Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harmonygirl Your definition of change is a lot more narrow than mine. I was talking of death as not being the death of the impact of the person, but that's not the topic of this thead. Marx's death meant he didn't change in this dimension (that we can see). If all we are is biology, then yes, nothing happens after we die. I don't ascribe to this view. Marx, etc. were more than just their biologies. |
You can't know my definition of change just by reading a post in which I try to explain that death is the opposite of change. Anyway this is not a conclusion, it is a starting fact. Death itself means no change. In fact what you talk about is that death is an event itself, well then yes, but in the moment something doesn't exist anymore, nothing happens. This is why the concepts of 'start' and 'end' are so strange, and why so many have misinterpret them (religion, for example). And I never talked about the the 'death of the impact of the person', if by that you refer to when Marx stopped being influential (after his death). And I have never said all we are is biology, or an organism made of organ systems made of organs made of tissues made of cells made of molecules made of atoms made of a nucleus made of quarks which have strong nuclear force with protons and weak nuclear force with electrons. In fact you just have to read my discussion in the thread "Who is your god (or not)?" were I clearly defend that we are not simply animals (statement which subversion and you claim). But however, the meaning of our death is still there, as when we stop to exist as humans, we also stop to exist as persons.