Let's say there's some sort of afterlife and it's super great. You can do whatever you want in a paradise. Okay, now imagine that lasts for trillions of years. What are you going to do? You're either going to go insane from boredom or not be yourself in which case sure you're some eternally happy sprite floating around but not you anymore.
And are other people there? Yeah? Talk about a road-trip test of a relationship hanging out for eternity. No? Okay thats lonely.
I never understood why this was such a forced conclusion. It seems like "super great" presupposes a condition where the "not so great" parts aren't really there anymore. So mapping boredom onto the "super great" situation seems a bit irrational, just in terms of the logic.
If it's "super great" then it seems more helpful to ask, why would boredom _not_ be a thing? For example. Maybe one can even learn a new way to beat boredom in the here and now.
> And are other people there? Yeah? Talk about a road-trip test of a relationship hanging out for eternity. No? Okay thats lonely.
This one also presupposes conditions like:
- Lack of empathy
- Inability to connect with others in a sustainable way
- Alternately, nobody's around therefore I feel bad
But again, this is a 1:1 map of present onto "improved circumstances," which doesn't make much sense.
It's been a long time since I've actually believed in the afterlife myself, but I still don't see why it's necessary to project so much of the known world onto something like that, especially given the blanket-positive postulates so frequently established right up front.
And are other people there? Yeah? Talk about a road-trip test of a relationship hanging out for eternity. No? Okay thats lonely.
When I die, I hope I'm dead afterwards.