immortality

1803 Words4 Pages

Immortal in fact.

If it were given us to determine how our future ought to be, we would choose immortality.

As for immortality, we would choose to be immortal materially.

That desire is articulated symbolically.

The appeal to fictions about vampires, cryogenics, the alchemical search for the elixir of immortality, all of them express that real immortality is material immortality.

One of the symbols for our material immortality is the notion that we shall live more lives by means of successive incarnations here in this plane.

This image makes it obvious that real life implies matter and desire is a form of knowledge.

The notion of reincarnation shows that since by filtering it is virtually impossible for us to conceive matter in the next planes, we transfer to our plane the condition of our material immortality.

Another form of desire, and the drastic one in terms that eternity is material, is the symbol of resurrection.

The term resurrection refers to the resurrection of the body.

Not of the soul.

It is explicit.

The symbol of resurrection states that eternity is material.

Patristic and scholastic philosophies directly assert that our immortality is material.

The statements are linear.

Here are they:

A person is formed by body and soul and immortality is for the complete person, not a partial one.

Living without matter would be semiliving.

The human being was created complete to live complete and to be eternal complete.

Most interesting is the point that until the precise moment of resurrection, when the body would return to the soul, the soul would remain in a condition of unconsciousness or sleep. Resurrection would mean awakening.

That topic overstresses the intuition that life can only be material.

Some th...

... middle of paper ...

...em.

Therefore suffering cannot be postulated as a general principle.

And if suffering were useful, it would entail that the more the suffering, the better would be things on Earth.

The more the overall happiness, the better is Earth.

Ethics is intended precisely to abolish suffering. Not to apotheosize it.

As for cruelty: if suffering were useful, provoking it would be useful.

Cruelty would be desirable.

It would be into the class of aspects considered the good.

Cruelty might be useful.

But what I do know is that I do not want any cruelty upon me.

Whichever way people may affirm that cruelty is useful, they mean it with regard to cruelty upon others. They inexorably evade from cruelty turned at them.

Cruelty cannot be justified.

Since existence widens from the expansion of experience, ethics might be considered as a quest for an attitude for the greater

Open Document