i have seen it put forth here many times that an atheist values life more than a believer, knowing that this life is the only one there is. i have no problem accepting this premise. but if said atheist then tells me he doesn't fear death, i would have to question the professed value he puts on life, since as far as i know it is human nature to fear the loss of things one values greatly. sorry, epicurus. try epictetus- much brighter, imo.

if you want to say he doesn't fear the CONDITION of death, which he equates with nonexistence, fine, but this is neither bravery nor any great revelation.

AND another thing :) there's a lot of talk around here about how morality is unconnected with religion. fine. but wouldn't you say that a person who doesn't fear his own death would be even less likely to fear that of others? it reminds me of mengele saying "this won't hurt a bit".

I don't fear death because I just don't care. Life, death... whatever.

It doesn't seem to me that one follows from the other. I think you're trying to get too much mileage out of the word fear.

I saw this at the Body Worlds exhibit. One of my all time favorites.

I think you're trying to get too much mileage out of the word fear.

i thought fear was the very issue epicurus was addressing in the quote.

Fear in this context I think refers to the regression of being null again or perhaps the loss of what has already been experienced by the self rather than pain and suffering. Not fearing ones death does not by fiat lead a person into becoming desensitized to other people's suffering; quite the contrary actually. By thinking your life is endless, you could really care little about the suffering here on Earth, because eternal paradise conquers any mortal life. This could actually be one reason for the lack of compassion in the Inquisition: if a little suffering here on Earth could save souls from eternal damnation, burning heretics alive might not be so insane after all.

Not fearing the inevitable might not make one brave, but I don't think the point was to prove heroism. It is more of a refutation to the beliefs of most people where they have to create myths in order to cope with fears typically brought about by their own beliefs! This reminds me of a quote I heard from one of my friends about his philosophy instructor who is highly religious:

I often hear phrases like religion is a crutch or some sentiment similar to Marx statement that religion is, "the sun around which people revolve until they begin to revolve around themselves". My thought in response is "Yes, and by golly aren't you glad that you have a crutch when you find that your leg is broken," or "Do you really find yourself to be a sufficient axis of rotation?" The question always comes back to an evaluation of humankind's condition.

In the words of Hitchens, "And now behold what this pious old trout hath wrought." Here the crutch represents the unnecessary device called religion, and in her analogy, religion causes the broken leg! One only "needs" religion when you don't have the capacity to understand human nature.

I find it much better not to have the broken leg in the first place. No crutch, no broken leg, no religion. As an example, take the constant Christian apprehension of hell. The belief in the fiery pits of hell causes grief to many and as a result religion has to offer an additional belief (salvation through Jesus) to act as a bandage on the gangrene it caused in the first place. As for the sun analogy, having a false model hardly serves as a good way to live one's life. Morality and ethics derives from human nature and precedes any religion based on gods. And, yes, I find myself, along with the facts of nature, more than sufficient to live a full life.

Cherishing your life does not have to be inseparable to the fear of death. Many secularists have come to terms with the inevitable. Not only that but many old-timers are sometimes even too senile to contemplate matters of death that await them around the corner and are much more concerned over their present (medical) conditions. Once you are dead how can you feel anguished of the loss of your life if you aren't even going to be there to think or feel anything?

erick, well spoken. and this:

Once you are dead how can you feel anguished of the loss of your life if you aren't even going to be there to think or feel anything?

is basically a restatement of epicurus' point, and i can't argue with the internal logic of it. my only rebuttal would be the same i use with religious people: the main premise is based on an unproven assumption. no one who's been there (death) has lived to tell the tale. :)

and if you want to talk about kubler-ross, et al, the weight of the evidence there (which i admit is mere testimony) is against you.

Let me also add that Epicurus here is talking about his own life. "If death is, I am not." This, however, does not address the question you pose of death of others and you being there (still in conscious existence) to witness said loss. Fear of premature loss and/or the safety of others are usually the fears one has when understanding the limits of one’s own life and of others. One does not have to "fear" death itself, but simply cherish life and try to maximize potential life expectancy as well as wellbeing.

Kubler-ross' obsession with her belief in out-of-body experiences lacks a strong foundation because from what neurologists have tested, out-of-body experiences occur inside and not "out there".

Here's a good article.

erick, thanks for the article. a lot of really interesting information, too much for me to comment on here.

i wasn't referring to kubler-ross' work with regular out of body experiences as much as to her work (and that of many others) with what are known as "near death experiences"- that is, out of body experiences (the tunnel, blue light, waiting family, etc..-i'm sure you've heard it all) that occur when heart and, in a few cases if we can believe the researchers, measurable brain activity has stopped- and then started again. in any case you're right, theres no proof these are anything other than internal, biochemical phenomena. it is testable, though (i have a few ideas myself) and i wish someone would do it properly. just put a matchbox car or something on the body of people undergoing surgery and, if they later claim out of body, ask them if they saw anything unusual. i don't know, half kidding here.

fwiw, my own fathers' heart stopped for more than a minute while he was waiting for heart surgery about a year ago. if it hadn't occured in the hospital he'd be dead now. as it is the doctors were going on about "stastistical miracles". anyway, almost the first thing i asked him when he came to (a few weeks later, after the surgery-there was an induced coma involved as well) was "dad! did you SEE anything?"

he said "i was unconscious, don't be a dope." :)

erick, thanks for the article. a lot of really interesting information, too much for me to comment on here.

i wasn't referring to kubler-ross' work with regular out of body experiences as much as to her work (and that of many others) with what are known as "near death experiences"- that is, out of body experiences (the tunnel, blue light, waiting family, etc..-i'm sure you've heard it all) that occur when heart and, in a few cases if we can believe the researchers, measurable brain activity has stopped- and then started again. in any case you're right, theres no proof these are anything other than internal, biochemical phenomena. it is testable, though (i have a few ideas myself) and i wish someone would do it properly. just put a matchbox car or something on the body of people undergoing surgery and, if they later claim out of body, ask them if they saw anything unusual. i don't know, half kidding here.

fwiw, my own fathers' heart stopped for more than a minute while he was waiting for heart surgery about a year ago. if it hadn't occured in the hospital he'd be dead now. as it is the doctors were going on about "stastistical miracles". anyway, almost the first thing i asked him when he came to (a few weeks later, after the surgery-there was an induced coma involved as well) was "dad! did you SEE anything?"

he said "i was unconscious, don't be a dope." :)

ok jo ann, i'm an idiot. but tell me: i get an error message. i open another browser window, hit refresh to make sure, and it shows me my post hasn't gone through. i return to the original window, hit post again. go back to the second window-no luck. return to the first, and voila! i've got a double post. what am i supposed to do?

There have been some NDE experiments such as you describe Johnathan. Large printed words hidden beyond the lighting, on ceiling beams and other places that oculd not be seen from below.

Because you can not predict when such an event will happen, they were placed in several opperating theatres.

So far, the only 'researchers' claiming positive results are people who make a living promoting and writing about the experience.

I croaked at UBC hospital in Vancouver several years ago and I did not see anything either but like your father, I was rather out of it at the time.

I always took the Epicurus quote to be a reminder to not spend time worrying about your own death because when it comes, it will no longer matter.

To me it never was about fear in the way it is being used here in the comments. Nor was it a statement about the value of human life, yours or those of others.

Oh, if you check out some of the skeptics sites you will probably find reference to some of these experiments. I believe I saw some NDE material on Randi' site. A question on some of the forums will usually get a specific reply.

"And I am not frightened of dying, any time will do, I don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've gotta go sometime."

Screams for a while.

"I never said I was frightened of dying."

Actually, you're all wrong. Epicurus was a second-stringer back in the WWF in the 90's. I'm pretty sure this was him calling out the Undertaker for WrestleMania XII. Sadly, he had a pre-match accident with a fondue Bourguignonne, and the match never happened.

It would seem that while Epicurus might not fear death, it would have been in his best interest to heed the roiling fury of molten butter.

I can't be 100% certain, but I know I'd like to live and keep living for now anyway. I'm actually quite sure (not 100%, of course) that I may want to die one day. Living takes time, death is over and done with in just a few minutes, or maybe it takes its sweet time...like maybe my whole life!

I'm actually quite sure (not 100%, of course) that I may want to die one day.

Well, it's important to have a goal in life.

"it is human nature to fear the loss of things one values greatly"

In the general case, one fears being without those valued things. Obviously, with death, one isn't without those things -- because one isn't at all. (Of course you might very well dread the sense of loss one's loved ones will feel after you die (I do), but that's a different question.)

And, yes, Epicurus' argument speaks only to the condition. As such, an Epicurean might not fear death but still fear (certain manners of) dying.

Obviously, then, whether you fear your own death in Epicurean terms says nothing about your attitude about living with the death of others. (For you will experience the condition of their being gone and they won't.)

But even if the Epicurean argument applied to bravery in dying even the most brutal death, it certainly would not follow that Epicureans lack moral concern about the deaths of others; many tyrants have been rank cowards, after all.

I'm afraid of death because I have spent my whole life amassing a vast store of precious memories, emotions, relationships, imagined worlds, creative inspirations-- and they will all disappear. That breaks my heart.

My hope right now is that before I die I will have a chance to write my memoirs so that I can pass on these most wonderful experiences to someone yet living.

I croaked at UBC hospital in Vancouver several years ago and I did not see anything either but like your father, I was rather out of it at the time.

thomas, is it possible to say "thanks for sharing" these days without the assumption of sarcastic intent? glad you made it. yeah, if you're gonna die,and you'd really rather not just yet, a hospital's probably the best place to do it- at least in canada or the u.s, as my dad also discovered. makes me think of the reverse of that "no atheists in foxholes" thing- i wonder how many evangelicals faced with the same situation and given a choice would prefer to keel over in the company of their favorite faith healer.

Well, it's important to have a goal in life.

lmao.

I fear not living a good life.

"fine. but wouldn't you say that a person who doesn't fear his own death would be even less likely to fear that of others? it reminds me of mengele saying "this won't hurt a bit"."

I say if the only thing preventing someone from killing is fear then he much more likely to bend that rule when people claim the person that made the rule says it ok.

You can pick up any history books for examples.

Doing what right because you care about the people around you and your self will always gives you a stronger moral footing then someone that do it because of fear.

Thanks Johnathan, I'm rather glad I made it too.

I didn't know it at the time but I had a lot left to do, such as writing books, paying personal debts (not the finacial variety), and becoming my own version of a better more complete human.

I was greatly altered by the experience yea though I saw nothing and actually was unaware of what was happening at the time.

Coming so close to checking out greatly altered my perceptions of what is important about the limited time we have and what it means to live a 'full life', unhampered by petty fears and anxieties.

Those fears seem pretty damned small and meaningless in the face of the Big D. And it is not pleasant to realize how much of life you didn't live because of very small things that you let get in your way.

Dying helped give me the courage to live. All the lies we tell ourselves fall apart in such moments.

For me, hell is checking out of your one chance at life, knowing that you didn't live that much of it and the blame for that is in your own hands.

Of course, the good part about that version of hell is that it won't last long. :)

More on the topic: Fear of death and fear of dying are two different things. One is an action the other is a state of being, rather a state of not being.

What I don't understand about people who believe in heaven and hell is how they would be in living in total bliss in the sky knowing that some of their close loved ones would burn in hell for not believing or calling God by the wrong name? Could they truely be happy in spite of this catastrophy?

Oddly enough, I've heard the rantings of more than a few Xian fundies who believe part of their great "reward" for living stunted lives, will be the joy of watching everyone not like them sliding into the fires of hell. They speak of it with joy in their shriveled dry little hearts.

With Jaysus on your side, you can be as mean and petty, as sadistic and angry as you like, as long as you make a big show of hating the right people. 'cause gentle Jaysus, meek and mild, really wants to torture everyone the fundies don't like, for ever and ever, ahmen.

but wouldn't you say that a person who doesn't fear his own death would be even less likely to fear that of others? it reminds me of mengele saying "this won't hurt a bit".

Specifically with Epicurus and Epicureans, this doesn't apply. They held everyone to the same ethic of reciprocity that religions do, and in fact worked this into their prototype for an origin of laws and social contract that was eventually to be built on and expounded by Rousseau. Common security for mutual advantage. An Epicurean would only advocate the deaths of others to quicken a fatal ailment, be it in the body of a human or a polis.

ethic of reciprocity

you mean like karma? :)jk

thanks for the correction, my learned friend. as i've mentioned before, i was a philosophy major, but a lousy student, and i'm aware that my love for the topic and ability to make quick connections and logical jumps doesn't always make up for my lackings in other areas, like, say, facts.

btw, norm's been so tolerant lately about off topic i gotta ask: did rousseau knowingly build his social contract on a basis of epicurian thought, or is this something you (or others) hypothesized after the fact? i don't know much about him, other than the usual philosophy/history 101 generalizations. he certainly seemed to believe in (lived by it, died by it) SOME kind of "ethic of reciprocity". :)

in case it's not obvious, this

An Epicurean would only advocate the deaths of others to quicken a fatal ailment, be it in the body of a human or a polis.

is really why i'm asking. because advocating the deaths of others to quicken a fatal ailment in the "body polis" (politic?) seems to bring us back to mengele and his buddies.

Dying, in most cases, I can't agree would be very pleasant. A painful death should be fear. But to be dead, why should this warrant fear in and of itself? In death, as Epicurus is proposing, you are not, for death is the end of all that you are. It is the rejection of the assertion that you are alive and that you continue your constant affirmation of life. It is the negation of this "argument" for life, so to speak.

Of itself, is what we speak of here. Why shouldn't we fear what we lose? This is a value-judgment on life itself, bearing the unfounded assumption that life is inherently meaningful and pleasant--mind you, in the wrong sense. Life becomes meaningful; life does not bear innate meaning. You could just as easily not be contrasted with that you are. It is not a stroke of luck that you are, since you are here, you are determined to be; and just as you were not before you are not, it is similarly determined that you will not be after you are. Thus those arguing for the inherent value of life will undoubtedly come from one's own predisposition of life's meaning rather than taking into scope of what life means in the midst of all reality. Of course, they do this because we must find a proper philosophy to attain happiness in our own life--our individual feelings should not be outweighed by grand scopes and sweeping generalisations of would-be nihilisms; this is true. But at the same time, it is false. If you realise that your value can on be proven to exist in this reality then you should not worry about losing it because, when coming to grips with your context, you knew from the onset that you were never and are not infinite. To strip yourself of this natural world to presuppose that you would be eternal in the sense that the natural world is is nothing more than a reflection of your predisposition to yourself; in a sense, it is inherently egotistic. As were should be inclined to be so, because on good and bad days, the only one we can rest our shoulder on is ourselves.

But might I keep this in mind: the burden of proof. We cannot all agree to have it that people who say we are all eternal are equally right as those who say we are not. Inspection of both cases aches that the burden of proof rests on one or the other, but not the latter. For is the former is the case, then dogs, trees, kitchen forks cannot be denied eternalness. And thus a completely different reality cannot be denied its right to eternity. Clearly what follows is a contest between our reality and a would-be reality, amongst a plethora of other unfounded claims. The burden of proof must stop this nonsense tangent of propositions somewhere.

I'm the typo queen.

is really why i'm asking. because advocating the deaths of others to quicken a fatal ailment in the "body polis" (politic?) seems to bring us back to mengele and his buddies.

Epicureans value goodness in pleasure and evil in pain, and in a situation such as Terry Schiavo, where she is neutral on that issue because she's so numbed up, they'd see nothing but in evil in the inability to cultivate the mind, which is where Epicurus would have you focus your all too human need of overindulgence, instead of in sex, food etc. Moderation in all things but the pursuit of wisdom. For the polis, an Epicurean would remain withdrawn from politics (because only the proud and wicked partake in politics) until the day there is chaos. Then, and usually only then, ought one engage in political discourse, and by that I mean kill those causing the most mischief and re-establish a new polis as lawgiver, only to later ignore and parasiticly reap its benefits (as a Stoic would say in conclusion).

The Rousseau-Epicurus connection was mine, but not an original thought whatsoever, a simple google search combining the two men shows plenty of others (plus a disseration) have connected them. Rousseau was well read in his classics, especially Plutarch, and it is no coincidence that Epicureans were the first to attempt a social contract, and to spell out an origin of laws, and both are quite very similar to Rousseau's De l'Inégalité parmi les hommes, and Du contrat social.

Though there is the reservation that Rousseau, like Jefferson (who called himself an "Epicurean", and the Declaration of Independence an Epicurean document), and even Cicero modeled their political theory on an eclectic mixture of Stoicism and Epicureanism, Cynicism and Skepticism. Further yet, the former two were also well acquainted with Machiavelli's Discourse on Livy and Hobbes' Leviathan, while Jefferson paid more attention to Locke's Second Treatise.

dionysus, thanks. a post full of goodies (that i frankly don't think i would have found in such easily digestible form through a google search). i'll just pick one of many possible questions:

the way you put it, do you not see a contradiction in seeing (i know, you said "value(ing)") evil in pain, and at the same time in the "inability to cultivate the mind" as a result of being "numbed out"- which i'm pretty sure is kind of the opposite of pain?

also, loved your definition of political discourse- according to epicurus, i assume (and hope)- "kill(ing) those who cause the most mischief...etc". :)

do you not see a contradiction in seeing (i know, you said "value(ing)") evil in pain, and at the same time in the "inability to cultivate the mind" as a result of being "numbed out"- which i'm pretty sure is kind of the opposite of pain?

An Epicurean would see the opposite of pain to be pleasure, so unless they've got Terri Schiavo riding a sybian I don't see her involved in a lot of activities with which she could derive pleasure, and even then I think her condition was one which she was perfectly numb and couldn't feel anything.

I think this is where an Epicurean would find the line. A much easier choice would be if someone, like Epicurus himself, were on the brink of death due to inoperable kidney stones, there was a point where he was ready to just buy the farm.

As for mischievious political malcontents, I think an Epicurean would only find powerful monsters of human beings worth killing during periods of breakdown and chaos, not necissarily people they find 'difficult'. Like the joke about Lenin goes, he said "Comrade, to make an omelette, you must break a few eggs" and the response he got was "Well where's the omelette?". An Epicurean would be more concerned about the omelette than breaking a lot of eggs, or any at all for that matter, but on the deepest principals of Epicurus, they'd only project themselves as a mirror of morality unto others - they would abhor killing somebody who has no blood on their conscience.

Saw this lame standup of Dane Cook and thought of this thread. Although I'm being repetitious when I use the word lame and the name Dane Cook in one sentence.

I don't know if I can forgive you for posting that, Erick.

dionysus, i'll still take epictetus over epicurus, and i still think epicurus might be partially responsible for facism/totalitarianism, but i thank you for helping to flesh out the issue in a concise fashion that googling doesn't provide, and that doesn't involve me actually reading "the works of epicurus", thereby leaving my status as "lousy student" inviolate. :)

erick, thanks for the clip. i thought it was at least a little amusing (no lol). i got the impression of the guy as (yet another) lapsed catholic who, upon finally freeing himself from the strictures of his heritage takes a deep breath, looks around and says "oh no! now i have to deal with atheists too? don't you guys get it? i'm NOT A JOINER!"

and the atheists intone softly in the background "but we are the society of non-joiners. join us."

i think lapsed catholics (and jews) are in general more amusing than firebrand atheists (dzwonka not withstanding).:)

dionysus, i'll still take epictetus over epicurus

I would too, I'm not a proponent of Epicureanism because I find the Stoics much more appealing. But it's more a 75%/25% divide there, Epicureans and Lucretius have some exciting ideas.

and i still think epicurus might be partially responsible for facism/totalitarianism

You're onto a popular train of thought that blames Rousseau for fascism, Marxism and totalitarianism as well, for similar and different reasons than Epicurus.

Epicurus and especially Epicureanism could be said to be a symptom of the Hellenistic age. This was a rather dark period politically, that saw the extinction of democracy and the ascendancy of the diodochi, the successors to Alexander who played the part of Autokrator-Kings with their elite royal coterie doling out divine beneficience. Epicurus bothered himself very little with politics and more with morality. His ethic of reciprocity and claims to seclusion from politics are closer to Bulgakov than to Stalin. The Hellenistic Kings and the early Roman Emperors were almost to a man Stoics, whether they understood it or not. Most would say Cato the Younger understood Stoicism better than any of the despots who donned the purple.

Rousseau's infamous "force them to be free" maxim is both as dangerous and yet as harmless as one would like to think, depending on the person, but Rousseau wasn't of the mind to punch someone who refused to take their chains off. Epicurus similarly wouldn't be bothered. But I wouldn't blame either of them for anything more than elitist effeminate Parisien intellectuals proliferating snobbery. It's Hegel whom I would lay the blame with, and he gets his phenomenology mojo from Plato.

I don't know if I can forgive you for posting that, Erick.

You think Dane Cook is actually funny? He has no wit or punchline in any of his material. All he does is tell ancedotal tales people relate to in some way while being loud and animated. The entirety of his essense is summed up by this apt MadTv sketch.

well, erick, thanks to you, and the wonders of the modern computer age, i now know as much about this dane person as anyone who's spent years loving (or hating) him. i "got" what people think is funny, i "got" what people think is not funny, and now i've even seen a kind of "post-danist" deconstruction in the form of parody. which was pretty good, btw. and up until a few hours ago i had never heard of him.

i can see how the concept of diplomas and academic degrees will become, in a very short time, completely meaningless, until eventually the ability to prove that your mind is unsullied by traditional educational brainwashing will become a selling point. if it hasn't already- its the sheer speed that boggles my mind.

btw, don't confuse me with dionysus. i doubt he'd take kindly to the implication he feels anything but disdain for mr. cook. it was me that got a little chuckle out of it. but only a very, very little one.

You think Dane Cook is actually funny?

I think the only humour I could hasard out of watching Dave Cook would arise if he were raped by a fat African tribal woman with a strap-on who piled on him like a sealion.