Do we ever truly die?

[The Man]

Yes, our bones and our organs and our body shuts down, but to me, that really doesn't matter. I think you truly live in your legacy, because as long as your legacy lives, you live. I think if you are remembered by people, then you are still living.

What are your thoughts?

[Robespierre Richard]

That's deep bro.

But no, brother, the way I see it, we were made from the dust of this earth and we go back into the dust.

[Comrade J]

Yes we truly die. If you are remembered by people, or have a legacy, you are nonetheless as dead as someone who isn't remembered and has no legacy.

Ask me again when I'm stoned though and I'll probably agree with you. ;)

[The Man]

That's deep bro.

But no, brother, the way I see it, we were made from the dust of this earth and we go back into the dust.

Look at my signature :D.

But honestly, I think I agree with my statement completely. Yes, our bodies go to the ground and rot, and melt away. But does that mean that we are dead? Yes, physically we are gone, but our legacy lives on.

[Robespierre Richard]

Well Heidegger talked about it in very complicated terms regarding dominance of ideas and temporality and such because we are all beings-toward-death, so maybe???

[Tablo]

When you die you die. If people remember you then your memory is alive, but that will eventually die too. It really doesn't matter because when your dead you lack any conscious or unconscious brain activity so you wouldn't care.

[The Man]

When you die you die. If people remember you then your memory is alive, but that will eventually die too. It really doesn't matter because when your dead you lack any conscious or unconscious brain activity so you wouldn't care.

That's true. I guess you can say we die at one point, if you accept my theory. But for example, Abraham Lincoln died, but his legacy lives on, and it will do so for centuries to come.

[Rooster]

Not everyone is Abe Lincoln.

[The Man]

Not everyone is Abe Lincoln.

That is true. But that doesn't mean that as soon as our body withers away, we are instantly forgotten about.

[Princess Luna]

Yes, our bones and our organs and our body shuts down, but to me, that really doesn't matter. I think you truly live in your legacy, because as long as your legacy lives, you live. I think if you are remembered by people, then you are still living.

What are your thoughts?
Even if you consider having a legacy to be living , everybody is forgotten in the end. Even if you become the most famous person in the history of the world in the end the human race will go extinct, the earth will be destroyed and you will be forgotten

[Robespierre Richard]

Even if you consider having a legacy to be living , everybody is forgotten in the end. Even if you become the most famous person in the history of the world in the end the human race will go extinct, the earth will be destroyed and you will be forgotten

They won't never know our name or face
But feel our soul in free food they taste
Feel our passion when they heat they house
When they got power on the streets
And the police don't beat 'em about
Let's make health care centers on every block
Let's give everybody homes and a garden plot
Let's give all the schools books
Ten kids a class
And give 'em truth for their pencils and pads
Retail clerk - "love ballads"
where you place this song
Let's make heaven right here
Just in case they wrong
"Heven Tonite" by The Coup

[JazzRemington]

Yes, our bones and our organs and our body shuts down, but to me, that really doesn't matter. I think you truly live in your legacy, because as long as your legacy lives, you live. I think if you are remembered by people, then you are still living.

What are your thoughts?

You're conflating living with people remembering you...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Maybe at some global level we all share the same consciousness, we each experience our own fragment of it.

[F9]

Does anyone know?There are people who tried put some logic on an answer to this question you made, either positive or negative but there cant be a logical answer imo.There can be one based on logic but on the end of the day it wont be logical.

As for what you try to say, i would actually describe it as "ridiculous" and based on no absolute logic.:)How can anyone as an entity be alive just because someone somewhere remembers him/her? Can we imply that someone who is left on an island with his mother, after her death even if he is alive he is not truly alive based on your argument?I dont think that can be the case.How can you act, think just because you are remembered?Its not possible.Even if you are remembered you are not alive after death(based on your argument, generally speaking i dont know, and i honestly dont want to know, at least for some time;))

Fuserg9:star:

[The Man]

Well, I just guess that in my mind, there are two things that are in my heart:

A new world (Yay for Durruti!),
And the lives and legacies of the past.

[Robespierre Richard]

"But to live doesn't mean you're alive" -Nicki Minaj.

[The Man]

"But to live doesn't mean you're alive" -Nicki Minaj.

Ugh.. I thanked you because I thought it was someone else.. Great, Nicki Minaj annoys me so much... But I'm not gonna Un-Thank you.

[Pirate Utopian]

"No one ever really dies
You believe that?
Well if not, for you
It's almost over now, Almost over now"
- N.E.R.D.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Think of it this way-you can't actually experience your own death, so insofar as we are subjectively concerned, no, we never die. It would be the same as remembering your creation-for you to have the philosophical capacity to "Remember" something, you would need to already be, therefore past the phase of creation.

That's just a philosophical and ontological conclusion, but it would be an absurdity for us to experience our moment of death as a moment of death as such on a biological level too. Think about it, as our brain shuts down, we also lose our capacity to understand what is happening to us, until the point of death.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That's true. I guess you can say we die at one point, if you accept my theory. But for example, Abraham Lincoln died, but his legacy lives on, and it will do so for centuries to come.

that doesn't make him alive. his body rotted away a long time ago, way after his brain stopped working.

he's as dead as me and you will one day be.

[hatzel]

Interesting that nobody has yet forwarded anything on the atomic level...one could argue that we don't die, as the actual substance that makes up our body might continue to live as a tree or something, thus we cannot die, as the matter that makes up our bodies cannot cease to exist, and will always live on in other forms...woah...

[The Man]

Interesting that nobody has yet forwarded anything on the atomic level...one could argue that we don't die, as the actual substance that makes up our body might continue to live as a tree or something, thus we cannot die, as the matter that makes up our bodies cannot cease to exist, and will always live on in other forms...woah...

Woahh man.. You just blew my mind...:cool:
Your Awesome Rabbi :thumbup1:

[NGNM85]

As a mataphysical materialist, while never having experienced it myself, I feel confident, based on all availible data, when my brain activity ceases entirely, and permanently, I will be truly dead.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People have been brought back after having their heart stopped, so it seems obvious to me that the structures that make up a person do not reside in the literal heart. Thus it strikes me that as long as the brain is intact and preserved against degradation, there is the always the possibility of revival.

[ChrisK]

That is true. But that doesn't mean that as soon as our body withers away, we are instantly forgotten about.

Well Achilles, you are misusing the term "living". Being dead means you are no longer alive. Alive has nothing to do with being remembered. Legacy does not "live", legacy "living on" is just a fancy way to say you are not forgotten. It has not relation to "life".

[ChrisK]

Interesting that nobody has yet forwarded anything on the atomic level...one could argue that we don't die, as the actual substance that makes up our body might continue to live as a tree or something, thus we cannot die, as the matter that makes up our bodies cannot cease to exist, and will always live on in other forms...woah...

Fallacy of composition. WE ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH WHAT WE ARE COMPOSED OF.

[hatzel]

Fallacy of composition. WE ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH WHAT WE ARE COMPOSED OF.

For the sake of making some weird hippie point, I really don't think it matters :laugh:

[Robespierre Richard]

How about this.

We don't exist, what exists is our personality which is a coping mechanism our brains have for the fact that we have no control over our consciousness.

And also it's a social construct.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rabbi K:


For the sake of making some weird hippie point, I really don't think it matters

Sure it matters, since, if what Chris says is true, your point fails.

------------------------------

Kiroff:


We don't exist, what exists is our personality which is a coping mechanism our brains have for the fact that we have no control over our consciousness.

And you proof of this is what?


And also it's a social construct.

If we are all social constructs, then the social construct you mention must have been constructed by social constructs, too. But how do social constucts construct yet more social constructs?

In which case, how did this ever begin? Which human being (who can't have been a social construct) was the first to construct the rest of us? And how come we've all fallen for it ever since?

[NecroCommie]

The only way to say that: "we don't die" is to either invent somekind of method of immortality, or to define the words: "me" or "I" in a way that would make the entire point one huge ontological argument.

So yes, we most propably will die.

[hatzel]

Sure it matters, since, if what Chris says is true, your point fails.

I suppose we'll have to turn this to an ontological discussion, then, to ask if we're at the necessary nihilist level to believe that we're merely a bunch of matter (or whatever) that temporarily coalesces, to form us, and then dissipates again. I'm inclined to believe that if there is nothing to us other than a load of particles in a temporary union, then it's fair to suggest that we can claim to have existed as long as the 'stuff' that we are made up of has, and will continue to exist, although widely dissipated, until the end of all 'stuff'. The question only remains as to whether it is true that we are more than our component parts, which seems somewhat unscientific, and whether it is fair to claim that the continued existence of everything that we comprise of, albeit in a different form, is enough to say that we live on as part of the universe, having progressed beyond that very limited period of time in which 'we' have come together to form a human life...

[NecroCommie]

We cannot start to define words, because ontological arguments are either false (if you are anyone else) or non-sensical (if you are rosa). And it it seems reasonable anough, since we can "prove" or "disprove" anything with ontological arguments.

So when we look at the actual way we use the word "I" in social contexts, we notice that it does not only contain the particles in which your consciousness is programmed into, but also the notion of bio-chemical "programming" is involved. If that "programming" disintegrates the "I" ceases to be, or it dies as we say it.

[L.A.P.]

I never knew I could see so many idealists on a website full of Marxists.


Look at my signature :D.

But honestly, I think I agree with my statement completely. Yes, our bodies go to the ground and rot, and melt away. But does that mean that we are dead? Yes, physically we are gone, but our legacy lives on.

Materialism is a great philosophy, you should look it up. It doesn't matter if you have a legacy, the fact that your physical body shuts down is what makes you dead. Physical objects are what make up reality, not your thoughts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


I never knew I could see so many idealists on a website full of Marxists

That's a bit rich coming from someone who thinks we have anything to learn from Hegel.

[ChrisK]

I suppose we'll have to turn this to an ontological discussion, then, to ask if we're at the necessary nihilist level to believe that we're merely a bunch of matter (or whatever) that temporarily coalesces, to form us, and then dissipates again. I'm inclined to believe that if there is nothing to us other than a load of particles in a temporary union, then it's fair to suggest that we can claim to have existed as long as the 'stuff' that we are made up of has, and will continue to exist, although widely dissipated, until the end of all 'stuff'. The question only remains as to whether it is true that we are more than our component parts, which seems somewhat unscientific, and whether it is fair to claim that the continued existence of everything that we comprise of, albeit in a different form, is enough to say that we live on as part of the universe, having progressed beyond that very limited period of time in which 'we' have come together to form a human life...

If what you are saying is true, then the very notion of "you" is non-existent. If we are the atoms we are composed of, and if we live on through the atoms that we are composed of, then we have lived for eternity as the atoms have been here for eternity.

Further, you are now identical with everything in the universe; you are the dirt and dog shit of the Earth. You are the bomb that killed the family.

More damning than this is your blatant misuse of language. The term "you" is a personal pronoun that refers to a subject of a statement. The "you" of the statement is a supposedly living thing with whom once is speaking of. For example, "I love you" makes sense only when there is a person you are speaking to. If I walk up to a lamp and say "I miss you" and I'm talking to my girlfriend, that doesn't make sense. Yet, according to your argument, we have redefined "you" to be anything made up of atoms, which is identical to all other things. Thus, I would be talking to my girlfriend. Tell me, at what point does that make any sense?

"You" must denote a subject, not everything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rabbi K:


I suppose we'll have to turn this to an ontological discussion, then, to ask if we're at the necessary nihilist level to believe that we're merely a bunch of matter (or whatever) that temporarily coalesces, to form us, and then dissipates again. I'm inclined to believe that if there is nothing to us other than a load of particles in a temporary union, then it's fair to suggest that we can claim to have existed as long as the 'stuff' that we are made up of has, and will continue to exist, although widely dissipated, until the end of all 'stuff'. The question only remains as to whether it is true that we are more than our component parts, which seems somewhat unscientific, and whether it is fair to claim that the continued existence of everything that we comprise of, albeit in a different form, is enough to say that we live on as part of the universe, having progressed beyond that very limited period of time in which 'we' have come together to form a human life...

One might well wonder then what the difference is between, say, a pile of bricks, glass and wood, that used to be a house before a wave hit it, and the very same bricks, glass and wood the day before the disaster struck. According to you, there isn't a difference.

In which case, try living in a pile of rubble.

[Robespierre Richard]

And you proof of this is what?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Being_and_Nothingess.jpg

[renzo_novatore]

If we are to be materialists, then we must conclude that there is only body and no spirit and thus since the body never dies, then we never die - because what is it that would die? Nothing ever perishes, nothing is ever destroyed, nothing is created either - things just change, and so since things change, then that means death (the end) never happens. As Nietzsche said: "If there is no soul, then when we die, we lose nothing."

Or as foucault concluded in discipline and punish it is the soul that imprisons the body, not the body imprisoning the soul. I look at this in the way that Max Stirner did that the metaphysical soul was imposed onto us in order to blame us and condemn us (ie the soul is a spook).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:

Thanks for the reference to that Bible of a priori dogmatics, Being and Nothingness, but over the years I have failed to find proof of anything in there other than how poor modern French Philosophy is.

In which case, I am sure you will be happy to point me to the passages I must have missed which do in fact prove what you say they do.

In the meantime, may I direct you to my proof (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html) that such a priori dogmatics is non-sensical, and thus can't be used to prove anything?

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:



That's a bit rich coming from someone who thinks we have anything to learn from Hegel.

When have I ever even mentioned Hegel? I don't think I've ever even written the word "Hegel" in any of my posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


When have I ever even mentioned Hegel? I don't think I've ever even written the word "Hegel" in any of my posts.

My apologies to you then.

But if you accept dialectical materialism, that theory derives from Hegel.

[Rafiq]

xx1994xx:



My apologies to you then.

But if you accept dialectical materialism, that theory derives from Hegel.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hegel's philosophy Sort of like "Dialectical Idealism" or some rubbish like that? I don't recall him being a Materialist.

[ChrisK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hegel's philosophy Sort of like "Dialectical Idealism" or some rubbish like that? I don't recall him being a Materialist.

He was an Idealist. Engels took Hegel's ideas and claimed to make them materialist, while still being metaphysical. The problem with metaphysics is that it is inherently idealist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rafiq:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hegel's philosophy Sort of like "Dialectical Idealism" or some rubbish like that? I don't recall him being a Materialist.

Adding to what Chris has just said: In fact he was a materialist of sorts, he just associated matter with a moment in the self-development of Mind.

[Robespierre Richard]

Kiroff:

Thanks for the reference to that Bible of a priori dogmatics, Being and Nothingness, but over the years I have failed to find proof of anything in there other than how poor modern French Philosophy is.

In which case, I am sure you will be happy to point me to the passages I must have missed which do in fact prove what you say they do.

In the meantime, may I direct you to my proof (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html) that such a priori dogmatics is non-sensical, and thus can't be used to prove anything?

IDK between you and Sartre, I kinda lean toward Sartre.

"No offense, but..."

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:



My apologies to you then.

But if you accept dialectical materialism, that theory derives from Hegel.

I don't understand dialectical materialism and even dialects in general enough to have a formal opinion on them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I'm glad to hear it, and advise you keep clear of that 'theory' for as long as is humanly possible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:


IDK between you and Sartre, I kinda lean toward Sartre.

"No offense, but..."

In that case, you might like to explain why his work is not susceptible to the points I made here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).

But, even so, I fail to see how Sartre manged to prove anything. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

[neosyndic]

x

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


ultimately there is no way to know if we live on or not. most of the fundamentalist materialist arguments against the afterlife boil down to denial of that which has no objective sustance, yet no fundamentalist materialist can prove in concrete and universal terms that material reality is the only reality.

They don't have to since any claim that there is another 'reality' is in the end non-sensical, as I have shown here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1995528&postcount=1). So, anyone who believes in another 'reality' has presented us with no coherent possility, rather like this fails to present a coherent set of possibilities:


JABBERWOCKY

Lewis Carroll

(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The above cannot be 'disproved' either, but that is not because it presents us with anything that could be true, or that could be false, it's because it is incomprehensible nonsense.

[neosyndic]

x

[ZeroNowhere]

The main challenge to materialism does not come from the denial of 'cogito ergo sum', it comes from 'cogito ergo sum', namely idealism. 'Cogito ergo sum' is a part of idealism, not materialism. You are aware, of course, that it was uttered by Descartes, who was no materialist. Materialism begins by denying the view that words and sentences have 'referents' in the philosophical sense, as they rather gain their sense from human practice and use within this, while Cartesian philosophy does not.

Still, though, it's fairly absurd to use a first-person verb and then say, "I do not exist." "I ran to the supermarket to buy a fish, and I do not exist." The latter clause has no function, and the engine is idling.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes, our bones and our organs and our body shuts down, but to me, that really doesn't matter. I think you truly live in your legacy, because as long as your legacy lives, you live. I think if you are remembered by people, then you are still living.

What are your thoughts?

We're all just needles in the hay

5oEYMGL0ZtA

Even legacies are pointless. :) No, legacies are especially pointless because you will be dead and completely unaware of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


FYI: For those of you who are tired of being intimidated and bullied by Fundamentalist Materialist sectarians in these forums:

The Eurocentric Racism and Arrogance of Rosa Lichtenstein.

and In Sententia Ego Sum.

And for those who are tired of being bamboozled by the mystics Marxism seems to attract, see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2058269&postcount=83).


''nonsensical'' is to pretend that you do not follow a canon when you obviously do. no fundamentalist materialist can prove in concrete and universal terms that material reality is the only reality. the burden of proof is on YOU as the proponent that material reality is the only reality. the proponent is the one who must supply evidence, not the challenger. you have also FAILED to answer to the question: Your tracts fail to incorporate a reply to the issues raised by post-humanism. The main challenge to the school of materialist thinking that you represent does not come from a long ago dead ‘’god’’; it comes from the denial of ''cogito ergo sum''.

Well, you can re-define "nonsensical" as you see fit, but your use of that word bears no relation to mine.

But, if you can redefine stuff to suit yourself, so can I. So how about this:

"Nonsense" really means "Neosyndic is full of ruling-class hot air."

Acceptable?


no fundamentalist materialist can prove in concrete and universal terms that material reality is the only reality. the burden of proof is on YOU as the proponent that material reality is the only reality.

Where have I even so much as tried to do this, or even given the slightest hint that I want to do it?

So, how can it be a reply to anything I have posted?


Your tracts fail to incorporate a reply to the issues raised by post-humanism. The main challenge to the school of materialist thinking that you represent does not come from a long ago dead ‘’god’’; it comes from the denial of ''cogito ergo sum''.

Again, what has your worrying fixation with 'post humanism' and the cogito got to do with what I have argued, here, or anywhere else, for that matter?


IT IS MAN WHO HAS TO PROVE HIS MATERIAL EXISTENCE, NOT A ‘’GOD’’ THAT IS LONG AGO DEAD AND BURIED AS FAR A WESTERN CIVILISATION IS CONCERNED.

You seem to think that the use of capitals turns a piece of a priori dogmatics into a universal truth.:lol:


get over the 70's mary !

Get a grip comrade.


this is 2011.

So, when were you elected President of the Society for Stating the Bleeding Obvious?


materialism is no longer [an] axiom.

Who said it was?


so, anything that you disagree with automatically becomes ''incomprehensible nonsense''. how convenient. in that way you never have to answer questions that challenge your premises.

I have given you my reasons. Address them, not the contents of your overactive imagination.

Either that, or stop pretending you are replying to me.


because you are THE POPE.

Only if you say so.


your viewpoint is no different than any other competing viewpoint around. your thoughts are just one set of thoughts among millions of thoughts out there.

So?


control your ego.

Control your caps lock key.

[neosyndic]

x

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


it is you who redefine terms to fit your subjective viewpoints and theories. i used a definition that is commonly accepted.

Fine, but it's not the way I use "non-sensical" (and I explained the rationale for my neologism, too). So, if you want to address my arguments, not those you have made up, then deal with it, or leave the debate.


it is not a ''fixation''. post-humanism is the current leading philosophical trend in the west and it is gaining ascendancy.

So you say, but until we see the proof, fixation it is.

And, here goes that stuck record again:


what you misrepresent as ''fixation'' is concern about the implications for politics and cultural life of applied post-humanism. Your anti-thesis in the form of Fundamentalist Evangelicals are utilising post-humanist arguments in order to enact their political agenda as it pertains the education system, for example. they insist on being allowed to teach literal creationsim alongside Darwin because they claim that ''if God does not exist, neither does man''. the Atheistic variable of post-humanism is popular among business students, because of its nihilistic approach towards social ethics. these things are happening in the intellectual world outside the safe confines of Far Left philosophical discourse.

So what? Will it affect the class struggle in any way?


You seem to think that the use of the term ''non-sense'' turns a piece of a priori dogmatics into a universal truth.

Unfortunately for you, and unlike you, I do not just assert things, I provide arguments. You need to address them, and not the fevered inventions of your fixated brain.

Moreover, my conclusions are neither true nor false, as you would know if you had read my post with due care -- so they can't be 'universal truths', as you allege.

[PhoenixAsh]

so...what makes me me? what makes me even exist within the concept of reality...and is the concept of reality even true since we are preceiving this reality it both defines us and we define reality? how do "I" know you all exists?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


so...what makes me me?

Your environment, socialisation, and genetic makeup.


what makes me even exist within the concept of reality...

I'm sorry, what 'concept of reality' is that?


and is the concept of reality even true since we are preceiving this reality it both defines us and we define reality?

You don't in fact perceive 'reality', just the world around you.


how do "I" know you all exists?

Since you aren't mad.

[neosyndic]

Unlike Mister Rosa I present myself as I AM here (http://roseoftokio.blogspot.com/) ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The above troll has spammed several threads with this offensive post. Here is my reply:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2060036&postcount=102

[RED DAVE]

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night


I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me.
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he "I never died," says he
"In Salt Lake, Joe," says I,
Him standing by my bed,
"They framed you on a murder charge,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead."

"The copper bosses killed you, Joe,
They shot you, Joe," says I.
"Takes more than guns to kill a man,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die."

And standing there as big as life,
And smiling with his eyes,
"What they forgot to kill,
Went on to organize,
Went on to organize."

"Joe Hill ain't dead," he says to me,
"Joe Hill ain't never died.
Where working men are out on strike,
Joe Hill is at their side,
Joe Hill is at their side."

"From San Diego up to Maine, In every mine and mill,
Where workers strike and organize,"
"Tis there you'll find Joe Hil,"
"Tis there you'll find Joe Hill"

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me.
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," said he.
"I never died," said heRED DAVE

[Thirsty Crow]

I guess that OP's post has something to do with a psychological phenomenon characterized by uneasiness when confronted with the fact that people die.
In this sense, one may indeed consider the legacy she/he leaves behind as "an extension" of her/his life. Just as other people believe in religiously determined afterlife (in fact, this seems like a secular version of the belief in afterlife).

Of course, everything boils down to how one determines the "we" when asking "do we ever truly die".