超人类主义的不朽:把梦理解为噩梦

IF 1.1 0 RELIGION

Scientia et Fides Pub Date : 2021-03-14 DOI:10.12775/SETF.2021.006

Pablo García-Barranquero

{"title":"超人类主义的不朽:把梦理解为噩梦","authors":"Pablo García-Barranquero","doi":"10.12775/SETF.2021.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers new arguments to reject the alleged dream of immortality. In order to do this, I firstly introduce an amendment to Michael Hauskeller’s approach of the “immortalist fallacy”. I argue that the conclusion “we (normally) do not want to live forever” does not follow from the premise “we (normally) do not want to die”. Next, I propose the philosophical turn from “normally” to “under these circumstances” to resolve this logical error. Then, I review strong philosophical critiques of this transhumanist purpose of immortality in the literature. There are two key questions related to the possibility of fulfilling this goal: the hard problem of consciousness and the personal identity dilemma. Finally, I defend a specific type of indefinite life and justify that it is more desirable than our current limited life.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transhumanist immortality: Understanding the dream as a nightmare\",\"authors\":\"Pablo García-Barranquero\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/SETF.2021.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper offers new arguments to reject the alleged dream of immortality. In order to do this, I firstly introduce an amendment to Michael Hauskeller’s approach of the “immortalist fallacy”. I argue that the conclusion “we (normally) do not want to live forever” does not follow from the premise “we (normally) do not want to die”. Next, I propose the philosophical turn from “normally” to “under these circumstances” to resolve this logical error. Then, I review strong philosophical critiques of this transhumanist purpose of immortality in the literature. There are two key questions related to the possibility of fulfilling this goal: the hard problem of consciousness and the personal identity dilemma. Finally, I defend a specific type of indefinite life and justify that it is more desirable than our current limited life.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/SETF.2021.006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia et Fides","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/SETF.2021.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

摘要

本文提供了新的论据来驳斥所谓的永生之梦。为了做到这一点，我首先对Michael Hauskeller的“不朽论谬误”方法进行了修正。我认为，“我们(通常)不想永远活着”的结论与“我们(通常)不想死”的前提不一致。接下来，我建议从哲学上从“正常”转向“在这种情况下”来解决这个逻辑错误。然后，我回顾了文学中对这种超人类主义永生目的的强烈哲学批评。有两个关键问题与实现这一目标的可能性有关:意识的难题和个人同一性困境。最后，我为一种特定类型的无限期生活辩护，并证明它比我们目前有限的生活更可取。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Transhumanist immortality: Understanding the dream as a nightmare

This paper offers new arguments to reject the alleged dream of immortality. In order to do this, I firstly introduce an amendment to Michael Hauskeller’s approach of the “immortalist fallacy”. I argue that the conclusion “we (normally) do not want to live forever” does not follow from the premise “we (normally) do not want to die”. Next, I propose the philosophical turn from “normally” to “under these circumstances” to resolve this logical error. Then, I review strong philosophical critiques of this transhumanist purpose of immortality in the literature. There are two key questions related to the possibility of fulfilling this goal: the hard problem of consciousness and the personal identity dilemma. Finally, I defend a specific type of indefinite life and justify that it is more desirable than our current limited life.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Scientia et Fides RELIGION-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： "Scientia et Fides" (SetF) is an open access online journal published twice a year. It is promoted by the Faculty of Theology of Nicolaus Copernicus University, in Torun, in collaboration with the Group of Research “Science, Reason and Faith” (CRYF), at the University of Navarra. The journal is characterised by the interdisciplinary approach, multiplicity of research perspectives and broad reflection on methodology as well as analysis of the latest publications on the relationship between science and faith. The tasks of the journal are perfectly expressed by the motto "Veritas in omnibus quaerenda est" ("to seek the truth in all things") from "De revolutionibus" by Nicolaus Copernicus. SetF aims to present rigorous research works regarding different aspects of the relationship between science and religion. For this reason, SetF articles are not confined to the methodology of a single discipline and may cover a wide range of topics, provided that the interdisciplinary dialogue between science and religion is undertaken. The journal accepts articles written in English, Spanish, Polish, French, Italian and German which will be evaluated by a peer-review process.