The Human Being in The System of Social Relations

The Problem of Life and Death in Human Spiritual Experience

Life and death are eternal themes of human spiritual culture. They have been pondered by prophets and founders of religions, philosophers and moralists, artists and writers, educators and healers. It is rare to find a person who has not contemplated the meaning of their existence, the prospect of death, and the possibility of immortality. These questions are addressed and resolved in various ways across nearly all philosophical systems.

In essence, we are faced with a triad: life — death — immortality, as all spiritual systems of humanity emerge from the idea of the contradictory unity of these phenomena. The greatest emphasis is placed on death and the attainment of immortality, while human life is viewed as a fleeting moment granted to individuals for worthy preparation for death and immortality.

With few exceptions, throughout time and across cultures, expressions regarding life tend to be rather negative. Life is suffering (Buddha, Schopenhauer); life is a dream (Vedas, Plato, La Bruyère, Pascal); life is an abyss of evil (ancient Egyptian text "The Dialogue of a Man with His Spirit"); life is vanity and spiritual ennui (Ecclesiastes); "Life is a struggle and a journey in foreign lands" (Marcus Aurelius); "All life is but the price of deceptive hopes" (Diderot); "My life is eternal night,... what is life but madness?" (Kierkegaard); "All human life is deeply immersed in untruth" (Nietzsche). This sentiment resonates in proverbs and sayings from various peoples. Ortega y Gasset defined humanity not as body or spirit, but as a specifically human drama.

Indeed, in this sense, the life of each individual is dramatic and tragic: no matter how successful a life may be, no matter how long it lasts—the end is inevitable. The author of Ecclesiastes remarked on this: "While one is among the living, there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion." Epicurus attempted to address this question by asserting: "Accustom yourself to the thought that death has no relation to us. When we exist, death is not present, and when death is present, we do not exist."

Death and the potential for immortality are the greatest allure for philosophical inquiry, for all our earthly endeavors must, in one way or another, be compared to the eternal. Humanity is condemned to reflect on death, distinguishing it from animals, which are mortal but do not contemplate their fate. Indeed, an animal may sense the approach of death, yet its behavior often resembles a painful search for solitude and solace. From a broader biological perspective, death can be seen as the reckoning for the complexity of biological systems. Every living organism possesses a mechanism of self-destruction, tied to its genome, activated at a certain stage of its development. At the same time, there is a persistent striving to simplify this thesis, to prove, and subsequently to embody the notion of actual immortality. This immortality is active, as the organism remains in a constant state of flourishing. This engenders varied attitudes toward both death and life. However, the hallmark of human wisdom is typically a tranquil attitude toward both. As Mahatma Gandhi observed: "We do not know what is better—living or dying. Therefore, we should neither become overly attached to life nor tremble at the thought of death. We must regard both equally. This is the ideal."

The problem of life, death, and immortality has several dimensions that highlight different aspects of a singular phenomenon.

The first dimension is biological, rooted in the idea of the constant presence of life and death in the universe, their continual reproduction in similar conditions, aptly reflected in the hypothesis of panspermia. The cosmic aspects of life are emphasized by Friedrich Engels’ well-known definition: "Life is a mode of existence of protein bodies, and this mode of existence consists essentially in the constant self-renewal of the chemical components of these bodies." Stars, nebulae, comets, and other celestial bodies are born, live, and die; in this regard, nothing and no one truly disappears. This aspect has been most elaborately developed in Eastern philosophy and mystical teachings, which posit the fundamental impossibility of comprehending the meaning of this cosmic cycle through reason alone. Materialistic concepts are constructed upon the phenomenon of the self-generation of life and self-causality.

The awareness of the unity of human life and humanity with all living beings on the planet, its biosphere, and with potential forms of life in the universe bears immense worldview significance. This idea of the sanctity of life, the right to existence for any living being by virtue of its birth, belongs to the eternal ideals of humanity. In this sense, the entire universe and Earth are viewed as living entities, and interference in their laws of life can lead to ecological crises. Humanity emerges as a small part of this living universe, a microcosm that has absorbed the richness of the macrocosm.

The second dimension of the problem pertains to understanding the specificity of human life and its distinction from the life of all other beings. What constitutes this specificity? It is often believed to be the awareness of the fact of impending death: we know of it and seek a path to immortality. All other living beings quietly and peacefully complete their course, having reproduced new life. Humans, however, are condemned to perpetual painful reflections on the meaning of life. To some extent, this is true, but how does one reconcile the fact of the death of a newborn child, who has not yet had the opportunity to understand anything, or that of an individual with impaired psyche? Should we consider the beginning of human life to be the moment of conception or the moment of birth?

Clearly, the specificity of human life, death, and immortality is not directly tied to reason and its manifestations, to human successes and achievements throughout life, or to the evaluations of contemporaries and descendants. The premature death of many geniuses is undeniably tragic, yet there is no basis for asserting that, had their lives been prolonged, they would have contributed something more genius to the world. In this context, life and death elude the categories of rational cognition, refusing to fit within the rigidly deterministic model of the world and humanity. One can contemplate these concepts at a rational level only to a certain limit, which is dictated by personal interest and each individual's capacity for irrational, intuitive grasping of the boundaries of human existence. The uniqueness of humanity, its irreplaceability, finds its highest expression here, creating a diversity of human meanings of existence when reflecting on life and death.

The third dimension of this problem is related to the concept of immortality. Several types of immortality can be distinguished.

The first type of immortality exists in the genes of descendants, a notion prevalent among the vast majority of people. A strong drive in humanity is the desire to see one's traits in children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. This encompasses not only the inheritance of physical but also moral qualities and abilities in certain activities.

The second type of immortality pertains to the mummification of the body for the purpose of its eternal preservation. The experience of Egyptian pharaohs and the practice of modern embalming indicate that this is accepted in certain civilizations. Achievements in technology at the end of the 20th century have made cryogenics (deep freezing) of deceased bodies possible, with the hope that future doctors might revive them and cure diseases that are currently untreatable. Such fetishization of the corporeal is typically characteristic of totalitarian societies, where gerontocracy (rule by the aged) becomes the foundation of a stable state.

The third type of immortality involves the "dissolution" of the body and spirit of the deceased into the universe, their incorporation into the cosmic "body," into the eternal cycle of matter. This is characteristic of certain Eastern civilizations, particularly the Japanese. This perspective aligns with the Islamic model of relating to life and death, as well as various materialistic or more accurately, naturalistic concepts. It speaks to the loss of personal qualities and the retention of parts of the former body that may integrate into other organisms.

The fourth type of immortality is tied to the results of human creative life. Scientific discoveries, the creation of a talented literary or artistic work, the demonstration of state wisdom, or a significant military victory—these leave an individual's name in the memory of descendants. However, the memories of people encompass the names of heroes, creators, and prophets, as well as those of the most brutal tyrants and notorious criminals. This raises questions regarding the ambiguous evaluation of the magnitude of an individual's personality.

The fifth type of immortality is achieved through "altered states of consciousness." Often, these are products of psychotraining and meditation systems, prevalent primarily in Eastern religions and civilizations. Here, "breakthroughs" into new dimensions of space and time, journeys into the past and future, ecstasy and enlightenment, and a mystical sense of connection to Eternity are all possible.

The meaning of death and immortality, as well as the paths to achieving them, can be seen as the reverse side of the problem of the meaning of life. It is evident that these questions are addressed differently, depending on the prevailing cultural and worldview orientations. Significant roles are played here by the characteristics of civilizations, national cultural traditions, religious orientations, and so forth. Of particular interest is the impact of major religious movements—Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism—and the civilizations associated with them on the issues of the meaning of life, death, and immortality.

Christianity’s understanding of this problem is grounded in the Old Testament assertion that “the day of death is better than the day of birth” and in Christ’s command from the New Testament: “...I hold the keys of hell and death.” The divine-human essence of Christianity manifests in the belief that the immortality of the individual as a whole being is attainable only through resurrection. The path to this is opened by Christ’s redemptive sacrifice through the cross and resurrection. This is a realm of mystery and miracle, for humanity is drawn out of the domain of natural-cosmic forces and elements, becoming, as a person, face to face with God, who is also a person.

Thus, the goal of human life is deification, a path toward eternal life. Without this realization, earthly existence transforms into a dream. Essentially, it serves merely as preparation for the eternal life that awaits everyone. However, this is not a tragedy, but rather a transition to another world, where myriad souls—both good and evil—reside, and where each new soul enters for joy or suffering. Death, therefore, does not destroy the body but rather its perishability; hence, it is not an end but a beginning of eternal life.

Christianity connects its understanding of immortality with the figure of the “Eternal Jew,” Ahasverus. When Jesus, bearing the cross, journeyed to Golgotha and wished to rest, Ahasverus, standing among the others, uttered, “Go on, go on,” for which he was punished—denied the rest of the grave. He became doomed to wander the world until the second coming of Christ, who alone can free Ahasverus from his forced and loathsome immortality.

Christianity categorically condemns suicide, as the individual does not belong to themselves; their life and death are “in God’s will.”

Islam, on the other hand, begins from the fact of human creation by the will of the Almighty Allah, who is primarily merciful. Unlike Christianity, earthly life is highly valued in Islam. At the same time, on the Day of Judgment, everything will be destroyed, and the dead will rise to stand before Allah for final judgment. Belief in the afterlife is essential, for it compels one to evaluate their actions not from the perspective of personal interest, but from the vantage of eternal consequence.

The destruction of the entire universe on the Day of Just Judgment anticipates the creation of a new perfect world. Each person will have a “record” of their deeds and thoughts presented to them, leading to an appropriate verdict. Thus, the principle of the supremacy of moral and rational laws over physical laws will prevail. A morally pure individual cannot remain in a state of humiliation, as is often the case in real life. Islam also categorically prohibits suicide. One must not inquire of Allah regarding the time of death, for only He knows.

In Buddhism, the attitude toward death and immortality markedly differs from that of Christianity and Islam. The Buddha himself refrained from answering whether the one who has realized the truth is mortal or immortal. Can one who has grasped the truth be both mortal and immortal simultaneously? Essentially, only one form of “strange immortality” is acknowledged—nirvana, as the embodiment of transcendent Absolute Being, devoid of attributes. The individual is viewed as a sum of moments, perpetually flowing through cycles of reincarnation. Hence, the absurdity of the chain of natural births is recognized. The “Dhammapada” asserts that rebirth is painful; thus, life is suffering. The escape lies in the path to attaining nirvana, or breaking free from the chain of endless rebirths, achieving enlightenment, that blessed “island” within the depths of the human heart. The symbol of nirvana—the extinguishing of the fire of life, which eternally devours—expresses the essence of the Buddhist understanding of death and immortality. As the Buddha remarked, “One day of life for a person who has seen the immortal path is better than a century of existence for one who has not glimpsed the higher life.”

A similar calm attitude toward life, death, and immortality, along with the pursuit of enlightenment and liberation from evil, characterizes other Eastern religions and cults as well. In this context, attitudes toward suicide change; it is viewed not so much as sinful as senseless, for it does not liberate a person from the cycle of births and deaths (samsara), but merely leads to rebirth in a lower embodiment. One must overcome attachment to one’s individuality, for, as the Buddha said, “the nature of personality is perpetual death.” Liberation in life from the causes of suffering and the dominion of one’s “self” is the better path to achieving immortality.

The history of humanity’s spiritual life encompasses other—non-religious and atheistic—approaches to understanding the issues of life, death, and immortality. In general, several alternative paths for resolving this problem can be distinguished.

The first path is to accept the scientifically and rationally substantiated idea that in the world, the complete annihilation of even an elementary particle is impossible, and that laws of conservation govern existence. Substance, energy, information, and the organization of complex systems are preserved. Thus, parts of our “self” will enter into the eternal cycle of being after death and, in this sense, will be immortal. However, they will not possess consciousness or a soul, which is tied to our “self.” Furthermore, this form of immortality is attained by a person throughout their life, which can be expressed in a paradoxical thought: we live only because we die every second. Indeed, red blood cells die daily, epithelial cells on our mucous membranes fall away, hair sheds, and so forth. Therefore, it is fundamentally impossible to frame life and death as absolute opposites: they are two sides of a singular process.

Before the face of death, all are equal; it removes the inequality on which earthly life is based. Thus, a tranquil acceptance of the idea of the absence of eternal life for my “self” and the understanding of the inevitability of merging with “indifferent” nature represent one avenue of a non-religious approach to the problem of immortality. However, this raises the question of the Absolute as a criterion for one’s moral decisions.

The second path is to achieve immortality through human endeavors, in the fruits of material and spiritual production. The rational basis of this path lies in the notion of the immortality of humanity and its cosmic purpose. If we accept that self-destruction due to thermonuclear or ecological catastrophe, or demise from cosmic cataclysms, is a real possibility for humanity, then this question remains open. Among the ideals and driving forces of such a form of immortality, the struggle for liberation from class or social oppression, the fight for national independence and statehood, and so on, are often highlighted. This provides humanity with a higher meaning of life, closely intertwined with immortality.

The third path leads to immortality through immersion in the flow of everyday life, in the daily tasks and concerns that shape our existence.

One might also point to other concepts of immortality aimed at altering the laws of nature: the notion of a "common cause" (as proposed by M. Fedorov), pantheism (inspired by ideas of A. Einstein, among others), the pursuit of "life after death" (as discussed by R. Moody, A. Ford, etc.), alongside numerous mystical currents acknowledging the reality of an afterlife and the possibility of communication with those who have departed. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that each individual possesses a unique energetic phantom, which detaches itself shortly before physical death but continues to exist in other dimensions. This notion sets the stage for a new understanding of immortality, which is linked to the necessity of self-definition within the eternal realm of informational and energetic entities.

Contemporary thanatology, the study of death, represents a branch of natural and humanitarian knowledge. The interest in the issue of death can be attributed to various factors. Among the most significant is the current global civilizational crisis, which threatens the potential self-destruction of humanity, coupled with a profound shift in the value systems concerning life and death in light of the overarching circumstances on Earth. A unique reaction to the new dilemmas of life and death, associated with advancements in science and medicine (such as organ transplantation, genetic engineering, and in vitro fertilization), has led to the formation of bioethics—a comprehensive discipline straddling philosophy, ethics, biology, medicine, and several other fields. This development coincides with a heightened interest in human rights, particularly concerning one's own corporeal and spiritual existence, as well as society's response to the threats to life on Earth. Today, bioethics encompasses ethical issues surrounding euthanasia, decortication, abortion, suicide, organ transplantation (including the brain), new reproductive technologies (including surrogacy), genetic engineering, sexual self-identification, and attitudes toward mental health. Such issues are addressed based on existing normative and ethical approaches within global and national traditions and legal systems.

Particular attention is paid to euthanasia (literally "happy death") as a new phenomenon in society that necessitates profound philosophical reflection. The term "euthanasia" emerged in the modern era and is associated with the name of F. Bacon, who suggested using it to denote a painless death intended to alleviate suffering from incurable illnesses. This phenomenon is rooted in the concept of a person's right not only to life but also to death, which relates to the phenomenon of suicide. Several types of euthanasia are distinguished: active voluntary euthanasia; active involuntary euthanasia; passive voluntary euthanasia; and passive involuntary euthanasia.

In addressing the legality and moral justification of euthanasia, physicians face a dilemma known since the time of Hippocrates: on one hand, a physician should not be a murderer, even at the patient's request; on the other hand, they must alleviate the suffering of the ill.

Within the context of the relationship between life, death, and immortality, the problem of the meaning of life gains particular significance. For those with a religious and idealistic worldview, the meaning and purpose of humanity are placed beyond the individual, serving as a means to achieve an afterlife goal. In contrast, from a materialistic perspective, human life lacks any externally granted meaning or purpose. The meaning of life for the individual does not exist as an objective reality outside of the consciousness of that individual. Consequently, each of us must seek our own meaning in life, and no one else can undertake this task for us. As noted by V. Frankl, meaning cannot be given; it must be found. This leads to several properties of the meaning of life:

1. The meaning of life is individual; it exists for the individual, and each individual possesses their own meaning.
2. The meaning of life is subjective: it does not exist until the subject acknowledges it.
3. The meaning of life does not arise automatically but is consciously defined by the individual through their will and efforts.

When discussing the problem of finding the meaning of life, it is essential to note that this issue cannot be resolved solely in biological terms; it necessitates consideration as a social phenomenon, that is, as the meaning of human life within society. This implies that individual life gains meaning as a fragment of the collective, shared life of humanity. Life is imbued with meaning when personal happiness becomes the happiness of others. Conversely, a person who lives solely for themselves loses the meaning of life precisely because they sever their individual existence from the broader societal life.