Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that On this perdurance view, death's misfortune is ascribed to the person's terminal temporal stage, dissolving the existential gap Epicurus exploited.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The terminal stage exists only at the moment of death and cannot experience deprivation of future goods. Locating harm there fails to capture why missing life is bad.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if the terminal stage is harmed, this doesn't explain why *the person* (the whole temporal continuum) is harmed by events occurring after they cease to exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Epicurus's argument requires that the subject of harm must exist when harm occurs. Perdurance theory satisfies this by locating harm at the terminal stage when the person still exists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal stages are concrete parts of a four-dimensional object. Harm to a stage is harm to the whole, just as damage to a car's bumper harms the car itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This view preserves our intuition that death is bad for the person while avoiding the logical incoherence of absent subjects being harmed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.