MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609639550

On the Rationality of Fearing Death

2013· article· en· W2609639550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Salil Dudani

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)IntuitionPhilosophyFear of deathRationalityEpistemologyPsychologyPsychoanalysisMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If death by definition erases you, why should you fear it? For where you are, death will never be, and where death is, you will never be; it can never touch you. This intuition underlies Lucretius' famous argument that there is no reason to fear death. Taken seriously, it implies that you should be indifferent at the prospect of unexpectedly dying in your sleep tonight. To fear it would be to expect some experience that you will never undergo. In his paper The Makropulos case Bernard Williams develops the notion of categorical desires to refute this argument. In this paper, I will (I) explain Williams' argument that, contra Lucretius, we have reason to fear death; (II) raise, and subsequently amend, the objection that Williams' argument begs the question; and (III) argue that there is a response on Williams' behalf that blunts the force of the objection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207