Bernard Williams’ The Makropulos Case, focuses on the topic of immortality, and the issues that would arise from being immortal. Williams’ uses the concept of the Makropulos play to refute the idea of immortality, because the protagonist kills themselves out of unbearable boredom from exhausting their categorical desires. Whereas John Martin Fischer rejects Williams’ view of immortality, due to the limiting constraints of his argument. Fischer asserts the immortal life would be livable, because it reflects a mortal life. In effect, I will further Fischer’s argument, in proposing the concept of categorical desires evolving, and then the significance of external factors occurring in society. Therefore, this essay will explain the significant …show more content…
Therefore, Williams’ asserts the immortal life would be undesirable, or unlivable since we will inevitably exhaust our categorical desires (100).
Whereas, Fischer denies Williams’ dilemma, because his argument is too narrow in thinking, because Williams asserts the agent would possess only one categorical desire. However, Fischer denies Williams’ assertion, because the immortal agent would not be pursuing only one interest. Fischer questions Williams’ mode of reasoning on why the agent must pursue only one interest; Fischer proposes that the individual would possess a package of categorical desires, which would enable the agent to move in to their immortal future without succumbing to eternal boredom. “Certainly, an immortal life could consist in a certain mix of activities, possibly including friendship, love, family, intellectual, artistic and athletic activity, sensual delights, and so forth” (216). Rather relentlessly pursuing one good, the packages of categorical desires enable the agent to move between pleasures and keep themselves busy. Furthermore, Fischer rejects Williams’ assertion that the immortal agent cannot undergo any form of boredom, and that they must constantly be absorbed in their environment. Fischer asserts all mortal lives consists of temporary moments of boredom/pains, which enable the agent to proceed to mentally stimulating environment/goods (261). Furthermore, the possible issue that the agent
In his paper “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality” Bernard Williams asserts his central claim that when immortality is feasible it is intolerable; further, it is reasonable to regard death as an evil. He argues his position by utilization of The Makropulos case, or the case of E.M. This character and circumstance is derived from a play by Karel Capek. E.M. is a woman of three hundred and forty two years. She has survived so long due to an immortality draught concocted by her father, a physician, long before the play’s action. E.M. explains her problem with immortality is that her unending life has become incredibly dull, her emotions have become cold and indifferent. She feels that in the end, everything
This knowing that life should have an end reveals the painter’s freedom to the system run by those who wish to live forever. Along with the orderly, the difference of willful ignorance and freedom can be seen through the exchange of Leora Duncan.
This is greatly illustrated in the book "Monkey" where the Monkey King mentions his desire to live forever at numerous points.
Susan R. Wolf (born 1952) is a moral philosopher who works extensively on the meaning of human life and is the Edna J. Koury Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Wolf addresses the questions of the meaning of life in hope to distinguish the characteristics and reasoning that gives meaning to life. According to Susan Wolf view about the meaning in life, “I would say that meaningful life are lives of active engagement in projects of worth… two key phrases, ‘active engagement’ and ‘projects of worth’” (Wolf, 205). However, I believe that her proposal leaves out our basic motives and reasoning that’s
By biological logic, we human beings will face death sooner or later in our life and death has its very own ways to approach us - a sudden deadly strike, a critical sickness, a tragic accident, a prolonged endurance of brutal treatment, or just an aging biological end. To deal with the prospect of death come different passive or active reactions; some may be scared and anxious to see death, some try to run away from it, and some by their own choice make death come faster. But Viktor Frankl, through his work Man’s Search for Meaning, and Bryan Doyle; in his essay “His Last Game” show us choices to confront the death, bring it to our deepest feelings, meaningful satisfaction. To me, the spirit of the prisoners at deadly concentration camps, Frankl’s Logotherapy theory of “. . . striving to find a meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” (99), as well as the calmness of Doyle’s brother on his last ride, like an awaken bell, remind us of how precious life is, how we should find the significance in every act of living, determine to live a meaningful life at any circumstances; hence, when death comes, we can accept it without anxiety nor regrets.
With this, we no longer can answer the important questions that ask “what” of our lives. We begin to care only about chasing after what we find pleasure or survival in.
In the play “everyman” death is depicted as something that is terribly feared as no one seemed ready for it, death is perceived as something that takes one away from the pleasures of this world.
In response to Bernard Williams’s The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality, I will argue in agreement with Williams’s claim that immortality, where humanly conceivable, is not desirable. In order to do so, I will first discuss categorical desires and the two conditions for an immortal life to be desirable, as defined by Williams. Next, I will assess Williams’s illustration of Elina Makropulos and consider why categorical desires are vital to the value one finds in life. Finally, I will recognize the theist’s objection to Williams’s argument and explain how Williams would respond.
The play Everyman may have been written many years ago, but its lessons are still relevant today. Generally, the facts of death are very traumatizing and in fact unthinkable. This leads the modern day Everyman to ignore its significance, dying without acknowledging or reflecting on their lives here on earth. It is based on this fact that this paper aims to show the position of the author of the play “Everyman” regarding death.
Simone de Beauvoir’s argument in part three section five, titled “Ambiguity” rejects Albert Camus’s nihilism and makes a clear distinction between the concepts of absurdity and ambiguity. De Beauvoir states that ambiguity cannot be confused with absurdity, and that declaring existence absurd is the same as saying that existence can never have meaning. If existence is absurd, the rationalization of the real world leaves no room for ethics. Saying that existence is ambiguous means that the meaning of existence is never fixed. There is no single “meaning” of existence, and individual will have their own meaning. In her argument, de Beauvoir claims, “So is it with any activity; failure and success are two aspects of reality which at the start are not perceptible”. In other words, the outcome of an action is ambiguous at the start. De Beauvoir believes that the main problem of human existence lays in the fact that transcendence has to be found by itself, while at the same time it is never able to fulfill itself. Therefore, freedom is achieved by man by the simple fact that he pursues it. Something can not attempt to fulfill itself by any means that would ruin its meaning.
Whether it is hope for a better position in society, or hope for a lover's companionship, the attachment to desire ignores the eventual reality of impermanence. Death assures our mandatory individuality. Though we may accumulate relationships and material possessions throughout the course of our earthly life, we are nonetheless subordinate to the limits of time.
Whereas, Fischer denies William’s Attractiveness dilemma, asserting his argument is too narrow in thinking, due to the belief that the agent could only pursue one categorical desire. Insofar, as William asserts for X to remain immortal, X’s defining behaviors/characteristics/ (categorical desires) cannot change. Fischer refutes William’s argument of boredom, and coins it as the Attractiveness condition. However, a further dilemma that arises is that the individual cannot fathom, nor succumb to boredom in their future. (Fischer 260). William’s argues, if the agent has a fixed set of characteristics, overtime the individual will inevitably succumb to boredom, and consequently adopt new interests alien to the individual. However, Fischer denies William’s assertion, because the immortal agent will not only have ‘one’ interest, arguably Fischer asserts they will possess a package of categorical desires (261). Fischer denies the idea that the agent will only possess a single categorical desire that propels them in to the future, rather there is a conjunction of goods/interests. However, William’s asserts the
Within all these theoretical standpoints, the theme and process of coming to terms with death and relationship could be regarded as the essence of an existential quest; one
Socrates, a Greek philosopher, once said that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38b). Like Socrates, Albert Camus believed that a man needs to live meaningfully.
In this hypothetical, two options are given. A person may choose from being reincarnated as Haydn, a famous musical composer, for 77 years. Or one may live as an Oyster, and decide for themselves however long they want to live. An oyster would experience unlimited years of a feeling that is near that of floating drunk in a bathtub. As Haydn, a person would experience the highs and the lows of life. Haydn composed many symphonies, and was a celebrity in his day as a musical composer. With being famous and influential, comes low times and struggles as well. The decision is between a painless life of small satisfaction, or a mix between extreme satisfaction and extreme lows. Two well-known philosophers have very different thought processes, when it comes to this thought experiment. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are their names. I side with John Stuart Mill’s qualitative hedonism. I believe that his theory is more plausible. I believe this because in my life I have encountered the joy of higher pleasure and am certain it is much better than that of a lower pleasure.