PHI Notes 8 PDF

Preview

Summary

Just notes on what was covered in lecture...

Description

PHI Notes 8/27/21 Stephen Rosenbaum -Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at UNLV -PhD from University of Illinois Over history of philosophy, it has been said “to philosophize is to learn how to die” -

Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Montaigne Should confront mortality early in order to live a purposeful life

Who is Epicurus -

Ancient Greek Philosopher (342-270 B.C.E)

What is Epicureanism -

To live a good life, to live well, one should pursue pleasure and avoid pain, specifically static pleasure, specifically the mental kind (ataraxia). And being virtuous and temperate is the way to do it.

What is the Epicurean View on Death -

In death there is no experience of pleasure or pain so there is no need to worry or fear one’s inevitable death during life. Lucretius’ symmetry argument follows from this. As long as your alive you’re not dead so there is nothing to worry about death, and in death there is no experience so there is nothing to worry

Rosenbaum’s Assumptions He clarifies his assumptions*** 1. Being alive is good 2. *Death is the end (Issue is between Epicurus and his antagonists is how to view one’s death, if it leads to non-existence) the argument only works under this assumption* Rosenbaum’s terminology -

-

Dying: the process whereby one becomes to be dead or the process wherein certain causes operate to bring about one’s being dead… the time dying takes may be short or long. The process of dying may be comfortable or painful. Death: death is roughly the time at which a person becomes dead and is different from dying, the process leading to death. Being Dead: the state in which one finds oneself after one dies. Clearly not apart of one’s life but a part of one’s history

Rosenbaum then comes to this point where he explains that Epicurus’ argument is about Being Dead, not death nor dying.

Arguing for (A) A state of affairs is bad for person P only if P can experience it at some time. -

Being deaf analogy; if a person cannot experience a state of affairs at some time then the state of affairs is not bad for the person Awareness is not required; it is separate from experience; “must be causally affected in some way by situations one experiences” (Intermediate) Conclusion: believe premise (A) and premise (C), because a person can experience a state of affairs at some time only before ones death

Counter Arguments Thomas Nagel- bad rumors after death can tarnish one’s life being bad even if you are dead and unaware of it therefore making death bad Response- you may not experience the effects of rumors, but you can in some way conscious or unconsciously; it’s not that you’re not aware it is unjust argument because one cannot experience it consciously; in being dead there is no causal experience Nagel- tries to deny the conclusion directly by characterizing death as a loss to the person who suffers it, and that loss is bad; the person who dies receives an experience of loss in one’s life which is bad Response- once a person is dead the person no longer exists and thus does not and cannot experience the loss Issues with the Symmetry Argument Nagel- the time after death deprives a person of more life which entails any death is a loss of some life Response- in either case before life or after life Nagel’s response- we could not be born earlier; if born earlier then we would be someone else Response- if we could be a diff person if we were born at a diff time then the same applies to death This is really about the anticipation of being dead -

Rosenbaum states we do not experience the anticipation of being dead when we are dead. So, the badness of the anticipation of death does not show the badness of death itself

Conclusion Being dead is not a state of affairs one shall experience therefore it is not something to be anticipated or viewed as bad...