need, there is likely to be a solution to that need, eventually. Many of the diseases we face as mortals could not affect us as immortals because the diseases destroy our bodies. If cells are destroyed, they are not immortal. If our cells are not immortal, we are not immortal. The only diseases we could have would be those that make us sick, and I believe that sicknesses could be dealt with.

Death is a birth only if you believe your consciousness survives death, which I wouldn't even as a more strict Buddhist.

Then we can agree that, for those of us with that belief, immortality is desirable.

You desire it because of a baseless and groundless faith claim. Therefore your argument is that it feels good to you, which is pure relativism and postmodernism practically.

"Baseless and groundless" is nothing more than your opinion. My argument is that God prepared it for me so it is desirable regardless to how I feel about it. As I said, the discussion ends there. We disagree.

You'd have to qualify the type of immortality.

I qualified it by speculating it. We are talking about a purely speculative subject, and one speculation is as qualified as another.

Immortality in that you can't die from all causes or merely that you cannot die the natural way? Are we eternally youthful or would we simply stop at some point and cease to age then? I'm reminded of vampires as an example of immortality that can come up, albeit it's very particular in its qualifications and traits. Immortals from Highlander are interesting in that they are immortal to almost everything except decapitation. That'd be more preferable to me in knowing I could die, albeit if I was the One, that'd be a different story.

If you can die by having your head cut off or a stake driven through you, you are not, in my understanding, immortal at all.

You may if you are immortal and everyone else around you is not. You'd puity their weakness, or at the very least, pity that they cannot stay with you as an immortal. We at least agree in this regard: individual immortality creates isolation and despair.

We agree that individual immortality *could* create isolation and despair. The increase in amount of love an immortal could experience might out weigh the pain and make immortality ultimately beneficial.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Granted. But in doing philosophy, I took the Cartesian route, doubting everything whatsoever. Many, many philosophers do the same thing. I didn't become a transcendental idealist out of faith in Kant, but as a reasoned response to his arguments and observations.

As an example of my uncertainties even now, I'd be hard-pressed to say whether I was a foundationalist (knowledge is based on assertions that are self-evident or comparably justified), an infinitist (knowledge involves an infinite regress of evidence and justification), a coherentist (knowledge results from a form of coherence among all possible beliefs), or something else.

Cartesians don't doubt that they exist. Cogito, ergo sum and all that. Everything else is up for debate, as I remember.

Maybe. But I think I'm just trying to showcase the logic of the concept of heaven. Heaven is defined as "a place where no negative states of mind endure." So for any negative state of mind you can come up with, heaven would "find a way" to solve for it.
Seems like it's always a work in progress, then. Not exactly perfect


Unless we could find a person who'd only been happy or only felt love, never sorrow or hate, how would we know this?
It's not necessarily about verification here but the coherence of the concept. One cannot understand heat without understanding cold, for instance, to use a more scientific principle.

If ethical knowledge is, at its core, a priori, that is grounded in abstract thinking and imagination, then the only sense in which knowing right from wrong requires knowledge of wrong is conceptual. That is, we need a concept of right and a concept of wrong. But neither concept should be derived from experience.

The concepts are still important in that they need to be fairly concrete in some sense, not purely abstract
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟30,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Here's some support for the argument-from-works-of-fiction against the desirability of immortality (note I'm starting from a fairly abstract point, so nothing about immortality is going to directly appear in the following quote):

The first of them leads [Adam Smith] to give a central place to works of the imagination in moral development. He frequently brings in examples from poetry and drama to explain or give evidence for his points (e.g., TMS 30, 32–3, 34, 177, 227), twice recommends writers like Voltaire as great “instructors” in certain virtues (TMS 143, 177), and seems to see moral philosophy itself as a work of the imagination, a project that needs to draw on imaginative resources and that properly aims at extending and enriching the moral imaginations of its readers (compare Griswold 1999, chapter 1). It is therefore for him a project to which clarity, vivacity and elegance are as important as good argument, and Smith was in fact very concerned with finding the appropriate rhetoric—the appropriate appeal to the imagination—for his works (see Griswold 1999; Muller 1993; Brown 1994). Both of his books are beautifully written, and filled with vivid, memorable examples. [Samuel Fleischacker, "Adam Smith's Moral and Political Philosophy," sec. 3]
 
Upvote 0