What is Epicurus’ argument against the fear of death? How does it work? What theory of personal identity does it presuppose? What is a reason to doubt the argument? Epicurus is a materialist. He believes that death annihilates identity and identity ends when the body ends. Human are necessarily mortal; even if they’re put back together after death, it would not be the same because the only thing that makes an individual themselves is the unity of the identity and body. When the connection of these two break, there is no putting them back together.
Epicurus has the notion that “good and bad consists of sense-experience” (164). Death is the annihilation of those experiences. However, death itself is not experienced, and therefore it cannot be …show more content…
In turn, suffering and harm do not necessarily correlate with bad. What may be considered bad to one may not be bad to another. Epicurus says that all that is bad must also mean that there’s an experience that’s attached to it. Similarly, to suffer, one must experience this suffering. Therefore, death is not bad because of the lack of experience. However, Nagel says that Death is bad in the sense that it takes something one would value, that is, life. This mirrors how stealing is bad and considered a crime because something precious to another is taken away from them. Therefore, in instances where one values their own life, death would be considered bad, even though no “experiencing” of death was …show more content…
Why does he worry that it might lead to suicidal thoughts? How does he respond to this worry? The Myth of Sisyphus speaks of an individual who is forced to roll a rock up a hill during the day, only to feel the disappointment of waking up to find that the rock has rolled back down the hill during nightfall. The meaningless implications of his actions causes him to go insane. To the end, his actions were in vain and purposeless. This myth mirrors how existentialists view life. First, existentialists deny the teleological metaphysics of the idea of life provided by religion, culture, and worldviews. All these ideas serve only to satisfy our need for a meaning/purpose to live. Without these stories, the world and life itself would be considered meaningless. However, there really isn’t a God, or Gods.
Following this, the question of why we should live at all remains unanswered. However, to an existentialist, there has never been an answer. Science has always thought to provide an answer to this question by saying that is it to propagate genes, or to explain “why” things work. However, evolutionary science implies that fitness depends on the environment which is by chance. The environment changes, and therefore, so does fitness. All by chance. So this couldn’t possibly be the actual meaning of life. Also, the explanations by scientists as to “why” things actually work has always just answered “how” things work. They don’t actually
Epicurus has the notion that “good and bad consists of sense-experience” (164). Death is the annihilation of those experiences. However, death itself is not experienced, and therefore it cannot be …show more content…
In turn, suffering and harm do not necessarily correlate with bad. What may be considered bad to one may not be bad to another. Epicurus says that all that is bad must also mean that there’s an experience that’s attached to it. Similarly, to suffer, one must experience this suffering. Therefore, death is not bad because of the lack of experience. However, Nagel says that Death is bad in the sense that it takes something one would value, that is, life. This mirrors how stealing is bad and considered a crime because something precious to another is taken away from them. Therefore, in instances where one values their own life, death would be considered bad, even though no “experiencing” of death was …show more content…
Why does he worry that it might lead to suicidal thoughts? How does he respond to this worry? The Myth of Sisyphus speaks of an individual who is forced to roll a rock up a hill during the day, only to feel the disappointment of waking up to find that the rock has rolled back down the hill during nightfall. The meaningless implications of his actions causes him to go insane. To the end, his actions were in vain and purposeless. This myth mirrors how existentialists view life. First, existentialists deny the teleological metaphysics of the idea of life provided by religion, culture, and worldviews. All these ideas serve only to satisfy our need for a meaning/purpose to live. Without these stories, the world and life itself would be considered meaningless. However, there really isn’t a God, or Gods.
Following this, the question of why we should live at all remains unanswered. However, to an existentialist, there has never been an answer. Science has always thought to provide an answer to this question by saying that is it to propagate genes, or to explain “why” things work. However, evolutionary science implies that fitness depends on the environment which is by chance. The environment changes, and therefore, so does fitness. All by chance. So this couldn’t possibly be the actual meaning of life. Also, the explanations by scientists as to “why” things actually work has always just answered “how” things work. They don’t actually