The Consolations of Mortality - Making Sense of Death (Andrew Stark)
This book and I had a rocky start. I read the first third, got really angry and decided I wasn’t reading the rest. After a week I picked it back up and finished. Approach this review with the caution that I’ve never read a philosophy book before – so maybe this is just the way they go and my frustration is completely misplaced.
OVERVIEW
Andrew Stark wrote The Consolations of Mortality (Making Sense of Death) to explore four philosophical affirmations meant to console us about death. The four consolations for mortality on offer are:
· that death is benign and good
· that mortal life provides its own kind of immortality
· that true immortality would be awful, and
· that we experience the kinds of losses in life that we will eventually face in death
The book summary ends: “Stark’s poignant and learned exploration shows how these consolations, taken together, reveal death as a blessing no matter how much we may love life.” Given this description, you may pick up The Consolations of Mortality thinking it will describe four secular philosophies that will console you about death. And in this assumption… you would be mistaken. Almost entirely, this book falsifies its own consolations.
The consolation that death is benign and good explores Epicurean, Buddhist, and existentialist philosophies, ultimately concluding that death can’t be proven benign or good in any meaningful way. The consolation that mortal life provides its own kind of immortality is similarly disproven, pointing out that for this to take psychological hold we would have to substantially redefine what we mean by the “self.” Stark does agree that immortality would be awful, but concludes his chapter noting “the thought doesn’t comfort us, perhaps,” so no slam dunk. Lastly, Stark disagrees that the losses we experience in life prepare us for the loss of death, mainly because life’s losses only separate us from people/objects in space, whereas death separates us in time (not comparable).
In sum, this book has a profoundly misleading title. The only (minor) consolation Stark finds is that immortality would be awful, and so the reality of mortality is comparably better (but still sucky). There are other major things that disappointed me about this book (the insubstantial counter arguments, the feeling of running but never getting anywhere), but none so much as feeling that I wasted my time.
Somewhere in Toronto, an author named Andrew Stark is laughing maniacally for having duped another optimist into reading his book.
WHAT NOW? (actions for mortal atheists)
For such a cerebral dissertation it’s understandably hard to find actionable content, but here are two things I’ll leave you with:
Find your philosopher
This book was a good introduction to philosophers like Epicurus, Velleman, Holderlin, Montaigne, Kierkegaard, etc. One unexpected treasure was the revelation that I should probably read more from philosophers whose mortal hypotheses already resonate with me. For example, the entire section on existentialism, where you’re encouraged to “keep death in mind” so you live deliberately and gratefully, had me nodding along enthusiastically. It seems likely that if I read more existentialist philosophy I could build on ideas that already bring me comfort. So, get out there and find your philosopher or philosophy.
Imagine what immorality would actually be like
If your current despair over being mortal largely or even partially hinges on the thought that you’d prefer to live forever, spend some time thinking about how horrifying that would really be (ditto for an eternal afterlife). I’ll probably write a blog post about this later, but in the meantime check out Stephen King’s short story “The Jaunt” to be fully discharged of this delusion.
IN SUM
Is this book entirely secular? Yes.
If you had to describe book in one sentence? 232 pages to tell you that death sucks, but briefly explores how immortality could be worse.
Who should read this book? Anyone who read my above analysis and still feels really jazzed about this book.