AfterLife - Admission/Application Essay Example

Afterlife What arguments do Lucretius use against the claim about an afterlife? Irrefutably, since the time when humanitystarted to recognize its presence, the essence of existence after the physical one has turned to be a mystery. This has prompted to numerous individuals to yield to numerous assumptions and theories, which they have argued strongly. These encompass philosophers who have agreed and some disputed the notion like Lucretius. Lucretius did disregard the idea of afterlife and immortal life where he even mocked the religion by terming it as a simple superstition that is evident only in the minds of the people (SEP). In addition, he claimed that this chiefly has robed humanity the enjoyment one ought to have due to the fear of what would happen when out this globe’s existence. Lucretius argued that the issue of death to humanity is insignificance and the postulations, which the religions normally hold after its occurrence. This is because human is mortal and what has dissolved in its elements does not bear any sensation that would continue afterwards. According Epicureanism, materials that encompass humanity cannot have afterlife or any possibility of experiencing resurrection as contended by religion (SEP). He also contends that, when our existence ceases via separation of the body and soul, nothing will ever happen to us or rouses our feelings. The assertion is that, even if earth mixes with sea or sky for then humanity will be nonexistent. He also contended that, suppose there was the composition of the entities, which constituted us prior death, to which we are presently, it would not matter. Since, the former memory has undergone destruction or disruption where nobody is a composition of mind and soul after death. How does he understand the afterlife or immortality? Afterlife or immortality according Lucretius is nonexistent where people ought to live as happily and with the absence of any fear (Esolen 18). This is about the future regarding what it holds for those living in the present, hence denying them the necessary happiness. He holds that, what the religions deem is a simple superstition because death or immortality is nothing. Since the dead no longer exists (Esolen 17). Additionally, he views death as the body’s property, which implies that all the creatures bearing these bodies comprised of atoms have to undergo this stage. Hence, there is no essence of the present living to develop fears regarding what will befall them after they cease to exist. Additionally, contrary to the religion, Lucretius contended that death is a process and not as numerous religious’ fanatics instill into their believers. He contended that the soul does not leave the body suddenly, but in a process since it is a property of matter. Do these arguments work against the resurrection view, as we find it in Paul? (Define resurrection as it is understood in Paul’s text.) Lucretius’s argument compared to that of Apostle Paul is quite divergent; since he refutes that, there is no revivification while the latter preaches afterlife. He clearly states that there is afterlife, which he witnessed via the raising of Christ from the death (Gorman 10). Consequently, the Christ is the first born of all those who have died in Him with hope of rising again. Those baptized will have the merit to enjoy the gift, which the master has promised to the obedient here on earth. This is eternal Glory, which is only evident and assured to those who have accepted baptism either living or dead presently. To the doubting, Paul refers them as “foolish,” since they are unable to fathom how after a person’s demise the body will resume to life and in which form. Here, Paul expounds this via the act of sowing a seed, where God offers the rightful body to each plant. Similarly, this will happen during the reappearance where the resurrected will assume celestial bodies (Gorman 11). These will be diverse from the present earthy which are mortal, though, they will be the same. Paul refers to the present and mortal stature as perishable where via dying the soul will assume the imperishable. The latter stature was of dishonor, but the imperishable will be of glory devoid of all the weaknesses that characterized the perishable one. Additionally, he also contends that not all people will die, but the remnant will undergo instant transformation to be like the already resurrected elect (Fischer 370). The death will have no power, which is contrary to Lucretius’s argument since he termed it as a property. Both Lucretius and Paul their arguments are quite diverse even regarding how one ought to be while alive. The latter advocates virtuous deeds where their rewards are after the resurrection (Gorman 12). This is according to the firstborn of the dead who is the pillar of their faith in whom they deem. Why does Lucretius think that he is doing humanity a favor by dispelling its illusions about immortality? Lucretius tried expounding the common notion, which numerous religions have inflicted fear in humanity regarding the worse future expectations. His argument mainly implied that all what is visible is just chemical composition, which only decays devoid of expecting latter reappearance. This knowledge would grant people liberty to live without worrying of their fate or what awaits them in the neither world. Besides, the thought of superlative being, which possesses utter global control, deprives them the necessary liberty, since they have to adhere to the divine statutes. Hence, starts fear and uncertain of the future creeps in one’s life (Esolen 19). This deprives one happiness and sets boundaries, which the humanity cannot act beyond them. Suppose the world would choose the Lucretius’ argument in practice as he contends, each would enjoy life as necessitated. This is after an assurance that, the latter life, which numerous religions claim is just an illusion and death is nothing, so no need of having any fear. Why would the defenders of the immortality and resurrection views disagree with Lucretius about making humanity a favor by dispelling presumed illusions of immortality? What arguments would they have to make their case? Resurrection’s argument has a strong basis where its pioneers have witnessed, for illustration, Paul (Gorman 11). He teaches from both the spiritual conviction and physical encounter that was evident during his salvation. Conversely, Lucretius’ argument is a mere observation established within a short duration and devoid of any further explanation regarding the natural law, which he claims. The life’s existence into being, Lucretius claims that it via the natural law where beyond that he is unable to offer extra information concerning its source and the power behind it. His opposing side refers this power to be God, which Lucretius has highly disregarded and even blasphemed, hence committing inexcusable sin according to the resurrection contenders. They also presume Lucretius’ ideas as illusions and lack reliable basis, hence being in his own world where he tries to evade the reality. How would Kant respond to Lucretius given his (Kant’s) moral argument for immortality? Humanity’s existence entails being happy, which emanates from one practicing sound morals. This is via choosing the necessary beliefs that would prompt us to be moral persons without disregarding the infinite world-view. Consequently, calling for continual moral adherence to the infinite since moral is a game (Beach 493). This implies that players (humanity) should win by playing it forever where in this perspective one cannot disregard the high moral power, which is God. Therefore, if humanity’s choice is goal, have no reason not to believe in God (Beach 492). Work Cited Beach, Edward A. The Postulate Of Immortality In Kant: To What Extent Is It Culturally Conditioned?. Philosophy East & West 58.4 (2008): 492-523. Web. 24 May 2012. Esolen, M. A. On the Nature of Things: De rerum natura. United States of America: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Print. Fischer, John. Epicureanism About Death And Immortality. Journal Of Ethics 10.4 (2006): 355-381. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 May 2012. Gorman, Michael J. St. Paul And The Resurrection. (Cover Story). Priest 65.4 (2009): 10-12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 May 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy –SEP. Afterlife. 2010. Web. 24Th May 2011. Read More