Life, death, and in-between

Point here Ray is that we have no idea who or what we are, or if we are here even! We may be of consistency that is in it's own existence and merit eternal. This stage, if it exists at all, could be just another ploy we opt for to relieve us of the boredom for seventy years or so?

Problem with immortality is that you cannot have births without deaths unless you have unlimited room and resources. Also, biological systems accumulate damaged and wear out and new neural connections are harder to make so old people tend to be inflexible. If our bodies could remain young and healthy as well as our minds, I would like to live a few centuries. After experiencing hat much life, I will probably welcome death.

My sentiments exactly, Terry. I don't want immortality; I want a longer life.

I want immortality, but also realize it is an impossibility. So I will live well as long as I can.

As always, Edgar, the epitomy of realism.

Re: Life, death, and in-between


And they would be wrong. Death is the end of life, not a part of it. (I'm being semantical, I understand; yet the distinction is significant in a logical-philosophical sense: the moment at which the movie is over is not a 'part of the movie'.)



Due to the error in the first part of this sentence, this part has no real connection, and is thus illogical.

Moreover, the notion "we shouldn't live forever" has the stink of 'morality'. Leave morality to the herd. I (at least) have no interest in this line of thought.



In this observation, you've made much the same observation I made above; namely, that the above logic is flawed and not worth considering.

'Devastation' at the time of death occurs precisely beacuse it is the loss of something valuble - life. There is no 'paradox'; there is only the flaw in logic that you introduced.

Re: Life, death, and in-between
Ray

To me, death is what gives meaning to life. In fact, our being as the process of our experiences, becomes complete and defined in the moment of our death - that is not a moment of experience.
Death is a limit and everything has meaning only according to it's limits.
A river is defined by the shore, a painting by the frame, a musical work by the silence.
The meaning of Othello is given by all the experiences that Shakespeare gives to him, including the suicide: but when he dies the character of Othello has reached his perfection, his meaning.

Strange to say that you want to live longer when you're not finished living your "normal" time yet. Who knows, you might be satiated witin a matter of years.

Neitzche, isn't arriving part of a journey? Or is your arrival part of the destination? I have trouble agreeing with you. To live is a process of continous birth and death. Life is growth, just like learning, and is it not true that learning is both the gaining and losing of knowledge? Some new piece enters that negates an older one, and you grow wiser. Death is a consequence of life, same as an answer is a consequence of the question.

The old saying "quality over quantity" comes to mind. Is it really an issue to live as long as possible? Shouldn't the issue be to get as much out of today as you can? Is it not more important to ensure that you get something out of this moment rather than ensure yourself many moments in the future when you don't even know if you have much of a future.

The true immortal is he who has seen and accepted his mortality, but who is still able to enjoy his life.

By the way, can we not say that life in itself is immortal?

Nietzche, I agree with what you said about the flawed logic in the first statement. Maybe you can debate with Cyracuz with this point.

Val, death might give us an incentive to appreciate life more, but I do not think that the process of dying is what makes life meaningful.

I just noticed the title of this thread: Life, death and everything in between. What's between life and death?

I'm not sure... It sounded profound .

Yes it did Ray. From a romantic viewpoint one could say that between life and death is living.

Ray



What I mean is that, when you die all your possible experiences - that made you what you are - come to an end. Only then is possible to know what was Ray, as the sum of all his experiences - mental and physical.
Just like the example I gave with Othello: his personality, his being, is completed with his suicide. Only then we know who Othello was - or, what was Shakespeare's idea of what his character was.
As I said, everything is defined by it's limits.