Thursday, September 27, 2012
What Has Me Thinking
At the end of Plato's Apology, Socrates argues that he should not fear death because death is either a cessation of consciousness or a blessing: he'll get to spend his days post mortem speaking with his heroes. I've always used this as an example of a false dilemma in logic class. My question: does it have any evidential value for the nonbeliever, i.e. if we only look at evidence available through mere human effort, does the good man have reason to think nothing bad will happen after death? Let me know your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Socrates only assumes the possibility of a "heaven" afterlife, but at least around 1/3 of the world's population belongs to religions that condemn all non-believers (saints and sinners alike) to eternal damnation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, another issue with Socrates claim is that he seems perfectly fine with an end to all thought. Why would someone be fine with the end of their existence? We are going to a better place, the same place, a worse place, or no place at all. All respect to Socrates, but a 50/50 chance of ending up somewhere worse than my present condition is not worth drinking the hemlock.
Yes, the possibility of hell shows that the argument is not a good one. What I'm wondering: if we start from the position where we have no religious beliefs and just depend on sensory experience and our own abilities to deduce, is there any reason to think the good person should worry?
ReplyDeleteI'm leaning towards this: if there is more rational evidence for materialism-the view that humans are merely made of atoms-than any other position, then wouldn't this show that death is most likely the first alternative of Socrates, i.e. the loss of consciousness? The question becomes then whether materialism wins out over its competitors.
I do not believe the sole question would be if materialism wins out over dualism or pluralism, we also must determine if non-existence would be better than life. Perhaps it could be so for a Terry Schiavo or one of Kevorkian's patients, but for someone who has a good quality of life (which it appears that Socrates did) I see no reason to be fine with a loss of consciousness.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to accept that life or the lack of life is irrelevant, or to believe unequivocally that the after-life is superior to the present life, what would be the reason to not commit suicide, or, at the very least, live the riskiest life anyone has ever known. Either extreme of belief would create a society which could not function.