I have watched the movie quite sometime ago, not denying that it was more for John's ridiculous revelations than for any broaching questions. Since you started drawing parallels with Nietzsche's work and Camus' Myth of Sisyphus I would like to go a little further back to the Greek myth of Prometheus who was punished by the gods to suffer an eternity of pain by having his innards eaten by vultures for merely bringing mankind the gift of fire. Eternal torment has been portrayed as a form of bane for longer than any of the modern or post modern philosophy shaped up. Not saying this must have entirely skipped the minds of the writers of the film, but I would assume that they glided over these though provoking questions when writing the character of John. In retrospect, I would assume that he has been through it all and back. He should be immune to any pain or sorrow, be it the loss of a loved one or physical pain not unlike something he must have gone through during his crucifixion. So, contrary to his mythological counterpart, Prometheus, I would assume he would have developed a scar tissue or an emotional callus of sorts that shielded him from an "Eternal Torture". All of this assuming he has the same physiology of a human being, of course.
That is an interesting parallel with Prometheus! I think the script indeed portrays eternal existence as something of a bane in John's character (it could have been done in better ways too, but I think the author justified what he wanted to say, given that this is a short story), with emotional detachment in certain scenes. I would see this as both a defense mechanism and a curse — something necessary to cope with the weight of immortality. The physiological aspect you mentioned at the end is interesting too, especially when we consider how memory and identity work over such huge time periods. But in this case, the emotional distance might not just be a defense mechanism but a natural evolution of consciousness as he went through lots and lots of experiences. This ties into the questions I raised about how one processes and retains 14,000 years of memories, and whether this immortality would eventually lead to emotional detachment from our normal mortal existence.
I'm of the opinion that John as a character meant to be subjected less to scientific scrutiny than an existential and a more subtle conflict between rationalism and beliefs. We do see that his own son wasn't capable of hearing the hard truths when presented with ample evidence.
I think the author wanted to press in the point that truth is sometimes unfathomable and it's easier to live in denial than face the facts that hits you in the face.
I have watched the movie quite sometime ago, not denying that it was more for John's ridiculous revelations than for any broaching questions. Since you started drawing parallels with Nietzsche's work and Camus' Myth of Sisyphus I would like to go a little further back to the Greek myth of Prometheus who was punished by the gods to suffer an eternity of pain by having his innards eaten by vultures for merely bringing mankind the gift of fire. Eternal torment has been portrayed as a form of bane for longer than any of the modern or post modern philosophy shaped up. Not saying this must have entirely skipped the minds of the writers of the film, but I would assume that they glided over these though provoking questions when writing the character of John. In retrospect, I would assume that he has been through it all and back. He should be immune to any pain or sorrow, be it the loss of a loved one or physical pain not unlike something he must have gone through during his crucifixion. So, contrary to his mythological counterpart, Prometheus, I would assume he would have developed a scar tissue or an emotional callus of sorts that shielded him from an "Eternal Torture". All of this assuming he has the same physiology of a human being, of course.
That is an interesting parallel with Prometheus! I think the script indeed portrays eternal existence as something of a bane in John's character (it could have been done in better ways too, but I think the author justified what he wanted to say, given that this is a short story), with emotional detachment in certain scenes. I would see this as both a defense mechanism and a curse — something necessary to cope with the weight of immortality. The physiological aspect you mentioned at the end is interesting too, especially when we consider how memory and identity work over such huge time periods. But in this case, the emotional distance might not just be a defense mechanism but a natural evolution of consciousness as he went through lots and lots of experiences. This ties into the questions I raised about how one processes and retains 14,000 years of memories, and whether this immortality would eventually lead to emotional detachment from our normal mortal existence.
I'm of the opinion that John as a character meant to be subjected less to scientific scrutiny than an existential and a more subtle conflict between rationalism and beliefs. We do see that his own son wasn't capable of hearing the hard truths when presented with ample evidence.
I think the author wanted to press in the point that truth is sometimes unfathomable and it's easier to live in denial than face the facts that hits you in the face.
Exactly! Like the ones which challenge our own and current beliefs.