We are by nature contingent, and merely representative of other parts of our specie, so in order to remain vital as a specie we must die. We have no greater importance than that. The problem lies when we isolate ourselves-mind and body-and thereby insist on preferential treatment demanding heaven, souls, etc, whereby to extend the existence of our egos. If we can again visualise ourselves as tiny genes in a huge pool, contributing slightly if at all, we can free ourselves of hyperbole and expectation.
In many films, immortality is a curse, punishment and not a reward. Everyday life would be different. There would be a problem with motivation; after all, we have time for everything, infinite time. Such life could be boring vegetation. Everything will get bored once, life too, at least in this dimension. Good God saw what he is doing.
The soul is immortal (according to Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others in the golden chain): The ultimate goal of Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy is the soul's assimilation to God (through the cultivation of virtue and truth). The body is, at first, a spatio-temporal tomb, which confines an impure soul; as the soul becomes purer, the body turns into a vessel that helps the soul to reach the other shore. If the body were immortal, it wouldn't be fit to serve its purpose. For this reason, i wouldn't choose my (I = the soul) body to become immortal.
Immortality is in our heart, we were created with it. Our sinful state pushed us into losing it but by virtue of Jesus' ransom sacrifice, our clear moral path will lead us to attaining eternal life- indeed, immortality!
We are by nature contingent, and merely representative of other parts of our specie, so in order to remain vital as a specie we must die. We have no greater importance than that. The problem lies when we isolate ourselves-mind and body-and thereby insist on preferential treatment demanding heaven, souls, etc, whereby to extend the existence of our egos. If we can again visualise ourselves as tiny genes in a huge pool, contributing slightly if at all, we can free ourselves of hyperbole and expectation.
The question is open about a number of important contingencies. For example, is this an opportunity for physical immortality that is available to everyone? If physical immortality was available to only a few I would still live with the experience of grief over lost relationships which, if I were physically immortal, would increase and multiply. This would be an emotional weight far greater than that experienced by the elderly as they come to terms with the fact that there is no-one left from their era and thus there is no-one who "remembers with them." I would not, under these circumstances, chose physical immortality.
All evidence points to the fact that there is only one life the life of the body. If this can be expanded why not? If all humans achieve physical immortality then social change is inevitable to take into account the eternal agency of the individual. As an anti-theist and science based thinker religious ideology is only interesting insofar as it reveals our deep fear of death which would be resolved by immortality. It could be the best hope for humanity to have a truly rational and caring society based on logical reasoning and the needs of technology to balance environmental impacts ie humans that live forever, freed from the chains of dogma, would prioritize environmental sustainability above all else.
You can choose immortality in life during your actions which immortalizes forever.
It's not common to human or other livings to be immortal, but if that could happened to, you will suffer too much each time you loose a friend or a good fellow, and I think you would prefer to live alone and away from people in order not to bear the burden of loosing them, and that, from my point of view, is much more bitter than death itself.
Sometimes as a thinking human being you can ask yourself, Even if I live for eternity, then what? That does not depend on if you have a good life or bad life! I think, when life is counted as life from human perspective, putting God aside, it looses meaning regardless it provides happiness or sorrow. The human heart frankly becomes tired of life sometimes!
Therefore, what matters is not becoming mortal or immortal but the meaning what life brings! The mortal meanings end soon as we die but immortal meanings go in eternity!
Then, what it means by coming and living here on earth but ending in futility of mortality? I suggest, it would be better not to be here at all.
Immortality without evolution is nonsense.
A 70 year old commented on Quora lately that he's ready to go, because in just about everything, he's been there, done that, and the same old things that once were novel and exciting have now utterly lost their allure. If you're going to be immortal yet be the same old you with the same old set of life parameters, limitations, and scope for living and life experience, then that would look more like an unbearable, ridiculous prison sentence.
That which is immortal is unchangeable, unconditional, and eternal: beyond the limitation of time and space. Immortality is the most excellent quality: only that which is immortal is True.
It is only man's doxastic (ignorant) part of the soul---entangled with the body and allured by the somatic, sensual perceptions---that fears the death of the body and the "boredom" of immortality.
I would like to introduce another dimension to the discussion. Freud proposed that humans were motivated by two opposing urges: eros and thanatos. In Freud's thought eros motivates people to embrace life, love, creativity, self-satisfaction, and to procreate whereas thanatos motivates people towards aggression, sadism, destruction, and violence. Whether or not one completely agrees with Freud the fact is that this was his way of trying to make sense of the fact that humans have the capacity to treat others poorly. As a psychotherapist, I am all too aware of the many non-lethal ways in which people express and experience what Freud called the thanatos drive. With this in mind, I would not chose physical immortality if it was not accompanied by a transformation in people's moral/ethical character. Without that kind of transformation, I would be continually aware of, experience for myself, and potentially inflict on others those attitudes and behaviors which are emotionally, psychologically, physically, and relationally hurtful.
Never.
I always think like a human, never ever go beyond my limits even in thinking. May dream more about my goals to achieve them.
You should become immortal by doing good and helping the society/who are in need. Then automatically your name/you become immortal in the society.
One way all great people are immortal.
All has been said, beautiful diverse perspectives. It is not the question that could be answered adequately by, yes or no. Under the current state of affairs I would not chose immortality.
The question needs some clarification. For instance: what you mean with immortality?
If you mean "to go on with this life for ever", you will see that some (many) people find it useless, boring, a penance, a torture, etc. They will not choose it.
If you mean "another different life", the oppinions will depend of what you mean with "different life"... some will assume Plato (the life of the soul,...) others will follow the greek idea of being immortal in the memory of others (friends, the "polis"), in a legend, in a song, in a story... for good deeds and so on. You can choose how to be immortal, but not immortality as such. This are some classic ideas of immortality.
You will find some of the answers to this question in the film "Groundhog Day" (by the way, this film adresses many dimensions of this question).
In Christian Tradition, "different life" is something that is in continuity and discontinuity with actual life: is related, but far above, far beyond. The example provided is the Resurrection of Christ, His new life after Resurrection is very different from His life before the passion and death on the Cross, yet his body has mantained the wounds in hands, feet and side (see Gospel of John, 20: 25-28). Saint Paul, speaking about life after death in Heaven, says in his first letter to Corinthians (chapter 2, vers. 9): «But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.» (I'm quoting King James Bible).
If I had to choose eternal life once and for all, I doubt that I would. But if I had to choose time and again between living on or dying in the present, I would probably keep choosing life.
Soul, religion, all dogmas aside, as long as a person has a chance to become more than he/she is at present and evolve into something new & unimaginable, why not?
Ismo, that which is immortal is not evolvable. Immortality means eternal unchangeability.
We have to be carefull of what we wish for. At first sight, the proposal of immortality on condition of not being able to kill ourself seem attractive. But suppose that you get injured and suffer atrocibly and that other injuries happened and get your suffering worse and worse than you would regret having signed for that dealt. When we say yes to a dealt we in fact have no idea of what it implies then . it may end up to be the worse curse.
Only if my cable company would come up with a better selection of movies.
I trust on immortality due to achievements and noble works performed by somebody for mankind.
I do not trust or want physical ( bodily) immortality.
No, inmortality may be more problematic than we think...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhFM8akm9a4
Of course we're immortal. Even the pagan Aristotle (350 B.C.) could deduce that when he said that there is probably one part of the Soul which is "separable" at death (De Anima, book 2). -------------- The better question would be, "If you could choose to completely cease to exist, would you?"
David,
> Of course we're immortal
This seems to fly in the face of quite a lot of evidence.
Ah well: read book III of Gulliver's travels (Jonathan Swift) about his visit to the island of Luggnagg. There he meets the immortal and you'll certainly find the answer to your question.
If and only if such a state of immortality did not preclude change.
It would be intolerable (a slow painful road toward increasing redundancy) if we could not continually adapt and learn and re-create ourselves in the fire of experience. Of course, there would come a point, if we were to forget our origin then our origin - the people that we once were - may as well be dead - a difference that makes no difference?
Perhaps we should examine the question of what we mean by death before we contemplate the absence of it!.
Depends on what you mean by 'immortal', but the context /'die', 'kill oneself'/ suggests 'going on living in this world', and if so I'd say 'no, thanks'. See Dick Wursten's reply above, and please do read Swift, not just his 'Gulliver's Travels'.
Or perhaps someone is like 'timor mortis conturbat me' here.... Honny soyt qui mal y pense!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology