Philosophy of Death Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Philosophy of shoemakers last - Essay ExampleHowever, he contradicts with Aristotle by determining exuberance with delight. Epicurus explains this with two reasons. The major reason is that pleasure is the only affair of amusement, and practically, value for its intrinsic benefit. Moreover, it resembles Epicurus ethical hedonism, which is signifi green goddesstly planted upon his intellectual hedonism. Epicurus explains it further by claiming that everything we do, is eventually for the sake of advancing to the state of pleasure for ourselves. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned fact can be manifestly justified with the thorough observation of the behavior of infants, who, characteristically adheres pleasure and avoids pain. As of Epicurus, this is true in field of study of adults as well, but the priorities and beliefs of adults are much more sophisticated in relevancy of the matter that what leave alone bring them pleasure. Hence, when it comes to the adults, it is more difficul t to see that this is true. Epicurus states that non all pleasures are exquisite to opt for or not all persistence can be prevented, although all pleasures are considered good and all pains are acknowledged as evil. Alternatively, one should determine what lies in ones deep-rooted presumption in equipment casualty of pleasure. Moreover, what will compel pleasure in the short-term if doing so will conclusively influence an work up state pleasure, which will last long. (Mitsis Phillip 1988)1The no subject of harm argument - Epicurus mentions that if death is the phenomenon with its outcome as eradication, then it is nothing to us. Epicurus main argument for why death is not big(p) is contained in the letter to Menoeceus. In that letter, Epicurus summarizes his ethical doctrines and he depicts death as no subject of harm argument. Epicurus questions that if death is bad, for whom would it be bad. Neither for the nutriment things, since they are not drained, and nor for the dead, as they do not exist. The expression of is argument as follows - If At All, death is annihilation, then the living things are not yet annihilated, as they are alive. Hence, we can conclude that death does not influence the living things. So, death cannot be considered as bad for the living things. Subsequently for something to be bad for someone, that person should be in existence, at least. However, as mentioned earlier the dead do not exist. Therefore, death cannot be considered bad for the dead. Nevertheless, the conclusion can be computed that death is bad neither for the living nor for the dead. Epicurus supports the no subject of harm argument of his by asserting that if death does not cause pain to somebody when he or she is dead, then it is mere foolishness to allow the maintenance of it to cause you pain now.The symmetry argument -Another Epicurean argument against the fear of death is symmetry argument, which is put down by the Epicurean poet Lucretius. He claims that a nybody who fears death should think of the time before he or she was born. The prehistorical immensity of pre-natal non-existence can be conceived as the subsequent infinity of post-mortem non-existence. However, nature has set up a mirror so that a person can think over his or her future non-existence. nought considers eternity of non-existence before his or her birth as a terrible thing. Therefore, should