Derek Parfit (Oxford) has argued that it is not personal identity that matters to us. Why should we care if what survives of us is or isn't the selfsame person as previously? (The police and the insurance company and the Inland Revenue might care, of course). So what do you want to survive of your present self 1) into old age, 2) after death?
Parfit's point is partly that something of us can survive - not enough to satisfy your interest in immortality, perhaps, but something, for a time. Not even in your own continuous consciousness, perhaps, but in the thoughts and memories of others. "What will survive of us is love", Philip Larkin said in a lovely poem ("An Arundel Tomb"). Not just love, though: also, the way we may have affected the world, influenced others, etc.
Would this be better than nothing? What would you prefer: that you survive your death as a disembodied consciousness or that tangible effects on the world or on other people continue without you?
NB Get ready to revise Reason and Experience.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"If you would be a seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours."
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
Plato
Descartes
John Locke
David Hume
Kant
Wittgenstein
Sapere Aude
A Level Philosophy Forum
Who said?
"If you would be a seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours."
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
Plato
Descartes
John Locke
David Hume
Kant
Wittgenstein
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(39)
-
▼
May
(17)
- Exam Essay
- Free Will Revision
- Free Will: Implications
- Free Will: Libertarianism and Compatibilism
- Free Will and Determinism: Introduction
- The best philosophy quote!
- Revision
- Revision
- Conceptual Schemes
- Criticisms of Empiricism
- Empiricism
- Rationalism
- Funny innate
- God and evolution, the meaning of life
- Reason and Experience: Introduction
- Survival
- Mars Teletransporter Thought Experiment
-
▼
May
(17)
2 comments:
hmm, i think i would like to have some sort of consciousness after death so i can see how family are doing here, so i can see further generations grow up and their achievments. But i would like to have done something that would have me remembered forever, like inventing something that is used in the whole world, just like the TV and Phone have made other people famous.
I think it all depends how you look at the world. Trying to avoid sounding insane, I go through phases where I simply wonder: why? I've found myself being an existing thing, can't really recall how it happened because I don't remember being born, I only have word of mouth and gastly pictures of a giant pink jelly baby that's, supposedly, me. I trundle from day to day, eating and sleeping, going to school, because that's what people do. But taking a step back from it all, I am such an insignificant part of the whole picture, what would it matter if I just died? Simply went out of existence.
But then there's the 'human-y' stance to take, and this stance is what it's all about. I would leave behind the people I know and love, and the world, and I might not realise it but I may have made an impact already. I don't know that the world will continue chugging along as it does now once I die, I can only assume it will because other people have died and I have seen that the life keeps going. Perhaps if I were to die, its just lights out. Nothing. I think that's a very solipsistic view to have.
So in conclusion...well I don't know. I guess if I were to become a writer or a singer, I'd like people to have my books or cds on their shelves once I pop off. I think it depends what role you see yourself as playing in life. A person who thinks they are worth remembering would have different views to someone who sees themself as insignificant in the big picture. I'm not sure which one I am.
Famous folk like Wordsworth and Shakespeare might still move someone to tears with their words today, and yet they did not know that person. So, perhaps, one would want to have the ability to have an emotional impact on someone, a complete stranger, after they are gone. Or perhaps a practical impact, by inventing something.
I like what Graeme said, the consciousness thing. Perhaps without a body, just a floating 'being' to keep an eye on day to day happenings, although I guess it would somehow need eyes....I don't know, I think that requires some pondering. How long would that last? Forever? Or for another human lifespan? It might depend on how long you wanted to keep in contact with the world. There may come a point where the people who were close to you when you were alive are long dead, and the present generations have no sentimental meaning to you. But then again, would you want to see what happens? Whether 'forever' really exists? Is there in fact a beginning and an end to 'life'.
Also, love love love, love is all you need.
Post a Comment