The article’s arguments can be summarized as two main points -
1. “Death is not the end of your matter, only of your particular consciousness.”
To which I say, big whoop. I don’t really care that the carbon atoms in my body go on to be part of another animal, or continue being part of the “universe”. I don’t care that “energy” is eternal - there’s nothing special about energy. “I” start and stop at consciousness, and I see no reason to NOT rage against the dying of that light.
2. Don’t think about death, it’s a thought that isn’t productive.
To which I say that is impossible. Even if it were possible, that is sacrificing one’s humanity to be no better than an animal. Reading a bit of Kierkegard may help.
1. “Death is not the end of your matter, only of your particular consciousness.”
To which I say, big whoop. I don’t really care that the carbon atoms in my body go on to be part of another animal, or continue being part of the “universe”. I don’t care that “energy” is eternal - there’s nothing special about energy. “I” start and stop at consciousness, and I see no reason to NOT rage against the dying of that light.
2. Don’t think about death, it’s a thought that isn’t productive.
To which I say that is impossible. Even if it were possible, that is sacrificing one’s humanity to be no better than an animal. Reading a bit of Kierkegard may help.