Mind 115 (458):311-330 (2006)
|Abstract||In this essay I consider the argument that Bernard Williams advances in ‘The Makropolus Case’ for the meaninglessness of immortality. I also consider various counter-arguments. I suggest that the more clearly these counter-arguments are targeted at the spirit of Williams's argument, rather than at its letter, the less clearly they pose a threat to it. I then turn to Nietzsche, whose views about the eternal recurrence might appear to make him an opponent of Williams. I argue that, properly interpreted, these views in fact make him an ally.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thomas Hurka (2007). Nietzsche : Perfectionist. In Brian Leiter & Neil Sinhababu (eds.), Nietzsche and Morality. Oxford University Press.
Mikel Burley (2009). Immortality and Boredom: A Response to Wisnewski. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (2):77 - 85.
Robert B. Pippin (ed.) (2012). Introductions to Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press.
Robert Gooding-Williams (2007). Ruminations and Rejoinders: Eternal Recurrence, Nietzsche's Noble Plato, and the Existentialist Zarathustra. [REVIEW] Journal of Nietzsche Studies 34 (1):96-112.
Thaddeus Metz (2003). The Immortality Requirement for Life's Meaning. Ratio 16 (2):161–177.
Aaron Smuts (2011). Immortality and Significance. Philosophy and Literature 35 (1):134-149.
Aaron Smuts (2008). Wings of Desire: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality. Film and Philosophy 13 (1):137-151.
Lisa Bortolotti & Yujin Nagasawa (2009). Immortality Without Boredom. Ratio 22 (3):261-277.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads64 ( #14,324 of 549,067 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,099 of 549,067 )
How can I increase my downloads?