Online research in philosophy

The philosophy of our proposal are as follows: (1) Various ideas of life and death, including that of objecting to brain death as human death, should be guaranteed. We would like to maintain the idea of pluralism of human death; and (2) We should respect a child’s view of life and death. We should provide him/her with an opportunity to think and express their own ideas about life and death.

There is a classic problem which confronts any attempt to assign death a value. On the assumption that death is personal annihilation, death deprives evil of a requisite subject, for no misfortune can befall something which does not exist. Recent efforts to provide a reasonable basis for counting death as a bad thing have centered on an analysis of the loss of life's goods which it brings. So long as the analysis assumes that death is a simple state, loss can be explained only by reference to a realm of possible things which exist after death. An alternative analysis of death is offered in which death is defined as a limit on life. That analysis provides a basis for evaluative judgements about death, while avoiding any commitment to post-mortem existence.

: Most of the world now accepts the idea, first proposed four decades ago, that death means "brain death." But the idea has always been open to criticism because it doesn't square with all of our intuitions about death. In fact, none of the possible definitions of death quite works. Death, perhaps surprisingly, eludes definition, and "brain death" can be accepted only as a refinement of what is in fact a fuzzy concept.

Well-Being and Death addresses philosophical questions about death and the good life: what makes a life go well?

Preface -- Is heaven a place we can get to? -- On the impossibility of my own death -- From anatta to agape -- What is found at the center? -- A new refutation of death.

Introduction -- Life -- Death -- Challenges -- Mortal harm -- The timing puzzle -- Killing -- Suicide and euthanasia -- Abortion.

LeShan L. and LeShan, E. Psychotherapy and the patient with a limited life span.--Kubler-Ross, E. On death and dying.--Kutscher, A. H. Anticipatory grief, death, and bereavement: a continuum.--Needleman, J. The moment of grief.--Lifton, R. J. On death and death symbolism: the Hiroshima disaster.--Nelson, B. The games of life and dances of death.--Sleeper, R. The resurrection of the body.--Friedman, M. Death and the dialogue with the absurd.--Wyschogrod, E. Sport, death, and the elemental.--Lamont, R. The double apprenticeship: life and the process of dying--Selected bibliography (p. 225-235).

Brain death is accepted in most countries as death. The rationales to explain why brain death is death are surprisingly problematic. The standard rationale that in brain death there has been loss of integrative unity of the organism has been shown to be false, and a better rationale has not been clearly articulated. Recent expert defences of the brain death concept are examined in this paper, and are suggested to be inadequate. I argue that, ironically, these defences demonstrate the lack of a defensible rationale for why brain death should be accepted as death itself. If brain death is death, a conceptual rationale for brain death being equivalent to death should be clarified, and this should be done urgently.

Thinking about death -- Dualism vs. physicalism -- Arguments for the existence of the soul -- Descartes' argument -- Plato on the immortality of the soul -- Personal identity -- Choosing between the theories -- The nature of death -- Two surprising claims about death -- The badness of death -- Immortality -- The value of life -- Other aspects of death -- Living in the face of death -- Suicide -- Conclusion: an invitation.