Article By Dr. Emily Austin - "Epicurus And The Politics Of The Fear Of Death"

Quote from Cassius

I interpret that as being on he same page with most everyone. Since you Dave are one of our most recent additions, I'd be particularly interested in what you get out of the article if you get a chance to read it.

I had already begun the article before commenting earlier. However I decided it wasn't worth my brain buster skills to follow along and I stopped without finishing it. If I was asked by Emily Austin what I thought about it, I'd ask her in turn, why she bothered to address that issue and publish it. (The same could be asked of her interlocutors)

If I knew her and could be frank, I'd say it was not exactly sophistry in the negative connotation, though it was an argument for the sake of argument in order to prove an opinion. Could there be a nugget later on that made it useful to me? Perhaps, but overall the paper didn't make me care enough to find out.

Quote from DaveT

Could there be a nugget later on that made it useful to me? Perhaps, but overall the paper didn't make me care enough to find out.

I feel very differently than you do DaveT and I think it provides an excellent springboard for discussing many aspects of death and dying. Perhaps you feel very confident that you have conquered all your fears for all aspects of death and pain. But for those of us who still have work to do, for the upcoming Fourth Sunday, I'll present some discussion questions which I believe will provide some helpful "existential therapy".

Likely some aspects of the paper will be used more "lightly" and other aspects more "deeply", so my goal is not to only approach it from an "academic" aspect, but also from human life and feeling.

Reading the article is optional for attendees, as I will do a short presentation before opening up the discussion.

Quote from Kalosyni

Likely some aspects of the paper will be used more "lightly" and other aspects more "deeply", so my goal is not to only approach it from an "academic" aspect, but also from human life and feeling.

Yes, that seems to be a very reasonable way to springboard a conversation. I, as one closer to death than most of our friends, I "try" to not fear death, and while seeking support for that in Epicurus, I submit to it's inevitability. No big issue there, certainly. At the same time, I might worry in a small way that there might be something I might lose an opportunity before a sudden death, to say, or do, or mend a fence before I get around to it. And this, I think is the lighter approach, the common sense that we all possess, whether Epicureans or not, to address the fear of dying unexpectedly. And I don't think the deep treatment of that issue was needed in Austin's paper, written as a dialogue among professional philosophers.

I'd like to add that for me, overcoming the fear of death, is less than overcoming a feared cessation of living. It is more a confident denial that there will be some consequence for me after death when my sins are weighed against the rest of my life with a thumb up or down and it is too late to make amends.

Superficially, I'm not sure I like the idea of identifying"fear" as the motivating factor behind preventing preventable death, versus, perhaps, rational avoidance. Then again, we practice avoidance to prevent non-constructive pain, and fear is definitely painful ... but is it constructive? In that regard, fear is a fellow actor on the stage of wisdom, but, playing the role of an antagonist? So I think I hesitate to place "fear" in a positive context. But it is natural, so... I'm not sure.

Regardless, I really enjoyed the approach Professor Austin took in terms of reviewing the response to the fear of death as a thing that can be "politically managed", beyond cultivating impassiveness. Contextualizing civic engagement as an approach to satisfying our natural and necessary desires, I believe, is the right way to discuss the field of politics from an Epicurean perspective, and I'm definitely going to spend some time thinking about modern politics from this view.

Truly, we all live in a city without walls when it comes to the true, universal antagonists of human history, those being disease and natural disasters. We have to find a way to tolerate those things. We're all faced with the death of our parents, and the deaths of friends. We're all faced with infirmity. Someone will suffer our own absence. One, measly volcano popped 70k years ago, and (SLAM) our species dropped below 10,000 individuals. One, tiny mutation occurs in one, little microbe, and (SLAM) 20 million people die. Human beings have (perhaps until the modern era) no capacity to mitigate those events; but on the spectrum of Choice-to-Fate, some threats are more "fate", and some are more "choice". We can't stop volcanic eruptions. Maybe we can learn to re-direct a planet-hungry asteroid? Still, by comparison, we can definitely mitigate political violence and civic unrest (even if our ability to influence it is very, very small: that freedom exists).

And, given that, coherent with the Epicurean project, I think it's correct to be pissed when good law is violated, when friends engage in betrayal, and when children die of political violence. Should we "fear" those things? ... maybe? ... I think I ultimately agree with Professor Austin. I'm not sure if we should, or if we can justify that Epíkouros thought so, but I certainly do fear.

There's a lot here, but what I can say for sure, is that, personally, I fear dying before I have the opportunity to enjoy the same privileges of the rest of my family. I observe my parents' generation, and all of my older cousins, all of them, both educated and uneducated, blue collar and white collar, academic, industrial, commercial, casual, formal ... all of them had kids, bought cars, owned homes, invested in the market, and half of them advanced their economic class. In history books, I learn that they enjoyed several decades of historically-unique social advances. From childhood, I remember my parents enjoying unemployment and supplemental income. In middle management, my dad was afforded a company car, and a company phone, and robust health insurance on top of his competitive salary that only required a general B.A. from WVU in the 70s. All of those people in my life were presented with the opportunity to choose to go to school, or apprentice with a professional, or take a risk investing in a business, or start their own with modest resources. Every one of them could provide the name of a general physician ... because they had one.

All of those things fulfilled their natural and necessary desires. They weren't just privileges, or luxuries. None of those things were pursued for entertainment, or to diversify their pleasures. Those were rungs on the ladder of meeting their ability to gain employment, make money, eat food, and grow. In the modern era, access to education and technology are as much a necessity as food and water. Or maybe not? Maybe that's up for debate? ... you can infer where I stand.

I observe that my role as a civilian, consumer, and taxpayer (which at least used to provide safety) is being re-oriented toward legally-indentured-servitude. We know it now. I'm living it. This isn't speculation. We will not buy a home. I cannot participate in the market. My vote has never counted. Owning a car is about to become a luxury. We will be leasing our next vehicle. I am going without healthcare next year so my wife gets her life-necessary meds. By the way, our insulin just tripled in price. We can no longer save money. We're skipping groceries. My education and experience cannot guarantee employement. The majority of the population is now leasing their living needs, and not from life, but from other individual members of our society who have measurably violated the pact to neither harm nor be harmed among other members of their society. We are being affected by measurably psychopathic personalities who do not recognize our role as moral, human agents. All of this is a violation of pacts that were put in place by my grandparents to preserve our future. I'm pissed, and politically active, because the peaceful pact to neither harm nor be harmed is being politically violated, and nothing less than a political response is appropriate to satisfy my natural and necessary desires. Me do anything less right now seem like Stoic surrender to apathy.

Everyone around me seems surprised that I'm angry. "Trust God" they tell me. "Things have a way of working themselves out" they say. Well, not in Gaza. Not in Kashmir. Not in the projects. Santa Claus tends to prefer neighborhoods with property values. God helps some people win Super Bowls, but gives kids cancer. There are limits to happiness. After all, as Epíkouros observed, "a person cannot become wise with every physical condition, nor in every cultural context" (10.117). Those limits were not set by measles and hurricanes. People did that. People who are our neighbors, who have measurably violated the pacts my grandparents formulated to secure a peaceful society. People are withholding education in a technologically advanced society. People are proliferating our streets with weapons of war. People are responsible for these problems, because of violations.

Fear of being dead, death, and dying is one thing, but fear of losing your life, or losing the life of a friend as a result of betrayal, wrath, or a violation of justice is another thing. Hermarkhos attests that the creation of law, in the first place, is a necessary act for wise people to prevent future harm. So we need to engage law as though it is as real as a rainstorm. Epíkouros explains that society, in the first place, naturally developed because it is advantageous to individuals, so a stable society is part of the prescription Nature provides for humans. Furthermore, he explains that all individuals, in all societies cannot became wise and enjoy pure pleasure, because, if for no other reason, you don't have time to study nature. A variety of severe, physiological conditions eliminate the possibility of uninterrupted pleasure. I think it is fair to propose that ataraxia is an impossibility for anyone living in a warzone right now, and no amount of spiritual rearrangement is going to prevent bombs from continuing to drop, and spiritual confusion is not the problem, the bombs are.

I don't know. While I'm afraid I'll never be able to provide my family with the basic living necessities that previous generations have defined as requirements for our society, I think, when I take a breath, and just accept that my life will look more like my great-great grandparents, than anyone living ... I think, then, I calm down, I lose my fear, and I just respond to situations rationally, to the best of my ability, with the hope that I'm learning from my mistakes, and growing, despite failure. In that regard, I'm more motivated by the pleasure of hope and confidence than the fear of death.

I don't really have a point. That was mostly pontificating. Overall, great paper!

Quote from Eikadistes

Superficially, I'm not sure I like the idea of identifying"fear" as the motivating factor behind preventing preventable death, versus, perhaps, rational avoidance.

Great post, Eikadistes, and I want to emphasize how much I share this view. I am not "afraid" of pain because I know it can be overcome or escaped. But even though I am not "afraid" I am sure as heck motivated to act against it and make sure that I don't have to suffer any more than is necessary. This is simply rational, and it's not the attitude of a ostrich or a cat constantly running from pain as if in a panic. Once we learn the facts of nature we don't have to be "afraid," but we sure as heck ought to be motivated to take our wisdom and act, not just "think" about our problems will eventually go away on their on or at death.

Also Eikadistes you have raised one of the subtleties of the article that is not apparent til you read it thoroughly.

The issue is not simply limited to "we are afraid of dying a painful death because we don't want pain."

As Austin points out, if that were the only issue, there would no reason for us ever to be concerned about a painless death, even if we are 20 years old or even if we are good health and something happens to cause our death tomorrow.

We're not "afraid" of death, we act to postone and avert death not just in those cases where the process of dying is painful. We want to live because Nature has programmed us to "live for pleasure" (the subtitle of her book).

This should not have to be debated or discussed, but it does, and I think it's fair to say that appears to be the ultimate motivation of her article.

Here is an excerpt from the article, which comes after she states that in theory, of course, it would be preferable to live in an actual Epicurean garden:

Quote

However, most people do not happen to chance upon a Garden. The paucity of safe refuges, then, explains the standard Epicurean advice to abstain from political involvement in non-ideal circumstances, unless failure to be involved is a greater threat to one ’ s safety than participation (cf. fr. 133 Us.).

This underlined statmeent is consistent with the position taken by Aioz and Baori in their "Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy," and they provide many more citations to establish it firmly.

As a reminder, the reason policy against the discussion of contemporary partisan political issues. The reason for that policy is that individual circumstances vary greatly. It's not Epicurus but Cicero who held that there is a law of god which is the same for all people at all times and all places. It simply not possible here to take sides in immediate political issues without causing harm to our ultimate mission. But we can certainly bring people together who share core Epicurean values that there are no gods or ideal forms, that life ends at death, and similar core issues. Once people are on basically the same page they are free to, and in my strong opinion should, form local bonds with like-minded and like-situate people to preserve their own security and pursue their own interests.

Certainly there are no supernatural gods or forces that are going to do that for you, and I think it's an important part of Austin's article to note that if we take Epicurean philosophy seriously then we're as individuals going to act to maintain our security and happiness.

For someone debating whether to comment on this article, here again is one of the key paragraphs:

Quote

However, note that if Warren is right, the Epicurean seems to lack a clear reason to avoid a painless death. Why should she skip town when she hears that the local tyrant has a penchant for killing aspiring Epicureans painlessly in their sleep? If painless deaths are not bad, then why should she carefully label and store the fast-acting, tasty poison, rather than leave it in the open and accessible to young children? One must wonder what protects the Epicurean from happily courting a painless death. If she does not bother to protect herself against such deaths, then the objection that the fear of death is good if it helps us avoid deaths worth avoiding reasserts itself.

The question comes down to: It's *not* the fear of pain, alone that should cause us to not want to diie. But if our only distinction in discussion fear of death is whether the means of death is painful or not, then we're left in the position of not having a good reason (if fear of pain is our only motivation) to avoid a painless death.

Austin is pointing out that this is a problem for those who think that Epicurean philosophy is about nothing more than "fleeing from pain," and she suggests - I think properly - that this could not have been Epicurus himself would not have reasoned in that way and left his followers with no reason not to avoid a painless death.

As I see it this is related to similar issues in the regard to how to articulate "satisfaction." Yes I want to be satisfied at all times which my life in the past and present. but that doesn't mean that I don't want to live another day and experience more pleasure tomorrow.

Neither "deah is nothing to us" nor the various statements about satisfaction should be interpreted in a way that implies that the Epicurean should be indifferent to whether he is alive or dead tomorrow.

It was a good meeting back on Sunday, and one question came up for me afterward, which is regarding the idea of security...can we accurately judge if we are living a life that is safe or not, and whether our basic need for security is being met?

Epicurus said that the first quick, easy, and commonly used understanding regarding a thing (or a word) is the best one to use (I can't remember the exact words or where that is). But also seems important to look at actual situations.

For our current time, it almost becomes about statistics (or being in the wrong place at the wrong time) - we are generally safe, but not totally safe (and it may depend on where one lives). With mass shootings happening, It seems these days if you want kids to "be safer", then homeschooling and attending an online college might help.

According to the article by Austin, we need (and have a natural and necessary need) to feel safe from being violently killed by others and this can't be done through reasoning because it isn't caused by irrational ideas. It can only be done "politically" meaning through creating laws and ways to make society safe.

Quote from Kalosyni

According to the article by Austin, we need (and have a natural and necessary need) to feel safe from being violently killed by others and this can't be done through reasoning because it isn't caused by irrational ideas. It can only be done "politically" meaning through creating laws and ways to make society safe.

I think her point is that it cannot be done by reasoning ALONE. Every decision ultimately requires good judgment and that involves reasoning. As I see it the point she is making is that after we reason through the appropriate action to take, we must then take that action. Simply thinking about things and not taking any physical action is not going to address the problem of safety or many other problems of similar nature.

Yes we can resolve our fear of "being dead" by thinking about the problem based on observation of the way the world works, and in the case of something that is a wrong attitude you correct a wrong attitude by a correct attitude. But you don't keep yourself save from crime or invading armies by simply working on your "attitude" about them.

I think ultimately her article is about stressing the practical aspect of Epicurus that we are not just mental creatures, we are also bodily creatures, and living in the real world requires both thought AND action.

Simply thinking about things and not taking any physical action is not going to address the problem of safety or many other problems of similar nature.

I am repeating that statement because I think much of the discussion in our meeting came from questions raised by those who think that this is such a common sense position that the article and its detailed arguments are unnecessary. Who could be so stupid as to ever advocate thinking alone without taking action to implement one's reasoning?

The reason I agree that the article was needed is that I perceive many articles about Epicurus by Academics in the last hundred years tend to go exactly in the direction of holding Epicurus to be trying to solve every problem by thought ALONE. That's the same attitude that praises Stoicism similar viewpoints which hold that the only thing that matters in life is virtue. For many of them, virtue is primarily a mental activity, so they argue either explicitly or implicitly that all we need to do is adjust our attitudes about things, and that real-world action is unnecessary.

There is good information about this in Dr Sedley's article "Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" as to the lack of participation by Stoics in taking action during their confrontation with Julius Caesar.

Quote from Cassius

The reason I agree that the article was needed is that I perceive many articles about Epicurus by Academics in the last hundred years tend to go exactly in the direction of holding Epicurus to be trying to solve every problem by thought ALONE.

Correct me if I'm wrong Cassius but I think it's widely accepted position that Hellenistic Philosophy was largely practical. And this applies not only to Epicureanism but to all main philosophical schools of that period. The main focus was how to live the Good Life and not how to think about the Good Life.

That's why I find the claim somehow strange that many articles were published in the last century which paint Epicurus as someone focused exclusively on theory ('solving every problem by though alone', as you put it). In fact, it's hard for me to recollect any publications making such claims. If such works exist, please point me to them because I am very curious how such position could be defended.

Quote from TauPhi

Correct me if I'm wrong Cassius but I think it's widely accepted position that Hellenistic Philosophy was largely practical. And this applies not only to Epicureanism but to all main philosophical schools of that period. The main focus was how to live the Good Life and not how to think about the Good Life.

We are talking impressions here and I am sure everyone's will vary. What I would point to are the arguments that are contained in Tusculan Disputations and like works to the effect that "virtue alone" is sufficient for happiness. Part 5 of TD is entirely devoted to the topic, including the criticism of Aristotle as to the argument that anything can really be "good" other than virtue. This is not some quirk of Cicero either - I would argue that it is inherent in Stoicism and its popular interpretation that everything other than virtue is at best a preferred indifferent.

Now, no doubt general perceptions of philosophy are a moving target. Your comment gives me the opportunity to focus on what I see as the part of the target that needs focus here in the mid-2020's:

Epicurus is widely held in "intellectual" circles to hold that the goal of life is "absence of pain." Some (well represented here in this forum) tend to focus on physical aspects of that. However the "intellectual consensus" outside the forum in the words of prominent writers like Warren and Okeefe and others is that Epicurus was promoting a form of "therapy of desire" (the Nussbaum book title). They hold substantially that Epicurus was promoting the lowering of desires to a minimal possible level, which fits quite well into their argument that "absence of pain" does not include what people normally think of as pleasure at all. Their position is not that Epicurus considers mental / appreciation of life pleasures to be part of the Epicurean goal in addition to stimulative physical pleasures, they argue that stimulative mental and physical pleasures are not really a part of the Epicurean goal at all, except to the extent that they might occasionally be required (by eating and drinking for example) to obtain their non-active state of "absence of pain." Not everyone is going to agree with me, but that is exactly what I believe they mean when they stress "absence of pain" as the distinguishing feature of Epicurus. And I believe they especially mean that when they repeatedly use the untranslated Greek "ataraxia" instead of explaining what they really think Epicurus meant.

I agree with you that Epicurus himself would not have held that The main focus was how to live the Good Life and not how to think about the Good Life.

However, you can't understand what the good life is unless you can explain it in clear terms that lead to correct thought. What I accuse the majority of commentators other than Austin and DeWitt of doing is buying in to the Stoic argument that virtue is either all that matters or the most important thing that matters. In doing so they are implicitly or in many cases explicitly separating thought from action.

I want to make it a part of our conversations on the forum here in 2026 to make this point more explicit as it is leading in my view to some unnecessary confusion.

I think it is a shame that Emily Austin had to write this article, and I think Epicurus himself would be taken aback that something as fundamental as the desire to remain alive so as to experience more pleasure needs to be defended at all. I believe that explains the reaction some have that the article is confusing or poorly focused.

However I am convinced that the article definitely needed to be written, and more like it need to be written. In fact I read Austin's book as an enlargement on the point of the article, which is:

That Epicurean philosophy has been taken over by Stoicisers and synthesizers who do not primarily agree with Epicurus as to the absence of divine designers, as to the absence of life after death, and as to the focus on individual pleasure and pain (widely understood) as the correct ethical guide. These Stoicisers and synthesizers have rendered Epicurus' original focus almost unrecognizable,

That's why it's my number one goal to seek out and emphasize every argument from every source that identifies the core fundamentals of Epicurus and applies them to real life, and strips away all this incompatible overlay that I do not believe was there in the ancient world.

-----

As a closing note I'll say that I consider the Nussbaum book to be Exhibit #1 as an illustration of most of what is deeply wrong in modern analysis of Epicurus. I don't recommend anyone read it for assistance in understanding Epicurus at least until they have made themselves aware of the major issues, which is something DeWitt is especially good at explaining. After that it's easy to see why "Therapy of Desire" is one of the favored works of "modern Epicureanism."

Here's an example from this weeks' podcast text. In this section of Tusculan Disputations Cicero says, referring to Stoics and those of similar viewpoint who hold that the condition of the mind is all that is important: What may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

• Quote

  Nor did he take any trouble to provide himself with those remedies which might have enabled him to bear pain; such as firmness of mind, a shame of doing anything base, exercise, and the habit of patience, precepts of courage, and a manly hardiness: but he says that he supports himself on the single recollection of past pleasures, as if any one, when the weather was so hot as that he was scarcely able to bear it, should comfort himself by recollecting that he was once in my country Arpinum, where he was surrounded on every side by cooling streams: for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils. But when he says that a wise man is always happy, who would have no right to say so if he were consistent with himself, what may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

The context here is that Cicero is irritated at Epicurus for saying that the wise man is happy even while under torture, because Cicero thinks that Epicureans care about nothing except the pleasures of smooth motion.

It's true that Epicurus doesn't care about anything that does not bring pleasure, but it's not true that Epicurus is happy even while under torture solely because he has the right "attitude" and has learned an intellectual lesson like A + B = C.

Epicurus is happy under extreme kidney disease because he actively focuses his attention on a set of pleasures that means more to him (his friends and his pleasure at the study of nature) and this gives him something real to say that he can withstand pain X because he has pleasure Y.

This is more than simply the intellectual knowledge that "when I die I cease to exist." There's nothing intrinsically pleasant about that knowledge at all. If you aren't now or haven't in the past pursued pleasures of mind and body that you do or have enjoy, you have nothing to set against pain.

I think that most people reading this here will agree with this viewpoint, but those who value the mind as divine - like Cicero is saying everyone should - disparage the active pleasures of the mind and body - because all they care about is "not being disturbed." And when you elevate "not being disturbed" to the goal of the philosophy then you've lost the entire thread of why "pleasure" is important.

The dead are "not disturbed" but that's not the point of life and it's a huge mistake to make it so, but that is implicit on those who can't articulate a good reason to stay alive, which is what Emily Austin is saying some of our most famous modern writers are doing in discussing Epicurus.