i'am currently reading "thinking clearly about death" by jay Rosenberg and in 1.3 (chapter 1 part 3) he says

to say that death is the end of life suggests that all living thing die

it does not seem to me that "all living things die" follows from

"death is the end of the life"

unless we know "if something is living it will eventually stop living".

  • 2
    Well, he says suggests, not implies. The author is probably aware of the implicit assumption.
    – user2953
    Aug 30 '15 at 17:10
  • 1
    "Death is the end of life" if taken as a premise, presupposes "end of life" exists. Aug 30 '15 at 18:33
  • @KurtcebeEroglu under what grounds would one say that "end of life" does not exist?
    – hellyale
    Aug 30 '15 at 20:50
  • I agree with you, the sentence itself doesn't suggest that, only our background assumptions on death do Aug 30 '15 at 23:02
  • 2
    An epigraph is a quotation at the front of a book. Does it follow from that definition that every book has an epigraph?
    – WillO
    Oct 1 '15 at 0:34

Don't think so, just because something has a end state does not mean it will ever reach it. Don't think this is a good analogy but...

to say that death is the end of life suggests that all living thing die.

I agree with you, just because death can occur to life, it does not mean that it will occur to life.

Take this (not very good) analogy for example

Let's say that life is like a dry woollen cloth, and death/the end of life is a soaked cloth.

If we submerge a dry woollen cloth in water it will get soaked, this is analogous to a living thing dying.

As long as someone does not submerge the woollen cloth in water it will not get soaked. Analogous to the life continuing. If the cloth never becomes submerged in water it will never get wet

That is all assuming that having a woollen cloth will soak it is a absolute fact

So just as a woollen cloth can be submerged in water and can get soaked, thus does not mean that it will be submerged in water, death being the end of life does not mean that all living things will die

But others have already noted, that is not implied in the statement, it merely states that life having an end **suggests ** that life will eventually end. In a sense it does but I think this is more due to the power of suggestion or something to do with our psychology.

  • Heh, I think data suggests that death is the end of life? Have you ever seen a living thing that doesn't / can't die?
    – virmaior
    Oct 8 '15 at 11:43
  • @virmaior that is true but the statement " death is the end of life" should not suggest that.
    – Jack
    Oct 8 '15 at 11:45
  • @virmaior There are species of jellyfish that are speculated to be immortal in the absence of predation. There are other issues with this answer, but finite inductive "data" is not one of them. Oct 19 '15 at 18:40

The conclusion follows from the premises:
a) all living things must have life to be alive.
b) for all living things, death is a transition from alive to dead.
therefore, death (end of life), is the point at which a living thing dies.

  • 1
    Downvoted because (a) this doesn't attempt to answer the OP's question, and (b) the argument is plainly invalid. Sep 1 '15 at 2:46
  • @possibleWorld can you explain why this argument is invalid?
    – hellyale
    Sep 2 '15 at 2:52
  • @possibleWorld maybe unsound, but you would have to explain that to me as well.
    – hellyale
    Sep 2 '15 at 2:53
  • 1
    @Hellyale Sure: let 'Txyz' symbolize the relation 'x transitions from y to z', and let 'Pxy' symbolize the relation 'x dies at point (i.e. time) y. Then, assuming that we can quantify over states as well as objects, it's pretty routine to come up with an interpretation that makes the former formula true but the latter formula false. Sep 2 '15 at 19:34
  • @possibleWorld what is the z here? What routine formulation are you coming up with?
    – hellyale
    Sep 2 '15 at 19:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.