/lit/ - Literature

>>15368731
I think his argument makes sense if you believe that those two properties can coexist in separate spheres, but along the same arc.

When you're "alive," you are not dead. As far as you know, still being alive, you are as immortal as you'll ever be, as is your soul.

When you are "dead," you are not alive. Your soul, if it depended on the living body, is also dead. You in concept and idea still exist in the world, if you believe the world continues on after you die. Your "soul" is the collective imprint you left in the course of you life on family, friends, your profession, etc.

If the soul doesn't depend on the living body, then that's a separate and incredibly difficult question. No one, not Socrates, or any Pope, or scientists, or artists, or politicians, no one knows what happens when you die. They can only give you advice on how to live before you do so. They can speculate to the realms of forms, to Heaven, to a natural occurrence, to some transcendent aesthetic inspiration, but they're all still alive, dummy. They don't know what it's like to be dead and you won't be able to ask them when they ever really do find out.

It's kind of like your fire question -- is a fire just the act of burning? Or is it the entire act itself? Its building, its creation, the first spark, the maintenance, the peak, the dying, and finally the end? Is all of that the fire, or just the middle part?

>>14954103
Immature? It's the fantasy of every woman, and not just by upper-class men but elegant and dominant men who will spank their bottoms. Status, power, beauty and strong will with a darker streak.

Men fantasise about the opposite, submissive women falling for them and desiring them, conquering then and taming them.