Thomas Nagel started the essay collection with the most interesting debate about death. Death is one of the most important subjects of the approach, Nagel uses an interesting approach when trying to determine the truth of whether death is for an individual or not. Nagel is brilliant about the problem of attacking all sides and perspectives, and makes sense only if he does so to make his own observations more reliable.
He begins with the very shared views of death that most people hold in the world and tells us that death is about the "clear and enduring end" of our existence, and the very nature of death itself (1). The first view that Nagel decides to discuss is that death is bad for us because he deprives us of more lives. Most people believe that life is good; even though some of the experiences in life may be bad and sometimes tragic, the nature of life is a very positive condition. Nagel also adds that when we lose the experiences of life, this state is still positive, not "neutral" (2).
Nagel further explains some important remarks about the value of life. "Organic Survival" is simply not a component of value (2). Nagel gives the example of death and stands in coma before dying. Both situations are in a similar bad situation. Another observation is that "like most goods", the value will be higher with time (2).
Let's look at the evil instead of the death instead of the goodness of life, Nagel has obvious thoughts about it. Life is good because we consciously experience and appreciate life. So death is bad because it deprives us of these experiences, not because the actual state of death is bad for us.
The next point, according to Nagel, is that there are certain signs that people do not object to death just because they are "long generations" (3). It is said that people do not consider temporary "suspension" of life as a terrible misfortune because of the fact that it proves temporarily that this brings the state back to conscious life. Furthermore, we do not consider the state before being born as a misfortune or loss of life because life has not yet begun and (as Nagel later explains) rejects the possible argument that he was born earlier and lived more with the fact that the person would have been born earlier, then the person stops, but rather someone else.
Nagel discusses the following three problems. The first is the view that there is no evil that is not rooted in a person who consciously "keeps in mind" these wicked ones. Nagel makes this view easier, saying it is the same as saying "what you can not do not hurt" (4). There are many examples to illuminate this theory. Those who think so are saying that it is not dangerous for a man to become ridiculous behind him if he does not know about it. If it is not worth the evil, then it is not bad for him. Nagel says this view is wrong. The natural discovery here is that it is bad to betray it, this makes the whole situation miserable; not because this discovery of betrayal makes us unhappy.
The second problem is what is involved in the subject of damage caused by death, and when that is the case. Before the death of the victim was experienced, there was nothing after death, so if death itself caused damage? The third problem concerns posthumous and pre-natal life.
Considering the good or bad aspects of death, Nagel notes that we must investigate the possible cycles surrounding death and the death-related stories. This is important because we miss a lot, which is important for reasoning, considering that the person's status is only at the moment of death. Nagel gives an example to a very intelligent person suffering from an injury that causes an infant's mental ability to diminish. His needs can be fulfilled as a baby and will be happy until the simple demands are met. Your family and friends consider this thing a terrible misfortune, even though you are not aware of your loss. This situation is unfortunate because it was not damaged in this way. He was able to do good things for the world and his family and enjoy his life as an accomplished and acknowledged individual on the age of old. This can lead to great happiness, but it is observable that the same person who has the mental capacity to agree with his child, Nagel also agrees with what happened to this man because of the tragedy of the terrible loss of life that the intelligent man could have led. This is a case of death, thinking of deprivation. Death is bad because he kidnaps what it was.
After these comments, Nagel states that "This is the case to convince us that it arbitrarily limits the goods and the wickedness that may have a non-relational property that can be recognized to a person at certain times" (6). Endless circumstances and events are taking place that affect a person's fortune or misfortune. Many of these never match the life of a person. It must be borne in mind that there is no way to determine the exact position of a person's misfortune or how to determine the origin. People have dreams and goals in life that may or may not be met. We can not find all the circumstances and opportunities that are needed to satisfy these hopes and dreams, but Nagel says that we simply have to accept that "if death is evil, then it is necessary to count on these and the positioning of life impossibility can not be a problem "(7).
Some people see premature birth and post-mortem deaths the same way. We exist together, though Nagel argues that there is a difference. This whole study clearly expresses its views that, although it does not exist in both cases, death deprives us of the time we could have lived in our lives.
Nagel's interesting observation is whether we can assign any event or aspect of life that is normally normal for all people as a disaster. We all know we are all dying, and that life's length is somewhere around 100 years. So you still can say that this is a misfortune? He also gives examples of bees that are blind. It is not a misfortune when a puppy is blind because they are all blind and will never know and appreciate sight. But Nagel also presents the situation where everyone feels six months of pain and pain before dying. Everyone knows this is happening, but does it make the event less than the horror and fear event?
We are entering this world and have created aspects of our lives that we value. The deprivation of these things that we learn to evaluate is a misfortune because we have learned to live with these privileges. It is not incomprehensible for man to understand the concept of finite life in the true sense of understanding. We do not think of our lives now as a definite plan or finite sequence of events. We do not live up to day thinking of what to do, how much time we spent. Our lives are essentially the open-ended series of good and bad circumstances and opportunities. Death is the sudden break of this series that we can not help but in the way of thinking, it will never end. So death is a deprivation and a bad man.
In summary, Nagel has a good argument in his death study that death itself causes harm. Whether a person believes in immortal life or not, it must be considered that dying deprives you of the price and experience of life. This view seems inevitable. A person who dies at the age of 92 lives with the best possible ability and experiences more than someone who dies at the age of 32. A 32-year-old person has many things that he wants to live and live in, and since the death has taken every possible opportunity to reach any of these goals and undermine all the work he has done so far to achieve his goals, the terrible death tragedy.
Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.