5 ms·

Death is not necessary to give life meaning.

• run4yourlives 18y ago
  On the contrary, one could say that death is the only thing that gives life meaning.
• tdavis 18y ago
  Life and death, up and down, pleasure and pain, you and me. Without contrast you have nothing. Life wouldn't exist without death, it would just be... nothing. Never experiencing pain would suck because you could never experience pleasure. Without you there couldn't be me because there'd be nothing to define my individualism. This leads to the idea that we all define everything else in the universe and are everything at the same time, but I'm getting off topic. Grab a piece of printer paper. It's blank; nothing there. Grab a pencil; add some contrast. Now you're onto something. Then again, you could have a completely different opinion on the matter. I wish you would have explained it :)
  • jrockway 18y ago
    Life wouldn't exist without death, it would just be... nothing. Never experiencing pain would suck because you could never experience pleasure. Do you really think this is true, or did you write it because it sounds good? Life is about self-awareness, not about death. Would your life really change if you couldn't die? Mine wouldn't... although I would probably jump out of my window to get downstairs instead of waiting for the elevator. Death is an implementation bug, not a defining characteristic of life. Pain is not necessary to understand pleasure. I can enjoy things without thinking about pain to counter it. (Again, pain is just an implementation bug. You can break your body if you are not careful, and pain is your body's way of getting your brain to stop breaking it.) Finally, I don't look to others to define myself. Other people are nice to have around, but not for the reasons you list. I don't want to be cynical, but I think your world view is misguided.
    • tdavis 18y ago
      Yes, I do indeed believe it. How, pray-tell, do you know how your life would change if we couldn't die? It's not something you'll ever be able to experience. Hell, as humans we can't even comprehend infinity. That being said, I'd argue that "life" would change a lot if it were no longer actually "a life." Would you plan to jump out of that window to get downstairs to go to work or whatever for the rest of eternity? How many centuries could you live until it just became... meaningless? Of course pain is simply "your body's way of getting your brain to stop breaking it" (or something similarly boring, at least). I'm not arguing that there's some deep philosophical reason that pain exists. I'm simply arguing that if you had never experienced pain (physical, emotional, or otherwise) you wouldn't know real pleasure either because you couldn't define it. Logically, you'd have to be happy all the time if you could not experience sadness, but you wouldn't know what happiness was because you never experienced anything else. I suppose you could be truly neutral, but that's the same thing as feeling nothing which, consequently, is what happiness would feel like if it's all you could experience. I'm not saying you need to consciously remember a time you got punched in the face in order to enjoy sex or something asinine like that. Finally, it's not about looking to others to define you. It's simply about realizing that your "being" or whatever you wish to call it is based entirely on context and circumstance. For instance, if I hadn't read your comment, you wouldn't exist to me. We've never spoken before, I don't know you, etc. Luckily for your psyche, you have friends and family and lots of other people/things to define your existence. If you didn't, well, the fact that you are physically here wouldn't really matter much at the end of the day. Of course you wouldn't just disappear off the face of the earth, but for all intents and purposes you wouldn't exist.
      • mlinsey 18y ago
        I dig the existentialism in your last paragraph, but I'm not sure that existence has to necessarily be divided into happiness and sadness, for example. Without pain, we probably wouldn't feel the contentment or satisfaction that comes from a long struggle (for example, the entrepreneurs here probably would agree that the end result of a successful company, whether you define that as an IPO, acquisition, being profitable, whatever, is a lot sweeter because of the struggles and the pain that went into getting there). But I don't think it follows that all types of happiness and pleasure would cease to be. Some things might be inherently pleasurable, or rather are pleasurable just because of the qualia (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) of such experiences, and not because of a reference to a prior pain. Orgasms. The taste of a delicious meal. Etc, etc. Lastly, the absence of pain and death wouldn't necessarily mean that all our goals would be attained - there could still be room for struggle and therefore satisfaction. For example, I don't doubt that if someone with a lot of intellectual curiosity like Aristotle or Isaac Newton or Einstein were immortal and still alive today, they would still be able to find plenty of interesting challenges and probably wouldn't be bored of life yet. For the curious among us, as long as there is the unknown there will always be challenge and there will always be something interesting to do...and in the end, who knows if the unknown is even really finite?
  • foobargorch 18y ago
    Wow!! You have changed my life! Do you have a myspace page?
    • tdavis 18y ago
      No, but something tells me you do...
• qwph 18y ago
  Death is not necessary to give life meaning. That's an unfalsifiable statement, I'm afraid.