Maybe Forever
Shelly Kagan’s chapter on immortality revolves around his two following statements: And so, whenever it is you die, death is bad for you. From which it follows that the best thing for you would be immortality, to never die at all. He seems to agree with the argument, when in reality, he concludes that although death is bad when we are not yet satisfied with living, immortality is the equivalent of never-ending boredom. Kagan suggests many possibilities for “avoiding” boredom, such as a simple change of routine, progressive loss of memory, and even a lobotomy. And as expected, at some point, one would still get bored or not be content with what is. What Kagan fails to mention is an idea far too complex, yet simple enough for us to attempt to understand: Love. Kagan is thorough in his constant example of his passion for math, philosophy and family, but never yields into the topic of love. He mentions a sexual state of arousal and also concludes that at some point it would not be enough, but never makes a distinction between the idea of what I call “sexual satisfaction extinction,” when a person is no longer satisfied or the satisfaction has decreased intensely, and love, a word that encapsulates far more than sexual satisfaction. Although Kagan touches on various, important topics related to the desire for immortality, he neglects to speak on the one emotion that overpowers humans and which, subjectively, is in our nature to seek and attain. Thus, making immortality desirable.
Let’s sit and think about it for a second and reminisce on our first love or any love that you have at the moment. Think about how it makes you feel, “the butterfly effect,” tears of happiness, a longing for eternal happiness by their side? For now, let’s focus on the positive aspect of love. Once one has experienced it first-hand, they never want to let it go or, if lost, they are drawn to looking for more love. Either way, once you have acknowledged that love is beautiful, you want it. Love is a timeless emotion that roots back to many explanations as to why we are how we are. Aristophanes’ speech in the Symposium serves as an example of how far back the concept reaches and the determinability of our want to attain genuine love. In his speech, he speaks of humans born with two of everything, heads, arms, legs etc. As a punishment from the gods for being almost as powerful as them, Zeus split these humans in half. In order to have stability again, the halves sought each other, and when they finally found one another, they wanted nothing else but to be with their other half. In this speech derived from a myth, there is a presented origin as to why we seek out love in all its forms. So, let’s consider this, if love is timeless and important to every human being, should it not be a vital element to the broader concept that is immortality? I believe that it is not only essential, but also a determining factor in whether immortality is desirable.
Returning to my initial suggestion that love brings forth the want for eternal happiness, would it not be desirable to love someone and be able to be with them forever? The deprivation account connects to this concept flawlessly. If we were to be in love and death would deprive us of what we’ve longed to have, then immortality would be the ideal solution. Kagan’s first question is as follows: If death is bad because it deprives us of the good things in life, does it follow that the best thing in life would be to live forever? Let’s replace “good things” with love. “If death is bad because it deprives us of love, does it follow that the best thing in life is to live forever?” Yes. Allow me to elaborate. The truth is that you have to attempt to understand love at a micro and macro level. At the micro level, it’s you and your love. The kind of love better described in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves.” Attaining a kind of love like this is a goal that most people spend their whole lives searching for. So, imagine that you have found this love in someone, and you have the opportunity to live with this love forever? Death would be your worst enemy and time your best friend. You’d have nothing but time to be with them, anywhere and everywhere, doing anything you want. At the micro level I imagine your love being your lover, the person that emotionally and sexually excites you. This kind of love cannot have love without sex nor sex without love, thus it needs to be your partner that loves you and whom you choose to love for literal eternity. At the macro level, love is a broad term that can be applied to any person on this earth. I love my mother as I assume you do, so if who you choose to love forever is your mother, then the same is true, immortality is key. Of course, this is keeping in mind and sticking to the idea that this kind of love never has the potential to fade, since as mentioned, it is genuine and true.
So, what then? Having someone you love by your side would make living forever the obvious blessing? If you haven’t loved or have hurt as a consequence, then you’ll refute my argument with a simple no. If you simply do not believe that being with one person for the rest of your life will suffice, then you live with the mentality that at some point, even the person you love would bore you, adding on to Kagan’s theory that nothing on this earth would make living forever a want. But let’s take a second look at that statement, “being with one person.” If you live with a fear of having to be stuck to one person, then what if we make the opposite true? Imagine your life as an immortal that has the ability to love as many people as you choose. You would not have one constant person by your side, but you could take up lover after lover and fall in love with a different person every couple of years as opposed to falling in love with the same person over and over again. Would this then make immortality desirable? For some it just might. But that complicates the concept just as much as a wish to a genie complicates every tale. If this is a want then there is always a downside, every person you love would not be able to live forever, because as you don’t really wish to love them forever, in which case, it isn’t love.
Thinking back on these two possibilities of love, having one person forever or a different one every couple of years, let’s invite boredom to the conversation. With having one unchanging love by your side, you can argue that, at some point, you’re “too used to them,” while with having multiple, you can also argue that at some point, you’ll want to settle down and genuinely love someone and commit to just them. The possibilities are endless because everyone loves in a different way. If you agree with the preceding statement, then there is no denial that everyone loves. With a true and genuine love, I don’t believe boredom is a general conflict. If you’ve felt it, you know that boredom comes when you are not with the person you desire to be with. Whether it’s a lover, best friend, family member, or multiples of each, there will be an abundance of happiness. Kagan failed to recognize that love has the power to alter anything. It can change a circumstance, a person, and a life. It especially holds the power to change one’s desire for immortality. Love is immortal and so we seek to be as it is. There is no denying this unless you’ve never had the privilege, and if so, you haven’t lived, making you unqualified to question forever.
