leaf

Yale University Open Course: Death

The book has a total of 16 chapters, while the open course consists of 26 lectures. The course is available on Yale's official website and YouTube, with Chinese subtitles on NetEase Open Course. The main content of the book and the course includes the following parts:

• Debates about the existence of the soul
• Debates about the immortality of the soul
• The nature of death
• The pain of death
• The value of life
• Living in the face of death
• The rationality and morality of suicide
• What does Yale's philosophy course on death discuss?

This course discusses death from a philosophical perspective. Below, I will briefly summarize several main discussion points.

1. Do we have a soul?
   Currently, the most widely accepted view about death is that we have a soul. In other words, we are not just physical beings; we are not merely flesh and bones. Instead, there is a part of us, perhaps that core part, which is something non-physical (physical) that constitutes our spiritual, immaterial aspect. Shelly Kagan refers to it as the soul. Most people believe in the existence of a soul, and most Americans believe in some form of immaterial soul. This common view suggests that because of the existence of this immaterial soul, it is very likely that we continue to live after death. Death is the cessation of our physical body, but our soul is immaterial, so it will continue to exist after we die. Whether or not you believe in a soul, you might at least hope that a soul exists, because that way you could likely continue to live in another form after death.

Through rational deduction and argumentation, Shelly Kagan does not provide a definitive answer. Whether we have a soul requires the most reliable explanation, but current theories have not provided evidence, so he neither fully denies nor agrees with the existence of a soul.

2. Why is death bad?
   We avoid this topic because we fear death; we all think death is bad! If only we could avoid death.

If there is a soul, at least there is the possibility of immortality. We do not have to face death with fear and despair. But why is death bad? When considering this question, we assume that humans do not have a soul, and the death of the body is the focal point of a person's existence. Therefore, once I die, I no longer exist. Why is non-existence bad for me?

When considering this question, it is important to clarify what we are asking. We are not asking whether the process of dying is harmful or how it is harmful. The process of dying can be painful, or it can be completely painless. Without considering this process, why is pure non-existence bad? The common view is that life is beautiful, and if death means losing life, we lose the beautiful things in life. It seems that some part of oneself is deprived, which explains why death is bad.

As the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus said: "Death is the most terrible disease for us; it is of no use to us because as long as we exist, death is not with us. But when death comes, we no longer exist. Then, it cares neither for the dead nor for the living."

Furthermore, human fear of death arises from the uncontrollability of time; no one knows when death will come, perhaps decades later, perhaps just a few hours later. Shelly Kagan believes that the uncontrollability of time is not necessarily a bad thing. He gives an example: Suppose on Monday I shoot John, and he bleeds slowly until he dies on Wednesday. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, I die of a heart attack. I killed John, but when did I do it?

Like this example of murder, the facts will become outdated. When death comes, it may have drawbacks, but after death, we no longer exist, so the drawbacks of death seem to also cease to exist. Are the drawbacks of death before a person dies, at the moment of death, or after death?

Suppose someone lives a long life, living to 90 years old, and everyone thinks it is reasonable for him to die. But how do we know he could not have lived to 120 years? If he dies at 90, can we say that death had no drawbacks for him? Imagine if he only lived to 50. Then, has he lost 40 years he could have had? We could say that death has drawbacks for him, depriving him of those 40 years he could have had. However, he is already dead and no longer exists; do the drawbacks also cease to exist?

3. Immortality
   We know that death is the end of life, and everyone hopes to extend their time as much as possible. Wouldn't it be best to be immortal? Shelly Kagan's view is that immortality does not mean not aging. Over time, a person’s various organs deteriorate, and they cannot live the same life as when they were young; they may even need medication to sustain life. In such cases, the life you lead is not the life you expected. Moreover, even if one could be immortal, it might not be a good thing. If time were to stop, there would be no concept of time, as if stuck in a loop, with no hope or anticipation. The significance of one day versus 100 days, one year versus 100 years would also be meaningless.

Finally, Shelly Kagan also discusses the rationality of suicide. Modern psychological research shows that suicidal behavior is often closely related to mental health issues, but there are also views that consider suicide a rational choice in the face of extreme suffering. According to ethical research, the morality of suicide often depends on the individual's circumstances and mental state. Giving up life easily is morally controversial, but in certain cases, individuals may believe that suicide is the only way to end their suffering. Therefore, understanding the complexity of suicide and the context of individual choices is crucial. Relevant studies include:

Joiner, TE (2005). "Why People Die by Suicide." Harvard University Press.
Van Orden, KA et al. (2010). "The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide." Psychological Review.

The final conclusion of this course: Death is the "limitation of life," a reference point for the value of life. Only by understanding death can the preciousness of life be highlighted. Facing death and contemplating death is to contemplate life. For more information on studying in the United States, please continue to follow us.

In 2024, I wrote many articles about humanity's ultimate concerns (death, freedom, loneliness, meaninglessness), and in 2025, this series will continue to delve deeper. Since I have only one chance at life as a human, these ultimate questions concerning humanity are what I must face beyond mere existence.
My first exposure to topics related to ultimate concerns came from Yale University's online open course "Philosophy - Death." I remember it was launched on NetEase Cloud Classroom, and a series of open courses from prestigious universities garnered a lot of attention. I have also briefly looked at some of the game theory and positive psychology courses. What impressed me the most was this course on death. I really like Shelly Kagan's teaching style, which uses rational logic to continuously delve into philosophical questions. Last month, I revisited this course and watched it in full again; the following course notes are a tribute to Professor Kagan.

First Lecture: Course Introduction
Western education places great emphasis on logical training, which is something that Chinese education lacks significantly. I felt this while watching the course; Shelly said that his teaching method is to persuade students by presenting a viewpoint and providing a complete process of argumentation. These argumentation processes occupy the vast majority of the course time, and at times I felt it was almost a logic class. But this is precisely the characteristic of Western philosophy, continuously delving into the essence of things through questioning, hypothesizing, proving, and providing examples, proposing a viewpoint and refuting it, then proposing a new viewpoint and refuting it again until the best explanation is found.

Second Lecture: The Essence of Humans: Dualism and Physicalism

1. The first half of the course discusses death from a metaphysical perspective.
2. In our understanding of death, we need to answer two key questions: ① What is the essence of a person? ② How do we understand the continuity of individual identity?
3. What is the essence of a person?
   a) A common viewpoint is that humans are composed of body and soul. We call this the dualism viewpoint.
   b) Another viewpoint is that humans are just bodies. We call this the monism viewpoint.
   c) For dualism, death can be understood as the process of the soul losing contact with the body. Furthermore, I am not a combination of soul and body; I am just the soul, because that is how I can survive the death of the body.
   d) For monism, the body, or entity, is different from other entities; chalk is an entity, but a phone as an entity can do more interesting things than chalk. A person as an entity can be said to be the most magical entity capable of doing more interesting things.

Third Lecture: Arguments for the Existence of the Soul (Part One)
4. In the physicalism monism viewpoint, the mind is to the body what laughter is to the body; it is a function of the body. In this sense, death can be said to be the end of a series of functions of the body, and the body can no longer function normally.
5. "Best Explanation Argument": We usually choose the theory that best explains phenomena for things we cannot directly perceive through our five senses. So, is there a phenomenon that supports the soul as its best explanation?
6. Human rational activities can currently be well explained by science, and more controversy mainly focuses on human emotions. Does the phenomenon of humans having emotions require the soul as its best explanation?

Fourth Lecture: Arguments for the Existence of the Soul (Part Two), Plato's Dialogues "Phaedo"
7. Continuing the previous topic, based on numerous descriptions in human science fiction works, we have every reason to believe that robots can also behave as if they have emotions. If we further break down the emotional aspect into behavioral and experiential levels, does the phenomenon of humans having emotional experiences require the soul as the best explanation?
8. The current state of the best explanation argument is that neither dualism nor monism can currently explain how human subjective consciousness operates, so it can be said to be a tie for now.
9. Another highly debated point is free will; is it the key that requires the soul as the best explanation?
a) Thus, we have the following three propositions:
i. Humans have free will
ii. Anything that follows determinism has no free will
iii. All purely physical systems follow determinism
b) Therefore, we can conclude: humans are not purely physical systems.
c) Then the question arises: are all three propositions true?

Fifth Lecture: Arguments for the Existence of the Soul (Part Three): Free Will and Near-Death Experiences
10. Rebuttal: The clearly problematic proposition is Proposition 3; determinism is not correct in the realm of fundamental physics (quantum mechanics), so the above argument does not hold. Propositions 1 and 2 are also highly controversial.
11. Near-death experiences can also be explained by physicalism, mainly due to the release of endorphins under extreme stress.
12. A philosophical story: Suppose I wake up in the morning, scan my room from a certain position, see various things, walk to the bathroom to brush my teeth, but I do not see myself in the mirror. I touch my head, but I feel nothing. In this fictional story, my body is gone, but I am still here, so I conclude that my mind and body are different. Descartes said that the mind and body are logically independent of each other. If I tell you A exists and B does not, then A and B are completely different things; you cannot imagine a world where the same thing both exists and does not exist.

Sixth Lecture: Arguments for the Existence of the Soul (Part Four): Plato (Part One)
13. Rebuttal to Descartes' theory—the story of the morning star and the evening star. We can imagine a world where the morning star exists but the evening star does not, but in fact, they are the same star, namely Venus.
14. The story of Venus illustrates that identity is contingent.
15. Plato believed that the mind can think about ideas, and all things in the world are partial participations in ideas. Death allows the mind to break free from the constraints of the body and fully pursue ideas. Therefore, Plato proposed many arguments about the eternity of the soul.

Seventh Lecture: Plato (Part Two): Arguments for the Eternity of the Soul
16. "Essence Essentialism": Ideas are eternal and non-realistic, so the soul that understands ideas is also eternal and non-realistic. Rebuttal: The idea that only similar things can recognize each other is incorrect; a person can recognize a cat without having to become a cat.
17. "Cycle Theory": Things are always in cycles, so the components that make up our souls will continue to exist after I no longer exist. Rebuttal: It can be easily demonstrated that not all parts will be recycled; many parts exist simultaneously with me, so the eternity of the soul is incorrect.
18. "Theory of Recollection": Ideas do not exist in reality, but things in reality will remind us of ideas, which may be predicated on our prior knowledge of the ideas themselves. Rebuttal: We can directly grasp the ideas in this world without needing to have prior knowledge of them.

Eighth Lecture: Plato (Part Three): Arguments for the Eternity of the Soul - Continuation
19. "Simplicity Theory": Things that can be destroyed have "parts," while "simple" things that do not contain any parts cannot be destroyed, such as the number 3 or the concept of a circle.
a) Thus, we have the following propositions and inferences:
i. Composite things can be destroyed
ii. Changing things are all composite
iii. Intangible things do not change
iv. Therefore, intangible things cannot be destroyed
v. Moreover, the soul is intangible
vi. Hence, the soul cannot be destroyed
b) Rebuttal: Intangible things can also be destroyed, such as music; when an instrument is destroyed, the music is also destroyed. Even if intangible means cannot be perceived, there are counterexamples, such as radio waves.
c) Finally, pushing this to a more extreme situation, if intangible means cannot be observed in any way, then radio waves cannot serve as a counterexample. However, the new problem is that the soul is not something that cannot be observed in any way; we observe each other's souls through the actions of other bodies.
d) Regarding the proposition "intangible things cannot be destroyed," this is incorrect.

Ninth Lecture: Plato (Part Four): Arguments for the Eternity of the Soul - Continuation
20. "Fundamental Attribute Theory": The soul has a fundamental attribute; having a soul means having life, or the ability to think. Just as heat is a fundamental attribute of fire, anything that is fire is hot.
a) Thus, we have the following propositions and inferences:
i. Life is a fundamental attribute of the soul
ii. Therefore, the soul is deathless, just as fire is never cold
iii. Hence, the soul does not die and cannot be destroyed
b) Rebuttal: The problem lies in the use of the concept of "deathless" in the soul's deathlessness; it has two possible meanings:
i. Deathless means you cannot find a situation where a soul exists while being dead, meaning if you find a soul, it must be alive.
ii. Deathless may also mean that the soul cannot be destroyed, which is the argument Plato wants to put forward, but in reality, all reasoning is based on the former meaning.
21. In summary, all arguments Plato proposed regarding the immortality of the soul are untenable. Therefore, we do not have sufficient reason to believe in the existence of the soul.
22. We have examined the arguments of dualists; should we also examine physicalism? How does physicalism prove that the soul does not exist? Thus, the question becomes, "How do you prove that something does not exist?" That is, rebutting all arguments that want to prove that thing exists, just as we did earlier.

Tenth Lecture: Individual Identity (Part One): Identity Across Time and Space and the Soul Theory
23. Regarding what the essence of a person is, we have sufficient reason to believe that the soul does not exist, and the explanations of physicalism or monism are better explanations. Next, we need to turn to the second key question: individual identity. For general objects, as long as the materials or parts that make them up do not change, we can say they persist in time and space or have identity across time and space.
24. So what is the key to a person's individual identity across time and space? How do we determine that this person is the same person after experiencing time and space? Here, dualists might say that the key to individual identity is the persistence of the same soul.
a) Rebuttal: Suppose last night God took away a person's original soul and put in a new soul; then this person would wake up the next day, according to the soul theory, no longer being the original person, but they themselves would be completely unaware of it. How can we be sure that such a thing has not happened? It is even possible that our souls are replaced every minute, which clearly is not a key explanation for individual identity.

Eleventh Lecture: Individual Identity (Part Two): The Body Theory and the Personality Theory
25. The body theory posits that the key to individual identity is the same body, but upon careful consideration, we can say the key is the same brain. We do not say A transplanted B's brain; we only say B transplanted A's body. Based on this, further analysis can lead us to conclude that we believe the brain is the key to individual identity because it preserves a person's personality, so we can fully consider personality as the key to individual identity.
26. There is a science fiction story: if your personality and body can be separated, and both are subjected to severe torture, which one would you prefer to be tortured? This question will reflect which theory you identify with.

Twelfth Lecture: Individual Identity (Part Three): Objections to the Personality Theory
27. The personality theory posits that the key to individual identity is personality. However, if two modern individuals simultaneously possess all of Napoleon's personality traits, we would not consider these two people to be Napoleon; we would think that neither of them is Napoleon. Therefore, the personality theory also has objections.
28. To make the personality theory more reasonable, we can add a no-branching condition to it. That is, the personality theory can conventionally serve as the key to individual identity as long as the personality has not been divided among other people or branched out. Therefore, we can say that if a person possesses all of Napoleon's personality traits, then that person is Napoleon; if multiple people possess all of Napoleon's personality traits, then none of those people are Napoleon.
29. If we agree that the personality theory with the no-branching condition is a better explanation, then we fall into another problem: our individual identity needs to rely on external conditions (the no-branching condition) to be determined. Therefore, we cannot confidently say that today's me and yesterday's me are the same person because I do not know if today, in another place on Earth, someone has simultaneously possessed all of my personality traits.

Thirteenth Lecture: Individual Identity (Part Four): Where is the Essential Factor?
30. The body theory also requires a no-branching condition to be self-consistent. Suppose we take the left hemisphere of A's brain and transplant it into B and the right hemisphere into C; then neither of these two people is A anymore.
31. Thus, it can be seen that both the personality theory and the body theory actually require a no-branching condition. It is difficult to say which theory is more correct or key. But when we ask ourselves, "What is the meaning of living?" we find that we hope to continue existing with our personality rather than merely the continuation of the soul or body, as that may not hold any significance for us.

To be continued...

PS: This course actually discussed only two questions over half a semester, but the entire argumentation process is truly brilliant, fully showcasing the beauty of philosophical reasoning. Although it seems that Professor Kagan did not provide clear answers to these two questions, that is not important, because the purpose of education is not to provide a standard answer, but to inspire and ignite students' thinking.

Yale University Online Course "Philosophy - Death" Course Notes (Part Two)

Fourteenth Lecture: Where is the Essential Factor (Continuation), The Nature of Death (Part One)

1. The discussion of what the key to personal identity is will also affect our definition of death itself. Does a person truly die at the moment when personality functions stop, or at the moment when bodily functions stop? This discussion may even relate to the beginning of our lives, at what moment can we be recognized as a person.

Fifteenth Lecture: The Nature of Death (Continuation): Please Believe You Will Die

2. For those who do not believe they will really die, there are two arguments: ① We do not believe in situations we cannot imagine, such as what the experience of a person after death is like. Therefore, we do not believe people die. ② If I try to imagine a world without me, when I describe it, I am still within that world. Therefore, I cannot imagine a world without me, and I do not believe people die.

3. Rebuttal ①: We cannot internally imagine the experience of a person after death, but we can completely imagine the situation of a person after death from an external perspective. Moreover, imagining the internal experience of a person after death is as meaningless as imagining oneself as a ballpoint pen, as a ballpoint pen has no experience. Rebuttal ②: You can imagine a meeting without your participation; you can also imagine an empty beach. Just because you view a scene from your perspective does not mean you are actually in that scene.

Sixteenth Lecture: Dying Alone, The Harm of Death (Part One)

4. A common saying is "Everyone dies alone," which is actually unreasonable and cannot point out any deeper meaning of death. We can examine this statement as follows:

a) This statement implies "no one is present when everyone dies." Rebuttal: Many people have family, friends, partners, etc., with them when they die.

b) This statement implies "everyone experiences death alone." Rebuttal: Comrades on the battlefield often experience death together.

c) This statement implies "everyone's death is not a joint operation." Rebuttal: Couples committing suicide together or collective suicides are forms of joint death.

d) This statement implies "no one can replace another in death." Rebuttal: Many things cannot be replaced by others, such as haircuts, eating, etc.; death is not special in this regard.

e) This statement implies "everyone feels psychological loneliness or alienation when they die." Rebuttal: Those who die in their sleep or suddenly due to an accident do not have such psychological feelings. Even if dying while awake, many may not feel lonely, such as Socrates.

f) In summary, the phrase "Everyone dies alone" is not reasonable in its usage and does not point out any deeper meaning of death; it is more of a habitual expression that people have not thought through.

5. Death is generally considered bad and harmful. Why? According to the viewpoint of physicalism, death is my end, the disappearance of my body and personality, and if I no longer exist, death does not have drawbacks for the deceased, or rather, it has no impact. Some say that the harm of death is not directed at the deceased but at the living, those who are forced to separate from the deceased due to their death. But this is not the true core of the harm of death. Suppose there are two stories:

a) Story One: Your friend is about to travel beyond the solar system, which will take 100 years, and you will lose contact forever 20 minutes after the spaceship leaves Earth. Clearly, you will be forever separated from your friend.

b) Story Two: With the same background, but your friend's spaceship explodes 15 minutes after takeoff, and everyone on board unfortunately dies. Clearly, you are also forever separated from your friend, but we often think the second story is worse than the first. This shows that the true core of the harm of death is not separation but something else.

Seventeenth Lecture: The Harm of Death (Part Two): Deprivation Explanation

6. The deprivation theory of the harm of death: When we say something is bad or harmful, it has absolute and relative interpretations. The harm of death is not absolutely harmful but relatively harmful, meaning death deprives me of the various beautiful things I might encounter while alive.

7. If the deprivation theory is indeed the core of the harm of death, then at what point does this harm occur? Regarding this question, we have the following propositions and inferences:

a) Anything only harms you when you exist.

b) When you die, you no longer exist.

c) Therefore, death does not produce harm for you.

d) Clearly, according to previous discussions, proposition b is correct. If proposition a is also correct, then conclusion c obviously negates the deprivation theory; if proposition a is incorrect, then another problem arises: if there are things that can harm you even when you do not exist, then those thousands of potential beings that could have been born but were not also apply to the deprivation theory, which is clearly unreasonable.

e) To resolve this contradiction, we can revise proposition a to specify two versions:

i. Loose version: Anything only harms you when you exist or have existed.

ii. Strict version: Anything only harms you when you exist.

f) The loose version of proposition a can avoid the above contradiction, allowing the deprivation theory to hold.

Eighteenth Lecture: The Harm of Death (Part Three): Immortality (Part One)

8. Discussion of the Lucretian problem: According to the deprivation theory, we believe that the time after death is harmful; then, regarding the long time before a person is born, it should also be seen as not enjoying the beauty of being alive. Why do we care more about the loss after life ends rather than the absence before life begins? There are three arguments:

a) Unlike human death, which is contingent, human birth is necessary, so we cannot change the timing of birth. Rebuttal: Frozen sperm and eggs can control the timing of birth to achieve early birth.

b) People often think of early birth as merely a forward shift in lifespan, while thinking about death means extending life. Rebuttal: If an asteroid were to strike Earth tomorrow, leading to human extinction, then early birth would not just be a shift in time but an extension of life.

c) Compared to the past, people are more concerned about the future; this is human nature. Rebuttal: This statement is difficult to argue as a theory; people's inherent attitudes toward the two types of time do not necessarily indicate a rational attitude.

d) Conclusion: Currently, there is no consensus in the philosophical community regarding the Lucretian problem.

9. Discussion of the immortality problem: ① If we accept the deprivation theory, must we logically also accept immortality? Not necessarily, because the deprivation theory's condition is that death deprives us of the beauty of being alive; if life no longer provides beauty, then death becomes a form of liberation. ② Is immortality necessarily a good thing? Not necessarily; many people have raised similar views, arguing that any form of life, no matter how beautiful, will become a disaster if it lasts forever. If immortality is a bad thing, then death, as the opposite of immortality, is not necessarily a good thing either; we do not need to think of death as a good thing simply because it ends immortality, especially if death comes too early; it remains a bad thing.

Nineteenth Lecture: Immortality (Part Two): The Value of Life (Part One)

10. Further discussion on immortality: Suppose we can avoid the boredom and monotony of eternal life through some means, such as removing the frontal lobe; however, this means I can no longer experience the full range of human experiences. For example, if I undergo periodic amnesia, after a long enough time, I would no longer be the same person as I am now, which would have no significance for me. Therefore, perhaps the best setting for immortality is that I can live as long as I want until life can no longer satisfy me.

11. The deprivation theory posits that the harm of death is that it deprives us of the beauty of being alive. So what constitutes a good life? Or what is the value of being alive? We can list many things, which can be divided into two categories: instrumental value and intrinsic value. For example, work, money, and delicious food belong to the former, while happiness belongs to the latter. Similarly, instrumental value and intrinsic value can also have negative aspects, such as unemployment and poverty belonging to the former, and suffering belonging to the latter.

12. Suppose happiness (the absence of suffering) is the only value of life; this is the viewpoint of "hedonism." Hedonism argues that life is about pursuing pleasure as much as possible and avoiding pain as much as possible. Thus, we can imagine a life experience machine that simulates all experiences in life; we can set appropriate parameters to achieve as much pleasure and as little pain as possible. So, would you be willing to live your entire life in this machine? If your answer is negative, it indicates that hedonism is not the entirety of life's value. At the very least, living in the machine means you cannot truly achieve anything.

Twentieth Lecture: The Value of Life (Part Two): Other Harms of Death (Part One)

13. "Neutral Container Theory": Life itself has no value, akin to a neutral container; the value of life depends on the good or bad of what we put into the container. "Moderate Life Value Theory": Life itself has value, but it is not to an exaggerated extent; it can moderately offset the bad experiences in life.

14. Besides the deprivation theory, other characteristics of death are also worth discussing:

a) The inevitability of death: The inevitability of death applies to me and to everyone; clearly, there can be both good and bad aspects for both.

b) The variability of death: For individuals, dying too early is certainly a bad thing, but from the perspective of humanity as a whole, some live shorter than average lifespans while others live longer, which seems to offset each other. However, according to the human tendency to focus more on short-term losses than long-term gains, perhaps overall, it is also a bad thing.

c) The unpredictability of death: The unpredictability of death makes it difficult for us to plan our lives because we have more preferred life trajectories.

Twenty-first Lecture: Other Harms of Death (Part Two)

15. Continuing the above discussion:

d) The universality of death: Death can happen at any time and place; we must always be on high alert because there is no time, place, or activity that can exempt us from death. In this regard, we can also think about the value of life, which activities would you still participate in even if there is a risk of death?

16. How we should face death needs to be considered with appropriate timing and context. We are always reminded of our eventual death, and perhaps it is not appropriate to think about our eventual death all the time.

Twenty-second Lecture: Fear of Death

17. Fear is the most common emotion we experience when facing death. When we discuss fear, we need to consider three conditions:

a) The object of fear is a bad thing.

b) There is a non-negligible possibility of this bad thing occurring.

c) This bad thing also needs to have sufficient uncertainty (this point may be controversial); when we know that a bad thing will definitely happen and also know how bad it is, feeling fear is not an appropriate emotion.

d) From the above conditions, we do not need to fear death itself because death is certain, and the deprivation of life's beauty due to death is not something to be feared. What we fear more is dying too early because of the unpredictability of death.

18. A terminal prayer expresses the emotions we should have when facing death (KN: I really like this prayer):

God made mud. God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, “Sit up.”
“See all I’ve made,” said God.
“The hills, the sea, the sky, the stars.”
And I, with some of the mud, had got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God! Nobody but you could have done it, God!
I certainly couldn’t have. I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn’t even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have! What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw.

19. We should not fear death; we should not be angry or sad; instead, we should be grateful that we have the opportunity to experience the beauty of life.

Twenty-third Lecture: How to Face Death

20. The value of life is not merely the product of the quality and duration of life; people often focus more on the peak quality of life, while the duration of life is a secondary consideration.

21. Regarding how to face death, there are three different thoughts:

a) A part of me will continue after I die, such as my genes being passed on to my children, or the atoms that make up my body transforming into other substances that continue to exist.

b) The achievements I have made will continue after I die, such as literary creations, scientific research, philosophical viewpoints, or even the buildings I participated in constructing.

c) The first two thoughts are somewhat self-deceptive; comparatively, the second may be more acceptable to many, but both thoughts are based on the premise that life is beautiful, so we believe death is a bad thing while we try to enrich the lives we have. The third thought posits that life is inherently suffering, especially from the Buddhist perspective, where death is not a bad thing but rather a liberation.

Twenty-fourth Lecture: Suicide (Part One): The Rationality of Suicide

22. Whether believing in the "neutral container theory" or the "moderate value theory," when the overall value of life becomes negative, suicide indeed becomes a rational choice at that moment. However, due to unpredictability, we often see only the immediate situation, so suicide is usually not a rational choice, especially when you are still young.

Twenty-fifth & Twenty-sixth Lectures: Suicide (Part Two & Three): Moral Judgments of Suicide and Course Conclusion

23. Regarding the moral judgment of suicide, there are the following views:

a) According to utilitarianism, suicide is a neutral act, and its morality depends on whether the outcome of the suicide is good or bad.

b) Deontological ethics argues that when judging morality, one cannot only consider the outcome; there are other moral standards. Killing an innocent person is immoral. However, suicide and killing an innocent person are still different; suicide involves the principle of consent, as it is a decision made with my own consent. Therefore, deontological ethics also seems to be a neutral statement, depending on whether the person considering suicide has rationally thought through their circumstances and made the decision to end their own life.

Summary: The two parts together total over 8000 words. Thank you to those who read to the end. I have tried to record all the viewpoints and corresponding rebuttals and arguments presented by Professor Kagan in this course using concise language. I hope to help myself and more people think better about the ultimate concern of death, as this is how we can better appreciate our one and only life. I would like to summarize the entire course in three sentences:

1. The soul does not exist; humans are merely magical physical entities, and when the entity breaks down, everything comes to an end.

2. Death deprives us of the beauty of being alive, thus it is a bad thing for most people, but this does not mean that immortality is a good thing; on the contrary, immortality would only make things worse.

3. In the face of death, we do not need to fear; we should be grateful for the opportunity to experience the beauty of life. However, if life is no longer worth living under any circumstances, that is when we should let go of life.

Finally, I hope everyone can understand the truth about life and death and face death without fear or delusion.

References:

Epicurus Quotes – Goodreads
Joiner, TE (2005). "Why People Die by Suicide." Harvard University Press.
Van Orden, KA et al. (2010). "The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide." Psychological Review.
Commonly Asked Questions:

Question 1: When was Yale's death course established?
Yale's death course was established by Professor Shelly Kagan in January 2007. This philosophy course explores the meaning of death and humanity's views on death, becoming one of the most popular open courses globally.

Question 2: How many views does this course have?
As of November 2024, Yale's death course has over 70 million views on YouTube. This number reflects the course's widespread influence and popularity.

Question 3: What are the main discussion topics of this course?
The course mainly discusses several philosophical themes, including debates about the existence of the soul, the nature of death, the value of life, and the rationality and morality of suicide. These topics provoke deep reflection among participants about life and death.

Question 4: Why has the topic of death become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of death became more relevant to everyone's lives. The pandemic forced people to confront the reality of life and death, leading many to reflect more on the meaning of life and the inevitability of death, thus prompting discussions and reflections on this topic.

Question 5: What core viewpoints did Professor Shelly Kagan convey in this course?
Professor Shelly Kagan believes that death is the "limitation of life," an important reference for understanding the preciousness of life. By confronting and contemplating death, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of life and cherish every moment in life.

The director of Yale University's online open course project once said: "I know that Chinese students refer to Professor Kagan as 'the great sage.' Chinese students appreciate his death course because it is a non-traditional teaching method."

Professor Kagan does not resemble the gloomy, old philosophical scholar; he has a full beard and appears free-spirited. In such a world-renowned university as Yale, Kagan faces hundreds of students not in a suit but in jeans and canvas shoes. More exaggeratedly, he sometimes sits cross-legged on the podium, sometimes lets his legs dangle over the edge of the podium, and frequently gestures animatedly while discussing the essence of life and death, appearing relaxed and carefree.

Kagan was born in Skokie, Illinois, and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Wesleyan University in 1976. He obtained his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1982. He then taught at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois at Chicago before coming to Yale University in 1995. Kagan's research focuses on moral philosophy, especially normative ethics.

As for why he established an open course on death, Kagan said: "In my view, everyone cannot avoid thinking about the topic of 'death.' Many people try not to think about it, but that is actually impossible. The reason I opened this open course is also to hope that my students can think openly and directly about all aspects of the topic of 'death.' Some people think this topic is distressing, but more people find it an attractive topic."

After opening this course, Kagan is often asked, "How do you personally understand death?" Kagan always answers candidly: "I have discussed many different aspects of 'death' in the course, so I find it quite difficult to summarize a conclusion appropriately. Personally, I can simply summarize my understanding of 'death' as follows: there is no non-material, immortal soul; we are just bodies, and when our bodies die, it means our existence comes to an end. Some people believe in immortal existence and may be unwilling to accept my understanding, but I believe that immortality is not worth pursuing. Of course, life is beautiful, and we do not want to easily accept death because it means our right to possess or pursue beautiful things is deprived."

The wisdom of existence in the human world

A few years ago, there was a special student in Kagan's death course. He was diagnosed with cancer in his freshman year but was determined to complete his studies in the remaining years. In his senior year, he enrolled in the death open course. Kagan said: "Knowing that someone in such a situation decided to take this course made me feel ashamed. The teachers who taught him had to face a question: what kind of grade should we give him?" In the end, that student did not finish Kagan's deconstruction of death; he was admitted to the hospital. Before he passed away, Yale University awarded him a bachelor's degree.

Kagan said that regarding death, there have long been two views that exist in almost everyone's subconscious. One is that we all acknowledge that our bodies will eventually stop functioning, but we do not truly believe that we will die. In Tolstoy's classic novel "The Death of Ivan Ilyich," Ilyich suffers an injury, and his condition worsens until he ultimately dies. Surprisingly, Ilyich is greatly shocked when he realizes he will eventually die. Tolstoy wants to convey through this story that most of us are like Ilyich; we verbally acknowledge that we will die, but to some extent, we do not take it seriously. Kagan said: "It is indeed puzzling how a person can simultaneously believe and not believe that they will eventually die."

The second viewpoint about death is the fear of "dying alone." Kagan said: "The idea of dying alone seems to be true; no one can replace me in experiencing my death, but this is not a profound insight into the nature of death." Similarly, no one can replace you in getting a haircut, exercising, or having lunch, because fearing death due to the fear of dying alone is purely "nonsense."

Kagan said that the correct emotional response to death is not fear or anger but gratitude for the opportunity to have life.

Some students who watched Kagan's open course online said: Kagan, sitting cross-legged on the podium, discusses the final destination with us like a sage from ancient times. Eternity, soul, body... Kagan helps us construct not only a powerful knowledge system but also a great wisdom for living in the human world.