Previously I have written on topics ranging from moss that grants immortality to the role technology might play in immortality.
In this edition I will address immortality in relation to the question of struggle, and its psychological justification.
To be specific, the question of whether one can justify immortality seems to depend unfairly on one's ability to cope with life in the present moment.
On the one hand, there might be people that can't justify immortality because it never crosses their minds.
Or, perhaps in some cases, it crosses their minds, but it never seems rational.
So, a primary question to ask, is: can immortality be rational.
And I think the answer is yes, at least in a relative sense.
The alternative is embracing a crass and dirty sense of existence, a sense in which practical questions are about the commercial and basic senses of the materials of ordinary reality.
I find the crass view lacks imagination.
And it is easily misled into false beliefs about justification.
If that is the case, then the willingness to reject immortality on the basis that it is impractical reduces to an unwillingness to justify immortality.
That could almost seem like an immoral point of view.
So we are looking for forms of inability to justify immortality that have to do with one's ability to cope.
We have already determined that if there is an inability to cope practically, there is also an inability to cope morally.
But we are looking for cases that are less crass and materialistic.
Perhaps an inability to cope is not an inability to find justification, but a way in which the world itself is rejecting the person.
In this case, it would be due to circumstance, and the person could be called a hero.
Is heroic struggle the only option besides crass materialism? Probably not.
One option to consider is the anti-hero.
Perhaps there is some way to justify immortality without being heroic.
One could, for example, find a sense of purpose in life.
There are many positive options which are not heroism, but which could seem like a form of gradual build-up towards a life of several hundred years.
Someone with a lot of writing projects, a big family, or a very important job might seem to qualify.
I don't see why not.
On the other hand, it is not that these types of lives are not heroic, it is just that they don't make a big point out of it.
We have already considered in previous articles some of the strictly material JUSTIFICATIONS for immortality, such as strength, adaptivity, medicine, and age before youth.
Those types of principles could be coupled easily with some kind of purpose, if there was a sense of inter-relevance between the purpose and the principle.
Such a combination would only make the prospects stronger for a life of longevity.
The question then, is WHAT IS THE IMMORTAL STRUGGLE? I argue that such a struggle should not be arbitrary.
If you fight with evil, you are more likely to be overcome.
Neutrality, then, looks like a good principle.
Also, health is clearly the primary struggle for an immortal.
Thus, the justification of immortality is the justification of health.
By justifying health, an immortal life is closer to being realized.
The question, then, is HOW TO JUSTIFY HEALTH? Happiness may be important.
What can help happiness? Well, not doing things wrong.
Not thinking the worst.
Having a healthy ethos.
A sense of promise.
Optimism.
But to make sure that the words mean something may require some sort of sense of meaning.
If not meaning, then emptiness, or fullness.
You need to be sure that you are satisfied with what you have.
Or be ambitious.
Every option begins to look like it works, if it works, as long as you don't do anything wrong.
Life is more open-ended now.
Everything important is just as significant as shopping for broccoli.
That's my sense of immortality right now, in the 27th Edition.