“Always Immortality”

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, Aug 16, 2016.

  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    It would be like torture. I want this to end at some point. Not that I'm having a bad time or anything.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Yeah... i only want it to go on until i dont want it to anymore.!!!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Like an automobile coming equipped with tires, my reasons and desires for wanting to live are just essential parts of a human's inherent motivation anatomy. When I die those nagging needs and habits will vanish, too. It's not like they would still be hanging around afterwards agonizing over "Why did she have to die, when there's so many social obligations, responsibilities, and bills remaining -- so much that could still be done, learned, consumed, discovered, enjoyed, observed, etc?"

    Death solves one's life by eliminating that psychological system of inter-dependent incentives and worries which overlap and feed back into each other in complex loops. Its circular fantasy train of "important things" which it enslaves us to is finally shut down, nothing matters anymore to disturb the peace of oblivion.

    But that said, the perspective above (in which the individual eventually goes extinct and disappears from a continually changing, purely three dimensional existence) falls out of the commonsense belief which philosophy of time formally documents as presentism. The ironic consequence of this popular view is that a particular entity accordingly lacks significant be-ing to begin with. Because there is nothing to that object but a constant flux of mutable "becoming".

    To assert that Bill Clinton exists is only to say that there is an overall theme or general concept which we label "Bill Clinton", which has all these differing ephemeral versions replacing each other from moment to moment. That they are subsumed under as members (their broader identity set). But since that's wholly an abstract construct or "mutual agreement of pretense that the concept will be treated as real" (unless one is Platonic realist or something), then Bill Clinton is still left being a kind of ontological illusion.

    One might contend that Bill Clinton is nevertheless an effective principle at work in the world (the latter itself actually just a greater part of the ephemeral "becoming process"). This principle ensures that Bill Clinton is represented in history books and instantiates Bill Clinton from moment to moment as a human body at lectures and current affairs. But an immaterial principle serving as the prior in rank condition that makes a material manifestation (like Bill Clinton) possible is just a refinement of Bill Clinton as an "overall theme or general concept" persisting over time (above). It's a metaphysical view.

    But hey -- so is this presentism bovine defecation that tradition has been bullying upon us for ages, where different states of the cosmos are blinking in and out of existence as a global "nows". Their coherence over the long sequence just magically or brutely being maintained from one annihilated instant to the next created one. (I.e., Bill Clinton isn't an ex-POTUS in one moment and Czar of the planet Gaelrosh in the next).
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    You are assuming that the human being is divided into two parts - psyche and body. But you are forgetting the less often interactive part, spirit.

    You might have it backwards. Where Bill Clinton is real and everything else illusion. It sounds left-field, but what are you if not a body? A soul? A spirit? From Bill Clinton's perspective he is seeing the world not from his body, but from an immaterial essence.

Share This Page