PDA 1

Phenomenology of Death and the Absolute Louis, Anna Margarita B. Rodriguez, Justin Charles N. Mr. Jorge Arellano BSCS III March 12, 2012

PDA 2 The Phenomenology of Death Anna Margarita Louis In 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).

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

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

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

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?

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

PDA 8 that there must be a Mover and 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 used by 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.

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.

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

http://www.books.google.com 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

http://www.books.google.com

Electronic References

PDA 11 (March 9, 2012). Death. [Website] Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#cite_note0 (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.