Discussion of D.Z. Phillips Conception of Immortality
In his book 'Death and Immortality', D Z Phillips starts by asking the
question: does belief in immortality rest on a mistake? The first two
chapters are negative in the sense that they examine traditional
philosophical, as well as common sense, conceptions of what
immortality means. Phillips argues that philosophical analyses centred
on the notion of immortality have generally been constructed around
certain essential presuppositions: presuppositions that assume some
form of continuation of personal identity after death. One cannot
logically deny that, by definition, death entails the end of bodily
existence, so one, it seems, is logically drawn to the notion that
survival after death entails the survival of some kind of non-bodily
identity - the soul. In the last two chapters Phillips disputes this
presupposition, claiming that a perfectly valid conception of
immortality can be maintained without resorting to any form of
dualism. Phillips gives an alternative account of immortality based,
not on any realm of existence beyond this life, but on certain moral
and religious modes of living within this life.
Unlike some of writers, e.g. R. Swinburn, D Z Phillips does not
support the notion that belief in continuous personal existence is
logically defendable. Indeed, he provides an extremely robust argument
to the contrary, claiming that such claims are open to fatal logical
objections. After briefly contradicting any notions of survival of a
non-material body (the possibility of some form of bodily resurrection
in this world or the next), Phillips goes on to attack the more
comm...
... middle of paper ...
... all they
find their" (P46). Phillips picks up on Plato's idea of
"purification", arguing that this refers to the differentiation
between doing an apparent morally commendable deed, but impurely
(essentially for the good of the doer) and acting morally for the
right reason (for the sake of the good). As for the question of
whether Phillips's conception of immortality is more valuable than any
other concept of immortality? Well, Phillips, being a philosopher,
would certainly argued for the value of the truth over falsity. But
whether those of a non- philosophical disposition could find meaning,
and those of a spiritually insecure disposition could if find solace
in Phillips's conception of immortality is perhaps doubtful.
Bibliography:
Phillips.D.Z. (1970) Death and Immortality. Macmillan and Co Ltd,
London.
Mortality, the subject of death, has been a curious topic to scholars, writers, and the common man. Each with their own opinion and beliefs. My personal belief is that one should accept mortality for what it is and not go against it.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
Davis was vague in his writing, only discussing the options. Russell’s submission was completely inaccurate due to the fact that his opinions does not align itself with the Word of God. I found it quite challenging to follow Geach’s perspective that the only possibility for life after death is found in the hope of a resurrection to come which presents the most for life after death argument.
Ponting, Clive. “The Changing Face of Death” in “A Green History of the World.” St.
For my final project I chose to compare two works of art from ancient Mesopotamia. A visual work of art and a literary one. The visual work of art I chose was the Statuettes of Worshipers which were created around 2900 to 2350 BCE at the Square Temple at Eshnunna, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The literary artwork I have chosen is the Epic of Gilgamesh written roughly around 2800 BCE by author or authors unknown. It was set in Uruk, another city in ancient Mesopotamia. Both of these works of art share a common theme; the theme of immortality. It is my hopes that within this paper I can accurately show how each of these works of art express this theme, and how it relates to modern society.
... it’s just as possible that there’s a possibility that there is an afterlife as there is that there isn’t. He does not consider this problem. This is a very big point one should consider because for a lot of people, the possibility of an afterlife is what makes death a little less scary and shows that it can be a good thing. If there is an afterlife, this means that we never really die. We die in the physical sense that our bodies are no longer functioning, but in a way our consciousness still exists. We are “alive” even though we are dead. Suppose that the concept of immortality is the concept of living sometime, but never dying. Consider a living thing that goes into eternal suspended animation. It never dies, but this sort of immortality is hardly better than death. It is just like living forever, therefore it does not matter on the desirability of eternal life.
Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a most intriguing discussion about death. Death being one of the most obviously important subjects of contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach as he tries to define the truth as to whether death is, or is not, a harm for that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job in attacking this issue from all sides and viewpoints, and it only makes sense that he does it this way in order to make his own observations more credible.
“Bernard Williams is a distinguished twentieth-century english moral philosopher” (Jacobsen, p. 104). His perception of death and desire varies greatly from Lucretius who was a Roman follower of the ancient atomism and defended the views of Epicurus who like Lucretius, declared that death is a bad thing for people. On the contrary, Williams asserts that death gives meaning to life and that immorality might not be such a good thing and rather he believes that it is to be undesirable. The reasons as to why Williams thinks that a person’s death is a bad thing is due to the fact that when a person dies they are no longer able to fulfill/satisfy the desires we had when we were alive.
Our soul has already had to have these concepts before birth. Which brings him to believe the soul is capable of existing without the body, and so it is immortal.
This dedication should illustrate, if not Kierkegaard’s indebtedness to Professor Moller, then at least his unyielding affection.
Personally, the least convincing argument for the immortality of the soul was the argument for opposites. The argument says that life and death are opposites which become a cycle of each other so that the dead returns to living and the living eventually returns to death and so on. Which leads to the immortality of the soul due to the fact that it is never fully extinguished from existence but is always ready for the next process to take place.
Frederick, Calvin J. "Death and Dying." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.
Living Forever might be an options with new technologies these days like nanobots. Many people tried to make a machine or a formula that would help them live forever. Nobody succeeded except Richard Feynman, who invented the nanobots. Nanobots are very helpful because they work inside your body and repair parts if our bodies can’t do it. Richard Feynman was a person who believed that willpower is only ingredient needed for success. I shall be talking about if living forever is a good thing or a bad thing.
Plato has roused many readers with the work of a great philosopher by the name of Socrates. Through Plato, Socrates lived on generations after his time. A topic of Socrates that many will continue to discuss is the idea of “an immortal soul”. Although there are various works and dialogues about this topic it is found to be best explained in The Phaedo. It is fair to say that the mind may wonder when one dies what exactly happens to the beloved soul, the giver of life often thought of as the very essence of life does it live on beyond the body, or does it die with it? Does the soul have knowledge of the past if it really does live on?
...s death; there will be no mere re-incarnational transfer. Thousands of times each day unique, never-to-be again, individual beings have their one and only chance at life terminated." 7