About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It isn't a case of "wanting" - that is the error... life simply is, and as such, has a beginning and an end.... it is in what is done with the living, making a flourishing of it, which counts.... "wanting" a death? no more than "wanting" a fairy godmother... am simply not concerned with it...

Post 41

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"life simply is, and as such, has a beginning and an end..."
So because you think it has an end, then you are accepting axiomatically that this process must end and as such want it to eventually end so it will abide by your conception of the process.  Thus you "want" (eventually) to die.  Thus you are pro-death.  Thank you for clarifying.
"it is in what is done with the living, making a flourishing of it, which counts..."
Something I of course whole heartedly agree with.
" "wanting" a death? no more than "wanting" a fairy godmother... am simply not concerned with it..."
You are not concerned with death?  Do you look before you cross the street?  Do you wear your seatbelt?  Obviously you *are* concerned with death.  Whatever it is you are not concerned about sounds dangerously like an evasion of reality to me, not something I would usually expect from admirers of Ayn Rand. 

Michael F Dickey


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, face reality.  Everybody dies.  The closest anyone has come to immortality is living, what, 130 years or so?  If you want to devote your life to the study of life extension, that's fine.  But condemning people for accepting the reality of death is wrong.

When I was a kid, I wondered why we had to go to the bathroom.  Why weren't scientists trying to fix this defect in human beings?  It's gross, and it's a waste of time.  Shouldn't we be able to "burn up" 100% of what we eat and drink, so that we would no longer have to poop?  How do you feel about this, Michael?  Do you agree with my childhood musings?  Or are you actually pro-pooping?  You must actually LIKE going to the bathroom if you aren't actively engaged in the battle to eliminate the need for, uh, elimination!


Post 43

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

“Michael, face reality.  Everybody dies.”

 

Hi Laure, thanks for your comments.  First off I would say that I am not the one here evading reality, that in fact Robert Malcolm is the one evading reality.  Is your life your highest value?  If so, what are you doing to further it?  Most of us wear our seatbelts and look before crossing the street, but beyond that most people end up justifying death with some abstract metaphor such as the ones that Robert Malcolm likes to use.  This thread and the other one linked earlier show many of these comments, which I assert are philosophical acceptances of death as something fundamentally ok.  The main point of all my comments is that philosophical acceptance of death is something that undermines the very idea of defeating it, of doing anything about it.  When you say everybody dies you absolve yourself of ever having to do anything about it, because you simultaneously assert that 1) you are supposed to die and or 2) there is nothing you can do about it anyway.  Men have also said 'Face reality, heavier than air machines can not fly' etc. and have thus justified never trying to accomplish the things they presume are impossible anyway or just plain not right for humans to do for whatever reason.

 

Now the fact that people readily wear seat belts, look before crossing the road, and go to the doctor when they are sick illustrate that in many cases people do act in a manner that furthers their own life, but only to an extent.  Beyond that, they appeal to religions, dystopian futures, or abstract nonsense to justify dying, eventually.  The result of all this is that while we live longer and better lives, the concept of an indefinite life span remains something most people are opposed to.  That opposition, as is illustrated here by responses to my comments in this thread and the previous one, is common.  Why do I receive such strong visceral reaction when I merely try to argue that one should not want to die? 

 

There is a huge difference between philosophically accepting death as something natural, as the end which gives the beginning meaning, etc and something that you would prefer not to happen but do not want to focus your life on fighting because the chance of payoff is so low.  People who do not understand the difference lack an appreciation for the importance of philosophy in life.  The people in the former category *are* pro death in some manner, the people in the later are not.  They would prefer to live, but see it as having no option in the matter.  By his comments it seems that Robert Malcolm, does, eventually want to die, because ‘life is, and things that are have beginnings and ends, there fore life has an end’ (paraphrasing)  I have never asserted that people who do nothing about death but in fact would prefer not to die are ‘pro death’ and this is primarily because they would not ever oppose other people doing something about death.  The people of the former category, Mr. Malcom and others who have posted, ‘bio ethicists’ like Leon Kass and such, would act to ensure that because they think death serves a value and that all humans must eventually die and that it is fundamentally wrong to do something about aging and death.  They *are* pro death.  I hope I have made the difference as I see it clear.

 

“The closest anyone has come to immortality is living, what, 130 years or so?”

 

So since no one has ever done it before than it proves no one will ever do it?  The same could be said of every single medical, technological, scientific, and philosophical innovation ever made in the history of the world.

 

“If you want to devote your life to the study of life extension, that's fine.  But condemning people for accepting the reality of death is wrong.”

 

I agree with you absolutely, and I challenge you to find in my comments where I said that people not doing anything about death *and* not wanting to die are in fact *pro death* (in fact I elaborated on my distinction between the two in the previous thread linked earlier)  However, I am startled by the sheer percentage of people here who do not want to do anything about death because they think death serves some purpose, and nothing should be done about it.  The fact that the vast majority of people are not philosophically opposed to death (even the majority here it seems, who profess to hold their own life as their highest value) is one of the major reasons why so little has been done in combating death overall. 

 

I completely understand that we all make compromises in our lives between what we want to see the world be like (and ourselves) and what we are practically able to accomplish (another point I think I elaborated on in the other thread)  I do not assert people need to devote their life to defeating aging and death and if they do not they are pro-death, but I do assert that the should make sure their conceptions of the likelihood of accomplishing something are based on facts and reason and not the biases of the pro-deathists that have dominated philosophy and culture for all of man’s history.  Being admirers of Rand I am sure we can all agree on the effects that come from the domination of cultural attitudes through philosophy.  There are other things one can do, like supporting organizations which are attempting to defeat aging and being vocal about the desire to want to live an indefinite lifespan, especially in situations where one hears someone justifying death or defending philosophically.  The first step however is to get rid of the philosophical acceptance of death, all else follows naturally.  Some might take up the battle themselves, since again we are all admirers of Rand I think most here recognize the great things that individuals can accomplish even in the face of overwhelming opposition. 


“When I was a kid, I wondered why we had to go to the bathroom.  Why weren't scientists trying to fix this defect in human beings?  It's gross, and it's a waste of time.  Shouldn't we be able to "burn up" 100% of what we eat and drink, so that we would no longer have to poop?  How do you feel about this, Michael?  Do you agree with my childhood musings?  Or are you actually pro-pooping?  You must actually LIKE going to the bathroom if you aren't actively engaged in the battle to eliminate the need for, uh, elimination!”

 

Given the previous delineation I have elaborated on between being pro-death and being pro-life, I hope you understand then what my answer would be.  But in case I was unclear (as I often am) I do not place the eradication of the need to defecate high on my priority scale, however, I would not oppose efforts to eradicate such a thing, it is gross and contributes to poor sanitary conditions.   So now you tell me, am I pro-pooping ?

 

Regards

 

Michael F Dickey


Post 44

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One Michael is like another, it seems - putting words into other's mouths, denying what has been said... so be it, an irrationality not to be sanctioned, and thus it ends....

Post 45

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Beyond that, they appeal to religions, dystopian futures, or abstract nonsense to justify dying, eventually."

Being one of the ones who brought in the "dystopian future" argument (the story of the immortal who grew bored with living), I want to offer a counter-example to my own that I recently thought of...

On the show "Bewitched", Samantha and her family were said to be centuries old, and often told tales of their exploits throughout history with fondness. The thing was that they had not grown tired of living; their conflict was with the mortal world where imagination was stulted by regular humans (Daren was always trying to keep Samantha from using her powers, the nosy neighbors were always trying to keep things "real"). It was the same situation we find in "Harry Potter" with the magic folk being thwarted by the "Muggles."

Even though POTTER and BEWITCHED are based on mystical and mythical grounds, the theme is one that Objectivists can appreciate: imagination is what makes reality worth living, not what is real, but what can be done with the real. The irony is that the Sci-Fi story I quoted was based on "science," yet the premise of the story suggested that imagination was not sustainable without the threat of death.

Something to think about...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

One Michael is like another, it seems - putting words into other's mouths, denying what has been said... so be it, an irrationality not to be sanctioned, and thus it ends....
One Robert Malcolm post is like any other...a few vague ideas presented as divine inspiration...seperated by some ellipses...after a superlative effort of misinterpretation...and a few disengeous allusions to some other post...none of which changes the fact that he is still pro-death

Michael F Dickey


Post 47

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ahem...

Who's the other Michael?

Me?

Or is there room for a third?

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yep MSK, there's a third. ;-)

Michael D., from your comments in Post 43,
There is a huge difference between philosophically accepting death as something natural, as the end which gives the beginning meaning, etc and something that you would prefer not to happen but do not want to focus your life on fighting because the chance of payoff is so low.
I think I'm "off the hook"; you can't call me pro-death.  But it bothers me that you'd call Robert Malcom pro-death.  He doesn't seem to be.  I really like his Post 40, which expresses my feeling about death as well.

Some have said that immortality is not physically impossible, but I submit that it is metaphysically impossible.  Proof:  You cannot find a time in the future, t, at which you can say, "I did it!  I lived forever!"  No - it will never happen.  It is similar to believing that accumulation of wealth is a good thing, and having as your goal the accumulation of an infinite amount of wealth.  Not gonna happen.  Maybe you get around this by calling it an "indefinite lifespan" instead, but it seems like we already have an indefinite lifespan.  I mean, at any moment in time, you can say "look, I haven't died yet!"  So, the whole discussion seems pretty pointless.  Let us go forth and live, and if you want to do longevity research, go for it!


Post 49

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This whole discussion to me is a prime example of the danger of using the same words to hold both cognitive and normative meanings.

If you merely look at "what is" (cognitive), you see death has been part of every living entity up to the present, except the ones who are still alive, and none of those are provably outside the limits of their previously observed life-cycles. You thus conclude that death is part of the life-cycle (at least up to now), because nothing else in reality has shown to be different.

If you look at "what should I do" (normative), the situation changes. A person talking about a life cycle could be saying that he does not wish to live any longer than normal, thus he actually is promoting a kind of death premise. And, of course, he should strive to prolong his life as much as possible - even to eternity if he can manage it.

The problem is that normative concepts cannot exist without cognitive ones, so it is an exercise in arguing in circles when you try to deny them. Also, denying that normative concepts are silly or whatever is to not understand human values properly - more arguing in circles.

However, both sides are using the same words and I don't believe either of them are making a fundamental mistake from their own perspective (one is cognitive and the other is normative). The mistake is in not identifying the cognitive/normative context.

This is an issue that should be made clear in the the "define your terms" part. Then this whole argument takes on a different focus.

Michael


(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/01, 9:52am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.