What do we have apart from our body? We have money, time, family, and countless other possessions. But what connects us to all of them? Life. As long as we are alive, these things belong to us. So, what does it truly mean to be alive?

Philosophically, the answer varies, but at its core—regardless of belief or background—life is a functioning body. We often talk about a healthy mind, society, or spirit, but fundamentally, these are components of a healthy life, not the essence of life itself. That’s why, when a life is in danger, we fight to save the body. And when life is intentionally ended, it is the body that is targeted.

But consider this: who is really in charge of this life? If you see yourself as the sustainer of your existence, is your body or mind holding control? The body executes actions, but does it make decisions? It’s difficult to claim that the body alone governs us. There’s something more—a part of us that isn’t physical. This idea is universal, no matter how unscientific it may seem.

The connection between body and non-body is a mystery, much like the age-old question of the chicken and the egg. We feel that “something beyond” exists, yet we cannot measure it. And while we can debate which comes first—the body or the non-body—one thing is sure: our existence is a combination of both.

I am not here to argue for the superiority of one over the other. My point is simple: both matter and should be taken seriously. You might think I’m advocating for mental health awareness. While I do take mental health as seriously as physical health, this discussion is about something even more fundamental—human existence itself.

When it comes to life and death, we treat it with absolute seriousness because once life is gone, we do not expect it to return. However, if someone comes back after being presumed dead, we say death did not entirely or irreversibly occur. But then, what defines actual death? Is it when the body stops functioning, or when both the body and the non-body stop functioning? Since we cannot see or measure the non-body, does that mean it does not exist? Science deals with the empirical, but beyond it, there’s an entire world of thought and philosophy on the non-physical aspects of human and other existences.

Now, some may ask: Why should we even think about this? What is the benefit? Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose actual death requires both the body and the non-body to die. If so, what happens when the body is destroyed but the non-body remains? Does it continue in some unknown state, waiting for its final end? And conversely, if the non-body is gone while the body is artificially sustained, like artificial life support, is that person genuinely alive or are we just preserving the body?

For a moment, imagine being declared dead, buried, and yet still being alive. It’s an unsettling thought. But if there is even the slightest possibility that part of our existence lingers beyond the body, should we so easily assume that preserving or destroying the body guarantees complete life or death? The best counterargument is that no scientific evidence exists for such a scenario. But if the non-body—whether mind, soul, or spirit—is invisible to us, is there any definitive way to prove that death is absolute with the body’s end?

By now, you might be wondering why I bring this up. The answer is simple: We often believe that the game of life starts and ends with the body. But what if we are wrong? What if something beyond the body remains, waiting for a complete death? If that’s not the case, no harm is done by considering it. But if it is, we may be overlooking something profoundly important.

So, here’s my final thought: We must stop assuming that the preservation or destruction of the body equates to a complete life or death—whether in life support or any form of intentional harm. If there’s even a possibility that something lingers beyond, shouldn’t we reconsider the way we think about life and death?