Epicurus' View On Death - Essay Example

? Epicurus’ View on Death Epicurus’ View on Death Introduction Death is one of the most controversial objects of philosophic analysis. The mystery surrounding death triggers the hearts and minds of modern philosophers. Death is the real mystery and nobody can tell us for sure what we can meet in another world and if it exists for sure. Earlier theories and assumptions about death shape the basis for the development of new concepts and notions. New philosophers regularly reconsider the meaning of earlier death theories. Nevertheless, the controversy behind the issue and meaning of death continues to persist. Epicurus used to be one of the most popular philosophers, whose contribution to the meaning of death was persistently disregarded. According to Epicurus, death is neither pleasant nor painful; therefore, based on this premise, death cannot be bad. Simultaneously, the difficulty interpreting the meaning of badness should not be dismissed and, despite its value, Epicurus’ view cannot guarantee that death is bad for everyone or that death is bad at all. In the Western world, death is usually considered as an extremely bad and undesirable phenomenon. Death and mourning are inseparable, and only in rare cases death is believed to be a unique salvation for those who have lived their lives in physical or emotional tortures. Yet, more often than not, death is treated as bad and negative, a phenomenon that brings sadness and separation. Although most religions treat death as merely a transition from one spiritual state to another, most people do not find these assumptions reliable and comfortable. People are still very curious about the life after death, they want to know for sure what they can meet in another world. The relationship between death and badness tends to be considered from three different standpoints. These are the standpoints that can clarify the complexity of badness in the context of death and its implications for understanding the views of Epicurus. First, many people believe that death is universally bad, for everyone and at all times (Belshaw 2009). These people feel that dying is bad for everyone, irrespective of their age and status, including the old and the sick (Belshaw 2009). This is the view that builds on the realization of the sacredness of life, and that death deprives people of a chance to live makes it bad and inacceptable. The second view has its roots in religion and has far-reaching implications for understanding the meaning of death. This view does not accept death as the way of getting rid of tortures and life difficulties (Belshaw 2009). Based on this view, individuals should keep living, no matter how difficult their lives can be (Belshaw, 2009). In happiness and troubles, life is the greatest value that needs to be preserved and continued by all possible means. This view also implies that, no matter how difficult one’s life can be, there is also some room for making improvements (Belshaw 2009). The third view on death reduces the scope of badness in death but does not eliminate it. Simply stated, proponents of the third view realize that, at times, death may appear to be a preferable alternative to life (Belshaw 2009). Depending on the circumstances, life can be better or worse than death but, nevertheless, it is remains inherently bad (Belshaw 2009). It is no wonder that the prevailing majority of people associate death with sadness, loss, grief, and eternal separation with those who leave the world of the living and enter the world of the dead. Is it that death is as bad as many people believe it to be? Isn’t it possible to change public perceptions of death and realize that, even if death is not good, it may not be bad? Epicurus’ views on death hold a promise to clarify the situation. Despite the contribution made by Epicurus to the evolution of philosophy, his legacy in the study of death is persistently disregarded. Epicurus’ view on death is found in Letter to Menoeceus: “Accustom thyself to believe that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply sentience, and death is the privation of all sentience; … Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us,, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer.” (Rosenbaum 1986, p.218) In simple words, death in Epicurus’ view is neither good nor bad; it is neither painful nor pleasurable. Epicurus suggests that death should be taken for granted, without any excessive emotions assigned to its meaning. Objectively, Epicurus’ philosophy calls for rationalism and reason of people: since death is inevitable and cannot be avoided, there is no need to spend time on judging whether death is good or bad. Simultaneously, Epicurus’ view on death has its origins in the philosophy of hedonism, which treats pains and pleasures as the fundamental criteria of making judgments (Belshaw 2009). Epicurus claims that death is the end to life; it is also the end to human awareness (Belshaw 2009). This is why it is often associated with sleep bringing the cessation of consciousness (Fingarette 1996). In this state, individuals cannot feel pain or pleasure (Belshaw 2009). Consequentially, death as the source of badness loses its meaning and, according to Epicurus, it is an essential attribute of being a living creature (Smith 2000). The main task of every conscious individual is to live their lives in ways that make them better prepared for death (Smith 2000). The problems and controversies surrounding Epicurus’ views on death are numerous and diverse. To begin with, the view that death is not bad (although it is not good) for many seems at least counterintuitive (Belshaw 2009). If death is not bad, then the grief and rituals for those who die lose their sense and meaning; the living will have no sense mourning for the deceased (Belshaw 2009). If death is not bad, then people will not need to protect themselves from death, attend physicians and avoid runaway buses (Belshaw 2009). Intensive care units will no longer be needed and physicians will have no motivation to save people from death and disease (Belshaw 2009). Simultaneously, those who are lucky to recover from coma will be in a position worse than that in which the dead usually find themselves (Belshaw 2009). Undoubdetly, all these assumptions deny the common logic, since life is commonly regarded as the greatest asset whose sanctity cannot be denied. However, of major controversy is the issue of badness and what Epicurus considers to be bad. Epicureans associated death with non-existence; consequentially, death cannot be bad as long as those who die no longer exist. Really, a person who dies automatically disappears from the real world of daily activities. Those who die are automatically excluded from the lists of the living, but is it correct to say that being dead is the same as being absent? This is the question which Belshaw (2009) tries to answer. Looking at millions of bodies in mortuaries and cemeteries, it is difficult to say that those who die no longer exist (Belshaw 2009). From the biological viewpoint, it takes quite a long time for the body of the deceased to decompose and, even decades after their death, scarce biological remnants can be found. From the spiritual and religious viewpoint, the act of death does not mean that the deceased disappear from the hearts and minds of their relatives, friends and everyone whom they used to know while alive. Therefore, badness is not about existence and non-existence. In Epicurean view, the badness and goodness of death is interpreted in terms of the physical sensations caused by it, and if death is neither painful nor pleasurable, it can neither be good nor bad. Here, a distinction between death and dying should be made. Epicurus talks about the perceptions and sensations that occur the moment the heart stops. Therefore, when Epicurus speaks about pleasures and pains, he automatically implies the pleasures and pains that accompany the very moment of death and everything that follows it. Epicureans keep to an opinion that death is nothing; nothing follows death; this is why there is no reason fearing death (Feldman 1991). Certainly, Epicurus ignores the assumption that the act of death deprives individuals of the goods and benefits they could have enjoyed during their lives. Simultaneously, any comparisons between what could have been good or bad for a person, should he (she) have been alive, are at least inconsistent. No one can be assured that living for the dead person could be better than dying. A person who dies may be deprived of many benefits and goods but no one knows what benefits and goods are brought to that person with the event of death. For example, a person suffering from a terminal illness will, most probably, view death as the only way to reduce his (her) physical sufferings. As a result, whether death is bad or good is absolutely impossible to define. Finally, the major cornerstone in the development of Epicurean philosophy of death is the philosopher’s unawareness of what it means to be dead. In other words, Epicurus was alive when he was writing his philosophy and he could not know for sure that dying was neither painful nor pleasurable. Epicurus may be right in that death is not worth being feared of, as long as no one can escape it. It is more reasonable and rational to take death as something inevitable. It is also more reasonable to take live as worth living, with its pleasures and troubles. However, no one can reasonably assert that death is bad or good or assign different characteristics to the concept of death. Nobody can reasonably know whether death is followed by tortures or relieves. Therefore, all existing philosophies of death are nothing but a suggestion that cannot have any reasonable grounds. Despite its value, Epicurus’ view cannot guarantee that death is bad for everyone or that death is bad at all. Conclusion Death is surrounded by considerable philosophic controversies. The mystery surrounding the issue of death has never been resolved. Epicurus views death as something that is neither pleasant nor painful; for this reason, there are virtually no grounds on which death should be feared. The value of Epicurean views on death should not be disregarded: Epicurus teaches people to take death for granted, as something that cannot be escaped. Simultaneously, Epicurean philosophy of death falls short of the arguments that could support or deny the criteria of badness proposed by Epicurus. Objectively, no one can know whether death is pleasurable or painless, and this is one of the major pitfalls of Epicurean death philosophy. Despite its value, Epicurus’ view cannot guarantee that death is bad for everyone or that death is bad at all. References Belshaw, C 2009, Annihilation: The sense and significance of death, Acumen. Feldman, F 1991, ‘Some puzzles about the evil of death’, The Philosophical Review, vol.C, no.2, pp.205-227. Fingarette, H 1996, Death: Philosophical soundings, Chicago: Open Court. Rosenbaum, SE 1986, ‘How to be dead and not care: A defense of Epicurus’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol.23, no.2, pp.217-225. Smith, R 2000, ‘A good death’, British Medical Journal, vol.320, p.129. Read More