Death, and people's perception of it are a major part of many philosophies. It could be argued that the questions surrounding death and the afterlife form the basis of many philosophic concepts. To some philosophers, not only is the concept of death itself important, but also how people perceive it, and why they perceive it the way they do. Epicurus's claim that the soul is mortal, is an excellent explanation for why we should not fear death.
To understand Epicurus's philosophy on the fear of death, we fist have to understand Epicurus's perception of the universe, and why he believes the soul is mortal. Epicurus believes that the totality of the universe consists only of "bodies and void" (Letter to Herodotus 39). He says that using out senses, we can observe that there are bodies, and using reasoning we must therefore conclude that there must be something (a "void") for the bodies to exist in (Letter to Herodotus 39-40). He claims there can be nothing conceivable outside the totality, since there can be no sense-evidence of anything outside the totality (Letter to Herodotus 40). By this logic, all observable things must be bodies or combinations of bodies, of which the smallest bodies (atoms) are unsplittable (Letter to Herodotus 40).
If, as Epicurus claims, everything is either body or void, the soul must also be one of these two things. It cannot be void, as the void is nothing and can consist only of nothing, so therefore it must be a body or compound of bodies (Letter to Herodotus 63). He believes that the soul is most responsible for sense-perception, and that it must be enclosed within the body to facilitate this (Letter to Herodotus 63-64). If this is the case, it must therefore be acknowledged that the soul must exist...
... middle of paper ...
...erstand the nature of the soul are, as Epicurus says "incomparably stronger than other men" (Letter to Herodotus 83), since they will be able to understand and set aside their fears and worries about themselves after death.
Overall, I believe that Epicurus's view on the mortality of the soul and the fear of death are very plausible and hold up well under scrutiny. His basic principles on the topic are believable and well supported even if some of the premises are rejected or modified. To me, this is an argument that is not difficult to understand, but can be used even in modern discussions of the soul and death.
Works Cited
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Trans. Walter Englert. Newburyport, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, 2003.
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader. Trans. Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Mortality, the subject of death, has been a curious topic to scholars, writers, and the common man. Each with their own opinion and beliefs. My personal belief is that one should accept mortality for what it is and not go against it.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
I believe that due to morals other religions and the natural act of someone dying proves to be enough not to agree with Epictetus’. Based on other people’s religious beliefs and their moral values I do not think Epictetus’ views on death and grieving apply to everyone. Someone who believes in a certain religion is going to follow what that religion calls for when it comes to dealing with death. On the other hand, some may also have set values that call for accepting the death as is and follow the grieving process. I feel that the grieving process is not someone’s choice. I think that grieving is an instinct. The first thing that came to my mind when I lost a loved one was, no way this is real and why me. I believe that everyone grieves to a certain extent because of the instinct that his or her mind
Epicurus was a philosopher who was born in 341 BC and lasted until 270 BC. He examined the situation of death and came to the conclusion that once one is dead, no harm can be done, due to the fact that they no longer exist. Stephen E. Rosenbaum is a philosophy professor. Rosenbaum wrote the essay “How to Be Dead and Not care”, in which he explains Epicurus’ views and then defends Epicurus’ beliefs about death. The reason why he defends Epicurus, is because he’s being logical. Rosenbaum also believes that we spend too much time thinking about death, which is something we will never have to experience. However, Thomas Nagel who’s a philosophy and law professor, disagrees with both Epicurus and Rosenbaum. Nagel believes that one doesn’t have to experience
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.
Fear of the unknown, and fear of what is to come in our lives, has generations of people wondering what will our lives be like tomorrow or the next day. Death is always there and we cannot escape it. Death is a scary thing. Our own mortality or the mortality of our loved ones scares us to the point that we sometimes cannot control how we are dealing with such a thing as the thought of death. Why do we fear such a thing as death? We don’t know what happens after we don’t how it feels. The fear of death is different for most but it is most certain to come and we cannot hide from it. For death is just around the corner and maybe it’s will come tomorrow or the next day! We fear not death, but the unknown that comes from death, that is the
Socrate explains the fear of death to be irrational, as it would be ignorant to think that death was the greatest of evils and not consider it to possibly be the greatest blessing to mankind. He believes that death is either lead to and process much like sleep in which the sleeper doesn 't dream, or another in which it is like a trip where all dead souls are traveling from one place to another in which they all meet. Ultimately Socrate believes the truth to be that a good man would have no fear of what is after death as nothing can or will hurt a good man. Socrate 's view that fear of death being irrational is fair, despite arguments can be made on whether their is a heaven or hell, or an afterlife. The true argument doesn 't revolve around
Epicurus, the founder of Epicureanism, saw death as a total extinction with no afterlife to ensue, he regarded the universe as infinite and eternal and as consisting only of space and atoms; where the soul or mind is constructed of indestructible parts that can never be destroyed. He sought to free humanity from the fear of death and of the gods, which he considered the main cause of unhappiness.
All three arguments propose an intriguing account for Socrates’ claim that the soul exists past death. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach. It seems that any counterargument can be debated using at least one of the three arguments, simply begging the question.
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 showing we even exist after death.
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.
Socrates was a philosopher who was true to his word and his death was ultimately felt by his closest friends and followers. In Phaedo, Socrates is met with his closest friends during his final hours as they await his death. At this point Socrates is prepared for death and seems to welcome it. Although death may seem like a scary inevitable fate that we all must face at one point; Socrates saw death as a privilege mainly because he believed that the soul was immortal. As a result, Socrates provides arguments as to why he believed the soul was immortal and even though all his arguments lacked unconvincing evidence, he does bring up good points. In this paper I will talk about Socrates’ most and least convincing arguments on immortality, and explain what Socrates’ problem was with Anaxagoras.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
To Plato, the soul is a self mover that is not restricted to mortality. He also states that without the soul, the body would not be able to move; the soul is the provider of energy for movement in the body. Since the soul is a self mover, it is inherently a source of energy and life that depends on nothing else to exist; therefore, the soul is immortal.