University of Nevada, Reno Death and Value Reignition: Lucky in the Chance to Die A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy by Christopher C. Anderson Christopher T. Williams/Thesis Advisor May, 2014 Copyright by Christopher C. Anderson 2014 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON Entitled Death And Value Reignition: Lucky In The Chance To Die be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Christopher T. Williams, Advisor Thomas J. Nickles, Committee Member Steven C. Hayes, Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School May, 2014 i Abstract In this thesis I examine life-extension and embodied immortality and ask whether these are intrinsically problematic. I examine the history of the concept of immortality and find that the usage of the term has nearly always referred to extended but mortal lifespans. I observe that modern commentators have conflated the concepts ―mortal‖ and ―immortal‖ and with deleterious effect on the field of inquiry as a whole. I examine Bernard Williams‘ claim that extended lifespans are destined to crash into permanent boredom and find that while the ―crash‖ is probably inevitable, recovery is always possible in finite lifespans. I do, however, think that a eudaimonic existence necessarily attaches to a mortal one. An immortal lifespan, that is, one in which death is impossible, would irreversibly crash and burn in just the way Williams thinks merely super-centenarian lifespans must. Death gives us a sense that time is running out, and this sense is one a mortal creature can capitalize on to reignite his categorical desires when they burn out. An immortal being does not have this resource. Furthermore, embodied immortality necessarily entails invincibility, and this cuts off a significant range of ethical interests that are deeply woven into the human being. A genuinely immortal life eventually reduces to an interactive video game that will become predictable, boring and valueless. My conclusions are supplemented by an extensive analysis of the Karel Čapek play The Makropulos Case. ii Dedicated to the finest teacher I‘ve ever known, Professor Christopher Williams iii Table of Contents Section 1: Immortality: Conceptions and Frameworks 1.1: Overview of Important Concepts 1 1.2: Frameworks 16 1.3: The Makropulos Case: A Mortal Reduction Exemplar 33 Section 2: Bernard Williams‘ Essay on ―Immortality‖ 2.1: Overview and Analysis 85 2.2: Responses to the Williams Essay 114 Section 3: Immortal Frameworks 131 1 Section 1 Immortality: Conceptions and Frameworks 1.1: An Overview of the Important Concepts The thought of immortality is deeply fused into human culture, trailing on the footsteps of every civilization. It is tempting to say that death is married to deathlessness in human consciousness itself—it must be, for otherwise we are at a loss to explain the ubiquity and recurrence of the theme of immortality over the ages. But we cannot really make a claim this strong: the Pirahã—a contemporary Brazilian hunter-gatherer tribe famous for their radical empiricism—does not conceptualize an afterlife, gods, eternities, remote pasts or futures. When told that other societies have such beliefs, the Pirahã demand to know where these incredible places/beings are and how they can be reached (Everett, 77). And it seems unlikely the Pirahã are the only culture in history to have had a way of life so decidedly anti-transcendental. However, the mutual attraction of the death-immortality pair is evidenced by the extensive historical record of religious systems involving gods, souls, heavens/hells, reincarnation and mysticism-based cyclical cosmologies, one purpose of which—among many others—is clearly to ease the fear of dying. The thought of eternal existence, however vague or abstractly formulated, seems to comfort many a troubled mind in which death has settled into a rocking chair on the front porch. On the literary front, what is generally acknowledged as the world‘s oldest story, the Sumerian epic Gilgamesh, at least suggests that the wish for immortality had already 2 been long on the conceptual scene by the time a proto-literacy developed among Indus River Valley cultures circa 3500 BC. The wish is therefore clearly an ancient one. Gilgamesh, whose source tales might trace as far back as 3000 BC, depicts its eponymous hero as a rampaging demigod who develops a panicked fear of death after his dear companion Enkidu dies. Determined to find a way to live forever, Gilgamesh journeys to the land of the gods in search of eternal life, only to find that mankind was never destined for such an existence. On the return home, Gilgamesh enjoys renewed vitality through the acceptance that man is necessarily mortal, and that there are plenty of satisfactions and pleasures available sufficient to compensate for (or at least distract from) the unpleasant fact that death will come. The lesson of Gilgamesh is twofold: a life spent worrying about death is a wasted one, because it is possible to live well in spite of the fact that death is unavoidable. These sentiments will have a familiar ring to those versed in ancient Western philosophy, for they were a significant message of both the Greek thinker Epicurus (~300 BC) and a Roman poet named Lucretius (~40 AD), both of whom argued that death is nothing to fear. They reasoned that since at the moment of death we cease experiencing anything, we cannot experience death; and since it makes no sense to fear what we can‘t experience, the fear of death is based on an incoherent notion.1 On this point, and the subject in general, Lucretius more or less duplicated Epicurus, with perhaps extra emphasis on the idea that death cannot be a bad thing for anyone, at any time. It cannot, in other words, entail a ―loss of goods‖; for one cannot mourn what one has lost—loved 1 This argument has been heavily analyzed by modern commentators, and nowadays the metaphysics of death is still debated along the lines of whether death really is a harm. Some philosophers, for example, have taken great pains to show that we can be harmed by things we don‘t experience, such as rumors. But we needn‘t concern ourselves with such fine points. 3 ones, reputation, riches, and so on—given that when dead one no longer experiences anything at all. Now, I mention these thinkers not just to establish a trans-millennial extension of the thought (more or less) expressed in Gilgamesh, nor simply for the reason that Epicurus and Lucretius are renowned for their formulations of it, but because they use it to argue (among other things) that yearning for immortality is a consequence of the fear of death; a symptom of that fear. On their view, only those who fear death crave immortality. For if there is nothing to fear because death cannot harm us, then we have no reason to wish to permanently avoid it. But this seems to force an absurdity from the beginning: if death does not harm us, then we should never care from moment to moment whether we live or die. This dubious entailment (which neither Epicurus nor Lucretius ever promoted) has been soundly refuted, I think, and not just by noticing the actual way we live—which demonstrates the active concern we take in avoiding death—but by argument. A plethora of good rejoinders are on record; I shall follow the one made by Bernard Williams in his 1973 paper ―The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality‖. But that is leaping ahead. In this thesis I shall more or less take up the issue where Epicurus and Lucretius stop their meditations, that is, at the juncture where immortality itself conceptually begins. Now, since the nature of their opinions preempted the need for such an inquiry, neither of these ancient thinkers pondered what immortality would be like if it were otherwise to consist in a life such as we now have (that is, in having a physical body, and living in a world more or less like we now inhabit);2 if asked about the matter, 2 We must also add here that in those ancient days immortality was linked solely to divinity; that is, endless life was a property of the gods. To be immortal was to be a god, and so my question to the ears of an ancient Greek/Roman would perhaps sound like an inquiry into what being a god would be like. But the answer to this was readymade: the Olympian gods were said to live in carefree luxury. 4 they would undoubtedly interpret the question as one borne of a fear of death. But the issue is worth considering ―from the other side‖; that is, if we accept that a mortal life can be eudaimonic, to ask what immortality would be like is still a worthy question. If it were necessarily bad, for some reason, then an immortal Epicurean would be forced to concede—albeit metaphorically— ―where life is, we are not; where we are not, life is.‖3 My question, then, concerns what an immortal life would be like, and the worth of this question is shown immediately upon the recognition that a eudaimonic symmetry needn‘t hold between mortal and immortal lives. In other words, the fact that a mortal lifespan can be lived well doesn‘t force us to conclude that an immortal one could be as well. This proposition might strike as very unintuitive; all things considered, if death is a harm, then a deathless life should be so much the better.