tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post6814488475510762913..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Randy Pausch's "last lecture"Lippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-11933636541495970542009-01-08T18:37:00.000-07:002009-01-08T18:37:00.000-07:00Chris:Thanks!Chris:<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-78720310777746922742009-01-08T18:25:00.000-07:002009-01-08T18:25:00.000-07:00Randy Pausch was a unitarian.http://www.uua.org/ne...Randy Pausch was a unitarian.<BR/><BR/>http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/117142.shtmlChris mankeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12364061852346071215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-4812304664584614132008-11-06T09:55:00.000-07:002008-11-06T09:55:00.000-07:00I will definitely have to peruse V.R.'s blog again...I will definitely have to peruse V.R.'s blog again to see the exchanges, I didn't even realize Bill comments on Victor's blog.<BR/><BR/>I read the paper from the student. It is well written, but I do like Nagel's asymmetry argument better as a whole in distinguishing between the two forms of non-existence even if the current state of self is the same, I do think it is rational to fear what is in front of you before it arrives, especially if it is known what it such an event would entail,(even if technically we are not a part of that event, the anticipation warrants fear), as opposed to what is behind you and already overcomed so to speak.<BR/><BR/>However, what do I know? I am an agnostic that hopes some form of survival dualism is true even if my left hemisphere of the brain says otherwise. However I would say this - if the survival hypothesis is true, then it is more rational to fear death in that circumstance than to fear non-existence.Reckless Divinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11089033168340261573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-14950882448359411562008-11-06T09:07:00.000-07:002008-11-06T09:07:00.000-07:00I've never met him or conversed with him (though h...I've never met him or conversed with him (though he's here in Arizona, just east of Phoenix where I live), but I've occasionally read his blog. I don't believe I've debated him, unless we've exchanged comments at <A HREF="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Victor Reppert's blog</A>.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-67786518052377469112008-11-06T08:40:00.000-07:002008-11-06T08:40:00.000-07:00Have you ever had conversations or debates with th...Have you ever had conversations or debates with the gentleman who is dubbed the "Maverick Philosopher"? If so please share those materials with me. Thanks.Reckless Divinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11089033168340261573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-67306584254011802382008-11-06T08:39:00.000-07:002008-11-06T08:39:00.000-07:00I am familiar with Epicurus essentially saying the...I am familiar with Epicurus essentially saying they do not touch each other, and I understand that you said it in that manner because you believe it to be true. That was the only thing I was confused about - that whether you believed it to be true because you perceive it to be a fact or that it is a known fact and you are stating it as such. You clarified for me, so I have my answer. Thanks for the reply.Reckless Divinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11089033168340261573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-15920222286034560622008-11-05T19:19:00.000-07:002008-11-05T19:19:00.000-07:00Invisible Pills: I said it because I believe it i...Invisible Pills: I said it because I believe it is true.<BR/><BR/>It's a reference to very old arguments from the Epicureans about death not being a harm to those who are dead. This one is the "symmetry argument" from Lucretius (99 B.C.E.-55 B.C.E.).<BR/><BR/>The other common Epicurean argument is from Epicurus himself (341 B.C.E.-271 B.C.E.), which is the "no subject" argument--when you're dead, you've been annihilated and no longer exist, so there is no you to be harmed.<BR/><BR/>Both arguments have been discussed and argued about by philosophers to the present day. I just came across <A HREF="http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032007-161340/unrestricted/Lei_Kun_200705_ma.pdf" REL="nofollow">a Master's Thesis on the symmetry argument by a student at GSU</A>, who defends the symmetry argument against Thomas Nagel's objections.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-43091853017888945002008-11-05T14:26:00.000-07:002008-11-05T14:26:00.000-07:00Good post, I had been keeping tabs on him after hi...Good post, I had been keeping tabs on him after his lecture to find out his status. I found this line very interesting:<BR/><BR/> "And he will be no more harmed by his nonexistence after his death than he was by his nonexistence before he was born."<BR/><BR/>Not that this isn't true or is true, it is just asserted as a fact, which for some reason was odd to me, but nevertheless a good post.Reckless Divinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11089033168340261573noreply@blogger.com