Epicurus’s Death argument is very simple, and thus can be hard to refute. The basic premise is that is that no one feels any pain while they are dead, thus being dead is not a painful experience, so being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. My goal for this paper is to prove how those premises fails. In section 1 I will explain in greater detail Epicurus’s argument, in section 2 I will attack those arguments citing various theoretical examples, and in section 3 I will defend my attacks against potential rebuttals. The Epicurean Death Argument Epicurus felt strongly about his position, as is exhibited in the following quotation: “Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but …show more content…
(A2) If (1), then no one feels any pain while dead. (A3) If no one feels any pain while dead, then being dead is not a painful experience. (A4) If being dead is not a painful experience, then being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. (A5) Therefore, being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. A1 and A2 are easily granted points. Once one is dead he certainly ceases to exist and because of this feels no pain. A4 is where more of the controversy comes in. Epicurus makes a big jump by correlating pain and badness together. It can be granted that being dead is not a painful experience, but to say that because it is not painful it is not bad for the person who died is highly controversial. This is the point I will argue in the paper. A4 rests on a very faulty premise and thus A5 must be revised. Section 2: Arguing The Epicurean Death Argument Epicurus was admittedly a Hedonist, and this philosophy has had a huge influence on his work. Especially so on his death argument. Hedonism is, “the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself for a person, pain the only thing that is bad in itself for a person.” …show more content…
Eating the candy is at first a very enjoyable experience. It is intrinsically good, but will cause serious pain later. Eating the candy will lead to later pain, thus eating the candy is extrinsically bad. So, it is clear that something can simultaneously be intrinsically good as well as extrinsically bad. This distinction does pertain to the Epicurean argument. It is logical and sound for an individual to believe that since being dead in itself is not a painful experience, death is not intrinsically bad. But the issue arises when it comes to extrinsic badness. To imply that pain and badness are interrelated in death, as Epicurus does, is a problem. There are many things that are extrinsically bad, such as verbal bullying or the death of a parent, that do not cause physical pain. Thus, death can be extrinsically bad despite not causing any
In Thomas Nagel’s work, Death, he argued that death is bad. In this essay, I will present Nagel’s thesis and explain how Nagel believes that death is harmful. Then I will address the three objections and rebuttals provided in his paper. Finally, I will evaluate Nagel’s response to the asymmetry objection.
Epicurus. (2010). Letter to Menoeceus and The Principle Dotrines. In S. Brennan, & R. J. Stainton, Philosophy of Death Introductory Readings (pp. 163-171). Canada: Broadview Press.
In Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus writes to Menoeceus on the philosophy by which he follows with regards to creating pleasure while avoiding pain. That is, Epicurus argues that the ultimate meaning of life hinges on our perception of happiness and consequences, which are directly affected by our choices. For example, Epicurus describes this perception of the ultimate meaning through death. He states that death is, by logic, harmless to no one since when one is dead, he/she ceases to exist. Thus, nothing can harm him/her if he/she no longer exist, including death. Therefore, it is irrational and dangerous to “shun death” (Epicurus, 50) since it is only hurtful to people, who extensively ponder on it. Epicurus maintains that not thinking about death leads to happiness while the consequences of thinking about death leads to sadness. Furthermore, Epicurus discusses several consequences overly pursuing pleasure. For instance, he argues that we must not always decide on the basis of immediate pleasure and immediate pain
person lives the more apparent the truth of demise. With birth comes pain; with living comes
Epictetus made many excellent points on how he believes would be the best way for people to live though there were a point or two where I differed from his opinion on how life should be lived. One point of differing would be at passage eleven when he is saying that you should just believe that you are giving something back when it is taken from you. I don’t think this is quite the best way to go about anything since it would, more or less, just be someone saying that their own property or the people around them don’t matter to them in the least. I think that it is far too much an emotionless state to be in to think like this about everything around you.
for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a
The Stoic and Epicurean philosophies both made major impacts on all of Greek and Roman thought, although they were very different. Epicureans solely endeavored to obtain pleasure. They also believed that the world was filled solely of atoms and the void in which they are surrounded. They thought that life ended after death, with no afterlife or god to fear. Stoics on the contrary were indifferent to all types of pleasure, often putting themselves in danger for their beliefs. Stoics lived according to nature claiming that it was in conformity with the divine order of the universe. Epicurean philosophy defined the time in which it was created, where life was thought only to be full of pleasure without any fear punishment in any life after death, while Stoic philosophy went against the normal desires of humans to seek pleasure.
The Enchiridion and The Letter to Menoeceus by Epicurus have a few similar themes between them. One of these themes is their viewpoint on death, which I happen to share: Death is not something to be feared, but just an event which will inevitably come to pass.
Life in its simplest sense is essentially a characteristic that distinguishes the animate and self-sustaining creations of the universe from the inanimate ones. Death, without associating with human emotion and sentiment, is only the ceasing of such characteristics. Life in a human is clearly far more complex compared to the other existing forms on this planet. The ability to think, along with the possession of higher conscious and greater awareness of its surroundings, makes a human somewhat special in certain aspects. The life of a human, differentiated by its intelligence, makes the experiences stimulating and exhilarating. Pain, an experience felt by a human and restricted only to the living world, is an indicator of damage and in many cases the very cause for death. Most living organisms blessed with the ability to detect pain and use this sensory tool involuntarily to avoid its own destruction or death. For a human, pain could be emotional, psychologic...
To fully understand Epicurus’s argument, known as the problem of evil, we must first understand four basics statements about God. Firstly, God has unlimited power. Secondly, God has unlimited knowledge. Thirdly, God has unlimited love. Finally, evil exists. According to Epicurus, these statements are contradictory to each other; therefore, he presents the idea that God does not exist. The problem of evil has the following format.
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
Early in the letter, Epicurus states that is never too early or late to learn. In the to letter Menoeceus, Epicurus explains that Menoeceus should live his life according to certain doctrines that Epicurus created. By doing so, Epicurus informs Menoceus that if he does follow these principles, then his life will be full of happiness and pleasure. Epicurus includes that maintaining the goal in life is to seek pleasure, and the avoid pain. Epicurus seems to push his views about the nature and the value of life, specifically talking about death. Epicurus argues that it is irrational to fear death because it does not harm you, so why fear what cannot harm or cause you pain. Epicurus believes that only pleasure and pain can define a person’s life,
middle of paper ... ... uper’s argument he is missing the point of Epicurus’s argument, which Rosenbaum has further explained. Of the two arguments Rosenbaum’s argument arguably has more points to back up the epicurean view than Luper’s. Luper’s is based on assumptions and we cannot live on assumptions.
Over the course of history, death has remained an ambiguous mystery that philosophers have attempted to decipher. Socrates, in particular, provides us with great insight into the nature of death. Socrates’ definition of death is “…namely, that the body comes to be separated by itself apart from the soul, and the soul comes to be separated by itself apart from the body” (Phaedo 64c). Because of the inevitability of all humans having to one day come to terms with their own deaths, Socrates found it necessary to devote his life to the study of the soul in relation to death. In doing so, he not only learned about the soul but prepared his own soul for the fate that
The question of whether death is bad for the individual passing away, was first introduced by the Greek philosopher, Epicurus. He concluded that death should not be feared as ‘where death is, I am not; where I am, death is not’. Epicurus believed that the study of philosophy can aid us in living happier and more pleasant life. Epicurus was a hedonist, who determined that the