Phenomenology of Death and Absolute

7/31/2019 Phenomenology of Death and Absolute

1/11

PDA 1

Phenomenology of Death and the Absolute

Louis, Anna Margarita B.

Rodriguez, Justin Charles N.

Mr. Jorge Arellano

BSCS III

March 12, 2012


2/11

PDA 2

The Phenomenology of Death

Anna Margarita LouisIn a day and age when the world is gripped with dispute and disagreement is at its peak,

there remains one fact that is undisputed, moreover is accepted by each and everyone: Death. No

matter what religion, group or sect one may be attached to, the fact of dying is not refuted. This

is a general truth that all of us know, however not all of us take this lightly, some of us

terrifyingly wait for it to happen as if it is not an essential part of what we call life. But what

does death really mean? Is it just the opposite of life? Or does it have its own essence than just

being the absence of existence?

According to Wikipedia, death is the term used to describe the cessation of all biological

functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include

old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. All

known organisms inevitably experience death.

Whenever "death" is mentioned, we think first of biological death, but this tendency to

focus exclusively on the objective, terminal fact of dying may well be a trick of thought designed

to protect us from noticing our fear of ceasing-to-be or our even deeper ontological anxiety. We

have other protective techniques as well: religious illusions, philosophical desensitization, and

diversionary small-talk. Most of these distracting ploys amount to seeing death exclusively as an

objective event, which befalls all plants, animals, and people eventually. All such attempts to

picture and talk about death as a fact are (at least in part) attempts to evade the two deeper

dimensions of death by interpreting death only from the point of view of a spectator. Such

approaches keep death outside of ourselves a phenomenon we know about only as observers,

never as participants (Park, 2006).


3/11

PDA 3

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it

does come, we no longer exist. This is how Epicurus viewed the concept of death. Death is not

something to be feared, which is a contradicting thought with that of the Westerners for over two

thousand years, regardless of the strength of his other views. He argued that man should rid

himself of the irrational fear of death (http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm). But why

people fear death in the first place? Death usually connotes suffering, pain, misfortune, sorrow,

leaving behind of the beloved, leaving behind of ones body. These are the reasons why it would

always be painful.

However, by "death," Epicurus did not mean the process of dying which may be very

painful, and thus, bad for us. He also did not mean the moment of death, of which we may or

may not have an experience and which may be good or bad for us, but of which we have no

experience until that moment. And, then we are no more. What he meant was, being dead. If

we accept the metaphysical implication that we no longer exist and that we no longer have

sentience when we are dead, then his argument is sound

(http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm).

Arguing in his Principal Doctrines that "without natural science it is not possible to attain

our pleasures unalloyed" (Bailey 1926, p. 97), he turned to Democritus's atomism, which held

that the universe and everything in it is the product of accidental forces and composed of small

bits of matter called atoms (atomoi). Epicurus accepted this as a reasonable explanation of life,

and also saw in it the solution to human fears. As he puts forth in his Letter, in death the subject

simply ceases to exist (the atoms are dispersed) and is therefore touched neither by the gods nor

the experience of death itself: death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation,

but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to


4/11

PDA 4

us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but

because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man

who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. [Death] does not then

concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.

(Bailey 1926, pp. 124125)

Many scholars have objected to this argument by noting that it is often the anticipation of

death, not the event itself, that disturbs humankind. For example, the scholar Warren Shibles

points out in his book written on 1974, that Epicurus's argument amounts to showing that "we

cannot fear the state of death because we will not be conscious after death. But we certainly can

fear losing consciousness" (http://www.deathreference.com/En-Gh/Epicurus.html#b).

If death is the permanent, irrevocable loss of everything in this life, we say that the one

who died suffers the loss. It is a tragic thing for him to lose all he has - his family, his friends, his

possessions and even his dreams that he can achieve - if only he lived longer. In fact, death is a

deprivation of life, deprivation of the goodness that can be reached, may it be material things or

the mere fact of achieving something good or valuable, and achievements that makes life worthy.

Death is clearly one such limitation. We cannot choose to keep on being, to sustain our

present life indefinitely. Yet it is just this fact which gives added poignancy to the choice of how

we live our life. Had we an infinite amount of time to play with, it would not matter so much

what we did with any particular day or lifetime (Westphal, 1987).

Another famous philosopher Heidegger gave his view about death. Death is a way to be,

which Dasein takes over as soon as it is. As soon as man comes to life, he is at once old enough

to die. (Heidegger, Being and Time 289). Death is inescapable. People normally and generally

fear death. We have cultivated the habit of thinking that death concerns only others. Dasein


5/11

PDA 5

means being-in-this-world or there-being. It therefore manifests the reality that human

beings have the possibility of death.

According to Pollio (1997), in his book The Phenomenology of Everyday Life, Since

human existence is continually in the process of becoming, one's being-in-the-world is always a

being-toward-death regardless of whether or not one chooses to acknowledge this fact. Since

death is certain yet indefinite, one's "being-toward-death is essentially anxious" (Heidegger,

1927/1962). One cannot fully live unless he/she confronts his/her own mortality. A human

being cannot achieve a complete and meaningful life or any kind of authentic existence unless

he or she comes to terms with temporality a uniquely human awareness that a human being is a

finite, historical, and temporal being. The awareness of death is a central beginning for

understanding this temporality.

In Being and Time, Heidegger maintains that the everyday evasion of my own death

happens by taking my own death as if it were the death of another. Death is not really

encountered when another dies insofar as one lives on. Furthermore, although one suffers a loss

when another dies. It would be a mistake to equate that loss with the loss that the dying person

experiences. When the other dies, for the survivors there is just one less person in the world,

whereas the dying person loses everything (Dreyfus, 2011).

Death will complete me. Finally being able to understand what Heidegger is really

pointing out, the first question that came to my mind was, whos not afraid of death? Of course

everybody is afraid of it. First off, nobody knows how we will die. Its either painful or not.

Also, we dont know what it is like if we die. Since no one came back to life after they died, no

one can explain to us what it is like to die. Nobody exactly knows what it is like and nobody

knows what will really happen to us if we die. All we know is that when a person dies peacefully


6/11

PDA 6

and truly accepts his/her death, the rest will happen peacefully. Im not sure if they are happy

about it or not since they may or may not fulfilled what they wanted when they were still alive.

One may experience the anguish of knowing that they have unfulfilled desires, or one

may experience the anticipation of one's death. This anticipation of death is bad for us, and is

exactly what Epicurus set out to show is an irrational fear that we can rid ourselves of. Thus, the

fact that someone is upset about being given a poison pill is due to valid reasons, or to confusion

about "death," or to the irrational fear of death that Epicurus was trying to remove from man.

But, in no case is it because of a fear of being dead. Thus, Epicurus' death argument is sound.

Man should not fear being dead (http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm).

Death is mandatory. If death comes there will be no exception, this is the only one that

we cant escape. We cant excuse ourselves from death, no excuse letter for death that will

consider us. Death is death. No matter how much we escape from it, it will still find its way to

get us if its really our time to die.

Phenomenology of God

Justin Charles N. Rodriguez

Consider the environment we live in. The deep underwater world, the vast habitat of

different living creatures, the dark and infinite universe, our complex body, our brain. Is there

any chance that these are carefully laid out to form such beautiful and complex masterpiece?

Science proves that everything come from a simpler form of life. But it always came to a point

that they stop because there is a dead end to their investigations. And this is where the concept

of the existence of a Creator enters the scene. The creator whom most of the people believe is

God. But does God really exist?


7/11

PDA 7

In serious quest in discussing the truth, several opposing views regarding the existence of

God have been established. Theologians and some religious mathematicians like St. Anselm, St.

Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Max Planck and Blaise Pascal believe that there is

God. On the other hand, atheists, humanists and most scientists like Stephen Hawking, Isaac

Asimov and James Watson do not believe in the existence of God. Ironically, there are some

theologians like William Hamilton who consider God dead. Some are deists like Albert Einstein

who place themselves in the middle of the argument who do not claim nor disclaim that there is

God.

Saint Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of God using five proofs. According to

Samuel Enoch Stumpf, the writer of Philosophy History & Problems, Aquinas said that all

knowledge must begin inasmuch as the actual existence is greater than the mere ideas of

perfection. Aquinas rested his five proofs upon the ideas derived from a rational understanding

of the ordinary objects that we experience with our senses. The chief characteristic of all sense

objects is that their existence requires a cause. That every event or every object requires a cause

is something the human intellect knows as a principle whenever, but not until, it comes in contact

with experience (1989). This means that even though we did not directly sense Him, we can

prove that He exists.

The first proof of St. Thomas is the proof from motion. If a thing is at rest, it will never

move until something else moves it. When a thing is at rest, it is only potentially in motion

(Stumpf, 1989, p. 182). This reflects the first theory of Sir Isaac Newton that states that every

object is in the state of rest or in straight motion unless a force acted upon on it. This means that,

all things in this realm is moved by a force since we cannot account for infinite motion. But how

can an object move if it is not being moved? That result St. Thomas to arrive into a conclusion


8/11

PDA 8

that there must be a Moverand that is understood everyone as God, according to St. Thomas.

He has in mind the broadest meaning of motion so as to include the idea of generation and

creation ... the Mover would also be only potentially in motion (Stumpf, 1989, p. 182).

Therefore, the Mover must be absolute to perform that task.

Proof from efficient cause is the second proof usedby St. Thomas. A case is prior to an

effect. Nothing, then, can be prior to itself; hence, events demand a prior cause. Each prior cause

must itself have its own cause, as parents must have their own parents. But it is impossible to go

backward to infinity, because all the causes in the series depend upon a first efficient cause that

has made all other causes in the series depend upon a first efficient cause that has made all other

causes to be actual causes (Stumpf, 1989, p. 183).

The third proof is the proof from necessary versus possible being. All possible beings,

therefore, at one time did not exist, will exist for a time and will finally pass out of existence.

Once possible things do come into existence, they can cause other similar possible beings to be

generated (Stumpf, 1989, p. 183). Living things participating in a food web in an ecosystem

depends on one another to exist. Existence of a predator depends on the existence of the prey and

the existence of the prey depends on the existence of its food. The existence of its food depends

on the condition of the environment it lives. The dependency will be traced back to the first

existence of something but this one does not depend on others to exist. This is called the

necessary being. As quoted by Stumpf, the existence of some being having of itself its own

necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others this necessity. This all

men speak of as God (Stumpf, 1989, p. 183).

All things are arranged according to its essentiality. While there are so many things that

are less important, there exist who is baronial and best. This is the fourth proof of St. Thomas.


9/11

PDA 9

The proof from the degrees of perfection. St. Thomas states here, as quoted by Stumpf, that there

must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other

perfection; and this we call God (Stumpf, 1989).

The proof from the order of the universe is the fifth proof of St. Tomas to Gods

existence. Our body is composed of millions and millions of cells that are designed to perform

specific task. The stars, the moon, the sun, the planets and other heavenly bodies behave orderly.

They cannot have their function if there is no one who do not have the intelligence to direct

them. Through this, St. Thomas concluded, that some intelligent being exists by whom all natural

things are directed to their ends; and this being we call God (Stumpf, 1989).

Another theistic philosopher argued about the existence of God. He is omniscient

(Mendoza, et.al., 2008). Therefore, God who is the ultimate reason things, and the Knowledge of

God is no less the beginning of science than his essence and will are the beginning of things

(Science Quotes by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). According to him, God is absolutely perfect

in power, wisdom and goodness (Mendoza, et.al., 2008). Since perfection is attributed to God, it

is unanalyzable and incapable of being closed by limits. God is perfect so his existence is

necessary to every being.

Everyone has the right to believe on someones view of Gods existence. The only thing

that matter is my faith in him. Faith that if are strong enough, will lead me to believe Him. And if

I reside myself in His sail, will surely make me a possible being that makes Him more necessary.


10/11

PDA 10

References

Book References

Dreyfus, H. L. & Wrathall, M. A. (2011). A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism.

Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from

http://www.books.google.com

Epicurus. (1926). "Letter to Menoeceus." In Epicurus: The Extant Remains, translated by Cyril

Bailey. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Epicurus. (1926). Prinicpal Doctrines. In Epicurus: The Extant Remains, translated by Cyril

Bailey. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mendoza, A. C, & Apolinar, E. (2008). Philosophy of Man Towards Perfection. Quezon City,

Philippines: J-Creative labels & Printing Corporation

Pollio, H. R., Henley T. B., & Thompson, C. J. (1997). The Phenomenology of Everyday Life.

West Nyack, New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from


Shibles, Warren. Death: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. Madison, WI: The Language Press, 1974.

Stumpf, S. E (1989). Philosophy History & Problems. United States: Mc Graw-Hill,

Incorporated

Westphal, M. (1987). God, Guilt, and Death: An Existential Phenomenology of Religion.

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Retrieved from


Electronic References


11/11

PDA 11

(March 9, 2012). Death. [Website] Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#cite_note-

0

(February 27, 2012). Phenomenology (philosophy). [Website] Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

(Dec 22, 2007). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. [website] Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#ExiGod

Mark Linder. (August 11, 2007). Epicurus' Death Argument. Retrieved from

http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm on March 11, 2012.

William Cooney. Epicurus. Retrieved from http://www.deathreference.com/En-

Gh/Epicurus.html#b

James Park. (2006). An Existential Understanding of Death: A Phenomenology of Ontological

Anxiety. Retrieved from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/UD.html on March 11, 2012.

Phenomenology of Death and Absolute

Documents

Transcript of Phenomenology of Death and Absolute