Xavier Bichat, anatomist, concluded that "life is the ensemble of functions which resist death."
Or, Xavier Bichat defined it. [life]
Or, Bichat discovered it. [life]
Or, he said. [life]
This, in 1800.
This, in English for the first time: 1815.
Translations still are quoted in which ensemble is replaced by sum:
"Life consists in the sum of the functions, by which death is resisted."
"Life consists in the sum of the functions which resist death."
I am resistant, I rebel: I am, therefore I am still.
"not moving or making a sound"
"deep silence and calm"
"up to and including the present"
"all the same"
"referring to something that will or may happen"
To be does not imply a conjugation of the subject as an option. The use of to be or not to be is a matter of syntax, a preference of pathos or logos: which is most ethical to authorize in the subjective act of writing to be read? To be is a fixed binary for the setting of a subject: is or is not. Is not only defines the subject as other than the affirmative assumption.
The first person present singular of to be is am.
Using am is to be the first person in the present who is single.
Using am is to originate from the Latin conjugation, sum.
Sum can be exchanged for ensemble although the values are am = single and ensemble = more than one.
I hesitate to conclude, therefore I still am.