Socrates VS. Thomas Nagel View on Death

2021-04-23 15:27:56
5 pages
1326 words
University/College: 
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

According to Socrates, death is either nothing and have no impression of anything, or change and a moving of the spirit from here to somewhere else. If it is a total absence of perception, similar to a dreamless rest, then passing would be an excellent favorable position. He feels that if one needed to select that night amid which a man dozed soundly and without dreaming, put close to it alternate evenings and days of his life a private individual, as well as the colossal Lord would discover simple to count. If demise is similar to this, then it is a leeway, for all time everlasting would then appear to be close to a solitary night. On the off chance that, then again, demise is a change from here to somewhere else, and what we are told is genuine and all who have kicked the bucket are there, what more prominent gift could there be, courteous fellows of the jury. Socrates keeps up that death is not something we ought to fear, and he presented a few arguments to support his position. He demands that since nobody can be entirely certain of it is standing by after we die, we cant soundly fear to pass without appearing to be insensible. He is so sure of his conviction that even as he is going to bite the dust, he had no trepidation at all.

From the Apology of Socrates, he openly states that fearing death is thinking oneself to be astute when one is not. Nobody knows whether demise may not be the best of all endowments for a man, yet men dread it as though they realized that it is the best of evils. What's more, clearly it is the most reprehensible lack of awareness to trust that one realizes what one does not know. Thomas Nagel's delineates the way of death itself by exploring two distinct positions. The primary position is that demise denies us from every one of the goods in life, and this would make death fairly evil. The second position he investigates demonstrates that passing is just the end of all existence and awareness. Nagel talks about life not being the aggregation of good or awful encounters. That is, life has a quality more noteworthy than that deliberated by the presence of the natural body. Life is inalienably valuable, yet not mainly based on insignificant existence. To make his point all the more persuading, Nagel utilizes the sample of surviving as in a comma and missing out a great opportunity for life. In a state of unconscious circumstance, death would be great because there are no further experiences of life and it would simply be a means of relaxing.

The idea of death is, obviously, troublesome for anybody to get a handle on. Contending about whether demise is a positive or negative thing is maybe much more difficult. Thomas Nagel and Socrates, who both composed broadly of the point, contrasted with their feelings. Socrates contended that death was a positive thing, either bringing about the movement of one's soul to paradise, or at least "dreamless rest," which won't be awesome, but rather is at any rate not bad. Nagel, however, stressed the value of life, regardless of the fact that the bad experiences in life exceeded the great ones. While Socrates considered death to be an open door for more noteworthy fulfillment afterlife, or possibly a rest that would be superior to the terrible things in life, Nagel saw it as the end of chances to appreciate life.

Socrates called death a gift, asserting that it was either something great or nothing, and he disclosed that contrasted with terrible things individuals experienced in life. He contends that if no life was there afterward, it would be a condition of nothingness and unceasing rest which is as charming as an existence in the wake of death, appreciated in the same sense as much as a dreamless rest is delighted in. Thomas Nagel in his writings censures Socrates' perspective of a convincing life expressing that demise stops the capacity of individuals to carry on with life as long as it takes. It poses the question if one somehow happened to accomplish a fair life, wouldn't they need to accomplish it for whatever length of time that is conceivable. Socrates expresses that on the off chance that it was genuinely a fair life, it would be satisfying regardless of the measure of time.

From my point of view, death is bad since it is permanent and irrevocable and so it should be feared because of the uncertainty of what follows it. I disagree with Socrates idea that we ought to just fear what we certainly know. He said that since we cannot be completely certain that demise isn't the greatest gift, we cannot fear it. In any case, the converse can likewise be true. No one knows for that what follows death isn't the worse experience, and not fearing it would be stupid as well. Having no idea of what comes after death, fearing or not fearing should not be an issue. There are many risks we take in our lives not knowing whether the results are ideal or not, yet still sanely fear it. In this situation, fearing is a way of showing concern and not ignorance. Death's evil cannot be quantified, and there is no increase as one is dead, as great things do amid life. The absence of awareness temporarily like coma is a great misfortune. We cannot consider the time before birth as a misfortune like we do the moment we stop living. Life is great since we have the attention to encounter all that it needs to offer. Death is awful because it denies us of what life brings to the table, not because the real state is terrible.

It can be questioned that anything could be considered evil unless it causes dismay. By what means can life deprivation be evil if there is no one to mind the deprivation? The great or sick fortune of a man relies upon a person history and conceivable outcomes as opposed to simply their fleeting state. Misfortunes can occur to a man despite the fact that they are not around to encounter it. We view ourselves as to have been harmed when somebody acts against our interests and wishes, even when not aware of their actions. The disclosure of wrongs done to us when not present makes us despondent because they are misfortunes and not because they were not pleasing when we found them. Also, a man who has turned into a vegetable is considered to have endured a grave disaster, despite the fact that they might be entirely happy wherever they might be. We perceive this just when we consider the individual he could be currently.

Another objection that can rise is how the time after death be considered bad yet before birth is not bad. There is a difference in the attitudes we have towards these two periods. Dying is not similar to not being born as it deprives us of the good fortunes we could have gained if we had not died. You miss nothing in life when you are not born since initially you were not supposed to have a life. Lastly, no subject is left in case of death. How is it a harm if no subject is present? Who will be suffering the misfortunes? Despite the fact that an individual as a subject did not survive, he or she remains to be the misfortunes subject. If they had not faced death, they would have continued to enjoy what good thing life had for them.

References

Academia.edu,. (2016). Socrates' View of Death. Retrieved 31 January 2016, from https://www.academia.edu/513975/Socrates_View_of_Death

Anselm.edu,. (2016). Outline of "Death". Retrieved 31 January 2016, from http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/deathol.htm

Nagel, T. (1987). What does it all mean?. New York: Oxford University Press.

Have the same topic and dont`t know what to write?
We can write a custom paper on any topic you need.

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: