![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
I revisit my article, “Why Immortality Is Not So Bad,” in which I argued that Bernard Williams’s thesis that immortality would necessarily be boring for any human being is false. Here I point out various ways in which Williams’s treatment of the issues has tilted and distorted the subsequent debates.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For an excellent discussion of attempts at defining life, see Feldman (Citation1992).
2. Stephen Cave introduces the distinction between medical and true immortality in Cave (Citation2012). For further discussion of the two conceptions of immortality (and their role in the ‘forever wars’, see Cave and Martin Fischer (Citation2024).
3. For a summary of options and a brief analysis, see Fischer (Citation2020).
4. For an overview and discussion, see Fischer (Citation2020).
5. In Fischer (Citation2020), I argued that it is rational to fear death, at least somewhat (even on the secular view). I have since been persuaded by Travis Timmerman (Citation2016, Citation2022) and Kai Draper (Citation2013a and Citation2013b) that I was incorrect, and it is irrational to fear death (on the secular conception); Fischer (Citation2022).
6. See, for example, the discussion in Timmerman (Citation2022), from which I learned much: Fischer (Citation2022).
7. There is an excellent discussion of this phenomenon in Baillie (Citation2020).
8. Setiya (Citation2017): 109.
9. Some of the material in this part of the paper is based on my contributions to Cave and Fischer (forthcoming). Cave and I are able to explore these issues in greater depth in this book.
10. I introduce this terminology in Fischer (Citation1994). For more, see Fischer (Citation2020).
11. In Fischer (Citation1994) I noted the distinction between atelic and telic activities, although not employing this terminology. As does Setiya, I traced it back to Aristotle’s distinction between energeia and kinesis. I there pointed out that certain energeia, being complete in themselves, are ‘self-exhausting’ and thus do not issue in desires to pursue them more. Setiya’s point, with which I agree, is that telic activities can lose their appeal, once the goal has been achieved, whereas certain atelic activities can remain compelling indefinitely.
12. Alternatively, we might construe the question as about the premature occupation of the status, ‘being dead’
13. Thanks to Jim Baillie and Travis Timmerman for kind encouragement and helpful comments. I am especially grateful to the editors of this journal for this opportunity. Maybe we can do this again in and then another 30 years?