All living things exhibit a quality we call "life". Although the concept of what constitutes life is common to all, the mode of life is manifested in different ways. This raises the question of the equality of life in its different forms. However, this does not question the commonality of its source.
No living thing originates dead. The thing that lives begins its existence alive. (I just repeated myself). All living things wind up "dead". All living things die. (I did it again). This confusion on my part is that this raises a perplexing question. Does the body have life or does life have the body? Are they the same or different things? The body, although dead, can exist but we can't know for certain whether or not the life that inhabited the body can exist without it. If "life" can or cannot exist outside the body, what happens to it: where does it go?
It seems to me that since living things, as far as we know, come only from other living things and that the life in one is passed on to the next, kind of like a chain smoker lighting a cigarette from the one he just consumed. This again engages the concept of infinity since if we trace life back to its origin, we eventually must conclude that the origin of life had to come from something possessing life yet not itself having received it from some prior life. Wow, is that possible? We want to say "No" but our brains say its the only answer.
If we accept that life can come only from a prior life and that the first life possessed it without having received it from another, then we must conclude that the life-giver is the source of all life. As to the equality of life in all its different forms, there can be legitimate disagreement but if the life-giver gave it, it must be respected. We can only guess what role each was intended to play but it should be obvious that none is without purpose and, in the eyes of the giver, necessary.
If I had something handy, I'd drink a toast to LIFE!
No living thing originates dead. The thing that lives begins its existence alive. (I just repeated myself). All living things wind up "dead". All living things die. (I did it again). This confusion on my part is that this raises a perplexing question. Does the body have life or does life have the body? Are they the same or different things? The body, although dead, can exist but we can't know for certain whether or not the life that inhabited the body can exist without it. If "life" can or cannot exist outside the body, what happens to it: where does it go?
It seems to me that since living things, as far as we know, come only from other living things and that the life in one is passed on to the next, kind of like a chain smoker lighting a cigarette from the one he just consumed. This again engages the concept of infinity since if we trace life back to its origin, we eventually must conclude that the origin of life had to come from something possessing life yet not itself having received it from some prior life. Wow, is that possible? We want to say "No" but our brains say its the only answer.
If we accept that life can come only from a prior life and that the first life possessed it without having received it from another, then we must conclude that the life-giver is the source of all life. As to the equality of life in all its different forms, there can be legitimate disagreement but if the life-giver gave it, it must be respected. We can only guess what role each was intended to play but it should be obvious that none is without purpose and, in the eyes of the giver, necessary.
If I had something handy, I'd drink a toast to LIFE!
No comments:
Post a Comment