Eugine_Nier comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong

6 [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (898)
Tags: quotes

Comments (898)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 05:27:15AM 1 point [-]

Fair enough, but I think Epicurus' point might be rephrased thus:

I grant that we seem to have very good empirical evidence of the possibility of death. Overwhelming evidence, by most standards. The trouble is, the very idea of death is incoherent. So whatever we call death must be a feature of a faulty map. It's simply impossible for it to be in the territory: in order for someone to be dead, they both have to exist (insofar as they have a property, namely 'being dead') and not exist (because they're dead!). No amount of empirical evidence can support a theory which entails a contradiction.

-not really Epicurus

If that's right, it's not so much a question of being concerned about things you don't coexist with. He's saying that it's irrational to be concerned about things which are impossible and inconceivable.

That's stupid, of course. Of course, people die. But I have a hard time seeing where the argument actually goes wrong. I am regrettably susceptible to philosophical nonsense of every kind.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 November 2012 06:57:54PM 1 point [-]

This argument implicitly assumes that we can't meaningfully talk about things not in the present.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 08:54:13PM 0 points [-]

The argument asserts that 'death' (which we might taboo as 'a change, the result of which is not existing') is an incoherent concept. It's not claiming that death is always in the future, it's claiming that there is just no such thing as death.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 November 2012 08:06:52PM *  2 points [-]

I wasn't referring to death not being in the present. Rather, the problem with the statement

in order for someone to be dead, they both have to exist (insofar as they have a property, namely 'being dead') and not exist (because they're dead!).

is that it assumes that because the person doesn't exist in the present, it isn't meaningful to talk about that person existing at all.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 November 2012 08:31:35PM 0 points [-]

Ahh, I see, that's a very good point. So you would say that Socrates, despite being dead, nevertheless exists now as someone who is dead.

I suppose if we've got a block-time view of things anyway, existence wouldn't have much of anything to do with presentness.

I like that answer.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit