Conversation — March 30, 2015, 2:45 pm

On Death

“I think that the would-be suicide needs, more than anything else, to talk to a person like you, who has had to fight for life.”

A conversation about death between Clancy Martin, a Harper’s contributing editor, and Adam Baer, a Los Angeles-based writer and musician who wrote about having cancer for the May 2011 issue of the magazine.

Clancy Martin: The first time I thought about death was when my stepbrother Paul committed suicide. I remember the funeral dimly, but I have a vivid memory of my little brother and me standing in a corner of the dining room during the wake. I was eight, and he was seven. One of us made a joke about something, and I remember our mother dragging us into the kitchen. “You two are laughing?! Your brother just died! This is a funeral! There is nothing funny about this!” Of course, we were kids, and we weren’t laughing about my stepbrother’s death. We were laughing out of nervousness and awkwardness and whatever the joke was about (probably one of our stepsisters).

Death, like the other fundamental experience of life, sex, can be very hard to talk about. Who hasn’t felt the terrible anxiety of trying to talk to a friend who has just lost a partner, a parent, or a child? You once told me that one of your doctors had said: “I honestly don’t know what I would do in your situation.” If physicians can’t speak to us about death, then who can?

You’re my closest living friend who has wrestled with death in an immediate way. I have tried to kill myself several times in several different and clumsy ways—I won’t be talking about that here—but I’ve never had a near-death experience, and all of the death I’ve experienced in my life has been crucially secondhand. In some ways, I think that the would-be suicide needs, more than anything else, to talk to a person like you, who has had to fight for life, which is in part what created the idea for this conversation.

Adam Baer: If the appropriate preparation for talking about death is having had a near-death experience, I am not exactly qualified. But like many who have experienced medical problems and the late effects of experimental treatments—in my case, chordoma, lymphoma, stem-cell bone-marrow transplants, neuropathy—I am perpetually near death simply by continuing to exist. That’s why I despise the term “cancer survivor.” It treats health as a static state. In reality, no human will completely recover from even one near-death incident. Everything we experience continually changes us. And this is especially true if a diagnosis requires the prolonged use of medicine and the possibility of everything horrifying that Big Pharma must legally disclose in fast voice/fine print.

Over time, I’ve noticed that some people, including my friends and family members, think I spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about death. But I contend that I don’t. In my doctor-sphere, the conditions that could lead to death are discussed with me as such hyperreal possibilities that I see dying as a boring bodily (dys)function. (And anyway, what is the morbidity rate of thirtysomethings who live in Los Angeles, on my trafficky street, with my mutated DNA and risk factors, who’ve had a boatload of chemo and radiation and who spend a lot of time in the sun but sleep on untreated latex, occasionally eating El Pollo Loco but also drinking kale?) I’ve often considered worrying about death to be a sort of theatrical game, like exaggerating the already paranoid Woody Allen character in a community-theater adaptation of Crimes and Misdemeanors

Of course, I fear death for being categorically bad, but for all of the oncology wings and I.C.U.s that I have visited I cannot conceive of it happening to me. In this sense, perhaps, training or practice (facing death so often and feeling as if I have escaped it) keeps me living my days without crumbling to the floor and sobbing. The anxiety of existence continues, but I’ve made peace with it, and it fits me as someone who sees living as a performance. I am by trade a musician who was raised to practice scales and arpeggios with a mighty discipline, such that playing them in the course of a musical composition is mindless. When impossible-seeming passages present themselves, I either glide through them, have trouble, or let them stop me in my tracks. An unimpressive performance is always possible, but I’ve learned to keep my eye on a menacing melodic line and keep trying. Not to get a part right by any standard measure but just to play it. However it ends up sounding.

CM: You mentioned Woody Allen. The story about my first encounter with death—my stepbrother’s suicide—also reminds me of one of my favorite death quotes, from Woody Allen’s only kids’ movie, Antz. The ant played by Woody Allen is, through sheer luck, the lone survivor of a terrible battle—a massacre. He is congratulated by General Mandible (Gene Hackman):

“You’re an ant after my own heart, an ant who looks death in the face and laughs,” the general tells him. 

“Actually,” Allen’s character replies, “I generally just make belittling comments and snicker behind death’s back.”  

The reason I love this exchange is that it acknowledges two attitudes we have to embrace if we are going to speak honestly about death: fear and humor. When Kierkegaard writes about death, he insists both that it gives us our most immediate experience of fear and trembling and that it demands a comic, rather than a tragic, response. (Kierkegaard also thought that the attitude of faith was much closer to comedy than tragedy.)

This is not to say that there is anything funny about death —although it’s been the source of more comedy than almost any other subject besides sex. (A good sex and death joke: The difference between sex and death is, death you can do alone, and nobody laughs at you.) When someone we love is threatened by death—or worse, dies—the last thing we do is laugh. My first real experience of depression was after my father died, and if someone had suggested to me that the appropriate response to death at that time was comic, I think I would have punched him in the nose.

But as Socrates pointed out in both Plato’s Apology and Phaedo, there is something strange about the profundity of our fear of an experience about which we really know nothing—even those of us, like you, who have come so very close to it. Socrates insists: “For this fear of death is indeed the pretense of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.” Then, after being condemned to death—although he could have chosen exile, he prefers death. 

Montaigne famously had a near-death experience when he fell off a galloping horse. Rather than feeling panic and fear, he reported bliss, pleasure, which he likened to drifting into a delightful sleep—just the sort of things Socrates at times anticipates in Apology. And when he is subsequently asked about death, he is cavalier to the point of comedy: “Don’t bother your head about it,” he advises us. This recalls Spinoza’s rather more earnest admonition: “A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life.”

So what might be the role of comedy in a philosophical approach to death? It is silly braggadocio to laugh in the face of death, but there is an unmistakable appeal to snickering behind His back. Can philosophy help us to deal with death, as Socrates insists? 

AB: In my case, yes. The summation of my personal experience with death—I’ve witnessed the dying of friends and family members but also cancer-ward teammates—has helped me as a reader of philosophy. And determining a personal philosophy has given me something to shoot for, intellectually speaking—something for which there is no correct answer, not unlike some of my health or musical problems, and that has helped me understand complicated ideas that had eluded me as a young philosophy student. Along with absorbing your preferred basics of death philosophy—Plato, Socrates, Kierkegaard—I am drawn to the death-philosophers who have lived, and may continue to live, during my lifetime. I want to know what people who experience something close to my world think about death. Such that their work may, on demand, overlay my consciousness like the operating system of a smartphone (and this early adopter with perhaps less time on the life clock than others wants the newest philosophy-software updates in beta). 

Bernard Williams, the British philosopher who passed away in 2003, was a great synthesizer of complex texts from his philosophical ancestors. Hence he argued plainly: “Death gives the meaning to life.” I’m not sure if that’s true in practice for some of us who live in the moment: I think that living—whatever that means to you—gives meaning to life. But death can definitely put the fear of science in you. 

In “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality,” an essay that appeared in Problems of the Self in 1973, Williams disagrees with the existentialists who say that we should fear death. For him, death is basic. It’s about losing categorical desires—such as a reason to live, a drive to experience more. But calling life in itself desirable is mere transcendental thinking. To consider life desirable in its own right is to think that it might be pleasurable to live as the last person on earth. And Williams seems to agree. “Boredom in eternity would have to be unthinkable,” he writes. I’m not afraid of losing boredom, though. I’m afraid of losing the chance to be with my loved ones and other souls who may want to join my life as chamber music collective. This is why I long to remain around, an unconditional, categorical desire if ever there were one. 

Still, William’s doesn’t welcome the prospect of death. On the desire for immortality, he turns to the lesser-known existentialist Miguel de Unamuno: “I do not want to die—no, I neither want to die nor do I want to want to die; I want to live for ever and ever and ever. I want this ‘I’ to live—this poor ‘I’ that I am and that I feel myself to be here and now, and therefore the problem of the duration of my soul, of my own soul, tortures me.” How millennial, in the best of ways, is that?

As Williams explains, Unamuno “salutes the true idea that the meaning of life does not consist in the management of satisfactions in a body or in an abstract immortality without one. . . . His desire to remain alive extends an almost incomprehensible distance beyond any desire to continue agreeable experience.” This now nearly forgotten Spanish philosopher born in the late 1800s leads Williams to admit that he does not want to die so long as the “categorical desire” keeps him wanting to live, even if he knows that “an eternal life would be unlivable.” Williams feels, I think rightly, that at some point he’ll become sick of himself and that depending on how terrible life gets he could be one very lucky human to meet his demise.

For that reason, Williams ultimately depresses me (sometimes, like a good postpunk song). The philosopher Thomas Nagel, on the other hand, has a more practical approach that puts my occasional worries of death in order. Nagel’s attitude toward death runs parallel with what we’d call common sense: we’re afraid of dying precisely because it’s something we know nothing about. That jibes with someone who feels that there is too much not-knowing in his or her life. That said, I often wish that I had less knowledge of what might happen to me, and in that spirit, I have taken to minimizing my exposure to medical test results. Give me the broad strokes. My computer’s autocorrect changes the word Nagel to “Angel.” I might suggest “bagel.” I like consuming Nagel, but I don’t feel well afterwards, and I’ve almost certainly put on weight that will hang around for a lot longer than I might think.

CM: There is something very compelling about the idea that at any given moment when we are not dying or immediately dealing with the death of a loved one, life is where we should focus our attention. And I think the direction you are taking us—Thich Nhat Hanh argues the same position in his brilliant book No Death, No Fear—is that the awareness of death should refocus our attention on the experience of life. In one of his few meditations on death, in The Gay Science, Nietzsche is characteristically dazzling in his synthesis of these two positions:

The Thought of Death. It gives me a melancholy happiness to live in the midst of this confusion of streets, of necessities, of voices: how much enjoyment, impatience and desire, how much thirsty life and drunkenness of life comes to light here every moment! And yet it will soon be so still for all these shouting, lively, life-loving people! How everyone’s shadow, his gloomy travelling companion stands behind him! It is always as in the last moment before the departure of an emigrant ship: people have more than ever to say to one another, the hour presses, the ocean with its lonely silence waits impatiently behind all the noise—so greedy, so certain of its prey! And all, all, suppose that the past has been nothing, or a small matter, that the near future is everything: hence this haste, this crying, this self-deafening and self-overreaching! Everyone wants to be foremost in this future—and yet death and the stillness of death are the only things certain and common to all in this future! How strange that this sole thing that is certain and common to all, exercises almost no influence on men, and that they are the furthest from regarding themselves as the brotherhood of death! It makes me happy to see that men do not want to think at all of the idea of death! I would fain do something to make the idea of life even a hundred times more worthy of their attention.

Here I think Nietzsche, like you, captures the deep and paradoxical comedy about our attitude toward death: that despite its certainty, and in fact because of its certainty, thinking about it forces our attention back onto life. We don’t know when death will strike. But where does that put us? Not brooding about death—don’t worry, one way or another, you’ll have that opportunity, however brief it may be—but insisting on life! What we can’t do is fall into the all-too-familiar position of taking life (or death) for granted, of allowing ourselves to slip into the benumbed world of procrastination and Facebook and showing our loved ones that we care about them tomorrow rather than today.

Perhaps that is going too far—that part of living is just accepting the humdrum aspects of conscious life. This was the conclusion that Camus, who died so young and unexpectedly, was driven to: It’s not quality but quantity of life that matters. The comic aspect of death is that it both means the end of life and makes us demand more of it. It’s better to laugh at ourselves and our situation than to despair or even—as Camus sometimes argues—to have scorn for the strange, contorted, and uncomfortable position our consciousness of death has knotted us into. If we can laugh at our situation, we can perhaps even celebrate it, as Thich Nhat Hanh does in No Death, No Fear:

Breathing in, I see the birth of my body. Breathing out, I smile to the birth of my body.
Breathing in, I see the death of my body. Breathing out, I smile to the death of my body.

AB: Nagel, in discussing the inevitability of death, pointed out that “blindness is not a misfortune for a mole, nor would it be for a man if that were the natural condition of the human race. . . . The trouble is that life familiarizes us with the goods of which death deprives us.” That we’ll all die at some point, he added, “cannot by itself imply that it would be good to live longer. If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in store for us all.” To which I say, brilliant: I am every day fighting for a chance to experience fun and fulfillment, even if that has to happen in a waiting room at Cedars-Sinai hospital, as twenty-three patients watch a CNN item on a terminal brain-cancer patient who ended her life instead of having to suffer longer. 

Oliver Sacks recently wrote an article about his terminal cancer in the New York Times, which is more intellectually pleasurable, more poetic, than a Nagel transcript. But how do you share such sentiments with the people sitting next to you in doctor offices as they worry about their achy spines? Sure, we’re all in a stuffy room that is peppered with Purell stations, but we could be having a lot more fun by simply engaging with each other. For if my favorite death-philosophers have taught me anything, it’s that I don’t try hard enough to make categorically bad situations better. I have come to see a medical professional in order to stave off that which would keep me from ever having good experiences again, and I ought to continue to seek them out, even when I think that I’m doing as much as I can.

Single Page

More from Clancy Martin:

Ars Philosopha October 9, 2014, 8:00 am

Are Humans Good or Evil?

A brief philosophical debate.

Ars Philosopha March 14, 2014, 12:46 pm

On Hypocrisy

Should we condemn hypocrites, when we can’t help but be hypocrites ourselves?

Ars Philosopha June 25, 2013, 2:00 pm

On Suicide

And why we should talk more about it

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada



January 2019

Machine Politics

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Polar Light

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump Is a Good President

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.


= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Long Shot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content


Machine Politics·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip,” Ronald Reagan said in 1989. He was speaking to a thousand British notables in London’s historic Guildhall, several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reagan proclaimed that the world was on the precipice of “a new era in human history,” one that would bring “peace and freedom for all.” Communism was crumbling, just as fascism had before it. Liberal democracies would soon encircle the globe, thanks to the innovations of Silicon Valley. “I believe,” he said, “that more than armies, more than diplomacy, more than the best intentions of democratic nations, the communications revolution will be the greatest force for the advancement of human freedom the world has ever seen.”

At the time, most everyone thought Reagan was right. The twentieth century had been dominated by media that delivered the same material to millions of people at the same time—radio and newspapers, movies and television. These were the kinds of one-to-many, top-down mass media that Orwell’s Big Brother had used to stay in power. Now, however, Americans were catching sight of the internet. They believed that it would do what earlier media could not: it would allow people to speak for themselves, directly to one another, around the world. “True personalization is now upon us,” wrote MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 bestseller Being Digital. Corporations, industries, and even whole nations would soon be transformed as centralized authorities were demolished. Hierarchies would dissolve and peer-to-peer collaborations would take their place. “Like a force of nature,” wrote Negroponte, “the digital age cannot be denied or stopped.”

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Long Shot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ihave had many names, but as a sniper I went by Azad, which means “free” or “freedom” in Kurdish. I had been fighting for sixteen months in Kurdish territory in northern Syria when in April 2015 I was asked to leave my position on the eastern front, close to the Turkish border, and join an advance on our southwestern one. Eight months earlier, we had been down to our last few hundred yards, and, outnumbered five to one, had made a last stand in Kobanî. In January, after more than four months of fighting street-to-street and room-by-room, we recaptured the town and reversed what was, until then, an unstoppable jihadi tide. In the battles since, we had pushed ­ISIS far enough in every direction that crossing our territory was no longer a short dash through the streets but a five-hour drive across open country. As we set out to the north, I could make out the snowy peaks in southern Turkey where they say Noah once beached his ark. Below them, rolling toward us, were the wide, grassy valleys and pine forests of Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris where our people have lived for twelve thousand years.

The story of my people is filled with bitter ironies. The Kurds are one of the world’s oldest peoples and, as pioneers of agriculture, were once among its most advanced. Though the rest of the world now largely overlooks that it was Kurds who were among the first to create a civilization, the evidence is there. In 1995, German archaeologists began excavating a temple at Göbekli Tepe in northern Kurdistan. They found a structure flanked by stone pillars carved with bulls, foxes, and cranes, which they dated to around 10,000 bce. At the end of the last Ice Age, and seven thousand years before the erection of Stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, my ancestors were living together as shamans, artists, farmers, and engineers.

Fighters of the YJA-STAR, the women’s force in the PKK, Sinjar, Iraq, November 2015 (detail)
Polar Light·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To get oriented here is difficult. The light is flat because the sky is overcast. The sun’s weak rays create only a few anemic shadows by which to judge scale and distance. Far-off objects like mountain peaks have crisp edges because the atmosphere itself is as transparent as first-water diamonds, but the mountains are not nearly as close as they seem. It’s about negative-twelve degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind is relatively calm, moving over the snow distractedly, like an animal scampering.

[caption id="attachment_271890" align="aligncenter" width="690"]True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images. True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.[/caption]

Four of the six people living here are in their tents now, next to their cookstoves, two by two, warming up and preparing their suppers. I’m the fifth of the group, almost motionless at the moment, a hundred yards south of the tent cluster, kneeling on a patch of bluish ice in the midst of a great expanse of white. I’m trying to discern a small object entombed there a few inches below the surface. Against the porcelain whites of this gently sloping landscape, I must appear starkly apparent in my cobalt blue parka and wind pants. I shift slowly right and left, lean slightly forward, then settle back, trying to get the fluxless sunlight to reveal more of the shape and texture of the object.

A multiple-exposure photograph (detail) taken every hour from 1:30 pm on December 8, 1965, to 10:10 am on December 9, 1965, showing the sun in its orbit above the South Pole, Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station © Georg Gerster/Panos Pictures
Donald Trump Is a Good President·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In all sincerity, I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.

However, I have to ask—and I know what I’m requesting isn’t easy for you—that you consider things for a moment from a non-American point of view. I don’t mean “from a French point of view,” which would be asking too much; let’s say, “from the point of view of the rest of the world.”On the numerous occasions when I’ve been questioned about Donald Trump’s election, I’ve replied that I don’t give a shit. France isn’t Wyoming or Arkansas. France is an independent country, more or less, and will become totally independent once again when the European Union is dissolved (the sooner, the better).

Illustration (detail) by Ricardo Martínez

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The prepositions you’re most likely to encounter after the title of a poem are “for” or “to” and sometimes “after”—“for my daughter”; “to Bobby”; “after Pound”; etc. They signify dedication, address, homage, imitation. In the recent poems of Fred Moten, we encounter “with,” a preposition that denotes accompaniment. The little difference makes a big difference, emphasizing collaboration over the economy of the gift, suggesting that the poet and his company are fellow travelers, in the same time zone, alongside each other in the present tense of composition. (Given Moten’s acclaimed critical work on jazz, the “with” is immediately evocative of musical performance, e.g., “Miles Davis with Sonny Rollins.”) Not all “withs” are the same—there is a different intimacy in the poem “fifty little springs,” which is “with aviva,” Moten’s wife’s Hebrew name (which means springtime), than there is in “resistances,” which is “with” a critic and an artist, interlocutors of Moten’s. (The poem “13. southern pear trees” has no preposition after the title, but is excerpted from another responding to the work of Zoe Leonard, and so is still a work of fellowship.) The scale of that “with” can be small (“with aviva, as if we were all alone”) or vast (“with everybody we don’t know”), but either way the poem becomes an instance of alongsidedness instead of belatedness; the poems request, with that subtle prepositional shift, that we think of ourselves as participants in the production of meaning and not mere recipients of someone else’s eloquence.

“Untitled,” 1989, by Zoe Leonard © Zoe Leonard (detail)

Estimated number of times in the Fall of 1990 that George Bush told a joke about his dog asking for a wine list with her Alpo:


French researchers reported that 52 percent of young women exposed to Francis Cabrel’s ballad “Je l’aime à mourir” gave their phone numbers to an average-looking young man who hit on them, whereas only 28 percent of those exposed to Vincent Delerm’s “L’heure du thé” did so.

Migrant children were teargassed; carbon dioxide levels have reached three to five million year high; missionary killed by remote tribe

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!


Happiness Is a Worn Gun


Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today