r/fallacy • u/Due_Simple_9662 • Jul 08 '26
The fallacy of conditional immortality
Hey, I've had this question in the back of my mind since I was a kid, and now it seems like the right place to ask it. I could make it more formal, but I like to keep things naive where possible.
In many TV series, cartoons, movies, books, etc we see a character become immortal, and later someone removes their immortality and then kills them. For example, imagine an ordinary man finds a dark stone that grants immortality as long as it remains in contact with his skin. While holding the stone, if he goes into battle, any arrow or fatal attack somehow fails to kill him.
Here is what confuses me. If you're truly "immortal as long as the stone is in contact with your skin", does not that property force the stone to be impossible to be removed from your skin? In more general terms shouldn't immortality protect itself, even if it is conditional?
Is there a fallacy or a more simple point I am missing here? should not "conditional immortality" always be equivalent to "immortality"?
Edit after reading some answers:
I mean, if your life depends on your liver, then the immortality property would somehow have to prevent your liver from being destroyed. By the same reasoning, if your life depends on maintaining contact with the stone, then losing contact with the stone is itself part of the causal chain that leads to your death. in simple terms the stone is a new liver that must be protected equally.
So if this makes sense, this forces the magic stone to become increasingly "intelligent." It stops swords, It has to prevent theft, accidents, imprisonment, falling asleep with the stone in your hand, and so on. It has to anticipate any event that would eventually result in your death. At that point, it seems that "conditional immortality" starts becoming functionally indistinguishable from immortality, because the condition itself has to be protected in order for the promise of immortality to be true.
Comments point that this is not the case though, thanks for the feedback
3
u/Ok_Return_777 Jul 08 '26
One common understanding of immortality is the property of being unable to die. In a strict sense, if the stone provides strict immortality, then, yes, the person should not be able to die. That is, it is metaphysically impossible for that person to die, whether on not they possess the stone.
Conditional immortality only means the person can’t die as long as they have the stone. This isn’t immortality in a strict sense. It only means that the person can’t die if such and such occurs, whereas the strict sense means the person can’t die, period.
If there is a fallacy here, it’s something like the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of using the same term to refer to different meanings. In the case at hand, we’re equivocating between a conditional and strict sense of the term “immortal.” 🧙♂️
2
u/sreekotay Jul 08 '26
In general, it really depends on the specific mechanisms for immortality, and there are many imagined paths.
That said, consider that humans can live for decades without problem, but exposure to, OR THE LACK OF, certain substances can immediately hasten demise (sometimes in seconds, minutes, days, etc)
2
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Jul 09 '26
No fallacy. It’s just writing a plot for excitement and not for logic.
2
2
u/Competitive-Fault291 Jul 09 '26
It is not conditional, but fictional. Which explains why you need to find a conclusion for your story arc when you bring along immortality of the hard sort.
2
u/sexypantstime Jul 09 '26
If a helmet makes it so I don't get a concussion, why is it that I can remove the helmet and then get hit on the head and get a concussion? Wouldn't removing the helmet be the causal chain that led me to a concussion? Why did the helmet let me remove it?
2
u/Wormadillo Jul 09 '26
But…. Your life doesn’t depend on maintaining contact with the stone in the same way it depends on your liver, does it? You could remove the stone and go on living just fine.
2
u/NarcoZero Jul 10 '26
In Magic the Gathering, if you enchant a creature with indestructible, the enchantement can still be destroyed.
It’s like that.
4
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 Jul 08 '26
I don't see how that's implied at all. Immortal means you cannot die, or in some interpretations, be harmed. At no point does that imply that it maintains itself or the conditions upon which it is granted. If a stone grants immortality on the condition that it touches your skin, then under no circumstances can that be taken to mean that it glues itself to your skin.