Epicurus And Lucretius Essay

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who lived during the height of the Roman Empire, 50 to 135 CE roughly. He was born a slave in modern Turkey. He was given his name from the Greek word επικτητος, meaning ‘acquired’ or ‘slave’. As a slave he was permitted to attend philosophy lectures, which were held by Stoics at the time. During his time as a slave, Epictetus’ leg was injured, either from torture or an accident, and, due to his familiarity with Stoicism, he was able to endure it. He got his freedom when Nero was appointed emperor; however, during the rule of Domitian, Epictetus was exiled and moved to Greece. He started a philosophy school where he continued to teach about Stoicism and eventually died. His student, Arrian, wrote and published his works: The Discourses and Epictetus’ shorter book, the Enchiridion, or The Manual.

In order to live the good life, one must eliminate all pain and live a life with maximum pleasure. Unlike other hedonist philosophers, Epicurus evaluated pleasures by their duration rather than their intensity, making psychological pleasures much more desirable to physical pleasures. Epicurus, as a consequentialist thought that in order to achieve the good life, one had to logically assess future consequences of human actions through rational reflection and evaluation. If one were to rationally reflect on death they would soon ‘realise that there was nothing but oblivion after death’ (de Botton 2000, p. 59).

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

In “On Natural Death,” Thomas appeals to the readers by contemplating the subject of death with an academic approach that includes facts, data, and information. Thomas successfully transforms death from an awkward, emotional subject to a more comfortable intellectual one. This engages the readers by placing contemplation of death and dying within the confines of a more manageable and rational context. His gradual exhumation of death eases the audience into pondering the subject in the absence of emotional stress. The essay transitions from the death of an elm tree to that of a mouse. This is followed by Thomas giving a significant amount of attention to a scientific explanation of death, and then finally the description of the near death experience of a human. This use of an academic appeal moves the audience to a comfort zone with the subject of death and circumvents the common response of avoidance. The reader is simultaneously desensitized to the gravity of subject matter and given permission to consider death and dying without the normal societal negative stigma associated with the subject.

Many people seem to fear death, but philosophers such as Socrates and Epicurus would argue that one has no reason to fear it. Socrates sees death as a blessing to be wished for if death is either nothingness or a relocation of the soul, whereas Epicurus argues that one shouldn't worry themselves about death since, once we are gone, death is annihilation which is neither good nor bad. Epicurus believes that death itself is a total lack of perception, wherein there is no pleasure or pain. I agree with Epicurus because Socrates doesn't give a sound argument for death as a blessing, whereas Epicurus' argument is cogent. I would also argue personally that death is not something to be feared because, like Epicurus, I see no sufficient evidence

The first four Principal Doctrines, deal with anxiety in people’s lives, and how they should think. Epicurus, is telling people not to fear death, God, nor pains in one’s life because they do not last long and they are for the week. The problem with this way of thinking, is that it removes the true God from the person’s life. But, that is not what he is saying. He, “believed that the true life of pleasure consisted in an attitude of imperturbable emotional calm which needed only simple pleasures, a healthy diet, a prudent moral life, and good friends” (pg. 342). This is quit opposite of what people say of Epicureanism in today’s time.

Marcus Aurelius was born on April 26th, 121 AD. He was born as Marcus Annius Verus. His family was a very wealthy family who claimed that they were descendants of Numa, The Second King of Rome. His father was Annius Verus and his mother was Domitia Lucilla.

This paper will analyze Lucretius’ symmetry argument in De Rerum Natura, and draw evidence in its conclusion that supports the Epicurean notion, of the nature of nothingness in death. In Epicurus’ “Letter to Menoeceus”, he argues that death is nothing to us and thus should not be feared. Epicurus’ views on death follow from his metaphysical and ethical views. He believed that the goodness or badness of something was directly correlated to its tendency to produce pleasure or pain. Death was simply the privation of the sense-experiences that we encounter every day. He also argues that death is not yet present when we are alive, and that we are not alive when death is present. Epicurus’ argues that the combination of these two arguments should deter us from fearing death. In Lucretius’s symmetry argument, every individual in the universe is made up of a specific combination of body and soul atoms. He argues that the finite body and soul atoms of each individual have recombined an infinite number of times. He further claims that because our atoms are finite, we have all existed an infinite number of times but recall our past lives due to the separation of our body and soul. Regardless of whether the soul is immortal or not, an individual’s sense experience dies along with the destruction of the body and soul. Understanding Lucretius’ and Epicurus’ views on death, we can conclude that they both support the notion of death being nothing to fear. They acknowledge that there is no

In the “Letter to to Menoeceus,” Epicurus explains his principle doctrines and prescripts on how one can live the best life possible. His letter argues two distinct beliefs to reconsider. The first argument suggests that we do not need to fear the gods as the fear of punishment from the gods will deteriorate one’s overall happiness. The second argument suggests that the fear of death is an irrational fear as one will no longer feel sensations after death. In this paper, I will defend these two arguments made by Epicurus and show that the removal of these beliefs will allow an individual to live a more fulfilling life with happiness and less fear and anxiety.

The mind, body and soul are connected therefore the soul must die with the body, therefore the soul must be mortal, therefore one will experience nothing after death, therefore one should not fear death. That is the Super Sparknotes version of Book III of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things. It looks so tidy on the page laid out like that, but when broken down and considered with respect to human nature and existence, it becomes far more complex, as many things often do when taken out of the context of academic theory and applied to, for lack of a better term, real life.

The first objection Nagel gives is the possibility that there are not only evils that consist of deprivation and questions that some people may not mind the deprivation. I would agree with Nagel, because not everyone’s the same. What others consider a deprivation differs, which makes it hard to define what an evil deprivation consists of. The second objection he gives explains how it seems hard to distinguish who is the subject of death and when does it happen, it remains unknown. This one confused me a bit. In my understanding, Nagel is saying that death happens randomly, there’s no set time as to when someone will die. That being said, the time of death is a mystery. In all honesty, I don’t think I’m interpreting what Nagel was trying to

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

In this paper, Thomas Nagel argues if death is an evil and if it is then what kind and how big? He says that death can only be an evil: 1) Deprives us of life, considering that living is good. 2) Brings an end to all the good that life contains like perception, desire, activity and thought. 3) Also, death brings a sudden end to a person existence, which ceases their experiences that they could have experienced if they weren’t dead. The first premise he establishes is that there are two types of people in the world: 1)

In Epicurus’s argument he uses the word death a lot. Rosenbaum further explains this by informing us that death in the context in which Epicurus is discussing, is actually being dead. This further proves the notion of death having ambiguous meanings as stated earlier. Also, according to this essay, death is not the issue but rather being dead. What we as humans fear is being dead; and Epicurus wants to get rid of this fear with the help of his argument. Rosenbaum also explains that since we cannot experience anything at the stage of being dead, it is not bad for us. Rosenbaum gives an example of an individual that cannot hear. If there were a bad symphony being played which was unpleasant to the ears, this person would not hear it. For other people

Epicurus lived a life of simplicity, and studied at great length what happiness meant, and announced a set of insights that we only need three things to be happy. These were not of grandeur, riches, or fame, they were simple truths that hid underneath those desires. His beliefs were as follows, that you need your friends around, not just on an every so often basis, regular contact is what counts. Secondly, working for yourself instead of others, getting a sense of helping people out of your work. And lastly that we need to stay calm. We will always be in search of happiness, and the Epicurean lifestyle may be of some insight to us even in the present day.