This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Death

 Is Thomas Nagel Death writing consoling?

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

GET YOUR PRICE

writers online

 Is Thomas Nagel Death writing consoling?

 Is Thomas Nagel Death writing consoling?http://dbanach.com/death.htm OPTION FOUR: Philosophical Analysis—Nagel’s Death Essay Argue either, “Nagel’s essay is consoling” (in an objective sense, not just for you personally) or “Nagel’s essay is not consoling” (in an objective sense, not just for you personally). Note that I have not defined what “consoling” might mean: that’s for you to do (ethically, psychologically, philosophically, none-of-the-above?)! Again, as I said in one of the Paper#2 options—nuance, complexity, contradiction, tension, and etc. are not voided by taking a stand; you just don’t want to straddle the fence. I will add: Nagel himself, being a professional philosopher, knows how to “definitively” argue a point and, presumably, is after “truth” (irrespective if that truth is a seemingly happy pill or a sad pill). And yet at the same time there may be argumentative maneuvers or an overall rhetoric that makes him “hold his punches” for the quasi-popular audience he is writing for. Or maybe he is too ″philosophical″ and ignores what any person living-in-time (and subject to, as it were, the irrationality of such) likely ponders. Regardless: you need to read his essay rather carefully; some of his points are obvious, some less so. Use the link following for your secondary source: Is death bad for us?Links to an external site. If you find the above too breezy or otherwise not useful for your argument, go to this more comprehensive article below (″Death″ in the Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

“Nagel’s essay is not consoling” (in an objective sense, not just for you personally). Note that I have not defined what “consoling” might mean: that’s for you to do (ethically, psychologically, philosophically, none-of-the-above?)! Again, as I said in one of the Paper#2 options—nuance, complexity, contradiction, tension, and etc. are not voided by taking a stand; you just don’t want to straddle the fence. I will add: Nagel himself, being a professional philosopher, knows how to “definitively” argue a point and, presumably, is after “truth” (irrespective if that truth is a seemingly happy pill or a sad pill). And yet at the same time there may be argumentative maneuvers or an overall rhetoric that makes him “hold his punches” for the quasi-popular audience he is writing for. Or maybe he is too ″philosophical″ and ignores what any person living-in-time (and subject to, as it were, the irrationality of such) likely ponders. Regardless: you need to read his essay rather carefully; some of his points are obvious, some less so. Use the link following for your secondary source: Is death bad for us?Links to an external site. If you find the above too breezy or otherwise not useful for your argument, go to this more comprehensive article below (″Death″ in the Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

“Nagel’s essay is not consoling” (in an objective sense, not just for you personally). Note that I have not defined what “consoling” might mean: that’s for you to do (ethically, psychologically, philosophically, none-of-the-above?)! Again, as I said in one of the Paper#2 options—nuance, complexity, contradiction, tension, and etc. are not voided by taking a stand; you just don’t want to straddle the fence. I will add: Nagel himself, being a professional philosopher, knows how to “definitively” argue a point and, presumably, is after “truth” (irrespective if that truth is a seemingly happy pill or a sad pill). And yet at the same time there may be argumentative maneuvers or an overall rhetoric that makes him “hold his punches” for the quasi-popular audience he is writing for. Or maybe he is too ″philosophical″ and ignores what any person living-in-time (and subject to, as it were, the irrationality of such) likely ponders. Regardless: you need to read his essay rather carefully; some of his points are obvious, some less so. Use the link following for your secondary source: Is death bad for us?Links to an external site. If you find the above too breezy or otherwise not useful for your argument, go to this more comprehensive article below (″Death″ in the Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask