- Reminder: Don't plagiarize as all papers go through TurnItIn!
- Due date: in Canvas, Saturday, Feb. 13
- Length: 4-5 pages, double spaced
- Make sure you address every subtopic in your topic.
Carefully explain an argument from Epicurus or Rosenbaum that being dead is neither bad nor good for you.
Give your best objection to that argument. Then discuss what the best answer Epicurus or Rosenbaum could make to your objection. Who wins the argument and why?
Why is it bad to be dead?
Explain why Nagel thinks it's bad to be dead. Then give your best objection to Nagel's account. Can Nagel modify his account of why it's bad to be dead
to get around your objection? Is there a better account of why it's bad to be dead?
Imagining an eternal life
Carefully describe two objections to the possibility of a worthwhile eternal life, from among the objections considered in the Smuts and Fischer articles.
Then sketch your own picture of an eternal life that seems worthwhile and that escapes the objections. Explain how your picture escapes the objections. Do you think
you would convince the objector?
Carefully explain two arguments from the Phaedo for the immortality of the soul. Give an objection to each. One of the objections should be from the text
and the other should be your own. Then imagine how Socrates could respond to one of these objections.
Searle thinks our minds aren't computers. Why? He also considers several objections to his argument. Instead of rehashing these, come up with a new one.
Could Searle modify the response he makes to one of these objections so that it applies to yours?