Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
thomas nagel summary about death
thomas nagel summary about death
The role of value in life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: thomas nagel summary about death
When Thomas Nagel introduces how he understands death to be bad, he first makes a definition of what ‘death’ is assumed to be. He makes it clear that after death we are not to accept, for the purpose of the argument, that we, or our consciousness is to exist in an immortal form. We must accept death to be the end of ourselves and our conscious survival, a permanent death. Thus the question, if death is the permanent end of our existence, is it a bad thing? Before we look at an answer we must clarify one more thing, Nagel does not take into consideration the impact of death has on others, as it does not benefit the argument, Nagel wants to know why death is bad for the individual alone. In Nagel’s paper, he goes through eliminating reasons why death may be considered bad, in order to get to the …show more content…
I will now look at Nagel’s two possible positions on the matter, and attempt to answer the question. In regards to (1), we can consider death as bad because even life has value when separated from the good or bad experiences within it. The bare experience of life is valuable in itself, and death is the end of it. Moreover, the value of life is not attached to just organic survival, surviving in a coma does not appeal to us. Nagel explains that the good of life can be multiplied by time, the more the better. Regarding (2), the state of being ‘dead’ or non-existent, is in itself evil and therefore cannot be what makes death bad. As death is not an evil that accumulates more evil the longer one is dead and we would not regard a temporary suspension of life a great misfortune, nor would we the long period of time before we were born be considered this way. If it is true that death is an evil because it stops the continuation of life, then we must understand that this is not an intrinsic feature of death, but a relational one. This is Nagel’s deprivation view of death, that death is relationally bad, as in relation to the continuation of life, death is
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...
Death. Only two things are certain in life, death, and taxes. As the Human condition is concerned death is directly related to mortality. Mortality is in a sense the focus of all human existence. In most cases, the human mind inadvertently neglects this concept. In the true depth of mortality is hidden behind a shroud of humor. In the inquisitive, the brain creates a logical fallacy to cope with the concept. The basis of the human condition is mortality. The main points of the human condition are birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. Birth, growth, and aspiration all stem from the concept of mortality.
What truly, are the consequences of mortality? What is a rather complex question, mortality can be defined as the state of being subject to death; however the influence of such a powerful aspect in life is truly dependent on those associated with its impact. In perspective, perhaps death itself can be considered a tragedy, whereas the life of a loved one has perished. In other circumstances, the death of a fascist leader could be regarded as beneficial, or even considered as a miracle. Subsequently, the capanilities of death are solely dependent on its given circumstances. Fortunately, William Shakespeare is able to associate the cause and effect of death throughout his pieces of work in a beautiful fashion
The most pondered about question for a lot of people is what happens after we die? Is it a dark abyss, do we fall into a hole of nothingness, or is there an afterlife where our soul lives without our bodies? Although many are quick to respond, the true answer will always be unknown, because although we can think about death as we live, there’s no way of really knowing what will happen outside our mind when we’re gone, if the mind is one of the few things agreed upon that is certain. Thomas Nagel, author of What Does It All Mean?, considers that if a person “consists of a soul and a body connected together, we can understand how life after death might be possible” (page 89). Most philosophers argue that each person does have a soul, and this soul is a body of knowledge that people should expand upon while pushing aside bodily influences. Counter to the skepticism of Nagel, Greek philosopher Plato, in his work the Phaedo, uses the Theory of Forms to reason why souls must exist, however he lacks strength in explaining the cycle of birth and death for the soul, and more importantly how the soul popped into existence.
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.
I will begin by setting the parameters of this discussion by emphasizing what Nagel defines to be death. Nagel writes that “death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence…. un-supplemented by any form of conscious survival” (1). In accordance with Nagel’s definition of death, I will take for granted in this discussion that death does not depend on corporeal
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.
The Latin Cross displayed in nearly most if not all Protestant Churches throughout the world tells the story that Jesus is no longer on the cross but has risen. Jesus conquering death is the proclamation of our faith. The death and resurrection tells only some of the story. In the book Resurrection: The power of God for Christians and Jews, gives any reader the deeper meaning of what the kingdom of God means to us today, what it meant to Christians in antiquity and what it meant to the Jews primarily during the Second Temple period. Many of the things I was taught or learned throughout my Christian life have been challenged, as I will sprinkle some of them in this book review. As challenging as it was, this also provided me answers to questions
To rectify these issues of construed morality, Nagel explores a few options. Nagel states that 'If one of them takes on a public role, he/she accepts certain obligations, certain restrictions, and certain limitations on what he/she accepts' This statement incurs that public officials have distinct authority over the public which maybe construed by personal interests. A plausible theory is to prevent impersonal forces created by institutions. The next option recognizes the discontinuity between individual mortality and public mortality, which will provide either an addition or restriction within varying institutions. Nagel indicated that in his own opinion is that morality should be based on acceptability to each individual responsible for the actions and not hold the whole institution or all parties liable.
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 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.
Some believe the one goal in life should be to maximize intrinsic happiness. If the negatives outweigh the positives you 'll be better off. You may have a dog that loves you and a roof over your head, but if the roof is made of cardboard and food is scarce while at the same time believing you are better off in a grave than some would say you have a valid reason to want death. At the same time, the container theory acts as a countermeasure. This theory dictates that living itself is better than anything bad that could be consuming your thoughts. The value you put on life can determine the grand total of positive and negative points, but in turn the negatives may barely equal the positives. By dying, you could miss out on the best part of life, causing a hypothetical regret on suicide. The very sliver of hope that this could happen causes a desire to reconsider death and this is what typically hold people back. The thought that better could arrive. The thought that suffering would continue is what pushers more people the breaking point. You would be better off dead if suffering would only continue, but who can tell if that would be so unless from a medical professional, even than on occasion, instances of "medical miracles" happen and can turn a person who was once in a vegetative state to run a 5k.
Jack London utilizes the main character as a narrator throughout the short story “ A Thousand Deaths.” The setting of this story seems drab and unpleasant at the start, and slowly becomes more and more adverse as the story goes on. The plot of this story starts with the protagonist being lost at sea; he shows signs of wanting to live but ends up giving up and accepting death. Death is a major theme in this short story and every major character ends up dying at least once.
More so, if the person is not allowed to change or transform themselves, then the meaning of their existence becomes isolated and severely limited without the presence of death. Suicide is often viewed as a negative way to interpret the value of life, yet the psychological torture of an endless life (under the presumption of preserving an unchanging self) would make this option necessary. In this manner, death can be good thing because it provides a means of releasing oneself from a stagnant identity, which is the underlying premise of the “tedious” nature of immortality that Williams argues for in his theory on death. Therefore, human beings should be grateful that they do not have to live in a body that will never change or be altered, which will allow them appreciate life. I believe that death is a good thing because it offers the individual a way to change his or her form as a means to end impermanence. Surely, no one wants to commit suicide, but retaining an immortal body would, eventually, demand an end to existence (through death) that cannot be avoided. These factors define the purpose of death as a natural change in human existence, which should not be removed as a part of the life and death cycle of our
Consciousness, in psychology, is a term commonly used to indicate a state of awareness of ones self and environment. In Freudian psychology, conscious behaviour largely includes cognitive processes of the ego, such as thinking, perception, and planning, as well as some aspects of the superego, such as moral conscience. Some psychologists deny the distinction between conscious and unconscious behaviour; others use the term consciousness to indicate all the activities of an individual that constitute the personality. Consciousness has been defined in a number of ways, according to Thomas Nagel (1974) consciousness is ‘what it is like to be something.’ Without it, it would be like nothing exists. The term means many different things to many different