Samuel Scheffler | |
|---|---|
| Born | Samuel Ira Scheffler 1951 (age 74–75) |
| Father | Israel Scheffler |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | |
| Thesis | Agents and Outcomes (1977) |
| Doctoral advisor | Thomas Nagel |
| Influences | |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | Philosophy |
| Sub-discipline | |
| School or tradition | Analytic philosophy |
| Institutions | |
| Doctoral students | Agnes Callard |
Samuel Ira Scheffler (born 1951) is a moral and political philosopher, who is University Professor of Philosophy and Law in theDepartment of Philosophy and theSchool of Law atNew York University.[1][2]
Before moving to NYU in 2008, Scheffler taught for 31 years at theUniversity of California, Berkeley.[3] Scheffler received his PhD fromPrinceton University, where he was a student of the philosopherThomas Nagel. He was elected a fellow of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004.[4]
He is the son of the Harvard philosopherIsrael Scheffler.
He is a member of theNorwegian Academy of Science and Letters.[5]
Scheffler's book,Death and the Afterlife, based on hisTanner Lectures atUniversity of California, Berkeley, has generated considerable attention for its argument that much that we value in life depends on the assumption that life will continue long after our death. As the Princeton philosopherMark Johnston explained inBoston Review:
In Scheffler's self-consciously idiosyncratic use of the term, the "afterlife" is neither a supernatural continuation of this life, nor the result of a deeper naturalistic understanding of the kind of thing we are; it is what John Stuart Mill called "the onward rush of mankind," the collective life of humanity after our individual deaths. Scheffler's thesis is that the onward rush of humankind – the collective afterlife – is much more important to us than we are ordinarily apt to notice.[6]
Assessing the argument, the English philosopherJohn Cottingham wrote: "Scheffler has produced a superb essay – indeed it seems to me about as good as analytic philosophy gets. It is entirely free from obfuscating jargon and other tiresome tricks of the trade, yet it is meticulously argued and demanding in exactly the right way – forcing us to think about hitherto unexamined implications of our existing beliefs."[7]