The Rationale of the Fear of Death - Thesis Example

The Rationale of the Fear of Death On the surface, the fear of death seems to be a reasonable fearfor human beings. On closer examination, however, the fear of death is not based on reason, but is the basis for how all other aspects of life are formed through reason. It is through an understanding that survival is the most important part of living that all other decisions and discussions take place. Choices made where life is risked are still made with the fear that death may be the outcome, therefore there are precautions put into place to avoid death. Death is the foundation upon which political systems have been built, the fear of death pulling populations together in order to form protections against threats against life. Hobbes defined the concept of the fear of death through passion, while attributing the preservation of life through reason. This difference has defined the human being for its ability to differentiate between what is good and what is evil. The discussion on the fear of death suggests that this fear is the foundation of reason and of the human separation between good and evil. Within this framework, all of human existence is explained. William Sherlock wrote in the 17th century on the topic of the fear of death. He boiled the issue down to the basic concepts on which life is lived. He wrote “All Men love Life: and the necessary Consequence of that is to fear Death” (215). According to Sherlock, the idea of life is so appealing and such a desired state that the consequence of losing life creates a fear within the individual. The creation of all fears, according to Kubler-Ross and Kessler, is based on the fear of death. Every possible outcome that is feared is traced back to originating fear that survival will not be maintained. A fear of rejection, for example, leads back to a fear that one will be alone, and that being alone will mean a lack of an ability to survive. Through the idea that all people fear death is the foundation for all subsequent growth of fears. Ewin discusses the fear of death as being pre-rational. He suggests that the fear of death is the foundation of all types of fear, thus it is the core of reasoning. He declares that “fear of death is something we reason from, not to” (Ewin 2). The issue is such a core of the human experience that he argues that it is the beginning of how reasoning on other topics is formed. The relationship to the fear of the end of life is how the rest of the subjects are framed within a philosophical argument. As Ewin discusses how death is at the core of all reason, Kubler-Ross and Kessler clarify how this boils down through a modern life example. They show that the concern one shows for a project at work is based upon a fear of not doing well on the project. This becomes associated with fears of not getting a raise, of losing the job and eventually reduced to not being able to survive. The fear of losing the ability to survive is at the core of most modern day fears, just as it has been at the core of most other fears throughout human history. Within the framework of existence, the natural inclination to run from anything that could bring on death is a part of the way in which a human being calculates the actions that they take. Even in seeking risky behaviors, they are considered for ways to continue to avoid death. A person will jump from an airplane with a parachute on, a proper helmet and gear, and after appropriate training. A person will fight tooth and nail from being pushed out of an airplane without those preparations. There is a difference between accepting the risks of certain activities or behaviors and accepting a reality of death. Therefore, it must be understood that death as a certainty is a very different concept than death as a possible outcome. When death is only a possible outcome, the belief of the individual to overcome that risk must be sufficiently high and appropriately prepared against to a degree to which the belief that death will be an outcome is mitigated. It is irrational, then, to use the idea of risky behavior as a way to suggest that the fear of death is not an innate part of human life. Avoiding circumstances that might bring about death is one of the imperatives that drive the direction of life. It is in understanding the belief of what is risked in activities, that death is not a tangible risk, that it can be understood that even in risky behaviors, death avoidance is a part of the equation. Becker discusses the idea that there are three drives that are at the core of reasoning. A man will fear death, seek self-perpetuation, and seek heroic transcendence of his fate (Becker 209). Risky behaviors will exhibit the fear of death through the preparations that have been made to avoid death, will provide examples of how self perpetuation will be accomplished through those preparations, and will then show that the outcome through survival has exhibited a sense of heroic transcendence of his fate. Heroism, in these terms, is accomplished through working towards an outcome that includes survival. In this dynamic, it is the act of surviving that provides for the thrill of having tested fate. It is therefore understood that the example of risky behavior does not negate the fear of death, but shows that man has not only a fear of death, but an active need to prepare against that potential outcome. Becker, however, continues on to show that the fear of death can be outweighed by a fear of life. He suggests that depression is a loss of courage that the disease is reflective of the loss of the ability of an individual to live, thus they fear life more than they fear death. Becker quotes Adler who showed that “depression and melancholia is a problem of courage; how it develops in people who are afraid of life, who have given up any semblance of independent development and have been totally immersed in the acts and the aid of others” (210). Becker goes on to discuss how in many people who are depressed, “fear of life leads to excessive fear of death…one doesn’t dare to move, lies in bed for days on end, not eating, letting the housework pile up, fouling the bed” (210). The need to avoid death cannot be such that immobility takes away the need to live. Becker states that “the moral of this example of failure of courage is that in some way one must pay with life and consent daily to die, to give oneself up to the risks and dangers of the world, allow oneself to be engulfed and used up. Otherwise one ends up as though dead from trying to avoid life and death” (210). When nothing but fear is the basis for all sense of reason, then the immobility of the individual becomes a waking death, a sense that life does not exist, neither does death, but only the perpetuation of futility. Robin discusses the work of Thomas Hobbes who was a 17th century philosopher who examined the philosophies of politics, amongst other topics. Hobbes defined the difference between passion and reason as drives for human action. Reason is often overridden by passion. Passion is the drive of self-preservation. Passion was driven by appetite, but also tempered by the passion of fear. Fear is the foundation of the passionate drive towards self-preservation. Appetites create drives towards those things that fulfill human needs and desires, but through the fear of death those appetites are dampened down. Hobbes believed that passions should be designed through reasoning, but he did not designate that they were the product of reason. It was his belief that they could be directed through reason rather than formed solely on that basis. Strauss discusses the differentiation that Hobbes makes on the concept of death through a positive and negative foundational idea. The idea of the preservation of life is brought about through reason. Strauss states that “That preservation of life is the primary good is affirmed by reason and by reason only” (15). He goes on to state that “death is the primary evil is affirmed by passion, the passion of fear of death” (Strauss 15). He goes on to say that Hobbes described the compelling purpose of reason as an outcome of the compelling force of passion. People affirm the good of the preservation of life because we are compelled to through the passion of the fear that humans have of death. This reasoning occurs because there is no other path on which to travel. It is interesting to note the evolution of religion at this point in the discussion. Religion has primarily served the purpose of suggesting that there is a continuation of existence after life has ended. All religions have some sort of belief that runs along this path. What has not occurred is the belief that life should end prematurely in order to hasten the rewards that many of the religions offer at the end of life. Although there have been some religions that require sacrifice of life towards an earthly outcome, promising that the afterlife would await the one being sacrificed, the basis of the reasoning has still been brought about through a belief that it would create a continuation of survival. It is interesting to note that in these exceptions it is never the leader who commits suicide to achieve an earthly objective, but his or her followers who are sent into the next life for those reason. However, religion, although dedicated to preparing followers for the rewards of the afterlife, most often promotes the preservation of earthly life and an avoidance of activities that will lead to death. Even in the creation of religion, the reason of the preservation of life and the passion for the fear of death are evident. Hobbes continues his discussion of the fear of death by relating it to the development of political systems. Hobbes suggests that political systems are the result of a common fear of death that will exist within a population. They create collaborative efforts towards survival based upon this common fear. Just as suggested by Ewin, Hobbes suggests that reason comes from the foundation of reason. He proposes two premises on the idea that sovereignty is reasonable based upon the common fear of death. He states that no civil law can be against reason because as the need for civil law is all born out of the fear of death. He also states that the will of his sovereign is always reasonable as he has given to that sovereign his acceptance of his will. King states of Hobbes’ position “It is their common fear of death that impels people to create a sovereign with absolute power to make law and to enforce it. In doing this, they accept the sovereign’s reason as an artificially created standard of reason, to replace the vacuum that is left by the lack of any natural standard” (King 794). Sovereignty comes from a lack of a belief that there is a natural standard of reason, thus it is created through conferring that power onto sovereignty. In this sense of the collaborative nature of human existence, Ewin also examines the fear of death through the belief that human beings fear not only their own death, but the death of others. He uses this as a rationale for why in war it is common to dehumanize and distance oneself from the enemy so that they are no longer seen as human beings in peril, but as objects of distrust. It is within human nature to try to save another person rather than to witness silently their death. If one sees another in peril, it is nature to look to see that they will be helped. While one’s own life is always a primary concern, secondary is that of the lives of others. This does not discount those who risk their lives to save the lives of others. These people have used their fear of death to make a reasoned decision on how they will act. The risk they take is always qualified by efforts to save their own lives as well, but they may make a reasoned choice to take a risk with an unpredictable outcome in order to save the life of another. This choice is made for a number of reasons, but it still is founded on a fear of death. As an example an individual may fight to hold onto the hand of someone who is hanging over a cliff, their own body sliding perilously towards the edge which may have the outcome of both of them falling to their deaths. It is unlikely, however, that someone would jump off a cliff after someone else has fallen in the hope they could make it to the bottom first and cushion their fall. One has the reasonable, if slight glint of hope while the other has a defined outcome of death. The collaborative effort of people to search for ways in which to survive comes from the foundational essence of the fear of death. In coming together, people make a choice towards greater odds of survival rather than taking the chance that being alone will create a greater chance of death. High end predators will often be lone types of animals, such as sharks and tigers. These creatures have small social groups because there is little need, other than propagation of the species, for creating social contact. Human beings are at the top of the food chain, not because they are the fiercest predator on an individual basis, but because they have discovered that through collaboration and their superior use of intellect and tools, they can overcome most natural threats to their existence. Laurence Bern argues that peace is a consequence of the fear of violence and of the fear of death. Pride is the overriding passion that will subvert peace, allowing for the sacrifice of others in order to create a world that pride has designed rather than reason. Bern writes “fear of death and desire for comfort are present both among the inclination of peace and among the causes of enmity: vanity or the desire for glory is absent from the former group. The task of reason then is to devise means of redirecting and intensifying the fear of death and the desire for comfort, so as to overpower and cancel the destructive effects of the desire for glory, or pride (Sutton, Morgan, and Novkov 202). It is through the pride of one that many are sacrificed, his or her desires overriding his or her inclination to preserve life. Through a belief there is an acceptable loss to accompany the passions of pride; the fear of the deaths of others is overrun. The development of the overriding passion of pride has been a consequence of the emergence of power. Power has been a seductive passion that has overridden the reason for the preservation of life. The theory that Hobbes proposes suggests that the fear of death is something that reason cannot create, but from which reason stems. Ewin also discusses this idea, expanding and clarifying that this by suggesting that all reason stems from the foundation of the fear of death. In looking at the seductive quality of power, even the reasoning process that happens in regard to the sacrifice of others in order to have power is based on a desire to survive. Altruism is developed through reasoning that is built upon the reasoning that has led to the belief in the preservation of life. Evil is attributed to the fear of death, with reasoning that comes from that perspective having the potential for evil. Hobbes determined that evil was defined by the fear created by the idea of death. However, that fear is also a part of the flight or fight response, the behaviors that come from that fear stemming from an understanding that a choice must be reasoned in order to survive. Fear was once determined as evil, but that is not necessarily the case. The fear of death, however, is clearly not created from reason. This fear is developed through an internal imperative that demands that each individual develop beliefs and actions that are purposed for survival. The fear of death is not developed through a reasoning process, but is a part of the passionate responses that come from simply living. The concept of fear is emotional, a reaction to the potential of the loss of life. The way in which Hobbes has framed the discussion is through the balance of the reason that it takes to come to the conclusion of the good of the preservation of life. Therefore, it is clear how both good and evil exist in the world even though all people are imbued with the natural fear of death. How reason is developed from this point is what determines the good of the world. Works Cited Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997. Print. Ewin, R E. Reasons and the Fear of Death. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. Print. King, Preston T. Thomas Hobbes: Politics and Law. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc, 1993. Print. Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth and David Kessler. Lie Lessons: Two Experts on Death and Dying Teach us about the Mysteries of Life and Living. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. Print. Robin, Corey. Fear: The History of a Political Idea. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Sherlock, William. A Practical Discourse Concerning Death. London: Printed for William Rogers, 1696. Print. Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. Chicago, Ill: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press, 1963. Print. Sutton, Barbara, Sandra Morgen, and Julie Novkov. Security Disarmed: Critical Perspectives on Gender, Race, and Militarization. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2008. Print. Read More