Chapter Four
Self-awareness and awareness of death
There is no statement about the distinctive feature of the nature of human life that is more eloquent and at the same time accurate than Dostoyevsky’s expression: “Man needs the incomprehensible and unfathomable, and the infinite, as much as he needs the small planet on which he lives.” Gardner Murphy (1958) provides a formulation that is closer to biology, albeit negative: “The human nervous system possesses strange, deep longings and longings for things that are neither meat nor drink, which do not satisfy the need for oxygen or sex, and which are not material needs and are not among the evident requirements of the human body.” What is "strange" about these needs is their origin in biological evolution. We know that evolution is utilitarian; Evolutionary changes come in response to environmental challenges, and are employed by natural selection to benefit the continuity of the species in which they exist. The changes that are selected work to maintain the organism's adaptation and to improve its adaptation to its environments, that is, to increase its ability to survive and reproduce in those environments. But this yearning for “the absolute, the incomprehensible, the unfathomable” does not seem to lead to an improvement in adaptation; It actually limits the chances of survival of its carriers, especially those in whom its expression is more severe. However, it is certain that the latency of these desires is biologically and genetically embedded in human nature. The evidence for this is that these desires exist only in humans; The most intelligent animals cannot imagine the Absolute and therefore cannot yearn for it.
We have previously pointed out that unhelpful and perhaps harmful traits could become established evolutionarily if they were part of overall adaptively useful organisms. It is difficult for one to imagine, for example, anything contrary to biological nature, such as the dangers and pains of labor in humans. But these terrible maladaptive traits form part of a complex that also includes traits such as erect stature, large brains and heads, a long childhood during which children acquire the cultural heritage of the groups to which they belong, family organization, etc. (see pp. 33-34). This complexity calls for caution in trying to reach evolutionary explanations. Assuming that there is an adaptive biological value for each individual trait, in isolation from the rest of the living system, is a misconception. We must remember that what lives or dies, whose offspring are reproduced or lost, is the living individual, not the separate parts of the body or isolated genes. The performance of a particular device or function can of course determine the fate of an individual in certain circumstances. However, the adaptive value and Darwinian validity of a group of individuals are determined by the balance of advantages and disadvantages, strength and weakness, ability and inability.
The biologist cannot help but be amazed at the attention that psychology has received and the miserable results this science has achieved in the field of studying and understanding the differences in mental abilities between humans and animals. Certainly this was not due to the lack of words used to describe the unique qualities of man. It is said that man is a being characterized by living by logic instead of instinct; Man is aware of himself and aware of himself; He has a mind; He has a self (ego) and a conscience (super-ego); Capable of insight, abstraction, composing symbols, symbolic thinking, and using symbolic language. But the mainstream of academic psychology, which in the United States was recently formed by behavioralists, rejects these words and the concepts on which they are based. These words are doomed to be too vague, imprecise, and useless as operational concepts for research in psychology. Many recent psychology books simply neglect to mention these slippery words. But whatever the case may be, pretending that there is no problem with regard to the difference between the human mind and the rudiments of the mind found in animals does not bring us closer to reaching a solution to the problem. When those who insist on using only the most precise, mechanistic methods in science, which is sometimes called “hard” science, abandon tackling the problem, the task of solving it falls on the supporters of “soft” science in absentia.
Thorpe (1965) asserts that ethology, the science of comparative animal behavior, provides convincing evidence, too numerous to list here, that something like the conscious mind must have appeared several times in the evolutionary history of the animal kingdom. But what is this conscious mind, and in what ways does the conscious human mind differ from what Thorpe, one of the most prominent living ethologists, believes has appeared repeatedly in evolutionary history? We have already quoted Sherrington's view that the mind “escapes chemistry and physics” and that “natural science denies to the mind anything beyond its range of vision.” These statements should not be taken as a denial of the reality of reason, which Sherrington knows is inevitable. “I doubt, therefore I exist,” a fact that was impossible for even Descartes to doubt. What Sherrington said is simply that we experience the mind but do not notice it, and therefore our knowledge of it comes through experience, not observation. Another physiologist, Herrick (1956), put forward the same idea more clearly. He equates "mind" with "consciousness." Consciousness cannot be reduced to chemistry, or described in a comprehensive scientific manner with a complete explanation of the mechanism it uses. Awareness is self-awareness, “and it can only be perceived by the person concerned, who is unable to distinguish it except through introspection.” However, it is not a type of vital forces; Rather, it is a phenomenon related to the living organism:
The body creates the mind, but the mind is not a product made by the body just as the stomach makes gastric juice. that it
The body is an actor, a distinct mode of action for a special type of bodily device, just as walking is a mode of action
A different kind of physical device.
Penfield and Roberts, brain physiologists and brain surgeons, were more specific (1959):
Providing an adequate definition of the mind is as difficult today as ever. Consciousness is awareness,
Thinking, focusing attention, planning action, interpreting present experience, sensory perception. These words are descriptive, but they are
It is hardly a convincing definition.
The prominent neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles (1965) raised a thorny question in his lecture on the occasion of A. S.ddington. The starting point of the lecture was, “We consider it certain that my conscious self depends solely on my own brain and not on other brains... Two questions arise here: What is the nature of this consciously informed self? How did it become affiliated with a specific brain in this unique way?” Distinct from its twin. On the other hand, although environmental influences and the personal experiences of an entire life may modify the distinctive characteristics of an individual, they do not prevent his memory from continuing and continuing until the beginning of its awakening in childhood.
Sir John Eccles then quotes approvingly the ancient speculation of the former H. S. Jennings on the possibility of a limited number of selves lurking to attach to the “texture” of two united sexual cells, and concludes, “We arrive at the religious concept of the soul which God created as a special creation.” But it seems to me that we can see a basis for divine action in the formation of the human self, as in any other natural event. The current diversity of selves is an infinitesimal part of the possible selves, because the number of people who have lived or are likely to live in this universe is an infinitesimal fraction when compared to the ability of sexual reproduction to generate new types of unique genetic combinations. It is also clear that any other human being, regardless of their genes, will feel different from me, even if it were possible to imagine a complete match in our life experience. This is because the uninterrupted connection of my experiences, those I remember and those I have forgotten, derived from the circumstances of my life, adapted to my genetic makeup, is what makes me a unique and unrepeatable person, distinct from any other person who exists now, lived in the past, or is likely to exist in the future.
Psychoanalytically oriented writers have paid little attention to the evolutionary origin of the human psyche, although there are distinct exceptions. Freud derives the first member of the classic ego-superego triad from the urgent drives of man's biologically determined animal nature, while the next two members are of distinctly human origin. In Freud's eloquent formula, “the ego takes over where the id was.” Munkar and Munkar (1965) provide a more coherent biological vision: “It was inevitable that when consciousness developed as the highest expression of the development of nervous control, its unifying basis developed with it. It was not possible for man to experience consciousness and perception without developing a method for organizing, unifying, and coordinating the “different perceptions,” otherwise he would become in a state of psychological chaos. This organizer is the ego, which is “the psychological ability that organizes consciousness, unifies it, and prepares the person physically and mentally for performance.” function, and make adaptive thinking and behavior possible.”
Existentialists assert that man and man alone truly “exist.” This "existence" is what distinguishes man from all other forms of life. Perhaps the existentialists followed the right path in order to define the basic biological and psychological uniqueness of man. However, it is difficult to rigorously prove the presence or absence of some elements of perception in other animals because humans precisely experience their own awareness and self-awareness only (see pp. 26-27). But Fromm's (1964) formulation, despite its shortcomings, is the most convincing for the biological specialist, in his words:
Man has intelligence like other animals, which allows him to use mental processes in a way that enables him
Achievement of direct practical objectives; But in addition to that, he possesses another mentality that animals lose.
He is aware of himself, aware of his history and his future, which is death; He is aware of his smallness and his inability; And he realizes
Others as others - as friends, enemies, or strangers. Man transcends all other life because he is life
She realizes herself for the first time in her history. Man is a being in nature subject to its dictates and coincidences
He transcends it because he loses that heedlessness due to which the animal is an integrated part of nature - one of it.
So self-awareness is one of the most important, and perhaps the most important, fundamental characteristics of the human species. It is an evolutionary innovation; The biological species from which man descended had only the beginnings of self-awareness, or perhaps it had lost it completely. Self-consciousness brought into its caravan gloomy company—fear, anxiety, and the awareness of death. Munakir and Munakir (1965) formulated this as follows:
In the animal world from which we came, anxiety - or let's say fear - served the function of survival
Alive, which represents a warning of imminent danger that is responded to with full survival equipment
The instinctive automaticity available to the individual. Human evolution raises a new issue here, though
Driven by the same need to survive. It is clear that this great evolutionary achievement must
Perception adds a special dimension to fear.
Man is burdened with awareness of death. A being who knew that he would die emerged from ancestors who did not know that.
The view from an evolutionary perspective indicates that self-awareness is primary and awareness of death is secondary. Awareness of death is the bitter fruit of man's ascension to the heights of consciousness and the development of his active ego. Self-awareness has grown as a necessary adaptation; As for awareness of death, it does not seem to have an adaptive aspect, but it may even be harmful from a biological point of view. But their appearance supports the view of historian Erick Kahler (1964), who wrote:
If we take a general look at the course of history and development, we do not forget to notice the expansion
The gradual development of the existential field, and of some events that constitute breaks, or turning points despite
It extends for long periods, because the focus of its existence moves from one level to another, from a lower level
Limited range to a higher level, wide range. It was as if the evolutionary transition was level
Animal existence to human existence is one of these separations.
The adaptive evolutionary importance of self-awareness lies in the role it plays in organizing and unifying man's physical and mental abilities through which he controls his environment. As Hallowell (1961) wrote:
“The most important thing that happened in the psychological dimension of the development of the human family was the growth of the structure of the human personality, in which self-awareness based on the ego (ego) became of pivotal importance. As Rowe (1963) pointed out, this structure forms a complex that includes symbolic thinking, communication, symbolic language, intelligence, and logical thinking; it also includes, indirectly, the use and manufacture of machines, and culture (Rowe 1963).
Awareness of death is inherent in self-awareness, but while knowledge is ultimately subject to introspection and external observation, the former leads to forms of behavior whose results are easy to notice. One form of this behavior is burying the dead. Ants, bees, and other social insects strive to remove dead colony members, food scraps, empty cocoons, and other remains from their nests. But this behavior is part of nest cleaning, which is an instinctive health procedure that is completely different from burial. The claims of the existence of “cemeteries” in which the weak and elderly are sheltered by these insects is questionable, and in any case it has nothing to do with the ritual practice of humans burying the dead of their own kind.
There is conclusive evidence that members of the ancient Neanderthal human species buried their dead. According to Hawkes and Lee (1963), Wadi al-Maghara in Palestine is the oldest burial ground. In this burial ground, several bodies were found lying in graves dug at the bottom of the cave, and offerings of food and weapons were placed next to them. The body of a young Neanderthal was also found in a slab-lined grave in Chek-Tash, Turkestan, with the horns of six mountain sheep placed around its head. A few Neanderthal graves were also discovered in Europe. The condition of some of them strongly suggests “ritual” burial. These corpses were placed in a sleep-like state, painted with red iron ochre, and stone tools and food scraps were placed next to them. It is believed that red ocher was used, which gives the impression of the body retaining blood, the giver of life.
As for the remains of the Peking Man, which belongs to the species of Homo erectus (Homo erectus), from which our species, Homo sapiens, descended, they seem to tell a story not of burials, but of cannibal feasts. A series of skulls separated from their bodies were found in Shukoten Cave, and their bases had been smashed in a way that suggested facilitating the extraction of the brain. This may suggest nothing more than the presence of a “fine” gastronomic taste. But on the other hand, some tribes practiced similar operations in historical times for the purpose of magic and offering sacrifices. It was believed that whoever eats a warrior's body, especially his brain, gains his strength, courage, and ability to endure.
As for the burials of the ancient, middle and modern Stone Ages, they are increasingly present. It is clear that concern about the dead was widespread at the dawn of humanity. It is one of the cultural generalities of humans. There is great diversity in the expression of this interest in different cultures, ranging from fear and awe towards the spirits of the dead to seeking help and protection by invoking those spirits. Bodies may be buried in the floor of homes where relatives of the dead reside, or buried in private cemeteries at a distance from homes, or placed in natural caves or private shrines. The body may be burned, the remains preserved in special containers, buried, scattered to the winds, or thrown into water. The corpses may be inflated, mummified, their external appearance preserved with great care, or deliberately thrown to predators and vultures. There is no need to review the enormous diversity of customs, rituals and attitudes recorded by anthropologists in various parts of the world. The main fact is that all people everywhere care for their dead in one way or another, while no animal does anything of the kind. Orangutans and some other animals eat the carcasses of their dead, but this is closer to a sanitary procedure than to burial. Female monkeys and monkeys carry the bodies of their young and sometimes their decomposing corpses for a few days, while their wounded and sick search for hiding places to protect them from predators, and take refuge in them until they recover or die. There are anecdotes about elephants and other animals trying to help weak members of their groups, but they certainly do not bury their dead (Thorpe 1965).
The generality of a cultural characteristic does not prove the existence of its own genetic unit in the human genetic population or that it is due to a special instinct or innate drive. Some (eg Wesseler) have assumed that there are two distinct types of cultural traits: cultural specificities acquired through learning and innate cultural generalities. But this assumption does not find much sympathy among human scientists, nor does this dichotomy find biological acceptance. It is completely difficult to imagine that human cultural capabilities are based on a single, simple and crude mechanism, such as the existence of one gene for each trait or cultural ability. The relationships between biology and culture are more ambiguous and subtle, but they are nonetheless real. The emergence of culture has become possible thanks to genes, which are essential for its preservation and development. But genes do not determine what culture emerges, where, when, or how it grows. This situation is similar to the relationship between genes and language and speech - genes make language and speech possible, but they do not dictate what is said.
Only a being who knows that he will die can truly care about the death of others. It does not spoil John Donne's profound insight that he said, "The death of any human being makes me vanish, for I am entangled in humanity." It has turned into a hackneyed cliché. John Donne realized that he was entangled in humanity primarily because of his awareness of death. Anthropologists have recorded a unique diversity in customs and attitudes related to death and its consequences among different peoples. All of these norms and customs were based on the basic fact of awareness of death, which is truly one of the generalities and basic characteristics that distinguish humans biologically.
This is not intended to suggest that awareness of death is primary and irreducible or that it is an integrated genetic or psychological entity. It is closer to being, as we mentioned, the fruit of self-awareness and a necessary condition inherent in it. Saying that self-awareness and awareness of death are genetically conditioned does not suggest that they are simple genetic traits. There is no such thing as a gene for self-awareness, consciousness, ego, or mind. These basic human abilities are derived from the entire genetic endowment, not from a specific type of special gene. They arise during the development of the individual as part of the cybernetic control and feedback system that leads to the physical and mental maturity of the person. The cultural and behavioral traits studied by psychologists and human beings are far removed from the genes that occupy the interest of specialists in biology and biochemistry. The study of the nature and origin of these cultural and behavioral traits is of legitimate and common interest to evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, humanists, historians, and philosophers alike. These approaches should be complementary, not competing.
A biological question presents itself and must be addressed here. We said that self-awareness, as well as awareness of death, which is one of its fruits, are genetically conditioned. If this is the case, could their origin and development be a biological process subject to natural selection, as they are auxiliary elements to what is called the self-preservation instinct? In particular, can gaining awareness of the inevitability of death be an independent and useful event in a biological sense? I think the answer to this last question should be negative. Awareness of death is favorable if it provides the father with the incentive to provide the requirements for the preservation and survival of his offspring in order to prevent his death. But this assumes a certain amount of mental capacity, and it is impossible to imagine cultural development outside the framework of what approximates the human mentality as it exists now. Perhaps self-awareness preceded awareness of death and was a necessary condition for achieving it. There is no doubt, of course, that realizing and distinguishing the seriousness of some things to life was very important from the early stages of the beginnings of the biological and cultural ascension of man. The skilled hunter provided a living for himself and his offspring, while the foolish or foolish person would lose his life and let his offspring die of hunger. But what use would it have been for the primitive hunter to know that sooner or later he would die, no matter how skilled, brave, and valiant he was?
There is great confusion about what exactly the “self-preservation instinct” means. We should not imagine that a being "knows" what it needs to do to survive by some strange or supernatural perception. It is absolutely true that all organisms, from the lowest to the highest, react to stimuli that are normally present in their usual environments in ways that seek to maximize their probability of survival. The key words in the previous sentence are “usually available” and “usual environments.” What the great physiologist Cannon described as “the wisdom of the body” provides us with some captivating chapters in biology, but the body is essentially wise in the conditions to which the biological species has previously been exposed. If individuals of a species are placed in completely new environments, they lose their wisdom, and often become astonishingly dull. Our bodies - with the exception of those among us who are albinos - react to sunlight by darkening the protective skin, but they develop radiation sickness when exposed to x-rays or atomic rays. This is because our ancestors were exposed to the dangers of sunstroke, but they were not exposed to the dangers of high-energy radiation. In short, there is no instinct for self-preservation, if by such an “instinct” we mean the ability to interact with all environmental influences in a way that always preserves the individual’s life. Instead there are diverse responses, most of which have occurred repeatedly in the species' habitual environments and have become adaptive. The adaptive outcome of these responses was established and regulated by natural selection during the evolutionary process.
· In his last years, Freud believed that humans have an instinct or drive to die in addition to the instinct to survive. Freud's bifurcation of conscience and mind, death and life, survival and annihilation, may give a high metaphorical description of some aspects of the human psyche. But this description is not valid if it is intended to be a biological theory. It is true that the development of the individual ends in most living organisms with weakness, senility, disability, and then death. Only some of the simplest single-celled life forms, those that reproduce by simple division of their cells into two or more individuals, can be described as capable of immortality. However, the evolutionary basis for the drive to self-destruct and die seems unlikely. This situation can only be imagined if the survival of individuals who have completed the cycle of reproduction and offspring care becomes a burden on the reproductively active part of the population. If individuals whose reproductive cycle has ended begin to consume food in a way that starves the young, or hinders them, or hinders them in some way, then natural selection may favor small tribes or clans in which death follows the cessation of reproduction in a short time. However, it is not entirely possible for this situation to apply to humans, especially when they begin to acquire culture. Adults were the repository of information and wisdom, in addition to their role in caring for children.
· Assuming that the obsession with death dominates everyone’s thoughts all the time is certainly wrong. The differences and shades of differences here are endless. On the one hand, indifference and cold, rational acceptance of the inevitable is often demonstrated by those who do not actually feel that feeling inside themselves. However, constant preoccupation and anxiety are symptoms of illness. It is natural that the elderly are on average more preoccupied and aware of death than the young, the sick more than the healthy, and those who have enough free time to contemplate and prolong their thinking more than those engaged in practical activity. The two briefs written by Choron (1963 and 1964) ably review and summarize the variety of philosophical positions, ideas, and reflections on death. Awareness of the inevitability of death emerges among children, at least in Western culture, slowly, starting around the age of six, but it does not take root until eight or nine, and perhaps after that age.
· Some scholars of primitive peoples have questioned the general awareness of death among some savages. Radin (1957), commenting in his distinguished study of Neanderthal man as a philosopher, wrote about these doubts:
It has been repeatedly claimed recently that all primitive people assume that death is never natural
The only guesswork they indulge in is discovering who caused the death. These two leaders
They are completely wrong. The inevitability of death and the imminent fate are often mentioned in their songs and examples, sometimes
With valiant surrender, sometimes with bitter complaint, and other times with sadness and sorrow. ..The idea of the inevitability of death
It permeates practically all tribes and their poetry.
· Death in our culture has often been depicted as a skeleton or an old man armed with a scythe, but it does not follow that the eventual arrival of this scythe is considered natural and inevitable. It is the word “natural” that has changed its meaning. Awareness of death is general, as we mentioned previously, and was known during the era of Neanderthal man. Whether it was general at that time or not is a matter for consideration.
From the considerations mentioned, a meaningful picture of human psychological development emerges. Awareness of death has been established as a qualitative characteristic of man. However, this trait was not and may not be adaptive now. It is an integral part of the complex of human abilities centered on self-awareness, the ability to think abstractly, compose symbols and use language. The adaptive effectiveness of this compound is beyond doubt. This compound made it possible to control the environment through cultural change that is faster than changing inherited genes. The other results of this compound are no less important, even if they are less clear. Man tasted the forbidden fruit when he became aware of the inevitability of death. This awareness is the most important source of concern, if not the most important.
Man is the existence that has evolved to be self-aware. He knows him as a passing event in the theater of nature. He feels some anxiety about death, although the intensity of this anxiety varies from person to person. He asks if his individual life and the lives of other people near and far are not, in Whitehead's words, “the fleeting breath of insignificance.” The urgency of asking this question varies greatly from one robot to another, but perhaps only those below the line of idiocy are completely free from astonishment at this timeless mystery. Tillich (1963) believed that every human being has “an immediate awareness that he is limited and that he completely transcends his limitedness with this awareness.”
I do not want it to be understood that I equate the fears and concerns of death with my main concern, as Tillich did not make such a claim. We are facing a complex situation. There is no consensus among scholars about the origin of primitive religion. Comparative sociology has led to the formulation of several theories, each of which may contain an element of truth. Taylor, one of the pioneers of "evolutionary" cultural anthropology in the nineteenth century, emphasized that primitive man sees manifestations of personal spiritual factors in animate and inanimate nature and in human phenomena. In his belief, religion arose from this animism that permeates everything. McDougal assumed the existence of a special religious instinct. Wilhelm Schmidt claimed that it led man to a type of primary religiosity, from which spiritual and polytheistic religions branched secondary, upon its dissolution. Durkheim stressed the link between primitive religion, totemism, and social structure.
Malinowski's ideas (1931) seem to me to be the most intelligent of these opinions. In his words: “The essential, if not direct, connection of religion to man’s primary, i.e. biological, needs can be made clear. Religion comes, like magic, from the curse of deliberation and imagination that afflicts man as soon as he emerges above the level of bestial animal nature.” One of the focal points in which this “curse of deliberation and imagination” is concentrated is the temporality of man and his impermanence:
Perhaps it was the presence of strong personal connections and the reality of death of all events
Humanity is the most destabilizing and frustrating of human plans, the most important reasons for the emergence of religious belief. That proof
The fact that death is not real, and that man has an immortal soul, arises from a deep need that does not stem from an instinct.
Psychological, but determined by culture, cooperation, and the growth of human empathy.
Neurologist Feibleman (1963) appropriately emphasizes the psychobiological aspect:
Religions are specific response patterns that promise survival. Regardless of its truth or falsehood
The overwhelming statistics of its spread indicate its necessity to reduce a necessary human need. This, of course, is the need for survival, for primary security, and for overcoming the sorrow of death. The human individual knows that he will die, but his thoughts are greater than his fate... Religion is an effort to engage in a broader and more permanent field of abstract existence.
The world's great literature is sometimes full of descriptions of the successes, and more often of the failures, of these humanitarian projects. The interests of literature and arts coincide with evolutionary science in this field. Is dialogue between artists and scientists possible? I have never encountered a more eloquent and more moving picture of the humiliating, yet common, failure of engagement in a sphere “more stable than mere existence” than that which Tolstoy presents in The Death of Ivan Ilyich. An ordinary man of average wealth and success, who is not very happy in his family life, begins to realize the fact that he has a serious illness and that his death is imminent. He tries to be rational about his condition; He recalls an example of a syllogism in a textbook: “Caius is a man, all men are mortal, so Caius must die.” But he suddenly retracts from any logic - “That Caius was a man, a man in general, and that was quite fair; We do not know what a dying animal feels, but the possibility of it experiencing Ivan Ilish-like suffering and horror is quite unlikely; Is this the evolutionary gain corresponding to the symbol of the fall in the Bible?
In The Madman, Dostoyevsky deals with a completely different type of rebellion against life and death, which is, in a sense, the opposite of the case of Ivan Ilyich. The rebel, Kirillov, finds no sense or meaning anywhere in the world at large. Everything, including all of nature and all its laws, is a fabric of lies and “comedy.” And in the middle of this absurd world there is a conscious person, Kirillov, who knows that the world is meaningless. He knows that he has happened to be placed here, without his permission, as an actor in this “satanic dance.” His dialectic shows him only one way to escape with dignity from his predicament: to destroy himself. The decision he takes to commit suicide of his own free will is the only inimitable way for a man to seize the main quality of the sacred—unbounded freedom. Kirillov kills himself to assert his “terrifying new freedom” in order to resemble a machine. This is one thing that cannot be denied: Kirillov's dialectic transcends his animality, and he is not a vulgar coward like Ivan Ilyich.
The meaning and importance of life and death have been among the major questions in philosophy for two and a half millennia, since the dawn of philosophical speculation in ancient Greece. Only the powerful and influential modern school of logical analysis, which prides itself on its strict “scientism,” declared that these issues are meaningless. Yet there is something irresistibly urgent, fascinating, and immersive about these “meaningless” matters. Although science does not claim to be able to solve them, it may be able to provide information relevant to the reflections of philosophers.
Socrates said that “true philosophers never study death” and that the philosopher “never pursues death and dies.” These sayings have resonated throughout the centuries. It is attributed to Seneca that philosophy teaches us that man should live “as if he were a loan to himself, and be prepared to return the loan in full upon request.” (This quote and the ones that follow it are taken from Schoron (1963). Montague believed that “philosophizing is learning how to die.” It is as if Spinoza hopes that the philosopher will be “less affected by those feelings that are evil, and that his fear of death will be less.” Schopenhauer records an undeniable statement. That is, a biological scientist: “The terrifying reality of the inevitability of death has necessarily entered the human mind in the company of reason,” and he continues, stressing that: “All religious and philosophical systems are directed primarily to this end, and it is essentially the antidote to the inevitability of death that the contemplative mind naturally reaches.” But the existentialists are the ones who make human temporality the real center of gravity of all philosophical thinking, and Jaspers was categorical in this: “If philosophizing means learning how to die, then this learning becomes a condition.” To achieve the good life, therefore, it is truly one thing to learn how to live and to learn how to die.”
It should be quite clear that those who believe in some form of immortality of the soul, or in the resurrection of the dead some time in the future, are no less concerned with the question of man's temporality than those who believe that death is the complete and final demise of man. This is declared very clearly by the glorious monuments of the ancient Egyptians, and by the paintings and statues found in almost every Christian church (with the exception of some barren meeting houses of some Protestant sects); And the basic beliefs of other great religions – Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Certainly, the existence of a fundamental difference is not denied here. Temporal existence is nothing but a mere preparation for the coming life for those who believe in resurrection and immortality. As for those who believe that death is annihilation and final decomposition, the meaning of life is established by what happens between birth and death, and that there is no meaning. The one who believes in immortality can then consider his personal salvation to be his primary concern and the goal of his life. If there was no immortality, the issue would be far more complex and difficult. The meaning of life can only be found in something that is greater than personal existence but includes it at the same time.