I found this to be opinion of some one but do not know if it was directed to me indirectly, so I am now reposting it . And so hear it is is this anonymous? Jeff DymekIdealism & Science vs atheism 15 mins · I thought of this today. Opinions and comments are welcome.Feel free to critique my arm chair philosophizing. What is death to you?Is death absolute nothing? P1. If it is true that death is absolute nothing, then, necessarily, neither mind nor matter can occupy the same world as death (nothing). If only one thing exists, be it mind or matter, then absolute nothing is impossible. P2. At least one thing exists. C1. Therefore, absolute nothing is impossible. Therefore, death is not absolute nothing. Is death absence then? Is death relative?P1. If death is absence, it must obtain either intrinsically, or extrinsically for persons. P2. The absence of a person cannot be intrinsic to itself at a particular time, since persons cannot be constituted by the absences of themselves. C1. Death does not obtain intrinsically. P3. If absence is not intrinsic to a person, it must obtain extrinsically. P4. But relations are between at least two things, not between things and their absence at a particular time. In other words, a person’s existence cannot, intelligibly, have an extrinsic causal relation with ,or be contingent upon, their own absence at a particular time.(It is like being an independent, dependent being) C2. Death does not obtain extrinsically. C3. Death does not obtain intrinsically or extrinsically, therefore, death is not absence.C4. If death is not absolute nothing, and death is not absence, then death is unintelligible. Objection 1: But the absence we call death is empirical. In the event of death, there is a person at T=1. At T=2, there is a corpse. Answer: At best we can say that death is an empirical observation between at least two persons to the exclusion of the person in question. We cannot intelligibly say what happens from the deceased person’s frame of reference. Therefore, first-person reports of death related events are valuable forms of evidence that we should take seriously. Objection 2: If perdurantism is true there is no problem. P4 assumes presentism.It could otherwise be the case that persons perdure, having their intrinsic person-constituting properties at T1 ,and corpses at T2 are T1 complements, minus the person constituting properties of T1. Answer: There still seems to be relative absence between T1 and T2 across temporal parts. If this is how reality operates, then things, and persons, pop in and out of existence across four dimensions. What’s to stop a person from popping back into existence then?Like·CommentKiran Boggavarapu likes this. Dylan Whitney 1.)P1. If it is true that death is absolute nothing, then, necessarily, neither mind nor matter can occupy the same world as death (nothing). If only one thing exists, be it mind or matter, then absolute nothing is impossible.P2. At least one thing exists.Prove at least one thing exists! Why cant there be neither?Edited · Like · More · 3 minutes ago Dylan Whitney 2.))The absence of a person cannot be intrinsic to itself at a particular time, since persons cannot be constituted by the absences of themselves.A person is alive, where-from a dead person is constituted by the absences of itself. So death is intrinsic.Like · More · 4 minutes ago
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:19:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015