Epicurus, Lucretius, and Nagel are philosophers with very different views on death, and whether death is bad for the person who dies. Their understanding of life and what happens when it ceases, is the distinguishing factor. Epicurus was a philosopher who understood the universe and life as being composed of matter in the form of small particles. He stated that when one dies, the particles which make up our existence dissolve and our consciousness comes to an end. He considers what he understands to be mental and physical pain and pleasures to determine the various aspects of life. Physical pleasures and pains can be understood as the result of sensory actions. Mental pleasures and pains on the other hand, can be achieved through reading, learning,
…show more content…
Nagel sees life as being intrinsically good. A life well-lived is one that would be best to have as much of as possible. Keeping this mind, Nagel argues that this is the very reason as to why death is bad for the person who dies. In comparison to Epicurus’ thought that death is not bad, Nagel argues that it is bad because it deprives the individual of the life they once had. Nagel argues that when a man dies, “He has lost his life, and if he had not died, he would have continued to live it, and to possess whatever good there is in living” (Nagel, pg. 182). The difference in perspectives of Nagel and Epicurus is that they both define death differently. Epicurus seems to care more about the exact moment at which one dies and feels nothing because they are dead. Whereas, Nagel’s account of death is more concerned with the consequences which death brings about such as the deprivation of life for the deceased person. It is true that as Epicurus suggests, when one dies, there is no pain but he does not seem to further explain what the loss of life could potentially mean for the individual. Nagel’s understanding of death is mainly focused on the loss of the life of the individual. It is valid to say that the individual endures a great loss when they die because they are deprived of their …show more content…
I like to think of life as a journey that one goes on and fills everyday with everlasting memories with their loved ones. A journey that allows one to not only make mistakes but also gives the opportunity to learn from those mistakes. The struggles, failures and successes of life is what makes the journey so memorable and something that many people fear the end of. Nevertheless, life is a journey that must be cherished as it is short and we are not guaranteed a certain amount of time. So therefore, death is something that abruptly ends all the potential mistakes that one could have made, lessons that could have been learnt and potentials memories that could have been made. In my perspective, death not only harms the one who is dying by taking away their life but also the loved ones of the deceased individual by taking away someone they
Nagel sees life as being intrinsically good. A life well-lived is one that would be best to have as much of as possible. Keeping this mind, Nagel argues that this is the very reason as to why death is bad for the person who dies. In comparison to Epicurus’ thought that death is not bad, Nagel argues that it is bad because it deprives the individual of the life they once had. Nagel argues that when a man dies, “He has lost his life, and if he had not died, he would have continued to live it, and to possess whatever good there is in living” (Nagel, pg. 182). The difference in perspectives of Nagel and Epicurus is that they both define death differently. Epicurus seems to care more about the exact moment at which one dies and feels nothing because they are dead. Whereas, Nagel’s account of death is more concerned with the consequences which death brings about such as the deprivation of life for the deceased person. It is true that as Epicurus suggests, when one dies, there is no pain but he does not seem to further explain what the loss of life could potentially mean for the individual. Nagel’s understanding of death is mainly focused on the loss of the life of the individual. It is valid to say that the individual endures a great loss when they die because they are deprived of their …show more content…
I like to think of life as a journey that one goes on and fills everyday with everlasting memories with their loved ones. A journey that allows one to not only make mistakes but also gives the opportunity to learn from those mistakes. The struggles, failures and successes of life is what makes the journey so memorable and something that many people fear the end of. Nevertheless, life is a journey that must be cherished as it is short and we are not guaranteed a certain amount of time. So therefore, death is something that abruptly ends all the potential mistakes that one could have made, lessons that could have been learnt and potentials memories that could have been made. In my perspective, death not only harms the one who is dying by taking away their life but also the loved ones of the deceased individual by taking away someone they