When we are dead we are not afraid, for it is a state of unconsciousness and the end to any and all sensation, therefore there is neither pleasure nor pain. He explains that we fear death because we incorrectly assume that there is awareness during death. Epicurus logically explains, “Since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist” (29). When addressing a sen... ... middle of paper ... ...dressed when mentioning the nature of death. If sacrificing one’s own morals and inherent nature is Epicurus’ and Epictetus’ route to achieving ataraxia it is not worth it, nor is it possible.
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.
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
When Thomas Nagel introduces how he understands death to be bad, he first makes a definition of what ‘death’ is assumed to be. He makes it clear that after death we are not to accept, for the purpose of the argument, that we, or our consciousness is to exist in an immortal form. We must accept death to be the end of ourselves and our conscious survival, a permanent death. Thus the question, if death is the permanent end of our existence, is it a bad thing? Before we look at an answer we must clarify one more thing, Nagel does not take into consideration the impact of death has on others, as it does not benefit the argument, Nagel wants to know why death is bad for the individual alone.
Death Death is believed to be the end of all and the great equalizer. People accept and reject death for different reasons. “There is conspicuous disagreement about the matter: some people think death is dreadful; other have no objection to death per se, though they may hope their own will be neither premature nor painful.” (Nagel). Which then a question need to be asked is “Is death bad for the one that is in the state of being dead”? Nagel believes that death can be bad for the dead on the assumption that there is no afterlife, death is permanent and you will no longer exist after death.
I think this because we do not know what death really is. We do not know what will happen when we die. It could be good or it could be bad, but Socrates believes that we should not fear things that we do not know about. We should only fear things that we know are bad and want the things that we know are good. When we do this with death, it is clear that we do not know about it and should not fear it.
Introduction Epicurus believed that death was not a misfortune. He Believed that once an individual passes away, he or she looses their wordily sensation. He drew that sensation is a necessary condition of value to a person, so without it, the person will not sense, therefore be incapable of feeling. Contemporary philosophers however object this theory. Arguing that death is bad precisely because it deprives a person of good experiences which one could not possibly experience when deceased.
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.
While we know death as being without life and marking the end of a life, Heidegger thought death was also a different interpretation of what death is. Heidegger presents a radically different interpretation of death because in Being and Time, death is not just about the end of existence. Recognizing the inevitable certainty of one’s death also reveals something which is more important than this simple fact. Heidegger’s aims in the first part of Being and Time is to discuss and discover the deeper aspect of death in regards to its relation to life. Heidegger did not accept that death was simply not the end of life as the final end of everything (for life, at least).
His theory is known as deontological, or duty-based, where ends can never justify the means.He believed that there were general rules which must be adhered to in every circumstance. He called these absolute rules of what is good or bad 'Categorical imperatives'. These rules were rationally determinable. Individuals must never be reduced to the level that they are a convenience for the happiness of someone else. So in the case of euthanasia, a person's inconvenience in having to look after a terminally ill relative is no good reason for that relative's life being ended early.