4 ms·
> I think you've used an unconventional definition of "death" here, I mean the thing that everybody else means: ie "pushing up daisies", "feeding earthworms",
by derrida 11y ago
> I think you've used an unconventional definition of "death" here,
I mean the thing that everybody else means: ie "pushing up daisies", "feeding earthworms", "to dust", etc
If I understand this differently, then it's this perspective I am offering :)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- zardo 11y agoIn that context, saying that change causes death sounds like complete nonsense. I change all the time, yet I am not dead.
- derrida 11y agoEverything changes => inevitability of death. If you 'survive' (say every cell is replaced) then what is "you"? I'd say it's more likely to be a set of linguistic & cultural norms than it is to be anything fundamental from the view point of physics. So that raises the point: is 'you' conceptual or is there anything fundamental? It makes sense for evolution to have selected for organisms to believe there was, no matter what, something fundamental, existant & worth preserving about them, but really - we're this group of cells & the plants we ate for breakfast (and the efforts of the farmer of those plants and so on) Of course, as a "manner of speaking" (that is, in common every day culturally contingent world), all this is bogus. But from a fundamental, naturalistic point of view, I don't see anywhere else to go :) It's also a very parsimonious view as you get to explain a lot of stuff with less entities, etc :)