Epicurus' View at Fear of Death - Essay Example

Epicurus' View at Fear of Death Question 1: Discuss Epicurus' view that fear of death and fear of the gods are the chief sources of unhappiness in life. According to Epicurus, exactly what is unhappiness? How does the philosophical understanding of nature enable people to overcome the two main forms of fear and thereby achieve happiness? Why is a quiet private life the best choice for the person who desires to be happy? Epicurean philosophy contends that a major cause of anxiety and apprehension among people was their belief that the Gods could mete out suffering to them, even after they died. (Lecture 9: From Polis to Cosmopolis: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy). The philosophy argues that since the predominant source of unhappiness was the human body, happiness could only be derived when the body became devoid of pain or suffering, therefore relieving the human from psychic trauma. Epicureans advocated that for humans to circumvent their fear of gods, and their fear of death humanity should adopt a rational and highly practical approach to life. Epicureans feel confident that both god and death are not exceptionally preoccupied with human beings. These supernatural forces have a wide variety of responsibilities and human beings only constitute a small fraction of their concerns. The Epicurean perspective on death is a poignant and pragmatic truth that posits: Death cannot inflict pain on humans because the human essence no longer persists ‘after death’; and humans need not fear any pain of death, as death didn’t capture them during their worldly lives. That is, there is no need to fear death, since by the time of death the body ceases to bear worldly sensation -- thus, the pangs of death are not experienced. Ultimately, Epicurean philosophy contends that humans need not fear death because it is not an experience that is felt or endured. According to Epicurean theory, unhappiness is the outer manifestation of inner anxieties and fears caused by worldly longings. The physical pain and suffering one endures are also aggregates of this unhappiness. In this regard, one might consider later day developments in Buddhist philosophy, with particular reference to the Four Noble Truths which posit that Enlightenment will only be attained after the cessation of material cravings. Epicurus offers an extremely similar philosophical doctrine. According to Epicureanism, absence of unhappiness or suffering could be rendered by man’s constant engagement in working towards internal peace and harmony. Leading a pleasurable life, enjoying the company of philosophical friends and associates, and not overly concerning oneself with worldly affairs are also essential tenants the individual must adopt to achieve happiness. (Lecture 9: From Polis to Cosmopolis: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy). Epicurean philosophy states that happiness and tranquility are not attainable by man, other than by obtaining that which is desired without falling prey to its all-consuming vices. Epicurean philosophy deals predominantly with a humanistic understanding of the laws of physics. It does not posit anything for or against the God concept. Indeed, one’s overall perception of this philosophy reveals that personification of gods -- in any form -- is useless. The tremendous flow of nature is immeasurable and ultimately incomprehensible to the human race. As such, gods could be conceived as something created by mankind to provide solace to people with piety. Furthermore, since God is felt to be the Great, with no equals, how then can we reduce God’s primary concern to human beings alone? If we are right in affixing such an exalted potency to God, then we are fools to believe that God is solely concerned with the daily activities of humans. Thus, it concurs with Democritus, that in a world of colliding atoms, where science has an explanation for nearly all earthly activities, there could be no room for divine intervention. Further, all people know that death is inevitable for sentient beings, and thus it is foolish to worry about. To constantly worry about death is logically absurd, as death’s essential inevitability needs to be accepted and objectively understood. This philosophical aspect of life helps mankind avoid the fear of death and divine retribution. Regarding the assertion that a quiet life would be the best alternative for a person who seeks happiness, one might consider later philosophical investigations by Rousseau, who exalted the role of the individual in direct opposition to society. While Rousseau radically disregarded all forms of social engagement as inherently immoral, the Epicureans demonstrate an understanding that offers elements of Buddhism and Rousseau’s naturalist impulse, obviously many years before either of these concepts were formally articulated. To the Epicureans, it is that the involvement with people and worldly affairs robs man of his inner peace and tranquility and makes him prey to a plethora of evils and misdeeds. Thus, by leading a private life, without social attachments or commitments, man is reconciling himself to his own peace. By leading a chaste, noble and honorable life, along with a quiet and happy one, man is ensuring his own happiness and well being, replete with sound body and mind. Question 2: The Stoics argue that tranquility is the key to happiness and that indifference (apatheia) is the key to tranquility. What, exactly, is indifference? What is the wise person supposed to be indifferent about? How is such indifference supposed to make happiness possible? A pre-condition and contributory factor for happiness is virtue – that is, goodness, or morality. It follows that the converse of happiness or misery is vice, immorality, depravity, or even sin. Aspects that aren’t categorized as either virtue or vice were termed “indifferents.” They were called “indifferents” because the Stoics held that these things -- in themselves -- neither contributed to, nor detracted from, a happy life, “Indifferents neither benefit nor harm since they can be used well and badly.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferent). However, indifferents are important as they help distinguish between good and evil. When a person is confronted with an issue, he has to decide whether it is a virtue, or a vice, the consumption of which is either be a detriment or a benefit to him. There could also be a situation in which he is indifferent to it. For instance, telling the truth truth is a virtue; similarly, providing shelter and refuge to someone fleeing from a perpetrator is also a virtue. However one faces a philosophical quandary if at any later stage they are forced to tell the truth to the perpetrator. The question then is, can truth telling be considered a virtue? At this situation, According to the Stoics, the enforcement to tell a lie or hide the fact is termed a ‘preferred indifferent’. Thus, indifferent in real terms actually suggests abstinence, or disregard. This could either be for a virtue, or a vice, as normally indifferents are correlating towards negative aspects of living. A wise man is supposed to be indifferent to the evils and vices on earth, or dispreferred indifferents, since it could cause incalculable damage and ruination to his health, well being, and familial comforts. It could also be seen in terms of selecting a preferred indifferent, usually because it “promotes the natural condition of a person, and so selecting them is usually commended by reason.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferents). Again, it is seen that wise men need to be indifferent about disease, death, injuries, pain, sufferings, anguish, torment, agony, grief and bereavement. These are undesired, or disprefferred indifferents, as they could only pile up more misery and sorrow for the receiver. However, Stoics lend a flexible hand in relaxing their rigid structure of virtue, allowing one to adopt or follow some dispreferred indifferents during unusual circumstances. In order to support their doctrine of unified virtues, Stoics have formulated that different taxonomical virtues are unified, but apply to different spheres of action. The indifferents, whether preferred or dispreferred, are not capable of directly causing happiness or unhappiness. It is the selecting mode and its application that develops the differences between bliss and anguish. Thus, while right selection and implementation of preferred indifferents could benefit the user, the choice of dispreferred indifferents could add to his woes. Sometimes, a person may be in a dilemma concerning which indifferent to choose from, as both may be pleasurable and satisfying. Under such conditions, he needs to use his discretionary and discriminatory powers and assess the long term effects of choosing one alternative over the other. Conclusively, “It is the virtuous use of indifferents that makes a life happy, the vicious use that makes it unhappy.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferents). Question 3: The Epicureans and the Stoics attempt to show people the way to lead the good (i.e. happy) life under the conditions of empire. These conditions include war, political corruption, increasing debt, a widening gap between rich and poor, and the excessive indulgence of appetites. But they also include the development of new forms of multinational, multiethnic society. Compare and contrast the two philosophies as responses to these conditions. Is one superior to the other? Be sure to discuss the cosmological orientation of the two philosophies as well as their differing attitudes to political involvement. Comparisons between Epicureans and the Stoics: It is seen that both Epicurean and Stoic philosophies emanated from a sense of disillusionment with the Greek administration and rule of law. The Greek rulers, especially post-Alexander era, attached greater importance to an urbanized and complex structure, devoid of human feelings, that was insensitive to the aspirations of the masses. Epicurean philosophy does not seem to have developed any specific philosophical tenants in relation to the administration of a social structure. The loss of identities by the citizens in an urbanized atmosphere and the subsequent internal conflict however, could be explained by Epicurean philosophy, which does not even consider injustice an evil. The philosophy even challenges the existence of absolute justice. Highly fluid agreements made in reciprocal association, that may at any time differ from the previous association, could not be taken as a model of absolute justice. The changes that occurred in social structure and culture after the era of Socrates are explained by Epicureans as evolutionary changes that must be understood with compulsory acceptance. The Principal Doctrine 35 of Epicurus’, as translated by Robert Drew Hicks, postulates: It is impossible for the person who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for right on to the end of his life he is never sure he will not be detected. This evidently explains the fall of even the greatest empires in the world. Even as the Epicureans have developed a highly humanistic understanding of human existence, one might argue that their categorization of justice, as referenced by Hicks, relies too heavily on this evolutionarily derived sense of progress and law. One might think of contemporary society and the pitfalls that have been associated with hyper forms of free market economics, as the entire Western economic structure has crashed as a direct result of such theories. In regards to the Epicureans and Greek antiquity, while the evolutionary ethical structure seems rationalistic and morally justified, it could just as easily be co-opted by powerful rulers as a means of social oppression. In a similar tone, Stoic views could be made use of for explaining the existence of imbalances in a society. Similar to Epicureanism, Stoic philosophy does not directly investigate issues of social change. The attainment of the noble goal of ‘Wisdom’, in which a person achieves perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, is given much importance by the Stoics. In attainment of this abstract concept of wisdom, it seems that the Stoics promoted the vital need for the urgent transformation of society or the human race. Through these progressive social developments, that would occur as a result of human kinds pursuit of wisdom, society necessarily be transformed into a place of higher justice and equitable reality. While contemporary perspectives on Stoic philosophy oftentimes reflect the austere and objective categorizations of its tenant for living (Indeed, the term stoic has even come to signify this), when understood as the logical reaction to the oppressive and licentious regimes, the philosophy’s underlining tenants of peace and tranquility act as an excellent and necessary foil. Both of these beliefs were reflective of the major changes that affected the social, political and cultural fabric throughout the Hellenistic regime. The rulers and administrators were not concerned with the plight of the poor masses and indulged in acts that established their hegemonic rule over the people. As a result these philosophical doctrines were developed as a natural reaction to the oppressive regime’s and functioned as a necessary mouth piece for the disregarded and underprivileged Greek citizens to develop a viable political and spiritual contingency. Ultimately, it is seen that both the Epicureans and Stoics wanted reform as a part of national and political development, and also promoted the need for the masses to play a more engaging and dominant role in the administration of their own rights and privileges under the rulers of antiquity. Contrasts between Epicureans and the Stoics: Even as both philosophical schools are seen to have clearly emerged as a reactionary by-product of oppressive Greek regimes, the ethos of both ideologies is fundamentally different. Epicureans do not view pleasure as evil. Their observation towards pleasure is quite rational. They feel certain objects that while certain objects bring pleasure to the senses, there are others that also engender annoyances in such a stronger manner that they are inimical to the pleasure itself. This philosophy was distinctly upright in its view that fighting against sensations would certainly leave one without any standard of reference. They have an underlining acceptance of the innate and intuitive force of sensory cravings, and contend that abject sensory denial is neither beneficial or a rationalistically sound proposition. For instance, where does pernicious sensory desire distinguish itself from desire that is essential to human subsistence, such as the desire for food or shelter? Ultimately, without stopping the discriminatory approach in human attitudes, the abrupt rejection of sensations would simply throw humanity into chaos and greater confusion. Conversely, the Stoics believe that life follows a certain well defined structure, or logos (rationale). It is necessary for people to identify life’s plan and live according to it. The logic of perfect living is to be mastered if one were to live in peace with oneself and the world. Abstinence from worldly or political affairs is an essential virtue in the attainment of ultimate peace. That is, material wants and cravings are at their essence transitory and ultimately unsatisfying; therefore, the Stoics contend that only through the objective realization of the inability of material desire and craving to aid human happiness as a long term proposition, the individual must accept such longings as inimical to the attainment of ultimate happiness and spiritual truth. Coming to the cosmological orientation of the two philosophies, there are major areas of difference. The Stoics believe that planetary movements follow certain well defined and structured formulations that cannot be challenged, “Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics' metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate.” (Stoic ethics: definition of the end). This belief is akin to contemporary Christians who argue that evolution could not possibly have occurred because the splendor and complexity of nature is such that it couldn’t have possibly developed in such a way without the divine hand of God. Epicureans however, deny any divine hand in the celestial phenomenon and believe that physics has plausible answers to planetary movements and outer-space occurrences; also, men’s belief in planets and other heavenly bodies needs to be scientifically tempered and rationalized. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism find validation in the prevailing conditions of Greek society during that era, as the social context and political scenario justified the proliferation of these doctrines. However, assuming one’s supremacy over the other would demonstrate a critical misunderstanding of their philosophical doctrines and the intellectual and moral climate of Greek antiquity. Both philosophies had valid premises and strong arguments that could sway public opinion, but also shortcomings that needed to be rectified. Epicureans emphasized living by nature. They do not go against pleasure seeking, although they are strong in adopting the natural path to attain pleasure. Their views on God and humanity’s fear of Death are somewhat indigestible for the masses. While Stoics believe that humans need to seek and achieve the Plan of living and abide by it through working and living in harmony with nature and their environment, Epicureans feel that leading a private and peaceful life is necessary in order to realize the ultimate happiness. Epicureans also differ from Stoics in their contemplation of living. While the former seeks a rationalistic approach comprised of wisdom and justice, the latter advocates joining the endeavors of the mainstream to live a full and satisfying life dedicated to others’ welfare. References Lecture 9: From polis to cosmopolis: Alexander the great and the hellenistic world: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy. The History Guide: Lectures on Ancient and Medieval European History. Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferent. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Read More