Bernard Williams argues that death an immortal existence is a meaningless one and it is not desirable. He uses sources such as the Makropulos case to support his claim. I’m going to be arguing that living forever is not desirable and that death is good. First I will discuss Williams’ view and why I agree with him and then I’m going to explain why I disagree with views that go against that of Williams.
Bernard Williams discussed the case of Elina Makropulos and used it to argue for his claim that living forever is not desirable. William says that living forever, also known as immortality, isn’t desirable because of the miseries that you will see if you live forever. In the Makropulos Affair, a famous three scene opera, Elina Makropulos was
…show more content…
Donald Bruckner states that Williams is forgetting the concept of memory decay, desire rejuvenation, and human ingenuity. First, Bruckner says that memory decay, the concept of how human brains have limited space and that humans will eventually forget some of their categorical desires, allows immortals to become excited and motivated by a desire that they achieved a long time ago, but just have forgotten. Although it is true that people are limited in memory capacity, I believe that there is no way that you can completely forget about the accomplishments that you achieved a long time ago. Accomplishments are defined as things that you achieved and is significant. Something that is significant cannot simply be just “forgotten” and even if it is, some of it will still remain in your conscience. In some categorical desires, you will remember it for as you live, which in this case, forever. For example, let’s say that mastering how to ride a bike is a categorical desire; it is impossible to completely forget how to ride a bike because you will see it so often and you will retain muscle memory for riding a bike. Therefore, Bruckner’s argument of memory decay is unsound because every achievement, no matter how small, will rest in your brain. Other achievements are also not easily forgotten because of the amount of times you would do it because you are immortal. If you do something a certain amount of times, then it will stay in your memory
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.
In the beginning of Death, Nagel presented the question of whether it is a bad thing to die. He furnished two positions on the subject. The first position is that life is all one possesses and to lose life is the greatest loss one can encounter. The second position is that death is a blank, not an unimaginable condition, that has no positive or negative value whatsoever. Stating his aim to be considering whether death is in itself an evil, Nagel clarified that the state of being dead, or nonexistent, is not in itself evil for several reasons. First, death is not an evil that one is able to accumulate more of. A person cannot receive a larger portion of death no matter how long they have been in that state. Secondly, one would not regard temporary life suspension as harmful. In the case of long-term suspended animation or freezing, one can view this as a continuation of their present life. Thirdly, few people regard the long period of time before their birth as a misfortune. From these points, Nagel concluded that humanity does not object to death because it involves indeterminable periods of nonexistence. He then proposed that if death is an evil at all, it can only be because of what it deprives us of, since it has no positive features. He did not, however, agree with the idea that death is bad because it brings an end to all the good things in life. Nagel formulated that if all good and bad life experiences were removed, what i...
In one of Shakespeare’s most masterful pieces, he depicts a tragic love story in which love conquers all…but at what cost? The truth is in this play, love is the victor, but with horrible consequences. Love lives on, love survives, but only at the loss of life. Not only in this play, but in many other Shakespearean works, the constant theme stands that any kind of marriage or deep emotional bond which is solely based on love ends tragically. Othello’s passionate love for Desdemona is the same passion that causes him to end her life. Antony, under the suspicion that Cleopatra has died, tries to commit suicide to only find out soon after that she is alive and in hiding, but all in vain for the fatal wound has already pricked it’s victim. Shakespeare constantly relates love with tragedy, stating that love is in fact fleeting and impermanent. The only way for love to live forever is if it dies young.
Epicurus was a philosopher who was born in 341 BC and lasted until 270 BC. He examined the situation of death and came to the conclusion that once one is dead, no harm can be done, due to the fact that they no longer exist. Stephen E. Rosenbaum is a philosophy professor. Rosenbaum wrote the essay “How to Be Dead and Not care”, in which he explains Epicurus’ views and then defends Epicurus’ beliefs about death. The reason why he defends Epicurus, is because he’s being logical. Rosenbaum also believes that we spend too much time thinking about death, which is something we will never have to experience. However, Thomas Nagel who’s a philosophy and law professor, disagrees with both Epicurus and Rosenbaum. Nagel believes that one doesn’t have to experience
...uare Temple at Eshnunna; both very different mediums of art. Although the mediums are different, both are greatly significant in understanding the cultures of the past. Within each of these works of art the theme of immortality is prevalent. One states the theme very plainly, whereas the other has acquired this theme as time has passed. Never-the-less the theme of immortality is important in understanding each of these works of art. It is this theme of immortality which connects these works of art to our modern day and the dream a lot of us have of living forever. Although many hold this dream, I think the artist Freddie Mercury said it best in his song “Who Wants to Live Forever” when he said “This world has only one sweet moment set aside for us.” Our life is very fleeting in the grand scheme of things, it’s this same fact that gives our life such great importance.
Virginia Woolf’s essay “Death of the Moth” describes her encounter with a moth as it fights furiously to escape her windowpane before it is claimed by death. The speaker’s first instinct as they intently watch the moth’s struggle is to help it, but as she goes to do so, they realize that the moth is engaged in the same inescapable struggle faced by all living creatures as they try to prevent death from robbing them of life. By witnessing the moth’s death, the speaker is compelled to ponder the philosophical implications that incur within the circular pattern of life and death. She is conscious of death’s omnipotent inevitability, but concludes that the ever-present possibility of death serves as a primary motivational force necessary for life to have value and meaning. Since death cannot be overpowered, the way an individual struggles to survive and preserve life even in its final moments is more valuable than the mundane, meaningless activities pursued with apathy.
Plato argues for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo. He provides 3 arguments for his theory, the arguments from opposites, recollection, and affinity. Each argument proposes an intriguing account for his claim that the soul must exist past death. His evidence and proposal for each account leave no room for counterarguments. Fellow philosophers like Simmias and Cebes provide two different counters for Plato’s claim, however he accurately disproves them by using his 3 arguments as rebuttal. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach.
In Thomas Nagel's Death, Nagel concludes that death does not have to be a bad thing. Nagel defines death as permanently being the end of something or someone and plainly drawing a blank. This then presents the question of whether death is to be considered a bad thing or not. By introducing the subject by multiple viewpoints, Nagel attempts to attack the issues he presents in efforts to make his conclusion seem most reasonable.
Socrates was a philosopher who was true to his word and his death was ultimately felt by his closest friends and followers. In Phaedo, Socrates is met with his closest friends during his final hours as they await his death. At this point Socrates is prepared for death and seems to welcome it. Although death may seem like a scary inevitable fate that we all must face at one point; Socrates saw death as a privilege mainly because he believed that the soul was immortal. As a result, Socrates provides arguments as to why he believed the soul was immortal and even though all his arguments lacked unconvincing evidence, he does bring up good points. In this paper I will talk about Socrates’ most and least convincing arguments on immortality, and explain what Socrates’ problem was with Anaxagoras.
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
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.
In Plato’s dialogue, the Phaedo, Socrates gives an account of the immortality of the soul. Socrates does this through a series of arguments. He argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of his execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper focuses on Socrates 's first argument for immortality of the human soul, his counter arguments to Cebes and Simmias ' arguments, and an explanation as to why Socrates first argument for the immorality of the soul does not succeed in establishing that the soul is immortal.
We should not focus on pleasures of the body and only fulfill those that are necessary to live. The soul’s only desire is wisdom, which can only be achieved through the intellect and not through the deceitful senses. This can be illustrated by the fact that the true form of things such as justice, beauty and goodness can never be perceived through the senses. However, we are born with some sort of sense of what these things are, therefore there must be an ideal form which the things in the emperical world are somewhat equal to. Since the mind already has a sense of these forms when its born, the soul needs to be immortal. (102-104,
What is the purpose of life? But ultimately, what is the purpose of death? Why are we born just to die? These are two major wonders in the play "Exit the King" by Eugene Ionesco. For example, King Berenger asks the question, "Why was I born, if it wasn't forever?" This question wouldn't be of great significance if nobody possessed the desire to live forever. Our natural instinct is in the existence of life itself. It's an inborn pattern of survival. Furthermore, not only does the play "Exit the King" execute the theme of mankind wanting to be immortal, but it also shows how we need to prepare inwardly for when our time of demise draws near. My viewpoint on this play is that we tend to live our lives by putting off the fact that we will eventually die. The words of Queen Marie seem to be the motto of today's world, "Until death comes, you are still here." In other words, it's synonymous to the meaning of "live in the moment." The hard truth is that we are dying human beings. And it's our duty to accept this cruel fact. I would recommend the play "Exit the King" in view of the fact that it is an attempt to teach us by showing that we can learn how to die, instead of trying to avoid a fate that is impossible to