The Philosophy Of Death

The Philosophy Of Death The Death of Ivan Ilych, by Leo Tolstoy provides a literary portrait of a mans life and death. This exercise aims to analyse denial and the inevitability of death, both its meaning and context, in The Death of Ivan Ilych, using the philosophy of Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. The Death of Ivan Ilych In the study of literature, The Death of Ivan Ilych is generally regarded as one of the most influential works on death and dying. The story is a classic study of how acceptance of mortality can change how individuals approach not only life, but also death. Structurally, The Death of Ivan Ilych is a simple text. It begins with what would be the end of the story, Ivans funeral, and then records his life from childhood to his illness. In this way, Tolstoy suggests that Ivan Ilych is not really alive until he confronts the deterioration of his being. Ivan Ilychs life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible (Tolstoy, 235). The chronicle of Ivans life begins with this line. Ivan Ilych consumed his life by just playing a role, formality and propriety were imperative to him, more so than any kind of human emotion. Serving as a judge, he had a career with influence and standing, and a respectable middle-class family. Then, a mysterious illness befalls him, one that no amount of skilled doctors can accurately diagnose. Whilst all are in agreement that his condition is terminal, they defer from telling him and insist that the treatments will one day have him back on his feet. Ivan Ilych is ultimately reduced to lying on a sofa, eased only by opium and the goodness of his servant, Gerasim, who says, Its Gods will. We shall all come to it some day (Tolstoy, 235). The novel follows the course of Ivans slow deterioration and his inability to deal with the inevitable approach of death. He tries for a long time to look away from it, to hide, but he cannot. Ironically, as he begins to sense the looming spectre of death, Ivan questions the dismantling of his comfortable life and the rightness of how he lived. Ivan wonders, Why must I die and die in agony? There is something wrong! Maybe I did not live as I ought to have done (Tolstoy, 273). In the midst of his desperate screaming, two hours before his death, Ivan feels the tears of his son on his hand. After months dwelling on his own torment, he feels pity for his son and asks for forgiveness. It is at this moment that he is released from the mental anguish that has engulfed him, and in place of death, there was light (Tolstoy, 279). Heidegger and the Inevitability of Death One of these days one will die too, in the end; but right now it has nothing to do with us (Heidegger: 297). Death is an inevitable event. Someday, we will all die and ultimately confront the inescapable reality of our own mortality. German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, gives new meanings to our understanding of death in Being and Time. Heidegger argues that by confronting the inevitability of death, we adjust our perspectives and alter our approach towards life. We become beings-toward-death who are able to re-examine life and embrace our world. The discussion in Being and Time depends on understanding the use of the term, Dasein, commonly translated as existence or more literally as being there, it could be said that Dasein is an individual human being. As Dasein, we are each an existing entity and have the ability to consider how we shall be in the world. By Heideggers analysis of being-towards-death, Dasein understands what it means to exist. Heidegger suggests that rather than facing the reality of death, Dasein may flee from it, back into the absorption of everyday life. By running away from the reality and the finitude of our existence, we may collapse into a state of anxiety and bring forth anguish in Daseins being; we may despair when confronted with the actuality of our death. According to Heidegger, angst enables us to have an understanding of our eventual demise and anticipation in the face of death makes an authentic life possible. When we choose to accept the inevitable, we realise the possibilities of life and we discover a truth; we can find meaning at least for ourselves. By breaking the illusions of death, we can conquer life. This is the difference between living authentic and inauthentic lives. While we cannot know what death itself will be like, we can look ahead towards our dying. By accepting that one is constantly moving towards death and understanding that mortality is fundamental to who we are, Heidegger states something authentic is uncovered, a moment that will truly be ones own. Through this insight, Heidegger shows that death is an individual event in that it is something that every person must go through. Nobody can die my death It is unique to each one of us. To each it is given and cannot be denied. A Heideggerian Approach to Ivan Ilych In Being and Time, Heidegger makes use of Tolstoys story in his own analysis of death. He says in a footnote, In his story The Death of Ivan Ilyitch Leo Tolstoi has presented the phenomenon of the disruption and breakdown of having someone die (Heidegger: 495). Early in the novel, Ivans death is presented as an inconvenience and a burden. His wifes attitude to his failing condition is that it was his own fault and was another of the annoyances he caused her (Tolstoy, 254). This parallels Heideggers thoughts on the everyday relationship with death, Indeed the dying of Others is seen often enough as social inconvenience, if not even a downright tactlessness, against which the public is to be guarded (Heidegger, 298). In the story, death is seen as a social inconvenience, disrupting everyday life. From Heideggers perspective, the story of Ivan Ilych demonstrates a case of an individual that lives an inauthentic existence. Ivan Ilych, his wife and family, and even the doctors have all missed the point that death is certain; one cannot escape the inevitability of death. It is perhaps only Gerasim, a simple peasant, who is able to maintain an authentic and reflective stance towards death. Gerasim is not interested in upholding the trivial social concerns that everyone else seems to he recognises that death is a reality. Half way through the story Ivan remarks, Gerasim alone did not lie; everything showed that he alone understood the facts of the case and did not consider it necessary to disguise them (Tolstoy, 264). From a Heideggerian perspective, Gerasim alone displays a compassionate and meaningful existence in the story. As Ivans condition slowly deteriorates, it (the pain, the spectre of death) becomes something that he can no longer ignore, although he is still being told that he will recover. At a certain point, however, he begins to ask, Why deceive myself? (Tolstoy, 257) When Ivans brother-in-law visits before New Years, he is so disturbed by his condition that he is unable to be in his presence. He says to Ivans wife Why, hes a dead man! Look at his eyes theres no light in them (Tolstoy, 256), though she denies this change. For her, he is merely sick; he will get better with time. Heidegger lets us understand this when he says, This evasive concealment in the face of death dominates everydayness so stubbornly that, in Being with one another, the neighbours often still keep talking the dying person into the belief that he will escape death and soon return to the tranquillized everydayness of the world of his concern (Heidegger, 297). Though Ivans family appear to be trying to comfort him, reall y they are only denying what Ivan has now realised he will soon face his own death. When Ivan truly realises that his condition is incurable, he reflects on a presentation of death he had learnt from Kiezewetters Logic, Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal, had always seemed to him correct as applied to Caius, but certainly not as applied to himself. That Caius man in the abstract was mortal, was perfectly correct, but he was not Caius, not an abstract man, but a creature quite quite separate from all others (Tolstoy, 259). This comparison to Gaius Julius Caesar demonstrates that Ivans attitude towards death is severely misunderstood. For Heidegger, this statement would seem to imply Ivan Ilych fell into the inauthentic way of life, unable to face his death with acceptance and bravery, preferring instead to be coddled and pitied. Conclusion The Death of Ivan Ilych is primarily a meditation on the nature of death. For Heidegger, death brings our lives into focus. Referencing Leo Tolstoys The Death of Ivan Ilych as an example, Heidegger argues that most people go through life in avoidance of the reality the possibility to end all possibilities ones death. Heidegger is confident that by anticipating death, we can ensure an authentic way of being.

Analysis of “Fight Club” Essay -- Fight Club Movie Film Essays

Analysis of â€Å"Fight Club† For years David Fincher has directed some of the most stylish and creative thrillers in American movies. His works include: Aliens 3, Seven, The Game and Fight Club. Each of these films has been not only pleasing and fun to watch but each has commented on society, making the viewers think outside the normal and analyze their world. Fight Club is no exception, it is a multi-layered film with many subplots and themes, but primarily it is a surrealistic description of the status of the American male at the end of the 20th century. David Flincher’s movie, Fight Club, shows how consumerism has caused the emasculation of the modern male and tells a tale of liberation from a corporate controlled society. In the movie Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) comments on the new way of life, â€Å"We are products of lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty do not concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with five hundred cannels and a designer name on my underwear.† The film, Fight Club shows the consumer culture in which the 20th century male lives in and how it is a deconstruction of individuality. The film gives many examples of this; the main character of the film (Ed Norton) asks while looking through an IKEA catalog, â€Å"What kind of plates define me as a person.† He’s not asking what personal characteristics and attributes define him but what possession most accurately does. Also, Ed Norton’s character has no name he is only referred to as the 90’s everyman, the IKEA man. The film shows the extensive emphases the consumer-based culture of the 20th century has on individualism and values associated with being a man. Corporations hav e replaced personal qualities with corporate logos. The modern male cannot be anything unless he has certain products in his possession. No longer does one own things, his things own him. The contemporary male is a slave of the IKEA nesting instinct. The main characters absence of a name only exemplifies this; the buying of furniture from IKEA gives the main character (Ed Norton) his identity, without being a consumer the main character would remain undefined and anonymous. In the movie, the two main characters, (Ed Norton) and Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), are staring at a Calvin Klein ad and ask each other is this what a man is supposed to look like. Fight Club shows the extent of consumerism contro... ...od. By blowing up his IKEA catalog apartment and living in a dilapidated house without concern for owning products and designer names, Ed Norton’s character releases himself his consumer controlled life and begins a journey to regain his manhood. He does this by creating Fight Club, which is an underground boxing club for men. Fight Club lets men live by liberating them. They are allowed to express their primal nature, to be men and reclaim their independent strength, courage and power. It was said, â€Å"When a man first enters Fight Club he was a wad of cookie-dough, a couple weeks later he was carved of wood.† The 20th century male’s struggle still continues today, the 21st century is a corporate controlled society, in a consumer culture that gives life value by what is bought and owned, not by the individual. The modern male is emasculated in this feminist culture. David Fincher does an excellent job of taking a contemporary subject and putting it on film. Fight Club takes these themes, consumerism, emasculation of the male and liberation and weaves them together to make a great narrative on the unfilled, castrated male who desperately seeks to be free from societies control.

How Do I See

How I would like to see myself in the next 10 years? For the next 10 years I want to see myself succeed in every aspect such as self, family/social, economic, and spiritual. I would like to see myself still in service, growing in my profession and continuous my study / schooling. So, I will improve more in the areas of my weaknesses and make use of my full potential and ability in achieving my personal goals. By that time, I am continuing practicing my profession as Psychologist and perhaps able to finished my master’s degree or even doctorate degree in Psychology.Economically, I am a financial independent and secure individual. I will no longer worry about my old age. I will travel and have fun of life after years of hard work and perseverance. My husband and I will have our own life, spend more time together and enjoys ourselves as maybe we never had before due to work demands. I have a business of my own which will also be a help in securing our other financial needs like f or medicine, hospitalization and others.My family will be independent. My children already finished college and have their own profession in chosen field / career. I see myself mentoring and guiding my children in every step of their chosen career for them to succeed and support them in their failures. I maybe have a grandchild as well by then. I will be spending more time with my family, enjoying life and make most of my life servicing them. I want to have recreational gathering with my relatives and closest friends.My relationship with God is deep and will continue to seek more of Him in our life. I will have my devotions continuous and still involved myself in church services and recollections. My children will still be in church services and perhaps even grandchildren will also be part of it. Our family devotions will be taught to our grandchildren, if we have, and teach them to anchor their faith only in God. I am seeing my whole family attending altogether in every Sunday mass , special occasions and all important moments of our life.

Tropical Rainforests - Harbors of Diversity

Biodiversity is a term biologists and ecologists use to describe natural biotic variety. The numbers of animal and plant species plus the richness of gene pools and living ecosystems all make for sustained, healthy, and diverse ecosystems. Plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, bacteria, and fungi all live together with non-living elements like soil, water, and air to make a functioning ecosystem. A healthy tropical rainforest is the worlds most spectacular example of a living, functioning ecosystem and the ultimate example of biodiversity. Just How Diverse are Tropical Rainforests? Rainforests have been around a long time, even on a geological scale. Some existing rainforests have evolved over 65 million years. This time-enhanced stability has in the past allowed these forests greater opportunities for biological perfection. Future tropical rainforest stability is now not so certain as human populations have exploded, rainforest products are in demand, and countries struggle to balance the environmental issues with the needs of citizens living off these products. Rainforests by their very nature harbor the greatest biological gene pool in the world. The gene is a basic building block of living things and every species is evolved by various combinations of these blocks. The tropical rainforest has nurtured this pool for millions of years to become the exclusive home for 170,000 of the worlds 250,000 known plant species. What Is Tropical Rainforest Biodiversity? Tropical rainforests support higher land area units (acres or hectares) of biodiversity when compared to temperate or arid forest ecosystems. There are some educated guesses by experts that tropical rainforests on our planet contain about 50% of the world’s terrestrial plant and animal species. The most common estimate of the size of total rainforests amount to approximately 6% of the world’s land area.   While tropical rainforests around the world have many similarities in their climates and soil composition, each regional rainforest is unique. You will not find precisely the same species living in all the tropical rainforests around the world. For example, the species in African tropical rainforests are not the same as the species living in the tropical rainforests of Central America. However, the different species play similar roles within their specific regional rainforest. Biodiversity can be measured on three levels. The National Wildlife Federation lists these levers as:1) Species diversity - being  the sheer variety of living things, from microscopic bacteria and fungi to towering redwoods and enormous blue whales.  2)  Ecosystem diversity  - being tropical rainforests, deserts, swamps, tundra, and everything in between.  3)  Genetic diversity  - being the variety of genes within a single species, which give rise to the variations that cause species to evolve and adapt over time. Two Fantastic Rainforest/Temperate Forest Comparisons To comprehend just how marvelous this biodiversity is, you have to make a comparison or two: One study in a Brazilian rainforest found 487 tree species growing on a single hectare (2.5 acres), while the US and Canada combined only have 700 species on millions of acres.There are approximately 320 butterfly species in all of Europe. Just one park in a Peruvian rainforest, The Manu National Park, has 1300 species. Top Biodiverse Rainforest Countries: According to Rhett Butler at Mongabay.com, the following ten countries are home to the most biodiverse tropical rainforests on Earth. The United States is included only because of Hawaiis protected forests. The countries in order of diversity are: BrazilColombiaIndonesiaChinaMexicoSouth AfricaVenezuelaEcuadorPeruUnited States