I always feel this vague frustration when reading about Epicurus.
Now, Im not especially well versed in Epicureanism, so please correct me if and when I astray, but here is my argument why Epicureanism is actually more afraid of death than the rest of us, even though it explicitly advocates for releasing oneself of the fear of death.
For Epicurus, the purpose of life is pleasure and absence of suffering.
Absence of suffering IS pleasure, and complete absence of suffering is maximal pleasure.
In death, there is no experience at all.
(From 3.) in death there is no suffering.
(From 2. and 4.) The difference between death and maximal pleasure is the quite incidental fact of being alive.
Therefore, actually being alive seems to have been demoted to a secondary, not substantive role.
Which, to me, implies that Epicurus himself was so afraid of death that life itself had to be devalued as a defense.
I want to begin by saying this is not quite what epicurus said. For epicurus a good life is one that comes from enjoying pleasures without fear ( Principle Doctrine 3) It is a stroll in the garden while enjoying good company and a modest meal. The calm enjoyment of pleasure.
Death on the other hand is the disolution of our body and the absence of sensation. Epicurus says that we should not fear death because we do not feel anything when sensation ceases ( Principal Doctrine 2)
However, you are right that some people appear to believe that attachment is the source of all suffering and therefore there is no reason to fear death.
Your question is quite properly put to them. In their desire to conquer suffering do they risk depriving us of all joy in life.
[10th century AD] Omar Khayyam may have been influenced by [4th century BC] Epicurus :
A Book of Verses underneath the Bough, A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread — and Thou Beside me singing in the Wilderness — And Wilderness were Paradise enow!
____ Rubaiyat
Got it, thanks!
So you are saying that absence of suffering is not pleasure by itself, but a way of achieving pleasure. The dead do not feel pleasure, therefore life is better than death.
This way of putting it remains perplexing to me, however.
Epicurus does say that we have different kind of pleasures, that come in grades of desirability. Immediate pleasures should not be pursued since they lead to suffering. The maximally desirable pleasure is “static” pleasure, which comes as the outcome of painlessness.
Now, why is this so, if the main desired outcome is just pleasure? Pleasure is quantifiable in the same way as money, 100 one dollar bills is the same as a hundred dollar bill.
What reason is there to choose static pleasure (which sounds a lot like pure absence of suffering by the way) over many immediate pleasures, if the sole outcome desired is max pleasure?
Point being, absence of suffering must have a primary character in order for there be a reason to choose one kind of pleasure over some others, which seems to be what Epicurus insists we do. And if one says absence of suffering is necessary and sufficient to result in pleasure, well, then I ask what distinguishes absence of suffering from pleasure?
What is to the absence of pain to occur? Does one feel a pure absence? How is the state of painlessness occurring different from the state of being dead if not just the mere fact of being alive, as per my argument above?
I don’t follow you. It seems Epicurus proved that one doesn’t have to fear death. Yet you claim Epicurus did fear death; after all, you say, he lowered the value of life. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you could be.
Anyway, there’s a lady philosopher who argues that one should fear death for we’re living beings.
Its not clear whether epicurus felt we should have no fear of death- what is clear is that he doesn’t think such fears should disturb your enjoyment of living.
He says “Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us”
In a letter to Menoeceus Epicurus says that not all pain should be shunned. Nor do I think he would say that such a thing is possible.
He denies destiny. Affirming that:
… some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency.
He emphasizes phronesis. The term is often translated as ‘prudence’,‘practical wisdom’, or ‘practical reason’. He says that pleasure:
… is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence [phronesis]. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy; from it spring all the other virtues, for it teaches that we cannot lead a life of pleasure which is not also a life of prudence, honor, and justice; nor lead a life of prudence, honor, and justice, which is not also a life of pleasure. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.
To what extent do you think Epicurus was influenced by Aristotelian notions of virtue and the importance of friendship, and to what extent do you think his philosophy developed in reaction to Aristotle? I think, for instance, Epicurus rejected the teleological arguments.
Ah, thanks, that’s a great quote!
Virtuous life IS pleasant life, not “absence of suffering is pleasant life” like I thought. Presumably, then, he says that knowing how to live without suffering IS virtuous life?
I should probably read Epicurus more. I must admit, Im biased against Epicurean thinking because of the high emphasis on reducing suffering. I feel emphasizing it simply is not understanding what life is for a human - that suffering is part of it. We have a saying in Finland that basically means “to read [something] like the Devil reads the Bible”. This is how I admittedly have interpreted the basic tenets - with a certain malicious intent.