For thousands of years, people have been fascinated by the idea of living forever and what that means for our place in the world. Is it possible to leave behind the inevitability of death? This has been debated by many philosophers, who have come up with a range of ideas that are both intriguing and challenging. From Plato’s suggestion that our souls are eternal to the transhumanists—who believe technology can help us go beyond being human—discussions around immortality stretch back centuries. So, is it possible to live forever?
Plato’s Theory of the Soul’s Immortality
Plato’s philosophy beautifully combines the ideas of body and soul, creating a dualistic framework that has captivated thinkers for centuries. For Plato, the body is mortal. It decays and dies. The soul, however, is immortal – and divine.
This duality leads Plato to believe that the soul exists independently from the body itself, and continues to live on even after the physical vessel has ceased functioning. In works such as Phaedo and Republic, Plato puts forth the idea that because souls are eternal they are also characterized by knowledge and virtue.
In Phaedo, he makes several arguments meant to demonstrate not only that souls exist before birth and after death but also their eternal nature. One such argument is the recollection theory. Learning isn’t so much about acquiring new information but rather recalling things our souls knew long ago but have forgotten temporarily while inside a body.
In Republic, Plato examines the tripartite soul, splitting it into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. He proposes that the rational part—which deals with truth and wisdom—is immortal.
The Allegory of the Cave supports this concept. It shows how souls move from ignorance to enlightenment and then back again after experiencing truths eternally valid in the realm of forms.
Plato’s depiction makes immortality seem both consoling (because there is life after death) and worth striving for. Living a fulfilled existence means seeking knowledge and virtue. We still find these ideas meaningful today as we ponder our place in the world.
Aristotle’s View on Immortality
Aristotle has a different opinion on immortality than his teacher Plato. He bases his ideas on hylomorphism, which says that everything is made up of form and matter. According to Aristotle, the soul is the body’s form – it’s what makes it work and exist.
Unlike Plato’s dualism (which separates soul and body), Aristotle’s soul and body are interwoven. The soul brings life to the material body. A key part of Aristotle’s theory is the active intellect (nous poietikos). This bit of the soul can think in abstract ways – a unique capability.
There’s also a passive intellect for dealing with sensory stuff. Aristotle suggests that the active intellect doesn’t change over time. It lasts forever – so there might be some immortality going on here.
But this wouldn’t mean individual people have personal souls that live eternally. Rather, this would be more like universal immortality. The active intellect isn’t “your” soul specifically. Rather, it’s something all human minds share.
Aristotle makes a clear distinction between two types of immortality: individual and universal. He points out that even though a person’s soul dies when their body dies, there is something called the active intellect which goes beyond each separate existence. This idea suggests an ongoing shared life of the mind rather than keeping someone’s individual identity after they have gone.
Aristotle’s thoughts about immortality encourage us not to take for granted what we mean by living forever. Instead, he invites people to consider how much their ways of thinking will live on – contributing to all intelligent beings.
Epicurean and Stoic Views on Immortality
If you’re interested in living forever, Epicureanism and Stoicism have two different takes on the subject. Epicurus, who came up with Epicureanism, believed in atomism. He thought that everything (including your soul) is made up of tiny particles that can’t be destroyed.
When you die, said particles break apart, and your soul ceases to exist – which means personal immortality doesn’t exist either (according to Epicurus, anyway).
There’s no point worrying about death because once it happens, you won’t experience anything at all. And fearing something that doesn’t bring about sensations or suffering is illogical. As he famously wrote: “Death is nothing to us.”
On the other hand, Stoics think the cosmos repeats itself eternally. Every single thing within it does, too – including souls. While this belief system doesn’t include typical personal immortality, they do posit that since souls are part of the divine rational order, they still play a role in its ongoing circuit.
Stoic philosophy encourages people to live in agreement with nature and embrace cycles such as those involving life and death without getting worked up over them.
Comparing the two philosophies shows how different they are. Epicurus said there is no afterlife, so don’t worry about death. At the same time, the Stoics thought that because everything is predestined by a divine plan, you should be fine with it.
The influence of these ideas has been huge. Epicureanism helped shape secular, materialistic attitudes that seek happiness during this life alone. Stoicism’s stress on reason and acceptance has made lots of people deal with difficulties calmly and with inner strength. Both these systems still affect how we think about death today.
Descartes and Cartesian Dualism
René Descartes’ philosophy is a significant turning point in the history of thought because it boldly introduces Cartesian dualism – the separation of mind and body. According to Descartes, the mind (or soul) is an immaterial substance that thinks and is distinct from the physical body.
This division provides the groundwork for his famous claim, Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”). It asserts that self-awareness proves we have a mind – and that this mind might be both separate from us and immortal.
Descartes uses this idea as a building block for his argument that since minds can think without bodies, they must be capable of living forever, too. Their ability to rationalize or ponder things isn’t limited by something physical like flesh or bone.
Even though Cartesian dualism brought about a revolution, it was not without its critics and challengers. For example, philosophers like Spinoza and Gilbert Ryle raised doubts about how the mind (which isn’t physical) and the body (which is) could possibly interact. Indeed, Ryle famously referred to it as “the ghost in the machine.”
Moreover, recent developments in neuroscience increasingly suggest that far from being two separate things, mental processes are actually linked with brain activity. Physical activities happening within your brain can now be shown as responsible for aspects of thinking and feeling.
However, despite these criticisms or difficulties, Descartes’ ideas have had a huge influence. When we think about what it is to be conscious or self-aware (key topics within this subject), when scientists research emotions and stress responses in rats by scanning their brains.
We are still using his categories. And many people would say that any alternative has so far come up against equally insurmountable problems.
Kant’s Moral Argument for Immortality
In his philosophy, Immanuel Kant provides a deep moral case for immortality based on distinguishing between two worlds. These are the “noumenal” (things as they are in themselves) and “phenomenal” (the world as we know it—governed by laws of space, time, and cause-effect).
Within this framework, Kant argues that immortality is necessary from a moral standpoint. If we are to achieve the highest good (a blend of virtue and happiness), there must be life after death.
In the Critique of Practical Reason, he puts it this way. For us to become fully morally perfect beings, and stay that way, there has got to be endless progress toward this ideal. And that can only happen if souls exist forever.
Without being immortal, no human being could ever realize a state of virtue and happiness. That’s because wanting one’s moral character to develop completely over a finite period makes no sense at all.
In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant suggests that even though we cannot use experience to gain knowledge about whether the soul lives forever, believing that it does is still crucial when we are trying to be good.
The philosopher’s moral case for immortality shows how moral ideas and big questions about what exists are closely connected. It says that wanting to be as good as possible involves thinking of yourself as the kind of thing that can have eternal life.
Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives
Today, we question whether immortality is possible not just as a matter of faith but also based on new scientific understanding. And this has consequences for all of us.
Biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey believes that the first person who will live to 1,000 has already been born. Technology is advancing so rapidly, he says, that it will soon be within our grasp to “cure” aging.
Others are less sure. However, there is a growing interest within the tech and biotech industries in manipulating the processes that underlie biological aging. Therefore, we are keeping age-related diseases at bay and extending our “healthspan,” or the duration of time we remain healthy.
Education about healthy lifestyles and medical breakthroughs will help us all stay well for longer. However, if ultra-longevity does arrive, any therapies discovered are unlikely to be freely available. Either over-the-counter remedies will work (and become very costly), or accessing anti-aging treatments will require some form of health insurance. In other words, it may soon become expensive to grow old.
The ethical and existential implications of wanting to use technology to achieve eternal life are huge. If people could live forever, what would that do to our ideas about what is valuable? Or about how we should treat one another?
How might it affect the way societies are structured? Would it create unfair inequalities between those who can afford such a thing and those who cannot? And might there be other effects, too, which no one can foresee at present?
Modern-day philosophers have very different opinions when confronted by the idea that death might one day become optional. Some, for instance, Derek Parfit, look at what it would mean if individuals stayed the same over time or changed greatly. Others like Nick Bostrom think advances in technology might well make this dream come true one day.
These discussions are part of a larger investigation into the definition of humanity when science can do things never before possible.
So, Is Immortality Possible?
The enduring philosophical quest to understand life and transcend death has sparked debate about immortality for centuries. From Plato to modern thinkers, philosophers have mulled over our existential dilemmas – often shedding light on them in unexpected ways.
Does our urge for meaning and purpose make us immortal? If so, there are several ways we might achieve this beyond living forever. People remember us saying things after we’ve gone or by having a lasting impact with new technologies.
At its core, then, the discussion forces us to confront two big questions. What do we mean when we talk about ourselves anyway (our existence)? And if being remembered counts as some form of eternal life, we might want to follow from this that these issues cannot help but affect daily lives in deep and meaningful manners.
