Epicurean 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.