Philo 1 Finals Reviewer

Clifford- The Ethics of Belief

The main argument
It is a moral obligation to form beliefs based on sufficient evidence.

The main example

A ship owner was about to send a ship to the sea. The ship was old--it had gone through a lot of journeys and
had not been under maintenance check.

The shipowner started to doubt the performance of the ship because. Regardless, the shipowner "put his trust in
Providence" and allowed the ship to sail. Since the ship has already gone through several successful and safe
trips, the shipowner believed that during the coming voyage, it will be the same.

The ship sank and its passengers died. The ship owner received his insurance money.

The message conveyed by the ship owner example, also known as "The Ship Owner and the Unseaworthy Ship," is central to
Clifford's argument in "The Ethics of Belief." The story serves as an illustration of the moral implications of holding beliefs
without sufficient evidence.

In the example, a ship owner possesses evidence indicating that his ship is unseaworthy, but he chooses to ignore this evidence
and proceeds to send the ship on a voyage with passengers on board. Tragically, the ship sinks, resulting in the loss of lives.
Clifford argues that the ship owner bears moral responsibility for this outcome because he neglected his duty to
have justified beliefs based on the available evidence.

The ship owner's decision to believe that the ship was seaworthy despite evidence to the contrary demonstrates the ethical
problem of accepting beliefs without sufficient justification. Clifford uses this example to emphasize the importance of
evidence-based reasoning and the moral obligation to critically examine and justify our beliefs.

The ship owner's action represents a failure of intellectual integrity and a disregard for the potential harm caused by unjustified
beliefs. Clifford's message is that belief formation should not be based on personal desires, emotions, or blind faith,
but on careful examination of evidence and rational inquiry.
The ship owner example serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the ethical consequences of accepting beliefs without sufficient
evidence.

The important points

● The question of whether a belief and right or wrong is not based on whether it is true or false but rather
on how the belief is formed.
○ The belief should be based on sufficient evidence.
○ The belief should continuously enable inquiry.
○ The belief should not be finalized for the sake of pleasuring oneself.
● The sense of power as “highest pleasure” connected to knowledge.
○ The “highest pleasure” is attained when belief is proven with investigation
● Belief is a common property.
○ All beliefs can influence a person’s actions in one way or another.
○ All the beliefs of a single person are interconnected.
○ A belief, even though remained hidden, will eventually appear.
● There is a wrong belief.
○ A wrong belief is formed based on insufficient evidence.
○ Having a wrong belief creates a culture of that normalizes having wrong beliefs in the future.
● Belief is inherited.
○ A person’s belief can be inherited by the next generations.
○ A belief will not only corrupt the present believer but also the future inheritors of the belief.
● Actions are guided by the beliefs we uphold.
○ Beliefs are formed through hardships that faced consistent questioning and inquiry.
○ A belief can be strengthened through the falsification of other beliefs.

1
 ○ People’s actions reflects one’s beliefs.
● There is a uniformity of nature.
○ A belief can be formed by treating we do not know as what we know.
○ An example is the existence of hydrogen in the Sun being proven through the component’s
similarity with the hydrogen on Earth.
○ The concept is only applicable to beliefs that goes beyond human experiences.

William K. Clifford's article "The Ethics of Belief" is a philosophical essay that explores the moral dimension of
holding beliefs. Published in 1877, it emphasizes the importance of intellectual honesty and responsible
inquiry in forming and maintaining beliefs.

Clifford begins by asserting that it is morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence or
rational justification.

He argues that belief is not solely a personal matter but carries ethical implications because beliefs
influence our actions and interactions with others.

According to Clifford, believing without proper evidence can lead to harmful consequences both for the individual
and society.

Clifford presents a famous thought experiment in the essay called "The Ship Owner and the Unseaworthy Ship."
In this scenario, a ship owner has evidence suggesting that his ship is not seaworthy, yet he chooses to believe
otherwise and sends the ship with passengers on board. Unfortunately, the ship sinks, resulting in the loss of
lives. Clifford argues that the ship owner is morally responsible for the tragedy because he ignored the available
evidence and failed in his moral duty to have justified beliefs.

The central thesis of Clifford's article is summarized by his famous quote: "It is wrong always, everywhere,
and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." He believes that it is our moral obligation
to critically examine our beliefs and seek evidence before accepting them. Clifford argues that evidence-based
beliefs not only lead to a more accurate understanding of the world but also promote intellectual integrity and
ethical behavior.

"The Ethics of Belief" challenges the idea that faith or personal conviction alone can justify holding
beliefs.

Clifford maintains that even deeply held religious or metaphysical beliefs should be subject to critical
scrutiny and require sufficient evidence to be considered intellectually and morally justified.

The essay sparked significant debate among philosophers and has been influential in the field of epistemology
(the study of knowledge). It raises important questions about the relationship between belief, evidence, and
ethics, and it continues to be a topic of discussion in contemporary philosophical discourse.

"The Ethics of Belief" by William K. Clifford is divided into several sections, each addressing different aspects of
the topic. Here is a breakdown of the content:

I. Introduction: Clifford introduces the concept of belief and its significance in human life. He argues that
beliefs shape our actions, influence others, and have ethical consequences. He asserts that
belief should not be treated as a purely personal matter but rather as a moral responsibility.

II. The story of the ship owner: Clifford presents the famous thought experiment of the ship owner and the
unseaworthy ship. He recounts the scenario in which the ship owner, ignoring evidence of the ship's
unseaworthiness, sends it on a voyage resulting in the loss of lives. This story serves as an
illustration of the moral implications of holding beliefs without sufficient evidence.

III. The morality of belief: Clifford argues that beliefs formed without proper evidence are morally wrong.
He states that believing on insufficient evidence is not only intellectually irresponsible but also ethically
problematic. He emphasizes the importance of seeking evidence, critical inquiry, and rational
justification for our beliefs.

IV. The consequences of beliefs: Clifford explores the consequences of unjustified beliefs. He asserts that
beliefs affect our actions, interactions, and overall well-being. Unjustified beliefs can lead to harm, both
for the individuals who hold them and for society as a whole.

V. The role of emotions and desires: Clifford acknowledges that emotions and desires can influence our

2
 beliefs, but he cautions against allowing them to override the need for evidence. He argues that
emotions and desires should not be a substitute for rational inquiry but rather should be subjected to
critical scrutiny.

VI. Religious and metaphysical beliefs: Clifford addresses the common objection that religious or
metaphysical beliefs should be exempt from his argument. He counters this by stating that even such
beliefs should be subject to the same standards of evidence and rationality. He does not
dismiss the possibility of religious or metaphysical truths but emphasizes that they too require
justification

VII. Intellectual integrity: Clifford highlights the importance of intellectual integrity and honesty in belief
formation. He encourages individuals to have a sincere commitment to truth-seeking and to revise
their beliefs in the face of new evidence. He considers intellectual integrity as a moral duty.

VIII. Conclusion: Clifford concludes by reiterating his central thesis that it is morally wrong to hold beliefs
without sufficient evidence. He emphasizes the ethical responsibility individuals have in forming and
maintaining their beliefs, and the importance of evidence-based reasoning.

Overall, "The Ethics of Belief" is a persuasive argument for the importance of evidence, critical thinking,
and intellectual integrity in belief formation. Clifford maintains that beliefs should be grounded in rational
justification and that failing to do so has ethical consequences.

I. The Duty of Moral Inquiry:

In this section, Clifford emphasizes the importance of actively engaging in moral inquiry when it comes to belief
formation. He argues that individuals have a moral duty to critically examine the evidence and reasons behind
their beliefs. Clifford contends that accepting beliefs without sufficient evidence or inquiry is intellectually
irresponsible and ethically problematic. He asserts that it is our responsibility to seek out evidence, evaluate
arguments, and actively question our beliefs in order to ensure they are well-founded and justified.

II. The Weight of Authority:

Clifford explores the influence of authority figures on belief formation. He cautions against blindly accepting
beliefs solely based on the authority or reputation of the individual promoting them. Clifford argues that
authority should not be a substitute for evidence and rational justification. Instead, he advocates for critically
evaluating the claims and arguments presented by authoritative figures. Clifford encourages individuals to
question authority and subject all beliefs, regardless of the source, to the same standards of evidence and
inquiry.

III. The Limits of Inference:

In this section, Clifford addresses the boundaries and limitations of making inferences based on available
evidence. He acknowledges that evidence can support certain conclusions but cautions against drawing
unwarranted or exaggerated inferences beyond what the evidence permits. Clifford emphasizes the importance
of intellectual humility and recognizing the limitations of our knowledge. He advises against making unsupported
leaps in reasoning or accepting claims that go beyond the available evidence. Clifford encourages individuals to
be mindful of the limits of inference and to remain intellectually honest in their belief formation.

Samuel Lee - Collective Actions, Individual Reasons and

Metaphysics Consequences
I defend the view that individual agents have instrumental moral reasons for and against contributing to
collective actions.

I distinguish three versions of this view found in the literature and argue that only one withstands
scrutiny: the version on which each individual contribution to a collective action is a cause of the
latter’s large-scale outcomes.

3
The central difficulty with this view is its apparent incompatibility with leading theories of causation.
Against these theories I motivate a general structural principle about causation which enables
instrumentalism to deliver the intuitively correct verdicts about individual agents’ moral reasons in
cases of collective action.

Main point: individual agents have instrumental moral reasons for and against contributing to collective
action; instrumentalism delivers the intuitively correct verdicts about individual agents’ moral reasons in
collective actions

Three main arguments:

1. Individual agents have instrumental reasons for and against contributing collective actions
(INSTRUMENTALISM)
a. involves assessing the potential negative consequences or disadvantages
that may arise from participating.
b. It focuses on the practical benefits or disadvantages individuals may gain
from participating or abstaining.
2. Each individual contribution to a collective action is a cause of the latter’s large-scale outcome
(CAUSALISM)
a. highlights the idea that individual actions have meaningful consequences
within the context of collective actions.
b. emphasizes the intrinsic connection between individual actions and the
collective result
3. I motivate a general STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE about CAUSATION which enables
instrumentalism to deliver intuitively correct verdicts about individual agents’ moral reasons in
cases of collective action
a. Instrumentalism means thinking about the practical results or benefits of your actions.
But just thinking about the practical side isn't enough. We also want to make sure we
do things that are morally right. That's where the idea of a "structural principle of
causation" comes in. It's like having a rule that helps us decide if what we're doing is
fair and responsible.
b. The structural principle of causation referred to in the statement is a
framework that outlines how causation operates in collective action
scenarios. This principle helps instrumentalism deliver intuitively correct verdicts
about individual agents' moral reasons in such cases.
c. This rule says that if you contribute in a fair and meaningful way to the project, your
reasons for participating are morally justified. It means that if your actions have a big
impact on the outcome or if they are directly connected to the success of the project,
then you have a good reason to participate.
d. By using this rule, instrumentalism can help us make decisions that feel right in our
hearts and also make sense practically. It helps us think about the good things that
can happen if we do our part and how it connects to the overall success of the project.

I. Outcome-related moral reason - any moral reason an agent has for/against contributing to
a collective action in virtue of the moral valence of a potential outcome of that collective action
A. Instrumentalists - believes that reasons are instrumental; performing an action
in virtue of that action is means to good/bad consequences
a. When you say that you believe that reasons are instrumental, it means that
you think the reasons behind your actions are based on the practical benefits
or consequences they can bring.
b. In this context, instrumental reasons suggest that you perform an action
because you see it as a means to achieve either good or bad consequences.
You believe that the action itself is a way to bring about those outcomes.
c. For example, let's say you decide to study hard for an exam because you
believe it will lead to good consequences, such as getting a high grade. In
this case, your instrumental reason for studying hard is based on the belief
that studying is the means to achieve the desired outcome of a high grade.

4
 B. Non-instrumentalist-relevant - believes that relevant connection between
individual contribution and large scale outcome is not a means-end connection
a. It suggests that the individual's contribution does not have a direct
cause-and-effect relationship with the overall result.

C. Consequence relation positions/cases

1. Counterfactual
a. if A hadn’t occurred then B wouldn't have occurred
b. Counterfactual reasoning involves thinking about what would have
happened if things had been different. In terms of consequence
relations, it means considering the outcome that would have
occurred if a certain action or event had not taken place.
c. Counterfactual reasoning helps us understand the causal role of
specific actions or events by comparing the actual outcome with the
hypothetical outcome that would have happened in the absence of
that action or event.
d. For example, imagine you missed your bus in the morning, and later
you find out that the bus you missed got into an accident. You might
say, "If I hadn't missed the bus, I would have been involved in the
accident." This counterfactual relation allows you to understand the
potential consequence of missing the bus and the role it played in
avoiding the accident.
2. Causal
a. A caused B
b. Causal relation refers to the cause-and-effect connection
between events or actions. It suggests that one event or action
directly influences or leads to another event or action. Causal
relations help us understand how certain actions or events bring
about specific consequences. This type of relation focuses on the
causal chain and identifies the direct causal link between different
elements.
c. For instance, if you touch a hot stove and burn your hand, there is a
direct causal relation between touching the hot stove and
experiencing the burn. The action of touching the hot stove causes
the consequence of getting burned.

3. Non Superfluous Causal

a. A caused B, when A occurred, B could still fail due to lack of A’s
occurrence
b. Non-superfluous causal relation emphasizes the idea that a
particular cause is necessary for bringing about a specific effect.
c. It implies that the cause is not redundant or replaceable by other
causes in producing the effect. Non-superfluous causal relations
help us identify the essential factors or causes that are
required for a particular consequence to occur.
d. For example, in a plant's growth, sunlight is a non-superfluous
causal factor. Without sunlight, the plant cannot carry out
photosynthesis and grow effectively. In this case, the presence of
sunlight is essential and irreplaceable for the plant's growth.

C. Causalism - attributes more moral reason because it will posit more reason-grounding
consequence connections.
Both counterfactual and non superfluous causal have causal
structure in them.

5
II. Election (3 kinds of collective action cases exist fairly) - a hundred voters have to choose between
a just & tyrannical leader

A. Counterfactual
a. “he wouldn't have voted had i not voted for him”.
b. A candidate’s win POTENTIALLY depend on his vote.
c. the vote matters before the voting occurred

B. Nonsuperfluous
a. at the time of voting, it is still possible for a candidate to fail due to lack of votes.
b. Threshold cases (eg. elections)
i. if a contribution to a collective action were made, the outcome of the action
could be better/worse that the lack of contribution.
c. Nonthreshold cases the example of spy & throwing rock.
d. Counterfactualism & superfluism won’t accommodate these cases.

Controlled counterfactual - deals with redundant causation (effects fail to

counterfactually depend on their cause); Dependence only reveals itself under certain
controlled conditions

James Woodward- if A were to occur while holding fixed pattern, then B would occur, if A
were not to occur while holding this patter, then B would not occur

Regular theoretic approach- causes as parts of minimally sufficient conditions for their effects.

III. Metaphysical Causation and Chaining

A. Causal hypothesis where C is a collective action and B is one of its outcomes. If A is an
individual contribution to C, then A caused B
1. Solutions to defend the hypothesis
a. Appealing to a PLATITUDE: grounding relationships are
paradigmatically disclosed by “in virtue of” (Metaphysical
grounding) - individual contributions to collective actions are those
acts performed by individual agents in the virtue of which the
collective action takes place.
i. By employing the notion of "in virtue of" as a platitude, the
statement highlights the foundational connection between
individual contributions and collective actions. It
emphasizes that collective actions are made possible and
grounded upon the actions of the individuals involved,
illustrating the interdependency and significance of
individual agency in the context of collective endeavors.
b. Transitivity- causal relation is transitive: A is a cause of B, B is a
cause of C, then A is also a cause of C.
c. Mixed Transitivity- if A is a cause of B and G is a ground of A,
then G is also a ground of B. (eg. Socrates death)

IV. Loose Ends

A. Issue of Significance- Every plausible theory of causation deems individual contributions to
collective actions to be potential causes of the latter’s collective outcomes in finite threshold
cases.
B. Strength of Moral Reason- The strength of an agent’s outcome-related moral reasons for
or against contributing to a collective action is proportional to the strength of the potential
causal relationship between that contribution and the morally significant outcome of interest.
1. Sufficiency & Necessity- of individual contribution may be proportional to
strength of moral reason.

6
 2. The statement suggests that the strength of an individual's moral reasons for
contributing to a collective action is proportional to the sufficiency or
necessity of their contribution. If their contribution is both sufficient and
necessary, their moral reasons for contributing would be particularly strong
because their action is seen as both effective and indispensable in achieving
the moral outcome.

However, if an individual's contribution is neither sufficient nor necessary,

their moral reasons for contributing may be weaker. In such cases, the
perceived impact of their action on the moral outcome may be minimal or
replaceable, reducing the strength of their moral reasons for contributing.

Kelly James Clark and Robin R. Wang - A Confucian Defense on

Gender Equity
Arguments:
1. Principal argument of man’s goal of finding cosmic harmony
○ Man and women as entities with opposite YET complementary forces, powers, and energies
○ One needs the other Yin/Yang or Kun/Qian to find cosmic harmony or BALANCE to
create a unified – the One (the Dao).
○ Both Yin and Yang are good = women’s status equal to men
○ POLARITY: opposite qualities but complementary = interpenetration between Yin and Yang
becoming the other
○ Polarity in yin and yang, both as components of the Dao (the One). Polarities do not exhibit
real oppositions but opposite in complementary.
○ I-Ching: “the world is a process of change and development moving towards unity and the
state of holistic harmonization.”
2. Being a morally superior person (Junzi) is possible for any person, man or woman
○ Confucian is committed to meritocracy, backing up why women should be given access to
all roles in society.
○ Paradigm human being is not of the “man” as a gender but an individual
○ Early Confucianism = claims everyone has the capacity to flourish as full human beings and to
attain virtue (defended by Mencius)
○ Menciu: Xin (heart-mind) and duan (the four sprouts) as determinants for human’s moral
capacities to cultivate virtue (necessary to be a superior person or Junzi)
○ Sexist interpretation of the yin and yang relationship rose during the Han dynasty through
Dong Zhongshu claiming yang as superior to yin, ignoring essential mutuality and equality.
3. Women’s roles: Confucianism envisions a division in labor according to virtue and ability
○ NO! to kinship/nepotism or patronage (appointing through connections) which was persistent
in a patriarchally lead society
○ Women are not morally and intellectually defective = they too should be given roles IF
competent
○ 3 Obediences of Women: Only deeming women as followers of man – father, husband, and
son. However, subjugation of women came long before Confucianism – rise of patriarchal
kinship, ancestral cult of the Chou period, hereditary male succession. Which Confucisious
supported (patriarchal system of society).
4. Traditional Confucian text offer no account why women cannot achieve as much virtue as
men
○ Confucian commitment to meritocracy backs up social equality of women towards equal
participation with men in social roles with the basis of wisdom and virtue

7
 ○ Early Confucianism claims that all people have all the capacities necessary for flourishing as full
human beings

Conclusion:
○ Doctrine of Correlative cosmology: striving harmony within context to a person’s life by
stringing to overcome one’s lack (Yan striving for Yin-capacities and vise versa for the
HARMONY) thus confining women to roles at home would not help cultivate Yang dispositions
○ Women became the “collateral” in fixing differences between Man and Woman.
○ Confucians were socio-historically conditioned to accept traditional gender
hierarchies
○ Ignoring Confucianism’s commitment to meritocracy and emphasizing only on the
traditional/conservative elements of the ideology were what despotic emperors/leaders used to
weaponize Confucianism – the abuse of their power under the name of Confucianism.

A Confucian Defense on Gender Equity by Kelly James Clark and Robin R. Wang is a paper that argues for
● the compatibility of Confucianism and gender equity.
● The authors begin by acknowledging that Confucianism has been used to justify the oppression of
women, but they argue that this is a misunderstanding of the tradition.
● They then go on to argue that Confucianism, properly understood, actually supports gender equity.

The authors base their argument on the Confucian concept of ren, which they translate as "humaneness."
Ren is the highest virtue in Confucianism, and it is characterized by a concern for the well-being of
others.
The authors argue that ren requires us to treat all people with respect, regardless of their gender.

The authors also argue that Confucianism supports gender equity because it emphasizes the importance of
education.
In Confucianism, education is essential for developing the virtues that are necessary for living a good life.
The authors argue that this means that both men and women should have access to education.

Finally, the authors argue that Confucianism supports gender equity because it emphasizes the importance
of family.
In Confucianism, the family is the basic unit of society, and it is essential for the well-being of the individual.
The authors argue that this means that both men and women should have the opportunity to play a full role
in family life.

The authors conclude by arguing that Confucianism can be a powerful force for gender equity.
They argue that Confucianism can help to create a society where all people, regardless of their gender, are
treated with respect and have the opportunity to develop their full potential.

The paper has been praised by some for its thoughtful and nuanced argument. However, it has also been
criticized by others for its interpretation of Confucianism. Some critics argue that the authors have misread the
Confucian texts, and that Confucianism does not actually support gender equity.

Despite the criticisms, A Confucian Defense on Gender Equity is an important contribution to the debate on
gender equity in Confucianism. The paper provides a thoughtful and well-argued case for the compatibility of
Confucianism and gender equity.

I. The valuational equality of women to men

A. In their article "A Confucian Defense on Gender Equity," Kelly James Clark and Robin R. Wang
argue that Confucianism can be used to support gender equity. They begin by noting that the
oppression of women throughout history is often blamed on Confucianism. However, they
argue that this is a misunderstanding of Confucianism.
B. They point out that Confucius himself never explicitly said that women were inferior to men. In
fact, they argue that there is evidence in the Confucian texts that suggests that Confucius
believed in the valuational equality of women to men.
C. One of the key concepts in Confucianism is the idea of the Dao, or the Way.
1. The Dao is the natural order of things, and it is the goal of all Confucians to live in
accordance with the Dao.
2. Clark and Wang argue that the Dao is characterized by balance and harmony.
3. They point out that the yin and yang symbol, which is central to Confucian thought,
represents this balance and harmony.

8
 4. Yin and yang are two complementary opposites, and they are both necessary for the
Dao to function.
D. Clark and Wang argue that this same principle of balance and harmony applies to gender
relations. They argue that men and women are different, but they are also equal. They both
have different roles to play in society, but these roles are complementary, not
hierarchical. Just as yin and yang are both necessary for the Dao to function, so too are men
and women both necessary for society to function.
E.

In addition to the arguments presented by Clark and Wang, there are other ways to support the valuational
equality of women to men in Confucianism. For example, the Confucian concept of ren, or benevolence,
can be used to argue that all people, regardless of gender, deserve to be treated with respect and
compassion.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not Confucianism supports gender equity is a complex one. There is
evidence to support both sides of the argument. However, the arguments presented by Clark and Wang provide
a strong case for the valuational equality of women to men in Confucianism.

II. "Confucian Defense of the Social Equality of Women and Men"

A. discusses the possibility of a Confucian defense of gender equity.
B. The authors argue that Confucianism can be interpreted in a way that supports gender
equality, and that this interpretation is more faithful to the original Confucian texts than the
traditional interpretation that has been used to justify the oppression of women.
C. The authors begin by arguing that the traditional Confucian view of gender is based on a
misunderstanding of the Confucian concept of yin and yang. Yin and yang are not meant to
be understood as opposites, but rather as complementary forces.
D. The traditional view of gender has interpreted yin as feminine and yang as masculine, and has
used this to justify the subordination of women. However, the authors argue that this
interpretation is mistaken. Yin and yang are not meant to be understood as gender categories,
but rather as categories of all things. Everything in the universe has both yin and yang
aspects, and the same is true of both men and women.
E. The authors then argue that the Confucian concept of ren, or humanity, is also relevant to the
issue of gender equality. Ren is the highest virtue in Confucianism, and it is characterized by
love, compassion, and respect for others. The authors argue that ren demands that we
treat all people with respect, regardless of their gender. This means that we should
not discriminate against women in any way, and that we should give them the same
opportunities as men.

In addition to the arguments presented in the article, there are a number of other Confucian texts that can be
interpreted in support of gender equality. For example, in the Analects, Confucius says that "the gentleman is
not a vessel" (15:39). This suggests that men should not be confined to traditional roles, and that they should
be free to pursue their own interests and talents. Similarly, in the Mencius, Mencius says that "the people are the
most important thing in the world" (7A:15). This suggests that women, as members of the people, should be
treated with respect and dignity.

III. "The Lost Confucian Book"

A. discusses the possibility that a lost Confucian book may contain evidence of a more egalitarian
view of gender than is found in the surviving Confucian texts.
B. The authors argue that this book, which is known as the Book of Women, may have been
written by a woman named Ban Zhao, who lived in the first century CE.

IV. The conclusion section of Clark and Wang's article discusses the implications of their argument for
gender equity.
A. They argue that Confucianism can be used to support gender equity by emphasizing
the importance of ren (humanity) and yi (righteousness). They believe that these two
Confucian virtues require us to treat all people with respect and uphold justice, regardless of
their gender.
B. Clark and Wang also argue that Confucianism can be used to challenge traditional gender
roles. They point out that Confucianism does not explicitly endorse traditional gender roles,
and that it is possible to interpret Confucianism in a way that supports gender equality. They
believe that this interpretation is more consistent with the overall message of Confucianism,
which is to promote harmony and well-being for all people.

Here are some of the specific points that Clark and Wang make in their conclusion:

9
 ● Confucianism can be used to support gender equity by emphasizing the importance of ren (humanity)
and yi (righteousness).
● Ren requires us to treat all people with respect, regardless of their gender.
● Yi requires us to uphold justice, even if it means challenging traditional gender roles.
● Confucianism does not explicitly endorse traditional gender roles, and it is possible to interpret
Confucianism in a way that supports gender equality.
● This interpretation is more consistent with the overall message of Confucianism, which is to promote
harmony and well-being for all people.

D. Z. Philipps - Is Moral Education Necessary?

Points:
● the question of religion education importance is not surprising but questioning if moral education is
necessary is a whole lot different
● a man can have no God, but must have moral commitment
● morality should not be dependent and affiliated with religion

William Kay
● growing minority:
○ primary school teachers believe that moral education should be instructing values
○ teaching values should be part of the curriculum and taught in all subject
● diminishing minority: Christian education should be given in a moral-centered way

Is moral education necessary?

● this just means that moral education is indeed necessary, however, to what context does it
have to be instructed in relation to education
● the paper argues that its not absent, its just hidden and improperly manifested

CLAIMS
1. moral education is hidden in the curriculum
● where has it been all along?
● hidden, taken for granted, presupposed
● values should be grounded in the educational activities not on social background
● the problem is how children with mixed background may get the value added to the activities
presented to them in school
● Examples
○ when a child do not pay attention
■ sometimes child being told to act disciplined and did not obey it, does not
mean he is disobedient; sometimes he does not really understand what is
being told of him
■ other children being commanded may see it as a threat as they were
maltreated at home and thus defy it
○ a teacher unsuited in his profession
■ could be misled by bad philosophies and education
● hidden education values are the ones that are distorted
2. making hidden values explicit
● there should be more reasons to give out values
● finding the reason why people behave that way is another layer of moral education
● three attempts in making hidden values explicit
○ justifying values by maintaining the system to where it belong
■ James Hemming: start from knowing what are moral values
■ moral values - values venerated in a society; regarded as essential to the
good conduct of personal and social life; provide a dependable structure to
which society are carried on
■ values therefore in educational system should foster values of interpersonal
relationships
■ either maintenance of the society or maintenance of educational system
■ when a society is characterized by a certain movement, it does not mean
that their goal is to maintain that society, since every movement has their
own distinct contribution and aims to the society they are part of

10
 ■ the same way, a movement also is aimed by the activities that characterized
them
■ maintenance are only raised when its threatened
■ in educational activities, it should not be aimed to imply values, values
should be the one coming out naturally and be understood by the pupils
themselves
■ moral education that are presented in educational activities do not
give the reason to study morals and values, it shows how it is and
allow people get the values in it themselves.
○ emphasis on the common involvement of it
■ the values we share are not because of our common bonds, its our
common bonds that are characterized by the values we share
■ people are kept together by their common interest
■ it is in the common bonds that are values are shown
■ values should not be based on social solidarity, because social
solidarity is what creates a the values shared
○ emphasis on the development of an individual
■ Hemming: moral education should start in the phase where a child is
developing
■ approach and content must also be changed
■ fostering growth is what moral education is all about
■ children's development must be nourished with the right experiences and
environment
■ individual development is determined by the social relationship people have
■ religions cannot be the means of moral education
■ religion is not the only basis of morality
■ sometimes the problem is teacher of moral education treat their moral
opinion as the education itself and as a superior beliefs that would
characterize the moral education, when it should not be the case.
MAIN POINTS CONCLUDED:
- justification of educational values in terms of the maintenance of social or education system or
involvement in social solidarity distort the character of educational studies
- justification of moral values in terms of individual development
- confusion in teaching morals can be avoided if it is grounded to moral philosophy and not on
religion

3. value-free education
● no value can claim an absolute status in education
● sometimes our own judgements intrudes in the teaching of morality
● a person’s moral views do not make less than an absolute claim on him simply because there
are other values than his own
4. education and values
● moral possibilites are embodied, shown in literature
● literature is not moralizer
● it also shows possibilities of evil
● we should not therefore see academic subjects as means of moral development, there
are just values made in pursuit of the subject
● students absorb values in academic subjects because he or she understands the concept that
constitute the subject matter
● problems faced by moral educators
○ could be influence by judgements
○ could be close to condescension (patronizing superiority) and pharisaism
(self-righteousness)
○ pitfalls of moral education: pride and self-deception of the educator
● moral integrity is not the end of our actions, it something which shows itself in our actions
● when teaching morality, it is not about someone who talks alot about integrity and
truth, it is about who shows it!
● the truth a teacher shows is in regards to how he pursues it in his subject and his commitment
to it
● some primary school teachers choose value free subject BUT IT’S ACTUALLY A GOOD THING
○ they are turning towards values more when they are committed in what they do
○ teaching morals come out naturally when what you are teaching is something
you are passionate about
○ you cannot fake values and morals in teaching, it comes out from within
○ value education therefore has a place in the curriculum

11
 ○ when we try to give value orientation to subject matters, it sometimes distort the idea
of it
○ being anxious about establishing morals and values in education often ignores the
value that is hidden within it
MAIN CONCLUSION
- moral education is necessary, and is present, it just need to be more explicitly shown
- making it explicit should come from within and should not be forced
- often, moral educators are the one that corrupts moral education
- due to their self interest, self eagerness to incorporate values

James M. Pitsula- Unlikely Allies: Hilda Neatby, Michel Foucault,

and the Critique of Progressive Education
Views on progressive education

- Both view progressive education, based on the principles of psychology and scientific pedagogy, as
essentially an instrument of power and domination, rather than emancipation and enlightenment.

Focault Neatby (in contrast to Foucault)

- Focault is content to trace the - Neatby, unlike Foucault, wants to

effects of power and describe its
operations; he makes no moral
judgments because he believes
such statements are meaningless.
- He sees power and knowledge as
two sides of the same coin,
inseparable from one another.
- There is no such thing as
disinterested knowledge that can
be used to call power to account.
save Western civilization from itself
by restoring a proper balance
between reason and faith.
- She believes that we have strayed
from the true path and need to find
our way back. [However, for
Foucault, there never was a
path; the categories of reason
and faith are artificial
constructs that bear no
relationship to truth]

- Foucault (1979) presents a revisionist interpretation of the penal reforms of the 18th and 19th
centuries in Discipline and Punish, the books closest to Neatby’s concern.
- The banning of torture and public executions in favour of gentler punishments is usually
interpreted as evidence of the advancement of civilization, signifying a more humanitarian
approach to the treatment of criminals.
- Foucault calls attention to the displacement that occurred in the object of the punitive
operation–no longer the body, but the soul.
- Punishment now acted “in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations”
(Foucault, 1979, p. 16).
- It was “intended not to punish the offence, but to supervise the individual, to neutralize his
dangerous state of mind, to alter his criminal tendencies…” (p.18)
- The punishment bore with it “an assessment of normality and a technical prescription for a
possible normalization” (p. 21)
- Moreover, “humane penal procedures became entangled with a new corpus of knowledge, a
science of penology, whose purpose was the “management of the depths of the human soul”
(Rose, 1990. p.7)

12
 - Foucault extends the argument from the prison to other prison-like institutions where discipline is
administered: the insane asylum, barracks, factory, and school.
- Of the central importance to the disciplinary regimes was the examination technique that
combines surveillance with normalizing judgment.
- The procedure became standard practice in everything
- Field of surveillance
- It made possible the science of pedagogy by placing the school-children in a field of
surveillance and engaging them in a whole mass of documents that capture and fix
them.
- The individual is transformed into a “case”, who may be “described, judged,
measured, compared with others” and who has to be “trained or corrected,
classified, normalized, excluded, etc.”
- Foucault finds in the Panopticon an apt metaphor for the disciplinary society.
- The Panopticon is also a laboratory
- The Panopticon must be understood, not as a “dream building”, but as “the diagram of a
mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form” (p. 205)

- The growth in the number of institutions, such as prisons, asylums, and schools, testified to this, as did
the increase in the level of surveillance and supervision beyond the walls of institutions.

Hilda Neatby

- “Progressive education in Canada is not liberation; it is indoctrination both intellectual and moral.
- She does a better job of applying Foucault to progressive education than does Popkewitz, even
though there is no evidence that she read Foucault or had heard of him (Discipline and Punish
was first published in French, the year she died).
- So Little Mind focuses on particular aspects of her critique:
- the failure to teach the three Rs;
- automatic promotion of pupils from one grade to the next;
- inordinate attention given to extra-curricular activities;
- lack of liberal learning among professional educators;
- the breakdown of discipline in the classroom;
- time wasting activities in teacher-training colleges.
- Commentators tend to shy away from her main argument and seemingly most outrageous charge:
- progressive schools are totalitarian in nature;
- they condition students for servitude.
- She means what she says, and Foucault helps her make the case.
- Neatby objected strongly to the unconcealed ambition of the progressive school to intervene
in all aspects of the life of the child.
- This tendency is an outgrowth of Dewey’s pronouncement: “education as life and as growth”
and the “whole child goes to school”
- Neatby agrees that, of course, “education is life” but that doesn’t mean the schools
should do everything.
- She worries that parents are shoved aside or treated in a patronizing manner.
- School officials in pursuit of information intrude upon the privacy of the family.
- The role of parents, it would seem, is “to produce the child, provide him with food, clothing and
shelter, and then furnish the guidance officer, voluntarily and involuntarily , with such
information as he needs for making his decision”

- When difficulties arise it is the underlying cause that should be discovered and treated rather
than the outward symptoms. In other words, the treatment should fit the pupil and not his act
alone.
- The same misdemeanor may have an entirely different significance when committed by two
different persons.
- This is why it is so futile to adopt fixed rules for dealing with specific faults.
- Successful treatment depends upon thorough knowledge of the case.

13
 - That is why studying the pupil: his background, history, is important before deciding upon any
course of treatment.
- In the more difficult cases this will mean studying the home conditions and consulting
the parents and others in the school and outside it who have knowledge of the pupil
which might prove important.

- This is what Foucault labels the “penitentiary approach” a method that substitutes for the convicted
offender, “the delinquent”
- It is not so much the deliquent’s act as his or her life that is subject to discipline and correction

- As what Foucault labels “penitentiary” approach, Neatby has an intuitive understanding of the process.

o The procedure is undoubtedly appropriate for the inmate of a lunatic asylum or a specially organized
penal institution. In a school, however, where the children are given the freedom properly accorded to
rational individuals, justice demands that each one be equally responsible for his overt acts and
that from each be exacted approximately equal penalties, if penalties are needed.

- The importation of the penitentiary technique into the school offends her sense of respect for children
as moral beings with minds of their own.

- The totalizing agenda of the progressive school that Neatby abhors is the effort to teach children correct
“attitudes”. They are subjected to relentless pressure to accept the approved values of “democracy”, “social
living”, or “effective living”.

- She defends the right of the teacher to teach without being told what the students are expected to believe
at the end of the course.

o Since the teacher arranges the facts so that they lead to the politically correct result

o Teachers are not so much teaching English literature, natural science, or history as they are
“conditioning little boys and girls so that they will grow up to be orderly, well-adjusted, but
progressive and forward-looking citizens.

- Dewey recommends that students participate in group projects , the better to absorb the spirit of
democracy and co-operative endeavour.

o He puts forward the principle that children learn best when they solve a problem of their
own devising and when the project involves manual activity.

o While the teacher may inspire the project, the children must accept it as “theirs”

o “The skillful teacher will set the stage as it were, in such away that the pupils will
accept the purposes and aims at their own.

- In short, Neatby observes that their aims better look a lot like the teacher’s or in other words, “a
perceptive child who had been exposed to the “newer school practices: Cooperation means you gotta”

- Neatby considers the manipulation and trickery practiced in the progressive classroom an
insult to the intelligence of students.

- [according to Neatby] The teacher must constantly attend to the pupil’s motivation, and at all
costs refrain from forcing them to learn material they are not interested in.

- Dewey assumes that children are naturally curious about the subject matter that is
directly relevant to their day-to-day lives, but that abstract knowledge or information
remote from their immediate environment is of much less interest or value to them.
- Thus, the teachers are expected to employ various stratagems to awaken curiosity by
showing pupils how school lessons relate to life outside the classroom.

14
- The traditionalist teacher who required pupils to learn something and rebuked or punished them when
they failed to do so, “showed a truer respect for them than those who regard them only as inert wax to be
moulded with patience and skill”

o The whole point of the modern school, as far as Neatby can see, is to assure that children
do what they want to do or want to do what they are doing--- the perfect image of a
suffocating totalitarian regime.

o Slick human relations management practised on the young is, in her opinion, a far more
serious threat to democracy than the old-fashioned system of rules and punishment.

- The progressive school insists that pupils feel good about themselves and that they never fail or fall short
of meeting an absolute standard.

o The goal is to make school life as pleasant as possible, which, according to Neatby leads to
a uniformly low standard, easily obtainable by almost all.

- Progressive educators promote the lie that all children are equal, or almost all equal, in ability.

o Democracy demands that this be true.

o Neatby states that children know full well that their capacities are not the same.

- NEATBY RESPONDED: Neatby says, “the vision of the coming police state”. The Panopticon comes to the
playground.

o She avows that no self-respecting teacher would consent to this type of surveillance of his
or her pupils. Those who do might as well “hire out their work to an eager little band of
spies and agents provocateurs.

- Neatby accuses educational experts of having “magnified… office to the point where they become
totalitarian in their approach to schooling.

o The remedy is for schools and teachers to “back off”, to give up their mission of
socializing the whole child, and to try to do one thing really well: feed the child’s
mind.

o This would open up some space, give the pupil relief from the unrelenting gaze of the
school, and make room for the home, church, and other organization to exercise influence
over the child’s development.

- She holds that intellectual training is liberating in a way that “socializing” is not.

o The child who learns the basic skills of reading and writing is empowered; he has
more freedom than the one trapped in illiteracy or semi-literacy.

- The central purpose of formal education is to dispel the ignorance that leaves one helpless and “to train
the mind for control and power”

o By giving students access to the intellectual and cultural heritage of Western civilization,
obliging them to master a coherent body of knowledge, and making sure that they can
obtain meaning from the printed page and express themselves clearly and effectively, the
teacher confers power on the student.

o Education is liberation not therapy. Education interpreted as conditioning leaves the young
“weak from lack of nourishment and blind from want of vision”

- Neatby offers one another suggestion to promote the power and freedom of the individual—the
curtailment of Dewey’s cherished group work and shared activities.

15
- She defined education in one passage as “the discovery that the world is more interesting than oneself”
(Neatby, 1953, p.232)

- She says that a teacher needs only two things: to love his subject and to love his students. All the rest will
follow.

o The teacher is privileged to lead students “into the company of the great in history, in
literature, and the arts; and into the mystery and the beauty of the world in which they
live.

16
Michael J. Sigrist - Death and Meaning of Life
Thoughts of mortality = midlife crisis / meaning in one’s life

Kieran Setiya
- if one can value activities as opposed to accomplishments as the primary goods in one’s life
then one might avoid the midlife crisis.
- Rather than safeguarding the meaning in one’s life, it should be a kind of happiness
Sartre
- Death is an unqualified harm
Heidegger
- there is meaning in life only because we are mortal

● Kieran Setiya reflects: uneasy shadow death can throw over life.
● Achievements and failures: what do they add up to, after all?
● Death is merely an occasion for reflecting upon the significance of life, and not an integral part of that
significance itself, since one could be liable to despair over the meaning in one’s life even if one were
confident of living forever.
● Sigrist believes that there (death) is meaning in our lives only because at some level we are
aware of being mortal.
● Dread or fear → death: Setiya interprets–futility or pointlessness, life is a series of
accomplishments that in the end comes to nothing.

● Death can make life seem futile (ex. Building a house knowing a tornado can hit it)
● Life consists of overlapping long-term projects. (ex. making friends…)
● Death can happen anytime, the threat of death is ever-present.
● Two obvious OBJECTIONS about this analogy:

1. It’s not true that everything in one’s life is wasted by one’s death. (ex. building a house not only for self
but for family…) → the ones we value the most is not directly threatened by death; if it lies beyond our
own interests then it is not wasted by death
a. Religious and moral thinkers argued: Death threatens harm only to those who value things
that can be taken away by death. Live a life devoted to goods beyond the self and death loses
much of its power over the meaning in one’s life.

2. The analogy also relies upon a conception of life as a series of overlapping achievements, or as itself
one totalizing achievement.
a. While death might deprive one of some future enjoyment of those activities, it cannot render
what one has already done or is doing a waste. Death only seems to threaten the achievement
goods, to avoid: invest in non-achievement goods.

● You can resolve the midlife crisis, or prevent it by investing more deeply in atelic ends. (happening that
is unfinished, you’re doing it because you like it – the activity is its own reward)
○ The term "atelic ends" refers to goals or purposes that are intrinsically valuable in and of
themselves, rather than being means to achieve some further end or objective. "Atelic" comes
from the Greek word "ateles," which means "without a goal" or "endless." Atelic ends are
pursued for their own sake, without any instrumental value or purpose beyond their intrinsic
worth.
○ Examples of atelic ends could include engaging in artistic expression purely for the joy of
creating, pursuing knowledge for the sake of intellectual curiosity, or engaging in activities like
sports or hobbies for the pleasure and fulfillment they provide.
● Achievement: an action with an end or goal projected as what is to be accomplished. The value is
measured by standard relevant to the production of that end (efficiency, safety, honor, expertise, etc.)
Success or failure??
● Activity: action whose end or goal is just part of the action itself. Cannot be wasted → success is effort,
effort is simultaneous

17
 ● Failure and futility can only threaten what we do when the success and satisfaction are
non-simultaneous with the actions.
● Setiya suggests that we would be best to treat our ‘final ends’ as atelic in this way.
● “There is nothing you need to do in order to perform an atelic activity other than what you are doing
right now.”
● Two ways to AVOID THE SENSE OF FUTILITY evinced by the specter of death:
1. Devote oneself primarily to non-selfish goods.
2. Find satisfaction in activities rather than accomplishments.

ARGUMENTS OF SIGRIST:

Sigrist explained his doubt with Setiya’s attempt to make disappear the ghost of death.
● A life which took its main goods to consist in activities rather than accomplishments would be poor in
several of the essential aspects that make life worth living in the first place.
● He compared Sartre and Heidegger on the significance of death.
● Sartre (like Setiya) tries to neutralize the threat that death poses to meaning in life. But his position is
complicated. Sartre believes that death ultimately threatens the meaning of one’s life, but in an
argument that resembles Epicurus, that since the harms caused by death happen only after one no
longer exists, these harms ought to be treated as nothing by agents.
IN SUMMARY: While death is a harm, those harms are practically inert and should be treated as such.
● Heidegger: death → mortality makes meaning possible. Death are our lives meaningful.

● REFLECTION OF SIGRIST: Death can still threaten the meaning of our life and whether we have reason
to fear it.

● FIRST CONDITION (false): To protect the value in one’s life from death is to value ends that go beyond
the self.
● We do not presume that the people we help and value among our friends and family are better than us.
● SECOND CONDITION (unsatisfying): Engaging with goods beyond the self was supposed to provide us
with a way of breaking out of the circle of self. → To substitute a larger circle for a smaller.
● NATURE MEANING OF LIFE (?): One might interject that there is surely something non-derivatively or
intransitively valuable in many of the non-selfish ends for the sake of which one acts, not because those
others have more value than me but because there is something inherently valuable in honoring the
fact that one is not the only source of value.
● John Stuart Mill fell into a deep depression which he has rescued only by learning to love poetry. As
Setiya explains the cause: despite the continuing to acknowledge its importance, becoming a social
reformer had ceased to matter to him. He argues that Mill was able to overcome depressions
because he came to understand that the kind of value can sustain meaning in one’s life and
protect one from the anxiety of death is the kind of value found in activities like poety, art,
science, and philosophy.

There are shortcomings with Setiya’s view on this matter, that’s why Sigrist turned to Susan Wolf’s
work.

● Wolf argued that meaning comprises a distinct category of value and motivation, different from
both happiness and rectitude.
● It is the meaning of our lives in which we find the value most identified with the self that which
makes life valuable for one.
● He argues that meaning is different from happiness in that many of the activities in which we find
meaning are not the sort that result in subjective happiness contentment, pleasure, satisfaction, or
ease.
● The distinguishing feature of moral reasons and values is that they are supposed to be reasons and
values for anyone.
● A life lived primarily on the basis of moral motivations is not likely be a life that is really one’s own.
● A personality characterized not just by its moral qualities but by its peculiar interests, attitudes, talents,
etc. – that we associate with a meaningful and fulfilling life.

18
 ● Fitting Fulfillment View: it is only in actions motivated for the sake of meaning that subjective
satisfaction and objective value coincide. – A fulfilling life comes about when one finds subjective
satisfaction in something that one also takes to be objectively valuable.
● Meaning in life arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness.
● Arts and Science: arts and sciences arguably have intrinsic value, but surely no one is morally
obligated to be an artist or scientist.
● One pursues them on Wolf’s: because one finds them meaningful.

● Setiya – achieving meaning requires a kind of agency, discretion, and luck not necessary to either
moral or merely subjective well-being.
● Meaning requires a degree of success, which is an important contrast with the value of many ethical
ends.
● Meaning requires a subjective component to complement the objective good.
● Discretionary element of a meaningful life is not voluntary – one cannot simply choose to find some
pursuit meaningful, which is why we often talk about the search for meaning in terms of self-discovery.
● Risk (Heidegger): Setiya says that the way to avoid a midlife crisis and to neutralize the troubling
potential of death is to learn to appreciate the ongoing activities in life as activities and to resist
measuring the value of one’s life in terms of accomplishments.

SIGRIST ARGUES THAT:

● A life oriented toward activities is not robust enough to support the sort of meaning that
Wolf says–rightly, forms the basis of our identity and drives some of our deepest motivations, and
since these are tied to accomplishments, death once again becomes relevant.

– In favor of the Wolfian model.

● Wolf has not said much about the meaning of death for life, but the conditions are the same ones found
in Sartre and Heidegger: both deal extensively with death.

● Sartre agrees with Setiya and Schopenhauer that death casts a pall (cover) over the meaning in
our lives, and that we are right to consider it a harm.
● Simone de Beauvoir’s understanding of death similar to Sartre – death was always an unjust violation.
QUESTION FOR SARTRE: How should we cope with this fact?
HIS ANSWER: We should ignore it.
● Heidegger: by contrast, insists that there is meaning in life only because agency (people) is
structured as ‘being toward death’. Death seems to make meaning in life possible.

HEIDEGGER:
● Heidegger connects death to personal authenticity, and authenticity to selfhood. An authentic person is
someone who lives 'true' to herself. Since this implies that truth is lived, and that one can fail to live the
truth, it also implies that being alive and being a self are not equivalent.
QUESTION: How could I fail to be me?
- Heidegger is thinking about practical rather than metaphysical identity.

● Existentialist theory about the significance of death for authenticity: if you’re dying right now and
discover that you would regret your lived life, then you are inauthentic.
● To live authentically, you should live in such a way that you would not change what you are doing right
now even if you knew that death was possible at this moment.
● Sartre ascribes like this idea to Heidegger and criticizes him for it: Sartre argues that this view of death
gives too much power to the shape of a life to determine its meaning at any moment, and too much
power to death to determine that shape. MISTAKEN!!
FIRST: This idea presumes that WE CAN imagine what it is like to be dead, when
That is impossible.
SECOND: This view gives too much weight to the shape of life.

19
 ● SARTRE: Death is the end of us, and that means, the end of our freedom to fashion and re-fashion the
meaning of our lives. ‘Freedom limits freedom; the past derives its meaning from the present’.
● The meaning of an event is the one that is currently trying to make of it right now.

SUICIDE??
● What about suicide? Through suicide, one can decide for oneself the shape of one’s life and
therefore determine the meaning of the moments of one’s life in terms of that shape.
MISTAKEN! SARTRE ARGUES
● Sartre argues another important reason for why death cannot confer meaning on life. Suicide
is also a social act with a social meaning. A suicide might be intended as an act of rebellion,
but the public may interpret it as impetuous or deranged.
● Death cannot be meaningful for life because it names the end of our freedom–the source of
meaning–and abandon us to others.

HEIDEGGER:
● Death makes us anxious about life, and it might seem like that should be true for Sartre as well. For
Sartre, to live is to struggle against the world and against others to assert the meaning of one’s own
being, and yet this is a contest one is bound to lose so long as death is certain.

SARTRE:
● Sartre’s advice against this dread is a practical version of Lucretianism: My death is out there waiting to
happen, of course, but it is nothing that I will ever confront.
● Death is not a possibility that I can expect or plan for.
● Freedom which is my freedom remains total and infinite…And this is not because death does not limit
my freedom but because freedom never encounters this limit.
●

ONTOLOGICAL DEATH:
● Possibilities that hold true for any agent as such. Death is not a possibility for me in the way that
planning for the circumstances of my death bed is, for ontological death is the sort that may strike while
my plans for dying are being made.
● Heidegger formalized this distinction: demise and death.
Demise: the end of biographical life and whatever meaning I may try to make of it
Death: possibility that all my possibilities, including planning for my demise,
become impossible

● Sartre’s view: death is an utterly contingent and external event that has no existential
implications for how one should live one’s life.
● Heidegger: (personal) agents [Dasein] exist ‘towards death’ as their ‘ownmost possibility.’ A
‘constant unfinished quality’ lies in the essence of the constitution of Dasein.
- As Dasein, our entire way of being has the structure of an accomplishment. Wholeness–due to death.

● Sartre misses the importance of death because he conceives of it only as the object of a possible desire
and decision.
● Heidegger, the importance of death is deeper than that, down into the very reason why our freedom
and decisions matter to us in the first place.
● 4 plausible conditions for meaning and value:
1. Scarcity - for example, diamonds than oxygen; diamonds are much more
scarce.
2. Mineness - something that we are actually responsible for.
3. Success - failures are not meaningless, success and failure come together.
Some of our meaningful moments come in failures.
4. Risk - activities that pose no possibility of risk cannot be all that meaningful.
The absence of risk robs one of productive agency.

20
 ● By nullifying productive agency, recklessness also nullifies the quality of mineness that follows from
such agency, and so also success (there is no success without the risk of failure.)
● Mortality = time → Heidegger’s claim that ‘being-towards-death’ grounds the temporality of Dasein.
● John Fischer forcefully argued that an unending life, even once one had run out of things to do (in
terms of accomplishments), could still reasonably be expected to hold out the possibility of infinitely
repeatable pleasures.

This article explores the relationship between death and the meaning of life from a philosophical perspective.

In the article, Sigrist delves into various philosophical perspectives and arguments regarding the impact of death
on the meaning and purpose of human existence. He discusses different philosophical traditions and thinkers,
including existentialism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism, among others, to explore their insights on death and its
significance for understanding the meaning of life.

Sigrist raises questions such as whether death undermines the possibility of meaning in life, how different
conceptions of death affect our understanding of life's purpose, and whether contemplating death can lead to a
richer and more meaningful life.

The article likely provides an in-depth exploration of these topics, drawing on philosophical theories, arguments,
and reflections. It may offer different perspectives and theories to consider regarding the existential and
philosophical implications of death and its relationship to the search for meaning in human life.

The article "Death and the Meaning of Life" by Michael J. Sigrist argues that
● the awareness of our own mortality is essential to the meaning of life.
● He begins by discussing the midlife crisis, which he sees as a crisis of meaning brought on by the
realization that one's life is finite.
● He then turns to the work of Susan Wolf, who argues that a meaningful life is one that is lived in
accordance with one's values.
● Sigrist argues that Wolf's account of meaning is incomplete, because it does not take into account the
fact that our lives are finite.
● He suggests that a more complete account of meaning would need to take into account the fact that we
will all die.

Sigrist then turns to the work of Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, who both argue that death is
essential to the meaning of life.

Jean-Paul Sartre
● Sartre argues that death is an unqualified harm, because it robs us of the possibility of future
experiences.

Martin Heidegger
● Heidegger, on the other hand, argues that death is the condition of possibility for meaning, because it
forces us to make choices about how we want to live our lives.

Sigrist concludes by arguing that Heidegger's account of death is more accurate than Sartre's, and that it
provides a better foundation for an account of the meaning of life.

Here are some additional thoughts on the article:

● Sigrist is right to point out that the awareness of our own mortality is essential to the meaning of life. If
we did not know that we were going to die, then we would not have to make choices about how we
want to live our lives. We would simply live for the moment, without any regard for the future.
● However, I do not think that death is the only condition of possibility for meaning. I think that meaning
can also be found in relationships, in work, and in the pursuit of knowledge.
● I also think that Sigrist is right to say that the midlife crisis is a crisis of meaning. When we
reach midlife, we start to realize that our lives are not going to be as long as we thought they would be.
This can lead to a crisis of confidence, as we start to question the choices that we have made.
● However, I do not think that the midlife crisis is necessarily a bad thing. It can be a time of great

21
 personal growth, as we learn to embrace our mortality and to live our lives more fully.

Richard Taylor - Time and Life’s Meaning

SUMMARY AND MAIN POINTS

Introduction
Taylor's thesis said that the meaning of life is purely subjective

● Metaphysics denies the reality of time

● Parmenides, the earliest metaphysician denied reality to all time and becoming
-Parmenides believed that reality is a combination of existing things, the forms, and the motion
of their change. In his theory and explanation, he stated that all these things are one and denied the
concept of existence and non-existence.

● Plato declared reality can only be eternal, describing the passage of time in which we mortals live as
nothing but that eternity’s moving image
● Modern Philosopher Spinoza agreed on said concepts of time, where it makes no difference on reality
● Immanuel Kant reduced time to a form of sensibility
● McTaggart, a recent philosopher, gives proof that the concept of time is self-contradictory
● Time moves in only one direction and at no assignable rate is paradoxical, but treating it as not real
doesn’t mean we can’t feel the impacts of it
● Henri Bergson quotes, “time eats into things and leaves on them the mark of its tooth”
● According to Richard Taylor, the author of the article, time has little significant reality except
for the context of beings who can not only think and feel but also create

-Life has meaning based on the perspective of the subject of the life,if the subject has rightly
oriented desires which for Taylor focus on the process of doing things not the products or
achievements of doing things then life has meaning for that person and that is all the meaning there
is to life. it comes wholly within us.

-Taylor thinks the myth of Sisyphus illustrates a meaningless existence. A meaningless existence involves
endless pointless activity an existence full of activity that never culminates in anything

Part 1

● First example, reality without life in this world.

● No newness or cycles happen, there is no novelty as there are no surprises and no creations in the
world.
● They are combinations of novel that already existed.
● Lifeless world resembles a clock with one hand is missing.

Part 2

● Continuing the example, reality with life but no rational beings

● Still, no novelty as there is no history, no differences of the cycles that keep on continuing repetitively
(Things in it exactly resemble those that went before)
● There are days but no dates
● Same world, age after ages (It is again a clockwork without hands)

Part 3

● Continues about the logic in reality with life but no rational beings

22
 ● Despite their incapability to make sense of time, they still feel it and can anticipate it (sense of time was
introduced by the living things (animals))
● However, these creatures have no history as there is no innovation
● The world we are imagining resembles an endless play in which the acts are identical.
● This is the very world we live in except we humans aren’t present
● Time goes on, there is a before and after, but there is no meaning nor history

Part 4

● The introduction of Sisyphus’ myth (The moral of "The Myth of Sisyphus" is that there is no
greater meaning in life but what we give it. When we accept that the universe has no
inherent meaning or reason, we can be free of artificial expectations and embrace the
absurd.)
● Sisyphus finds happiness in the accomplishment of the task he undertakes and not in the meaning of
this task.
● Sisyphus is punished in the underworld by the god Zeus, who forces him to roll a boulder up a hill for
eternity. Every time he nears the top of the hill, the boulder rolls back down.
● Camus uses the Greek legend of Sisyphus, who is condemned by the gods for eternity to repeatedly roll
a boulder up a hill only to have it roll down again once he got it to the top, as a metaphor for the
individual's persistent struggle against the essential absurdity of life.
-What is the lesson of absurdity?

Absurdism teaches that human beings struggle with an internal, never ending quest for purpose and
fulfillment in life. This search for purpose is in direct conflict with the apparent purposelessness of
the universe.

● Similarly to the world without us rational human beings, life goes on in a meaningless cycle, like how
Sisyphus was punished to roll a boulder that never reaches the top over and over through eternity by
the gods
● The meaninglessness comes from the sheer boredom

Part 5

● Modify the myth of Sisyphus to give it a bit more meaning

● What if over a long period of time, Sisyphus would end up building a beautiful and long lasting temple?
Would that make Sisyphus’ punishment more meaningful?
● No, as Sisyphus, in this case, is unable to see the progress happen. He doesn’t know that what he’s
doing would lead to create something grand
● Then what if we imagine that Sisyphus can actually see that his labor is leading to something more
fruitful? Would that make what he’s doing more meaningful?
● Still no. Taylor describes Sisyphus as an actor who is lucky enough to be casted the leading role but not
all actors would want that role and would sometimes rather reject it. Sisyphus may understand and be
aware that what he’s doing is leading to a grander outcome but there needs to be another added factor
in order for Sisyphus’ punishment to become actually meaningful
● And that is for him to have the desire and intention to create the beautiful and lasting temple from his
own creative imagination. Something that if it weren’t for said imagination that’s unique to him, would
have never existed at all

Part 6

● Rational beings are the very creators of time itself

● Nature may be able to create beautiful things but rational humans are able to impose changes on
nature
● Rational beings do not merely foresee what will be; they sometimes determine what will be
● What a creative mind brings forth is never something merely learned or inherited nor is it merely
something novel. It is what a creative mind intends it to be

23
 ● Creative genius is having the ability to create something that others could not have imagined
being created, it is a rare quality amongst creative minds
● Schopenhauer's dictum states that while talent is the ability to hit a target that others miss,
genius is the ability to hit a target that others do not even see
● Rationality used to not be defined as care and precision in thought by ancients, but rather associates it
with contemplative life in the broadest sense
● The creative genius of a person is something that cannot be shared, by its nature. If it’s able to be
shared, then it is not genius nor an example of a creative power. It is a capacity for fabrication which is
common in nature

Part 7

● Creative thought is not rare and exists in varying degrees

● What is rare is the proper appreciation of creative thought
● The human capacity to create can be found in even the most mundane of things
● Procreation is not an act of creation as it can be done by anyone
● Procreation only becomes an act of creativity if the parents succeed in raising their children
with a sense of creative individuality, people who don’t resemble their parents at all

Part 8

● Creative power is not something particularly sought and prized by most people
● This is because in religion, we are taught that God created people of equal importance
● Creative power is no common possession and creative genius is in fact rare
● The reinforcement of religion’s view that God sees everyone equally makes people seek as little
originality and individual self-worth as possible as “no one can rise above others in God’s sight anyway”
● This view tends to overcome and weigh upon us, rendering even the exemplary among us weak and
hesitant
● However, God is a creator and is introduced as a creator. And for humans to be metaphorical images to
God means that we have the divine ability and quality to create and have creative power
● What gives any humans existence its meaning, is the possibility that thus arises of creative power.

Part 9

● If a particular person had not just at that moment brought forth that utterly unprecedented thing then
it would have never existed at all
● The thought of a world lacking a single one of the fruits of creative genius that our world actually
possesses is a depressing one – this is the verdict of philosophy
● The meaning of time and life only arises when we are able to create worlds and histories of our own,
thereby creating time in its historical sense

In his essay "Time and the Meaning of Life," Richard Taylor argues that the meaning of life is found in the
process of creation.
He begins by noting that time is essential to creation, because it allows us to make choices and to set goals.
Without time, there would be no possibility of change or progress.

Taylor then argues that the meaning of life is not found in the end product of our creation, but in the process
itself.
He says that "the meaning of life is not to be found in the things we make, but in the making of them."
This is because the process of creation is what gives our lives meaning. It is what allows us to express our
creativity and to make a difference in the world.

Taylor concludes by saying that "the meaning of life is not something that is given to us, but something
that we create for ourselves." It is up to each of us to find what gives our lives meaning, and to pursue that
meaning with passion and commitment.

Here are some additional thoughts on Taylor's essay:

● Taylor's argument that the meaning of life is found in the process of creation is a powerful one. It

24
 reminds us that our lives are not about what we have, but about what we do.
● It is through our actions that we make a difference in the world, and it is through our actions that we
find meaning in our lives.
● Taylor's essay also challenges us to think about what we want to create with our lives. What are our
passions? What are our goals? What difference do we want to make in the world? When we can answer
these questions, we can begin to find meaning in our lives.
● Finally, Taylor's essay reminds us that the meaning of life is not something that is given to us. It is
something that we create for ourselves. We have the power to choose what gives our lives meaning,
and we have the power to pursue that meaning with passion and commitment.

Michael Levine- What Does Death Have To Do with the Meaning of

Life?
● PART 1
○ Philosophers often distinguish in some way between two (or more) senses of life's
meaning.
■ Paul Edwards terms these 'cosmic' and 'terrestrial' sense.
● The cosmic sense (ultimate)
○ is that of an overall purpose of which our lives are a part and in
terms of which our lives must be understood and our purposes and
interests arranged.
○ This overall purpose is often identified with God's divine scheme, but
the two need not necessarily be equated.

● The terrestrial sense of meaning (non-ultimate)

○ is the meaning people find (subjectively) in their own lives apart
from the place of their lives in any ultimate end or context.

○ The question about meaning in the ultimate or cosmic sense need not in any way deny or
demean the significance, meaning and point that people's lives have in non-ultimate ways.
■ Whether or not they think that life is ultimately meaningful, people who are puzzled
about the meaning of life may acknowledge that happiness, love many of life's most
important and worthwhile features depend upon life's having meaning and point in
numerous non-ultimate ways

○ In Western religious traditions, it is often claimed that life cannot be meaningful, in the
relevant sense of ultimate meaning, unless
■ people's lives are part of some divine cosmic scheme, and
■ there is eternal life.

Some atheists (whom Edwards calls 'pessimists') agree with theists and maintain that unless
conditions 1 and 2 are met, life must be 'ultimately' meaningless (i.e. meaningless in the
cosmic sense).

Some believe that life can be worthwhile and have ultimate meaning even if these conditions
are not met. Of course, in this case the ultimate meaning of life cannot be expressed in terms
of any divine (theistic) cosmic scheme.

Others claim that the only type of meaningfulness possible is the meaning that humans give to
their own lives and that any larger or more of meaning is illusory or itself a meaningless
notion.

○ I shall assume that theists and atheists agree, for the most parts, that life can be
meaningful in the terrestrial sense even if it does not have ultimate meaning.

25
 This is not to deny that some people claim that life cannot be meaningful in even the limited
'terrestrial' sense if it does not have ultimate meaning. However, I think those who do think
this is far fewer in number than is ordinarily supposed. Moreover, the prime candidates for
such a view, those such as Camus, Tolstoy, etc. who are most often cited as holding this
position, do not in fact believe this at all, though I shall not argue that position here.

● PART II
○ The concern in this paper is with the claim for the necessity of there being eternal life for
life to be ultimately meaningful.
■ I want to show that the role that eternal life allegedly plays in life's meaning is often
misunderstood, and
■ that the question of life everlasting will be relevant to the problem of meaning only
if it can be shown that such life is itself part of a divine scheme that lends
intelligibility and meaning of relevant type to people's pre-eternal existence.

○ If ‘2’ is to be relevant to the question of meaning then it is only because ' it can be subsumed
somehow under ‘1’.
■ Unless it can be so subsumed, than the objections of others who claim that life
everlasting cannot in any way be an answer to the question of life’s meaning, because
precisely the same questions concerning the meaning of life everlasting can be raised
that are raised about life’s meaning in this world, seem to me to be irrefutable.
■ Eternal life cannot endow this life with meaning unless it can itself be rendered
meaningful in some relevant (ultimate) sense for example by its part in some divine
sheme.
■ There is nothing in eternal life itself that, as far I see, would make it self-evidently or
intrinsically valuable unless it itself part some meaningful scheme.

○ If 2 cannot be subsumed under 1, then the questions 'What is the meaning of eternal life?' and
'What comes next?' would be troublesome in more or less the same way that these questions
are when raised about our present lives.
■ The answer to 'What comes next?' would be similar to the answer of those who deny
any eternal life - ‘Nothing comes next ‘ - the difference, of course, being that those
who ask this during eternal life, knowing that they were to live eternally, would mean
they live forever, rather than that they stay eternally dead.
○ There is something about the eternal perspective that allegedly renders these questions moot.
■ Perhaps Wittgenstein and others fail to recognize this when they claim that eternal life
would not solve these questions.
■ However, it may also be that they are claiming that there is nothing in an eternal
perspective that could, in fact, make the answers to these questions evident.
■ Even face-to-face meeting with God in which God answered all of one's (askable)
questions concerning the meaning of life and life everlasting could not, conceptually
speaking, solve the riddle associated with these questions.
■ However, despite what seems to me to be an overwhelmingly strong case against
there actually being satisfactory to these questions and subsidiary questions like the
problem of evil, I see no reason to assume the impossibility of giving satisfactory
answers.
■ Though I do not think there is a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil, theistically
' speaking, let alone to the question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?',
it has not been shown, by Hume, Wittgenstein or others, that there cannot be proper
and correct answers to these questions.
○ The reason that eternal life is often taken to be a necessary condition of life's having meaning
is epistemic in nature.
■ It is not that eternal life can or will make life meaningful, but rather that once one no
longer sees as if ' 'through a glass dark sky’ one will then understand the meaning of

26
 life by understanding the divine scheme of things to some extent the divine or
‘ultimate’ nature of things itself
■ Thus, 2 is not really a necessary condition of life’s having meaning, but rather a
necessary epistemic condition for REALIZING 1.
■ It is not eternal life per se that makes life meaningful.
● Instead it may be part of a divine scheme that gives meaning to life or at
least gives an individual lives the possibility of being meaningful
■ Rather than being conceived of as itself a necessary condition of life's having a
meaning, it is, I think, more properly (and ordinarily) conceived of as being a
necessary epistemic condition for knowing the divine scheme of things of
which one's life is a part.
○ The requirement of eternal life as necessary for life's being ultimately meaningful is secondary
or derivative - necessary only insofar as it relates (primarily epistemically) to what makes life
meaningful, which is that it is part of a divine cosmic scheme.
○ BERTRAND RUSSEL
■ Thought that all life would eventually die out
■ Believed that the fact of morality was every bit essential to a satisfactory resolution to
the problem of life’s meaning
○ C.D.H. Clark
■ Doctrine of despair
■ If we are asked to believe that all our striving is without final consequence then life is
meaningless and it scarcely matters how we live
■ Clark identifies the “final consequence” of all of our strivings with eternal life.
● Levine argues that these two terms shall be kept separated
○ It is possible to maintain that there is a final consequence to our
lives without maintaining that this final consequence must be
eternal life.
○ If this distinction is not maintained, then we are left with the same
problems concerning meaning in relation to eternal life that we
previously had in relation to the meaning of THIS life.
● Levine claims
○ that immortality is of derivative concern in relation to the question
of the meaning of life, but not that either death or immortality is
'irrelevant'. [unlike the claims of others who sees it as irrelevant]
○ The claim that it is irrelevant, in all circumstances, to the meaning
of life in its terrestrial sense is clearly false.
○ I have shown, in part, how death and immortality have relevance
and just what it is.
■ I have tried to show both that the question of meaning
does not reduce to the question of immortality, and how
the two may be related.

● PART III
○ Levine’s stance
■ I have been considering the role that immortality might play in making life meaningful
and valuable.
● However, there are those who argue that immortality might have the
opposite effect and render life meaningless, or at least less valuable
● Just as there are those who argue that place in God's scheme cannot make
life meaningful, but instead is either irrelevant or must are make life
meaningless; so there those who argue that immortality is either irrelevant
to life's meaning, or else detrimental to the value of life.
○ Karl Popper says
■ there are those who think that life is valueless because it must come to an end.

27
 ● , They fail to see how the opposite argument might also be proposed: that if
there were no end to life, life would have no value; that it is, in part, the
ever-present danger of losing it which helps bring home to us the value of
life.

○ Levine stance
■ However, if I am correct, it is not merely the fact that life must come to ' an end that
is crucial to those who claim life is meaningless because life must come to an end'.
● It is because what life there is lacks a certain type of meaning
○ - a meaning that immortality (somehow?) might make evident
○ - that makes mortality threaten the (ultimate) meaningfulness of
existence. to us
■ The 'ever-present danger of losing it' brings home the value of life in only one
sense:
● that of having some of our life plans, loves, etc. cease.

■ But whether or not one believes in immortality, the possibility of death cannot
bring home the value of life in the sense of the ultimate value purpose of life.
● It can do this only for terrestrial meaning.
● It is not mortality per se that makes life meaningless according those
who say that life is meaningless because it must come to an end.
○ What makes it meaningless is the forfeiture by death of any
possibility of finding out what the ultimate purpose of life might be.

■ Karl Popper vs Levine

● Popper gives no reasons to support his rather macabre suggestion that
immortality might make (immortal) life less valuable, or that life gets its
value through the threat of its loss.
● Perhaps he means to argue by analogy, though the argument is missing.
● For Levine: Somethings may be more valuable to us because we are
threatened by their loss, but why would life be of these?
○ While it is true that someone we love may at times be more dear to
us because of the possibility of their loss (i.e. we come to realize
what their loss might mean), it is not apparent that if love were to
last forever it might therefore become something less valuable.
● Levine suggested:
○ Previously I suggested that immortality be regarded as a
necessary condition for life's having an ultimate meaning in
only a derivative sense
■ I am now suggesting that the further claim that 'life has no
meaning because it must come to an end must be
understood in light of this previous claim.
○ If this is correct, then it might be helpful to re-examine some of the
views of those who are thought to believe that mortality threatens
the meaningfulness of life or that immortality is a necessary
condition of it.

■ Roy Perrett/Flew/Tolstoy
● LEVINE: However, unlike Flew, I do not think that immortality is itself the
justification or the meaning of life according to Tolstoy - rather it is the
condition necessary to find out what the meaning is.
● Death
○ tolstoy/darrow/others argues that death is better than life
■ Because death stops us from from experiencing life which means death is better - in a
way where “what is the importance of living anyway if we will all just die?’.
■ However, this argument is inconsistent accdg to paul edwards

28
 ● Why is death judged to be evil?
○ Termination of life?
● Edwards showed the inconsistency of other’s arguments:
○ Others say “Death is an evil because it terminates life, but death is
preferable to life”
■ What does this mean?
■ Since on one level this is obviously inconsistent
○ Other interpretation accdg to Levine:
■ Life would be preferable to death, cosmically worthwhile if
there was eternal life - not just because of the fact of
eternal life - but because of what we would learn about the
purpose of our lives before and after death, and because it
would 'make sense' of the evil in this world.
■ However, in the context of his assertion that 'death is
preferable to life', Tolstoy is assuming that there is no
eternal life.
● It is only on the assumption that life is ultimately
pointless that death is preferable to life according
to Tolstoy.
● Under this assumption what makes death such a
terrible evil is not because it ends life, but because
it indicates the impossibility of an ultimately
meaningful existence.
○ For Levine: Death is a 'terrible evil' only when contrasted with eternal life
■ not when it is contrasted with a life in which our plans, purposes, happiness, etc. are
doomed to frustration by the overwhelming fact of inescapable death.
■ Death would not be a terrible evil at all if contrasted with - ' an ultimately pointless
existence - at least it would not be an ultimately terrible evil'

This is the point of those pessimists who claim that death is a terrible evil because it
terminates life, but is nevertheless preferable, by far, to life.

It is preferable to life only on the assumption that there is no eternal life, that death is
final, and that with death everlasting any chance for an ultimately - meaningful
existence or at least coming to know what the meaning is evaporates.

When Tolstoy and Darrow assert that death is a terrible evil because it terminates life,
but is nevertheless preferable to life, they are assuming that there is no eternal life.

○ Everlasting death's terribleness lies not in the fact that it terminates life, but that it contrasts
with life everlasting.

SOME OF LEVINE’S MAIN POINTS

I. The question of life everlasting will be relevant to the problem of meaning only if it can be shown that
such life is itself part of a divine scheme – that lends intelligibility and meaning of relevant type to
people's pre-eternal existence.
II. There is nothing in eternal life itself that would make it self-evidently or intrinsically valuable unless it
itself part of some meaningful scheme.
III. The reason that eternal life is often taken to be a necessary condition of life's having meaning is
epistemic in nature.
IV. It is not eternal life per se that makes life meaningful. Instead, it may be part of a divine scheme that
gives meaning to life or at least gives an individual lives the possibility of being meaningful
V. immortality is of derivative concern in relation to the question of the meaning of life, but not that either
death or immortality is 'irrelevant'. [unlike the claims of others who sees it as irrelevant]

29
VI. Immortality is the condition necessary to find out what the meaning of life is.
VII. Death is a 'terrible evil' only when contrasted with eternal life
VIII. What makes life meaningless is the forfeiture by death of any possibility of finding out what the
ultimate purpose of life might be

30