How to Live Forever

Death can be considered from several different prospects and, depending on which of them we choose, the meaning that we confer to our life can significantly change. The extent of the concepts about what human life is, is enormous and it varies depending on the life-experience of a person, his history, his culture, his education and a lot of other factors.

Religious Studies, 2023

All the cards seem to be stacked against belief in immortality. Nonetheless, the resources of particular religious traditions may avail where generic philosophical solutions fall short. With attention to the boredom and narcissism critiques, intimations of deathlessness in Śāntideva's radical altruism, and recent Christian debates on the soul and the intermediate state, I propose two criteria for a coherent religion-specific belief in immortality: (1) the belief is supported by a fully realized religious tradition, (2) the belief satisfies the demand for self-transcendence as well as for self-preservation. Where self-transcendence and self-preservation are kept in balance, and where the whole idea rests upon the lattice-work of a fully realized religious tradition, immortality is a fitting object of belief. Moreover, such belief is compatible with considerable speculative freedom concerning matter and spirit, body and soul, and personal identity over time.

Why Magazine, 2019

Our duty, either school or parents at home, is educate and guide future generations so the sustainability of our species on the planet would be not a possibility, but a reality. We must stop talking about alternative energies and begin to appropriate them to turn these into what they really are; our only option to continue enjoying the wonders we have in this short period of existence, which we call "LIFE".

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2007

Death is a bad thing by virtue of its ability to frustrate the subjectively valuable projects that shape our identities and render our lives meaningful. While the presumption that immortality would necessarily result in boredom worse than death proves unwarranted, if the constraint of mortality is a necessary element for virtues, relationships, and motivation to pursue our life-projects, then death might nevertheless be a necessary evil. Mortal or immortal, it’s clear that the value of one’s life depends on its subjectively determined quality, rather than its quantity. Thus, it is imperative to live forever in the present, with flourishing always in mind.

Why we are still dying despite our understanding of what's needed for reversing aging? By now, 2017, we could have all returned to our teens. For many years already, we all could have been forever young, powerful, healthy, energetic, compassionate, passion, motivated, creative, innovative, flexible and successful. We-i.e. ourselves mainly, could have made the most transforming, meaningful, powerful and happiness-generating difference in our and our loved ones lives if we would no longer be lead by bad and irrational behavior of our most respected role-models because they implicitly convey the fatal misconception that it is still acceptable to keep trying exactly the same methods, which ad utterly failed the last 100 times they were used. This track-record of indisputable failures, loss of lives, griefs and despair still seems to be a widely acceptable justification to fail again by following exactly the same detrimental procedures without considering stopping until 101st failure can no longer be reserved. Below is the beginning of my dissertation. I proposed in May. I must defend in July.. I would like to write such that everyone in this entire world, who knows English, can understand why we-Homo Sapiens-are the only species, which must be blamed and held fully responsible that life-extension, immortality, indefinite youth, happiness, joy still seemed to be far outside of our reach even though they could have played a pivotal, crucial, indefensible role in everyone's life already so long time ago. Death and diseases and suffering could have been some ancient historical concepts of our ancestors. Despite science, medieval concepts of life still seem to predominate. Like 1,000 ago, nobody can escape he inhuman, subconsciously-induced, self-perpetuating, pervasive, omnipresent and never stopping, psychological terror, which inevitably harms, hurts, and haunts everyone indiscriminately. This makes it an invisible prison, which keeps following everywhere.

The Journal of Ethical Reflections, 2020

What ethical stance would be appropriate in today's messy situation of health crisis, global warming, social and economic antagonisms, etc.? The first one is that of an expert who deals with the specific task imposed on him by those in power, blissfully ignoring the wider social context of his activity. The second one is that of pseudo-radical intellectuals who criticize the existing order from a comfortable morally superior position, well aware that their criticism will have no actual effects. How, then, are we to go on living after we get rid of the illusions of a false critical stance? Not just by accepting our reality: the fascination with the end of our civilization make us spectators who morbidly enjoy the disintegration of normality. A way out of this deadlock is signalled by a line from a song by the German rock band Rammstein: "we have to live till we die". We have to fight against the pandemic and other crises not by way of withdrawing from life but as a way to live with utmost intensity. Is there anyone more ALIVE today than millions of healthcare workers who with full awareness risk their lives on a daily base? Many of them died, but till they died they were alive.

2023

Introduction: Michael Cholbi's book "Immortality and the Philosophy of Death" offers a profound examination of the notion of immortality and its philosophical ramifications. Cholbi goes beyond surface-level discussions and delves deep into the paradoxes associated with immortality, assesses the significance of mortality, and scrutinizes death as a form of harm. This review intends to build upon the previous analysis by providing a comprehensive evaluation of the book's primary arguments, shedding light on their strengths and weaknesses in greater depth.

2019

This paper discusses the desirability of an immortal life and considers Bernard Williams' concerns that we can only ever fulfill either the attractiveness condition or the identity condition that makes a continuous life desirable. It also considers John Martin Fischer's response that an immortal life isn't so bad when taking into account repeatable pleasures. However, the paper ultimately argues for the indeterminate desirability of an immortal life given its inconceivability and concludes that we ought instead to reserve our judgments.

Slowing down the process of ageing and extending our lifespan almost indefinitely may take us closer to immortality, towards which end modern science is making remarkable progress.