Not many General Paper students in Singapore are keen on philosophical essay questions, but whether you are inclined to attempt such questions or not, it is worth your while to read up and ponder some philosophical questions as it would develop your critical thinking and argumentative skills which are so essential in any essay or AQ. Besides, you can’t ignore any facet of GP completely — you never know when the Cambridge exam syndicate will decide to give you a philosophical comprehension passage. You will have absolutely no choice there but to try to understand that passage, explain it — and answer an application question on it.
This article by John Danaher seeks to answer the fascinating questions: What would it be like to live forever? Would immortality be desirable?
The Makropulos Affair is a famous three-act opera written by the Czech composer Leos Janacek, based on a play of the same name by Karel Capek. It tells the story of Elina Makropulos who, at the age of 42, is given an elixir of life by her father. The elixir allows her to live another 300 years at her current biological age. After those 300 years, she can choose to take the elixir again and live for another 300 years, or she can allow herself to die naturally. The opera/play concludes with her having lived out her 300 years and, having become bored with her existence, choosing death over another 300 years. (Sort of: that’s not a perfect summary of what happens but it’s good enough for present purposes)
Elina’s story — which, speaking as a sci-fi fan, has obvious similarities with that of Heinlein’s Lazarus Long — was used by the philosopher Bernard Williams to make an argument about the tedium of immortality (“The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”). Williams argued that if we were truly immortal, we would end up like Elina, bored with our existence and longing to die. Obviously, this conclusion runs contrary to the beliefs of many of the world’s religions, which are all to keen to promise their followers immortality. Thus, if Williams is correct, and if immortality would indeed be the mother of all tediums, he will have shown something significant.
But is Williams right? Unsurprisingly, Williams’s article has generated a plethora of commentary over the years. I can’t hope to do justice to all of that commentary here. But I will look at one article that tries to defend Williams’s basic thesis. The article is called “Immortality and Significance” and it is by Aaron Smuts, whose work I considered earlier in the year when looking at the badness of death. Smuts argues that Williams reached the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. He tries to show what the right reasons are by, in part, drawing lessons from Borges’s short story “The Immortal”.
Read more of Part 1 here, as well as Part 2 and Part 3.
There are plenty more intriguing articles on his blog such as Is anyone competent to regulate artificial intelligence? and The Campaign against Sex Robots: A Critical Analysis.
For enquiries on GP tuition by the blogger, a First Class Honours grad from NUS, please call/text 98392152 or click ‘About the Tutor/Testimonials’ above. All lessons on a one-to-one basis. Secondary English tuition also available.
For GP model essays, click here.