José Saramago’s “Death with Interruptions” has to be one of the most philosophical books I’ve ever read regarding the concept of death and its importance.
Now the book was split into two sections: with the first part exploring all the potential political, social, and economical consequences in society should death take a temporary holiday – and the second part detailing a personification of death itself as a beautiful woman who falls in love for a cellist who just doesn’t die.
Now, if no one died, their reaction would be joy, with people feeling like they have just escaped the biggest fear of their lives. If death was gone, wouldn’t that mean eternal paradise for people?
However, as the author describes, immortality is not equivalent to eternal youth. In other words, society would have many people suspended on the edge of dying, begging for their suffering to just end already.
It’s not just the funeral workers that are out of jobs – religion also becomes meaningless in their case since its greatest reward (eternal life) has already happened to everyone. Saramago also explains how this also practically ruins the economy (healthcare workers would be very overworked, for one) and brings about the maphia (a business that transports undying corpses outside of the country so they can die there since death hasn’t stopped working in literally every other part of the world).
After all the chaos that happens, death ends her social experiment and makes the choice to mail violet stationery to people who will die in a week so they can take the time to prepare themselves… which is an interesting idea. But would it really be any better for them? Regardless, it still imparts the message to society that death is absolutely necessary to life.
Ultimately, people fear death because they fear for what happens after it.
It is because we die that our lives have meaning in the first place.
When you think about it, you can not succeed at anything if there are infinitely more opportunities to succeed.
And you can never be happy if your life continues indefinitely without purpose.
Now, imagine no work of art was ever finished. Imagine that there are never any borders, boundaries, or frames to signal completion. Imagine that because nothing was ever final, that there are no places to hang up and admire completed work. Without the pressure from time making every color, word, or note a possibly final precious element of their masterpiece – the artist would never feel that creative spark or sense of urgency to tell the world of their vision that led to such beautiful pieces in the first place.
Personally, this is the importance of death I see in our existence. While Saramago in his book covers the societal disadvantages an absence of death impose, there are mental and individual factors that should also be acknowledged.
While I may not know the answer to what constitutes a “meaningful” life, I like to say that our limits to life creates a definition to what is beautiful. And to specify, one that is a completed beauty.
Death is permanent, but it is never without mercy or meaning.
So how would you define the meaning of death? What other consequences regarding the absence of death do you think would happen to society apart from reasons the author already listed?