Epicurus's Argumentative Analysis

Epicurus once asserted that death neither includes nor supports pleasure or pain for the person who experiences the end of life, and, therefore, it must be neither good nor bad for that individual. His argument claims that humans should rid themselves of the preposterous anxiety of death itself. But in order to accept this assertion, one must regard that fear of death causes pain whereas death itself does not as the underlying truth.
Epicurus disputed that death is no catastrophe because when someone dies, he or she is then absent of sensation. If you lack feeling, then he would argue that you can no longer experience pleasure nor pain. Therefore, death is not bad for us because the only thing that is bad for us is pain, and we cannot experience pain when we are dead.
When Epicurus mentions the term “death,” I feel that he is referring to the final stage of immortality where one is no longer a component of reality. Instead, one would be in the presence of their own soul. His expressions do not seem to imply the overall process of dying which, in some circumstances, may cause extreme amounts of pain for us. This would then be viewed as bad and act as a counter argument since death is supposed to not be bad at all. I consider that he also does not associate with the exact moment of …show more content…
This would be anything such as medical conditions, car accidents, or even homicide, all of which would end someone’s life without them having any voice in the matter. In my opinion, this is a main classification of death that Epicurus fails to deliberate on. It appears that he does not take into account whatsoever the thought of a short life versus a long life. He just denotes life as any possible interval of time, and, in my own assessment, that is unacceptable because living a short life deprives a person of experiences that he or she could have otherwise