Death is a common topic of speculation and frequently anxiety. In the time that Epicurus was laying out his way of life and sharing it with others this was the case. Epicurus, though, claimed that we should not fear death because, “Death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist” (Letter to Menoeceus, 125). Death is frightening to people for many reasons: they do not know what to expect from death, they fear the punishment of gods, they dread not accomplishing certain things in life, etc. Epicurus argues that when we die we no longer exist. If we no longer exist then this state is not a bad one and if somehow it were, we would not exist to experience it. So, death is not an experience to dread at any point in life.
The strongest arguments that Epicurus makes about death stem from his belief that the soul is material and mortal. This may also be the most contentious argument he makes. As an empiricist, Epicurus relied on his senses to provide him with the information he used to make judgments and evaluations about the world around him. Epicurus believed in the soul and believed that the soul provided locomotion to the body as well as created facial expressions and the like. For the soul to do this, however, the soul must be material. Here is a simplified argument for materialism that would have been in line with Epicurus thinking about the soul:
- Soul and body can causally interact only if souls are material
- Soul and body do causally interact.
- Therefore, souls are material.
Epicurus thought that an argument claiming the soul was immaterial, or as he said: “incorporeal,” made little sense because something that was of the void could neither act or be acted upon and the soul both acts and is acted upon (Letter to Herodotus, 67).
This materialistic view of the soul leads Epicurus to his most profound argument for not fearing death. If the soul dies when the body dies there is no reason whatsoever to fear death, because we simply will not exist to experience it. Once again Epicurus looks to his senses to provide him with knowledge of the world and draws conclusions from it about the soul. When people die they no longer have locomotion, they decay and the warmth leaves their bodies. The material soul must scatter with death and leave the body cold and no longer hold it together. As an atomist, Epicurus would claim that all the elements, atoms, of the body are simply dispersed back into the world – including the soul. This eliminates the possibility of sense-perception, since the soul only has access to sense perceptions while it is within the body and through the body has access to the sense organs. Emotional response is impossible for the disembodied soul for the same reasons, so death is not a pain in either capacity. Any fears about eternal afterlives of punishment and discontent are dissipated with the atoms of the soul. Without the notion of an eternal soul people can get down to the business of living well and experience life. It does no good for a person to dwell on death because it will have no effect on them once it is upon them. If a person acknowledges this and attempts to live according to Epicurean philosophy then they will have a chance at eudaimonia. Some might acknowledge this and still fear death. They may fear non-existence.
Why should we fear non-existence? Some might claim that not existing means not experiencing pleasure and missing out on important things in life. Some may argue that the end of a good life cannot possibly be a good thing. Epicurus might simply point to the previous argument and claim that we will not experience non-existence, then further claim that we should not dread some pain that we will not experience. There are two arguments that appeal to reason in hopes to convince us that we should not fear non-existence or death. One is an argument from symmetry (Analogy):
- Our pre-vital and post-mortem non-existence are directly analogous.
- Hence, it is rational for us to fear our post-mortem non-existence
- only if it is rational for us to fear our pre-vital non-existence.
- 3. It is not rational to fear our pre-vital non-existence.
4. Hence, it is not rational for us to fear our post-mortem non-existence.
The other argument appeals to rationality in another way, claiming that it is not rational for us to fear an event or time we will not exist to experience:
- A subject S can rationally fear at t1 some state of affairs at t2 only if S will exist at t2.
- We go out of existence at the moments of our deaths.
- Hence, it is not rational for us to fear death.
Epicurus argues that we do not have sensory experience before we are born, we do not recall it, we are not conscious of it and we have no memory of our non-existence before life (Introduction, ix). These things being true we have no reason to fear non-existence after life, which will be just the same as non-existence before life. Some might argue that these are not true analogues and that we should, in fact, fear non-existence after life because it is somehow different to not exist after existing than it is to not exist before existing.
Attempting to somehow differentiate between two states of non-existence seems absurd. It does not appear to me that you can qualify, or make conditional, non-existence. It is not as if our non-existing self will have memories or feelings with which to fondly recall things from life it is no longer experiencing. Anyone who at this point wishes to argue about what the non-existing will feel and remember is to re-read the argument from materialism. Thomas Nagel raises the point that non-existence after death is different because, “death entails the loss of some life that its victim would have led had he not died at that or any earlier point” (Nagel, 7). However, Epicurus would respond to this counter-argument by stating that we no longer exist to experience the deprivation of life and therefore could not be bothered by it. The point of the latter argument above is that: it is not rational to fear an event or time which we will not experience. Some anxiety about the future for various reasons can promote a will to do good things that will carry on, but to dread things in the future that we will not experience, things which may never happen, etc. is completely irrational. Fearing death falls into this category. Fearing an experience that we will not have is hard to justify. It makes just as much sense to fear death as it does to fear something that will happen two-thousand years from now.
Dualism presents the strongest potential counter-argument to Epicureanism. If the soul did exist apart from the body then, potentially, we could experience something after death. I find no argument for dualism particularly convincing, but should we grant that the soul exists apart from the body it does not damage Epicureanism that severely. Any further claim about the soul after death cannot be supported by a rational argument. If we grant that the soul exists after death many of Epicurus’ thoughts still apply. The soul without a body could not experience physical pain – as it would not be a physical object – and so we could not fear physical pain after death. Furthermore, if we were disconnected from our physical body we would have no means for experiencing the world in any meaningful way. We would not be able to observe those still alive, nor could we communicate with them. We would not somehow see what we were missing out on, without a brain to store memory we would not even know, in a real sense, that something was amiss. If some immaterial aspect of ourselves just drifts about the world after we are dead we still have no rational reasons to fear that state. It makes no more sense to fear death now than it did before we granted the soul immaterial status.
~Quincy
Excellent post, Quincy!
I do have a brief question, though.
It seems to me that fear as such is future-oriented. I cannot fear something past, so it seems. If this is true of the nature of fear, does this harm the pre-vital analogy, since it would never make sense to fear ones pre-vital state to begin with because fear is directed towards the future?
-Jennifer
Thanks Jennifer, your question in a previous post actually led to this one.
I think your question points to a need to clarify two things:
1)Fear – I think fear can be either of a present event, state, etc. or of a perceived future event, state, etc., but the kind of fear that Epicurus is talking about seems different. This isn’t a fear about something we have a distinct impression of: it’s nature is mysterious, our state during it is mysterious, etc. I may peer down the dark alley and fear potential peril, but this is to be considered apart from a fear of dark alleys in cities I will never visit or traverse.
2)The argument from analogy – I think Epicurus is only discussing the state of non-being, which he claims we experience pre-vital and post-mortem. I think if you look at the reasons for your claim: “I cannot fear something past,” many of those reasons would extend well into reasons not to fear death. Few people express anxiety over the fact that they did not exist before they did. I think the analogue is not so much the fear experienced, or not, in the two cases, but the non-existence.
I think a potential weakness of the argument from analogy is the introduction of qualified non-existence, i.e., pre-vital and post-mortem, where these concepts can only exist in our discussion and point to nothing meaningful in reality. Non-existence is non-existence, if it has the features that Epicurus describes then temporal distinctions become moot.
Fear seems like one of those sticky concepts (phenomenologically), so I’m really not dismissing your question…just struggling to find a response that I think would fit with the rest of Epicurus’ reasoning.
[...] Here is an interesting essay on Epicurus, and whether it is reasonable to fear death. It’s on the [...]
Thanks for the clarifications.
I actually have a really good friend who subscribes to this position. Not only, according to my friend, should we not fear death, we should fell nothing about it—no fear, no happiness—because death is non-existence. My friend even takes a hard line when it comes to our own decomposition—we shouldn’t be disturbed about our own future decay because when that happens we will be nothing.
I wondered, however, when I read your post, about some of my other friends who agree with Epicurus in some ways (e.g. the soul is material; one cannot, by definition, experience death; fearing ones own pre-vital state is silly), but who fear their own death. What sense can be made of those intuitions?
Interesting stuff.
-Jennifer
Hi, all — I still think there is some reason to fear death (or if not exactly to fear it, then perhaps to loathe it or dread it or despair over it). Surely it’s not because of the experience of death since, as Epicurus notes, we won’t experience it (just everything up until it). Rather, it is because of the inevitable loss of some good. Consider this rephrasing of Nagel’s point. If someone offered me the choice between one more day to live and two, I’d pick two. And if between two days and three days, three. Now my future offers me x days to live; and I’d rather have x+1, or (even better) x+2, and so on. Whatever x is, it is less than I wish I had. So (?) I despair over not having more: not because after death I’ll be moping about and whining, but because right now I wish I had more of the good than I do (x+n instead of x). This seems reasonable, doesn’t it?
I think there’s a bit of an ambiguity in the discussion that should be cleared up, and may show that there’s much less disagreement between, e.g., Quincy and Charlie, than it may appear. It seems to me that what Epicurus meant when he said that we should not fear death was that we should not fear the state that we will be in after death. The reason for this is obvious, on Epicurus’ view: there is no state that we will be in after death, since upon death we cease to exist. This seems to be Quincy’s point as well, and I think it is quite convincing. Still, as Charlie points out, we do seem to have reason to have some negative feeling toward the prospect of dying sooner rather than later. There is an obvious sense in which dying young is much worse than dying after living a full, happy, and morally good life. Now this does not mean that fear is the appropriate attitude to have toward the prospect of an early death. Quincy’s claim that one can fear a dark alley that she is currently looking down without fearing dark alleys in places she will never visit is helpful here. I may have no desire to walk through any dark alley, and I may legitimately feel fear when confronted with a dark alley that I must cross in order to get where I’m going. But when I’m simply living my life, I ought not fear dark alleys generally, even if there is the chance that, at any time, I may find myself forced to traverse one. Entertaining such fear would disrupt my ability to live my life, and therefore is something to be avoided.
Finally, a brief comment on Charlie’s point, which I find convincing, but only up to a point. It’s true that most of us, even those of us who live quite long, will die without doing all of the things that we’d like to do; so most of us would indeed choose to live longer were we given the option. But I’m not convinced that it would be rational to choose to live indefinitely longer, so I’m not convinced that if it’s rational to choose to live X+3 more days, that it’s necessarily rational to choose to live, for example, X+1,000,000,000,000 more days. This is true, I think, whether we consider a case in which we would continue to age, or a case in which we would remain at some highly desirable age (Bernard Williams chose age 44, if I remember correctly, in his excellent article “The Makropolous Case”, in which he dealt with this issue; Williams’ cleverly subtitled the article “On the Tedium of Immortality”, and I think there’s something importantly right about his central claim, which this subtitle reflects).
Charlie and Brian raise some good points.
Brain: I have a good deal of sympathy for what you are saying.
You say that generally you ought not go around fearing dark alleys because that would hinder you living your life. I have a question about this, if you don’t mind.
I assume what you mean is you think it’s alright for you or someone else to fear a dark alley if you (or that pesky someone else) happened upon one. But to just go around fearing dark alleys is silly, at best, or hinders a well-lived life, at worst.
My question is this:
Assuming I stated your position correctly, do you think the same thing about death?—i.e. That it’s alright to fear it if it’s in your face, but to have a generalized fear of death is no good.
-Jennifer, who hopes her comment appears in the right order this time, which is after Brain’s.
Just a quick reply to Brian’s thoughtful post: I agree, “n” must have some sort of limit in the “x+n” formula! Jennifer, good question.
Excellent discussion all. A few points that may address general concerns:
Epicurus would tell us that if we have the correct attitude about death, then we will not fear it when confronted with it, nor will we dread it while we are alive. Other aspects of Epicurean philosophy come into play here: a. what’s good is easy to get, and b. what’s bad is easy to endure.
Epicurus would say that even with a potentially painful death before us, the pain would be short-lived and the respite after would be devoid of discomfort (obviously, as you no longer exist to be in discomfort).
The other aspect of Epicurean thought allows one to live a life full of pleasures and free from dread of death, which is not present (and if it is, you no longer exist to experience it).
On some levels it seems like a simplification, but I think Epicurus takes all these questions into consideration. The concern we are left with is this: is it within the bounds of human nature to embrace these views fully?
Quincy: Yes, I admit I have departed from Epicurus here. Your final point touches on (one reason) why Epicurus and I must part ways as soon as we meet.
-Jennifer
Jennifer,
To answer your question, I think fearing death in Epicurus’ sense, that is, fearing the state one will be in after death, is always irrational, even if one is staring death in the face. What one can have reason to have some negative feeling (perhaps not fear) toward is the prospect of missing out on the valuable experiences that one would have were she to live longer. Having such feelings is, I think, appropriate when one is actually facing the prospect of an early death. But if one is not facing such a prospect, then I think entertaining such feelings about what might or might not occur will be much like fearing dark alleys when one is simply living one’s everyday life and has no reason to believe that she will actually have to travel through any dark alleys. Entertaining these kinds of feelings can seriously hinder one’s ability to live a good life. For example, someone with a powerful fear of dying an early death may refuse to do certain things, such as driving on the freeway or going out at night, that for most people contribute to their well-being.
My fear of death is what stops me doing stupid things – isn’t it? Driving too fast, walking at night through rough neighbourhoods (not that we have those in Cheltenham..), eating too much fast food, etc…
I like to think that a certain fear of death is moderately healthy. Were it to be an extreme morbid dread- that might be less useful.
Lack of a fear of death – might that not leed to rather a reckless life? If I don’t fear death – why do I wear a helmet when I cycle (other than to look like an idiot, of course)? Maybe it is not that I fear death, but that I love life…?
Mind you isn’t a love of life equivalent to hate (if not fear) of death?
Dave, I would need serious convincing to believe that a love of life is equivalent to a hate of death.
~Q
Well, I am off to Greece for a week – but as I board that plan, I will be thinking about much I would hate for it to crash! And much I love to get out of a non-moving plane at the other end!
Quincy – I think, more seriously, that you may be right here – but how should a lover of life relate to death?
One topic that baffles me is self-awareness. I am aware of myself and I am aware that I am aware. The world seems external to me, but I am aware of it through my senses. I am aware that there seems to be others that are also self-aware. My dog seems self-aware, but probably not aware of being self-aware.
As to death and fear of death. The world did not exist to me before conception, then it birthed into my awareness. At death, my self-awareness has a terminal just as in birth (maybe). The world ends … to me (maybe). Other beings with self-awareness (maybe) try to convince me that the mountain near my home was there long before I was born (”On Certainty”), but it certainly came into my awareness recently.
What is this self-awareness thing?
Many days I avoid the deadly situations. Other days a quick exit would be welcome (Job et al.) I am not so sure that I fear death. I do fear the painful exit.
When I think of the past I have great regret and great joy. When I think of death I can have great regret at missing great joys like future grandkids, etc. I can have great joy at the possibility of missing tiring tragedies like the dementia growing in my father.
It seems to me that fear of death is often related to the pain of exit. Regret and joy of a future death is related to perceived possibilities and is similar to our regret and joy of our past awareness.
Just rambling thoughts.
Thanks for your thoughts Vince. I think that you are on to something in your reflection on self-awareness. Most often being aware of being aware is a necessary component of the “Moral Agent,” at least in my limited experience. I think in some way this meta-awareness is what causes these questions about death and non-existence.
Certainly it seems that many self-aware organisms exhibit a reluctance to pain and a desire for pleasure, but the dread of death is hard to attribute.
Perhaps it is our ability to recognize and reflect on past and future states that makes this question so meaningful and perplexing. If the inevitable end is death, then why the stress?
Just a brief return to Epicurus: I believe that an Epicurean response would explain that living according to Epicurean principles would maximize happiness and minimize suffering (stress) so that when death comes it is accepted as any other stress and easily handled. Once again, I think the question lies in the human ability to fully embrace this position.
Dave – I think there are a number of ways for a lover of life to relate to death. Perhaps a spiritual approach allows a comfort that is lost when simple non-existence is the supposed end. There are any number of religions that provide practitioners with views of death that are “acceptable” and not to be dreaded. I might argue that in some ways this is a fundamental aspect of religion.
Many lovers of life might simply tell you that they will embrace death when it is upon them because they are in the practice of living every moment to its fullest potential (live each moment as if it were your last, so to speak).
I think it is the kind of question that is foundational to attitudes about life, the world, etc.
Thanks,
~Q
Hello all,
Interesting discussion. Though I agree that death should not be feared, I would offer Arthur Schopenhauer’s argument (specifically, his essay “The Indestructibility of Being”) as a more modern alternative to Epicurus.
Mark Simpson
You just addressed by biggest fear in life; not living, not existing in death. I believe we just end. And for some reason, it scares the hell out of me. You are right; we return to the state before we were born. I should not fear. Thanks — excellent thoughts and writing.
Hello,
I am a normal 29 year old man. well alittle over weight. Marrid, one kid (10), part time job, back in school…. but the last 2 or 3 weeks i have been obsesing over death. It seemed to com out of no where. I must think about my death 20 times a day, and i feel panic….. it has gotten so bad, that if i do not worry about it,, i think something is wrong, the worrying has become comforting. Like if i keep worrying nothing will happen to me. i was raised Luthren, but have never really belived in the aftr life….. anyway, please help me. This is starting to scare me and affect my life big time. Is there anything i can do, or anything i can read to help me. I can not realy aford to talke to a therapist.
Thanks,
e-mail me at dustinthechampp@aol.com
i belive that its not death we fear but rather the loss of the existance that we have and enjoy. surly no one happy with there lives would choose nothingnes over a perfectly fullfilling self aware life. then on the other hand there are thoughs prople who choose nothingnes over life because they feel there life is not fullfilling. also im am not religous i hate religon i think it is fake and causes more problems then good but….. just what if there is a god…. and thus an afterlife where we will be held acountable for our actions no one knows for sure now theres no definitive proff proving religon right but there are some interesting things and a whole lot of belivers…
According to Schopenhauer, pain and suffering is the positive (not in the emotively evaluative sense) experience in life, while “happiness” is negative insofar as it is merely the absence of suffering, so under such conditions, surely “nothingness” could conceivably be preferable–in any case, you could argue (as S did) that humans are quite ill-adapted (at least in our present state) to “enjoying life”
Surely many (for example) WWII concentration camp inmates wished they had never been born
““happiness” is negative insofar as it is merely the absence of suffering,” –
is this all there is to happiness? I think in some cases – maybe.. nonetheless happiness may need a more complex typology to reflect its diversity.
Bliss is more positive, and so might be joy – whereas contenment seems another kind of thing altogether. When I am (ocassionally) happy – I would rarely equate that to being in a state of ecstasy. Also, I may take the view that in my misanthropy and nihilism I derive from them a kind of satisfaction that is akin to a rather perverse form of happiness/contenment…
Re: “Happiness”, I ran across this quote from Schopenhauer:
“There is no more mistaken path to happiness than worldliness, revelry, high life.”
Our Relation to Others, Sec. 24
which, of course, provides excellent reasoning for my argument that “happiness” (without digressing into a linguistic debate) is not the best thing in life, i.e. see the following:
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars…”
–Jack Kerouac
“The path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom” –William Blake
“I wouldn’t recommend sex, drugs, or insanity for everyone, but they’ve always worked for me.” –Hunter S Thompson
Decadence (not in the Nietzschean but the contemporary sense) versus asceticism–I vote for decadence, of course, in the final analysis Nietzsche is (as always) on point:
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
I do not fear death. I fear the things that are worse then death, those being continued existence in a more unpleasant state. I stay awake thinking about what terrible non-life threating event could happen. My emotions have been robbed through years of unpleasant events and I feel stuck in a fog, I do not feel. I exist without sensation and emotion, its like being dead but being aware of it. For this reason I do not fear death and sometimes have considered it welcome.
If your consciousness and/or awarness continues after you die, what then? Do we just drift around in a vast nothingness? If we are aware, isn’t that a fate worse than death?
Might there not be limitations on the human biological brain that prevents us from remembering our existence pre-birth?
Impending death is like hanging at the end of an rope that is unraveling and fraying. It’s inevitably going to give out. Is there someone there to catch you? Or do you just hurtle into an abyss of nothingness?
Why not consider the idea of a supreme being? The universe didn’t just spontaneously erupt out of oblivion. Something had to have always been here. Why couldn’t that “something” be God?
Compared to eternity, the 80-100 years we are alive on earth is nothing more than blip. The life that we know on earth is not the good stuff; the good stuff comes after you die. Don’t covet and hold onto materialistic things. Look forward to the spirtual existence to come.
Human existence is limited compared to eternital existance. It’s like looking through a dirty window all your life, and thinking “this is great!” And then you die and God cleans the window and you see much greater, brighter, more colorful and vibrant things. We are merely visitors here. This is not our true home.
As C.S. Lewis postulated, our lives here are comparable to living in a statue shop. After you die, the statues come to life.
I would recommend reading “The Great Divorce” by Mr. Lewis.
Hi Jeff, thanks for your comments. I’d like to stay focused on Epicurus in my response.
It seems to me that you raise a number of interesting questions, but Epicurus’ (and my) question will be: just what inclines you to suppose one over the other? Which is to say, why presuppose eternal life after earthly death instead of presupposing that there is a complete cessation of sensory input and experience?
Epicurus bases his line of reasoning on empirical evidence and a number of complex questions that still confound metaphysicians.
It isn’t clear to me that a consciousness or awareness has ever existed apart from a physical being…though this would be incredible evidence worth considering. Epicurus’ point regarding this matter raises similar concerns: how does an awareness or consciousness experience anything unless it has a bridge into the physical world (of experience) through a body?
I grant that there may be limitations to the human brain that prevent us from recalling time before our birth, though I am not clear on how this advances your position?
Spontaneous eruption out of oblivion seems to be a reasonable origin for some (Hawking).
Epicurus would argue that there are a number of ways to experience a good life while alive, none of which praise materialism or attachment. Unless there is good empirical evidence to think that we maintain perception (somehow) after bodily death, talk of rewards in the afterlife or of a true experience awaiting after death are merely speculative.
On a side note, it is not clear to me that being in a physical body precludes having a spiritual experience or life.
Regarding your C.S. Lewis quote and my personal reading of Epicurus. If life is comparable to living in a statue shop then we ought to do our best to enjoy those statues in the fullest way possible – since those statues are all we have empirical evidence for and direct experience of, they might as well be all that constitutes our reality. If we take that approach, then isn’t it likely that we will live a life of great enjoyment and reward without having focused on the potential of our statues coming to life?
~Q
The act of death is a minimal concern, but most everyone has some apprehension of “what happens after death.” Surely even the best of people have stumbled in life a bit, and we hear of consequences for every failing. Death is the biggest “unknown” of all, so most have some fears of “what happens after death.” I don’t understand anyone who truly feels there is no God. This world did not come about by some explosion of nothing. Nonetheless, many people, including those who feel right with God, find death terrifying, as death is the greatest mystery of all.
The greatest comfort I have found is in seeing that hundreds of prophesies came true, and not one thing has been shown to be untrue in the Bible. Therefore, when we are told things by Jesus and in the Bible, we can trust in Him and His word. He has never been untrue, so when he says He will never leave us or forsake us, and other promises, we can trust in Him and His Word.
Fear of the unknown is incredibly powerful, and death can be surrounded by so many unknown variables. Although making peace with God eliminates the fear of meeting God, it doesn’t eliminate the mystery of death itself. Death is still an unknown commodity. We still don’t know every specific of what will happen at the time of our death. Yet, we can now have the confidence that things will be okay. We can have the confidence that the God who cares for us will be there to catch us in this fall. However, the time to get right with God is now, as we are not promised tomorrow. And, in doing so, not only ever increasing rewards are promised for eternity (crowns) but your blessings in this life are sure to increase abundantly. So read your Bible. It is God’s Word on the path to heaven and a blessed life here on earth.
Death isn’t mysterious at all. As Schopenhauer aptly observed, in death, you become what you were before you were born–nothing (and everything–Schopenhauer has some interesting metaphysical commitments). Some find this terrifying I guess. An eternity of nothingness, which precludes things like religious discussion, actually makes me somewhat pleased about my prospects for an “afterlife” (or lack thereof, as you may interpret it).