3 ms·

Meaningless for whom or for what? There is no meaning separate from a subject.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Meaningless for whom or for what? There is no meaning separate from a subject The philosophical argument for a truly-immortal being being indifferent is that they would, over an infinite timeline, experience every possible experience an infinite number of times. In that frame, preference loses meaning. A being that has no preference is indifferent to what happens around or to them. That, one could argue, is an existence without meaning. That's so splendidly separate from biological immortality as to be a straw man. (The argument also suffers from failing to appreciate that there are many types of infinity.)
- Barrin92 2y ago
  Far from it being a straw man I think it's already a reality that affects us. In very affluent, safe countries we are so far removed from death or meaning that most people's lives consist of picking a different flavor of craft beer or game from their Steam library. This isn't just the concern of some theoretical immortal being, people have a crisis of meaning already, there's a bestseller with that title probably being published every week because in a way the illusion of immortality we have has already rendered most of what we do exchangeable and banal. Mind you it's no accident that the one meaningful thing most people still have, which is having kids, is precisely given meaning by our own mortality, it's the one transcendent thing that only exists because our lives are finite.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > people have a crisis of meaning already, there's a bestseller with that title probably being published every week People have always been complaining about this, I think Socrates and Cicero griped about it in their times. The problem isn’t distance from death but monotony. The philosophised immortal being has monotony forced upon them. Many people today and in the past self-impose it.

> Meaningless for whom or for what? There is no meaning separate from a subject The philosophical argument for a truly-immortal being being indifferent is that they would, over an infinite timeline, experience every possible experience an infinite number of times. In that frame, preference loses meaning. A being that has no preference is indifferent to what happens around or to them. That, one could argue, is an existence without meaning. That's so splendidly separate from biological immortality as to be a straw man. (The argument also suffers from failing to appreciate that there are many types of infinity.)

Barrin92 2y ago
Far from it being a straw man I think it's already a reality that affects us. In very affluent, safe countries we are so far removed from death or meaning that most people's lives consist of picking a different flavor of craft beer or game from their Steam library. This isn't just the concern of some theoretical immortal being, people have a crisis of meaning already, there's a bestseller with that title probably being published every week because in a way the illusion of immortality we have has already rendered most of what we do exchangeable and banal. Mind you it's no accident that the one meaningful thing most people still have, which is having kids, is precisely given meaning by our own mortality, it's the one transcendent thing that only exists because our lives are finite.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > people have a crisis of meaning already, there's a bestseller with that title probably being published every week People have always been complaining about this, I think Socrates and Cicero griped about it in their times. The problem isn’t distance from death but monotony. The philosophised immortal being has monotony forced upon them. Many people today and in the past self-impose it.