The Philosophical Question at issue: Should I be afraid of death? Authors Thesis: During his passage, Epicurus tells us we have nothing to look forward to at death because when we die, there is nothing more. Authors Argument: Epicurus says that people need to start believing that death is nothing. He believes that death is the “privation of all awareness” (Epicurus, pg 103), the complete opposite of the meaning of good and evil, which is having awareness. Epicurus tells us that we must focus on the things that make us happy. In order to know we have lived a happy life we need to end our life with health and tranquility. If people were to figure out that death is nothing, life would be more enjoyable. Instead people are afraid to live their lives because they are afraid of dying. “When we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not” (Epicurus, pg 104). He believes that a person who fears death is nothing but foolish; because death isn’t scary or painful, but what is, is living with the anticipation of it. Epicurus believes that the wise, is the person who does not fear death, but instead this person knows that life is not something to be feared but something that should be lived to the fullest. When we are given the option to choose between something that is to the eyes more pleasant rather than something that seems to be longer or more; we tend to choose the most pleasant looking one. He believes that the worst type of person is the type that says that he
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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
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.
“He is dead who called me into being; and when I shall be no more, the very remembrance of us both will speedily vanish. I shall no longer see the sun or stars, or feel the winds play on my cheeks. Light, feeling, and sense, will pass away; and in this condition must I find my happiness.”(161)
Abstract The author’s perception and treatment of Everyman are that each individual need to prepare for it by repenting, following God, and doing good works. The author’s perception is that at the end of the day one cannot take anything or anyone with them when they die. The only entity someone can take is their actions and how they use the resources that are given to them. Those who put God before everything and perform good works will enjoy eternity with Him, but those who enjoy only the pleasures of life and forget God, will not. The author’s main message throughout the play is to not fearful of death but know that one day everyone will die, so do as much good as one can, repent of one’s sins, and to put God first. Keywords: author, perception, treatment, death The Author’s Perception and Treatment of Death in Everyman In the late fifteenth century, an unknown author wrote a morality play called Everyman. According to Pearson, a morality play during the Medieval period would communicate a moral lesson and make it so simple that both illiterate and well-educated audiences could both understand the lesson (Adu-Gyamfi, 2016). One may believe that the author of Everyman want to communicate to the audience that everyone will receive judgment the actions they commit on Earth. The author’s perception of death is that God is the only one who has the power to control when each individual die, so if one has a relationship with Him one should not be fearful death. The author
Socrates argues that if death is nothingness or an afterlife then there is nothing to fear. For it is like a eternal sleep.
There is a dispute between Mikel Burley and Robin Le Poidevin about whether or not the B-theory of time can give its supporters a reason to be less afraid of death. Burley says even on Le Poidevin’s understanding of the B-theory, atheists shouldn’t be comforted. He says this because the widespread B-theoretic account of our attitudes towards the past and future prevents treating our fear of death as unjustified. The paper looks at his argument and provides a weak defense of Le Poidevin. It says that while Burley correctly sees a tension with a non-revisionary approach to our normal emotional life, he doesn’t separate the source of that tension. This paper addresses what it is like to not have something to look forward to after death. It is
This philosophy is known as the Epicurean philosophy. Although Lucretius is very straightforward about his beliefs on how the world is created, he offers this philosophy as a personal remedy to soothe people who are afraid to die. In a way, this act is similar to Socrates’ idea of comforting his friends while he approached his death. Although the two famous philosophers both had completely different ideas about life and death, they both tried to soothe their audience about death in their own way. The Epicurean philosophy focuses on two aspects; hedonism and materialism.
Epicurus and Lucretius argued that these asymmetrical attitudes are irrational. They thought that if you believed it is not painful to miss out on life before you are born, they it should not be painful after you die, because in both situations your mind is a blank and you do not feel anything at all. I think the asymmetrical attitudes can be explained with the fact that when babies are born, they do not know anything about life and therefore do not feel any negative emotions for not having been born earlier. In contrast, when people die they have already seen years of life so they are very attached to it and suffer at the thought of not being able to keep living it.
Death is something that is inevitably going to happen in everybody’s lifetime. We see people get older every day and as we know we don’t live eternally. But should death be feared or is it harmful? That is something that nobody can know without a doubt the answer to, but two philosophers, Epicurus and Lucretius, have built their own arguments on the common assumption that death is the total annihilation of the self. Therefore, if there is no life after death, we shouldn’t fear death itself. Epicurus creates his no harm argument on the fact that after we die we no longer exist. Lucretius takes another approach where he makes a comparison using non-existence before life. If we don’t consider this time period before we come to life to be bad
I have decided to write about Epicurus’s Fear of Death. I used to think death is the most horrible thing in my life. However, I found it very interesting that Epicurus advocated that death is nothing to fear since “Death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, and then we do not exist”.
One of the most ancient mystery yet unsolved is the question pertaining to death and the afterlife. This mystery is one of the fundamental studies in both field of philosophy and religion. Comparing those who believe in a god-existing religion against those who don’t, we often see many differences in the answers relating to death. In the contrary, the similar answers to theist and atheist are evident strongly in two great thinkers and their works. The focus will be on Socrates’ speech in the Apology by Plato setting in 399 BCE and De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius 300 years later.
“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).