Thursday, March 29, 2012
Life and Death - Two sides of the same coin?
Is death necessary for life? In class today someone said that death and life are part of the same thing; the only way you can have death is if you have life. But is it true that in order to have life, you must have death? Does the very nature of receiving life equate to receiving death? Many religions would have us think so; there is a common place belief that death must always accompany life. The Vatican, for instance, said that "disposing of death is, in reality, the most radical way of disposing of life" (Communion and Stewardship - Paragraph 93). In the same document they say that it would be radically immoral to extend human life through production or genetic engineering. Basically, they are saying that death is a part of life and that it would be wrong to change that. I disagree with that assertion and I do not think that death necessarily has to exist due to life. With transhumanism, it could be possible to extend human life to near immortality. Though presumably with this technology it would be possible to kill yourself if you were bored. Maybe everyone would get bored with that sort of life span, making death an inevitable part of life still.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So far as humanity has discovered, no immortal, sentient entities exist at the current moment. However, the popularity of the concept of immortality in literature has exhibited that human perception of the idea tends to take on one of two general views. The first of these is that immortality only takes place in ideal settings (heaven, etc.) or as a form of eternal punishment (i.e. hell), and in the context of divine power. This is likely a simple manifestation of humanity's virtually unanimous fear of death, by incorporating a lack of death into any ideal reality. The second view is that immortality, while initially pleasant, eventually becomes tedious, and immortal beings end up seeking a way to terminate their existences.
ReplyDeleteWhether this latter view would hold true in reality is less than clear - after all, as humans do not have any experience with immortal beings, any human views on the subject (no matter how common) are purely hypothetical. It seems possible that, as the universe is constantly in a state of change, an immortal being would not become fatally bored. This is not to say that such a being might not decide to terminate their existence for some other reason - frustration with other beings, continual grief over the deaths of other beings, curiosity about the possibility of an afterlife - but merely that boredom alone might well not be enough to cause such a decision.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.
Hey Brandon!
ReplyDeleteLast night I finished my second play through Twilight Princess (it's been a while since 2006) and following the end credits, Midna was talking to Link and Zelda about how this will be the last time they meet- light and shadow cannot mix. Zelda corrected her, saying that they were two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other.
I remembered reading this post and just thought I'd share.
It reminds us that we can't have life without death. In your post, it seems you have found a loophole- what if you never die?
As Avery said, there are no current means for attaining immortality, although it is a popular fantasy.
I cannot confirm that there is a soul which lives forever in either heaven or hell, nor can I confirm that souls exist.
I do believe that everything which begins, ends. Even someone who is immortal cannot physically last forever. They may take their own life tomorrow or be victim to some catastrophic event in 3,000 years. The end is inevitable.
-I have also posted this in my blog