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):