3.8 Article

Flourishing while withering: an explication and critique of Simone de Beauvoir's phenomenology of aging

期刊

CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11007-023-09621-3

关键词

Aging; Suffering; Flourishing; Feelings; Embodiment; Beauvoir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the possibility of leading a good life during the process of aging, despite the physical decline and loss of close relationships that often accompany old age. Drawing insights from phenomenologists, it emphasizes the importance of embodied experiences, life choices, and intergenerational intersubjectivity, offering a different perspective from Simone de Beauvoir's model of becoming old.
This paper explores the process of aging from a phenomenological perspective. Supplementing the model of becoming old found in Simone de Beauvoir's work with a phenomenology of human suffering and flourishing, it asks whether it is possible to lead a good life in the process of becoming old. Is it possible to flourish while experiencing bodily waning? Is it possible to flourish while experiencing the shrinking of one's everyday world and the passing away of close others? Aging, at least in its protracted phases, appears to become full of suffering rather than flourishing. What are the prospects of finding meaningful life projects despite old age? By making use of insight found in Heidegger and other phenomenologists the paper tries to develop a slightly different view on aging than the one found in Beauvoir, stressing the importance of embodied experiences and life choices, which not only depend upon societal oppression and being objectified by others, but also upon processes of nature and the possibilities of an intergenerational intersubjectivity. Resources for this project is found in the philosophy of affectivity developed by Heidegger and other phenomenologists of facticity, such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Charles Taylor, Helmuth Plessner and Hannah Arendt.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据