Death without question is inevitable, but is it bad for the person who dies? The shared account of Epicurus and Lucretius unravel this question, in the Philosophy and Death; there shared view is contrasted by the piece by Nagel. It is important to note that all three accounts are assuming the soul ceases to exist when the body perishes. Epicurus’ explanation is centered around death being nothing to humans because bad is centered around sense experience which death is the privation of (). Furthermore, he claims the fact that there is nothing in death should encourage one to seek happiness in life, and he states the fear of death is irrational (). Lucretius furthers the point of Epicurus through his theory of the body and soul being one and
…show more content…
I think that since there is no sense in death, there is nothing bad for the person in the state. Although, I would not go as far to say that this means death is good for the person who dies. I would argue that the state of death is neither good or bad because it is essentially nothing. The subject of one’s life is most important to answering the question, the state of death cannot be good or bad because it is nothingness. The account of Epicurus does bring up the important point that the nothingness allows one to pursue life without fear and enables one to strive towards happiness (). This is convincing that this defines death as good because it gives a fulfilling purpose to one’s life. But, as already discussed earlier this whole premise is frail because of the unfulfilling lives that are cut short or are in the long-term endured with pain. From both accounts, I think death is good for the person who has fulfilled a happy life, but it is bad for the people who are disabled from being able to pursue a fulfilling life. The state of being dead is neither bad or good for the person who dies because it is non-experience state. This new argument presented is entirely circumstantial and determines the merit behind one’s death based about their life. The account of Epicurus and Lucretius provides the most compelling argument for the question. In a general sense it allows one to embrace life with meaning because death is the end. Unfortunately, the question cannot be simply answered as good or bad because death is circumstantial. Not everyone can follow the shared account because life is not as simple as Epicurus and Lucretius think it is. Life is filled with countless possibilities; a life of suffering or death can come upon a person at any moment. The time for one’s end of existence is purely circumstantial.
I think that since there is no sense in death, there is nothing bad for the person in the state. Although, I would not go as far to say that this means death is good for the person who dies. I would argue that the state of death is neither good or bad because it is essentially nothing. The subject of one’s life is most important to answering the question, the state of death cannot be good or bad because it is nothingness. The account of Epicurus does bring up the important point that the nothingness allows one to pursue life without fear and enables one to strive towards happiness (). This is convincing that this defines death as good because it gives a fulfilling purpose to one’s life. But, as already discussed earlier this whole premise is frail because of the unfulfilling lives that are cut short or are in the long-term endured with pain. From both accounts, I think death is good for the person who has fulfilled a happy life, but it is bad for the people who are disabled from being able to pursue a fulfilling life. The state of being dead is neither bad or good for the person who dies because it is non-experience state. This new argument presented is entirely circumstantial and determines the merit behind one’s death based about their life. The account of Epicurus and Lucretius provides the most compelling argument for the question. In a general sense it allows one to embrace life with meaning because death is the end. Unfortunately, the question cannot be simply answered as good or bad because death is circumstantial. Not everyone can follow the shared account because life is not as simple as Epicurus and Lucretius think it is. Life is filled with countless possibilities; a life of suffering or death can come upon a person at any moment. The time for one’s end of existence is purely circumstantial.