Man death ethics. Walentin W. Wasielewski

To be safe essentially means that it is physically impossible that certain things should happen to me and therefore it is nonsense to say that I am safe whatever happens.»

      The desire for safety is the imprint of knowledge about death. And, indeed, the inability to consider the entire physical world and absolutely protect yourself in it is quite reasonable. But, this does not mean that there are no high-quality transitions. This shows the supernatural, and at the same time, the reality of ethics. For example, the existence of the laws of quantum physics do not contradict the existence of the laws of classical mechanics. In the world of Planck quantities, there are possibilities for what is impossible in the physical world. Still, though, the universe accommodates both of these worlds at the same time.

      «…when they said that God had created the world; and the experience of absolute safety has been described by saying that we feel safe in the hands of God.»

      Most likely, the described experience of absolute security is actually the experience of absolute ignorance about danger. Rather than the experience of ignorance about death, which is still experienced by all animals or people whose language lacks a system of tenses. They are extremely rare, but there are examples such as the Piraha tribe,2 who are considered the standard of happiness.3 It cannot be said that this is a blessing, though, mainly because ignorance about the problem does not free you from the problem. But we can say that this is primordial animal happiness. So, we can make sure that happiness and morality are not interrelated. It is likely that happiness can only be just outside of death. And it does not matter in what form, whether it is beyond the knowledge of death or in the impossibility of death. So, man was banished from the paradise of ignorance, while animals remain in paradise. Even though we continue to exist together, physically, in the same world.

      «…what we mean by saying that an experience has absolute value is just a fact like other facts and that all it comes to is that we have not yet succeeded in finding the correct logical analysis of what we mean by our ethical and religious expressions. … That is to say: I see now that these nonsensical expressions were not nonsensical because I had not yet found the correct expressions, but that their nonsensicality was their very essence. For all I wanted to do with them was just to go beyond the world and that is to say beyond significant language.»

      As we saw earlier, ethics loses its meaning after achieving its goal. While we are moving towards the goal, good and evil exists. Once we have reached the goal, ethics itself no longer exists. Let’s assume that we have reached the state of overcoming death. And if death is overcome, then ethics no longer has a substratum. There is no need for a relationship to death insofar as there is no death itself. Thus, one can only agree with Wittgenstein that the achievement of the goal by a man, defined as a being who understood death, will mean for him to go beyond the world where he now exists. A man who becomes a New Man or a Superman enters a New World, beyond everything that defined him in his own world. Everything will fall into place, and here Wittgenstein is right.

      «Ethics… does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.»

      Exactly. Ethics is not a knowledge in itself, but only a method of obtaining knowledge. As a shovel is not the hole, but the possibility of digging a hole, and a brick is not a house, but the possibility of building a house.

      Ethics is a unique and effective method of development available only to humans. And it is for this reason that it is the driving force for a tendency in the human mind to develop.

      a source of development

      Would now the wind but had a body; but all the things that most exasperate and outrage mortal man, all these things are bodiless, but only bodiless as objects, not as agents.

      – Herman Melville, Moby-Dick

      There are no problems for inanimate nature. There is only the transformation of matter and energy. Whether it’s the planet’s loss of atmosphere, star burnout, supernova explosion, black holes, or galaxy collisions, they are not problems for the universe.

      The problem can only exist for life – living things. And this problem of the cessation of life, that is death.

      Let’s define the connection of the concepts used below: death, problem, obstacle, limit, and frame. The concept of the problem is reduced to the concept of an obstacle. The obstacle to life can only be something that does not allow you to continue the life. Everything that is not a problem, that is, does not lead to the termination of life, is also not an obstacle. Anything that does not stop life could be resources, opportunities, the environment – anything, but not obstacles. Obstacles can be complex: a chain of interrelated events, complexes of conditions and their correlations, environmental parameters, or natural phenomena. In general, we will call the complex of obstacles as a limit frame