What do you think?
Rate this book
The Open Yale Courses Series
令人著迷的生與死：耶魯大學最受歡迎的哲學課
長春藤名校有三大最受歡迎的公開課程：哈佛桑德爾的《正義》、班夏哈的《更快樂》，以及耶魯雪萊‧卡根的《令人著迷的生與死》。猶如老頑童的卡根教授，留著落腮鬍，穿著牛仔褲與帆布鞋，盤腿坐在講台上，幽默熱情且手舞足蹈的與學生探討死亡的本質，讓哲學課一點也不枯燥，大師風采令人著迷。
卡根教授挑戰一般人對於死亡的普遍觀點，例如真的有靈魂嗎？死後還能繼續存在？永生是好事？自殺是不道德的？我們應該對死亡感到恐懼嗎？
他在書中援引古今哲學，並以日常生活事件為例，透過反覆辯證，以清晰的脈絡探討死亡的意義，進而帶領我們探索生命的價值，該以何種態度面對人生這趟旅程：思考死亡，才能了解生命的美好；當我們正視生與死的本質，才能擁有好好活著的勇氣，並且懷抱感激。
卡根教授挑戰一般人對於死亡的普遍觀點，例如真的有靈魂嗎？死後還能繼續存在？永生是好事？自殺是不道德的？我們應該對死亡感到恐懼嗎？
他在書中援引古今哲學，並以日常生活事件為例，透過反覆辯證，以清晰的脈絡探討死亡的意義，進而帶領我們探索生命的價值，該以何種態度面對人生這趟旅程：思考死亡，才能了解生命的美好；當我們正視生與死的本質，才能擁有好好活著的勇氣，並且懷抱感激。
432 pages, Hardcover
First published November 13, 1997
273 people are currently reading
1491 people want to read
About the author
Shelly Kagan
85 books114 followersShelly Kagan is Clark Professor of Philosophy at Yale. After receiving his B.A. from Wesleyan University in 1976, and his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1982, he taught at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois at Chicago before coming to Yale in 1995. He is the author of the textbook Normative Ethics, which systematically reviews alternative positions concerning the basic rules of morality and their possible foundations, and The Limits of Morality, which challenges two of the most widely shared beliefs about the requirements of morality. He is currently at work on The Geometry of Desert.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
April 21, 2019
Shelly Kagan is a great philosophy professor. He investigates some philosophical issues concerning death, raises some questions and attempts to answer them. Some of his views are controversial. He denies the existence of souls. He says suicide can rationally and morally be justifiable in some particular situations. He argues that life isn't always worth living. He raises this question that given the inevitability of death, how one should live. How thinking about death can affect the way we live?
May 16, 2016
Philosophy is not my discipline of choice. Reading this book reminded me of one afternoon I spent studying with a friend: she was a law student, and I was in third year of chemical engineering. I was learning how to calculate the length of time it would take to freeze a sausage, using the laws of heat transfer and thermodynamics. By considering the sausage as an infinite cylinder, axial conduction becomes negligible. The class was Food Engineering, that was six years ago, and clearly it stuck. She had some exam on the laws and ethics surrounding abortion. 'It's so depressing,' she said. 'There's all these opinions, and no one's right or wrong.' The majority of this text is comprised of theories just like that: well argued from either side, not really provable either way, which makes you wonder what the point is in discussing them. Rather, makes me wonder, because philosophy isn't my thing.
I had this boyfriend whose every word over the course of our four-month relationship I sometimes think I have ridiculed to exhaustion until something triggers another stupid thing he said, such as this book which brought back, 'We're all filled with energy, right? And like, when you die, where does that energy go? So how can anyone say there aren't ghosts? This is like my favourite thing to do is just like have banter with my mates and we're like drunk or stoned.' Reaching the conclusions offered in this book requires large passages that, to me, sounded just like that dude.
Don't take my word for anything though: upon knowing and facing my inevitable death, I spent a non-negligible amount of time performing sausage calculations and dating stoners (very funny: they were separate activities.) But hey: say I die tomorrow, who could say if I made the right choices or not? *screams into void* NO ONE!!!!
I had this boyfriend whose every word over the course of our four-month relationship I sometimes think I have ridiculed to exhaustion until something triggers another stupid thing he said, such as this book which brought back, 'We're all filled with energy, right? And like, when you die, where does that energy go? So how can anyone say there aren't ghosts? This is like my favourite thing to do is just like have banter with my mates and we're like drunk or stoned.' Reaching the conclusions offered in this book requires large passages that, to me, sounded just like that dude.
Don't take my word for anything though: upon knowing and facing my inevitable death, I spent a non-negligible amount of time performing sausage calculations and dating stoners (very funny: they were separate activities.) But hey: say I die tomorrow, who could say if I made the right choices or not? *screams into void* NO ONE!!!!
November 10, 2016
I'm obsessed with the subject so I don't really have a choice but to give it five stars even though I sincerely expected more from Shelly Kagan on the subject; and the subject itself requires more effort. It would be indeed childish to ask for a more direct approach even though as Cioran says "Only superficial minds approach an idea with delicacy", but at least it would have been more useful to read this without having to go through a lot of things I already knew so that didn't help me at all. It was an introduction to this subject but still it was too defensively, too fearful. I had to read nine pages of things I knew already to find something worth reading in the tenth page. He really should have cut a lot of useless/simple minded/too obvious statements and get to his points faster (I know the point of philosophy is to keep asking but on this subject you really have to think like a man who's mind watches itself), you can't resolve the issue of death using a "system" like you do in any other field of philosophy. Here I think you need a more aggressive approach, as aggressive as you can otherwise you keep saying the same things and the point itself becomes worthless. It's like writing a book, you know how it ends from the first pages of the author if the author doesn't think outside himself. Reason in its pure essence is still not enough to win death. If you are to find something about death you have to think really deep, that fearful approach when you scratch only the surface with rigorousity, doesn't help with the subject of death (who, like the universe, is filled with this overwhelming, pitiless indifference).
For those of you who are interested in a brutal approach of this fascinating(and at the same time hideous) subject of death, I strongly recommend Emil Cioran (all his works but you can start with the one he wrote at the age of 22, doctor in death, as he called himself on his birthday) the book is called: On the heights of despair. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre are also fundamental on the subject. Another one who battles with suicide/death is Albert Camus - The myth of Sisyphus (actually he kind of talks about death in any books of his). Tolstoy - Death of Ivan Ilych, Kafka's The trial & The Castle , any of Dostoyevsky's novels and Gogol's dead souls might also be useful. I hope this helps.
PS: If you have any interesting books on the subject on death please let me know, write them down when you have the time. Just send me a PM and I will be more than happy to exchange with you ideas/books/movies on this fundamental subject. Thank you, and, of course: easy death to everyone...
For those of you who are interested in a brutal approach of this fascinating(and at the same time hideous) subject of death, I strongly recommend Emil Cioran (all his works but you can start with the one he wrote at the age of 22, doctor in death, as he called himself on his birthday) the book is called: On the heights of despair. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre are also fundamental on the subject. Another one who battles with suicide/death is Albert Camus - The myth of Sisyphus (actually he kind of talks about death in any books of his). Tolstoy - Death of Ivan Ilych, Kafka's The trial & The Castle , any of Dostoyevsky's novels and Gogol's dead souls might also be useful. I hope this helps.
PS: If you have any interesting books on the subject on death please let me know, write them down when you have the time. Just send me a PM and I will be more than happy to exchange with you ideas/books/movies on this fundamental subject. Thank you, and, of course: easy death to everyone...
March 8, 2014
In Death, Yale professor of philosopher Shelly Kagan addresses some of the key questions surrounding death:
1. What is death?
2. What is it, exactly, that dies? That is: what is the nature of personhood? What is a person?
3. Could we survive death? If so, how might we survive death? Do we have souls?
4. Is death bad for us? If death is bad, what is it that makes death bad?
5. Should we fear death?
6. Is it ever rational and moral to commit suicide?
Kagan lays out the arguments with care, and he is frank about his own positions and offers what believes are the best answers:
1. Death is the end of our existence. Death is not a state of being in which we exist. It is simply nothing.
2. Kagan has much sympathy for the traditional Lockean view of a person being a personality (memories, personality traits, behavioral tendencies), but he eventually comes down on the side of the body view: a person is a body. So, death for a person is simply death for a body.
3. No, we cannot survive death. We do not have souls. Kagan rejects dualism and lays out the arguments against it and in favor of physicalism, but he is also careful to point out the problems with the physicalist view.
4. Kagan accepts the deprivation view of death: death is bad in the sense that it deprives us of obtaining future goods. So, in many cases (if we die too early), death is bad. However, death is not always bad. When death brings an end to suffering and disease in old age, death is good. Further, Kagan follows Bernard Williams in arguing that immortality would be evil, asserting that an eternal existence would eventually grow tedious and tiresome, so death is good in that it saves us from the evil of immortality.
5. Death should not be feared. There is nothing painful in death, for it is nothing. Now, we may fear dying too early, but we should not fear death itself.
6. Yes, suicide can be both rational and moral.
Kagan is an engaging writer who addresses these perennial questions in a conversational manner with thought-provoking analogies and examples. Death is directed at a lay audience and not academic philosophers, so it easily accessible.
For anyone interested in seriously and philosophically examining death, Death provides an intelligent, thoughtful analysis of the inevitable fate of us all.
1. What is death?
2. What is it, exactly, that dies? That is: what is the nature of personhood? What is a person?
3. Could we survive death? If so, how might we survive death? Do we have souls?
4. Is death bad for us? If death is bad, what is it that makes death bad?
5. Should we fear death?
6. Is it ever rational and moral to commit suicide?
Kagan lays out the arguments with care, and he is frank about his own positions and offers what believes are the best answers:
1. Death is the end of our existence. Death is not a state of being in which we exist. It is simply nothing.
2. Kagan has much sympathy for the traditional Lockean view of a person being a personality (memories, personality traits, behavioral tendencies), but he eventually comes down on the side of the body view: a person is a body. So, death for a person is simply death for a body.
3. No, we cannot survive death. We do not have souls. Kagan rejects dualism and lays out the arguments against it and in favor of physicalism, but he is also careful to point out the problems with the physicalist view.
4. Kagan accepts the deprivation view of death: death is bad in the sense that it deprives us of obtaining future goods. So, in many cases (if we die too early), death is bad. However, death is not always bad. When death brings an end to suffering and disease in old age, death is good. Further, Kagan follows Bernard Williams in arguing that immortality would be evil, asserting that an eternal existence would eventually grow tedious and tiresome, so death is good in that it saves us from the evil of immortality.
5. Death should not be feared. There is nothing painful in death, for it is nothing. Now, we may fear dying too early, but we should not fear death itself.
6. Yes, suicide can be both rational and moral.
Kagan is an engaging writer who addresses these perennial questions in a conversational manner with thought-provoking analogies and examples. Death is directed at a lay audience and not academic philosophers, so it easily accessible.
For anyone interested in seriously and philosophically examining death, Death provides an intelligent, thoughtful analysis of the inevitable fate of us all.
November 20, 2018
فلسفة الموت للفيلسوف الأمريكي شيلي كاغان
من أجمل الخبرات التي أكتسبتها هذا العام الكورس المفتوح الذي يعرضه الفيلسوف شيلي كاغان من جامعة (يال) العريقة حول موضوع الموت.! ولا يتناول الكورس كيفية الموت بالتحديد، ولا كيف يفترض بالمرء أن يموت، ولا يتحدث عن معايير الموت ولا علاماته، ولا تشريح الجسد وفسلجته وما يطرأ عليه بعد الموت. بل الفيلسوف -ومنذ السطور الأولى- يتبرأ من النزعة الدينية ويخلع لباس القداسة بما يتعلق بموضوعة الموت، وما يتبع ذلك من الروح والبعث والآخرة وسلطة الكتب المنزّلة وغيرها من الشئون الماورائية. إن كنت تؤمن بهذه الأمور؟ لا بأس، ولا نتعارض الآن، ضع مقدساتك وحججك الدينية جانباً، ودعنا نبحر بموضوع الموت فلسفياً دون تشنّج، والجميل في الأمر إن لغة الكتاب (الكورس) قريبة وسهلة حدّ الجنون، ولن تشعر فيها أن الموت شيء مريب. ولا باللغز العجيب.
تعرفت على الكاتب بينما كنت أتفرج على محاضراته في اليوتيوب، كان يتحدث حول موضوع الانتحار، وفيها يسأل هل هناك وقت ما في حياتك يكون من الأفضل لك فيه أن تموت؟ وهل من العقلاني أن تمضي بهذه القناعة؟ وهل من العقلاني أن تمضي بقرار الانتحار؟ وكيف تثق بحكمك أن كان تفكيرك وقتذاك مشوّشاً وضبابياً؟ هل الانتحار –في ظروف معينة- خيار أخلاقي؟ ومن ثم لم الانتحار محرم دينياً؟ هل الموضوع له علاقة بتحدي إرادة الله؟ ما إرادة الله بدئاً؟ ولو كان الانتحار تحدي لإرادة الله فلماذا إنقاذ شخصاً من الموت ليس معارضة لتلك الإرادة؟ وغيرها وغيرها من التساؤلات التي استمتعت وأنا أحاول إيجاد جواباً لها... لذا أرجو منكم أن تشاركونني متعتي.
لمشاهدة الكورس على الرابط التالي (للأسف ليس مترجم، أتمنى من شبابنا الأعزاء ترجمته بدلاً من الانشغال بترجمة الأفلام والفيديوهات التافهة والبليدة):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
من أجمل الخبرات التي أكتسبتها هذا العام الكورس المفتوح الذي يعرضه الفيلسوف شيلي كاغان من جامعة (يال) العريقة حول موضوع الموت.! ولا يتناول الكورس كيفية الموت بالتحديد، ولا كيف يفترض بالمرء أن يموت، ولا يتحدث عن معايير الموت ولا علاماته، ولا تشريح الجسد وفسلجته وما يطرأ عليه بعد الموت. بل الفيلسوف -ومنذ السطور الأولى- يتبرأ من النزعة الدينية ويخلع لباس القداسة بما يتعلق بموضوعة الموت، وما يتبع ذلك من الروح والبعث والآخرة وسلطة الكتب المنزّلة وغيرها من الشئون الماورائية. إن كنت تؤمن بهذه الأمور؟ لا بأس، ولا نتعارض الآن، ضع مقدساتك وحججك الدينية جانباً، ودعنا نبحر بموضوع الموت فلسفياً دون تشنّج، والجميل في الأمر إن لغة الكتاب (الكورس) قريبة وسهلة حدّ الجنون، ولن تشعر فيها أن الموت شيء مريب. ولا باللغز العجيب.
تعرفت على الكاتب بينما كنت أتفرج على محاضراته في اليوتيوب، كان يتحدث حول موضوع الانتحار، وفيها يسأل هل هناك وقت ما في حياتك يكون من الأفضل لك فيه أن تموت؟ وهل من العقلاني أن تمضي بهذه القناعة؟ وهل من العقلاني أن تمضي بقرار الانتحار؟ وكيف تثق بحكمك أن كان تفكيرك وقتذاك مشوّشاً وضبابياً؟ هل الانتحار –في ظروف معينة- خيار أخلاقي؟ ومن ثم لم الانتحار محرم دينياً؟ هل الموضوع له علاقة بتحدي إرادة الله؟ ما إرادة الله بدئاً؟ ولو كان الانتحار تحدي لإرادة الله فلماذا إنقاذ شخصاً من الموت ليس معارضة لتلك الإرادة؟ وغيرها وغيرها من التساؤلات التي استمتعت وأنا أحاول إيجاد جواباً لها... لذا أرجو منكم أن تشاركونني متعتي.
لمشاهدة الكورس على الرابط التالي (للأسف ليس مترجم، أتمنى من شبابنا الأعزاء ترجمته بدلاً من الانشغال بترجمة الأفلام والفيديوهات التافهة والبليدة):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
July 15, 2015
A must-to-read book. It consists of four major parts:
1- Some discussions on the existence of soul, both positive and negative.
2- The identity theory: What does make us what we are? Soul, body or something else?
3- Value theory, with some discussions on death and immortality: Should we really prefer immortality over death?
4- How should we treat death; should we be afraid, angry or grateful? He also discusses the rationality and morality of suicide.
1- Some discussions on the existence of soul, both positive and negative.
2- The identity theory: What does make us what we are? Soul, body or something else?
3- Value theory, with some discussions on death and immortality: Should we really prefer immortality over death?
4- How should we treat death; should we be afraid, angry or grateful? He also discusses the rationality and morality of suicide.
August 12, 2014
A very accessible book introducing the philosophical subject of death.
I really liked one characteristic of this book: the author is upfront about his biases. He points them out. He tells the reader what the alternatives are to his own conclusions. And yes, while he endorses his own conclusions, he at least mentions the philosophical conclusions of his philosophical rivals --- especially towards the beginning, when he thought he had enough space in his book (the end of the book is far more rushed). It is a refreshing change from other philosophy authors who regard those who disagree with them as intellectual idiots, and are therefore wary of giving their philosophical opponents any kind of legitimacy. The author of this book at least gives legitimacy to opposing philosophical conclusions --- though he makes sure to point them out as being wrong, in his opinion.
There were three main problems I had with the author of this book. One is towards the beginning when he is discussing dualism vs. physicalism. His own preference is towards physicalism; mine is towards dualism --- so I was specially sensitive to his presentation.
In his presentation Mr. Kagan makes it seem as if physicalism could be wrong, but on the whole he thinks the evidence is that it is right. Thus, he doesn't claim that the evidence points 100% towards physicalism, but thinks that physicalism is more likely than not. To me, this made it seem that he thought the evidence for physicalism was, let's say, 60%--40%, or 70%--30% in favor of physicalism, but not 100%--0%.
And yet, when he discussed (too briefly) the arguments for dualism, he seemed to want perfect certainty in order to be convinced about dualism. That is, even though he thought the evidence was 60%--40% (or 70%--30%) in favor of physicalism, he wanted the dualist to have conclusive proof that would result in a 0%--100% verdict in favor of dualism in order for him to give any credit to the dualist position as being right. This is seen specially in that (too brief) section where he presents too briefly the arguments for dualism. After acknowledging that some of these arguments are particularly powerful, he responds that, however, there are physicalist responses that have the possibility of answering the dualist argument. Thus, it makes it seem that as long as there is the shadow of a possibility that the physicalist argument might have a chance of maybe containing the seeds of a response, however unlikely it may seem, one ought to take the physicalist position. That is, he wants 100%, logically unassailable proof for the dualist position, even if the arguments he holds for physicalism are not 100% proof. It seems fair to say that, if the belief of the physicalist rests on a tip of the balance in his favor (and not on a 100% logically unassailable type of argument), then the only job of the dualist is to tip the balance towards dualism, perhaps on a 45%--55% basis, or more. But to demand a 0%--100% balance tip for dualists while accepting a 60%--40% (or 70%--30%) balance tip for the physicalist is a most unfair double standard.
I can see why Mr. Kagan is susceptible to this double standard. We are all susceptible to this same error. We hold on to our own beliefs with more tenacity than we objectively should, demanding proof against them with greater probability than the proofs for them. That is, we all have believer's bias for our positions. The job of a student of philosophy is to get a multitude of perspectives, and thus to come to a conclusion which takes into account all evidence. The more perspectives we truly take into account, the more likely it is that we shall approach actual truth.
Another major of point of disagreement I had with Mr. Kagan's methodology (I have several disagreements with his conclusions --- which should not be at all surprising, given that he is a physicalist and I am a dualist) happens in his discussion of immortality. While he holds that in general, life is good, he imagines immortal life as something which will eventually sour, and turn out to be --- on the whole --- as something bad, not something good. Thus, despite having defended the position that death is a bad to be avoided in an earlier chapter, he now looks at immortality, and decides that it is definitely bad. Therefore, he turns around and labels death as good, since it will stop immortality, which he argues is clearly very bad.
At this point Mr. Kagan has fallen into a common fallacy which affects a great many Americans --- I do not know if it affects other peoples, but I have seen it affect most prominently Americans (especially during presidential elections). The argument he makes goes like this: death is bad; but immortality is really bad, perhaps even worse than death; therefore death (at some point, not necessarily when most people go through it) is good. The fallacy that he adopts can best be countered with the following slogan: The lesser of two evils is still an evil. Yes, a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater evil; but for all that, a lesser evil is still an evil. Every presidential election Americans are presented with two very bad choices to elect as President. And every year Americans engage in the analogous argument that Mr. Kagan used: candidate A is bad; but candidate B is worse; therefore candidate A is good --- and then they go out to their friends and neighbors defending candidate A as good (and not as the lesser of two evils). I think Mr. Kagan's presentation could really have been improved in this section by making a differentiation between a lesser evil and a good.
Finally, the third major point of disagreement I had with Mr. Kagan has to do with his appeal to authority (his own authority as an academic philosopher at a prestigious institution, that is). And yes, I think it is important to praise him for his very limited use of such an appeal. Other philosophers do it all the time.
The issue I want to point out can best be expressed with a question: why do we listen to the opinions of any philosopher at all? Shouldn't his/her opinion count as much (or as little) as anyone else's? In theory we listen to them because of the valid arguments they set forth: arguments which are supposed to avoid extraneous fallacies that might convince people, but which really amount to cheating, as far as the actual argument goes. In practice we listen to philosophers more than other people because we are impressed with the culture of wisdom that they have accumulated over the centuries. If a philosopher is honest, he/she will not take advantage of this authority that they have accumulated professionally in their arguments, but rely entirely on the strength of the arguments themselves. Most philosophers, however, cannot resist using their professional authority (in very subtle ways, to be certain) to give more strength to their arguments than the arguments themselves warrant. That is one of the things that makes most philosophic writings seem biased and one-sided: that philosophers sprinkle their arguments with the fallacious appeals to authority.
That being said, despite the fact that Mr. Kagan's book on death is certainly lopsided, he avoids fallacy by being upfront about his bias, and by mentioning (even if briefly) opposing philosophic arguments. Thus, he informs the reader of the possibilities, even if he champions a particular possibility: he allows the reader the opportunity to make up his/her mind even if he champions a particular result. Except in one place, towards the end --- in his discussion of the worth of life, per se. He mentions several possibilities of what he labels as "container theories" of life. Here he discusses the value of life itself, independent of the events which happen in life. He mentions three such "container" theories of life: the neutral, the positive, and the "fantastic".
In the neutral container theory of life, life has no intrinsic value, each individual life being as good or as bad as the total sum of the goodness or badness of the events in that life. In the positive container theory of life, life has some intrinsic positive worth of its own, independent of whatever events happen therein --- and this value can be quite high, depending on the particular theory ---; which positive value, however, can be overwhelmed, in principle, if sufficient badness is found in the particular events of a person's life, thus rendering the overall value of that person's life as negative (not worth having). Finally, in the "fantastic" container theory of life, no event in a person's life --- however negative --- can overcome the positive, intrinsic value of human life.
My problem with Mr. Kagan's presentation here is not in the philosophical arguments he makes (or doesn't make). My problem is that he unfairly and fallaciously biases the argument: that he using an appeal to authority to dismiss an argument. To be sure, he does it quite subtly. After all, subtlety is the fashion these days when it comes when using this type of trick.
He biases the discussion by labeling one of the "container" theories of life as "fantastic". I suppose it is his book, and he can label it whatever he wants to label it; but by labeling thus --- using his authority as a philosopher at a prestigious university --- he can very easily dismiss it. After all, if something is "fantastic", isn't that like saying that something is "irrational" --- irrational being the worst insult a philosopher can fathom? Isn't saying that something is "fantastic" something like saying that it is "extremist", and therefore not "moderate"? Certainly Mr. Kagan takes the view that he doesn't need to argue against those who would hold the "fantastic" theory of life's worth because it is so outside of the stream and non-moderate, and not worth believing. Presumably he thinks that only a non-nonsensical person would defend such a theory. Or at least, that is the impression he gives his readers (certainly, that is the impression he gave me). And if Mr. Kagan thinks that to defend such a theory is nonsense, what am I supposed to think?
Aha! Here is the fallacious appeal to authority! If Mr. Kagan thinks that to defend what he calls the "fantastic" theory of life is non-nonsensical, and if I am like most people, believing uncritically in the prestige of philosophers, I will be unduly influenced to believe as he does: that to defend such a "fantastic" theory of life's worth is non-nonsensical. And all of this accomplished by a simple label, without actually having to argue anything, or state a bias. And all of this happening completely on an unconscious level --- at least for the reader. After all, the professional prestige and authority of philosophers is held by most people at the unconscious level. And many of the implications of adopting a certain language also happen at the unconscious level. The question now is: was Mr. Kagan aware that he was making a fallacious appeal to authority? Or did one of his biases simply got the better of him in this section? In the first case he is insidiously manipulative --- as many philosophers are these days. In the second case he is honestly limited by his own bias, but not insurmountably so; a person's bias can be fought against if an effort is made.
And what is the payoff of this fallacious appeal to authority? Well, suicide becomes possible. Assisted suicide becomes possible. After all, if the theory of the "fantastic" container of life is irrational, then statements like "suicide is always a loss" becomes just as irrational, not to mention statements like "assisted suicide is nothing but disguised and consensual murder". Given that these are the consequences of so easily dismissing the "fantastic" container theory of life, and given that many people want to get there (including, perhaps, Mr. Kagan), it is difficult to not doubt that the fallacious appeal to authority of Mr. Kagan was unintentional. But I could certainly be wrong about that.
Other than those three huge problems I had with the book, I found it a good philosophic introduction to the topic of death. I ended up disagreeing with the majority of the conclusions in the book, but I did not think the author was trying to hide any philosophic opposition to his views, except as described above with my discussion of his "fantastic" label --- which I think invites accusations of obfuscation.
I really liked one characteristic of this book: the author is upfront about his biases. He points them out. He tells the reader what the alternatives are to his own conclusions. And yes, while he endorses his own conclusions, he at least mentions the philosophical conclusions of his philosophical rivals --- especially towards the beginning, when he thought he had enough space in his book (the end of the book is far more rushed). It is a refreshing change from other philosophy authors who regard those who disagree with them as intellectual idiots, and are therefore wary of giving their philosophical opponents any kind of legitimacy. The author of this book at least gives legitimacy to opposing philosophical conclusions --- though he makes sure to point them out as being wrong, in his opinion.
There were three main problems I had with the author of this book. One is towards the beginning when he is discussing dualism vs. physicalism. His own preference is towards physicalism; mine is towards dualism --- so I was specially sensitive to his presentation.
In his presentation Mr. Kagan makes it seem as if physicalism could be wrong, but on the whole he thinks the evidence is that it is right. Thus, he doesn't claim that the evidence points 100% towards physicalism, but thinks that physicalism is more likely than not. To me, this made it seem that he thought the evidence for physicalism was, let's say, 60%--40%, or 70%--30% in favor of physicalism, but not 100%--0%.
And yet, when he discussed (too briefly) the arguments for dualism, he seemed to want perfect certainty in order to be convinced about dualism. That is, even though he thought the evidence was 60%--40% (or 70%--30%) in favor of physicalism, he wanted the dualist to have conclusive proof that would result in a 0%--100% verdict in favor of dualism in order for him to give any credit to the dualist position as being right. This is seen specially in that (too brief) section where he presents too briefly the arguments for dualism. After acknowledging that some of these arguments are particularly powerful, he responds that, however, there are physicalist responses that have the possibility of answering the dualist argument. Thus, it makes it seem that as long as there is the shadow of a possibility that the physicalist argument might have a chance of maybe containing the seeds of a response, however unlikely it may seem, one ought to take the physicalist position. That is, he wants 100%, logically unassailable proof for the dualist position, even if the arguments he holds for physicalism are not 100% proof. It seems fair to say that, if the belief of the physicalist rests on a tip of the balance in his favor (and not on a 100% logically unassailable type of argument), then the only job of the dualist is to tip the balance towards dualism, perhaps on a 45%--55% basis, or more. But to demand a 0%--100% balance tip for dualists while accepting a 60%--40% (or 70%--30%) balance tip for the physicalist is a most unfair double standard.
I can see why Mr. Kagan is susceptible to this double standard. We are all susceptible to this same error. We hold on to our own beliefs with more tenacity than we objectively should, demanding proof against them with greater probability than the proofs for them. That is, we all have believer's bias for our positions. The job of a student of philosophy is to get a multitude of perspectives, and thus to come to a conclusion which takes into account all evidence. The more perspectives we truly take into account, the more likely it is that we shall approach actual truth.
Another major of point of disagreement I had with Mr. Kagan's methodology (I have several disagreements with his conclusions --- which should not be at all surprising, given that he is a physicalist and I am a dualist) happens in his discussion of immortality. While he holds that in general, life is good, he imagines immortal life as something which will eventually sour, and turn out to be --- on the whole --- as something bad, not something good. Thus, despite having defended the position that death is a bad to be avoided in an earlier chapter, he now looks at immortality, and decides that it is definitely bad. Therefore, he turns around and labels death as good, since it will stop immortality, which he argues is clearly very bad.
At this point Mr. Kagan has fallen into a common fallacy which affects a great many Americans --- I do not know if it affects other peoples, but I have seen it affect most prominently Americans (especially during presidential elections). The argument he makes goes like this: death is bad; but immortality is really bad, perhaps even worse than death; therefore death (at some point, not necessarily when most people go through it) is good. The fallacy that he adopts can best be countered with the following slogan: The lesser of two evils is still an evil. Yes, a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater evil; but for all that, a lesser evil is still an evil. Every presidential election Americans are presented with two very bad choices to elect as President. And every year Americans engage in the analogous argument that Mr. Kagan used: candidate A is bad; but candidate B is worse; therefore candidate A is good --- and then they go out to their friends and neighbors defending candidate A as good (and not as the lesser of two evils). I think Mr. Kagan's presentation could really have been improved in this section by making a differentiation between a lesser evil and a good.
Finally, the third major point of disagreement I had with Mr. Kagan has to do with his appeal to authority (his own authority as an academic philosopher at a prestigious institution, that is). And yes, I think it is important to praise him for his very limited use of such an appeal. Other philosophers do it all the time.
The issue I want to point out can best be expressed with a question: why do we listen to the opinions of any philosopher at all? Shouldn't his/her opinion count as much (or as little) as anyone else's? In theory we listen to them because of the valid arguments they set forth: arguments which are supposed to avoid extraneous fallacies that might convince people, but which really amount to cheating, as far as the actual argument goes. In practice we listen to philosophers more than other people because we are impressed with the culture of wisdom that they have accumulated over the centuries. If a philosopher is honest, he/she will not take advantage of this authority that they have accumulated professionally in their arguments, but rely entirely on the strength of the arguments themselves. Most philosophers, however, cannot resist using their professional authority (in very subtle ways, to be certain) to give more strength to their arguments than the arguments themselves warrant. That is one of the things that makes most philosophic writings seem biased and one-sided: that philosophers sprinkle their arguments with the fallacious appeals to authority.
That being said, despite the fact that Mr. Kagan's book on death is certainly lopsided, he avoids fallacy by being upfront about his bias, and by mentioning (even if briefly) opposing philosophic arguments. Thus, he informs the reader of the possibilities, even if he champions a particular possibility: he allows the reader the opportunity to make up his/her mind even if he champions a particular result. Except in one place, towards the end --- in his discussion of the worth of life, per se. He mentions several possibilities of what he labels as "container theories" of life. Here he discusses the value of life itself, independent of the events which happen in life. He mentions three such "container" theories of life: the neutral, the positive, and the "fantastic".
In the neutral container theory of life, life has no intrinsic value, each individual life being as good or as bad as the total sum of the goodness or badness of the events in that life. In the positive container theory of life, life has some intrinsic positive worth of its own, independent of whatever events happen therein --- and this value can be quite high, depending on the particular theory ---; which positive value, however, can be overwhelmed, in principle, if sufficient badness is found in the particular events of a person's life, thus rendering the overall value of that person's life as negative (not worth having). Finally, in the "fantastic" container theory of life, no event in a person's life --- however negative --- can overcome the positive, intrinsic value of human life.
My problem with Mr. Kagan's presentation here is not in the philosophical arguments he makes (or doesn't make). My problem is that he unfairly and fallaciously biases the argument: that he using an appeal to authority to dismiss an argument. To be sure, he does it quite subtly. After all, subtlety is the fashion these days when it comes when using this type of trick.
He biases the discussion by labeling one of the "container" theories of life as "fantastic". I suppose it is his book, and he can label it whatever he wants to label it; but by labeling thus --- using his authority as a philosopher at a prestigious university --- he can very easily dismiss it. After all, if something is "fantastic", isn't that like saying that something is "irrational" --- irrational being the worst insult a philosopher can fathom? Isn't saying that something is "fantastic" something like saying that it is "extremist", and therefore not "moderate"? Certainly Mr. Kagan takes the view that he doesn't need to argue against those who would hold the "fantastic" theory of life's worth because it is so outside of the stream and non-moderate, and not worth believing. Presumably he thinks that only a non-nonsensical person would defend such a theory. Or at least, that is the impression he gives his readers (certainly, that is the impression he gave me). And if Mr. Kagan thinks that to defend such a theory is nonsense, what am I supposed to think?
Aha! Here is the fallacious appeal to authority! If Mr. Kagan thinks that to defend what he calls the "fantastic" theory of life is non-nonsensical, and if I am like most people, believing uncritically in the prestige of philosophers, I will be unduly influenced to believe as he does: that to defend such a "fantastic" theory of life's worth is non-nonsensical. And all of this accomplished by a simple label, without actually having to argue anything, or state a bias. And all of this happening completely on an unconscious level --- at least for the reader. After all, the professional prestige and authority of philosophers is held by most people at the unconscious level. And many of the implications of adopting a certain language also happen at the unconscious level. The question now is: was Mr. Kagan aware that he was making a fallacious appeal to authority? Or did one of his biases simply got the better of him in this section? In the first case he is insidiously manipulative --- as many philosophers are these days. In the second case he is honestly limited by his own bias, but not insurmountably so; a person's bias can be fought against if an effort is made.
And what is the payoff of this fallacious appeal to authority? Well, suicide becomes possible. Assisted suicide becomes possible. After all, if the theory of the "fantastic" container of life is irrational, then statements like "suicide is always a loss" becomes just as irrational, not to mention statements like "assisted suicide is nothing but disguised and consensual murder". Given that these are the consequences of so easily dismissing the "fantastic" container theory of life, and given that many people want to get there (including, perhaps, Mr. Kagan), it is difficult to not doubt that the fallacious appeal to authority of Mr. Kagan was unintentional. But I could certainly be wrong about that.
Other than those three huge problems I had with the book, I found it a good philosophic introduction to the topic of death. I ended up disagreeing with the majority of the conclusions in the book, but I did not think the author was trying to hide any philosophic opposition to his views, except as described above with my discussion of his "fantastic" label --- which I think invites accusations of obfuscation.
December 23, 2012
Death is a taboo topic for many but inevitable to deal with when the time to leave this world comes. This is a very profound book that question all your beliefs about the nature of life and death. I suggest that instead of reading books from self-appointed spiritual guides, people should read this book and learn to question each one of their beliefs, and whether these beliefs are rational.
July 7, 2017
This was my first serious philosophy book and I was quite pleased. Shelly forced me to think in ways I hadn't before, and was rigorous without being overly pedantic. With Death, he strikes a good balance. This also made me question my belief that immortality is always good. Any book that can make me question deep beliefs is a good book.
May 6, 2020
Quite a journey!
This course is about life as much as it's about death. Life, something we often take for granted, if not by words, by actions. It was subarashii to explore this interesting indispensable topic from the philosophical point of view.
And i encourage everyone to read Shelly's works and take the course of his, available on Yale university website and YouTube channel.
This course is about life as much as it's about death. Life, something we often take for granted, if not by words, by actions. It was subarashii to explore this interesting indispensable topic from the philosophical point of view.
And i encourage everyone to read Shelly's works and take the course of his, available on Yale university website and YouTube channel.
February 15, 2016
Honestly, I found this book quite tiresome. Perhaps because it is adapted from lecture format, the exposition is very repetitive and simple ideas are outlined in unnecessary detail. While the subject matter is interesting, the needless amounts of explanation make getting to the point of each section extremely tedious. Additionally, and again perhaps because it is adapted from an undergraduate course, I found much of the material somewhat uninspiring; Kagan makes few of the insightful conceptual distinctions or unusual arguments one would expect from a philosopher of his stature. Additionally, he often makes use of thought experiments which are dis-analogous in important respects from the subject he is discussing. Most frustratingly, he merely dismisses what ought to be one of the main subjects of the book: the problem of consciousness, insisting in what seems to me a rather naive way that it will simply be solved by scientific investigation. Needless to say, I find this line of argument less than convincing.
February 18, 2017
This is about death, split broadly into (1) metaphysics: physicalism/dualism, existence of the soul, personal identity; and (2) value theory: why death is bad, the value of life, is suicide immoral, and so on.
I listened to the lectures first, which are very interesting, tightly argued and delivered in an engaging way. The book follows that format very closely. The second half, particularly towards the end, is not as good as the first. Not as good as the lectures, and possibly a bit repetitive in places, but still a very good book.
I listened to the lectures first, which are very interesting, tightly argued and delivered in an engaging way. The book follows that format very closely. The second half, particularly towards the end, is not as good as the first. Not as good as the lectures, and possibly a bit repetitive in places, but still a very good book.
October 9, 2016
I haven't read the book but I watched and re watched the course.
I found Shelly Kagan's approach in teaching philosophy fascinating. It’s not just repeating the other philosopher’s ideas. He presents a statement or belief and scrutinizes it by raising objections. Sometimes I was not inclined to accept his opinion about the issue and preferred the consequences of the other alternatives. I also really enjoyed naming and categorizing Plato’s arguments in Phaedo.
I found Shelly Kagan's approach in teaching philosophy fascinating. It’s not just repeating the other philosopher’s ideas. He presents a statement or belief and scrutinizes it by raising objections. Sometimes I was not inclined to accept his opinion about the issue and preferred the consequences of the other alternatives. I also really enjoyed naming and categorizing Plato’s arguments in Phaedo.
April 4, 2019
When I was younger, I often read books about love, especially romantic love. Though I have long read books on mortality. Now in my old age, I read many work on mortality. This is an excellent one. It explores standard topics on this most universal and personal of topics.
March 9, 2017
Meh.... There are better books about the philosophy of death out there. Kagan's book is a decent general introduction to the topic but it won't blow you away.
April 18, 2021
O livro de Kagan é uma boa introdução ao tópico da morte, mesmo que tenha me deixado insatisfeito no final da leitura.
Os primeiros sete capítulos tratam puramente de filosofia da mente e da metafísica de pessoas, com Kagan avaliando as duas principais alternativas à primeira questão, "o que são pessoas, ontologicamente falando?", e as três principais alternativas à segunda questão, "no que consiste uma pessoa existir ao longo do tempo?". Ele percorre o caminho analisando os principais argumentos postos a favor do dualismo e da imortalidade da alma e os principais experimentos mentais dentro da literatura de identidade pessoal para, no fim, chegar uma posição fisicalista sobre pessoas, com um critério fisicalista de identidade pessoal (oscilando entre o critério de personalidade e o critério de corpo).
Sinceramente, a leitura inteira destes capítulos não valeu muito a pena. Quem já está familiarizado com a literatura básica da filosofia da mente e sabe quais são os debates e posições relevantes não perderá quase nada pulando a maioria destes capítulos (salvo o capítulo 2, no qual Kagan tenta delimitar as posições principais que ele considerará no debate metafísico). E, mesmo levando em conta leitores leigos quanto à filosofia da mente, eu ainda sinto que há um problema com a escrita um tanto repetitiva de Shelly e seus longos parágrafos para ilustrar pontos que já estavam bem claros anteriormente. Eu entendo que é um livro com propósitos introdutórios, mas eu sinto que Kagan vai longe demais em alguns momentos (as várias páginas gastas só para introduzir o tópico de identidade pessoal com exemplos de trens e carros são um exemplo). Eu também posso comentar que alguns dos argumentos de Kagan nesses capítulos não me convencem nem um pouco, mas isso é parte da experiência.
Os capítulos 8 e 9 prosseguem nas discussões metafísicas, dessa vez adentrando no tópico de morte. Aqui, Kagan já assume uma posição fisicalista de início e busca responder questões como o momento exato que uma morte ocorre (o que fundamentalmente depende do nosso critério de identidade pessoal), o que devemos entender por morte (o que depende da resposta dada à questão anterior), e a relação entre morte e não-existências de acordo com os critérios de personalidade e de corpo. Depois, ele busca analisar (e depois rejeitar) duas afirmações surpreendentes sobre a morte: (I) a de que ninguém acredita em sua própria morte; (II) a de que tomos morremos sozinhos. O capítulo 8 foi uma ótima discussão, e certamente me deixou mais interessado no assunto e os debates centrais da morte, mas eu não posso dizer o mesmo do capítulo 9. A única coisa interessante deste capítulo é o contraexemplo dado por Kagan ao argumento do ponto de vista para a descrença na própria morte, pois me parece que os erros cometidos nesse argumento estranhamente se assemelham aos erros nos argumentos dados a favor de posições como o idealismo (o master argument de Berkeley, p. ex.)
O restante dos capítulos deixa de lado as discussões metafísicas, e entra nas questões valorativas e éticas sobre a morte, começando pela possibilidade da morte ser um mal para nós (com Kagan extensivamente argumentando contra os paradoxos e quebra-cabeças levantados por Epicuro e Lucrécio, e defendendo uma concepção da morte como um mal comparativo). Esse foi o capítulo mais interessante e animador do livro, e eu fiquei bastante satisfeito com a discussão e tópicos levantados nele. Certamente é um material do qual me utilizarei para dar aulas e me guiar em algumas discussões.
Infelizmente, eu não posso dizer o mesmo do restante dos capítulos. O capítulo de imortalidade foi um sonífero para mim, e a partir do capítulo sobre o valor da vida (no qual Kagan defende uma visão de "balança de bens e males" para determinar o valor de cada vida, o que me parece bastante suspeito) eu já queria logo terminar o livro. A breve discussão no capítulo 13 acerca da relevância do arco narrativo na determinação do valor do composto vida-morte foi no entanto bastante interessante, mais por me fazer pensar sobre a real importância de pensarmos nossa vida como narrativas (e eu sei que há filósofos que não concordam com esta visão particular). Também não deixo de mencionar o capítulo sobre suicídio, que, mesmo sendo um tanto insatisfatório, consegue apresentar de maneira sucinta as duas questões principais sobre o fenômeno (a possibilidade de suicídio ser uma escolha racional diante de uma situação de vida, e a moralidade do ato de cometer suicídio).
No fim, foi uma boa leitura. Meu problema mesmo é a duração e o modo de apresentação de alguns dos problemas por parte de Kagan. Há também o fator de meu desinteresse significativo por questões como imortalidade, o modo como devemos viver nossa vida diante do fato da morte, e a concepção de valor da vida como um resultado de balança de bens e males. Então eu sou levado a crer que outras pessoas podem tirar mais proveito destas discussões do que eu. Mas posso dizer que estarei procurando saber mais sobre o tópico da morte no futuro.
Os primeiros sete capítulos tratam puramente de filosofia da mente e da metafísica de pessoas, com Kagan avaliando as duas principais alternativas à primeira questão, "o que são pessoas, ontologicamente falando?", e as três principais alternativas à segunda questão, "no que consiste uma pessoa existir ao longo do tempo?". Ele percorre o caminho analisando os principais argumentos postos a favor do dualismo e da imortalidade da alma e os principais experimentos mentais dentro da literatura de identidade pessoal para, no fim, chegar uma posição fisicalista sobre pessoas, com um critério fisicalista de identidade pessoal (oscilando entre o critério de personalidade e o critério de corpo).
Sinceramente, a leitura inteira destes capítulos não valeu muito a pena. Quem já está familiarizado com a literatura básica da filosofia da mente e sabe quais são os debates e posições relevantes não perderá quase nada pulando a maioria destes capítulos (salvo o capítulo 2, no qual Kagan tenta delimitar as posições principais que ele considerará no debate metafísico). E, mesmo levando em conta leitores leigos quanto à filosofia da mente, eu ainda sinto que há um problema com a escrita um tanto repetitiva de Shelly e seus longos parágrafos para ilustrar pontos que já estavam bem claros anteriormente. Eu entendo que é um livro com propósitos introdutórios, mas eu sinto que Kagan vai longe demais em alguns momentos (as várias páginas gastas só para introduzir o tópico de identidade pessoal com exemplos de trens e carros são um exemplo). Eu também posso comentar que alguns dos argumentos de Kagan nesses capítulos não me convencem nem um pouco, mas isso é parte da experiência.
Os capítulos 8 e 9 prosseguem nas discussões metafísicas, dessa vez adentrando no tópico de morte. Aqui, Kagan já assume uma posição fisicalista de início e busca responder questões como o momento exato que uma morte ocorre (o que fundamentalmente depende do nosso critério de identidade pessoal), o que devemos entender por morte (o que depende da resposta dada à questão anterior), e a relação entre morte e não-existências de acordo com os critérios de personalidade e de corpo. Depois, ele busca analisar (e depois rejeitar) duas afirmações surpreendentes sobre a morte: (I) a de que ninguém acredita em sua própria morte; (II) a de que tomos morremos sozinhos. O capítulo 8 foi uma ótima discussão, e certamente me deixou mais interessado no assunto e os debates centrais da morte, mas eu não posso dizer o mesmo do capítulo 9. A única coisa interessante deste capítulo é o contraexemplo dado por Kagan ao argumento do ponto de vista para a descrença na própria morte, pois me parece que os erros cometidos nesse argumento estranhamente se assemelham aos erros nos argumentos dados a favor de posições como o idealismo (o master argument de Berkeley, p. ex.)
O restante dos capítulos deixa de lado as discussões metafísicas, e entra nas questões valorativas e éticas sobre a morte, começando pela possibilidade da morte ser um mal para nós (com Kagan extensivamente argumentando contra os paradoxos e quebra-cabeças levantados por Epicuro e Lucrécio, e defendendo uma concepção da morte como um mal comparativo). Esse foi o capítulo mais interessante e animador do livro, e eu fiquei bastante satisfeito com a discussão e tópicos levantados nele. Certamente é um material do qual me utilizarei para dar aulas e me guiar em algumas discussões.
Infelizmente, eu não posso dizer o mesmo do restante dos capítulos. O capítulo de imortalidade foi um sonífero para mim, e a partir do capítulo sobre o valor da vida (no qual Kagan defende uma visão de "balança de bens e males" para determinar o valor de cada vida, o que me parece bastante suspeito) eu já queria logo terminar o livro. A breve discussão no capítulo 13 acerca da relevância do arco narrativo na determinação do valor do composto vida-morte foi no entanto bastante interessante, mais por me fazer pensar sobre a real importância de pensarmos nossa vida como narrativas (e eu sei que há filósofos que não concordam com esta visão particular). Também não deixo de mencionar o capítulo sobre suicídio, que, mesmo sendo um tanto insatisfatório, consegue apresentar de maneira sucinta as duas questões principais sobre o fenômeno (a possibilidade de suicídio ser uma escolha racional diante de uma situação de vida, e a moralidade do ato de cometer suicídio).
No fim, foi uma boa leitura. Meu problema mesmo é a duração e o modo de apresentação de alguns dos problemas por parte de Kagan. Há também o fator de meu desinteresse significativo por questões como imortalidade, o modo como devemos viver nossa vida diante do fato da morte, e a concepção de valor da vida como um resultado de balança de bens e males. Então eu sou levado a crer que outras pessoas podem tirar mais proveito destas discussões do que eu. Mas posso dizer que estarei procurando saber mais sobre o tópico da morte no futuro.
July 12, 2013
Death (The Open Yale Course Series) by Shelly Kagan
"Death" is the very interesting book based on a course on death that Professor Kagan has taught at Yale University. This accessible book covers philosophical questions about the nature of death. The first half of the book covers questions about the existence of souls and the nature of death while the second half deals with value questions. This is a very engaging and thought-provocative book that has well a lecture feel. This instructive 392-page book includes the following sixteen chapters: 1. Thinking about Death, 2. Dualism versus Physicalism, 3. Arguments for the Existence of the Soul, 4. Descartes' Argument, 5. Plato on the Immortality of the Soul, 6. Personal Identity, 7. Choosing between the Theories, 8. The Nature of Death, 9. Two Surprising Claims about Death, 10. The Badness of Death, 11. Immortality, 12. The Value of Life, 13. Other Aspects of Death, 14. Living in the Face of Death, 15. Suicide, and 16. Conclusion: An Invitation.
Positives:
1. Well written, engaging prose. Professor Kagan maintains a respectful, conversational, dare I say professorial tone throughout.
2. Fascinating yet difficult topic handled with care and expertise. This is as you would expect, a thought-provoking book.
3. Accessible philosophical book. Professor Kagan goes out of his way to make this book reachable to the masses. He explains every new term clearly and provides a number of examples that enhances the educational experience.
4. Great approach! The professor tells the reader which views he accepts and then he proceeds to defend his positions. I prefer that approach. "I'm going to try to convince you that there is no soul. I'm going to try to convince you that immortality would not be a good thing. That fear of death isn't actually an appropriate response to death. That death isn't especially mysterious. That suicide, under certain circumstances, might be both rationally and morally justified." That quote captures the essence of this fine book.
5. Professor Kagan in my view, never bites more than he can chew. That is, he never espouses more than we can possibly know. His conclusions are reasonable and sound and our seemingly based on the best of our current knowledge. "As far as I can see, nobody has a good explanation of how consciousness works. It's a mystery for both sides."
6. Clearly defines the differences between the dualist and physicalism views and the different manifestations.
7. One of the most fascinating topics in all of philosophy and discussed with glee, the soul. Do we have a soul? Professor Kagan discusses this topic from many interesting angles. Spoiler alert, I must share this but skip if to next if you must. "Do I, as a physicalist who does not believe in the existence of souls--immaterial entities above and beyond the body--do I need to disprove the existence of souls? ("Well, there's no soul here, no soul there.") No. What I need to do is to look at the arguments that get offered for the existence of a soul and rebut them--explain why those arguments are not compelling. I don't need to prove that souls are impossible. I just need to undermine the case for souls. If there's no good reason to believe in souls, that actually constitutes a reason to believe that there are no souls." Excellent!
8. The fascinating and controversial topic of free will. Compatibilism.
9. Understanding the basic interpretation of quantum mechanics. "According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the fundamental laws of physics are probabilistic. Determinism is not true at the level of fundamental physics."
10. Thought-provoking quotes that resonate. "But not yet seeing how to explain something in physicalist terms is not the same thing as seeing that it can't be explained in physicalist terms." Agreed!
11. The issue of personal identity. What's the key to personal identity? The different views. Excellent topic.
12. The nature of death...what it entails philosophically speaking. "The crucial question is, what do you want out of survival? And one of the things I want out of survival is to be alive." The different views. Great stuff!
13. Surprising claims about death. A thorough discussion on the different claims.
14. The second half of the book covers the ethical and evaluative questions regarding death. Interesting stuff!
15. A fundamental concept, the deprivation account of why death is bad. "According to the deprivation account, the badness of death consists in the fact that when you're dead, you are deprived of the goods of life. So when is death bad for you? Presumably, during the time when you are being deprived of the goods of life."
16. An interesting look at immortality...is immortality truly a wonderful thing? Great conversation. "Is there a kind of life that you would want to have forever?"
17. The value of life. "You've got to ask yourself, "What things are worth having for their own sake? What's worth having in and of itself?" Hedonism in perspective.
18. Deep philosophical thoughts regarding death..."Perhaps, then, the very fact that life is precious, that it won't endure, actually increases its value."
19. The fear of death...a great discussion. "What are the appropriateness conditions for fear?"
20. Suicide under the scope. "Under what circumstances, if any, does suicide make sense?"
21. Further reading material suggested.
Negatives:
1. The book is verbose. Professor Kagan takes his oath to educate seriously and in doing so tends to be repetitive and provides a number of detailed examples that may tire those readers/students who already understood the terms he introduces.
2. Makes very limited use of other sciences. I was hoping for a bit of neuroscience and so forth but the professor succeeded in keeping it within his area of comfort.
In summary, I really enjoyed this book. Professor Kagan has taken a fascinating, complex philosophical topic such as death and has made it accessible for the masses in a respectful, engaging manner. My only real complaint is that the book is verbose and is repetitive with a purpose. I debated whether to give the book four or five stars but decided on five because after going back and reviewing my highlights; I concluded that this is such a wonderful reference on death and it was deserving of the five stars . If you are looking for an accessible philosophical book on death, it doesn't get much better than this. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: "Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization" by Stephen Cave, "The Problem Of The Soul: Two Visions Of Mind And How To Reconcile Them" by Owen Flanagan, "The Myth of Free Will, Revised & Expanded Edition" by Cris Evatt, "Free Will" by Sam Harris, "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" by Michael J. Sandel, "Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story" Jim Holt, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" by Richard Carrier, "The World Is Not as We Think It Is" by Dennis Littrell, "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J. Stenger, "Paranormality" by Richard Wiseman, "Scientific Paranormal Investigation" by Benjamin Radford, "The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self" by Thomas Metzinger, "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer, and "Braintrust" Patricia S. Churchland.
"Death" is the very interesting book based on a course on death that Professor Kagan has taught at Yale University. This accessible book covers philosophical questions about the nature of death. The first half of the book covers questions about the existence of souls and the nature of death while the second half deals with value questions. This is a very engaging and thought-provocative book that has well a lecture feel. This instructive 392-page book includes the following sixteen chapters: 1. Thinking about Death, 2. Dualism versus Physicalism, 3. Arguments for the Existence of the Soul, 4. Descartes' Argument, 5. Plato on the Immortality of the Soul, 6. Personal Identity, 7. Choosing between the Theories, 8. The Nature of Death, 9. Two Surprising Claims about Death, 10. The Badness of Death, 11. Immortality, 12. The Value of Life, 13. Other Aspects of Death, 14. Living in the Face of Death, 15. Suicide, and 16. Conclusion: An Invitation.
Positives:
1. Well written, engaging prose. Professor Kagan maintains a respectful, conversational, dare I say professorial tone throughout.
2. Fascinating yet difficult topic handled with care and expertise. This is as you would expect, a thought-provoking book.
3. Accessible philosophical book. Professor Kagan goes out of his way to make this book reachable to the masses. He explains every new term clearly and provides a number of examples that enhances the educational experience.
4. Great approach! The professor tells the reader which views he accepts and then he proceeds to defend his positions. I prefer that approach. "I'm going to try to convince you that there is no soul. I'm going to try to convince you that immortality would not be a good thing. That fear of death isn't actually an appropriate response to death. That death isn't especially mysterious. That suicide, under certain circumstances, might be both rationally and morally justified." That quote captures the essence of this fine book.
5. Professor Kagan in my view, never bites more than he can chew. That is, he never espouses more than we can possibly know. His conclusions are reasonable and sound and our seemingly based on the best of our current knowledge. "As far as I can see, nobody has a good explanation of how consciousness works. It's a mystery for both sides."
6. Clearly defines the differences between the dualist and physicalism views and the different manifestations.
7. One of the most fascinating topics in all of philosophy and discussed with glee, the soul. Do we have a soul? Professor Kagan discusses this topic from many interesting angles. Spoiler alert, I must share this but skip if to next if you must. "Do I, as a physicalist who does not believe in the existence of souls--immaterial entities above and beyond the body--do I need to disprove the existence of souls? ("Well, there's no soul here, no soul there.") No. What I need to do is to look at the arguments that get offered for the existence of a soul and rebut them--explain why those arguments are not compelling. I don't need to prove that souls are impossible. I just need to undermine the case for souls. If there's no good reason to believe in souls, that actually constitutes a reason to believe that there are no souls." Excellent!
8. The fascinating and controversial topic of free will. Compatibilism.
9. Understanding the basic interpretation of quantum mechanics. "According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the fundamental laws of physics are probabilistic. Determinism is not true at the level of fundamental physics."
10. Thought-provoking quotes that resonate. "But not yet seeing how to explain something in physicalist terms is not the same thing as seeing that it can't be explained in physicalist terms." Agreed!
11. The issue of personal identity. What's the key to personal identity? The different views. Excellent topic.
12. The nature of death...what it entails philosophically speaking. "The crucial question is, what do you want out of survival? And one of the things I want out of survival is to be alive." The different views. Great stuff!
13. Surprising claims about death. A thorough discussion on the different claims.
14. The second half of the book covers the ethical and evaluative questions regarding death. Interesting stuff!
15. A fundamental concept, the deprivation account of why death is bad. "According to the deprivation account, the badness of death consists in the fact that when you're dead, you are deprived of the goods of life. So when is death bad for you? Presumably, during the time when you are being deprived of the goods of life."
16. An interesting look at immortality...is immortality truly a wonderful thing? Great conversation. "Is there a kind of life that you would want to have forever?"
17. The value of life. "You've got to ask yourself, "What things are worth having for their own sake? What's worth having in and of itself?" Hedonism in perspective.
18. Deep philosophical thoughts regarding death..."Perhaps, then, the very fact that life is precious, that it won't endure, actually increases its value."
19. The fear of death...a great discussion. "What are the appropriateness conditions for fear?"
20. Suicide under the scope. "Under what circumstances, if any, does suicide make sense?"
21. Further reading material suggested.
Negatives:
1. The book is verbose. Professor Kagan takes his oath to educate seriously and in doing so tends to be repetitive and provides a number of detailed examples that may tire those readers/students who already understood the terms he introduces.
2. Makes very limited use of other sciences. I was hoping for a bit of neuroscience and so forth but the professor succeeded in keeping it within his area of comfort.
In summary, I really enjoyed this book. Professor Kagan has taken a fascinating, complex philosophical topic such as death and has made it accessible for the masses in a respectful, engaging manner. My only real complaint is that the book is verbose and is repetitive with a purpose. I debated whether to give the book four or five stars but decided on five because after going back and reviewing my highlights; I concluded that this is such a wonderful reference on death and it was deserving of the five stars . If you are looking for an accessible philosophical book on death, it doesn't get much better than this. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: "Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization" by Stephen Cave, "The Problem Of The Soul: Two Visions Of Mind And How To Reconcile Them" by Owen Flanagan, "The Myth of Free Will, Revised & Expanded Edition" by Cris Evatt, "Free Will" by Sam Harris, "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" by Michael J. Sandel, "Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story" Jim Holt, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" by Richard Carrier, "The World Is Not as We Think It Is" by Dennis Littrell, "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J. Stenger, "Paranormality" by Richard Wiseman, "Scientific Paranormal Investigation" by Benjamin Radford, "The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self" by Thomas Metzinger, "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer, and "Braintrust" Patricia S. Churchland.
October 12, 2023
I've recently found an interest in dying, grief, and death positivity. So, coming across this book felt right up my alley.
I was expecting to find and learn about different views on death and perhaps guidance on how to think of death. I ended up finding more answers than I expected to the first question and inspiration for the second.
I felt Shelly Kagan presented and walked me through several ways of viewing death using examples I could relate to considering I have limited training in philosophy. I also felt that with such a sensitive topic, at what felt like the right moments in the discussion, he recognized the pain and grief that comes from losing loved ones and the effects this has on our lives, thereby recognizing the humanity in all of us. It was appreciated especially since some examples hit close to home.
In all, it was thanks to his explanations and examples that I learned about different arguments and thought experiments related to identity, immortality, what makes death bad in our eyes, the value of experiences and life, morality and rationality, and suicide. While I didn't understand it all 100%, I've been exposed to new ideas and called to examine what I think of death.
What really stuck with me was that for all we've explored about dying, it ultimately leads us to answer the question "how should I live my life?" , if not through my thoughts and understanding, then through my actions.
After reading this book, I am leaving with reflections, analyses, gratitude and motivation to live the best life I can with the time that I have.
I was expecting to find and learn about different views on death and perhaps guidance on how to think of death. I ended up finding more answers than I expected to the first question and inspiration for the second.
I felt Shelly Kagan presented and walked me through several ways of viewing death using examples I could relate to considering I have limited training in philosophy. I also felt that with such a sensitive topic, at what felt like the right moments in the discussion, he recognized the pain and grief that comes from losing loved ones and the effects this has on our lives, thereby recognizing the humanity in all of us. It was appreciated especially since some examples hit close to home.
In all, it was thanks to his explanations and examples that I learned about different arguments and thought experiments related to identity, immortality, what makes death bad in our eyes, the value of experiences and life, morality and rationality, and suicide. While I didn't understand it all 100%, I've been exposed to new ideas and called to examine what I think of death.
What really stuck with me was that for all we've explored about dying, it ultimately leads us to answer the question "how should I live my life?" , if not through my thoughts and understanding, then through my actions.
After reading this book, I am leaving with reflections, analyses, gratitude and motivation to live the best life I can with the time that I have.
July 4, 2019
Beshísimo... <3 Shelly Kagan es dios hecho hombre. :v :v
El libro es introductorio y se lo lee con la misma soltura, asequibilidad e informalidad del profesor Kagan. A pesar de ser introductorio, sí hubo un par de cuestiones que el tipo trae a la mesa que me dejaron pensando: constantemente me veo a mí misma saltando de una postura de identidad personal a otra. (Si algo, se me ha metido en la cabeza que tal vez debería de darle una nueva vista a Orphan Black, The Good Place, Black Mirror, Fullmetal Alchemist y otras series que me han gustado y que lidian con temas de este tipo.)
Los capítulos están bien divididos, el tipo es bastante organizado y sabe responder preguntas (es decir, da una buena consideración a teorías contrarias a su postura sin reducirlas arbitrariamente). Excelente.
El libro es introductorio y se lo lee con la misma soltura, asequibilidad e informalidad del profesor Kagan. A pesar de ser introductorio, sí hubo un par de cuestiones que el tipo trae a la mesa que me dejaron pensando: constantemente me veo a mí misma saltando de una postura de identidad personal a otra. (Si algo, se me ha metido en la cabeza que tal vez debería de darle una nueva vista a Orphan Black, The Good Place, Black Mirror, Fullmetal Alchemist y otras series que me han gustado y que lidian con temas de este tipo.)
Los capítulos están bien divididos, el tipo es bastante organizado y sabe responder preguntas (es decir, da una buena consideración a teorías contrarias a su postura sin reducirlas arbitrariamente). Excelente.
December 25, 2020
斷斷續續地閱讀，大概前後拖了四個月，才終於在聖誕節這天讀完這本書。人生中第一次讀形上學的書，才發現自己其實並沒有那麼喜歡形上學，時常在有趣和無聊間擺盪。相較於倫理學中，不斷去思考該如何做、怎麼過個有意義的人生，形上學討論最根本的存在與死亡，總覺得更像是信仰的論辯，也很難對每天的生活有直接的指引意義（例：如果我相信人有靈魂，但不相信永生不滅，那麼我會對死亡有所改觀嗎？）
至於第二部分價值論的討論，或許我本身就是贊成人有權利自殺、不相信「活著本身就有價值」，所以在作者討論生命究竟是存粹容器或珍貴容器、我們能不能自殺時，總覺得很難完全敞開心胸去看作者要反駁的另一方理論。
「知道怎麼死，就知道怎麼活」，在讀完這本書後重新想這句話，還是有其道理。雖然不確定作者說我們應當「心懷感激能夠擁有活著的機會」是否正確，但如果在死亡的那一瞬間，我們確實就灰飛煙滅了，那是否能夠活得更為灑脫自在？
至於第二部分價值論的討論，或許我本身就是贊成人有權利自殺、不相信「活著本身就有價值」，所以在作者討論生命究竟是存粹容器或珍貴容器、我們能不能自殺時，總覺得很難完全敞開心胸去看作者要反駁的另一方理論。
「知道怎麼死，就知道怎麼活」，在讀完這本書後重新想這句話，還是有其道理。雖然不確定作者說我們應當「心懷感激能夠擁有活著的機會」是否正確，但如果在死亡的那一瞬間，我們確實就灰飛煙滅了，那是否能夠活得更為灑脫自在？
April 12, 2020
Quite repetitive and tiresome...
Didn’t change my view on death in the slightest.
Didn’t change my view on death in the slightest.
December 12, 2023
it is 4am. Shelly Kagan can be funny. the way it is written is very accessible for the topics discussed. I can understand it at 4 am.
September 14, 2020
Maybe I am not a philosophical person. I just found this book extremely repetitive and boring. Cannot finish half of it. The author is a true philosopher arguing this and that and trying to convince you something he believes but there is no absolute answer or proof for either theories. This makes me wonder what’s the point I am reading this.
October 7, 2017
I found this book but then I knew since long that this is open course I put on my must watch list for very long time. So finally with the book I pushed myself to watch through all 26 clips of videos each around 55 mins. It took me several afternoons to finish.
First 1/3 about the definition of death, do we have souls? What is soul? He defined soul = personality or mind, which is what I also think so. Many religions believe that after the death, souls live on, but Kagan thinks we are just a marvelous machine, when the machine is broken, it's end. When we die, our souls don't live on. It took me quite long time to convince myself that after the last breath exhaled, we just disappeared into the thin air, even though our (dead) body takes time to decompose, we are medically dead.
other 1/3 to discuss about if we get to switch our brain into another body, who do you become? we call you the name of the body owner or brain owner??
last 1/3 about death is bad or not? how about suicide? In what situation can we grant a person to commit suicide? Suicide and abortion actually become moral or religious problem on this earth, but Kagan did an assumption about the possible existing people yet unborn could actually be more than the particles of universe ( with the combinations of all possible way with all possible given time), we truly are the lottery winners, each of us ever living on earth.
below is a quote that i learned from R. Dawkins.
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
First 1/3 about the definition of death, do we have souls? What is soul? He defined soul = personality or mind, which is what I also think so. Many religions believe that after the death, souls live on, but Kagan thinks we are just a marvelous machine, when the machine is broken, it's end. When we die, our souls don't live on. It took me quite long time to convince myself that after the last breath exhaled, we just disappeared into the thin air, even though our (dead) body takes time to decompose, we are medically dead.
other 1/3 to discuss about if we get to switch our brain into another body, who do you become? we call you the name of the body owner or brain owner??
last 1/3 about death is bad or not? how about suicide? In what situation can we grant a person to commit suicide? Suicide and abortion actually become moral or religious problem on this earth, but Kagan did an assumption about the possible existing people yet unborn could actually be more than the particles of universe ( with the combinations of all possible way with all possible given time), we truly are the lottery winners, each of us ever living on earth.
below is a quote that i learned from R. Dawkins.
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
September 17, 2018
I think the book is an excellent guide to those who wonders about the meaning of death and life. I sometimes think about the different perspective of life and death while lying in the bed, and come across to some interesting ideas, but this book really helps me to build a systematic framework of the society’s effort in understanding such important questions.
The books covers a huge range of topics, and each individual topic can be worthy of further exploration. However, to someone who is not a philosophical researcher and just wants some insight about the fundamental question of life, this book really challenges your existing beliefs and establish solid ground for further self reflection. To me, the most interested part of the book are “Is death bad?” And “Is suicide ever justified?”
Also I really like the approach of this book. As human beings, most of us tend to not to confront the inevitability of death by either ignoring it or to think of ways to “live forever”. Shelly uses some simple question to challenge our belief, and follow it up with a good definition of his own.
I recommend this book to anyone who are interested in a life with more than just happiness (The author provide a valuable argument against hedonism, but I feel like hedonism is a good way to avoid getting into the philosophical hole in the first place). After all, we can only celebrate life if we can face death.
The books covers a huge range of topics, and each individual topic can be worthy of further exploration. However, to someone who is not a philosophical researcher and just wants some insight about the fundamental question of life, this book really challenges your existing beliefs and establish solid ground for further self reflection. To me, the most interested part of the book are “Is death bad?” And “Is suicide ever justified?”
Also I really like the approach of this book. As human beings, most of us tend to not to confront the inevitability of death by either ignoring it or to think of ways to “live forever”. Shelly uses some simple question to challenge our belief, and follow it up with a good definition of his own.
I recommend this book to anyone who are interested in a life with more than just happiness (The author provide a valuable argument against hedonism, but I feel like hedonism is a good way to avoid getting into the philosophical hole in the first place). After all, we can only celebrate life if we can face death.
Read
January 5, 2016Justice도 그렇고 이 강의도 그렇고.. 정말 내가 괜히 고등학교 졸업할 때 한국에서 대학다닌다고 엉뚱한 호기를 부린게 아닌가?싶을때가 있습니다. 뭐, 그렇다고 해서 제가 걸어온 길을 크게 후회하는 건 아니지만...
마치 교수님 말씀처럼 집에서 TV보고 파티를 놓친 듯한..^^;; deprivation이랄까..ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
하지만 그만큼 제가 걸어온 길도 죽음과 삶의 영역에서 많은 윤리적 질문을 던지게 된
그리고 그것 때문에 제 자신도 죽음에 가까이 다가서고 이를 통해 많은 깨달음으로 이어진 길이었기 때문에
오히려 하나님께 감사하고 있습니다.
일단.. 저는 교수님께 많은 부분 설득되긴 했지만..
뭔가 기대가 너무 컸던 걸까요? 뒤로 갈수록 조금 감질맛이랄까...좀 아쉬움이 남았습니다.
교수님 말대로 a taste is just a tease인 듯합니다.
그만큼 더욱더 깊고 넓은 쪽으로 넘어가보고 싶은 욕심이 불끈불끈 일어나네요..
죽음을 넘어서서 삶과 기타 metaphysical & ethical problem에 대한 질문으로 가득찬 제 뇌세포..
교수님의 의도한 대로 밥상이 차려진 듯합니다..ㅎㅎㅎㅎ
교수님이 초대해주신 철학 모험의 입구에 그저 발을 디딘 기분이네요.
초대해주신 교수님과 입원과 바쁜 스케줄 속에서도 멋진 책으로 북클럽 진행해주신 리베님께 정말 감사드리고요.
제 끝없는 궁금증에 답변해주신 참을성있게 깨굴님, 모모랑님, 설탕딸기님, 위니공주님 등 다른 멤버분들께도 감사드립니다.
(제가 생각해도 저같은 학생이 교실에 있으면 정말 짜증날듯..;;)
이번 책을 발돋움삼아 다른 철학책들도 접하게 될 예정인데.. (지금 개인리딩으로 Lucretius의 On the Nature of Things도 읽고 있어요. 위니공주님의 철학책 북클럽과 깨굴님이 계획하시는 북클럽도 너무 기대되고요)
이 책들 또한 더 많은 질문들을 안겨줄지 모르지만.. 그래도 계속 주어진 정답에 안주하기보다는 끊임없이 생각해볼 기회가 주어져서 또 감사합니다. 이래서 삶과 죽음의 unpredictability는 개인에 따라 나쁠수도 좋을수도 있나봅니다. 이전엔 그런 unpredictability가 지옥같이 제게 불안과 공포 분노를 안겼지만 지금 교수님의 논리로 조목조목 따져보니 그런 감정들이 inappropriate했던 것 같네요. 좀더 자유로워진 느낌이네요. The truth will set you free. 우리학교 교훈이자 요한복음에서 나온 말이기도 하죠.ㅋㅋ 두렵고 떨리더라도 자유를 향해 정진해야겠습니다.^^
마치 교수님 말씀처럼 집에서 TV보고 파티를 놓친 듯한..^^;; deprivation이랄까..ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
하지만 그만큼 제가 걸어온 길도 죽음과 삶의 영역에서 많은 윤리적 질문을 던지게 된
그리고 그것 때문에 제 자신도 죽음에 가까이 다가서고 이를 통해 많은 깨달음으로 이어진 길이었기 때문에
오히려 하나님께 감사하고 있습니다.
일단.. 저는 교수님께 많은 부분 설득되긴 했지만..
뭔가 기대가 너무 컸던 걸까요? 뒤로 갈수록 조금 감질맛이랄까...좀 아쉬움이 남았습니다.
교수님 말대로 a taste is just a tease인 듯합니다.
그만큼 더욱더 깊고 넓은 쪽으로 넘어가보고 싶은 욕심이 불끈불끈 일어나네요..
죽음을 넘어서서 삶과 기타 metaphysical & ethical problem에 대한 질문으로 가득찬 제 뇌세포..
교수님의 의도한 대로 밥상이 차려진 듯합니다..ㅎㅎㅎㅎ
교수님이 초대해주신 철학 모험의 입구에 그저 발을 디딘 기분이네요.
초대해주신 교수님과 입원과 바쁜 스케줄 속에서도 멋진 책으로 북클럽 진행해주신 리베님께 정말 감사드리고요.
제 끝없는 궁금증에 답변해주신 참을성있게 깨굴님, 모모랑님, 설탕딸기님, 위니공주님 등 다른 멤버분들께도 감사드립니다.
(제가 생각해도 저같은 학생이 교실에 있으면 정말 짜증날듯..;;)
이번 책을 발돋움삼아 다른 철학책들도 접하게 될 예정인데.. (지금 개인리딩으로 Lucretius의 On the Nature of Things도 읽고 있어요. 위니공주님의 철학책 북클럽과 깨굴님이 계획하시는 북클럽도 너무 기대되고요)
이 책들 또한 더 많은 질문들을 안겨줄지 모르지만.. 그래도 계속 주어진 정답에 안주하기보다는 끊임없이 생각해볼 기회가 주어져서 또 감사합니다. 이래서 삶과 죽음의 unpredictability는 개인에 따라 나쁠수도 좋을수도 있나봅니다. 이전엔 그런 unpredictability가 지옥같이 제게 불안과 공포 분노를 안겼지만 지금 교수님의 논리로 조목조목 따져보니 그런 감정들이 inappropriate했던 것 같네요. 좀더 자유로워진 느낌이네요. The truth will set you free. 우리학교 교훈이자 요한복음에서 나온 말이기도 하죠.ㅋㅋ 두렵고 떨리더라도 자유를 향해 정진해야겠습니다.^^
December 13, 2017
the so called acclaimed Ivy League best 3 lecturers and I would say definitely not Kagan. Never have I seen a scholar is so focused on one factor (to denounce the non existence of the soul) to override (or support) his claim of understanding the entire notion of death. A scholar only uses Socrates and Plato (and Descartes) to support his claim of knowing everything about death (by disclaiming Socrates and Plato)..how about trying Kierkegaard and Camus? or even Nietzsche? not even..Kagan book is long and boring and merely reflect how small his thinking is limited to about death...he wants to make readers to think he is logical, and seems making senses but readers can only walk into a quagmire of a man who is so self absorbed, but under-knowledged..(no wonder your students gave you low scores and you think those who gave you high scores are philosophical worthy...note: the only one notion I think is correct logic: his claim that prolonged living may not be a good thing, therefore, longevity may not be as good as one thinks..and his claim on suicide especially the action to think to commit suicide may be too impulse..because nothing will be worsen than the "current state" (point, B, C, or whatever)
January 28, 2021
It's a textbook. There, I said it.
But it's a pretty engaging textbook. I was pleasantly surprised that the book doesn't offer any answers, on death, or how should we live our lives. Instead, it offers questions. Tons and tons of questions for you to ponder. Sometimes, you feel you get your answer, but it's that as specific as reading a book titled "10 steps for living a good life".
There is a lot of repetition in this book, so if you're not a patient reader, this can detract from your enjoyment. On second thought, I don't think a book titled Death concerns itself with your enjoyment. Though, there are plenty of jokes. Yeah, I know death is not funny.
In discussing death, there are other more important issues to consider. Such as personal identity, the nature of death, and value(s) of life.
Needless to say, it's a philosophy book. So everything is based on logical steps. There are no sugar-coated truths in this one. And the repetition helps you understand otherwise difficult concepts.
Recommend to everyone how has time to read it.
But it's a pretty engaging textbook. I was pleasantly surprised that the book doesn't offer any answers, on death, or how should we live our lives. Instead, it offers questions. Tons and tons of questions for you to ponder. Sometimes, you feel you get your answer, but it's that as specific as reading a book titled "10 steps for living a good life".
There is a lot of repetition in this book, so if you're not a patient reader, this can detract from your enjoyment. On second thought, I don't think a book titled Death concerns itself with your enjoyment. Though, there are plenty of jokes. Yeah, I know death is not funny.
In discussing death, there are other more important issues to consider. Such as personal identity, the nature of death, and value(s) of life.
Needless to say, it's a philosophy book. So everything is based on logical steps. There are no sugar-coated truths in this one. And the repetition helps you understand otherwise difficult concepts.
Recommend to everyone how has time to read it.
September 4, 2013
This was an audiobook/lecture series that started out with Kagen stating that some people hate him. While I did not hate him I found Kagen's intensity while teaching the lectures a bit stressful. In fact because he yelled so often I found myself shutting the book off to do something more relaxing. The information was interesting and well argued. This content did demonstrate how much of moral reasoning is left up to the values and sensibilities of the philosopher or thinker doing the debate.
Again this was a great course but the intense pompousness of Kagen may put you off. I hope you enjoy this work.
Mr Joe
Again this was a great course but the intense pompousness of Kagen may put you off. I hope you enjoy this work.
Mr Joe
May 30, 2021
1) The book shows some philosophical arguments and analyzes what argument has what type of logical flaws.
2) Actionable items: (a) This book can help people who fear death. I personally don't have fear over death, because it is just like a game that suddenly stops. If it stops, then we don't exist any more, and it just simply finishes, like any novel has an ending. (b) The second takeaway is to take care of ourselves, so that we don't die too easily.
3) Some other optimistic arguments include that we last our life longer by leaving our achievements to future generation, and leaving our genes through descendants.
2) Actionable items: (a) This book can help people who fear death. I personally don't have fear over death, because it is just like a game that suddenly stops. If it stops, then we don't exist any more, and it just simply finishes, like any novel has an ending. (b) The second takeaway is to take care of ourselves, so that we don't die too easily.
3) Some other optimistic arguments include that we last our life longer by leaving our achievements to future generation, and leaving our genes through descendants.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews