I can't answer from a philosopher stance but I can from a 'being human' stance.
There are so many old adage's I am tempted to type, from:
"Only those who have a short existence can think that love is eternal.
One should glory in that magnificent illusion."
"Quality is much more important than quantity.'
"The most beautiful is missed most, because it lasts least."
etc

You were not 'granted existence,' your parents decided to have a child, that's all.
I am a fan of Carl Sagan's great demotions, so I try not to 'feel cheated,' by the 'circumstances of my existence,' and my impending demise.

Considering the issue from a purely practical angle. If you feel that your impending death and your current lifespan are 'unfair' or 'unsatisfying' or 'insufficient,' then you should support 100%, the efforts of all science and scientists, who are currently working towards increasing the lifespan and robustness of all humans. Transhumanism, cybernetics, genetic engineering, etc, etc.
You could even study and learn enough to become one of them.
Science is our ONLY route towards living as long as we choose to.
Praying for such an option or expecting immortality via god(s) AFTER YOU ARE DEAD, is a complete waste of thought energy.

I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. — invicta

I think this is really just a matter of personal taste. I was talking to my partner about this. Neither of us is particularly worried by the thought of dying in the next 15-30 years (we are in our 50's). It's been a perfectly contented life, but I don't find the experience so compelling that I need to linger longer.

Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing. — invicta

Be sure that’s not an excuse for not trying. It easily morphs into the nihilism which is an affliction of our age.

Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing. — invicta

I often find it interesting that some people think this way. I don't see how death has anything to do with a negation of life and any accomplishments.

I don't enjoy a meal any less knowing it will be over in an hour or two. I don't enjoy my car any less knowing it will be a heap of rust in 20-30 years, I don't appreciate my friends any less knowing that in a few decades they will be dead. Things are for the moment and for the memories.

Whenever 'nothing matters' crosses your mind remember that thought also includes 'and it doesn't matter that "nothing matters"' and then go on making yourself matter in your own eyes by mattering to someone else.

Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

:death: :flower:

I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. — invicta

It wasn't given or granted, as others have pointed out - life just happened. But that brief spell/blink of an eye business is an appalling insult to butterflies, who have to struggle for their existence as hard as we do, or harder, only to die within a few weeks; they don't have the time or leisure to bitch about the brevity of life. Humans very often put things in an unapplicable perspective.

Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing. — invicta

A terrible driver, runs over child and speeds away, leaving him dead on the road, and later hits a tree, smashing the car and killing herself. She's had her eye-blink of existence and is gone. Are the child, the tree and the car not also dead, missed and mourned? Similarly, if you plant a park or build a house, it continues to stand after your death. You are reduced to nothing (eventually) but you accomplishments are not.

how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it?

If we are - we are scared of mortality not for death's sake, but for the idea of "stop living".

"stop living" is a scary idea, it is so because:
a)It fights with some of our core beliefs; even if it's natural, death for our consciousnesses is something so unfamiliar, that it can't even be processed;

Asking consciousness "Hey, how does it feel to be dead?" is like asking a person if they're asleep.

Our brains tie consciousness and comprehension togheter:
If to understanding something you need feel it - to comprehend it, then what's non-comprehension and what's non-felt?
It's paradoxical, we can think of death itself only as the causation of it, in the terms of our and other's experiences.
..And well,
death isn't that.; We can't think how being dead is or feels like, because death is literally the absence of feeling and comprehension .
So why be scared of death, if the things you are actually scared about aren't even death itself?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Even if death is biologically natural, for our brains it might be the most unatural thing to ever exist.. or.. to not exist.
Hahahhah
ha..
ah..
Continuing:
b)It causes pain; Being scared is an instinctive thing; it is linked to the avoidance of pain, and the wanting for avoiding pain is linked to, you guessed it! Death!

...W-Wait ...what? ..

UH..

well actually that's not really it, we aren't scared of death itself; We are scared of something that comes from it: the non perpetuation of the species.

Thing is, a species is not worse or better than an other if they avoid death - It's just that the species which were avoiding (or atleast not indiferent) to it, are the ones which can actually tell the story.
So death isn't something inherently bad, it is only bad because there exist feelings, and well, why be scared of something that isn't tied to any feelings you might feel? Why think of death when you're alive if it's so? Think of death only when you're dead!
I mean, if you c-can..?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

on a personal level I deal with these hibby jibbies with the ideas of:
"Hey, we don't really know if there's anything after life; Maybe there could be something."
and
"Eh be what it is, I am not really living life if I proceed to be terrified of death, and why die faster? Less life for me?! My my , greedy me, would never."
and the biggest "and" from all of these it's that I don't really think about it lol

Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta

Only if you're inclined to disturb yourself with what's entirely beyond your control. I'm too much of a Stoic to do that. What could be more pointless?

I’d just like to hang out for a few millennia longer. Imagine what one could accomplish in that timeframe. I could be a master of all arts and sciences if i tried, had the ability and motivation.

Imagine having geniuses such as Einstein living for a few hundred years or the Newtons or Da Vincies. By the same token you could also have despots granted the same privilege…would we be better off ? Who knows.



To me the fact that the universe confers a being with self-aware existence then strips it away seems kinda cruel. Why give me a taste of eternity but do not grant me the full privilege? What’s that all about ?



I have nothing against anyone wishing to leave a mark on human history (for the better I hope) or even a legacy …but even that in the span of eternal time seems but a flicker.



I occasionally ponder such questions. Gives me a different prospective from the everyday humdrum.

If the universe endows its beings with the ability to comprehend the concept of eternal life do you think that perhaps it may even be a real thing to a being say such as God (if they do exist). But then again I’m not a God so…the big question is of course why grant a being such a perspective…could it be a prelude to an actuality ? Or do we simply return to dust never to be heard of again. Sounds a little bit … how can I put this mildly …pointless?



Other life forms who lack our apprehension to dwell on this issue are simply natural phenomena which makes our life worth living …sometimes in the form of a consolation from a pet etc. among life’s other amazing wonders.

Yet this glimpse of eternity prompts me to the idea that there might be an eternal existence perhaps in the form of God for which we completely lack the perspective or the perception to see things from that angle.




Nice quote. I have a very similar perspective on this whole thing …

But then I’m prompted by this quote…

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing

To me the fact that the universe confers a being with self-aware existence then strips it away seems kinda cruel. Why give me a taste of eternity but do not grant me the full privilege? What’s that all about ? — invicta

If we had no problems to solve and no questions to answer then we would be as useless as an omnigod.

I would highly recommend Nagel's take on the Absurd. I think some of his conclusions are wrong, but he makes many excellent points.

Would your life be more meaningful if you lived to 180? If you were president or PM of your country? How long would you have to live for your life to be meaningful? Would the ruler of a galactic empire who reigned for 40,000 years have a meaningful life? After all, they rule just one of innumerable galaxies, for what is the blink of an eye on the time scales of the universe.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The%2520Absurd%2520-%2520Thomas%2520Nagel.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiv9sHPic39AhUbRjABHTK5AHkQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1CdbUWlHJRrzwgiaCWZH1N

The eternal is unchanging. I don't think the eternal alone can support consciousness. How can one experience variety in the context of timelessness? What are the contents of a frozen instant of thought? Manifestations of the eternal in our changing world of becoming, seem essential for the eternal itself to exist. After all, if the eternal is unknown, in principle, in what sense does it exist? But to be known it must manifest in a world where it can be known.

I don't agree with Nagel because I think some folks, particularly Jacob Boehme, had very good, if difficult answers to the above, which give being plenty of meaning.

Regardless, Nagel does a good job showing how absurdity can creep into any life, not just our own. The only place his argument seems weak is when he tries to take on the naive theistic interpretation. It seems to me that if you really believe God is asking you to do X and live Y life, that would be meaningful. The larger problem is the question of "has God actually done that?"

The eternal is unchanging. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What makes you an expert on the eternal to make such a blanket statement. I have no idea myself perhaps you could elaborate?

I don't think the eternal can alone can support consciousness — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you have a clear idea in your mind what the eternal is ? Perhaps tell us before making statements such as these on it.

For me the eternal is very very simple. A ceaseless existence that had no beginning nor end. How can that not support consciousness when we are proof of it.

What makes you an expert on the eternal to make such a blanket statement. I have no idea myself perhaps you could elaborate?

That's just the definition of the word eternal in English. "Lasting or existing forever, without beginning or end, valid for all time, essentially unchanging."

This is generally why theologians maintain that God has both an eternal and immanent nature.

I was going with that. How can you have unchanging experience?

Interesting … can you confirm that you are saying the eternal is in fact static or unchanging? Is it so by the way it’s defined or a fact?

In any case to me the unchanging nature of eternity cannot be empirically tested or proved so I’m not gonna probe on that any further.

How can there be no change in timelessness ? Perhaps you’re talking about change in relation to timelessness…that could have merit.

Another interesting thought I had.

In the face of eternity does the concept of time lose its meaning?

Just thinking out loud here.

As a philosopher how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta

Not at all, because in a sense we are always dying or never existed, and in the same way even God is always dying or has never existed. Everything changes, and if it doesn’t change then it is not alive. If God doesn’t change then Nietzsche was right about him.

Definitionally, the eternal doesn't change. E.g., the number two doesn't change into another value or take on new relationships in terms of things like x/2 changing its value. Likewise, a triangle always has three sides, or if you follow Plato, the Good is likewise unchanging.

If a triangle gains sides it becomes a different shape. That has more to do with the common definition of eternal than anything empirical.

I think maybe you're thinking of things that are transcendent as opposed to eternal, i.e. not subject to physical limitations, without place or position, etc. Lots of things taken to be transcendent are also eternal, but not all. The transcendent can change, as in theology where God interacts with the immanent world. I have mixed these two up quite a bit, it doesn't help that the two get used synonymously in translations at times.

I think changelessness implies timelessness and vice versa. Zeno's paradox of the arrow is a good example here. He asks us to imagine an arrow shot from a bow in flight. Now imagine the arrow frozen in time at any single moment. Is it moving? Nope. Now imagine all the moments corresponding to its flight (which according to Zeno are infinite). Does it move during any of these moments. Nope.

So if the arrow's flight is defined by all the moments in between its being shot and it landing, and it moves during none of these, how can we say it moves at all?

The mistake here, which Aristotle was the first to point out, is a fallacy of composition. Velocity is a relative change in position over time. Time itself emerges from change. Time is the dimension in which change occurs, such that if we want to imagine three dimensional space over time we would add a four dimensional object. The time slider on a video is a good example of this dimension, if you envision it as a second X axis.


I would say that change implies time, but it does not necessarily imply the linear time we are used to. We can think of something that passes back and forth between two states existing in a sort of circular time. Or more abstractly, change requires an additional dimension to defining any process.

If a triangle gains sides it becomes a different shape. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No shit, Sherlock.

I’m talking about eternity in terms of eternal existence and the consciousness of man therein. Don’t see where your triangles have anything to do with what I’m trying to explore here but crack on…

And there is change in eternal existence I’ve put on a stone in weight last few months don’t tell me the scales are lying and that I’m not really a fat bastard…

Other life forms who lack our apprehension to dwell on this issue are simply natural phenomena which makes our life worth living …sometimes in the form of a consolation from a pet etc. among life’s other amazing wonders. — invicta

No. They do not exist for us. Nothing exists for us. The fluke that we have this big massive imagination and even more massive self-valuation doesn't give us divine privilege. It gives us the ability to dominate, subdue and despoil, not the right. And it gives us illusions, like that the universe or god or something or somebody owes us more, even more than we've already claimed, stolen and wasted.
You blame the universe for making your life shorter than you want it to be - and so do many humans. At the same time, the single most common cause of premature death in humans, as well as billions of other life-forms, is human activity.

The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time when existence itself is an eternal phenomena…am I not worthy ?

It’s the least it could do. Perhaps it would reply by saying there ain’t really a reason for my existence I’m just a fluke …pure random chance.

Yet I would feel short changed…wouldn’t you?

Universe, explain yourself …

The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time. — invicta

The bible has an explanation: You should never have taken that fruit; it was forbidden for your own protection. The notion that having this awareness makes us unhappy - IOW 'ignorance is bliss' - has been around for quite a long time in the human narrative.
I'll lay odds the universe doesn't feel it owes you squat.

Yet I would feel short changed…wouldn’t you? — invicta

No.
For one thing, I've had a lot of fun with that same big imagination, and that's all mine.
For another, I'm past the best-before date, at an age when I appreciate every extra day I get to keep - no questions, no complaints, no arguments.

:up:

Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it?
— invicta

Only if you're inclined to disturb yourself with what's entirely beyond your control. I'm too much of a Stoic to do that. What could be more pointless? — Ciceronianus

:fire:

I find it odd if not bizarre that every conceivable human emotion, memory all but disappear entailing that your life really meant nothing despite its ups and downs, moments of joy sorrow and everything in between.

It all meant nothing …every struggle … without any meaning.

But human beings, at least some of them are yearners for the impossible, for immortality and their place in the arena of the God’s themselves.

Whether this be accomplished through artificial means or spiritual paths of say enlightenment and recognising the divinity of man who in his sights sets to live forever is nothing but a cause or a quest to be admired.

I find it odd if not bizarre that every conceivable human emotion, memory all but disappear entailing that your life really meant nothing despite its ups and downs, moments of joy sorrow and everything in between.

It all meant nothing …every struggle … without any meaning. — invicta

That's a choice. You could equally say how much more precious is an experience which is evanescent. Where does it say an experience is only valuable if it endures? What has chronology got to do with anything? Sounds like a Christian value system at work here. E.g., the only life which matters is eternal life not the filthy, degraded thing we have here on earth.

In a way it is. The brevity of a miserable or joyful existence has its merits.

If you’re unhappy or miserable you want it to be over.

The Christian promise to its believers for eternal life via redemption or being a good human being has its merits in a way but it does kinda exclude atheists doesn’t it

So let’s think secular instead if you like.

If eternal life was offered not by God but by the universe (let’s say you stumbled upon some sort of secret) would you refuse ?

There is neither implied nor intended whine. Perhaps the tone of the text has been misinterpreted from yourself ?

In any case. My point is this and actually relates to the limited time span of human existence which some begrudgingly accept whilst others embrace.

The point I’m trying to make is frankly quite irrelevant at this point just wanted a general feel of the normal person on existence being brief in the face of eternity…

I deleted my comment. I will try and make a more serious point. Merely declaring that 'everything is meaningless in the light of eternity' is a kind of nihilistic attitude.It is true that when you consider the vastness of the universe and deep time, we humans seem insignificant. But on the other hand, we're the only beings we know of who are even aware of that immensity. That itself has significance. As has sometimes been said by evolutionary theorists, in h. sapiens the process of evolution becomes self-aware.

The philosopher Neitszche predicted an upsurge of nihilism in Western culture, due to the erosion of traditional religion and it's anchoring for morality. But, contrary to his prediction, religion has not, in fact, died, and I for one never accepted his proclamation of the 'death of God'. While it's true there is a crisis of meaning in Western culture, there doesn't have to be, and a sense of meaning can be recovered, if one seeks it.

If eternal life was offered not by God but by the universe (let’s say you stumbled upon some sort of secret) would you refuse ? — invicta

Yes.

It’s a thought that i myself occasionally ponder. I mean who doesn’t want to live forever? Apparently some don’t and I hold that against no one.

To be given the privilege of recognising eternity even if not being able to attain eternal existence can be a depressing thought though you could develop a stoic attitude and be content with that fact (as Ciceron above asserted)

As we are products or by-products of this amazing eternal universe/existence I have a niggling suspicion that eternal life might be a real thing in some form or other.