In the following essay, I will develop my thoughts by talking about how Weirob challenges her long life friend Miller to comfort her on her death bed for three nights, about the slight possibility of her soul surviving after death. This is based on the author John Perrys’ ideas. I will also be discussing the two personal criterions that we discussed in class that I believe fit best to the passage.
The two personal criterions are numerical identity and qualitative identity. Numerical identity can be described as two things being at different times, but being the same exact thing later on in the future. Qualitative identity on the hand can be described as the relation of many things being the same thing as long as they have the same characteristics no matter what the time. An example we used in class was the two identical green camelback water bottles that and although they had the same characteristics they still were not the same exact water
…show more content…
bottle because they only shared the same properties, but there were two of them. The soul criteria can be defined as someone who has the same soul being the same person because they are in the same body. The soul can can be interpreted as an emotion, deciding between right and wrong, and described as unique because it is something that sets you apart from other people. I believe that this is true and is the easiest way to interpret the soul criteria, although others may have a different opinion. This is highly important to mention because throughout the passage this is what is being question. “What is the soul?” “Does it exist after death” and “Is it immortal?”. In the passage of the first night, the first soul view point I understood was that Miller tried to prove his point about survival after death being a possibility by stating that people are identical to souls rather than bodies. Which if proven true would mean that survival after death could be a possibility since the body technically dies, but your soul lives on. Weirob challenges Millers view point by stating that the soul is unimportant and spiritual rather than physical this because the soul can not be sensed. She is stating that the soul is not a materialistic thing because it is inexistent to the human eye, can not be smelled or even touched unlike a body. To me she has the right to argue against Millers claim because a soul is not physically around since we can not see it and can not prove a physical connection with out bodies. The second view point of the soul is stated when Miller tries to claim once again the connection between soul and body.
He claims that although we can not establish a legitimate connection between soul and body there are psychological examples that can be seen as facts for the body and soul being connected. Some examples of the psychological examples are sadness, the way one communicates, expressions, and etc. Weirob once again argues against this, but this time uses an analogy of a river to back her belief up. The analogy states that the river is always flowing and changing directions throughout time. This meaning that the soul can not be compared to psychological reasoning because we can’t be certain this is how it works since there is no legitimate evidence. In my opinion, Weirob does have a good point and actually has a legitimate example that can be proven unlike Miller which makes me question the two different view points because one is showing physical evidence while the other one is just stating what they
believe. In the passage of the second night, we are introduced to Miller giving the example of us going to sleep and how when we wake up we don’t question what we look like because of the fact that we know who we are and what we look like automatically before opening our eyes. This leading to his other theory of personal identity having no need connect with bodily identity. To me he is separating both ideas and an example of this could be of me imaging switching my body for a younger one and at least giving one the opportunity to see that I am able to imagine this, but not literally do it. Weirob on the other hand questions this because she does not find a relative connection between body identity to personal identity or even personal identity to the soul view. Another reason she questions it is because it does not support her view or even Millers original soul view making her question where does this all fit or even lead to. Continuing in the second night passage, Miller explains to Weirob that they both have been thinking about personal identity the wrong way. Miller uses Weirobs analogy about the river as an example to show that personal identity is like the flow of a river. He also talks about giving directions to someone. He starts them on a specific street name “College St.” then gives them directions to the same street, but to a different location on the same street. The person should not be confused just because it has the same name, but not the same surroundings as the beginning is what Millers states. This leads to Millers theory of what makes a person over time can be related to personal identity. An example, being a person is the same person over time if and only if the person has the same conscious meaning they have the same psychological identity. In my opinion, he is stating that all a person needs to be the same person after they pass away is to have the same conscious. He is discarding Weirobs’ ideas that are identical to a physical body because he fails to mention that we are the sane as a immaterial soul. To me this means that Miller believes that personal identity is related to the possibility of survival after death. Miller uses an example that easily proves this because he mentions that one can imagine that there is a heaven and that this can easily be related the conscious with this form of psychological view point. Another situation that occurs in the second passage is that Miller talks to Weirob about the memory view point of being psychologically connected with themselves. This meaning that as long as someone retains their memories about what has occurred one can be psychologically connected in a way. Weirob on the other hand points out that there is a difference between seeming to remember and actually remembering. An example that we discussed in class was thinking we remembered something that occurred at a young age, but in reality we think we remember because someone told us what had occurred. Cohen enters the room at this point and states that the difference between actual memories and what seems to be real memories is that the ones that are real can be based of a psychological view point and had an impact on someone’s identity making them true. That of course is what I understood from it. Weirob agrees with Cohen about there being a way to distinguish them, but questions how this supports Millers idea of survival after death. Miller argues that Weirob needs to imagine that there is a heaven and that all her good memories and actions are going to be there looked upon God who created this place. Finally, towards the end of the second passage, what I understood was that Weirobs’ response to Miller and Cohen is that if her memories were seen as good by God then that will determine whether or not she will go to Heaven. She also questions if it is possible that since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then could he create someone who is identical to her in order to get more people into Heaven, but yet he is limited to do so? But yet there can not be anyone identical to her who can have the same memories? Cohen intervenes and claims that it is irrelevant whether or not God can create multiple people identical to Weirob because survival after death is possible regardless. He states that it is better to have only one of someone rather than multiple because if he makes multiple identical people than heaven wouldn’t exist. That meaning survival after death would not either. In the third night, Cohen begins by questioning Weirobs view point about people being identical to their body. He uses the example of a brain being put into someone else’s body. If this were to be possible is the person whose brain got put into the new body going to have the same memories as the body before? From what I understood, Weirob denies the fact that the person who survived such absurd surgery would be the same person as before. This is because she believes that in order for someone to have the continuous memories as before relating to personal identity then the body is what is need for this to be right, not the brain. What I also understood was that this is based on her idea and choice of psychological continuity or bodily continuity as being responsible for identity which in this case she would rather take the latter. After breaking down the three nights, I got to understand the passages more clearly and came to the conclusion that she should have the opportunity to try and feel comforted by the people she cares the most around her time of death. Although she was being negative at times, I can relate to that because she did not believe in life after death. This is highly important because changing someone’s beliefs is hard and the fact that she had a limited amount of time to try and convince herself of this is a major factor. I also understood that there is a possibility of life after death, but it all depends on your beliefs at the end of the day.
... seeing and feeling it’s renewed sense of spring due to all the work she has done, she was not renewed, there she lies died and reader’s find the child basking in her last act of domestication. “Look, Mommy is sleeping, said the boy. She’s tired from doing all out things again. He dawdled in a stream of the last sun for that day and watched his father roll tenderly back her eyelids, lay his ear softly to her breast, test the delicate bones of her wrist. The father put down his face into her fresh-washed hair” (Meyer 43). They both choose death for the life style that they could no longer endure. They both could not look forward to another day leading the life they did not desire and felt that they could not change. The duration of their lifestyles was so pain-staking long and routine they could only seek the option death for their ultimate change of lifestyle.
Jane presents one aspect of woman in The Waking collection (1953): Ross-Bryant views Jane as a young girl who is dead. The poem expresses concern with the coming of death. This poignant elegy is presen...
In May Miller’s Poem “Death is not Master” the persona explains that death is not the master that will increase the desperation but it is a way to become eternally calm. Many poems on the topic of death explain it as powerful thing that fears the existence of human beings, but Miller’s persona death is a way to achieve eternal serenity. She explains death as something that can end all the worldly tears, desires and tension and transform the human memory into a sculpture which is unaware of tensions. Miller’s persona believes that blocking death will be unfair as it will be a barrier to the everlasting happiness and calmness that lies inside the grave. Miller’s persona is an elaboration of Christian beliefs that death ends all worldly problems
The interpretations of what comes after death may vary greatly across literature, but one component remains constant: there will always be movement. In her collection Native Guard, Natasha Trethewey discusses the significance, permanence and meaning of death often. The topic is intimate and personal in her life, and inescapable in the general human experience. Part I of Native Guard hosts many of the most personal poems in the collection, and those very closely related to the death of Trethewey’s mother, and the exit of her mother’s presence from her life. In “Graveyard Blues”, Trethewey examines the definition of “home” as a place of lament, in contrast to the comforting meaning in the epitaph beginning Part I, and the significance
Her family life is depicted with contradictions of order and chaos, love and animosity, conventionality and avant-garde. Although the underlying story of her father’s dark secret was troubling, it lends itself to a better understanding of the family dynamics and what was normal for her family. The author doesn’t seem to suggest that her father’s behavior was acceptable or even tolerable. However, the ending of this excerpt leaves the reader with an undeniable sense that the author felt a connection to her father even if it wasn’t one that was desirable. This is best understood with her reaction to his suicide when she states, “But his absence resonated retroactively, echoing back through all the time I knew him. Maybe it was the converse of the way amputees feel pain in a missing limb.” (pg. 399)
The novel is written in the form of letters from a dying father. Although he knows death is inevitable, death is an idea presented with optimism. Literary critic, Susan Petit’s argues that Ames even looks at death like “going home”(Gilead 4) and that “only at the end of his life does he feel at home in the world”
Louise, the unfortunate spouse of Brently Mallard dies of a supposed “heart disease.” Upon the doctor’s diagnosis, it is the death of a “joy that kills.” This is a paradox of happiness resulting into a dreadful ending. Nevertheless, in reality it is actually the other way around. Of which, is the irony of Louise dying due to her suffering from a massive amount of depression knowing her husband is not dead, but alive. This is the prime example to show how women are unfairly treated. If it is logical enough for a wife to be this jovial about her husband’s mournful state of life then she must be in a marriage of never-ending nightmares. This shows how terribly the wife is being exploited due her gender in the relationship. As a result of a female being treated or perceived in such a manner, she will often times lose herself like the “girl
In Mrs. Dalloway, Clarissa Dalloway undergoes an internal struggle between her love for society and life and a combined affinity for and fear of death. Her practical marriage to Richard serves its purpose of providing her with an involved social life of gatherings and parties that others may find frivolous but Clarissa sees as “an offering” to the life she loves so well. Throughout the novel she grapples with the prospect of growing old and approaching death, which after the joys of her life seems “unbelievable… that it must end; and no one in the whole world would know how she had loved it all; how, every instant…” At the same time, she is drawn to the very idea of dying, a theme which is most obviously exposed through her reaction to the news of Septimus Smith’s suicide. However, this crucial scene r...
Before Mrs. Ames and the mother realize the restrictions of their old lives, their worlds have been full of disillusionment and ignorance. Mrs. Ames, for example, is oppressed by her husband’s silence and the search for love and tenderness from anyone, because she lives each day alone, ignored by her scornful husband. And, as a result of being left companionless, she does not mature, rather she longs for tenderness. In other words, Boyle explains her dysfunctional relationship with her husband, “The mystery and silence of her husband’s mind lay like a chiding finger of her lips. Her eyes were gray for the light had been extinguished in them” (57). That is, Mrs. Ames’ spirit remains oppressed by her husband who treats her as a child, and, in doing so, isolates her from his world.
Common among classic literature, the theme of mortality engages readers on a quest of coping with one of the certainties of life. Katherine Anne Porter masterfully embraces the theme of mortality both directly and indirectly in her story, “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall.” Understanding that all mankind ultimately becomes subject to death unleashes feelings of dread and anxiety in most people; however, Granny Weatherall transitions from rushing to meet her demise in her sixties to completely denying she is on her deathbed when she is eighty. Readers have seen this theme of mortality reverberated over and over in literature, but what makes this story stand the test of time is the author’s complexity. In Katherine Anne Porter’s
Mrs. Mallard’s repressed married life is a secret that she keeps to herself. She is not open and honest with her sister Josephine who has shown nothing but concern. This is clearly evident in the great care that her sister and husband’s friend Richard show to break the news of her husband’s tragic death as gently as they can. They think that she is so much in love with him that hearing the news of his death would aggravate her poor heart condition and lead to death. Little do they know that she did not love him dearly at all and in fact took the news in a very positive way, opening her arms to welcome a new life without her husband. This can be seen in the fact that when she storms into her room and her focus shifts drastically from that of her husband’s death to nature that is symbolic of new life and possibilities awaiting her. Her senses came to life; they come alive to the beauty in the nature. Her eyes could reach the vastness of the sky; she could smell the delicious breath of rain in the air; and ears became attentive to a song f...
...wn social isolation. The descriptions of the world he occupies are hardly appealing and Clare is well aware of this, knowing that such an offer would be made in vain if truly made at all. The straightforwardly presented horror of Clare’s world lies in direct contrast to the world of love he continually invokes, and the improbable triumph of love over isolation is nearly laughable in its impossibility. By complicating his poem’s mode of transmission through the filter of the maid and the frame of traditional love poetry, Clare’s portrait of isolation and social death becomes even more moving and poignant, for it is just as obvious to the reader as it is to Clare that such an offer of “eternity” would be unlikely to be accepted. And if it were, would it matter in an eternity where all faces look the same and parents pass by their children, unrecognized, like shadows?
With each analysis the reader gets a greater understanding of suicide and the mental state of those who commit it, as well as some of their motives. One could read only a single chapter of this book and gain a greater understanding than they previously had on the topic of suicide, but when one brings all the chapters together as a whole a much deeper understanding is obtained. Lester’s analyses start with diaries, using that of a girl he has called Katie as his first example. In this 14 page chapter he analyses her diary, not only comparing her to Ophelia from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but using that comparison to show some of her motives and to make sense of them. It is this astute analysis that sets the tone for the rest of the similar chapters, in a way that is not boring but is not lighthearted in the slightest. The way that the whole book works together to give one insight on the topic of suicide makes it a useful resource for those who wish to understand it in a more in-depth way.
Death is a natural and inevitable part of life. Everyone will experience death, whether it is of a loved one or oneself. In W.H. Auden’s poem “Funeral Blues” (1003), he describes such a catastrophic event and the drastic effect that it has on his life. It is interesting how people choose to accept this permanent and expected event, death. Similarly, Emily Dickinson has written many poems about death, such as “The last Night that She lived” (843), which describes a family waiting for a woman or girl to die and the dreary and depressed mood that exists within the household. Mourning is considered a perfectly healthy reaction when someone who is deeply loved and cared about passes on, and this is illustrated in “The Memory of Elena” (1070-71) by Carolyn Forche. She writes about the events following a funeral and also flashes back to the actual moment that a wife has watched her husband die. W.H Auden’s “Funeral Blues,” Carolyn Forche’s “The Memory of Elena,” and Emily Dickinson’s “The last Night that She lived” are all poems which share death as their subject matter, but differ in the fact that they discuss death in a unique style with a variety of literary devices to make them more effective.
Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different situations. What we want to know is whether the observed behavior is unusual. If it is, the observer is likely to give the behavior an external attribution. If this action is not unusual, it will probably be judged as internal.