Here is a layman’s attempt at understanding
Thomas Nagel’s argument that Death is a bad thing.
Nagel argues that death is not bad in itself, but since death deprives you of life, it means that it is indirectly bad. Even if a life is full of misery? Yes, because even misery is an experience. Death is devoid of experience, so even a life full of misery is preferable to death.
Some philosophers in the past have argued that the fear of death is irrational since there won’t be any post-death experiences. You cannot be afraid of something that doesn’t exist. As Epicurus put it: 'Where death is, I am not; where I am, death is not.'
Another argument put forth against the fear of death is that it doesn’t matter whether you die young or old, since you will be dead forever either way.
A third point is that your nonexistence after death is just a mirror image of your nonexistence before your birth. Why should you fear one more than the other?
Unfortunately, Thomas Nagel criticizes all three arguments against the fear of death, in his essay ‘Death’. ‘Suppose’, Nagel says, ‘an intelligent person has a brain injury that reduces him to the mental condition of a contented baby. Certainly, this would be a grave misfortune for the person. Then is not the same true for death, where the loss is still more severe?’
The second argument, that dying young is not worse than living long, is just as poor. Being alive and having experiences is what is good about life. If a person dies prematurely, she is deprived of those experiences. Being dead is neither good nor bad since it is devoid of experiences. Therefore, what is evil about death is not the state of being dead, but the loss of life. More of life is better than less. Bach had more of it than Schubert because he lived longer.
If death is bad, how can prenatal nonexistence not be bad too? But death is a result of having lived.
The time after you die is time of which your death deprives you. You might have lived longer. But you could not possibly have existed in the time before your birth. Had you been conceived earlier than you actually were, you would have had a different genetic identity. In other words, you would not be you.
Nagel argues that a philosophical indifference to death is not only philosophically unsound but can be morally dangerous. If my own death is nothing, then why get worked up over the deaths of others?
There was a time when I had the unshakeable certainty of youth. But what awaits me now, has the most certainty of all. It is the final, undisputable point where everyone ends up: it is death.
Still, it is what happens before death that is more important. Thinking about death is futile because death isn’t anything, is it? It’s a concept. I go for my daily walk in the cemetery. Not because I am a necrophiliac, but because cemeteries don’t allow dogs, bikes, or cars. The perfect environment to walk in peace. When I put my shoes on, my husband says: ‘Say hi to Joe’. That’s a euphemism for the dead people.
But the skeletons decaying in those graves are not people. They house the memories of the people who cared for them. They come and put flowers on their graves, mourn them, and have experiences for them.
My mother Ata’s ashes are in my garden, surrounded by purple periwinkles that are blooming at this time of year. We think of her, sadness washes over us like a wave. We feel for Ata, who is no longer able to feel.
She isn’t there, but we make her be there, so we can conjure up our memories of her. Graves do that, they invoke the dead. The dead who don’t exist.
If this post puts you in a depressed mood, don’t worry. That means that you are still on this side of the dividing line. Nagel says that even being depressed is good. The alternative is not to feel anything. And that is death. It IS frightening, even though it doesn’t exist.
leave comment here
3 comments:
It's not death I fear, but the process of dying.
I am sad that I will no longer find out "what happens." But when I am dead, curiosity will no longer exist.
It is clear that the topic of 'death' is not off bounds to philosophers, poets, and anyone in the mood to consider the question of 'to be or not to be'. What is not clear that there is research work that provides evidence for reincarnation; see an article about it at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/
Also, albeit not scientific, just 'anecdotal' see: 'Beyond the Ashes: Cases of Reincarnation from the Holocaust' (Rabbi Yonassan Gershom) and 'I've Been Here Before: When Souls of the Holocaust Return' (Sara Yoheved Rigler).
We consider 'death' the opposite of 'life' -- perhaps 'reincarnation' is a more apt antonym?
Lieve Madeleine,
Met interesse het verhaal over Dood gelezen.
Moeten wij bang zijn voor de dood, Nee. Wij weten niet wat Dood is, niemand kan mij vertellen hoe dat voelt.
Moeten we bang zijn om te leven, Nee. In beide gevallen ben je niet bewust van geboren worden en de laatste reis
Dat is voor mij de reden dat ik mijn afscheid brief geschreven heb om mijn nabestaanden, vrienden en familie een beeld te geven van mijn
Denken en doen.
Dan komt het punt leeftijd, de tijd dat je leeft kan niemand bepalen en eigenlijk zegt dit niets anders dan het aantal jaren dat je leeft.
Voor de een is het langer dan voor de ander en zal waarschijnlijk te maken hebben met hoe je leeft.
Ik moet dan denken aan Ata, die op hoge leeftijd in staat was jonge mensen te inspireren.
Toch heeft zij gekozen voor de dood.
Liefs,
Bert.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!