Kagan does feel that death is “bad”, but she only throws this in at the very end after spending the entirety of the article arguing the opposite.
He.
Also, everything up to the paragraph starting with “Alternatively, if all facts can be dated...” is an argument for the badness of death in the presence of undateable facts (which seems to me the more reasonable position).
So no, he didn’t spend the entirety of the article arguing the opposite.
But the same paragraph continues with: But that, of course, returns us to the earlier puzzle. How could death be bad for me when I don’t exist?
It feels like the article is playing devil’s advocate but I perceived that the bulk of it was playing to the tune that the sentiment of death being “bad” is rather irrational.
He.
Also, everything up to the paragraph starting with “Alternatively, if all facts can be dated...” is an argument for the badness of death in the presence of undateable facts (which seems to me the more reasonable position).
So no, he didn’t spend the entirety of the article arguing the opposite.
Right..… :) Oops. Fixed.
But the same paragraph continues with: But that, of course, returns us to the earlier puzzle. How could death be bad for me when I don’t exist?
It feels like the article is playing devil’s advocate but I perceived that the bulk of it was playing to the tune that the sentiment of death being “bad” is rather irrational.