Zachary Binhaji #1003604520
Kagan and Death Kagan starts with the supposition that the death of a man's body brings about the finish of that individual's presence, as there is no proof that humans can live without a body. With that stance, he makes the inquiry- if death is the end of our reality, then in what capacity can the absence of life be terrible for us? While some would state that passing is especially awful for the survivors of the perished since they miss the individual who's passed on and the relationship they once had with that individual. In any case, it appears to be more confusing than that, since we could in a similar manner have an affair where a loved companion or relative abandons us and goes some place far away with the end goal that we can be sure that we'll never observe that …show more content…
Regardless of those attempts, there are multiple problems that arise in Kagan’s arguments. Firstly “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” in terms of since you weren’t born earlier it doesn’t matter, the part of your life that you haven’t lived doesn’t mean anything because you didn’t exist, but that is the same as speaking badly behind someone’s back and as long as they didn’t hear you/didn’t know about it, it doesn’t matter but it does. The shortcoming of Kagan's Argument is hidden in his refusal to consider and talk about the sole probability of continuation of life after death at any rate in some form, short-sightedness of such approach is evident as anybody fit for such a perception of our reality would see that the highest share of the world leaders are of senior age which implies they (or the greater part of them) will pass away soon. They (or their ancestors) would have devastated this world long back should they not known for beyond any doubt that there is next life and an obligation regarding what was done in this
Kagan and Death Kagan starts with the supposition that the death of a man's body brings about the finish of that individual's presence, as there is no proof that humans can live without a body. With that stance, he makes the inquiry- if death is the end of our reality, then in what capacity can the absence of life be terrible for us? While some would state that passing is especially awful for the survivors of the perished since they miss the individual who's passed on and the relationship they once had with that individual. In any case, it appears to be more confusing than that, since we could in a similar manner have an affair where a loved companion or relative abandons us and goes some place far away with the end goal that we can be sure that we'll never observe that …show more content…
Regardless of those attempts, there are multiple problems that arise in Kagan’s arguments. Firstly “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” in terms of since you weren’t born earlier it doesn’t matter, the part of your life that you haven’t lived doesn’t mean anything because you didn’t exist, but that is the same as speaking badly behind someone’s back and as long as they didn’t hear you/didn’t know about it, it doesn’t matter but it does. The shortcoming of Kagan's Argument is hidden in his refusal to consider and talk about the sole probability of continuation of life after death at any rate in some form, short-sightedness of such approach is evident as anybody fit for such a perception of our reality would see that the highest share of the world leaders are of senior age which implies they (or the greater part of them) will pass away soon. They (or their ancestors) would have devastated this world long back should they not known for beyond any doubt that there is next life and an obligation regarding what was done in this