Life and / or Death (the meaning of) A philosophical dilemma or a disruptive Philonausicaa deliberate choice?
In this post-truth’s era, especially climate change truth, in this ante-Trump period, such dilemmas’ dilemma is crucial. Minerals, plants and animals are immortal. They are not aware of their existence; there is no yesterday, today or tomorrow for them all. They live in an eternal ‘now’. Now they exist, then they do not but life, in general, goes on. Human consciousness, rather its negative side, human ego creates the problem; modern production - consumption system makes it worse. Modern person builds homes like being immortal and behaves to his body like she is going to die tomorrow. As a consequence he has all kinds of problems with his body, mind and ‘soul’ (whatever that would be) during that natural duration of her existence; some call this duration ‘short’; short in comparison with what? Dogs, for instance, live a ‘shorter’ life because their hearts beat about two times faster than human. BWT being aware of this fact the ‘philosophical’ questions ‘why do dogs appear to be in a hurry’ and ‘where do they go’ has a rather easy answer ‘because this is their normal circadian rhythm’. Anyway, modern anxiety concerning human life, or, rather, death has its roots in the degree humans accomplish their life purpose - in case they had any, in the first place. Meaningless life paradoxically guides to a increasing longing to live as much as possible - and not, vice versa. In a more mature era, e.g. the future, departure from life would be like a journey, decided long ago in a cool decision making environment.
Speaking of the devil: Departure from life
From the philonausicaa point of view future is a place where most problems of today are solved towards directions nature leads. From the same point of view, realising natural ways to solve life problems wipes away any potential death anguish.
In the future there is no more debate on euthanasia (painless death) for people who suffer from incurable diseases. Everyone can arrange to depart from life for various reasons; the main remaining is freedom of choice. Once someone has accomplished the main goals in her life, one feels free to go; it is as simple as that. On the contrary, for the very same reasons of “non-fulfilment” our ancestors have tried every possible means for remaining in life, for even some more days or... hours with the help of technological / mechanical (!) support.
In the future authorities pay for travel expenses for friends or relatives coming even from the opposite part of the world or other planets; first, because there is no actual cost: for beaming up procedure only patent rights costs are charged; second, for honouring the ones who depart. In a ceremony similar to the one of planting a tree for a newborn child, the person or persons (usually they are couples or small groups who lived together for long) invite friends, relatives and social acquaintance (in that order) and have fun. People in our future do never lose a chance to drink, eat and get merry (not married*), especially after a world report on postponed orgasms internationally proven to burden the planet’s atmosphere with enormous quantities of positive ions / negative energy. Life prolongation beyond 130 years of age has been considered arrogance towards the planet and research on the issue has been interrupted.
But first, a story. Life is totally meaningless. We live. We die. So what's the point? By Tim Dempsey
Every day, I walk to school. And every day, I see a particular brown and white duck. Sometimes he’s eating grass. Other times he’s sleeping. He didn’t do anything else- he led a very simple existence. Anyway, I always looked forward to seeing this duck whenever I walked to school. I don’t know why I felt that way. Maybe I saw him as a sign of consistency- who knows? But one day when I walked to school, I couldn’t find him. The next day yielded the same results. This continued for a about a week, and by then I had concluded that my duck had died.
This question made me think back to that - what was the point of that duck’s life? He didn’t do much- he never fell in love, he never traveled anywhere, never did anything out of the ordinary. He was pretty boring. But now he is gone- no remnants of his existence. I reckon his life was pretty meaningless, after all, how significant can the life of that duck’s be?
But maybe if he traveled to another park his life would be interesting. Maybe if he tried something new, his life would have some meaning. Maybe if he did one thing besides eating and sleeping, his life would bear some significance. So try new things and live life, and maybe, just maybe your life might have some meaning. Or maybe I’m just overthinking this and all life is meaningless. Who knows?
Important thing is to not live MUCH but WELL instead. What’s the use of many years for someone who suffers from ‘CHRONIC pain’? If one lives well (physically, mentally, sentimentally) one is ready to depart ANY TIME; an event mostly HARMLESS for that one & the others; known & unknown; but, mainly, the loved ones. “She Lived WELL” they would say, “He was Not A Burden”. And she would be remembered FOR ‘LONG’, by those who have met her (The Circle Closes There). Ths is IMMORTALITY - for the few ones who are interested in.
 Human relations no more need social restriction technicalities to keep them live and joyful; once the element of profit or security ceased to interfere with personal feelings all rituals unifying people of co-operative genders took their original place: an unforgettable moment of promise between two people (or sometimes more) to live and respect one another.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy[i]”
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
This era has actually no name; an element characterized by a preposition rings immediately the bell of compound, complex, even multiplex one, e.g. antifragility, another recent philosophical term. However, in this compound, complex, even multiplex transitional era we live in, there are many new elements for philosophy to elaborate on. Is our old, traditional Mother-of-all-sciences Philosophy able enough to deal with that? I am afraid not. This is why I am a male groupie of disruptive Philonausicaa… but this is another story. Let’s stick to the original term since it is going to be used mostly in a negative connotation.
The whole world is in a constant turmoil; it’s about ‘business-as-usual’ politicians VS science (climate crisis becoming a real litmus on the issue); it’s ‘free’ market VS pure research; it’s ‘three powers / democracy “stepping stones” defenders pretending no media and web influence exists VS active citizens’ referendums; it’s globally famous academic institutions providing high level ignorant accountants VS situational awareness; it’s the fake ‘non-profit’ VS profit with a social cause; it’s about greed capitalism VS entrepreneurship & social innovation; it’s about oil economy with no principles - but profit VS Sustainable Development; it’s about a robust VS an antifragile world; it’s a stubborn past VS a fresh future with all its brand new ingredients blossoming; it’s irrationality in all potential levels VS reasoning - during an era usually called a period when Age of Enlightenment results come to implementation; last but not least, it’s about old world VS new world - not the “New Brave World”.
Philosophy used to come in support of human soul, usually a little late but generally with good intentions. Only exception: philosophy first born in Greece; it caught up with zeitgeist then, in time and space, and opened its store waiting for clients during those unprecedented, particular, and, probably unrepeatable few forty years of calm and prosperity for the Athenian “Democracy” (in brackets according to modern standards); “All’s well that ends well” (too much Shakespeare ado nothing) at that time. But in this modern time Philosophy has been very late. Philosophers still try hard to “interpret the world, in various ways; no question whatsoever to try to “change it” (O tempora o mores, Dear uncle - not divine, Karl - sorry!); they have been mostly occupied with conferences, congresses, symposiums, formal philosophy workshops, etc.
However the world is moving forward, with or without us. ‘The planets travel impressively along their Neutonian orbits’, as Carl Sagan said, ‘winds twist into typhoons, chickens alternate with eggs, and we just exchange opinions’. The future world, which BTW is already here, is like any food recipe. It has enlisted certain ingredients waiting to get, more or less, ingeniously integrated in one dish. Water considered sine qua non goes without saying; salt seems too unimportant by itself; the same happens with oregano; even meat alone has no big chances; but just you wait until chef enters the stage. Hold your breath, philosophers of the world, without any need to unite, just put on your thinking cap; sleep on them from a Philonausicaa point of view, a holistic and a little bit militant one. Here is the panorama: Google; the web; business with a social cause; CSR; LinkedIn; local communities; Earth as Gaia; Apple (not the iPhone mobile business but the entity integrating cognitive science in technological gadgets); institutes for the Future; social networking; Open source S/W; Generation Y; Entrepreneurship; Generation Z; Wikipedia; Sustainable Development; Cognitive science; The Media Lab Center for Future Storytelling; TED Ideas worth spreading; Chaos theory; BRICS; Change Theory; Ecological Civilization; China; Collective Intelligence; Secular Humanism; Seth Godin; Umberto Eco; Tao Te Ching; Antifragility, and some more one could explore on the way.
In case we consider above elements too cheap to shape such a magnificent entity like Future, recollect salt, water, oregano. This is our Future puzzle; for us to solve or keep it unsolved - but better resolve it, and offer it to people. They are waiting for it; they are waiting for it from us. We better make it fast; there is no time ‘left’. There is much time ‘right’ though... This time philosophy has to follow Philonausicaa rhythm and main features.
The Storyteller of the Future Society, close friend of Disruptive Philonausicaa email@example.com
 Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder is a book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb published on November 27, 2012, by Random House in the United States and Penguinin the United Kingdom. This book builds upon ideas from his previous works including Fooled by Randomness (2001), The Black Swan (2007–2010), and The Bed of Procrustes (2010-2016) and is the fourth book in the four-volume philosophical essay on uncertainty titled the Incerto
[i] your philosophy ] i.e., philosophy (or learning) in general. The emphasis here should be on "dreamt of", as Hamlet is pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain. One can imagine happier times when Hamlet and Horatio, studying together at Wittenberg, engaged in heated philosophical debates. Shakespeare does not expand on the specific nature of Horatio's philosophy, and in the First Folio (1623), the text actually reads "our philosophy." Some editors, such as Dyce, White and Rowe, choose to use "our" instead of "your" (as found in Q2), believing Hamlet is speaking in general terms about the limitations of human thought. For much more on this passage, please see the full explanatory notes for Hamlet.
2016, Aristotle Anniversary Year:
This Philosophical Views (magazine devoted to culture, philosophy, literature, art, film, theater and all other related fields) issue offers its readers global exclusivity!
«I owe Humanity a heartfelt apology»! – Aristotle’s ipse dixit
Just because some intellectuals, 2400 years after Aristotle’s birth, started to collect supportive signatures on his behalf, it would be intriguing to recollect a rather unknown excerpt of his work. Obviously, mentioned excerpt contains an ensemble of especial tenets - even more, it makes a personal statement; at the same time this latter could turn to breaking news.
“My work has been nothing but collection and classification of preexisting knowledge and close observation or, if you prefer, my era’s cognitive infrastructure systematic approach - you know, the empirical kind. However, along the years, something deviant has occurred - this is exactly the reason I owe Humanity a heartfelt apology.
Educational establishment, more specifically religious-clerical status quo, has taken advantage of my assuming authority; for more than one thousand years, monasteries shifted in universities, offered, for men only, in a dead language - Latin, a curriculum and an alleged integrated knowledge system based on my ‘scientific’ material - if one could call it so; to begin with, I have to express my original goal: I intended to gradually verify my findings during my humble finite life; rest of the material would remain for the next to come fellow researchers, or curious investigators, if you wish, to elaborate on.
Another way to put it for you all to better realize it: I will describe it in terms of that distant-in-the-future era dominated by ‘intermedia’, or just media, because Fluxus artist Dick Higgins has creatively changed the former term. I would characterize myself as a plain collector with a rather unusual disposition toward critical thinking though. My filing cabinets’ unauthorized heirs projected me as ’ingenious’ and ‘omniscient’ film director because that image served perfectly their goal (“No one can touch and change Aristotle’s work” implying, in a proportional way, “no one could doubt Church authority”). I have been featured as someone who proposed a dynamic, full and self-evolving system of science.
It goes without saying: those guidelines have been followed, fortunately enough only, by planet’s west side science historic catch 22. However, it has been well known I was not the only one subjected to this treatment. Bertolt Brecht’s theater production techniques and scientific methodology on interpreting world’s reality have been considered as an ‘infallible’ and ‘perfect’ way to direct theatrical plays - just after his death; anticipated outcome, theater’s decline…”
(“PSEUDEPIGRAPHA “About my work”, 1443 b 27-34 free interpretation by Andreas Andreopoulos, semiotic analysis inpert)
Comment on the above text: Either declaration’s subjective point of view is valid (that means it could be untrue) or it is interpreted as a generally accepted dogma (“Aristotle’s ipse dixit”); in any case his evergreen supporters, the ones collecting signatures, defend a futile case - even worse for them, they fight against authentic declaration…
 “based on ‘Asking for Forgiveness Gracefully’ 4 steps (express remorse; admit responsibility; make amends; promise that it won't happen again - because I was always respecting peers and taking their opinion into consideration” - Aristotle, again.
Climate communication & Ecological Civilization expert, Athens, Greece