Epicurus Vs Lucretius

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

The ethics behind Epicureanism are very simple. Epicurus demonstrates that experience shows happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy but less so than the unselfish. This statement is very powerful for the simple person. Epicurus proves that if a person seeks to be happy he/she usually won't be able to find true happiness.

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

“When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life…” When reading Hamlet’s Soliloquy, this line made me question my own opinion on the value of life. If life is such a struggle, and there are so many obstacles that seem impossible to conquer, why not just end it? End the suffering: End the complication: Just kill yourself in hopes that the afterlife holds something better than than this daunting voyage. The answer is most people scared shitless. “But the dread of something after death… No traveler returns, puzzles the will.” When we die, there is no coming back; death is a journey and “No traveler returns.” Not knowing what comes after might be what keeps many of us alive. The fear of the

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.

In order to keep the world in line and in balance death has to occur. The world is one perfect place where everything is done for a reason as proposed in the line “Just as a target is not set up to be missed, in the same way nothing bad by nature happens in the world” (Hackett, 61). This is citing that the earth, as a whole is good, and that, in the grand scheme of things, nothing compares to the awesome power of the nature of our world. Another example of how perpetual our world is is the line “Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be,” which distinguishes us as being sort of like puppets (Hackett, 59). In this sense, unknown forces control us and these forces determine our life or our death. We have no control over this so there is no point in worrying about it. Ideas like this are not needed for survival and are merely just wants. As Epictetus says, “You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to live forever since you are wanting things to be up to you that are not up to you” (Hackett, 58). This is clearly pointing out exactly what we aren’t to do. Death is unknowable to us and we shouldn’t concern ourselves with what we cant

When people ponder death they wonder about the unknown with trepidation. As a young man, William Cullen Bryant wrote the "Thanatopsis." His thoughts progress from the fear of death to the acceptance of the event. People should not fear death because everyone dies and becomes a part of nature.

This philosophy on death makes us think that we cannot ever imagine what we don 't know. It 's argumentative whether it 's unreasonable to "fear the unknown", as fear is a human driven emotion. It can 't really be compared to thinking one is wise when one isn 't, because its knowledge does not lead to immediate engagement. Socrates perhaps readily accepts his fear of death, yet he has not fully vanquished it.

Is death truly bad for the one who dies? Fred Feldman argues that it is bad for the person who dies because it deprives the person of good things that would have happened if he or she had lived. This argument takes more of a “what if?” standpoint, and is weak. A stronger belief, held by Lucretius in his essay “The Mind and the Spirit Will Die”, is that death is not bad for the one who is dead because the spirit is composed of matter incapable of surviving without the body, and therefore, when one dies they can no longer suffer. Therefore, young John Doe’s death of being run over by a trolley and dying is not bad for him.

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.

1. Increasing time pressures have led people to overextend themselves in certain areas of their lives, which can lead to a life imbalance and no way to achieve well-being. Aristotle believed that in order to achieve well-being, one must be able to balance and achieve virtues, pleasure, and happiness. This is known as an objective list theory. Epicurus believed that the key to achieving well-being was through pleasures. This theory is known as hedonism. Even though Aristotle and Epicurus did not agree on how to achieve well-being, their theories did offer one similarity which was balance. In order to achieve well-being, one must have a balanced life. For example, if a person were to overextend themselves at work, they would not be able to achieve certain pleasures, virtues, or happiness. Regardless of which theory one believes, a person must be able to balance their life in a way where everything is in perfect harmony. From my understanding, balance is the key to achieving well-being.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

“Metaphorically, death is the portal between the land of the living and the land of the dead the bridge over the Styx” (Benatar, 177). Death may not be part of a person’s lifetime but it can constitute a small part of that. Unlike dying, the death’s time is uncertain. “It is not clear that it takes time, or if so, how much time it takes” (Benatar, 177). Being dead is a process that cannot be experienced. It also comes after death. Rosenbaum states that knowing these concepts helps us understand Epicurus’s argument and it helps us notice the “ambiguous use of the term death which embody rhetorically, but not logically, persuasive ways of insinuating the falsity of Epicurus’s view” (Benatar, 177).