At the most basic level of subconscious thought, every living animal possesses a desire to stay alive. Usually, this instinct lays dormant, although in dire situations, we can be led to do unexpected things. In addition to this subconscious drive, there is a socially constructed motivation for fearing death. Thanks to the pervasive nature of religion throughout history, much of humanity has, at some point or another, feared the prospect of eternal damnation and torture during one’s life after death. Although not every religion has a negative aspect of the afterlife, or even any semblance of an afterlife at all, those religions which do contain some such construct receive much more attention in this regard. Throughout history, many academics have countered people’s irrational fear of the unknown by noting that there is no definitive evidence to prove the existence of such a postmortem experience. According to Lucretius, this fundamental fear of death is completely speculative, and wholly illogical; he argues that we have no reason to fear death because there is nothing after death. What makes Lucretius’ argument so significant, is not how he counters religion, but how he bases it upon his own revision of atomism. It is because of this foundation of logical thought that Lucretius’ writing on the nature of death can still be thought of as a sound hypothesis. Although atomism certainly was not a new philosophy by the time Lucretius wrote, or even by the time of Rome’s ascension to power, the original propositions regarding the nature of matter were not enough to construct a philosophy similar to that presented by Lucretius. Over time, atomism had evolved from a binary view that the world consisted solely of atoms and void, ... ... middle of paper ... ...hysically present. Although this seems daunting, it should not be discomforting; it is merely a reminder of the fleeting nature of life, and that no one can avoid death. In addition to describing how and why the soul leaves a body at the time of death, Lucretius argues that the soul only arrives and is bonded to the body at the time of birth. Although this seems like somewhat circuitous logic out of context, it is merely a condensed conclusion to his prior argument. The basis for this portion of his argument is derived, once again, from the central tenet of atomism. Because nothing is created or destroyed, the atoms which make up one’s soul must have existed before birth, although the joining of the two only occurs upon entering the world. Only by understanding the ephemeral nature of both the soul and body, Lucretius says, may we come to accept the inevitable.
As a natural phenomena that occurs frequently yet is still not completely understood, death has confounded and, to a certain degree, fascinated all of humanity. Since the dawn of our species, people have tried rationalize death by means of creating various religions and even attempted to conquer death, leading to great works of literature such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Cannibal Spell For King Unis.
Dr. Moody reports, “Almost every person has expressed to me the thought that he is no longer afraid of death” (Moody Jr, MD, 2015, p. 90). Dr. Moody draws parallels between scripture, the philosopher Plato, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and Emanuel Swedenborg. Scripture teaches us of Christ speaking to Paul and what body the dead will have. Christ
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
In this essay, I will argue that Descartes’ argument that attempts to call into question the physical is unsound. The reasoning behind Descartes’ argument lies in his sixth meditation, which states that (a) The mind is understood to be indivisible, (b) The body is understood to be divisible, so therefore, (c) The mind must be different from the body (Descartes 52-57). I will be arguing for this view of the separation of body and mind, and in conclusion, I will provide a counter-argument to Descartes’ proposal.
In the section “Death” in De Rerum Natura, Lucretius addresses to our mortal fear that death brings the loss of everything we are, and that we must one day forfeit ourselves to the universe. Unfortunately, he does this by urging you to come to the understanding that losing every aspect of what a person is, both physically and in the world of forms, is inevitable. Death eradicates both mind and body; the two are intrinsically linked in life and death. Furthermore, it should be by this very fear of the inevitability of personal oblivion that we are soothed. Our consolation is this, that losing yourself should be welcomed as it is in a loss of self that we become unable to be inferior and woeful. Lucretius is using epicurean thought to justify
“Egoism, the fear or not near but of distant death… are not, I think, wholly natural or instinctive. They are all strengthened by the beliefs about personal identity which I have been attacking. If we give up these beliefs, they should be weakened” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:14).
Epicurus’s Death argument is very simple, and thus can be hard to refute. The basic premise is that is that no one feels any pain while they are dead, thus being dead is not a painful experience, so being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. My goal for this paper is to prove how those premises fails. In section 1 I will explain in greater detail Epicurus’s argument, in section 2 I will attack those arguments citing various theoretical examples, and in section 3 I will defend my attacks against potential rebuttals.
Terror management theory (TMT) asserts that human beings have natural tendency for self-preservation if there is threat to one’s well–being (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). It notes that we are the cultural animals that pose self-awareness on the concept of past and future, as well as the understanding that one day we will die. We concern about our life and death but aware that it is unexpected by everything. The worse matter is that we become aware of our vulnerability and helplessness when facing death-related thoughts and ultimate demise (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1992). The inevitable death awareness or mortality salience provides a ground for experiencing the existential terror, which is the overwhelming concern of people’s mortality and existence. In order to avoid the continued existence of threats, people need faith in a relatively affirmative and plausive cultural worldview and meaning of life (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1995). Cultural worldview is a perceptual construction in the society which explaining the origins of life and the existence of afterlife. We have to invest a set of cultural worldviews by ourselves that are able to provide meaning, stability and order to our lives and to offer the promise of death transcendence (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004). On the other hand, we hold a belief that one is living up to the standards of value prescribed by that worldview and social norm shared by a group of people. This belief is derived by self-esteem of individual. We maintain the perception and confident that we are fulfilling the cultural prescriptions for value in the society and are thus eligible for some form of personal immortality (Landau & Greenberg, 2006). We Together with the assump...
Much the same as in Epicurean Athens, one still needs to expel oneself from the clamor of cutting edge life, so as to practice genuine reflection and development in a situation without outer judgment. In investigation of death itself, I don't trust that we are any less panicked now that we were a hundred years back. Logical headways for the expansion of life and the curing of sickness are confirmation that we are still scared of death, as well as are resolved to build commercial enterprises that are committed to engaging the prospect. It would not be helpful to stop such causes, regardless of the possibility that, from an Epicurean stance, they are pointless to seek after by any means, for the world is presently a better place with respect to logical headway and information. In any case, fear of death is all inclusive, and will keep on rising above time. I trust that its hold over our brains ought to dependably be analyzed, and speculations connected, to scatter its negative impact over our lives, objectives and dispositions, for such a distraction does without a doubt lessen general happiness and quest for straightforwardness. All in all, it could be said that whilst the greater part of Epicurus' speculations on pleasure and happiness could now be considered to some degree dated, fear of death is all inclusive and immortal, in this manner still
Life after death is a topic of controversy in which Bertrand Russell and John Hick discusses the idea of whether it is possible to have life after death. Russell addresses his argument against the idea through his brief essay titled “The Illusion of Immortality” (1957). In addition, Hick also discusses the topic through his work “In Defense of Life after Death” (1983) of why life after death is a plausible idea. In this paper I will be discussing Russell’s argument against the belief of life after death. As well, I will also be addressing the opposing view by explaining Hick’s argument in defense of life after death. My goal in this paper is to highlight through the analysis of life after death how Russell in my opinion holds the strongest position.
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Trans. Walter Englert. Newburyport, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, 2003.
The concept of human mortality and how it is dealt with is dependent upon one’s society or culture. For it is the society that has great impact on the individual’s beliefs. Hence, it is also possible for other cultures to influence the people of a different culture on such comprehensions. The primary and traditional way men and women have made dying a less depressing and disturbing idea is though religion. Various religions offer the comforting conception of death as a begining for another life or perhaps a continuation for the former.
Intro : Introduce the concept of death, and how the concept of death is shown to be something to be feared
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
In St. Thomas Aquinas’ On Being and Essence, he devotes an entire chapter of his book discussing how essence is found in composite substances. “Form and matter are found in composite substances, as for example soul and body in man. But it cannot be said that either one of these alone is called the essence.’ Aquinas argues that in a composite substance, not only is the form but also matter in the essence of a thing. However, in Metaphysics, Aristotle says that essence is in the form, which acts upon matter. He writes, “The form or the thing as having form should be said to be thing, but matter by itself must never be said to be so.” Yet, Aristotle’s thesis poses a philosophical problem. If one supposes that Aristotle is correct, then how can one think of something without it necessitating its physical existence? This essay will first be an exposition of the passage found in Aquinas’ On Being and Essence. The second part of this essay will be an analysis of Aquinas’ thesis in relation to Aristotle’s. It will also address Aquinas’ solution to necessitating existence.