“35% of men and 21% of women want to live forever”. (YouGov poll)
Why would anyone want to live forever? Is it because they are having a gloriously wonderful life, free of anxieties? My wife expects to live to 100 and wants me with her; I will gladly oblige – if I and my memory can make it. But it will be for her, not because I want to live forever. Whether you like it or not one’s body slows and technology passeth all understanding. Everlasting life, even if healthy, would be a terrible trial. Friends gone, money diminished, everything changed, and probably no one to care for you. And to what purpose?
No, I suspect that the real reason for wanting to live forever is that those people fear, or cannot imagine, being no longer alive. Epicurus taught that we shouldn’t fear death. “Death is nothing to us” he is quoted as saying. Life is feeling or sensation, and when it ends, there is no feeling. Death does not hurt. What can hurt – a lot – is the process of dying, and here our collective attitude is paleolithic. The ultimate individual human right should be the lengths of our our lives. No one has the right to keep alive someone in desperate pain or on life support, for instance. It is our life and no priest or doctor should dictate how we dispose of it The tentacles of organised religion and its preoccupation with life goes back to prehistoric times. In the modern world the preoccupation is a trial to humanity.
Epicurus believed that man is a bundle of atoms. You have eternal life in so far as your atoms are recycled forever in a myriad of forms. We came from stardust and to stardust we shall return. Be satisfied with that.
I’ve just finished reading Plato’s Apology, in which the trial and conviction of Socrates is depicted. Towards the end, Socrates says that death may be a good thing because: either we will cease to be, which would be a bit like a dreamless sleep- which is infinitely preferably to a dreamy sleep or a turbulent life. The eternity of death is described as a ‘single night.’ Or we will go into another world, where perhaps we will be able to communicate with the heroes of old (Socrates mentions the likes of Odysseus and Ajax.) Whichever way is right, and my empiricist sensibilities suspects the former, there is many a reason to be optimistic!
“Epicurus believed that man is a bundle of atoms.” Well, yes. Although to me that is almost “nothingbuttery.” That is, yes, all creation is composed of a “bundle of atoms,” but those atoms are structured to produce a conscious, complex human being and to think that we are “nothing but” a pile of bizarre molecules with no more meaning than that, is not persuasive.
All those human complexities–love, injustice, suffering, beauty, truth–to me, suggest that conscious human life ought not to be dismissed as “nothing but” temporary add-ons to a pile of atoms on the way to nothing. Granted, this belief is just that– an untestable hypothesis made more difficult by the fact that one can only guess as to what any meanings may be.
Owen, I am always a bit resistant to Plato’s version of Socrates–many speakers are allowed to present their ideas but in the end it is always Socrates who has the right answer. Even when his “answer” is that he knows he doesn’t have the answer. Genuine dialogue, as I understand it, requires fruitful communications across different points of view. Like the comments on this gem of a blog 🙂
I am midway through the first book of Plato’s Republic, and I must say I absolutely agree with you. Socrates is far too authoritative- he is more like a lecturer than a primus inter pares. This not only reduces the quality of communication in the narrative, it makes for mind-numbingly dull reading. Getting through the first book alone will be a chore, and I must have read the whole thing by Christmas.
Owen, I’m sorry that I just found your comment–a month late. The little red circle at the top of the Comments sections has usually led to some Disqus message so I’d neglected clicking on it.
Glad we agree that Socrates is not almost the antithesis of a helpful teacher –the kind who convey that they have THE right answer while pretending to listen to us.
BTW, I think that referring to these Platonic exchanges as “dialogue” is false advertising. They’re not true discussions in which everyone shares insights to get us closer to truth.
The ideal “republic” for Plato, to me, is a totalitarian nightmare dressed in lethal poetic images like the “myth of the metals” and the “cave” imagery to describe human experience. I’m interested in what your views will be when you finish the reading.
I’ll reply to you as soon as I’ve finished. But probably not in the comments. Do you have an email so I can message you personally?