@john27

Would it be correct to say that your eyes are instruments that you use?

It could be a tool, or an instrument of some kind that I use. That is possible. Although the problem I believe lies not in whether it is or is not, but whether I would be able to tell the difference.

@john27

Would you agree that there is a general situation of a user and an instrument that he uses? For example, a cutter who uses a knife, or a shooter who propels a projectile by means of a gun or sling, etc, or a climber who employs a ladder, etc?

I would agree.

@john27

Would you also agree that the user and what he uses are to separate things?

@john27

Correction: “two”separate things.

While we may live differently - some in luxury, others in abject poverty; some beautiful, others ugly; some white, others black, some in-between, and so on - we can all be killed or we can all die in the exact same way - strangulation, drowning, lightning strikes, burning, bullets, old age, disease, all these have 100% fatality rates irrespective of race, religion, or anything else one might perceive to a be a difference - and that's why, although not in a way that would satisfy all onlookers, The Grim Reaper is considered The Great Equaliizer. Money has in certain ways upset the perfection of this circle of life with death at its center, equidistant from all the living.

Meditate on Thanatos.

I'd have to agree with this, although something doesn't exactly sit right with me... I'll give it some thought and try to pinpoint my dissatisfaction.

I would agree that yes, while a tool may be an extension of myself, it is not inherently me.

@john27

So if you were to lose your sight, you would not be diminished in any way as to who you inherently are. Would you agree with that?

Mm... I would disagree.

A tool remains a tool because it may be displaced without affecting the "who" of what you are. If your tool becomes profoundly correlated to your character, (i.e an olympic table tennis player and his racket) , Then I would argue that It is no longer a tool, but something of substance in correlation to the question: Who am I?

Likewise, because I believe sight is a tool profoundly correlated to my character (which would then mean it's not a tool after all), It's displacement would debilitate my self image, or the "who". It is only after I have rehabilitated the perception of myself to contain its displacement, that I would find it then remains, a tool.

@john27

If I may ask, how is your sight profoundly correlated to your character?

Why, I don't think i'd be me without it.

I'd have to agree with this, although something doesn't exactly sit right with me... I'll give it some thought and try to pinpoint my dissatisfaction. — john27

I'll be waitin'.

Alright. I have a question.

Is it the state of death, or the inevitability of death, that makes us equal?

Alright. I have a question.

Is it the state of death, or the inevitability of death, that makes us equal? — john27

Reread my post.

We can all be killed or we can all die in the exact same way - strangulation, drowning, lightning strikes, burning, bullets, old age, disease, all these have 100% fatality rates irrespective of race, religion, or anything else one might perceive to a be a difference - and that's why, although not in a way that would satisfy all onlookers, The Grim Reaper is considered The Great Equaliizer. — TheMadFool

I would assume the latter, but it's just the "Grim Reaper" confuses me. I don't exactly know which side he's meant to represent.

I would assume the latter, but it's just the "Grim Reaper" confuses me. I don't exactly know which side he's meant to represent. — john27

My answer may not be what you should hear.

Oh.

What should I hear then?

Oh.

What should I hear then? — john27

I dunno! I hope something that makes sense.

Well, i'd hope for that too.

Back to my initial question, er, if you are willing to tell me, What does the Grim reaper represent in this context?

What does the Grim reaper represent in this context? — john27

You might need to go into mortality statistics (does Thanatos show any, how can I describe it?, preferences?). Then you might need to reexamine the data available and look for other kinds of patterns that suggest the Grim Reaper is, after all, impartial.

Sorry, I have to admit I am completely lost. Although I would agree with you that death would not care through which means you come to an end, I don't understand how this would help my comprehension to your usage of "death" in your previous statement.

I had not meant under which form death is taken place, but rather whether he (the Grim Reaper) is a representation of the probability of death, or the state of death.

Of course, he (or she) could be both as well.

Death is not what equalizes all of us. That's because the very notion of death is not unique. We all die obviously. But it doesn't make us all equal as we all die differently. Not literally in the sense of one being strangled or vaporized in the energy bath of a thermonuclear explosion, but depending on the view of death. Death can wear many masks, wear different clothes, speak many languages, and have different thoughts and emotions. Death is ultimately human.

I had not meant under which form death is taken place, but rather whether he (the Grim Reaper) is a representation of the probability of death, or the state of death. — john27

Well, all I can say is, the probability of death clearly shows there's inequality but the state of death is egalitarian in nature.

That's more or less the point I was trying to get at, I think. Another interesting point is that if the "state" or "mode" of death defines our equality, then we may only be able to perceive equality in death. But, assuming that death removes our human conscious, there would be no way to perceive your own death, and hence, no way to perceive equality.

Really! Wow, I would've said the opposite.

Really! Wow, I would've said the opposite. — john27

We see the world differently then.

Well, I'd be interested to explore our differences If you would want to.

I think assuming that eternal life is something unrealistic, (perhaps probable) and innately a fantasy, We are all one hundred percent likely to die.

In what mode do you see inequality?

Moratlity Rates. Keep clicking the links and a picture of death, not so flattering as poets imagined, should emerge from the data. The weak, the poor, minorities, basically those who occupy the lowest rungs of society die early, horribly too I presume.

Let the facts speak for themselves.