Epicurean Death Essay

Lucretius in “The Nature of Things” explains that there are only two entities that make up bodies in the universe: matter and void. Matter is ever-present and does not decay while the void is a nothingness that allows for motion and change. Marcus Aurelius in “Meditations” explains that matter and the soul are the components of the universe, with the soul in some sense filling the void. Lucretius’ “void” has a correlation to Aurelius’ “soul.” Both philosophers explain how the concept of the void is responsible and related to death, because it allows for disturbances to the balance within the being. Lucretius believes that the void is the cause of death, yet questions whether the soul travels with it. Aurelius questions how the soul can remain after death. Death is an abstract concept that Lucretius and Aurelius attempt to answer through matter and voids. Lucretius calls the void a nothingness, which is always empty, and matter a solid that is free of any void. Aurelius has an essence of somethingness to his void, the soul, and calls matter a static body. By adding the soul as a third component to reality, the Stoic Marcus Aurelius rejects the binary universe of Lucretius.

What Lucretius’ claims boil down to is that it does not matter the length of life or when dying occurs, death is never bad.

“Tuesdays with Morrie” and “The Death of Ivan Ilych” both portray a character who is dealing with a serious terminal illness and advance knowledge of their deaths. One story is based on the realistic life of an American professor with the story’s characteristics tone from the 1990’s while the other is set during nineteenth century Russia. Even though Morrie Schwartz and Ivan Ilych both suffered from the illness, their dissimilar lifestyles and beliefs led to different perspective on facing death. One views the knowledge as a blessing and an opportunity to share his life experiences before making his final good-byes, the other agonizes in pain and begs for an

The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” (Mark Twain). This quote from the famous American writer is the basis for what became one of the hardest ideas to comprehend, death. Death has always been a complex term, causing one to struggle with what the true definition is. It is also hard to wrap your mind around what does it truly mean to die. These are the questions we long for the answer. Whether we acknowledge it or not, death has always been feared by many. Death remains an impossible question, one that has been unexplained since beginning of time. Even though dying is a natural, we as a human race still fear it. What can be done to defeat this never-ending battle? According to Montaigne’s “To Philosophize is to Learn to Die” and Cory Taylor’s “Questions for Me About Dying” we can overcome this by living to the fullest, living with no regrets, living a legacy, and lastly not fearing the inevitable. If you want to conquer the question of life, live in the moment.

What argument does he provide for why we should not fear death? What is the ethical purpose of this argument for how we should live our lives? Do you agree with Epicurus’s views? Why or why not?

Death is the most inevitable and unknown aspect of life. It is unescapable, and by most of today’s population, it is feared in the utmost regard. Our materialistic views and constant desertion of religious ideals has forced our society to view death as an ultimate end. Socrates and St. Augustine’s views on death differ from many views on the subject in 2017, however, for their time, these men had the power to influence a plethora of individuals with their theories. For Socrates, death should never be feared and should be considered a blessing if our souls were to ascend to heaven, or death could be an extensive slumber without any dreaming whatsoever. With

There are more than one piece of evidence that support the main conclusion in this reading. We should not be afraid of death first because; it does not have any values neither positive nor negative. The author intended for this evidence to support his conclusion by giving an example in page

Keeping a person alive by excessive treatment might devastate the family and make the dying suffer tremendously in the end. “Advance medical technology that seems to one person a godsend, extending life, may seem to another a curse that only prolong dying. Dignity can be devalued amid technology focused solely on the biological organism.”

The next argument from Lucretius is the “proof from sympaethia of mind and body.” The argument from medicine is an example of this type of argument. The argument from medicine states that the mind can be cured by medicine just like the body, which is mortal. Since that which is immortal cannot be altered in any way, it could not be cured. Since the mind can be cured, the mind (soul) is not immortal. The “affinity argument” from Plato could be seen as a counterargument. The affinity argument states that the soul resembles that which is invisible and divine, while the body resembles the visible and corporeal. Since the invisible and divine outlasts the visible and corporeal, the soul must outlast the death of the body. This argument fails in a number of ways, but in relation to Lucretius, no reason is given for why the soul cannot resemble the visible and corporeal, as Lucretius demonstrates in the sympaethia arguments.

The author’s diction makes the reader feel that death ca be defeated. For example, death has been called “mighty and dreadful” but the author shows that it is not more than a “short sleep” where men go for the “rest of their bones.” The general idea of death is frightful and scary, but the reader is told that it’s only a short phase everyone goes through. It’s an opportunity for men to separate their soul and physical body. In

Lucretius expands on this first truth by observing that while the soul cannot have any effect without a body, the effects of physical blows suffered by the body are shared in by the soul. “You perceive the mind to suffer along with the body, and to share our feeling in the body. If the grim force of a weapon driven deep to the dividing of bones and sinews fails to hit life, yet a languor follows and a blissful fall to the ground... and sometimes a kind of hesitating desire to rise” (161). The direct effects of physical injury felt by the body on the mind, he writes, are proof that “the nature of the mind must be bodily, since it suffers by bodily weapons and blows” (161). In fact, Lucretius’ example of a mind weakened by blood loss is only the beginning of the many forms of havoc physical trauma can wreak upon the mind. Relatively recent examples include the case study of Phineas Gage, whose life survived the destruction of a portion of his brain in an accident, but whose personality assuredly did not. According to reports from the company that had employed him, Gage, once the possessor of “temperate habits” and “considerable energy of character,” was transformed by his injury into an individual described as “‘Fitful,’ ‘irreverent,’ [and] grossly profane” (Macmillan 829). In less extreme cases, cognitive functioning and personality are altered temporarily on a daily basis by the consumption of alcohol and drugs or with psychiatric

One thing that ponders almost all who live is what happens after one dies. There are multiple theories about life after death, or the absence of it, many dependent on one’s religious beliefs. However, this is also a question philosophers have faced and come up with theories for. Bertrand Russell, a well-known philosopher from the twentieth century, has a theory on the matter. His theory on life after death, in standard form, is as follows: There is a strong correlation between brain states and mental states. In particular, the correlation between brain damage and impairment in mental capacity. So, probably all the mental states and capacities that we associate with a particular person are ontologically dependent on the continued functioning of that individual 's brain. So, if one 's brain ceases to function, then one 's mind ceases, as well. If you survive death, then your mind must survive. But, brain functioning ceases with death. Therefore, you will not survive death (Zelinski “On”). The argument is valid but some question whether it is sound. Russell 's argument is sound because the third premise, if one’s brain ceases to function, then one’s mind ceases to function, is true; the fifth premise, brain functioning ceases with death, is also true; that all leads to the conclusion, your mind will not survive death, being true.

My topic focuses on Rosenbaum’s defense of the epicurean view, Luper’s critique of this view and my argument on who has a stronger position in regards to the topic. I am going to do this by describing both arguments in a detailed manner. Rosenbaum defends the epicurean view while Luper argues against, both sides provide excellent arguments and my argument is that which I feel is more superior.

Plato has roused many readers with the work of a great philosopher by the name of Socrates. Through Plato, Socrates lived on generations after his time. A topic of Socrates that many will continue to discuss is the idea of “an immortal soul”. Although there are various works and dialogues about this topic it is found to be best explained in The Phaedo. It is fair to say that the mind may wonder when one dies what exactly happens to the beloved soul, the giver of life often thought of as the very essence of life does it live on beyond the body, or does it die with it? Does the soul have knowledge of the past if it really does live on?

Since philosophers don’t fear death and believe that the soul is the most important, Plato says that the soul is immortal and has has existed before our birth. “For if the soul existed before birth, and in coming life and being born can be born only from death and dying, must she not after death exist, since she has to be born again? Surely the proof which you desire has been already furnished” (Plato 55). This quote explains how our soul has lived for many years and what happens to our soul from the result of our death. Plato says that our soul could have lived inside other bodies during its many lives, such as animals or other people. If your soul has lived a previous life before being inside your body like Plato explains, it makes you wonder what other lives our soul has gone through before our own. This is pretty interesting to think that once you die, your soul will live on, your body is just another life or stop, for your soul to gain even more experiences and wisdom. Plato explains that the soul is the most important, and that the body is just another obstacle for your soul to go through.