Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, November 17, 2016

(H1) On Immortality

The Vikings had a notion of immortality that some can empathize with today: when you die, you die and the only way to continue living is to make your mark on the world so that you are remembered through your actions and contributions. This is the kind of immortality I personally would like to achieve. While, granted, there would be perks to physically or spiritually living forever, I think there is something to be said about your memory being what keeps you alive.
To accomplish something so great in life that generations down the line your name is still spoken, to be written about in history books like George Washington or Genghis Khan (I didn't say what actions would lead to an immortality of memory). Accomplishing a feat that achieves this, even if on a small scale so that it is only a select few who know your name, is still desirable. There's a certain romanticism about it, the idea of living on in thoughts and hearts. I think the advantage of it over a physical immortality is that at least this way you know you have accomplished something, changed something, with the time you were given as mortal. And I believe it is a human desire to affect some kind of change, with this being the ultimate reward for that.


  1. I agree. I think it would be much better and more satisfying to have my legacy live forever, rather than actually living forever. I do not think I would enjoy actually living forever. I am a very emotionally charged individual, and I do not think I could handle losing everyone I love over and over again.

  2. I don't think that it is inherently imperative for every human to ascertain the essence and/or reality of immortality and then strive for that rather it be literal immortality (an afterlife) or idealistic immortality as you outline, here.