Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a fascinating debate about death. Death is one of the obvious important issues of reflection, but Nagel takes an interesting approach as he tries to identify the truth about whether death is or does not harm him. Nagel does a great job in addressing this issue from all sides and perspectives, and it's only possible that he does this in order to make his own observations more reliable.
He begins by looking at the most common beliefs of death that most of the world holds and tells us that he will talk about death as "unequivocal and lasting end of our existence" and look directly at nature from the dead itself (1). The first point of view that Nagel decides to discuss is the point of view that death is bad for us because we need more life. Most people are of the opinion that life is good; although some experiences in life can be bad and sometimes tragic, life itself is very positive. Nagel also adds that when life experience is set aside, this situation is still positive and not simply "neutral" (2).
Nagel goes further to point out important observations on the value of life. It can not be said that "organic survival" is a part of value (2). Nagel gives an example of death and is dead before he dies. Both of these conditions would be as bad as circumstances. Another observation is that "like most things" can increase the value over time (2).
Now, what's bad about death, instead of what's good about life, but Nagel presents some obvious thoughts about this issue. Life is good because we have the conscious ability to experience and appreciate all that life has to offer. So death is bad because we lack this experience, not because real mortality is bad for us.
The next point Nagel does is that there are certain clues that show how people do not object to death simply because it "involves a long time that is not available" (3). It is said that people would not look at the temporary "suspension" of life as a terrible misfortune, because the fact that it is temporary tells us that this will strongly lead the state back to the conscious life. Also, we do not look at the situation before being born as a misfortune or deprivation of life because life has not yet begun and, as Nagel says later, he rejects the possibility that the man might be born earlier and had more life by if that individual was born significantly earlier, he would stop being that person, but instead someone else completely.
Nagel addresses three problems. The first is the view that no evil people who are not rooted in a human being consciously "think" these evil ones. Nagel puts this perspective in an easier way by saying that this is the same as saying that "what you do not know can not hurt you" (4). There are some examples that can describe this theory. People who think this way would say it's not harmful for a man to be behind him if he does not know. If he does not try evil, it's not bad for him. Nagel believes this view is wrong. The other natural discovery here is that it's bad to betraying, that's what makes the whole situation unfortunate; not because the discovery of this fraud makes us unhappy.
The other problem is what has to do with any material damage caused by death, and whenever this happens. Damage can be a person for death, nothing can be experienced after death, so when death itself is perceived as harmful? The third problem is about excitement and birth.
Considering good or bad elements of death, Nagel observes that we need to look at potential circumstances related to death and the related history of death. This is important because we miss a lot of relevance to the arguments if what we only believe is a state person at the moment of death. Nagel gives an example of a very intelligent person who has an injuries that causes him to repeat his child's mental capacity. His needs can be adequate like infants and kept happily as long as simple needs are met. His family and friends would look at this as a terrible misfortune, though the man himself is not aware of his loss. This situation is unfortunate because the deprivation of what might have been had not been injured in this way. He might have gone to achieve great things for the world and his family and survived his life through old age as an adult and excited person. This would have led him to much happiness but it can be seen that this same man in the state of mental ability to match a child is also happy but Nagel agrees that what happened to this person is a tragedy because of the terrible loss of life that intelligently One could have led. This situation can be referred to death in a way of thinking about deprivation. Death is bad because he robs you of what might be.
After making these comments, Nagel says that "this issue should convince us that it is arbitrary to limit products and defects that can be acceptable to a person to unconventional qualities that he can at certain times" (6). There are infinite circumstances and acts that occur that affect a person or misfortune. Many of these never coincide directly with human life. We have to consider that there is no way to determine the exact state of misfortune in a person's life, nor the way to define origin. People have dreams and goals in life that may or may not be fulfilled. There is no way to find all the circumstances and possibilities that determine whether these aspirations and dreams are actually fulfilled or not, but Nagel tells us that we simply have to agree that "If death is evil then it must be clear in these terms and impossible to find it in life should not spoil us "(7).
There are some who view the time before birth and time after death as the same. We are in touch, but Nagel argues there is a difference. This whole essay has issued his exact opinion that, although we do not exist in both cases, death will kill us the time we could have lived our lives.
Nagel makes an interesting examination of whether we can assign events or aspects of life that are normal to humans in general. We all know we will all die and the maximum amount of life is somewhere around 100 years. So is it still likely that this is a misfortune? He also gives examples of clouds that are blind. It's not a mischief that the cloud is blind because they are all blind and they will never know the sight and can appreciate it. But Nagel also presents examples of situations where everyone goes through six months of pain and anguish before they die. Everyone knows that this is happening, but does it mean that something is safe to fear and fear?
We have entered this world and led to elements of our lives that we thank. The deprivation of these things we learn to evaluate is a misfortune because we have learned to live with these privileges. It is impeccable for a person to understand the concept of definite life, in the real sense of understanding. We do not think about our lives now that presented a plan or final series of events. We do not live day by day thinking about what we should do according to how much time we have understood. Our lives are essentially an open sequence of good and bad situations and possibilities. Death is a sudden pause of this order we can not help but being in a mentality will never end. This is how death is deprived, and quite bad for man.
The conclusion is that Nagel offers a good argument in the essay about the death of death himself to be harmful. Whether you believe in immortal life or not, it must still be seen that dying cares for products and experiences of life. This view looks inevitable. The person who dies at the age of 92 has lived fully to the best of his ability and has experienced more than someone who dies at the age of 32. A person who dies at the age of 32 had many things he wanted to experience and experience in his life, and since death has taken all the potential for one of these goals to overcome and reduces all the work he has put forward to date Period in search of his goals, Death is a terrible tragedy for him.
Nagel, Thomas. A dead question. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.