Death with Interruptions - I'm the thinker now

This week I read, Death with Interruptions by Jose Saramago. To be honest, this was a very difficult read for me. While reading this book, I realized that I have actually never read a philosophical book before, so this book was very tough. I think the book was difficult to read because of all the long sentences especially the lack of proper grammar. However, this book still made me ponder a lot, hence my title (LOL).

Going back to the lack of proper grammar, I would like to think that Saramago did this on purpose because I feel like death is similar to a period (.). It is used when a sentence has ended, similar to a life which has also ended. Similar to the lecture video, Jon mentioned that the lack of periods in this book may be related to the fact that no one was able to die. "[H]umanity’s greatest dream since the beginning of time, the happy enjoyment of eternal life here on earth, had become a gift within the grasp of everyone" (6). However, as I continued to read, I began to doubt this statement. Is rental life really a gift?

The unexpected arrival of this phenomenon led to the people in the country to adapt, but it has also raised questions and concerns. Firstly, the book mentioned the problems regarding religion. The book stated that there would be issues with the church because without death, there would be no resurrection. Without resurrection, there would be not church since that is one of the main reasons, they believed in God. As a Christian, I was already against the idea of eternal life, however, when I read this, this just added another reason for me to not like it. Another problem that arose was the issue of morality. In the book, there was a group called the "maphia." They basically took people's loved ones outside the country's borders to end their suffering. This was popular with families who had a terminally ill family member. This could be problematic as it is essentially "killing" them. In the book, a family's neighbour accused them of this. "You killed them, (43) the neighbour exclaimed. This topic really got me thinking of what I would do in a situation like this. I think that my decision would vary on the specific factors and conditions. This also reminded me of a true crime case where a father refused to pull the plug on his son who's been in a coma for years despite everyone else in the family suggesting that they should. The father essentially took his son "hostage" in the hospital, preventing the police from coming inside the room. His hope did not waver and after a while, his son gained consciousness again. Though, of course, the father still went to jail. There is also an anime that reminded me of this dilemma. It's called Heavenly Delusion. Let me know in your comments if you know this anime :).

The book also touched on death producing new life. They used the example of a silkworm and a moth. We know the worm eventually turns into a moth, but does this mean that the worm died and caused the moth to come to life? This question really tripped me out because I couldn't really come up with a proper answer. I thought that the worm doesn't die because it turns into a moth. It's still the same animal just evolved and now called a different thing. But, are they really the same if they are called different things and have different characteristics?

Discussion Question:

What would you do if death sent you a letter that you were going to die in a year? Would you do your taxes, write your will, etc. as the government would like you to or do something different?