Source: The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life's Biggest Questions (1 edn, 2017). p. 113 Bottom.
“Atemporalism”: Still others have suggested that it may be possible for good or bad to befall a person without it always being possible to temporally (or even spatially) locate all those goods and ills.27 Thomas Nagel provides the example of an intelligent person who incurs “a brain injury that reduces him to the mental condition of a contented infant.”28 Even if that person were well cared for, he notes, we would regard this fate as a misfortune. Yet it is hard to say exactly when the misfortune befalls him. [emboldening mine] The intelligent person, he says, no longer exists after the brain injury, and the person with the mental condition of a contented infant does not exist before it. This, says Thomas Nagel, “should convince us that it is arbitrary to restrict the goods and evils that can befall a man to nonrelational properties ascribable to him at particular times.”29
p. 239 states footnote 29 to refer to: Thomas Nagel, “Death,” in Moral Questions, 6.
Why's the bold sentence true? I assume that the injured whiz prefers her intelligence. The injury bars her from pinpointing the moment of misfortune, but an objective observer (e.g. physician) can?