# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Why Do We Have To Die?

## Eternidad

The concept of going somewhere else after death sounds silly to me.
Death is the end of everything as far as Im concerned. I go nowhere else. 
Why does life have to finish for ever? 
I want to do so many things. Id need many years to fulfil all of my dreams. One day well be able to go to sleep for a few centuries at a time. Then we come back to life and enjoy the universe again.
We should have periods of rest in a tank, where life itself stops as we hibernate. We sleep for a hundred years and then start all over again with a fresher body and mind. 
This kind of thing can go on for ever. I want to die when Im tired of life and not when nature says so. 

WHY DO WE HAVE TO DIE?

Life eternal
With promises of heaven
Doesnt fulfil me

Id like to climb Mount Everest 
Visit the Chinese wall
And go to Peru

I dream of taking the space Shuttle
And seeing earth from space
As well as landing on the moon

So many things I want to do
But dont have time
Why couldnt we live longer?

Polar bears hibernate
And some other animals do
In this world
.
I wish we could suspend time
Or lengthen life
Until we attain immortality

I have a Trans humanist wish
Of living for hundreds of years
To see humanity changing

Why do we have to die?
We must stop this abomination 
Affecting all of our generations

 :Banana: 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/490402/

----------


## mir

i don't know. we weren't even meant to live as long as we do; there's a point where our bodies start breaking down, and it all starts going wrong. but sometimes i don't even want to live as long as we do . . . if there isn't anything after death, at least there's no sadness or pain. and if there is - i definitely don't beleive in heaven and hell - maybe it's a new beginning, an opportunity to start anew, and you'll still get to do all the stuff you wanted to, and more. there's always time to do what you want - the meaning of each individual life is to be happy, adn there's millions of ways to do that wherever you are. nice poem, by the way.

----------


## Union Jack

Why do we die? Biology dictates that it is so.

----------


## ktd222

Maybe we won't be able to experience everything in our lifetime, but future generations will continue to live longer and longer. So cheer up and when in your death bed, ask someone young to fulfill your dreams for you, and if they run out of time, tell them, to ask someone else. Stop being so selfish!

----------


## subterranean

> WHY DO WE HAVE TO DIE?




And why would you want to live forever?

----------


## kilted exile

To escape the shouting

----------


## Virgil

> Maybe we won't be able to experience everything in our lifetime, but future generations will continue to live longer and longer. So cheer up and when in your death bed, ask someone young to fulfill your dreams for you, and if they run out of time, tell them, to ask someone else. Stop being so selfish!


  :FRlol:  So she's selfish for not wanting to die? That is so funny. You had me laughing out loud.

----------


## amanda_isabel

> Maybe we won't be able to experience everything in our lifetime, but future generations will continue to live longer and longer. So cheer up and when in your death bed, ask someone young to fulfill your dreams for you, and if they run out of time, tell them, to ask someone else. Stop being so selfish!


it isn't selfish to want to achieve your goals and aspirtions, it's human.


we have to die, i suppose, because our bodies deteriorate. so unless someone solves that problem, we'll just have to die and feed the worms.

----------


## blondeatheart

i would want to live forever

i dont like this topic its already made me depressed for years  :Frown:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

...to make room.

----------


## optimisticnad

not sure if this up and its awfully cliched and common etc. etc: in order to appreciate life you must die. e.g. ice cream, you really really appreiciate it when its a hot day and there is none. this is an awful analogy but its so nice and sunny and thats all i am thinking off!!!!!1 :-)

----------


## ktd222

> it isn't selfish to want to achieve your goals and aspirtions, it's human.
> 
> 
> we have to die, i suppose, because our bodies deteriorate. so unless someone solves that problem, we'll just have to die and feed the worms.


the statement has a little sarcasm in it. Plus, my idea of sharing our dreams is more optimistic than your 'oh well'.

----------


## Geoffrey

The thought of having to spend eternity on this earth is really dreadful and harrowing, to me. It seems to me that we GET to die... and really would anyone appreciate there time here on planet earth if they knew it would go on for ever? I fear that I would have no drive to do anything at all.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> The thought of having to spend eternity on this earth is really dreadful and harrowing, to me. It seems to me that we GET to die... and really would anyone appreciate there time here on planet earth if they knew it would go on for ever? I fear that I would have no drive to do anything at all.


...but think of the invesment opportunities - billion year bonds would pay out big time!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bookworm Cris

I think we never die... I mean, our souls never die. Our bodies deteriorate, and "feed the worms"  :Biggrin:  but what we learn in one life goes with us to the next life; what we feel, what we think, go with us either. So, the experience gained is never wasted. And if we had´nt time to fulfill our dreams in one lifetime, we can try on next. 
About having the drive to do it, I also believe that we begin a new life "from the scratch", remembering nothing and ready to learn everything. That´s where we get our drive from. Even if we don´t remember previous lives, our subconsciousness does. And, somehow, it´s all right the way it is. Why worry about death? Enjoy your life! Do the best you can and fear not.  :Wink:

----------


## Castorp

If we didn't die, there would be no infinity. Some believe that God is the "I" of infinity.

----------


## The Unnamable

In _Gullivers Travels_, Gulliver travels to the island of Luggnagg where he meets the Struldbrugs. Some of these are born with a mark over their left eye indicating that they are immortal. At first, Gulliver considers this a miracle and assumes it must be wonderful. Seeing the true nature of this state soon makes him rethink. 

After this preface, he gave me a particular account of the STRULDBRUGS among them. He said, "they commonly acted like mortals till about thirty years old; after which, by degrees, they grew melancholy and dejected, increasing in both till they came to fourscore. This he learned from their own confession: for otherwise, there not being above two or three of that species born in an age, they were too few to form a general observation by. When they came to fourscore years, which is reckoned the extremity of living in this country, they had not only all the follies and infirmities of other old men, but many more which arose from the dreadful prospect of never dying. They were not only opinionative, peevish, covetous, morose, vain, talkative, but incapable of friendship, and dead to all natural affection, which never descended below their grandchildren. Envy and impotent desires are their prevailing passions. But those objects against which their envy seems principally directed, are the vices of the younger sort and the deaths of the old. By reflecting on the former, they find themselves cut off from all possibility of pleasure; and whenever they see a funeral, they lament and repine that others have gone to a harbour of rest to which they themselves never can hope to arrive. They have no remembrance of anything but what they learned and observed in their youth and middle-age, and even that is very imperfect; and for the truth or particulars of any fact, it is safer to depend on common tradition, than upon their best recollections. The least miserable among them appear to be those who turn to dotage, and entirely lose their memories; these meet with more pity and assistance, because they want many bad qualities which abound in others.


"As soon as they have completed the term of eighty years, they are looked on as dead in law; their heirs immediately succeed to their estates; only a small pittance is reserved for their support; and the poor ones are maintained at the public charge. After that period, they are held incapable of any employment of trust or profit; they cannot purchase lands, or take leases; neither are they allowed to be witnesses in any cause, either civil or criminal, not even for the decision of meers and bounds.

At ninety, they lose their teeth and hair; they have at that age no distinction of taste, but eat and drink whatever they can get, without relish or appetite. The diseases they were subject to still continue, without increasing or diminishing. In talking, they forget the common appellation of things, and the names of persons, even of those who are their nearest friends and relations. For the same reason, they never can amuse themselves with reading, because their memory will not serve to carry them from the beginning of a sentence to the end; and by this defect, they are deprived of the only entertainment whereof they might otherwise be capable.

Apart from all this, I agree with *ktd222* (whether serious or not) that its terribly selfish to seek to live forever. This of course means that its precisely what some will assert as their right, probably as a consumer.

----------


## blondeatheart

> I fear that I would have no drive to do anything at all.


Quite the opposite for me; I feel no drive, no ambition, I don't want to feel love, because if it's all going to end soon why bother? If you lived forever, you'd want to happy, so that ur eternity was more enjoyable - and you'd know you had a lot of time to achieve that happiness.

----------


## TBtheG

All biological matter must die. Not that hard to understand.

----------


## Loqurent

(Quote)Quite the opposite for me; I feel no drive, no ambition, I don't want to feel love, because if it's all going to end soon why bother? If you lived forever, you'd want to happy, so that ur eternity was more enjoyable - and you'd know you had a lot of time to achieve that happiness.(Quote)

Thats similar to a point Dostoevsky makes in The Brothers Karamazov, in which he says that if Imortality did not exist, niether would virtue, because there would be no point to co-existence. However, Virtue does exist, since you see yourself pushing that shopping cart down on the dead run with Willie Mays. In other words, virtuous deeds are done, but for what purpose other than imortality?
The question in general is far to morbid for anyone to be asking. Lets tackle instead the question, 'why do we have to live?' Surely such a question will come to more and better purpose.
Aquinas gives 5ive reasons for that in the Natural Law, none of which I'm sure any athiest would be keen on. However, from the top of my head I can recall Reproduction, life in an ordered society, worship of the Lord, Learning, and preservation of life

----------


## water lily

Actually, bioilogically it is rather hard to understand. I mean as long as there is an energy source: food, water, nutrients, warmth, then really we SHOULD go on living forever. Basically we die because we age, but why do we age, why do our bodies deteriorate? It's hard to say. There are a few theories out there, but no definitive answer.

So why do we die? Biologically, it's hard to say, I lean toward to the telomere theory myself. Relgiously, because of that wretched Adam and Eve. Philisophically, I think it has something to do with that quote from Gulliver's Travels (which was a wonderful quote, by the way-thanks Unnamable [when addressing you directly-DO I ommit the "The"?]).

-water lilly

----------


## The Unnamable

> Actually, bioilogically it is rather hard to understand. I mean as long as there is an energy source: food, water, nutrients, warmth, then really we SHOULD go on living forever. Basically we die because we age, but why do we age, why do our bodies deteriorate? It's hard to say. There are a few theories out there, but no definitive answer.
> 
> So why do we die? Biologically, it's hard to say, I lean toward to the telomere theory myself. Relgiously, because of that wretched Adam and Eve. Philisophically, I think it has something to do with that quote from Gulliver's Travels (which was a wonderful quote, by the way-thanks Unnamable [when addressing you directly-DO I ommit the "The"?]).
> 
> -water lilly


If, as Richard Dawkins says, the human animal is simply a temporary home for genes then, from a biological point of view, it becomes easy to see why we have to die. A creature that lived forever would not be able to adapt, so the onset of the first major environmental change would make it vulnerable to extinction.

As you imply, the question has moral and philosophical implications that are much more relevant (on a site like this). 

I really dont think it matters how you address me.  :FRlol:  

Its to your credit that you asked.

----------


## Shanna

> If, as Richard Dawkins says, the human animal is simply a temporary home for genes then, from a biological point of view, it becomes easy to see why we have to die.


I remember a cousin of mine trying desperately to explain to me, some years ago, how the human body could be seen as simply a carrier for DNA, how bodies die but DNA is the only thing that carries on through all the stages of evolution. I think he compared it to viruses but I don't see how he could possibly have done that, anymore.

----------


## IrishCanadian

Reading this thread makes me wonder why we are afraid of death. I am afraid of dying, I understand blondeatheart's sentiments, and I observe that through history people's life spans have changed dramaically as a norm. If tradition is correct then Noah lived about 900 years. In the early medieval period (open to correction, I my be off) people lived to their 50s or so. Today we are taller though less active than the ancient peoples. This is not my area of study so please correct me if I'm off. I think modern medecin has ha a great deal of power in this evolution (if you want to call it that). 
Having said all this I think death is innevitable. But allthings end. The day ends to night and we do not stress over its loss. Relationships end and many times we don't care. Power ends, Summer ends, books end. We are so used to losing things in their natural end, so why fear the end of life?

----------


## Castorp

If we have the courage to look into the abyss and see that the true human condition is Dyionisian chaos, we will fear life not death. Nietzsche said it would be best not to be born at all unless we create the illusion of stability and reason (God).

----------


## Virgil

Good Lord, I keep waiting for this thread to die, but it seems to be immortal.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woeful painter

With our present number many of our natural resources already feel the huge impact on it. I don't want to imagine what happens if we all didn't die al overpopulate the whole world...

But then, death for me is just another biological consequence of time...nothing to be feared of, but I guess I could still be selfish to wish for immortality...for my own dream to see the future LOL

And yeah, this thread, doesn't seem to die just yet  :Biggrin:

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Maybe the reason we have to die is because God, like Virg., is always wondering when we'll all stop yacking and give it a rest.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woeful painter

LOL at Petrarch. True...

----------


## Loqurent

Quoting Castorp 'Nietzsche said it would be best not to be born at all unless we create the illusion of stability and reason (God).'

Quoting Tolstoy 'Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.'

Quote this; one of the two is right, and it isn't Nietzsche.

----------


## Nightshade

Becaue death defines life, maybe?
 :Rolleyes:

----------


## IrishCanadian

ooooo thats deep Nightshade. I think that answeres my question ... i think.

----------


## Nightshade

No so deep just logical :Tongue:  what was your q.... humm why are we afraid? Err the old unknow thing and the fact that its change and as I figure it most people dont like the idea of change...its scary :Nod:

----------


## Union Jack

> Becaue death defines life, maybe?


I'd invert that and say, life defines death.

----------


## Nightshade

Why do you say that? I mean I Understand thatt life is defined by the juxtoposition ( Ha big word for the day!! :Biggrin: ) of no life.
But can death actually be defined as no one really knows what it is as you cant exactly experiance it then tell of it now can you?

----------


## Virgil

> Why do you say that? I mean I Understand thatt life is defined by the juxtoposition ( Ha big word for the day!!) of no life.
> But can death actually be defined as no one really knows what it is as you cant exactly experiance it then tell of it now can you?


Well, I guess there have been several people whose heart has stopped and have been revived. They can probably tell you what's it's like.

----------


## Nightshade

Thats not death virgil....well not as in death as I would describe it I mean propper dead buried and decomposed or cremated whichever. 
Comming back means it was your time yet. I guess I belive in destiney after all.

----------


## woeful painter

Have you met one Virg? Did they say how was it like?

----------


## AimusSage

Maybe Jack meant that what you do in life defines how you are remembered in death.

----------


## Nightshade

Humm theres an interesting idea in the book a tree grows in broklyn ( pensy might be able to quote it better that me)
but anyway the idea I think was as long as you talk about someone who is dead or retelling somthing they said you are passing on a bit of then and thus they never die.... I might just see if I can get pensy to see if she rembers it better than me.

----------


## Virgil

> Have you met one Virg? Did they say how was it like?


Technically yes. My father when he had his heart by-pass operation. And then in recovery, the heart would have to adjust to new rhythms and while it adjusted would go out of control and the way they bring it back into control is by stopping it and re-starting it. I couldn't believe it. But they told me it was routine. Of course it was only seconds and my father wasn't conscious. I guess that is quite common these days.

----------


## woeful painter

Oh, that's amazing....How is he now? Did he say how it felt like, even in his dreams while he was unconcious?

----------


## Virgil

He doesn't remember any of it. He's struggling, not so much with his heart, but with his lungs. He keeps getting pneumonia every few months. It's related to his heart; the heart is not as strong to pump out fluids like a normal heart and so they build up in his lungs when he gets sick. He's on a ventilator right now, but hopefully should start weaning him off again soon. He's really lucky to be alive. He keeps fighting and pulling it out. He's the most courageous man I know.

----------


## woeful painter

Indeed! He is very corageous, I would have easily given up on that state! I pray he becomes better!

----------


## subterranean

> Maybe we won't be able to experience everything in our lifetime, but future generations will continue to live longer and longer. So cheer up and when in your death bed, ask someone young to fulfill your dreams for you, and if they run out of time, tell them, to ask someone else. Stop being so selfish!


I assume you were referring to selfish as the need to have all the time you need to be able to fulfill all your dreams? Well I don't see anything selfish about that.

----------


## The Unnamable

Do you see anything selfish about continuing to use up the worlds limited resources endlessly (in pursuit of your dreams, of course)? Thats just what the planet needs more of  immortal consumers.

----------


## ktd222

> I assume you were referring to selfish as the need to have all the time you need to be able to fulfill all your dreams? Well I don't see anything selfish about that.


It is always about you. What about the grass that needs you for fertilizer? What about the world that bears you out? What about the Father in Heaven? What about your dog Snoopy that died tragically by toy train derailment, and would like to spend some time with you in Doggy Heaven? What about some stranger's dream to see you dead?

----------


## Nightshade

Why would a stranger want you dead?? Its more liley that someone you know will...anyway Ive never had a desire for immortality I think it might get boring after a while thats not to say Imhappy and unafraid about dying either maybe just resigned tto my fate as it were  :Tongue:

----------


## ktd222

Maybe because I'm Jewish and the stranger is Iranian, who knows, there can be many outrageous reasons; but of course that wasn't the point of all my posts.

----------


## Pensive

> Humm theres an interesting idea in the book a tree grows in broklyn ( pensy might be able to quote it better that me)
> but anyway the idea I think was as long as you talk about someone who is dead or retelling somthing they said you are passing on a bit of then and thus they never die.... I might just see if I can get pensy to see if she rembers it better than me.


I am not sure, I can't remember reading it in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn" As far as I remember, I read very similar idea somewhere else but I am quite sure that I did not read it in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn" Maybe I have forgotten or maybe it was not even in the novel. 

Sorry Night, I have been no help here...Actually I don't usually remember many quotations. I forgets easily.

----------


## Nightshade

well thanks anyway pensy :Biggrin:

----------


## subterranean

> Do you see anything selfish about continuing to use up the worlds limited resources endlessly (in pursuit of your dreams, of course)? Thats just what the planet needs more of  immortal consumers.



Well, what if my dreams are to renew, reuse, and reduce (the use of) natural resources? Would you still call me a selfish lad?

----------


## Nightshade

> call me a selfish lad?


totalluy off topic but I thought you were a girl! :Eek2:

----------


## subterranean

> It is always about you. What about the grass that needs you for fertilizer? What about the world that bears you out? What about the Father in Heaven? What about your dog Snoopy that died tragically by toy train derailment, and would like to spend some time with you in Doggy Heaven? What about some stranger's dream to see you dead?



I'd have to disagree with you there; grass and dogs don't have "self" within them. So I'll skip them.

And I'm not sure, why would a person who does not know me want my death? Interesting...

----------


## subterranean

> totalluy off topic but I thought you were a girl!


I am nighty...I just felt like using that word  :Wink: . It's one of my fav words.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Well, what if my dreams are to renew, reuse, and reduce (the use of) natural resources? Would you still call me a selfish lad?


Yes, I would.

----------


## IrishCanadian

> It is always about you. What about the grass that needs you for fertilizer? What about the world that bears you out? What about the Father in Heaven? What about your dog Snoopy that died tragically by toy train derailment, and would like to spend some time with you in Doggy Heaven? What about some stranger's dream to see you dead?


As Sub says there is no "self" active in a dog or grass etc. And I agree. However, there is a symbiosis in existance between those with a self (or soul or ghost or whatever word you like best) and those without a self. For example ... the Lion King was a good movie with an outragiously cheesey theme: the circle of life. Each individual death (weather it be a human's death or a frog's death, amaeba's, a tree's, ...) likely has an effect on that which still lives. The world's population has been growing steadily for the past 100 years or so, we have already produced more in the 20th century than we have in all of recorded time before Christ. 
Though one with a "self" may die for the symbiosis of something that is purely organic dull matter there would not be a waste because its existance serves an existance which serves an existance and so on. 
Now if you want to be selfish! I think that almost everything in creation (or organic existance if your picky about the word creation) is there for the wellbeing of you and me.

----------


## ktd222

> I'd have to disagree with you there; grass and dogs don't have "self" within them. So I'll skip them.
> 
> And I'm not sure, why would a person who does not know me want my death? Interesting...


Its selfish for *you* to believe that the world functions for you only.

----------


## subterranean

> Its selfish for you to believe that the world functions for you only.


I don't believe that the world functions for me only. I'd be dead eventually, so it's definetly does not function for me only.


And how is not selfish for a stranger wanting me dead?


I'd prefer to use the word fear instead. Many people, no matter what their reasons are, wish that they would not die not because they are being selfish, but to some extend, they are just afraid.

----------


## Virgil

Am I wrong for believing that the world is there fior ME, ME, ME! I want it all!  I want to live forever like a demigod. YES!

----------


## ktd222

> I don't believe that the world functions for me only. I'd be dead eventually, so it's definetly does not function for me only.


 Good, I agree.





> And how is not selfish for a stranger wanting me dead?
> I'd prefer to use the word fear instead. Many people, no matter what their reasons are, wish that they would not die not because they are being selfish, but to some extend, they are just afraid.


The fact is that when people start wishing they had more time to fullfill all their dreams they turn the world towards themselves and forget that maybe theres a function for their death, in the time frame of human life, to the rest of the world. And if you believe in a world after this, then their function that other world as well.

----------


## Union Jack

> The fact is that when people start wishing they had more time to fullfill all their dreams they turn the world towards themselves and forget that maybe theres a function for their death, in the time frame of human life, to the rest of the world. And if you believe in a world after this, then their function that other world as well.


But what if you do not believe in an afterlife, or an overarching "plan" for this life, which we are "fated" to fulfill?

If you do not believe in fate or afterlife, then this is it, this is the only life that you are going to get, so you have every right to be selfish (subjective term,) it is the only thing that is truly yours to do with as you please.

----------


## ktd222

> If you do not believe in fate or afterlife, then this is it, this is the only life that you are going to get, so you have every right to be selfish (subjective term,) it is the only thing that is truly yours to do with as you please.


Yes, and that still doesn't change the fact that it is still a 'selfish' act.

----------


## ktd222

It's your life but it's an infinite number of 'things' world.

----------


## Union Jack

> Yes, and that still doesn't change the fact that it is still a 'selfish' act.


Again, 'selfish' is subjective, the perception of this quality varies with opinion. What if I do not believe that it is selfish, I believe that it is realistic, and right. 

How can you define the desire as selfish, clearly I do not define it it as such, and thus my intent in my desire is not selfish, making the act non- selfish.

----------


## ktd222

> But what if you do not believe in an afterlife, or an overarching "plan" for this life, which we are "fated" to fulfill?
> 
> If you do not believe in fate or afterlife, then this is it, this is the only life that you are going to get, so you have every right to be selfish (subjective term,) it is the only thing that is truly yours to do with as you please.


Give me an example? I don't know, use any type of natural resource you want. Let me see how you change the word 'selfish' into 'unselfish.' concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others(m-w) make this definition mean unselfish.

----------


## woeful painter

Why would one wish to be immortal anyway? What is his cause? If mainly for the majority of reasons is for himself, is that considered selfish?

----------


## Union Jack

> Give me an example? I don't know, use any type of natural resource you want. Let me see how you change the word 'selfish' into 'unselfish.' concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others(m-w) make this definition mean unselfish.


Well it depends on what definition a person gives the term selfish. You may define it as thinking only for yourself, and thus "bad" and "uncaring" towards others. By your defintion, yes, desiring a longer life, just to make myself happy and suck up precious resources is "bad."

But I on the other hand asscociate selfish more with self-centeredness, that is I belive it is "selfish" to think that anyone else gives a rats bottom about what I do or do not do. Not so much "the world is all for me mwahaha" but "I'm so special, everyone should judge me and what I do, I deserve more attention (negative or otherwise) than others."

One person living forever is not a huge drain on the worlds resources. It just means that to compenstae, someone has to die for every generation I am alive. Someone dies so that I can stay alive. This is merely evolution, survival of the fittest and all that, not selfishness.

Back to my other point, I draw a distinction between intention, and perceived intention. Just becasue others think I made a decision with nefarious intent, does not mean that I did. I may have had the purest goals in mind, thus making my action pure, and innocent. 

Now I can see an aurgument to that point "so you're saying that if the Nazis thought killing jews was alright and good, then that makes it alright and good?"

To which most people would respnd " no, no that's not what I meant, let me clarify."
But I will not reply as such, I stand by my statement. If the Nazis (or anyone "evil" for that matter) truly beleved that the actions they took were for the betterment of society, then they did no wrong. You could say they were misguided certainly, but you could never say that they were evil in what they did. The act was only evil by your external judgemental values, not under their values and beliefs.

I should stress that I only used the Nazis Jews analogy because it is easily recognizable, I am in no way antisemitic, nor do I support the killing of Jews, but again, it is not up to me to judge the "rightness" of the deeds of another.

In short, the only person you can judge is yourself.

----------


## ktd222

> Well it depends on what definition a person gives the term selfish. You may define it as thinking only for yourself, and thus "bad" and "uncaring" towards others. By your defintion, yes, desiring a longer life, just to make myself happy and suck up precious resources is "bad."
> 
> But I on the other hand asscociate selfish more with self-centeredness, that is I belive it is "selfish" to think that anyone else gives a rats bottom about what I do or do not do. Not so much "the world is all for me mwahaha" but "I'm so special, everyone should judge me and what I do, I deserve more attention (negative or otherwise) than others."


Oh really, so selfish has associations with it, hmmm...self-centered? 




> One person living forever is not a huge drain on the worlds resources. It just means that to compenstae, someone has to die for every generation I am alive. Someone dies so that I can stay alive. This is merely evolution, survival of the fittest and all that, not selfishness.


I think your using the terms 'evolution' and 'survival of the fittest' too losely. These terms strike more at the molecular level. And there is no exact cause and affect.




> Back to my other point, I draw a distinction between intention, and perceived intention. Just becasue others think I made a decision with nefarious intent, does not mean that I did. I may have had the purest goals in mind, thus mkaing my action pure, and innocent.


Selfish has nothing to do with what others think about you. 




> But I will not reply as such, I stand by my statement. If the Nazis (or anyone "evil" for that matter) truly beleved that the actions they took were for the betterment of society, then they did no wrong. You could say they were misguided certainly, but you could never say that they were evil in what they did. The act was only evil by your external judgemental values, not under their values and beliefs.
> 
> 
> In short, the only person you can judge is yourself.


I don't know whats going on with the Nazi deal, but I do know we two seem to be dealing with different words. If you chose to make up a different definition for the word 'selfish' so that you can apply it to your arugment then all of what you said is correct.

----------


## subterranean

> The fact is that when people start wishing they had more time to fullfill all their dreams they turn the world towards themselves and forget that maybe theres a function for their death, in the time frame of human life, to the rest of the world. And if you believe in a world after this, then their function that other world as well.



This is where I don't see the word "selfish" fit it. I mean the world has its own mechanism; when I wish to have an immortal life, it doesn't necessarily mean that the world would agree with me. There's always a consequences for everything, including the wish to live forever. And not everyone believes in after life, some believe they'd just gone when they die and the time in this world is all they have. I see your whole point about being selfish for wanting to be immortal. As I wrote before, personally, I'm not really into this immortal life thingy. But then, I don't really want to call other people selfish just because they have different view about this. It's a matter of choice. Other than fear, I think it'd take a lot of courage for wanting to be immortal.

----------


## ktd222

Its like I'm taking turns with you two. I'll be back later. We can pick up the discussion then.

----------


## subterranean

Maybe we should sit together and have a cup of coffee instead..  :Wink:

----------


## The Unnamable

> This is where I don't see the word "selfish" fit it. I mean the world has its own mechanism; when I wish to have an immortal life, it doesn't necessarily mean that the world would agree with me.


Hence the application of the word selfish to someone who acts in defiance of what the world wants, preferring instead his or her own desires.




> But then, I don't really want to call other people selfish just because they have different view about this. It's a matter of choice.


By this reasoning, there is no such thing as selfishness, which is obviously not true.

----------


## Eternidad

I'm having my body frozen after I die. I hope that doctors in the future can bring me back to life again. It's called cryonics 
 :Banana:

----------


## The Unnamable

That sounds lovely.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> That sounds lovely.


  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Union Jack

> Oh really, so selfish has associations with it, hmmm...self-centered?


I am not exactly sure what you meant by that.






> Selfish has nothing to do with what others think about you.


Try reading my post again, what I am saying is that you thinking that he is selfish is ridiculous. Imposing your own values and beliefs upon an other, and then judging them based upon those values is pointless.





> I don't know whats going on with the Nazi deal, but I do know we two seem to be dealing with different words. If you chose to make up a different definition for the word 'selfish' so that you can apply it to your arugment then all of what you said is correct.


The "Nazi Deal" was just an other attempt to illustrate my point that you cannot judge others as "evil" or "selfish." It's nothing to do with "inventing" my own definiton to fit my aurgument. I am basing my aurgument on my defintion, not the other way around.

----------


## ktd222

I read your post. Maybe you should read your post and make the proper corrections because your dealing with another word. 




> Just becasue others think I made a decision with nefarious intent, does not mean that I did.


Is this you, or what other think of you. Whats the definition of selfish again?

----------


## Union Jack

It's what others think of you (whoever it may be.)

I'll clear it up...

One guy said he wanted to live forever.

You said it was selfish to want that.

I am saying that is only selfish according to you, and your beliefs, thus you cannot define his desire as selfish, all you can say is that you perception of it is that he is being selfish.
Basically my qualm is that instead of saying "I *think* that you are being selfish."

You said "You *are* being selfish." (Paraphrased.)

There is a big difference.

----------


## subterranean

> By this reasoning, there is no such thing as selfishness, which is obviously not true.



Sir, I'm not going to argue with you on that statement. But still, in this whole wanting to be immortal issue, I don't see why I have to look down other who wishes to have the life as a Highlander. It may sounds like a pure selfish act to you, but for me it would take courage to be one because, as I wrote before, the world doesn't necessarily would go along and be cooperative.

----------


## subterranean

> It's what others think of you (whoever it may be.)
> 
> I'll clear it up...
> 
> One guy said he wanted to live forever.
> 
> You said it was selfish to want that.
> 
> I am saying that is only selfish according to you, and your beliefs, thus you cannot define his desire as selfish, all you can say is that you perception of it is that he is being selfish.
> ...



Hear hear

***************

----------


## ktd222

> It's what others think of you (whoever it may be.)
> 
> I'll clear it up...
> 
> One guy said he wanted to live forever.
> 
> You said it was selfish to want that.
> 
> I am saying that is only selfish according to you, and your beliefs, thus you cannot define his desire as selfish, all you can say is that you perception of it is that he is being selfish.
> ...


Sorry, I was responding to another thread. I'm saying that it is selfish according to the word. Why should I have to say 'I think' because I'm dealing with the absolute meaning of the word 'selfish.' If I say 'I think', then that would mean that there are other degrees of selfishness which is not the case.

edit: Great!! I've never gone against a double team before.

----------


## Union Jack

> Hear hear
> 
> ***************


Lol looks like is Sub and I v. Unamable andd Ktd.

And to Ktd, "the word" as you say, (and I assume you mean the strict "dictionary" definition?) is not that important. 

_self·ish 
adj.
1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights (Maria Weston Chapman).
2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.
_

We all know that. But there are differing opinions as to what constitutes as selfish thought and action. It is your opinion that his thoughts or desires constitute as selfish, but your thinking something true does not make it true. It is selfish to you, but not to him... 

So is it selfish or not? It is all opinion, but he, the one thinking these thoughts, and desiring eternal life, does not define it as selfish, nor does he think his desire is "wrong." Thus you thinking that it is wrong makes no difference to the "selfishness" of his thought, the desire is not wrong.

Only if he knew that what he was doing was selfish, or that a little part inside of him was uneasy with his desire, then it is clear that he too believes that there is something "wrong" with what he wants. But if he does not attribute his action as being selfish, then it is not a selfish action. 

I know I am running in circles, but I am trying to make sense. Just think about it a little.

----------


## happenstance

I'll tell you where. Someplace warm. A place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place called Aspen.

Oh, you said why. My bad.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I am saying that is only selfish according to you, and your beliefs, thus you cannot define his desire as selfish, all you can say is that you perception of it is that he is being selfish.
> Basically my qualm is that instead of saying "I think that you are being selfish."
> 
> You said "You are being selfish." (Paraphrased.)
> 
> There is a big difference.


Oh, come on, UJ  this is silly and if your argument needs to reduce you to this, you should reconsider it (_I think_).

What time is it, Unnamable?
9 oclock  oops, sorry  in _my opinion_ and in _my_ part of the world, according to the international conventions governing time and always remembering that time is relativeand never forgetting that my idea of what time is might be personal to me.

You can apply what you are saying to every human utterance and block any debate with this approach. Also, it very quickly leads you into some relativistic nightmare, where no decisions can be made about anything. 




> We all know that. But there are differing opinions as to what constitutes as selfish thought and action. It is your opinion that his thoughts or desires constitute as selfish, but your thinking something true does not make it true. It is selfish to you, but not to him...


And this is merely _your_ opinion. You should have said, _In my opinion_, we all know that_in my opinion_ (or _I think_) there are differing opinions_in my opinion_ it is your opinion.. 




> It is all opinion, but he, the one thinking these thoughts, and desiring eternal life, does not define it as selfish, nor does he think his desire is "wrong." Thus you thinking that it is wrong makes no difference to the "selfishness" of his thought, the desire is not wrong.


What!!!???? Stalin had a famous maxim to deal with problematic people. It implicitly condones murdering them: "no person, no problem." I think this is brutal and ruthless but if Stalin didnt think so then, following your logic, it isnt. According to you, my considering it brutal doesnt make it so.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Sir, I'm not going to argue with you on that statement. But still, in this whole wanting to be immortal issue, I don't see why I have to look down other who wishes to have the life as a Highlander. It may sounds like a pure selfish act to you, but for me it would take courage to be one because, as I wrote before, the world doesn't necessarily would go along and be cooperative.


Sir? Well, _madam_, here are my reasons for looking down on someone who wants to be immortal (not that I said I would look down on them; I simply said that the desire is selfish)  they are only considering what they want. The world is a finite resource. If enough people wanting to be Highlanders had their wishes granted the world would soon become even more overstocked with creatures that consume those resources at the expense of someone else. It doesnt matter if it takes courage to act against what is best for the majority. Imagine if you were trying to get onto the last remaining lifeboat on the Titanic and there was no room for you because one of the passengers already in the lifeboat had taken his favourite double bass with him. He loves that instrument and considers it more important to save it than to save you or anyone else. He's just thrown a child overboard because he thought she might scratch it. Are you going to accept this? Will you be admiring his courage in standing up against the majority?

----------


## water lily

I agree. It is a selfish desire. But is not every desire selfish?

I'm taxing the world's resources right now: I'm breathing air, I'm using power to run my computer, I'm digesting the chicken I had for dinner. In the best interest of the world at large, I should kill myself right now. But to be perfectly honest, I don't plan to. It is selfish of me, I know. I keep trying, but this annoying survival instinct keeps on kicking in and overriding my altruistic sentiments. And for some reason the lines keep repeating in my mind: "Do not go gently into that good night", they echo in my maddened mind just as I prepare the noose and then somehow I cannot go through with it.

So tell me: it is selfish of him to not want to die, or is it human nature? Or is it human nature to be selfish?

----------


## ktd222

> I agree. It is a selfish desire. But is not every desire selfish?
> 
> I'm taxing the world's resources right now: I'm breathing air, I'm using power to run my computer, I'm digesting the chicken I had for dinner. In the best interest of the world at large, I should kill myself right now. But to be perfectly honest, I don't plan to. It is selfish of me, I know. I keep trying, but this annoying survival instinct keeps on kicking in and overriding my altruistic sentiments. And for some reason the lines keep repeating in my mind: "Do not go gently into that good night", they echo in my maddened mind just as I prepare the noose and then somehow I cannot go through with it.
> 
> So tell me: it is selfish of him to not want to die, or is it human nature? Or is it human nature to be selfish?


No; Yes; Yes; No; No. Have you read up on the posts in this thread before you replied?

----------


## The Unnamable

> I agree. It is a selfish desire. But is not every desire selfish?
> 
> I'm taxing the world's resources right now: I'm breathing air, I'm using power to run my computer, I'm digesting the chicken I had for dinner. In the best interest of the world at large, I should kill myself right now. But to be perfectly honest, I don't plan to. It is selfish of me, I know. I keep trying, but this annoying survival instinct keeps on kicking in and overriding my altruistic sentiments. And for some reason the lines keep repeating in my mind: "Do not go gently into that good night", they echo in my maddened mind just as I prepare the noose and then somehow I cannot go through with it.
> 
> So tell me: it is selfish of him to not want to die, or is it human nature? Or is it human nature to be selfish?


There is a difference between simply not wanting to die and wishing to be immortal, dont you think? Human nature is largely an ideological construct and it can be relied on to justify most behaviour. In many situations, suicide can be just as selfish.

Perhaps every desire_ is_ selfish and I agree with some of what you say. However, you have a certain amount of time to be selfish and use up those resources -how long, no one knows. If you were immortal, you would never stop using them and it wouldnt take too long before a situation that is already destroying the planet becomes even worse. In a finite world, for you to have more of something, someone else must have less. 

There were moments when I thought, well, Ive had a long life, Ive had a varied life and Ive just about had enough of it, really.
From _Why Bother_? Peter Cook

By the way, its gentle, not gently. Would Thomas would have felt the same need to rage if the light didnt die? Thats a far more interesting question than whether or not its selfish to want to live forever.

----------


## Eagleheart

There is no such thing as death...Maybe the greatest illusion...Life is eternal...Your body changes but your soul reincarnates...This is a natural law:When your mind cannot bear anything else and cannot broaden you return to the source of life...Why do you think children are more close to God...As the holy scriptures indicate...This is a circle...No one really dies...A matter of beliefs... And Eternidad-You will not die...Your body in its current form will fade away...And because you are so attached to it that you are concerned...
/I am not a member of any sect ..Do not worry ..just believe in some eastern philosophies/

----------


## The Unnamable

> Do not worry ..just believe in some eastern philosophies/


There you go, ladies and gentlemen  _Nike_ Wisdom  Just Believe It.

----------


## Eagleheart

A little misunderstanding Unnamable-It is me who believes in these philosophies ...nothing imperative in my statement...

----------


## The Unnamable

> A little misunderstanding Unnamable-It is me who believes in these philosophies ...nothing imperative in my statement...


  :Rolleyes:  I wonder how I got that impression?

----------


## Eagleheart

Keep on wondering...You seem to have a lot of time for useless activities

----------


## Jay

Please don't personalise your posts, feel free to ignore disagreeable posts/members.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Please don't personalise your posts, feel free to ignore disagreeable posts/members.


There are two possibilities for what you mean here. Either you are addressing *Eagleheart* or both of us. Perhaps, consistent with the astonishing balance I have come to expect from moderators, you will say this is addressed to both (and anyone else who personalises etc. etc. - I know the mantra).

Either way, I object to being called disagreeable, even if I am. It is a judgment on my character, not on my post. Am _I_ allowed to make such public judgments on _you_? Isnt there a contradiction in issuing a warning not to personalise when you then do so yourself?

----------


## The Unnamable

> Keep on wondering...You seem to have a lot of time for useless activities


Dont be so hard on yourself  wondering about your comments isnt a useless activity. In fact, Id say it was worth two seconds of anyones time.

----------


## Jay

I guess the previous one isn't clear enough.

*Please don't personalise your posts, feel free to ignore posts/members you find disagreeable.*

That better?

Now, the original topic of this thread was 'why do we have to die?', *please, avoid off topic posts.*

----------


## Union Jack

> What time is it, Unnamable?
> 9 oclock  oops, sorry  in _my opinion_ and in _my_ part of the world, according to the international conventions governing time and always remembering that time is relativeand never forgetting that my idea of what time is might be personal to me.


Time is a human concept?




> You can apply what you are saying to every human utterance and block any debate with this approach. Also, it very quickly leads you into some relativistic nightmare, where no decisions can be made about anything.


True, you can apply it to many things, but I do not _think_ that it inhibits action. You could certainly stop Stalin if you wanted to, or protest against his treatment of people, based upon the fact, that according to your interpretation of the events, and your beliefs, you belive his act is unjust. By all means, go ahead, depose of him if you want to, but it still does make what he did "bad." It is only "bad" according to you (and admittedly most of humanity) and your values, your judgement of his action is not ultimate, it is only an interpretation.




> And this is merely _your_ opinion. You should have said, _In my opinion_, we all know that_in my opinion_ (or _I think_) there are differing opinions_in my opinion_ it is your opinion..


Allright, agreed. 
*-DISCLAIMER-*
My aurgument is based upon what I _think_ and _believe_ and is no way universally binding for all peoples.





> What!!!???? Stalin had a famous maxim to deal with problematic people. It implicitly condones murdering them: "no person, no problem." I think this is brutal and ruthless but if Stalin didnt think so then, following your logic, it isnt. According to you, my considering it brutal doesnt make it so.


Exactly, now you're getting it, see my previous example...
Quoted here for ease...



> Now I can see an aurgument to that point "so you're saying that if the Nazis thought killing jews was alright and good, then that makes it alright and good?"
> 
> To which most people would respnd " no, no that's not what I meant, let me clarify."
> But I will not reply as such, I stand by my statement. If the Nazis (or anyone "evil" for that matter) truly beleved that the actions they took were for the betterment of society, then they did no wrong. You could say they were misguided certainly, but you could never say that they were evil in what they did. The act was only evil by your external judgemental values, not under their values and beliefs.
> 
> In short, the only person you can judge is yourself.

----------


## subterranean

> Sir? Well, _madam_, here are my reasons for looking down on someone who wants to be immortal (not that I said I would look down on them; I simply said that the desire is selfish)  they are only considering what they want. The world is a finite resource. If enough people wanting to be Highlanders had their wishes granted the world would soon become even more overstocked with creatures that consume those resources at the expense of someone else. It doesnt matter if it takes courage to act against what is best for the majority. Imagine if you were trying to get onto the last remaining lifeboat on the Titanic and there was no room for you because one of the passengers already in the lifeboat had taken his favourite double bass with him. He loves that instrument and considers it more important to save it than to save you or anyone else. He's just thrown a child overboard because he thought she might scratch it. Are you going to accept this? Will you be admiring his courage in standing up against the majority?




I'm trying to get things straight here (for myself, at least). Our debate(?) here is not about whether immortality is an option or not. We all now, at least for now, that human is not immortal. In fact all living being in this world is perishable. Even tress which already aged for years, and currently still alive, would rot and die eventually. 

My argument here is that I think it is not a proper thing (hope I'm using the correct term here) to call people who wish to be Marcus or Selena (by the way, have you seen Underworld?) as selfish people. Why? Because their wish is merely a dream. You don't call people who dream as selfish people. The fact that being immortal is not an option for human, is the key. Then my question for you now: is it selfish to wish to live longer? If I eat nutritious foods all the time, work out, keep in shape, have enough sleep, and I do all those things in attempt to be able to live longer to pursue my dreams, would that make me sound like a selfish person to you? I'd probably agree if your answer is yes, because it is still possible for me to live longer and used up all the world resources along the way. I't is an option for me to try to live longer. But I disagree with you when you called me as selfish, only because I wish to live longer. Again, immortality is not an option.

Futher, let's imagine that immortality is an option. People can be immortal and you consider people who choose to be immortal are selfish as they'd ruin nature's balance and raise conflicts among men. Here's another point where I disagree with you. I open to your idea, that I might kill my (also immortal) neighbour in order to secure my existance due to, say, world's limited resources. But then, I think, you should also need to be opened to other possibility that, instead of killing each other, me and my neighbour would work together for our common good, so that there'd be no child need to be thrown overboard. This is where the word invention comes in. So, no, I don't think it's a plain win or loose situation here. 

P.S. I called you _Sir_ because I noticed somewhere that you said you're a teacher. In this debate (?) I would like to put my self in the student chair. If I know you're name, I'd prefer to call you Mr. XXXXXX

----------


## subterranean

Darn, I would really need to spend sometime to read all these good posts. I'm doing all the posting thing at work and I hardly able to grasp all the interesting ideas.

----------


## Virgil

Well, lots of you seem to think that wanting to live is selfish. Here's an interesting question. All of you that thinks its selfish, do you think it's selfish to carry out an abortion?

----------


## ejf

Many posts in this thread seem to assume that living equals consumption of resources, that consumption is detrimental to the common good because that which a person consumes cannot be consumed by another, and that living is therefore selfish. 

This view neglects the possibility that a person can somehow contribute to the common good, maybe even to the extent that the person's positive production outweighs the negative consumption. Of course there's no way to objectively quantify the value of a person's contributions versus the value of the resources consumed, but at any rate, is it possible that a person's life might have a positive net effect? In this case, would immortality become some sort of ultimate altruism, extending the positive effect through eternity?

----------


## Boris239

If you ask me about wanting to become immortal, I'll probably say no, but the main reason is that I understand that it is impossible. If I'd realy know that the possibility exists and you are offered to become immortal, I am not sure about my answer.
My analogy will be Faust. Would you agree to sell your soul to have all your wishes granted? The answer is no, but if you know that the offer is real, you can't help but think how many wonderful things you can do- for your family, your friends, humanity in general and yourself.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Time is a human concept?


No, it exists as a concept independent of human perception and its rules are written on a big meteorite in another galaxy (a non human language, of course). _All_ concepts are human. The process might still exist but without us the concept itself doesnt.




> True, you can apply it to many things, but I do not think that it inhibits action. You could certainly stop Stalin if you wanted to, or protest against his treatment of people, based upon the fact, that according to your interpretation of the events, and your beliefs, you belive his act is unjust.


First of all, please explain why you think it _doesnt_ inhibit action, given that the only thing any of us can judge, according to you, is oneself. Secondly, could you explain how this approach is not one that Stalin himself could use to justify his own actions? Where does that get us? Hes right from his side and Im right from mine. Lovely  we can now all live happily, secure in the knowledge that we respect one anothers viewpoints. Its not like that though, is it?




> By all means, go ahead, depose of him if you want to, but it still does make what he did "bad." It is only "bad" according to you (and admittedly most of humanity) and your values, your judgement of his action is not ultimate, it is only an interpretation.


Yes, the horrible truth is that ultimately there are No facts, only interpretations but we live in the here and now. We have to act and deal with real problems, not abstract, philosophical ones. Your kind of moral relativism leads to paralysis  on what basis does one act? If everything is just a matter of opinion, there is no right and wrong so why do/refrain from doing anything?




> Allright, agreed. 
> -DISCLAIMER-
> My aurgument is based upon what I think and believe and is no way universally binding for all peoples.


My point wasnt to get you to admit you were 'wrong' but to let you see how absurd such a way of discussing anything is. In my opinion, it is your opinion is deliberate nonsense. 




> Exactly, now you're getting it,


Im a bit slow but I get there in the end.  :Biggrin:  




> see my previous example...


Yes, I did read this earlier and thought then as I do now  its silly. First of all, it falls foul of its own logic (or lack of it). You say that everything is a matter of interpretation  logically this must also include the statement that everything is a matter of interpretation. How can you therefore say, they did no wrong, regardless of what they even did? The labels of right and wrong, according to your reasoning, are simply not applicable outside of oneself. How could you even say they were misguided (which surely implies wrong even if its a euphemistic way of saying it)?

Secondly, and I think more importantly, its utterly impractical. Some people are ruthless  they will exploit your philosophical games and, while you are pondering over the correct word to use to describe their actions, will be forcing some terrified parent to help dig the mass grave in which youll soon be rotting. 

Lastly, if the only thing you can judge is yourself, what is the point of any communication with others? By your reasoning, every utterance is meaningless outside of the person who made it. If everything is subjective then this must include our perceptions of physical reality as well as concepts. Im sure youve already asked yourself this question (  :Biggrin:  ) but why are you even talking to me? Youll express your opinions and Ill express mine and neither of us will produce anything of any relevance to the other.

----------


## The Unnamable

> My argument here is that I think it is not a proper thing (hope I'm using the correct term here) to call people who wish to be Marcus or Selena (by the way, have you seen Underworld?) as selfish people. Why? Because their wish is merely a dream.


Sorry, Ive never even heard of Underworld. 

I was not assuming you were simply referring to dreams but that, given a real choice to live forever, you would condone someone doing so. Think of how more awful the world would be if James Blunt or Chris Martin were immortal!




> Then my question for you now: is it selfish to wish to live longer?


No, but that is a different question from the one you asked me previously. The point of the Swift passages I posted was to present people with a different view of something many people would assume is good. Swifts vision of immortality is horrifying to me. 




> But I disagree with you when you called me as selfish, only because I wish to live longer.


I didnt call you selfish for wanting to live longer  I said it was selfish to seek immortality. When you said that your dream might be to do wonderful things for everyone, I assumed that you meant as an immortal. Besides, I was assuming you were being hypothetical  I dont know you and wouldnt call you personally selfish.




> Futher, let's imagine that immortality is an option. People can be immortal and you consider people who choose to be immortal are selfish as they'd ruin nature's balance and raise conflicts among men.


No, I didnt say this  at least not for the reason you give. Natures balance is already ruined. As for conflict  why would the fact of immortality avoid it? 




> Here's another point where I disagree with you. I open to your idea, that I might kill my (also immortal) neighbour


How do you kill someone who is immortal? Shoot them with a garlic crucifix, perhaps (in the daylight, of course)?  :Biggrin:  




> in order to secure my existance due to, say, world's limited resources. But then, I think, you should also need to be opened to other possibility that, instead of killing each other, me and my neighbour would work together for our common good, so that there'd be no child need to be thrown overboard.


And thats the way the world is, isnt it? There was no need to throw the child overboard in my example. It was done because one person values his musical instrument more than someone elses life. Mind you, thats true for most of us  not specifically with regard to an instrument but say, our pet hamster/favourite DVD/best shoes and so on. 




> P.S. I called you Sir because I noticed somewhere that you said you're a teacher. In this debate (?) I would like to put my self in the student chair. If I know you're name, I'd prefer to call you Mr. XXXXXX


Mr. **** might be more fitting.  :FRlol:  Thank you for showing deference but Id prefer to think of us as equals  at least in the sense that neither of us has any authority over the other when it comes to making contributions here. I have to say that I admire your tenacity even if I disagree with your points.

----------


## Union Jack

> Lovely  we can now all live happily, secure in the knowledge that we respect one anothers viewpoints. Its not like that though, is it?


Sadly.





> Yes, the horrible truth is that ultimately there are No facts, only interpretations but we live in the here and now. We have to act and deal with real problems, not abstract, philosophical ones. Your kind of moral relativism leads to paralysis  on what basis does one act? If everything is just a matter of opinion, there is no right and wrong so why do/refrain from doing anything?


But there IS right and wrong, just not ultimate overriding right and wrong. What is right or wrong to you, may not be to others, yet everyone still has a personal value system to refer to when making decisions. My point is not that you cannot make judgements of others, but that these judgements are ultimately based upon your own narrow view of the matter. (In my Opinion.) Why do or refrain from doing? Simple, do what seems right to you, and refrain from doing what seems bad to you. Others may not agree with your choices, but what they believe holds no sway over the "morality" of your action. 
Someone does something you dissaprove of. (based upon your personal values)
You may then choose to intercede and attempt to notify or even prevent this person from repeating or continuing.
A third party may also choose or not to enter and hlep you or the first party.
You CAN act, you must act, without action, this is all just speculation. But just accpet that your action is based upon personal beliefs that do not govern all peoples and things. Just because it is pointless, does not mean we should surrender.






> The labels of right and wrong, according to your reasoning, are simply not applicable outside of oneself. How could you even say they were misguided (which surely implies wrong even if its a euphemistic way of saying it)?


You can say they were misguided if that is your opinion, but correct, that does not make it true. And these laws of right and wrong are applicable outside yourself, you make judgements of others and their actions, a given in life. You cannot help but approve or dissaporve of others. Yet the fact that you approve or dissapprove does not affect the nature of their action. 





> Lastly, if the only thing you can judge is yourself, what is the point of any communication with others? By your reasoning, every utterance is meaningless outside of the person who made it. If everything is subjective then this must include our perceptions of physical reality as well as concepts. Im sure youve already asked yourself this question (  ) but why are you even talking to me? Youll express your opinions and Ill express mine and neither of us will produce anything of any relevance to the other.


Exactly, there really is no point to it, but that does not mean that we should not do it. I find it fun to discuss these kinds of things, it does not matter to me whether they matter or not. I am perfectly aware of the fact that no matter how well we both aurgue, it is unlikely that one will sway the other's views, or that we have any right to sway the other's views. I am content merely to play this aurgument out for sheer enjoyment if nothing else.

----------


## The Unnamable

> What is right or wrong to you, may not be to others, yet everyone still has a personal value system to refer to when making decisions. My point is not that you cannot make judgements of others, but that these judgements are ultimately based upon your own narrow view of the matter. (In my Opinion.) Why do or refrain from doing? Simple, do what seems right to you, and refrain from doing what seems bad to you. Others may not agree with your choices, but what they believe holds no sway over the "morality" of your action.


Should we all whip out our acoustic guitars (complete with rainbow stickers and the Woodstock dove icon) get naked and join together in a rousing rendition of Id like to teach the world to sing? 

You are pursuing a philosophical standpoint that is both absurd and dangerous. I dont know why you cant see the contradictions in what you say, as they must be blindingly obvious to everyone else. If what you say here is true, _then there is no agreed morality_. We should all do whatever the hell we feel like because all morality is subjective. Sounds great, doesnt it? Anything is permissible. 

Hypothetical scenario  Armed, I happen to stumble upon a group of terrorists about to behead a ten year old girl being held hostage. First of all, I dont want to make any mistakes over what to do because I must respect the beliefs of others. I must remember that my values are subjective and those wielding machetes are entitled to their beliefs and might assume they are not doing anything wrong. Mind you, wrong is subjective so I might have to ponder that as well. So what should I do? There is no point in me thinking about what my society would want me to do because all their views are ultimately subjective as well. Even the views of the terrified child are subjective, so although she looks petrified and is screaming so loudly that I can barely think my clever thoughts, I mustnt let such subjective concerns sway me. Of course, while I am conducting this onanistic, philosophical discourse with myself, the poor girl continues to scream in terror. So, needing to _do_ something I politely address them: Gentlemen, we do not share the same beliefs and none of us has any right to judge the others. I have no right to say what you are doing is wrong as there is no ultimate, overriding right or wrong. Yet everyone still has a personal value system to refer to when making decisions, so I would ask you to refrain from your beheading. Otherwise I will have to carry out an act that I know is philosophically wrong and morally relative and blow your heads off. 




> You can say they were misguided if that is your opinion, but correct, that does not make it true.


Hoist with your own petard? The point is that _YOU_ said this, not me. The following are _YOUR_ words:




> You could say they were misguided *certainly*, but you could *never* say that they were evil in what they did.


On what basis are you saying this? _Never_ sounds pretty absolute to me.

I just hope that hypothetical little girl gets found by someone more ignorant of moral relativity than you. 




> I am perfectly aware of the fact that no matter how well we both aurgue, it is unlikely that one will sway the other's views, or that we have any right to sway the other's views. I am content merely to play this aurgument out for sheer enjoyment if nothing else.


This is an interesting topic, especially with regard to the question of whether or not it matters. I really have no desire to change anyones views, nor do I think I will anyway. However, when I see ill-informed nonsense on the forum, I dont seek to get it censored or banned; I try to give those who might read it an alternative to consider, so I post some opposing views. Looking at the forum statistics, it seems that more people observe than participate. The silent majority will benefit from having different views to consider.

----------


## Regit

> Think of how more awful the world would be if James Blunt or Chris Martin were immortal!


 :FRlol:  very very very awful.

----------


## Union Jack

> _then there is no agreed morality_. We should all do whatever the hell we feel like because all morality is subjective. Sounds great, doesnt it? Anything is permissible.


But there is an agreed morality. Most people belive that absolute right and wrong exist. But where does this belief come from? Humanity has developed a set of morals by which most people make their judgements. Religion, family, enviornment, these all account for our beliefs. Values are acquired charactersitics, you think killing people is bad because you were raised to think so, or your religion says so, or something you read make you think so. There is "morality" in our world culture, but that does not mean that it is the only set of values, they are just the generally agreed upon values. The fact that everyone says killing is bad, does not make it true. But it still is true to some extent, within our culture, not outside of it. It's like the time analogy, time only exists withing the human construct of reality, like morals. 




> Hypothetical scenario  Armed, I happen to stumble upon a group of terrorists about to behead a ten year old girl being held hostage. First of all, I dont want to make any mistakes over what to do because I must respect the beliefs of others. I must remember that my values are subjective and those wielding machetes are entitled to their beliefs and might assume they are not doing anything wrong. Mind you, wrong is subjective so I might have to ponder that as well. So what should I do? There is no point in me thinking about what my society would want me to do because all their views are ultimately subjective as well. Even the views of the terrified child are subjective, so although she looks petrified and is screaming so loudly that I can barely think my clever thoughts, I mustnt let such subjective concerns sway me. Of course, while I am conducting this onanistic, philosophical discourse with myself, the poor girl continues to scream in terror. So, needing to _do_ something I politely address them: Gentlemen, we do not share the same beliefs and none of us has any right to judge the others. I have no right to say what you are doing is wrong as there is no ultimate, overriding right or wrong. Yet everyone still has a personal value system to refer to when making decisions, so I would ask you to refrain from your beheading. Otherwise I will have to carry out an act that I know is philosophically wrong and morally relative and blow your heads off.


You would not have to think so hard. 
You see these terrorists threatening this girl.
You believe that this is bad, thus you may take action to stop them. There is no problem with making instantaneous, "heat of battle" decisions based upon your own beliefs, as long as you recognize that ultimately what you believe is not the ONLY belief, and that others may agree or disagree with your act. But according to you, the act was just, saving the girl was the right thing to do. So why does it matter what anybody else thought of it? Just be aware of the potential consequences. As I said above, there IS an agreed morality in our culture. If you kill someone, even though you believe it is the right thing to do, then be prepared to face the consequences for your action, as others will judge your act based upon their own, or the agreed morality, and persecute you as such. But the fact that they persecute you, does not mean that you did not commit your "crime" with the best intentions.







> I just hope that hypothetical little girl gets found by someone more ignorant of moral relativity than you.


Why? I would save her without a second thought. According to my own beliefs (and admittedly these are influenced by external factors, as previously listed.) I think that threatening little girls is bad, so I would have no qualms with stopping this act. But I fully recognize that when all is said and done, my action was based upon my judgement, and not some "higher" form of justice.




> This is an interesting topic, especially with regard to the question of whether or not it matters. I really have no desire to change anyones views, nor do I think I will anyway. However, when I see ill-informed nonsense on the forum, I dont seek to get it censored or banned; I try to give those who might read it an alternative to consider, so I post some opposing views. Looking at the forum statistics, it seems that more people observe than participate. The silent majority will benefit from having different views to consider.


Exactly, different views is what this is all about. Make your own choices. I'm only throwing my views out there for the fun of it. Take it or leave it.

----------


## Chava

Because the scythe was recently polished.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Perhaps because the attitude of the Almighty towards death is morally relative.  :Wink:

----------


## The Unnamable

> Because the scythe was recently polished.


In readiness for me, I hope. (Just read *Union Jack*'s response - Oh death, where is thy sting?)

----------


## Union Jack

Lol, I think we got off-topic a bit...  :Biggrin:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I am, frankly, glad that we are allowed to die. Immortality sounds like it would feel like never going to sleep again for the rest of your life. Existential insomnia.

----------


## Broken

I enjoyed Swift's discussion of immortality in Gulliver's Travels. It made me think about the idea of a deathless existence in a manner I had never considered before.




> the question therefore was not whether a man would choose to be always in the prime of youth, attended with prosperity and health, but how he would pass a perpetual life under all the usual disadvantages which old age brings along with it. [...] [The immortal characters in Swift's story] acted like mortals, till about thirty years old, after which by degrees they grew melancholy and dejected, increasing in both till they came to fourscore. [...] When they came to fourscore years, which is reckoned the extremity of living in this country, they had not only all the follies and infirmities of other old men, but many more which arose from the dreadful prospect of never dying.

----------


## My Word Is Law

I would be horrified if I were immortal. It would be so...dang...boring!! Plus I wanna know what the afterlife (if there is one) is like, and what it feels like to die. I'm not suicidal or anything, but...yeah.

----------


## apple jiang

> And why would you want to live forever?


 good answer !  :Nod:  I agree with you in some dgree.
why your life seems so fragile?
why not take a look at the power of your mind?

----------


## Arethusa

Achilles, Hector, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Ajax, Priam, Aeneas, Alexander. All these men sought immortality, and in a sense, achieved it. There names have lived on through thousands of years of history where no one knows the name of the 'Unknown Soldier' Live large and you'll be remembered, as long as you are remembered, you live on.

As far as literal immortality goes, Tolkien, staunch tridentine catholic that he was, addressed this at length in the LoTR trilogy and even more so in The Silmarillion. The Eldar referred to death as the 'gift of man' and they themselves being immortal, envied that men were able to transition from the physical plane and move on to a place of peace where they would dwell with Eru, (Tolk's mythical creator). They themselves were bound to the fate of Arda, (Earth?), and while their bodies could be destroyed, their souls were stuck in Middle-earth until the sundering of the world. After millennia of this existence, many of the elves grew so weary of their existence that they began to fade and seek out the only place of respite available to them, The Halls of Mandos, which is sort of a kinder, gentler pergatory. From his perspective, doesn't sound so hot to be immortal.

Now Kafka, there's a dude who had the right idea! Bet he never gets bored. But he too is awful tired of waiting. My question then is this, does the grass always and forever have to be greener? Are we ever happy with what we've got?

----------


## jackyyyy

> Live large


Live LARGE!  :Nod:

----------


## literaturerocks

haha live large..good philosophy ..well in my personal opinion i dont know why we must die..but what i do believe is that there must be something beyond death.. if there was not what is the meaning of life? (oooh now theres a question to discuss..but not in this thread..) if there is nothing else (no afterlife) then you mean to tell me that everything we learn and do and experience in this life is all for nothing? all of our wisdom that we have gained is for nothing? such an ultimate disappointment this would be! so if there is nothing beyond then why were we created in the first place..haha well before i ask any more philosophical questions that should not be discussed here i will end with this
i do not believe i understand why life is
why we are
why death is so
but i do believe that there is life beyond
but wisdom i'll gain this i know
this wisdom i'll use when i go

----------


## Kouchy

I disagree Eternidad. I don't think death is the simple and final end. In fact, I'm a great believer of karma. Our souls keep travelling, as our bodies cannot. Death, I suppose for search of a simile, is like sleep. 

We have to die because the physical form cannot withstand the daily pressures of life, yet the spirit keeps wandering. Reincarnation is definately a possiblity. Personally, i don't think I would want to live for more than my body can withstand.

----------


## sHaRp12

If we werent able to die we wouldnt appreciate our existence. Life is beautiful because we know It can end at any moment, So our choices and actions have meaning. Its how we'll be remembered.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Life is beautiful because we know It can end at any moment...


This from a nihilist?

----------


## sHaRp12

That hurts joe. I would've never thought to judge you.

----------


## Fat29

With advancement in science, we could live longer and live healthier but we could not live forever because there is no permanence in life. We will all have to evolve from one state to another state as time progresses.

The important issue is about what we do while we live and the blessings that we have left for others.

----------


## RDraconis

> Death is the end of everything as far as Im concerned. I go nowhere else. 
> Why does life have to finish for ever? 
> I want to do so many things. Id need many years to fulfil all of my dreams. One day well be able to go to sleep for a few centuries at a time. Then we come back to life and enjoy the universe again.
> We should have periods of rest in a tank, where life itself stops as we hibernate. We sleep for a hundred years and then start all over again with a fresher body and mind. 
> This kind of thing can go on for ever. I want to die when Im tired of life and not when nature says so. 
> 
> WHY DO WE HAVE TO DIE?


We have to die the same reason computers have to break and the sun will have to explode. Nothing lasts forever. Our bodies eventually break down- but you can live longer now than ever before. Used to be you died by 30, now that's a good time to settle down and get married- you won't die till past 80. 

Also, what you're describing sounds like reincarnation. There's a belief about it- you might want to look it up.

----------


## dramasnot6

If we did not die we couldnt reproduce. If we couldnt reproduce the earth would eternally have the same inhabitants. If no one ever left we would have very little change in all societal aspects, and therefore no room for progress. If there was no room for progress or change what would be the point of evolutionary adaptation?

----------


## Turk

We have to die. Because we get older.

----------


## Virgil

We should take this thread and put it into the "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" thread.  :Biggrin:

----------


## jon1jt

> We should take this thread and put it into the "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" thread.



 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  now that's a helluva an idea you got there!!!! and i couldn't agree more.  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## dramasnot6

> We should take this thread and put it into the "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" thread.


 :FRlol:  Nice one Virgil. I agree too. Good answer for that thread : if we didnt die everyone would be sick of eachother and end up eliminating whats left of humanity anyway.

----------


## Turk

> We should take this thread and put it into the "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" thread.


I support this idea.  :FRlol:

----------

