Philosophy Essay - long paper PDF

Preview

Summary

long paper ...

Description

PHILOSOPHY PAPER ON:

IS DEATH A MISFORTUNE? THE DEBATE BETWEEN NAGEL AND ROSENBAUM

Mark Twain once said, “Annihilation has no terrors for me, because I have already tried it before I was born. There was a peace, a serenity, an absence of all sense of responsibility, an absence of worry, an absence of care, grief, perplexity; --- I look back upon with a tender longing and with a grateful desire to resume when the opportunity comes.” This statement proposes many questions about the evil or good of life and death which philosophers spend years analyzing. Philosophy is different from other subjects. Instead of offering a question that has one answer, it asks questions that require more than just a quick response. Therefore, philosophy keeps in mind reality, values, reasons, the mind and languages in order to come up with a rational argument as to why something could be the answer to a particular question. Yet, death is a very intense topic because it’s something that nobody knows the answer to. Therefore, it does not involve math or science, reading or art, or anything of that sort. Instead, it involves logical and reasonable thoughts and explanation as to why one thinks “this is what happens after one dies.” Because death is a very ambiguous subject, many wonder if life is even worth living if we’re all just means to an end, or if death is just the start of a new life. By looking at noted philosophers like Thomas Nagel, Epicurus, and Rosenbaum’s theories, explanations, and work about death being an evil act or death merely being good in some aspects, one can understand that no two philosophers think alike. Therefore, the topic of what death truly means remains up to indefinite reasoning and beliefs.

Before I begin contrasting Nagel and Rosenberg’s views, I believe it is important to first understand the two views. In Nagel’s article, he asks the question, “If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die?” To this he proposes two possibly positions; death deprives of us life, which is all we have. Therefore, it is the greatest of all losses. And, “death is the end of the subject. It is a mere blank, not a great loss. There is no subject left to experience the loss.” So what is Nagel trying to tell his readers? He states that he’s using the term “death” as “permanent death”, without the analysis of the after life. Therefore, he’s letting the reader know that for the sake of his argument, there is nothing after death. Now that that’s said, he goes on to say that if we are not there to suffer, death can't be an evil.

Yet, if one does consider death an evil, then it must be because one believes it deprives a person of things he/she value. Breaking this down we can think of it as; death can be harming to a person only because of the good things it deprives he/she of. But, if death is bad because it deprives a person of good possibilities, can it also be good if it deprives a person of evils? Therefore, death is truly bad if it deprives a person of doing more good than future evils. This is called the deprivation theory. Nagel explains further how we can know deprivation is bad for us by relating it to a story of an intelligent man who was reduced to a state of infancy due to a brain injury. He says that this is a misfortune because the man had a life before hand that he created for himself, and now has basically lost that life. The brain injury deprived him of accomplishing more good in his lifetime. But an infant himself is not deprived of anything because he hasn’t established a life of his own; for now, he has nothing to lose because he hasn’t gained anything yet. This is different from the notes philosopher Epicurus’s view. He states that

“Sol o n ga sap e r s o ne x i s t s , heha sno ty e t d i e d ,a no n c eh eh a sdi e d , hen ol on g e re xi s t s . ” Sowec a nt h i nko fi tt h i swa y ;a sl o n ga sy o ue x i s t ,d e a t hh a sn o th a p p e n e dt oy o u, s oi t c a n n o th a v eh a r me dy o u. Bu twh e nt hesh a r mo fd e a t ht h a tNa g e ls p e a k sofo c c u r s ,y ou n ol o n g e re x i s tt of e e li t ,s oh o wc a ni th a p pe na ndh a r my o u ?Wewi l ld i s c u s sEp i c u r u s ’ s l o g i ct ot hi sl a t e r . But now we can also consider life before one’s birth. Is that a misfortune? Are the millions of years before our birth depriving us of life? Many might believe so, although Nagel states that most people do not believe that’s life deprivation, and I would have to agree due to the mere fact that we do not know anything before we exist, therefore, we don’t have a means of gaining or losing anything. More clearly, we have no way of feeling or thinking anything, and we have no way of knowing anything. We do not consider the time before we were born an evil because we simply don’t know what life is yet. But, we do consider death an evil because we exist. We make a life, we acquire a degree or get a job and start a family, and death ends that for us when it chooses, not because we have simply become as successful as we could. So, then I wonder if death is always an evil? Because looking at these reasoning’s from Nagel, he states a couple times that death deprives a person of future good, and how could depriving a person of what they still have potential to do a good thing? Therefore, I would have to say that Nagel proposing that death is an evil sounds accurate.

Rosenbaum declines this theory. He backs up the theories and reasons of Epicurus about how death isn’t evil, as states before. To understand this Epicurus’s reasoning could be broken down. He states fairly that death is a very ambiguous word, because, truthfully who actually knows what happens after death, or how one feels during death until it’s

already too late? So lets break down Epicurus’s thinking. Dying is the process at which one is about to be dead, not living, unconscious. This takes place at the end of one’s lifetime, and it may be a long or short comfortable or uncomfortable process. But it is important to note that the process of being dead always includes dying. How can it not? In order to fully be dead, there is a period, no matter how short or long, where you’re in the process of dying and that period can be painful or peaceful. But you can’t feel death! The term “death” is not actually a part of a person’s lifetime. Using Epicurus’s example, it is the time at which a person becomes dead. Now, what does being “dead” entail? Dead is the state after one dies, so Epicurus says that this is a part of a person’s history now. So what’s the difference between dying, death, and dead? Simply put, death comes at the end of a person's dying and at the beginning of a person being dead. So, death is not ad for the living because they’re not dead, and death is not bad for the dead because the cease to exist.

Now, with the understanding of what Epicurus thinks of death, we can move further into how he differs from Nagel’s thinking of death. Nagel believes that an evil a person does not know can be bad for him. This objects Epicurus’s belief that, “As t a t eo f a ffa i r si sba df o rp e r s o nPo n l yi fPc a ne x p e r i e n c ei ta ts o met i me . ”Fr o mt h i swes e et h a t Ep i c u r usv i e wsa sd e a t ha sn o te v i lb e c a u s ei ti s n ’ ts o me t h i n gap e r s o nc a ne x p e r i e n c e . Re c a l l i n gb a c k,i ti sat e r mu s e dt od e s c r i b et het i meb e t we e nap e r s o nd y i n ga n dap e r s on b e i n gd e a d .I ti sn o tp a r t o ft h ep e r s o n ’ sl i f e . Hea l s ome n t i o n sav e r yi mp o r t a n tq u e s t i o n a b ou twh o md o e sd e a t hh u r t ?Hes t a t e st h a ti tc a n ’ th a r mt h o s ed e a d , b e c a u s et h e y ’ r e a l r e a d yd e a d , a n di tc a n ’ tha r mt h el i v i n gb e c a u s ei tc o me sAFTERl i f e ; i t ’ sat i mea f t e r l i v i n g . Ye t , Na g e lv i e wsi ta sb e i n gh a r mf u lb e c a u s eh et a k e si nt oa c c o u ntt h emi s f o r t u n e s

d e a t hi sb r i n i n ga b o u tt h ep e r s o nwi t ht h eu n kn o wne v i l si nh i sl i f e . Na g e lv i e wsd e a t ha s d e pr i v i n gt ha tp e r s onf r o m kn o wi n gwh a te v i l st he r ewe r ei nt h efir s tp l a c e , a si nf a mi l y , t r a i t o r o u sf r i e n ds ,a n dmo r e , a n dwh a tg o o di si nl i f e .

Fu r t h e r mo r e , Ep i c u r usg o e so nt os a yt h a tb e c a us eas t a t eo fa ffa i r si sb a df o rP o n l yi fPc a ne x pe r i e n c ei t , t h e nPc a ne x p e r i e n c eas t a t eo fa ffa i r so n l yb e f o r eh i sd e a t h, s od e a t hi t s e l fi sn o tami s f o r t u n eo rb a d / e v i lb e c a u s ei tb e g i n sa f t e rh i mb e i n gd e a dwh i c h h ec a nn ol o n g e re x p e r i e n c e . Th r o u g ha l lo ft hi s , i t ’ sde c i d e db yh i mt h a to n eb e i n gde a d i sn o tba db e c a u s en oh a r mi sd o n ea n yl o n g e ro rc a nb ef ur t h e ri n fli c t e do nt h ep e r s o n b e c a us ei ti sa f t e rt h ep e r s o nd i e d .

Na g e lo b j e c t s . Hi sr e s po n s et oh i sa r g u me n ti st h a tt h et i mea f t e rap e r s o n ’ sd e a t h i ss t i l le vi lbe c a u s eo ft h ed e p r i v a t i o nt h e or yo n c ea g a i n. I nawa y , Na g e lt hi n kso fd e a t hi s a“ t i me ”a swe l l , j us ti nd i ffe r e n twa y s . Na g e ls a y st h a tt h et i mea f t e rap e r s o n ’ sd e a t hi sa t i meo fwh i c hd e a t hd e p r i v e sh i m. I ft h ep e r s o nh a dn o td i e dt h e n , h ewou l ds t i l lb ea l i v e , a n ds od e a t he n t a i l st h el o s sofs o mel i f e ;s omemo r eg o o da n dp u r p o s et h a tt h ep e r s o n c o ul dha v ee n d u r e di fd e a t hh a dh a p p e n e dl a t e r .

It’s impossible to know which noted philosopher is correct. It’s a matter of which view makes the reader most comfortable, and when saying that, it’s a matter of what the reader prefers. As one can see, death has been a relevant topic for many years. I believe that the two philosopher’s theories can be combined. For example, Nagel says that death is bad because it deprives a person of what more they can do in life, yet, Epicurus says death is neither good nor bad because one doesn’t feel it; one just feels the process of

dying. Yet, what if we combine the two? Death IS bad because it truly does deprive one of life, and life is the most beautiful thing a person can attain, but it’s also true that death is not felt. It is the process after dying. Therefore, dying is the hurting process (or peaceful process if one is ready to let go) and death is the end. It’s the final road a person encounters, and it’s dead quiet. Now, I say it’s dead quiet due to the mere fact that both neglected to speak about the after life. Nagel himself said that for the sake of his argument, he disregards the idea of a life after death, but that does not necessarily ean he doesn’t believe in an afterlife. Epicurus, on the other hand, states that, “death is annihilation.” How did he come to this conclusion? In short, Epicurus believes that the fear of death comes for the anxiety about an unpleasant afterlife. To this, he says that one must not worry about that because when a person dies, he/she are annihilated. “The mind if a group of atoms that disperses upon death....