PHIL1200 - Death & Meaning 1&2 PDF

Preview

Summary

LETURE NOTES FOR PHILL1200
DEATH&THE MEANING OF LIFE...

Description

-

DEATH AND THE MEANING OF LIFE PT1 Will science be able to conquer death and achieve ‘immortality’? Can life have meaning if death is permanent? (Craig, Schopenhauer) - Is immortality a good thing or bad thing? (bernard williams) Puzzles about how death can be a bad thing (thomas nagel, “death”)

WESTERN LITERATURE HAS NOT PORTRAYED IMMORTALITY FAVORABLY - The epic play, Faust, one of the great works of western literature, by the German poet Johann Goethe - The main character, Faust, makes a pact with the devil: Faust will get to live his life over again, while the devil gets Faust’s soul after he dies OSCAR WILDE’S THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY - The main character, Dorian, agrees to sell his soul in exchange for having his portrait age instead of himself. - Leads to a life of hedonistic immortality LOUIS BORGES - The great Argentinian writer Louis Borges explores this theme in his story ‘the immortal’ - Like Leon Kass, and others, Borges suggests that, without death, our lives would lose their meaning and purpose Could science achieve immortality for us? SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES RELATED TO AGING - Ability to grow organs in the lab, and other medical advances, will continue to extend life span of humans - Use of stem cells to regenerate tissue in treating stroke and other medical conditions - Study of progeria - premature aging - has led to deeper understanding of the aging process - Scientists have found genes that delay aging process - created fruit flies that have double the normal life span - Created mice that spontaneously regenerate parts of their bodies, constantly repairing damaged parts AUBREY DE GREY - English gerontologist - PhD from Cambridge University - Co-author of ending aging - Does research on rejuvenation and reversing of aging processes - Predicts that human lifespan will soon reach 150, and eventually several hundred years - In his view, this means that the 1st person who will life to 1000 is likely to be born 20 years after the 1st person to reach 150 THE “IMMORTALISTS” - There are some people whose goal is to stay alive long enough that the increasing life span will achieve immortality for them (except, death due to accident or violence) - They do this partly through close attention to nutrition and exercise - Mainly by greatly reducing calorie intake - As this is thought to significantly increase lifespan

ATTITUDES TOWARD AGING - Today we see aging as natural, as a normal part of life, and so not a disease - Governments refuse to fund research into the aging process with a view to overcoming it, partly b/c it's not considered a disease - Is this a good reason? Maybe such research should not be funded - Wouldn't it be silly not to fund such research b/c aging is a natural process? - Even is aging is natural, its fallacy to assume that what is natural is good (naturalistic fallacy) - Should aging be seen as a disease? Can it be seen this way? - Aubrey de Grey claims that aging is a disease. Why? - b/c it's bad for you. It kills you, and anything that kills you should count as a disease - So why shouldn't we prevent it? - It is not clear that it is natural - It is not as if nature selected for aging - it just didn't select against it IRRELEVANT WHETHER AGING IS A DISEASE - It might be argued that the question whether aging is a disease is irrelevant b/c its just a semantic issue - The real issue we should be concerned with is whether the possibility of extending the human lifespan indefinitely is a good thing, something that people want, something that should be done - If it is, then why shouldn't governments fund research into overcoming aging, just as they fund so many other things people want? CONCLUSION TO THIS SECTION - The possibility of arresting and even reversing the process of aging would be a momentous development in human history\ - We will consider later what effects it might have on society and civilization nd whether these effects would be desirable - Let's first discuss a number of other issues, including the view that the fact of death implies that human life can have no intrinsic value or importance Can life have meaning if there is no afterlife? - Both Schopenhauer and William Lane Craig argue that if something is to have intrinsic value, it must be permanent - So this would mean that if human life, in particular, is to have value, then there would have to be an eternal afterlife - Or immortality in this earthly life INTRINSIC VALUE AND PERMANENCE - Distinction: - Instrumental value - good as a means to something else that is good, or that we want - Intrinsic value - good as an end in itself, for its own sake - It is clear that something can have instrumental value without being permanent - The issue is whether something can have intrinsic value without being permanent

WHAT IS CRAIG SAYING? - The word ‘ultimate’ in these passages seems to mean something like ‘in the end’ or ‘in the final analysis’ - He is saying that no matter what we might do now, or how important it might seem now, (if there is no God then) there will come a time when what was done now no longer makes any difference - What we do now will leave no trace of itself - The thought seems to be that there will come a time when what we do now will mean nothing at all - And so it never meant anything at all at any time CRAIG’S ARGUMENT IN DETAIL: - If there is no god then… - The entire human race and everything we create will eventually cease to exist - Therefore, human lives will have no lasting effects - Is something has no lasting effect then in the end it has no real effect at all - If something has no real effect on the world at all, then it has no point or purpose - Is something has no point or purpose, then it has no meaning or significance - Is something has no meaning or significance, then it has no value - Therefore, our lives have no value CRAIG’S ARGUMENT - The core of craig’s argument seems to be this if there was no god, then: - There will come a time when our existence will make no difference and have no value - If there will be a time in the future when our existence has no value, then it has no value now - Therefore, our existence has no value now (period) CONTD - The real issue about value of life is whether our lives have value for ourselves - whether my life has value for me - Craig’s argument fails to establish that the scientific world view, according to which we will completely cease to exist in the future, means that our existence can have no intrinsic value and that we would be better off, or at least as well off, had we never existed RECONSTRUCTION OF SCHOPENHAUER’S ARGUMENT - Suppose you’re now having a pleasurable experience and i am not - This is a pleasure of value to you - Schopenhauer’s answer seems to be No, b/c the pleasures have only a transitory existence. - Wait until the experiences recede into the past - They will no longer exist, and so you can derive no value from them - The valuebleness of the pleasures is lost with their ceasing to exist - At this later time, there is no difference between you and I in terms of what valuable in our lives - Perhaps this is a way of thinking is the reason why it is a common view that pleasure is

not really valuable Only things that are comparatively permanent, like a lasting relationship with a loved one, or works or art, or wisdom, can possess genuine value - Schopenhauer will remind us that the same argument applies to these things, or anything else, since they too will also cease to exist at some point in the future OBJECTION - We can object to Schopenhauer’s argument on the grounds that all it really shows is that the thighs we regard as valuable don't have permanent value, since they will cease to exist - Lacking permanent value does not prevent them from having value or from being valuable - During the time that they exist - At any given time it may still be correct to say that some things have value at that time - The mistake is essentially the same as Craig’s argument CONCLUSION FOR ISSUE - We may feel that life would be better if it went on for longer, but even a short life can still be valuable - Why not take the attitude that the fact of death makes life all the more precious and valuable? - Death will come soon enough, soyou should life life to the fullest - Common thought is that is a life exists for a finite amount of time cannot be meaningful - Then it could not make any difference if our lives were unending? - Would this not merely entail that a meaningless life does go on forever, like Sisyphus? - The briefness of an event is not really relevant to its significance - Small in size or short in time cannot be equated with lack of significance -

DEATH AND THE MEANING OF LIFE PT2

-

Would immortality be a good thing or a bad thing? - Would you want to live forever? - How would immortality affect our lives? - How would it affect society? - What effect would immortality have on the meaning of life? SIR BERNARD WILLIAMS (1929 - 2003) - Former royal air force pilot - Self-confident individual, influential philosopher - First wife was the prominent Conservative political figure, Shirley Williams - Taught at Cambridge and Berkley - Served on important royal commissions - Main works: Problems of the Self, Descartes, Utilitarianism

IS DEATH A GOOD OR BAD THING? - Assumed that death is a bad thing or even worse that it is a reason for existential despair - Wishing to be immortal, like the gods, is a recurring theme in ancient mythologies, a theme that persists into today’s religions with their belief in an infinite afterlife as if everyone would agree that this is desirable WILLIAMS - IMMORTALITY WOULD BE A BAD THING - Argued that this is a mistake - Human life is much better with death than without it - Mortality is preferable to immortality - “Immortality, or a state without death, would be meaningless, i shall suggest; so, in a sense, death gives the meaning of life” “THE MAKROPULOS AFFAIR” - Play by Karel Capek - Woman lives for 342 years - Her life has now become so boring and pointless - Opts for suicide - *note* the play is used by Williams to illustrate various points - Plays no essential role in Williams’ argument WILLIAMS’ BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST IMMORTALITY - If we continues living indefinitely, we would remain similar enough to count as the same person or we would change so much that we would be a different person - Where we dont remain the same person, there is no immortality, as the original person has ceased to exist somewhere along the way - If we do remain the same person, then life would inevitably biome so boring and repetitive that death would be preferable 2 SENSES OF “SAME” PERSON OR THING - A=B in the qualitative sense means that A and B share the same properties - A-B in the numerical sense means that A and B are one and the same thing/person

- *note* when Williams speaks of the ‘same person’ he means this in the numerical sense IN WILLIAMS’ OWN WORDS - Choice is between our present situation, in which death inevitably occurs after a century or so of life - Being given the option of living as long as we want - So death would occur only through suicide or accident - Williams is also working from the assumption that a persons goals, projects, commitments, etc are very central to his/her nature - It is these projects that primarily give meaning and purpose to our lives and form the basis of our identity as a person WILLIAMS’ ARGUMENT IN MORE DETAIL - Contingent desires - these are desires one has simply in virtue of being alive - They include physical desires: food, sex etc - They can also include intellectual desires: read, view art - Categorical desires - these are desires for things, or to dothing, that we consider important or valuable for their own sake - They involve the pursuit of goals that we might dedicate our lives to that give us reason for living, such as science, medicine, art, philosophy CATEGORICAL DESIRES AND IDENTITY - Williams’ central thesis is that a meaningful existence requires having categorical desires - It is the pursuit of these types of goals that is our reason for living - Furthermore, the identity of a person, who they are, is constituted by their categorical desires - So, if all my categorical desires were to change, the i would cease to be (numerically) the same person - Williams’ view is that, if we were immortal, we would eventual exhaust all of the potentiality available to us for living meaningful lives - At some point i will have done everything, experienced everything, accomplished everything, that would be of any interest to, or relevance for, a person like myself - There will then be no point in continuing to live - Life will have lost its attraction, and i will become existentially, or permanently, bored DISCUSSION - Might object to Williams’ position on the grounds that we could transform ourselves in various ways - We could acquire new interests, talents, skills, knowledge etc - This would enable us to take up very new and different goals and projects in life - Boredom would not be inevitable - we can avoid it as long as we keep changing - Williams’ response to the ^ is that we would then cease to be the same person, and so immortality would have been lost

IMMORALITY AND RELIGION - It is important to note that Williams’ critique of immortality is meant to apply to immortality in the religious sense as well as immortality achieved by scientific medicine

-

Many religions see the existence of an afterlife as playing an essential role in giving life meaning - But, if Williams is correct, this whole conception of immortality as somehow underpinning the meaning of life is confused and misguided READING 23 - The Myth of Stagnation by Max More - More argues that as long as we are prepared to make certain adjustments there is no reason why life should become boring - Are More’s arguments persuasive? SOME OBJECTIONS TO WILLIAMS’ VIEW - Underestimates importance of contingent desires - Exaggerates the extent to which categorical desires contribute to a meaningful life - Exaggerates the contribution of categorical desires to personal identity - Overlooks the extent to which changes lead to new activities that make life interesting - Fails to appreciate the shortness of life - not enough time to do all the things you want to do 1) UNDERESTIMATES CONTINGENT DESIRES? - Can't we have a good life, a life worth living, that mainly involves only contingent desires? - These include countless things - desires for food, wine, sports, sex, friendship, social interaction, reading etc - Aren't these the sorts of things that lie at the heart of most peoples’ lives anyway? WILLIAMS’ RESPONSE TO THIS - From his view of contingent desires, Williams is not sympathetic with hedonism - More inclined to think that the value of life resides in pursuing worthwhile projects and commitments than in simply experiencing pleasure - The disagreement between hedonism and the view that meaningfulness consists in pursuing projects of value is very relevant in evaluating Williams’ view of death 2) DOES A MEANINGFUL LIFE DEPEND ON, OR DERIVE FROM, CATEGORICAL DESIRES? - The question is not only whether a good life must involve categorical desires, but whether a meaningful life depends on categorical desires - Isn't Williams’ view somewhat elitist? Most people don't think of themselves as pursuing projects of importance to the world - But don't think they still have lives that are rich, complex, interesting and very meaningful? 3) DOES IDENTITY DEPEND ON CATEGORICAL DESIRES? - Can't we remain the same person even if our categorical desires eventually change ? - Even now, we change a lot as we go through life - we develop new interests, modify our values and our goals, we meet and interact with new people - As long as our categorical desires change gradually, couldn't we at some time in the future have completely different categorical desires - But still be numerically the same person? 4) IMPORTANCE OF A CHANGING WORLD

-

We should keep in mind when evaluating Williams’ views on death that human society is constantly changing over time - This results in new types of activities that we could not have engaged in before - Eg when i was a kid computer games didn’t exist - Such changes result in new activities for people to engage in - Might this not enable us to avoid boredom, without changing so much that we are not the same person? 5) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE SHORTNESS OF LIFE - Most people, anyway, older people, have the sense that life goes by too quickly - You find yourself forced to choose between so many options, choices that have to be made quickly, without adequate information - If life were longer we could do so many more things that we never have a chance to do now - Why wouldn’t it be a good thing to be able to live your life over and over in many different ways (like Faust)? ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT WILLIAMS - Even taking all of these possibilities into account, would immortality actually be desirable - Forever is a very long time. At most, you might think, the issue is whether it would be desirable to live a lot longer than we do now, maybe several hundred or even a 1000 years HOW WOULD IMMORTALITY CHANGE OUR LIVES? - When would we go to school? - How long would we stay in school? - Would we get married? When? Why? - Would marriage be seen as permanent? - Would we have children? When? How many? - Would we raise one family and then later have another family, and another? Would we lose touch with our children? Our siblings? Our friends? - Would we change our careers? When? How many times? THE EFFECT OF DEATH ON LIFE - It is important to recognize that death is more than just the endpoint of our lives - The fact of death is something that conditions and affects our lives in very basic ways - For one thing, it imposes a kind of timetable on our lives - There is a time for going to school, partying endlessly, for experimenting with different forms of life, for getting married, buying a house, having children, etc - Would immortality not destroy the stages of life as we experience them now?

LOSE OUR SENSE OF URGENCY - If death was far into the distant future, would we not lose our sense of urgency, of the need to do various things now, and so we would never do them? - There would be no winning or losing in life

- Anything you fail at now you could try again at a later time - Nothing would have any value, our sense of accomplishing things would be lost BIOETHICIST LEON KASS ON DEATH - Mortality ‘is the condition for making them [our lives] count and for treasuring and appreciating all that life brings’ THE COMPLETENESS OF LIFE - Without death, our lives would lack completeness - There would be no such thing as a successful life, or a failed life, no such thing as ‘living-a-life’ - Try to imagine a novel or a play that never ends - Would it really be a novel or a play? - Could there be a type of game that goes on forever? - so, no winner, or loser? - The very identity, or the very nature, of some things seems to require that they have an endpoint - A life is like a project or undertaking, like work of art. It is something we create. So there must be a point at which it is over *Of course, none of these arguments would apply if we are merely talking about extending the span of human life by a significant amount, which may be all that medical science will be able to do anyway* THOMAS NAGEL, READING 20 “DEATH” Puzzles about how death can be bad for us MAIN THESIS - Nagel’s main thesis in this paper is that, in general, death is a bad thing, and it is rational and correct for us to regard it as such - Why would he go to the trouble of arguing for a view that most people already seem to accept? - The answer is that some prominent thinkers have denied it: the roman Lucretius, following the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, argued that death is not an evil and there is no good reason reason to fear it EPICURUS (341-240 BCE) - Ancient greek philosopher - Born on the island of Samos, later lived in Athens - Founder of the hedonist school of thought - Only fragment of his writings survive - Influenced by Democritus, and he, in turn, influenced Lecretius - Founded a school called the ga...