Category: Epicureanism
-
Fragility and Mortality
A piece of glass is fragile in that it is disposed to shatter if suitably struck. But there is no inevitability in any fragile object's ever breaking. There is no necessity that the disposition be realized. A chocolate bar is disposed to melt in certain circumstances. It has this disposition at every time at which…
-
Strange Anti-Epicurean Bedfellows
Top o' the Stack
-
Katastematic and Kinetic Pleasures
David Kaston, emphasis added: . . . happiness (eudaimonia), according to Epicurus, is not simply a neutral or privative condition but rather a form of pleasure in its own right — what Epicurus called catastematic or (following Cicero’s Latin translation) “static” as opposed to “kinetic” pleasure. Although the precise nature of this distinction is debated,…
-
On Death: Objective and Subjective Views
Death viewed objectively seems normal, natural, and 'acceptable.' And not evil. Is it evil that the leaves of deciduous trees fall off and die in the autumn? There are more where they came from. It is nature's way. Everything in nature goes the way of the leaves of autumn. If this is not evil, why…
-
A 97-Year-Old Philosopher Faces Death
Herbert Fingarette finds that that the Epicurean reasoning that he once endorsed, fails him at the end, offering him no consolation. HT: Vito Caiati.
-
Has Benatar Refuted the Epicurean Argument?
This is the tenth installment in a series on David Benatar's The Human Predicament (Oxford UP, 2017). We are still in the very rich Chapter 5, "Death." Herewith, commentary on pp. 123-128. My answer to the title question is No, but our author has very effectively shown that the Epicurean argument is not compelling, and perhaps even that it is…
-
Strange Anti-Epicurean Bedfellows: Josef Pieper, Thomist and David Benatar, Anti-Natalist
Many find the Epicurean reasoning about death sophistical. Among those who do, we encounter some strange bedfellows. To compress the famous reasoning into a trio of sentences: When we are, death is not. When death is, we are not. Therefore, death is nothing to us, and nothing to fear. The distinguished German Thomist, Josef Pieper,…
-
Presentism and the Existence Requirement
Why do some find the Existence Requirement self-evident? Could it be because of a (tacit) commitment to presentism? Here again is the Existence Requirement: (ER) In order for something to be bad for somebody, that person must exist at the time it is bad for him. (D. Benatar, The Human Predicament, 111,115) Assuming mortalism, after…
-
Benatar on Annihilation and the Existence Requirement
Herewith, the eighth installment in a series on David Benatar's The Human Predicament (Oxford UP, 2017). We are still in the juicy and technically rich Chapter 5 entitled "Death." This entry covers pp. 102-118. People who dismiss this book unread are missing out on a lot of good philosophy. You are no philosopher if you refuse to examine arguments the…
-
Death, Deprivation, and Property-Possession
Vlastimil asks, "In which sense exactly IS it bad FOR the young person to BE deprived AT the time he NO longer exists? It's a nice sentence to say but I just don't know what it is supposed to mean." We are assuming mortalism, the view that the body's death is the death of the…
-
Benatar, Death, and Deprivation
This is the seventh entry in a series on David Benatar's The Human Predicament (Oxford UP, 2017). We are still in Chapter 5 and will be here for some time. This entry covers pp. 98-102. Recall the Issue If one is a mortalist, but also holds that human life is objectively bad, then one might naturally view death as…
-
David Benatar on Death and the Challenge of the Epicurean Argument in its Hedonist Form
This is the sixth in a series on David Benatar's The Human Predicament (Oxford UP, 2017). We are now in Chapter 5. I will need to proceed slowly through this rich and detailed chapter. There is a lot to learn from it. The entry covers pp. 92-101. Does Death Release Us From the Human Predicament? Logically prior questions: Is…
-
Advice on Sex from Epicurus
Robert Blake is back in the news, which fact justifies, as if justification is needed, a re-post from 18 May 2011. ……………………………. Epicurus (circa 341-271 B.C.) wrote the following to a disciple: I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclinations as you will provided…
-
Can You Harm a Dead Man?
It would be pleasant to think that when one is dead one will be wholly out of harm's way. But is that true? Here is some Epicurean reasoning: 1. Death is annihilation. (Materialist assumption)2. A harm is a harm to someone or something: for there to be a harm, there must be a subject of harm.…
-
What Exactly is the Epicurean Argument?
This entry is an addendum to The Horror of Death and its Cure. Here is one way to construe the Epicurean argument: A. No person P can rationally fear any state S such that, in S, P isn't having any experiences.B. A dead person is in a state, being dead, such that he is not…