1. Course introduction
Why Philosophy Stack Exchange recommends it
Philosophy Stack Exchange users point people to it as an accessible university-level starting point for philosophical questions about death, the afterlife and non-existence.
Recommended by 2 people across 2 different months, 2014 to 2022.
What it is
The opening lecture of Shelly Kagan's Yale course Death (PHIL 176), recorded in Spring 2007. Kagan explains what the class will and will not cover, the split between metaphysical questions in the first half and value theory in the second, and the course requirements and grading.
What people said
Strong rec user132181 · 2014-07 · Philosophy Stack Exchange · on “Has the question of after-life been discussed in philosophy?”
I would recommend the OP to check out this [this video] philosophy of death course from Yale, really awesome stuff.
Recommends user137369 · 2018-06 · Philosophy Stack Exchange · on “Books/resources on non-existence”
I believe that after we die there is nothing. The same that was before being born. So while I won’t care about not existing when it happens, the thought of it does bother me now, as I like being and would like for that to continue. When I close my eyes I see darkness, black. But according to various sources, blind people see nothing. I’m not capable of imagining what seeing nothing really means, but I have wondered often that it may get one a step closer to being able to understand what it is to be nothing (or, more accurately, to not be). To clarify, I’m not claiming to believe blind people have a deeper understanding of non-existence, just that they have an extra data point, an experience
Cites superiggy · 2022-07 · Philosophy Stack Exchange · on “Is there a name for explaining or discussing a topic from various viewpoints/perspectives?”
When someone explains or discusses a topic intermitently switching to various persperctives, which are previously defined and named. I've seen this often, e.g. in Shelly Kagan's course Death [this video] or Michael Sandel's course Justice [LINK] . e.g. "From the physicalist view, we can say so and so. And from the dualist view, we can say such and such." The speaker is not really mentioning their own perspective at all, but rather, making each statement as a function of a specific pre-defined perspective. You are not really commiting to something being true, but rather, something being true from a given perspective. I love this thing, and I try to put it into practice often. But... does it have a