Thomas Nagel started the essay collection with the most interesting debate about death. Death is one of the most important subjects of the approach, Nagel uses an interesting approach when trying to determine the truth of whether death is for an individual or not. Nagel is doing a brilliant job on all aspects of the issue and his position, and it only makes sense if he does so to make his own observations more credible.
The very shared views of death most people in the world say and tell us that death will be the "clear and enduring end" of our existence and look directly at the nature of death (1). The first view that Nagel decides to discuss is that death is bad for us because he deprives us of more lives. Most people believe that life is good; even though some of the experiences in life may be bad and sometimes tragic, the nature of life is a very positive condition. Nagel adds that when the experiences of life are put off, this state is still positive and not simply 'neutral' (2).
Nagel further explains some important observations about the value of life. "Organic Survival" is simply not a component of value (2). Nagel gives the example of death and stands in coma before dying. Both situations would be equally bad. Another observation is that "like most commodities", the value will be higher with time. "
Nagel's death, instead of death, which is good about life, Nagel presents obvious thoughts in this regard. Life is good because we consciously experience and appreciate life. So death is bad because it deprives us of these experiences , not because the actual state of death is bad for us.
The next point, according to Nagel, is that there are certain signs that people do not object to death simply because it is a "long generation" (3) It is said that people do not consider temporary "suspension" of life as a terrible misfortune because the fact that the provisional says that ultimately brings the state back to conscious life. we look at the state before it is born as a misfortune or loss of life because life has not yet begun and (as Nagel later explains) elu smoothes the possible argument that he was born earlier and had more lives with the fact that if that person had been born much earlier, he would not be the person but rather someone else.
Nagel discusses the following three problems. The first is the view that there is no evil that is not rooted in a person who consciously "keeps in mind" these wicked ones. Nagel makes this view easier, saying it is the same as saying "what you can not do not hurt" (4). There are many examples to illustrate this theory. Those who think so are saying that it is not dangerous for a man to become ridiculous behind him if he does not know about it. If it is not worth the evil, then it is not bad for him. Nagel says this view is wrong. The natural discovery here is that it is bad to betray it, this makes the whole situation miserable; not because this discovery of betrayal makes us unhappy.
The second problem is what is involved in the subject of damage caused by death, and when that is the case. Prior to the death of the victim, a person experienced, there was nothing after death, so when death itself caused damage? The third problem concerns posthumous and pre-natal life.
Considering the good or bad aspects of death, Nagel notes that we must look at the possible circumstances around death and the relevant history of the deceased person. This is important because we miss a lot, which is important for reasoning, considering that the person's status is only at the moment of death. Nagel gives an example to a very intelligent person suffering from an injury that causes an infant's mental ability to diminish. His needs can be fulfilled as a baby and will be happy until the simple demands are met. Your family and friends consider this thing a terrible misfortune, even though you are not aware of your loss. This situation is unfortunate because he refused to do so if he was not injured in this way. He was able to do good things for the world and his family and enjoy his life as an accomplished and acknowledged individual on the age of old. This can lead to great happiness, but it is observable that the same person who has the mental capacity to agree with his child, Nagel also agrees with what happened to this man because of the tragedy of the terrible loss of life that the intelligent man could have led. This situation may be related to death in the sense of deprivation. Death is bad because he kidnaps what it was.
After commenting, Nagel states that "This is the case to convince us of arbitrarily restricting people to goods and wicked non-relational properties that can be used at certain times" (6). There are infinite circumstances and events that affect a person's fortune or misfortune. Many of these never match the life of a person. It must be taken into account that it is not possible to accurately determine the exact position of a misfortune in the individual's life or the way in which the origin is determined. People have dreams and goals in life that may or may not be met. In no case can we find all the circumstances and possibilities that will lead us to conclude that these hopes and dreams are ultimately fulfilled, but Nagel says that we simply have to accept that "if death is evil, then these and the the inability to live in life should not be disturbed "(7).
Some people see premature birth and post-mortem deaths the same way. We do not even exist, although Nagel argues that there is a difference. This whole study expresses its point of view, that although it does not exist in both cases, death deprives us of the time that we could have lived our lives.
Nagel makes interesting observations about whether an accident can be attributed to an event or life that is normally normal for all people. We all know we are all dying, and that life's length is somewhere around 100 years. So you still can say that this is a misfortune? He also gives examples of bees that are blind. It is not a misfortune when a puppy is blind because they are all blind and will never know and appreciate sight. But Nagel also presents the situation where everyone feels six months of pain and pain before dying. Everyone knows this will happen, but is this a less event than terror and fear?
We introduced this world and revived the aspects of our lives that we value. The deprivation of these things that we learn to evaluate is a misfortune because we have learned to live with these privileges. It is not incomprehensible for man to understand the concept of finite life in the true sense of understanding. We do not think of our lives now as a definite plan or finite sequence of events. We do not live up to day thinking of what to do, how much time we spent. Our lives are essentially the open-ended series of good and bad circumstances and opportunities. Death is the sudden break of this series that we can not help but in the way of thinking, it will never end. So death is deprivation and ultimately a bad person.
In summary, Nagel has a good argument in his death study that death itself is a pity. Whether a person believes in immortal life or not, it must be considered that dying deprives you of the price and experience of life. This view seems inevitable. A person who dies at the age of 92 lives with the best possible ability and experiences more than someone who dies at the age of 32. A 32-year-old person has many things to do and live in his life, and since the case of death has escaped any opportunity to reach any of these goals and undermine the work he has done to achieve his or her goals, death is a terrible tragedy.  Quoted work
Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.