Yale University has put many of its philosophy courses on YouTube and iTunes for free. Professor Shelly Kagan's course on death is one of the really interesting ones. Kagan is a sort of American Bernard Williams although I don't think Professor Williams would ever have sat cross legged on his desk wearing Converses (he certainly didn't in my tutorials). In the lecture below Kagan discusses Tolstoy's classic story The Death of Ivan Ilyich and he begins to unpack the badness of death. Yes we know it's bad but how bad and why is it bad...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Apropos the badness of death, Derek Raymond’s I Was Dora Suarez has me thinking that death is beyond the power of any fiction to encompass, and by God, Raymond wrings pathos and humor from this.
======================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://www.detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
Peter
I dont know. Ivan Ilyich reacts pretty much the way I think I'd react. Especially the screaming at the end.
Philip Larkin's Aubade also captures the way I feel about death. In fact I think Aubade might be supreme work of art on this subject.
For those who don't know it (it's more pleasing to read if you expand the comment form box):
Aubade
I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.
This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anasthetic from which none come round.
And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.
Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.
Oh, man. I'm not sure I really need to know how really bad death is right now. There have been too many in my life in the last year.
I assume it would be better to finally read The Death of Ivan Ilyich first?
I've been present at a few deaths, and though there was some pain, and some dread, there wasn't any screaming. Of course, we probably have better painkillers now.
Seana
Its short. You could read it on your lunch break. Or possibly two lunch breaks.
You wont be sorry. Yes its depressing but you'll be cheered up by how good it is.
Schopenhauer said that good art always cheers us up even when its about grim subjects (just as bad art always depresses us I suppose).
That's exactly the way I feel about Aubade and Ivan Ilyich. They both send me into an existential tail spin but ultimately make me feel better because they are so spot on.
Kagan's lecture doesn't really touch on that aspect at all but he raises many other interesting points.
You don't know how short my lunch break is. But you're right I could fit in somewhere.
I do like that poem, which I believe you've posted before. It isn't quite the way I feel about death, at least not all the time, but I like it.
Seana
I think Aubade might be my favourite Larkin poem. Or, possibly,
Next Please
Always too eager for the future, we
Pick up bad habits of expectancy.
Something is always approaching; every day
Till then we say,
Watching from a bluff the tiny, clear
Sparkling armada of promises draw near.
How slow they are! And how much time they waste,
Refusing to make haste!
Yet still they leave us holding wretched stalks
Of disappointment, for, though nothing balks
Each big approach, leaning with brasswork prinked,
Each rope distinct,
Flagged, and the figurehead wit golden tits
Arching our way, it never anchors; it's
No sooner present than it turns to past.
Right to the last
We think each one will heave to and unload
All good into our lives, all we are owed
For waiting so devoutly and so long.
But we are wrong:
Only one ship is seeking us, a black-
Sailed unfamiliar, towing at her back
A huge and birdless silence. In her wake
No waters breed or break.
It is very good. I think what it doesn't quite capture though, is the fact that some of our disappointments also recede in importance.
Anyway, I was always only expecting a small rowboat.
I should look at Larkin and re-read the Tolstoy. This question might have just a bit of extra relevance for crime-fiction readers, who read about death all the time and are rarely reminded of how bad it is and how absurd it is to presume to write about death.
Your last three posts:
The Badness of Death
Death of a Naturalist
Death of A Pig
As Ray Bradbury said, October sets a man thinking about his own mortality.
Don't tell the crime writers that, though, Peter.
Good point, anon.
Well, Seana, it's not that crime writers evade the issue, and it's not as if every thriller, procedural, and cozy is morally bound to confront the asbsurdity and terror of the end of existence. But it happens rarely enough that one sits up and take notice when one sees it.
Peter
Its worse on TV. They are so glib about dead people even dead children. It's pretty vile actually.
Seana
Our disappointments do fade, yes. We were talking about the house of mirth in another place and I've always found that the author of Ecclesiastes (whoever that was) was very wise on this topic. Best book in the Bible if you ask me.
Anon
Well I protest coincidence, but Dr Freud frowns on coincidence doesnt he? Or is that Dr Jung? I must see that movie with Keira Knightley.
The Keira Knightly film brings us back to Bad Art being depressing. Butterflies is the way I see life and death, too whimsical for academic types I'm sure. Are you in a morbid mood? I am now, cheers ears.
Warning – strong personal opinions below!
I find it strange that those who believe that physical death is the ultimate end of existence even care how bad it is. (In fact, I believe this is one of the more convincing arguments for existence after physical death.) If death really is the end, then one should simply embrace life and do whatever they want. Why would one ever do anything sacrificial or self-effacing? Indulge, experience, enjoy – and forget (or outright ignore) anything that doesn’t feel good and promote self! If you say you want to leave a legacy or preserve society for those to come – why? What’s the point of a legacy (or society, really) if everyone else you care about simply ends when they die? And how can you actually care about anyone else anyway? Absolute morality is impossible if there is no God and if there is no God there is certainly nothing after death.
These questions all feel hollow and insincere. Why? Because deep down we long to exist beyond 85 or 90 years and we yearn to bear significance beyond our personal life. These longings are innate and bear the mark of something (or some One) that is beyond human. Other creatures on earth don’t experience anything more than instinct, but humans do.
In addition, we care about relationships. We have an inherent awareness that other people matter and that relating to them in loving and caring ways is good (not just convenient because it gets us what we want). We want to be treated with dignity and respect and we require that of our children. This is senseless if we are just animals and if there is nothing beyond physical existence. We cringe and cry out and raise our fists and call it EVIL when others senselessly slaughter innocent people because deep down we all believe that life really matters and that personhood and existence are more than just the current state of evolutionary progression.
But if our current existence really is just the present depiction of evolution then the badness of death doesn’t really matter (it’s just survival of the fittest) and you can’t really talk about “bad” at all as there is no category for good or bad or right or wrong if the physical (described in evolutionary terms, at least) universe is all that there is. And if it is, then the “badness” of death is nothing more than an emotional reaction to something we don’t understand and can’t scientifically qualify in satisfactory ways.
Seana, regarding: "Anyway, I was always only expecting a small rowboat." I laughed so hard coffee squirted out of my nose. Literally.
(Don't mean to be gross but I think this crowd can take it.)
DJD, I'll leave Adrian to hassle out the issues with you, as I'm sure he is up to the task (not that either of you will be convinced by the other), but I think the existential dread of nonexistence as we know it, even by believers.
Holden, thank you. And sorry about the coffee. I miss seeing you comment in here more regularly.
Seana.
I laughed pretty hard about the small rowboat comment as well! Very funny.
I agree that all people (belivers, non-believers, seekers, etc.) are concerned to some degree about death. Dread, though, is a different concept. If one beleives that there is existence beyond the physical, and believes that some things about that existence are knowable, then the feeling is different than that of dread. I think of David in the 23rd Psalm when he wrote, "Even though I pass through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil." For David, Death's shadow was a concern, but it was simply the shadow, not true death (or separation in Hebrew) that he believed he would experience.
And in Thessonians, Paul says that believers grieve, but not like those who have no hope. He goes on the describe that hope as the belief that we will be with the Lord forever.
I'm aware that to many, these beliefs are irrational and silly, simply the musings of those who don't or can't accept real life. But I've spent countless hours comparing all the relavant ways of thinking (and living) and cannot come up with a more accuarate and livable system of belief (and everyone believes in something, regardless of what they say).
I hope you don't pass me off as simply another Bible thumper, because that is far from the complete picture. But I do believe what I say and am grateful for the opportunity to be challenged and share thougths (and beleifs).
In the end, I am concerned about the experience of death, and sad for the earthly relationships that will end when my physical life ceases. But I don't dread death, because I sincerely believe that the end of my physical existence is simply the beginning of a whole new kind of living. Many Christian funerals represent this, that death for the believer is really more of a commencement than a termination.
Thanks for letting me share.
"Absolute morality is impossible if there is no God" ..hmmm so God alone gives us morality? I hate to quote the numpty that is Ricky Gervais, but as its probably the only decent thing he's ever said I will, "religious people don't have the monopoly on being good" or something like that.
I do know this for a fact.After death we end up being with the people we love.
Without presuming to know a lot about it, my understanding is that dread is one of the stages in the approach to death, regardless of belief. I don't think we get to avoid it, which really is a pity. But it's only a stage.
I certainly don't discount you as a bible thumper, DJD. I don't find theological understanding of our existence ridiculous. But then I don't find non-theological understanding of it ridiculous either.
DJD
There's no point arguing with you. You really should watch Shelly Kagan's entire lecture series on youtube. It explains the secular attitude towards death in all its diverse ways.
And onto the moral question. It sounds like you haven't read much or any contemporary moral philosophy. For the last forty years or so, the question of building morality from the ground up has been the primary concern of Anglo-American philosophers.
I'm sorry to say this so bluntly but it's just sheer ignorance to say that the absence of a god or an afterlife produces nothing but pure license. That argument is entirely specious.
May I suggest that you read some John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Robert Nozick, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Derek Parfit, Bernard Williams and when you do we can have an informed discussion.
I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but I've had these sort of arguments before and it's very wearying, it's like arguing with some who believes in the flat Earth and is unwilling to actually look at the evidence of the spherical Earth. Willful ignorance is no excuse for an educated person.
Holden
Yeah, stick around pull up a chair.
Frankie
Gervais is right but he doesn't explain it very well or at all.
Seana,
I don’t find the theological or non-theological understanding of our existence ridiculous, either. Thank you for sharing that. I sort of think we are all seeking something (truth) and some connect with it through theological arguments, others through experience, and others through philosophy or science. I do believe there is a True truth out there, but respect all understandings of the human condition and simply find that everyone expresses faith (or believes) something about existence and the big questions of existence.
Adrian,
You are spot on. I have not read much contemporary moral theology (partly because I have not had any fun platforms to discuss it on). Also, because there is a firm source for morality in my personal belief system, I have spent time developing lines of thought that stem from that source rather than taking the time to compare my believed source of morality with other suggestions. I do intend to watch the entire series by Kagan. I enjoyed the one you posted. It was very informative and I appreciate the insight.
I will also look into the authors you suggested, as I have no intentions of holding to an argument that is doesn’t make any sense. I obviously have not examined the morality argument to the degree that you have - my apologies for writing prematurely. Thanks for the suggestions.
DJD
No need to apologise for heavens sake!!!
It's just that it can be frustrating. I've heard religious people make the argument before that the absence of God means that absence of morality and or total license. Its just simply not true. To me it's a bit like arguing with someone who refuses to accept the existence of Australia.
Rawls is a good place to start but he's pretty heavy. Anyway here are some books:
1. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
2. Robert Nozick: Anarchy State and Utopia
3. Bernard Williams: Morality - An Introduction To Ethics
4. Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
5. Derek Parfit: Reasons and Persons
5. Michael Sandel: What's The Right Thing To Do?
One of my favourite contemporary philosophers is Alasdair MacIntyre who is Catholic and a believer. I think you'd like him, he looks at many of the liberal attempts to establish a secular morality and finds them wanting in his excellent book After Virtue.
Looks, like you got your study list cut out for you, DJD. But I bet you'll enjoy it.
Personally, I will say in my usual unschooled way that find it hard to believe you can build morality from the ground up, and that morality is always in some way received, but that doesn't mean it has to come from divine authority either.
Adrian,
Thanks for the recommendations and insights. I'm always looking for more content for my Kindle (or my real library) and will certainly look into these writers / philosophers. My apologies were more for speaking before really thinking the argument through and clarifying it than for presenting it.
There is no doubt that any group of people can determine and promote a group morality that helps a civilization work its best and survive. Part of the argument that I certainly did not develop is that an "Absolute Morality" is difficult to determine (and agree with / adhere to) without an Absolute Source. Without an Absolute Morality, it often boils down to an issue of power rather than ethic. Speaking of, I think it is also wise to distinguish between morals (what most people are doing) and ethics (what we should be doing). I feel like we are really far away from where this discussion started - on the badness of death!
Anyway, I'll get back into the discussion once I am more familiar with the current players.
Seana, I agree. It does seem to me to make more sense to talk about a morality that is received or discovered rather than created or built.
Don't worry. Death is still bad.
I have found it comforting (or else an easy evasion) to think there is one truth but an infinite number of ways to understand and experience it. Whether this even deserves the name of argument, I don’t know.
Wow, this is an amazing group of posts. I'm feeling underschooled, but I do think that every tradition has a set of moral strictures. if you will. We aren't always able to live up to these, but they are there. I don't associate them with God, but with all the figures than inhabit both Western and Eastern traditions. But then again, I've always thought that humans have struggled with the ineffable and religion is the result. I don't intend to upset anyone. Jung would approve of fining one's own individual road to faith, and God.
Seana, DJD
I turn on the TV and its all about the life and legacy of Steve Jobs...
Peter
I too am not a relativist. There are facts even if human perception of those facts is often distorted. Things seem to be different at the quantum level however.
Lil
I think religion was our first noble attempt to explain the mystery, it worked well for a long time but fortunately we now have better systems called science and philosophy.
I thought of this post when I heard about Jobs as well.
Yes, things are different at the quantum level, but what does that mean to us at our level? Remember the line in Annie Hall when young Alvie Singer argues that doing his homework is useless because the universe is expanding, and one of his parents says something like, "Who cares that the universe is expanding? We're in Brooklyn."
I'm of a similarly practical bent.
But it might all be on the quantum level, Peter.
You mean, how do we know our universe is nothing but a sub-atomic particle?
No, I mean I was reading an article lately that quantum effects were being witnessed on a larger scale. The link is here.
Ah, now that looks like an article worth subscribing to Scientific American for. Do you know how I could get the full text, you know, without paying for it?
At least when I go to the link, the full text comes up in five pages. They may run a commercial first.
I got it now. Thanks.
Post a Comment