Abstract The paper examines the Epicurean view that death should not be feared and comparesit to Thomas Nagel's view that death is indeed something to dread. The paper argues that Epicurus' view is a more compelling one simply because death is an inevitability and Nagel expects human beings to assume a despondent, hopeless approach to human existence that pushes aside getting the most one can out of life. The paper concludes that while Nagel and Epicurus both share a love of human life and what it offers, Epicurus is unwilling to allow that existence to be shaped by gloomy thoughts.
From the Paper "To begin with, Nagel starts by pointing out that death would be an indifferent affair if people were simply to expire after a long, coma-like state. For Nagel, life is fundamentally about being "alive", about being ambulatory and able to do certain things that lie within our power to do; in effect (although Nagel does not say so explicitly) life is - or can be - essentially an expression of human autonomy, efficacy, and self-actualization. In a real sense, Nagel posits that human beings lose something or have something taken from them when they die. To put it another way, while a dead corpse is but a corpse, the real tragedy lies in the fact that the experiences, sensations, thoughts and feelings of life have been stripped from a deceased person."
Abstract The purpose of this essay is to locate and evaluate an argument in the philosophical work by Epicurus. In a letter he wrote to Menoeceus, Epicurus made an argument against the fear of death. This essay begins with a summary of the argument. Following the summary is the actual argument laid out in 9 premises. Followed by an indepth evaluation of Epicurus' claims against the irrational fear of death.
From the Paper "The Argument: In his letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus argues that death is irrelevant to life. Epicurus substantiates this claim by making the distinction that good and bad require awareness while death is the privation of all awareness. His argument suggests that a correct understanding of death will make the transience of life sufficient and satisfying by alleviating the pursuit of immortality. Epicurus further argues that a man is foolish to fear death, because death pains neither the living nor the dead. He contends that it is only the prospect of death that pains man. Epicurus equates the fear of death with the mortal anxiety associated with the anticipation of death. It follows that a wise man will not fear that which pains neither in his presence nor in its absence. Neither will a wise man seek death or cling to life, because life will not vex him and the cessation of life is not something he will perceive as bad. Therefore, if death is the fundamental impetus driving all mortal fears, and death is actually nothing to mortals, then every mortal with a correct understanding of death will fear nothing."
Abstract This paper approaches the ethical philosophies of Aristotle and Epicurus with respect to their differing approaches to the concept of "pleasure". Where Aristotle's theory of pleasure is supremely rational and foundationed in human experience, Epicurus' theory, in its applicability to otherwise inexplicable human behaviour, may serve to explain human conceptions of pleasure from an entirely different - almost irrational - and yet equally valid avenue. Our conclusion takes the path of moderation; acknowledging the significance of both perspectives, yet taking the middle road between the two ethical models.
Abstract This paper examines death as addressed by two influential philosophers, Socrates and Epicurus. These philosophers take different approaches in viewing death and both have their own distinct reasons regarding it, however they reach the same conclusion, that death should not be feared. The paper discusses how Socrates addressees the uncertainty that follows death and how death may be even more pleasant than the life we once lived, while Epicurus addressees the non-existence of death, and illustrates how death does not affect us.
From the Paper "We shall begin our examination by looking at Socrates and the various arguments he makes. Socrates, a prolific philosopher in ancient Greece, was sentenced to execution and though given the chance to escape chose to stay and accept his punishment. According to Socrates, death is the will of the Gods and they alone know what lies after death. Mankind does not have the ability to acquire such knowledge, and therefore the afterlife is unknown to man. Socrates believes that individuals fear death because they fear the unknown, he therefore concludes that "fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom" (Plato, p. 3-4). Socrates gives two possible scenarios of what the afterlife may be like: "Either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or... there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another" (Plato, p. 8). Socrates contends that there is no reason to fear an endless sleep, as it is a placid period which is pleasant to oneself."
Abstract This paper examines why, according to Epicurus and Lucretius, it is a mistake to fear death. The author analyzes the sentiments in Lucretius' didactic poem, "On the Nature of the Universe", and includes quotes from it to support her thesis.
Describes the philosophy of Epicurus, which held that a life of pleasure was the highest good. Discusses the strong moral sense that differentiates Epicureanism from Hedonism.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, 2001, $ 31.95
From the Paper "Epicureanism is a philosophy which emphasizes that freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind should be the goal of a happy life. This was the philosophy taught by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from 341 to 270 BC. Many people assume that Epicureanism is simply a devotion to pleasure, comfort, and high living with little thought for the consequences, but the truth is more complex. Indeed, this should be seen in the fact that Epicurus was seen in his lifetime and for centuries afterward as a moral reformer, for the ideas he had on how a person should live were based on his understanding of the natural world and on his beliefs about the relationship between body and soul. Epicureanism is an appealing philosophy because of its moral sense combined with its understanding of the need of the human being for a happy life as an overriding goal..."
Abstract The paper explores the meaning of life from the perspective of Karl Marx and Epicurus. The paper discusses how Marx's ideas of alienation of labor effectively reduces the significance of human existence to being synonymous with labor activity, while Epicurus argues for a broader conception of life. The paper is of the opinion that Epicurus' view is stronger and more universally applicable.
From the Paper "Karl Marx, in developing his theory of the alienation of labour, implies that the meaning of life - its "point" in other words - lies in man's labour. It is this capacity to labour with conscious purpose that makes us human. In Marx's words: "The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. The animal is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself into an object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. . . .""
"Throughout his text, Marx's choice of words imply that to be human is to be synonymous with work. For example, in explaining one consequence of the alienation of labour where workers are alienated from their work, Marx states: "The result, therefore, is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions" (Marx 51). Similarly, when describing the work or the labour itself, it is interesting to note how Marx suggests that work is at the core of our humanity. Thus, when the worker is alienated from his work: "so the worker's activity is not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self" (Marx 51)."
Abstract The focal point of Epicurean philosophy is often defined as the pursuit of pleasure and how this common misconception has led some intellectuals to criticize Epicurean philosophy as a hopelessly hedonistic attempt to satisfy unending desires. It analyzes how Lucretius's answer to the problem of unending desires in his "De Rerum Natura" is the lack of satisfaction itself. It also examines how the same type of confusion and misconception is depicted in another ancient author's work, Plato's "Symposium". Instead of only being confused about what pleasure is, no one else in the dialogue except Socrates can explain what love and pleasure are.
From the Paper "Socrates use of myth becomes the perfect catalyst to introduce his radical idea of what love is. Every other speech before his only praised love and the need to love as beautiful and nothing but wonderful. In fact, Eryximachus and Aristophanes have defined love through only the good feelings of being in love. If I boiled down Aristophanes's speech boiled down in one sentence, it would read "How beautiful it is when the two halves of a lover unite." Socrates must convincingly show how wrong this popular concept of love as beautiful is since everybody else has mistaken the promise of love for love itself, just as Lucretius faces the daunting task of exposing Roman traditional pious values for what they truly are, burdens. "
Abstract The paper discusses Thomas Nagel's understanding of the significance of death as being bad in contrast to Epicurus who does not consider death as bad. The paper argues that Nagel's argument is the more sound of the two as he recognizes the fundamental asymmetry in our valuations of life and death. The paper attempts to show how Epicurus' argument is invalid in its basic premise given its limited conception of the meaning of death.
From the Paper "Nagel's argument that death is bad is rendered particularly strong by his willingness to address opposing views from the outset, and thus carefully establish the boundaries of his argument. For example, Nagel decides to leave aside the complex debate over whether we are "immortal" in some fashion - immortality implying continuation of consciousness in one form or another - and define death as being the absence of any "conscious survival" (Nagel 31). Similarly, he is equally careful to restrict the valuation of life to one's subjectivity instead of viewing it in an objective sense. This removes complications that may come from an "objective" viewing of the valuation of life from the perspective of others (Nagel 31). Having thus carefully framed the boundaries of his argument, Nagel presents his key contention with regard to the "asymmetry" in our understanding of the significance of death versus life."
Abstract This paper examines the syncretistic or homogeneous tenets of Hellenistic religion and philosophy. It looks at how the military expansionism of Alexander the Great's Macedonian armies helped to bring about a greater knowledge of differing belief systems, which allowed greater syncretism between philosophy and religion. It also discusses how, due to the elitist and often exclusionary principles of extremist religious (Pharisees) and philosophical tenets (Aristotle and Plato), the creation of Stoicism and Epicureanism helped unify the divide between these two factions.
From the Paper "The greater part of the Hellenistic era is derivative from the invasions of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) form his native Macedonia. From about 336 BCE, Alexander the Great had conquered much of the Mediterranean and had a massive influence over the way that people thought about religion and about philosophy. Although Alexander was essentially a Macedonian he was far different from the mainland Greeks in his tolerance for other religious ideals. In many ways, he was able to integrate both aspects of religion and philosophy into a more unified system. "
Abstract In this article, the writer considers how Socrates would have responded to the tenets of the philosophical schools of skepticism, Epicureanism and stoicism, all of which emerged after the death of Socrates. The paper concludes that since Socrates searched for spiritual growth he would not have approved of any of these philosophies because they are material philosophies. Furthermore, according to the writer, although Socrates did not arrive at any positive answers, he was not a skeptic because he believed that honest questioning is the path towards wisdom and that the material pursuits are worthwhile only in as far as they lead towards wisdom.
From the Paper "The Stoics seem to be most in line with the teachings of Socrates. They do indeed claim to be followers of Socrates, and the qualities that make up Stoic virtue - wisdom, courage, temperance and justice - are what Socrates taught to be the qualities of a just an virtuous man. They see these qualities inherent in the natural order of things, and therefore imagine a transcendental rational principle - the Logos - that controls the universe along these guidelines. The Logos is seen as an absolute fixity, indifferent to the individual passions of the human being. In this wise the Stoic aims to be unmoved by either pain or pleasure. He aims to live by the four virtues, and in this wise immerses himself in the natural order of thing."
Tags: material, philosophies, spiritual, wisdom, truth
Abstract This paper explains that Plato's view of death is closely linked to his central dualistic philosophy of opposites; people are composed of a soul and a body, and death is a release from the body. The author points out that Socrates believed that identity, through the continuation of the soul, will persist eternally and, for this reason, people should not concern themselves overly with fear of death. The paper relates that Epicurus stated that to fear death is illogical, since our non-existence after death implies that we cannot be harmed or be affected by death in any way.
From the Paper "These ideas relate to Plato's philosophy of death in that he states that the central aim of philosophy is attain the ideal "truth" through the understanding of the distinction between mind and body. This means that philosophy has the same aim as death ? to separate mind from the body. ?Since death is the separation of the mind from the body, philosophy is in effect "practice" for death and philosophers should welcome death?. (ibid) This also means that we should welcome death as a means of attaining the truth that we strive for in life."
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the topic of happiness in philosophy. Specifically, it defines and describes what makes a "happy" life for philosophers Aristotle and Epicurus. Happiness is an essential part of every life, but happiness can mean different things to different people, as these two philosophers clearly indicate. It shows how happiness should be a goal for everyone and how these two philosophers illustrate how to achieve it, though in differing ways and with different outcomes.
From the Paper "Happiness is not the same concept to everyone, and Aristotle and Epicurus are no exceptions. Epicurus, who lived between 341 and 271 B.C., was an Athenian philosopher whose main theory centered on happiness and how to achieve it in life. He believed happiness would come if people did not fear death, took care of themselves, and did not indulge in desires that were not necessary (155). He felt that people were able to create, and must create, their own happiness, that it was not dependent on others. He writes, "We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it" (Epicurus 155). Epicurus' theories included theories on death, the gods, and immortality."
Abstract This essay examines the philosophical question of what defines right behavior from both the meta-ethic and normative ethics points-of-view, with special attention paid to the ideas of Classical Greek philosophers Aristotle, Plato and Epicurus. Each has a distinct take on what constitutes right or ethical behavior that is interwoven with his concept of goodness.
Abstract This paper explains that pleasure and the good is an important theme to philosophers. Various philosophers have differing ideas as to what the good life constitutes. The author points out that, in living a good life, it is important to maintain a balance regarding pleasurable activities while abstaining from extremes; however, completely abstaining from pleasure does not lead to the good life because we are not merely souls divorced from our bodies, we are whole entities. The paper analyzes the Calliclean, Aristotelian, Epicurean, and Stoicism philosophical approaches to the concept of pleasure and the good. The author concludes that the Aristotelian view on pleasure and the good seems to be the most plausible.
Table of Contents:
Theme: Pleasure and the Good
Callicles on Pleasure
Epicurus on Pleasure
Stoics on the Good
Aristotle on the Good
Analysis
Callicles on Pleasure and the Good
Epicurus on Pleasure and the Good
Aristotle on Pleasure and the Good
The Stoics on Pleasure and the Good
Conclusion
From the Paper "According to Aristotle, happiness is activity in accordance with virtue over a complete lifetime and pleasure perfects our activities. Since life is an activity, pleasure is an important aspect of life. Although Aristotle thinks that pleasure is a good, he doesn't think it is the good. Since we are rational agents, a life purely devoted to pleasure is incomplete because it allows no essential role to rational activity and mere pleasure without rational activity is not the good for a rational agent."
