Would you take it? — darthbarracuda
It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda
It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda
Tolkien's elves are an alternative idea to this.The vampire novels of Anne Rice explore the implications and downsides of eternal youth. In the beginning, the novels portray the condition as romantic and erotic. By the end, the novels feature an unending procession of mindless savagery and nihilism. — fishfry
It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda
It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda
I'm in the non-pill camp, for what it's worth. I think both sides have good arguments. I think what the pro-pill argument misses is that, by excising any ultimate stake, life loses all its emotional shading and heft and becomes flat and sterile - but I think what the anti-pill argument potentially (but not always, actually) misses is that awareness-of-death doesn't automatically give meaning to life.
Not being afraid of when it when may end, even knowing it could end at anytime - that isn't something that is easily reached, right? We might agree that that's a good eudaimonic state to be in, but the getting-there is the hard part. There's a confrontation with fear, a full confrontation with fear, that is the entry-price of that state. And a full confrontation with fear (in all in its aspects: fear of pain, fear of the insufferability of injustice, fear of personal impotence, so forth) is probably a long, multi-stage process. I think something about voluntarily undergoing that process - freely accepting necessity, etc - is important. — csalisbury
Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.
Would you take it? — darthbarracuda
Pro-PIll: If life is more enjoyable when you're not afraid of when it might end - then take the pill, and rid yourself of that fear. Once you've taken the pill, you are in full control of the moment of your death. You're free of the fear of grim reaper death birds suddenly swooping. Now you can enjoy life in peace. — csalisbury
What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again — Pantagruel
Yeah, precisely: immorbidity rather than "immortality". :up:If all it does is prevent aging I’d probably take it though. I could always tap out when I want to. — khaled
Done. Give me the pill! :death: :flower:What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again, or discuss philosophy with anyone? — Pantagruel
Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.
Would you take it? — darthbarracuda
Another example, if death were truly so terrible, then it seems like people would be much more focused on preventing it. — darthbarracuda
For example, it seems to me that death in itself is not a bad thing. — darthbarracuda
I think what the pro-pill argument misses is that, by excising any ultimate stake, life loses all its emotional shading and heft and becomes flat and sterile — csalisbury
Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end. — Echarmion
Kojeve makes the point that an immortal can get around to all paths, so I think mortality does have a place here. — j0e
Whenever you make a decision, that excludes all other decisions you could have taken. — Echarmion
Someone who lives for 100 years doesn't live two lifes of a 50-year-old. So it doesn't make sense to me to draw some arbitrary line at X years and declare that this is the maximum amount of years anyone can live without loosing "meaning" or "stakes" or gets bored etc. — Echarmion
I still think Kojeve is roughly right, but I consider this one a matter of opinion. — j0e
How many grains does it take to make a heap? — j0e
I do wonder whether people would converge toward a single personality. Would this take 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Or would people diverge in ways I can't imagine? — j0e
This seems to assume that people constantly contrast their experiences with death on offer to give them stakes and texture, and that seems very wrong.
Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end. — Echarmion
Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.
Would you take it? — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.