In his paper “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality” Bernard Williams asserts his central claim that when immortality is feasible it is intolerable; further, it is reasonable to regard death as an evil. He argues his position by utilization of The Makropulos case, or the case of E.M. This character and circumstance is derived from a play by Karel Capek. E.M. is a woman of three hundred and forty two years. She has survived so long due to an immortality draught concocted by her father, a physician, long before the play’s action. E.M. explains her problem with immortality is that her unending life has become incredibly dull, her emotions have become cold and indifferent. She feels that in the end, everything has happened before and life has become unsatisfying. She stops taking the immortality draught and death overtakes her. This invokes the optimistic thought that immortality may be rewarding, if certain desires continue to be satisfied. Williams expands on the idea of these desires, called categorical desires and inherent motivation, but first we should confirm the views of death that make the conversation of immortality desirable. E.M.’s feelings about her life suggest that death is not a terrible thing not only in the obvious cases - where death ends pain and suffering. Death can be viewed positively in that it prevents life from continuing for too long. This implies two views of death that can refute its being inherently bad: the first being that death is not evil because it is the end of only one life and the beginning of another, a spiritual idea. The second view being that death is not evil because it is an absolute end to life. The second view, utter annihilation, appeals to the Epi... ... middle of paper ... ...g that has an existence that could be ended is counterintuitive. Under this umbrella my atomic disintegration position is refuted. However, as a human being myself I am largely incapable of imagining an existence that the seemingly limitless forces of the universe could not undo. I refute the rebuttal to my claim by positing that there are universal laws that atomic structures abide by. If the atomic structure cannot be killed by anything other than disintegration then I would have to invent an appellative appropriate for things such as planets (which do not have fuel determined lifespans like stars) and immortals, which are not destroyed unless acted upon by extreme universal powers. References Williams, B. (1973). The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality. B. Williams, Problems of the Self. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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...
Personal immortality seems to be a paradox that many people address and distinguish in different ways. Through outlets such as religion, science, or personal belief this topic is often argued and habitually facilitates strong arguments. Weirob and Miller explicitly explain their dualist/physicalist outlooks on personal immortality as they have a conversation at the hospital where Weirob slowly succumbs to her injuries received in a motorcycle accident. As Weirob patiently awaits death, Miller explains how due to Weirobs realist view on life he will not try to “comfort [her] with the prospect of life after death” (Perry, pg. 65). Due to Weirobs state of unavoidable demise she asks Miller to entertain her with the argument for life after death,
Bernard William’s The Makropulos Case focuses on the topic of immortality, and the issues that would arise from being immortal. William’s uses the concept of the Makropulos play to refute the idea of immortality, because the protagonist kills themselves out of unbearable boredom from exhausting their categorical desires. Whereas John Martin Fischer rejects William’s view of immortality, due to the limiting constraints of his argument. Fischer asserts the immortal life would be livable, because it reflects a mortal life. In effect, I will further Fischer’s argument, in proposing the concept of categorical desires evolving, and then the significance of external factors occurring in society. Therefore, this essay will explain the significant components
In our lives, we go through stages of mindset and maturity that naturally coincide with aging. One thing that remains the same, though, through all of these stages, is that eventually, we die; we are completely aware of that as humans. Whether because it’s due to the painful reality that is mortality, our ever-diminishing ability to be wistful and imaginative, or merely the impending coming of the Grim Reaper, our entire lives are, ironic as it is, surrounded by and flooded with death. However, as we grow older, our perception of death changes. It goes from taboo in our young ages to something that begins to surround and eventually consume us as we grow older. Between the poems “For the Anniversary of my Death” by
Thomas Nagel’s discussion about death is very intriguing and contemplative. In trying to prod for answers, Nagel began his essay, by writing about common views of death held by different people. His main purpose of writing this paper is to incisively and contemplatively discuss if death is a bad or evil thing. Nagel discusses the some people’s thought about death being evil. They say this because it denies us of living “more life”. He noted that most people are of the view that life is good, despite the fact that some life experiences are unpleasant and tragic. He then adds that when these unpleasant experiences of life are set aside, life is positive, and not just simply "neutral" (10).
“Death, the end of life: the time when someone or something dies” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The definition of death is quite simple, the end of life is inescapable. I chose to write about death and impermanence because it is something we all must inevitably face. People often deal with death in a number of different ways. Although it is something that we must eventually face, it can be hard to come to terms with because the idea can be hard to grasp. Some of us fear it, others are able to accept it, either way we all must eventually face it. In this essay I will look at two different literary works about death and impermanence and compare and contrast the different elements of the point of view, theme, setting, and symbolism. The comparison of these particular works will offer a deeper look into words written by the authors and the feelings that they experiencing at that particular time.
On the surface, one might not find much overtly attractive about Camus’s cold philosophy expressed by Meursault in the cell he spiritually shares with all people awaiting inevitable deaths as the universe watches on with indifference, but there is a freedom that comes with letting go of hope that tries to cover up fear. If society tries to prosecute each person with the moral guilt of those that have been buried, it is liberating to reject those presumptions of guilt. There is a happiness that can be found in that freedom and an appealing strength in being able to face the howls of execration from the spectators of every individual’s march toward death in a benign, indifferent universe.
The Ancient Greeks sought to define how humans should view their lives and how to create an existence dedicated to the basis of the “ideal” nature. This existence would be lived so as to create an “honorable” death upon their life’s end. Within their plays, both dramas and comedies, they sought to show the most extreme characteristics of human nature, those of the wise and worthy of Greek kleos along with the weak and greedy of mind, and how they were each entitled to a death but of varying significance. The Odyssey, their greatest surviving drama, stands as the epitome of defining both the flawed and ideal human and how each individual should approach death and its rewards and cautions through their journeys. Death is shown to be the consequence
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.
Throughout this chapter, the key idea was death. The beginning of the chapter starts with a little Greek mythology and the idea that fate and death can bring even the strongest man to their knees because death is controlled by fate. Death and fate are linked together and can describe the deaths in different species of animals. In a tragic story, the Trogan Tithonus asked Zeus to grant him immortality but did not specify eternal youth, which prolonged his lifespan but not his heath, resulting in begging for death. Many humans have ultimately asked eternal youth and immortality without diseases but that would break the law of physics. The maximum amount of years that a human can live is about 120 years. Back in the late 1800s, a French biologist, Charles Brown Séquard even injected himself with a serum that he extracted from the dog testicles and guinea pigs, thinking that he could achieve immortality. About 12,000 different physicians tried to create an elixir that would prevent death but none were successful.
...ves after him. There is a measure of immortality in achievement, the only immortality man can seek.” (Jacobsen, 196)
“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.
In the play “everyman” death is depicted as something that is terribly feared as no one seemed ready for it, death is perceived as something that takes one away from the pleasures of this world.
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
Socrates, who was one of the most famous and known Greek emperor, said that “All men’s souls are immortal, but the soul of the righteous is immortal and divine” (Socrates), so in his quote, he might explained the true meaning of gaining immortality which he meant a person who is right in his or her life gains the immortality and divine. Moreover, several generations passed through the time, and every generation forgot the previous of them. Therefore, human beings tried to challenge time and looked for gaining immortality in every way that they could. Also, many people deserve to be remembered for a long time, as an example, for their actions that they did in their time. The One Hundred Years of Solitude which was written by