Death and Existence
In this post, I would like to consider the question of whether people sometimes continue to exist after they have died.
Let me first make some introductory remarks in an attempt to clarify this question. It appears that some things begin existing at one time and cease to exist at another time. Consider, for instance, the World Trade Center. The World Trade Center did not exist in 1700 and it does not exist in 2008. However, there were times between 1700 and 2008 when the World Trade Center existed. So it seems that the World Trade Center began to exist at some time between 1700 and 2008 and also ceased to exist at some (distinct) time between 1700 and 2008.
Similar remarks apply to living things. Consider any currently existing tree. That tree did not exist 1,000,000 years ago but it does exist today. So at some time between 1,000,000 years ago and today, that tree began to exist. Furthermore, if we were to cut down and burn the tree, it would not exist at the end of that process. Thus, there would be a time between now and the time at which the process has ended at which the tree ceased to exist.
But in addition to ceasing to exist, living things also die. For instance, if one takes a currently existing living tree, cuts it down, and burns it, then that tree will die at some point during that process.
Thus, for any living thing, we can consider the time that it dies and ask whether it also ceases to exist at that time. Thus, for instance, consider some tree that was actually cut down and burned at some point in the past and consider the time at which it died. We can ask whether it ceased to exist at that time in addition to dying at that time.
Similar remarks apply to people. People die. (My maternal grandmother, for instance, died.) So we can ask whether every person ceases to exist when he or she dies or whether instead some people continue to exist after they die.
I think that some people continue to exist after they die. In fact, I think that this is a relatively common view. However, my reasons for thinking that some people continue to exist after they die differ, I think, from the reasons that many others would give for thinking so. Let me explain.
As far as I can tell, many of those who think that some people continue to exist after they die think that this is so because they believe that certain traditional religious doctrines are true. In particular, they think that my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died because she is now either in Heaven or in Hell (or in Purgatory). In addition, they think that the same is true of other people. In fact, many who accept these traditional religious doctrines think that every person continues to exist after he or she dies.
However, I reject the traditional religious views on which this reason for thinking that some people continue to exist after they die is based. I deny the existence of Heaven and Hell (and Purgatory) and so I think that no one who dies goes to those places.
My reasons for thinking that some people exist after they die are entirely non-religious. Here's why I think that some people continue to exist after they die. My maternal grandmother was a person. But my maternal grandmother was buried after she died. So my maternal grandmother did not cease to exist when she died. Thus, some people continue to exist after they die.
Here's a more formal presentation of my argument:
1. My maternal grandmother was buried after she died.
2. If my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die.
3. Therefore, some people continue to exist after they die.
This argument is valid; that is, if claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) must be true as well. So I will now turn to giving reasons to think that each of these claims is true.
Why think that (1) is true? Well, a few days after my maternal grandmother died, my father said "Your grandma is being buried tomorrow". And what my father said was true. But in order for what my father said to be true, it must be true that my maternal grandmother was buried the day after he said it. But that day was after my maternal grandmother died. Thus, my maternal grandmother was buried after she died.
It is easy to see that (2) is true as well. For my maternal grandmother could not have been buried at a time unless she existed at that time. However, if she had ceased to exist when she died, she would not have existed after she died. And my maternal grandmother was a person. Thus, if my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die.
Here is a more formal statement of this reasoning in favor of (2). Suppose that my maternal grandmother was buried after she died. If my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then my maternal grandmother existed after she died, since if she did not exist after she died, she couldn't have been buried then. Thus, my maternal grandmother existed after she died. But if my maternal grandmother existed after she died, then my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died. Thus, my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died. But my maternal grandmother was a person. Thus, some people continue to exist after they die. So, on the supposition that my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, some people continue to exist after they die. Therefore, if my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die; that is, (2) is true.
In this post, I have offered an argument in favor of the conclusion that some people continue to exist after they have died. I have also given reasons to think that both of the claims made in support of that conclusion are true. Since the argument is valid, anyone who disagrees with the conclusion must also deny one of those claims and thus find fault with the reasons I gave to think that they are true. Furthermore, even those who agree with the conclusion may think that one of the claims made in support of the conclusion is false. So they too must find some fault with the reasons I gave to think that those claims are true. I fully expect that some people will think that the argument I have given is unsuccessful and that they will have objections to it. However, rather than addressing those objections here, I will wait until they are raised to respond to them.
[I should mention that my thinking on these matters has been greatly influenced by Fred Feldman's discussion of them in Chapter 6 of his book Confrontations with the Reaper. I highly recommend that chapter to anyone with an interest in the questions addressed in this post. In addition, I recommend the whole book to anyone interested in philosophical questions concerning life and death.]
Let me first make some introductory remarks in an attempt to clarify this question. It appears that some things begin existing at one time and cease to exist at another time. Consider, for instance, the World Trade Center. The World Trade Center did not exist in 1700 and it does not exist in 2008. However, there were times between 1700 and 2008 when the World Trade Center existed. So it seems that the World Trade Center began to exist at some time between 1700 and 2008 and also ceased to exist at some (distinct) time between 1700 and 2008.
Similar remarks apply to living things. Consider any currently existing tree. That tree did not exist 1,000,000 years ago but it does exist today. So at some time between 1,000,000 years ago and today, that tree began to exist. Furthermore, if we were to cut down and burn the tree, it would not exist at the end of that process. Thus, there would be a time between now and the time at which the process has ended at which the tree ceased to exist.
But in addition to ceasing to exist, living things also die. For instance, if one takes a currently existing living tree, cuts it down, and burns it, then that tree will die at some point during that process.
Thus, for any living thing, we can consider the time that it dies and ask whether it also ceases to exist at that time. Thus, for instance, consider some tree that was actually cut down and burned at some point in the past and consider the time at which it died. We can ask whether it ceased to exist at that time in addition to dying at that time.
Similar remarks apply to people. People die. (My maternal grandmother, for instance, died.) So we can ask whether every person ceases to exist when he or she dies or whether instead some people continue to exist after they die.
I think that some people continue to exist after they die. In fact, I think that this is a relatively common view. However, my reasons for thinking that some people continue to exist after they die differ, I think, from the reasons that many others would give for thinking so. Let me explain.
As far as I can tell, many of those who think that some people continue to exist after they die think that this is so because they believe that certain traditional religious doctrines are true. In particular, they think that my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died because she is now either in Heaven or in Hell (or in Purgatory). In addition, they think that the same is true of other people. In fact, many who accept these traditional religious doctrines think that every person continues to exist after he or she dies.
However, I reject the traditional religious views on which this reason for thinking that some people continue to exist after they die is based. I deny the existence of Heaven and Hell (and Purgatory) and so I think that no one who dies goes to those places.
My reasons for thinking that some people exist after they die are entirely non-religious. Here's why I think that some people continue to exist after they die. My maternal grandmother was a person. But my maternal grandmother was buried after she died. So my maternal grandmother did not cease to exist when she died. Thus, some people continue to exist after they die.
Here's a more formal presentation of my argument:
1. My maternal grandmother was buried after she died.
2. If my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die.
3. Therefore, some people continue to exist after they die.
This argument is valid; that is, if claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) must be true as well. So I will now turn to giving reasons to think that each of these claims is true.
Why think that (1) is true? Well, a few days after my maternal grandmother died, my father said "Your grandma is being buried tomorrow". And what my father said was true. But in order for what my father said to be true, it must be true that my maternal grandmother was buried the day after he said it. But that day was after my maternal grandmother died. Thus, my maternal grandmother was buried after she died.
It is easy to see that (2) is true as well. For my maternal grandmother could not have been buried at a time unless she existed at that time. However, if she had ceased to exist when she died, she would not have existed after she died. And my maternal grandmother was a person. Thus, if my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die.
Here is a more formal statement of this reasoning in favor of (2). Suppose that my maternal grandmother was buried after she died. If my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then my maternal grandmother existed after she died, since if she did not exist after she died, she couldn't have been buried then. Thus, my maternal grandmother existed after she died. But if my maternal grandmother existed after she died, then my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died. Thus, my maternal grandmother continued to exist after she died. But my maternal grandmother was a person. Thus, some people continue to exist after they die. So, on the supposition that my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, some people continue to exist after they die. Therefore, if my maternal grandmother was buried after she died, then some people continue to exist after they die; that is, (2) is true.
In this post, I have offered an argument in favor of the conclusion that some people continue to exist after they have died. I have also given reasons to think that both of the claims made in support of that conclusion are true. Since the argument is valid, anyone who disagrees with the conclusion must also deny one of those claims and thus find fault with the reasons I gave to think that they are true. Furthermore, even those who agree with the conclusion may think that one of the claims made in support of the conclusion is false. So they too must find some fault with the reasons I gave to think that those claims are true. I fully expect that some people will think that the argument I have given is unsuccessful and that they will have objections to it. However, rather than addressing those objections here, I will wait until they are raised to respond to them.
[I should mention that my thinking on these matters has been greatly influenced by Fred Feldman's discussion of them in Chapter 6 of his book Confrontations with the Reaper. I highly recommend that chapter to anyone with an interest in the questions addressed in this post. In addition, I recommend the whole book to anyone interested in philosophical questions concerning life and death.]
posted by Greg at 8:22 PM
6 Comments:
I think your conclusion is true in the same sense that some triangles can become four-sided: material that was once a triangle can become 4-sided material instead.
The burial case shows that, sometimes, when talking about people, we are really talking about their bodies (which happen to constitute a person at certain times). The body certainly continues to exist after the person dies. But it doesn't continue to exist as a person.
Hi Richard,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "I think that your conclusion is true in the same sense that some triangles can become four-sided"
Suppose that I have a triangle (that is, a triangular material object) in front of me. Call that triangle "Trixie". Now it seems to me that Trixie, that very triangle that is currently in front of me, can become four-sided. In fact, assuming that Trixie is made of the right sort of material, I think that it might very well be that Trixie, that very triangle that is currently in front of me, will become four-sided.
Now if I'm right about these things, then it is true that some triangles can become four-sided, since Trixie is a triangle and can become four-sided. And if your comment is to be interpreted in this way, I agree that my conclusion is true in the same sense as the claim that some triangles can become four-sided, since I think that some things are such that they are people at one time and exist at another time although they have died prior to the second time. In fact, I think that my maternal grandmother is like this: she was a person at one time and existed at another time (in particular, the time of her burial) although she had died prior to the second time.
But I take it that you do not accept this interpretation of your remarks. Instead, you think that there can be no future time at which Trixie, that very triangle that is currently in front of me, is a triangle. And you think that the same is true of every triangle. Thus, in the sense of "Some triangles can become four-sided" described above, you deny that some triangles can become four-sided.
However, you think that there is a sense of "Some triangles can become four-sided" in which it is true that some triangles can become four-sided. What is this sense? I think that it is this: Some material that makes up a triangle can make up a four-sided object.
Now I certainly agree with this (although I doubt that it is really a sense of "Some triangles can become four-sided"). And I also agree with what I take to be the analogous interpretation of my conclusion: Some material is such that it makes up a person at one time and exists at another time although that person has died prior to the second time.
So I agree that "Some triangles can become four-sided" is true in the sense you mean (if it really is a sense of that sentence, at least). I also agree that my conclusion is true in that same sense; that is, I think that the analogous way of interpreting my conclusion is true as well. However, I think that "Some triangles can become four-sided" is true in the other sense I specified as well, and I think that my conclusion is true on the way of interpreting it that is analogous to this other sense. But I take it that you deny this.
Anyway, let me know whether I have accurately described your position and have clarified the disagreement between us. I should be able to say more about your comment soon.
There may not be any disagreement between us. I was just wanting to suggest that the person, once dead, does not continue to exist as a person. (Perhaps you already agree?) So that defuses what might otherwise appear to be a shocking claim. From here, there are a couple of ways we could interpret what it is that does continue to exist (as a mere body). I'm less fussed about that; the difference strikes me as merely terminological.
Hi again Richard,
OK, I think I understand the claim you are making now. In the case of triangles, you would want to say that a particular triangle, like Trixie, can become four-sided but that if Trixie does become four-sided, then Trixie is no longer a triangle. In other words, you want to say that (i) it is possible for something to be a triangle at one time and four-sided at a later time, but (ii) it is not possible for something to be a triangle at a time and to be four-sided at that time.
Similarly, you think it is true that some people continue to exist after they die, but that to say this is only to say that something is a person at one time and exists at some time after its death. Furthermore, you want to say that nothing is a person at any time after its death.
I agree with you concerning how to interpret the claim that some people continue to exist after they die. All that is intended by this claim is that something is a person at a time and exists at some time after it dies.
However, I'm not sure I agree with you that nothing is a person at any time after its death. As I see it, "person" has at least two senses. There is the sense used when ordinary English speakers use the word "person", according to which a person is simply a human being--that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, there is the sense used in certain philosophical contexts, according to which a person is something with certain mental capacities.
Now I think that what you say is true if you are using the philosophical sense of "person"; nothing is what we might call a "philosophical person" at any time after its death. However, it's not clear to me whether what you say is true if you are using the ordinary sense of the word "person"; that is, it's not clear to me whether nothing is what we might call a "biological person" at any time after its death. In fact, I'm inclined to think that's false; that is, I'm inclined to think that some things are biological persons at some time after their death.
Please check out these references by a "philosopher" who really knows what He is talking about--because He has passed through the entire process.
1. http://www.easydeathbook.com
2. http://www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm
3. http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm
4. http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html
5. http://www.adidabiennale.org/curation/index.htm
Cool story as for me. It would be great to read something more concerning this theme. Thanks for giving that information.
Sexy Lady
Russian Escorts
Post a Comment
<< Home