Epicurus’s Approach to Dealing with Death, how it can be interpreted and critisized

I consider Epicurus’s approach to be practicable insofar as it attempts to enable human beings to live without fear of death. Moreover, Epicurus removes the process of dying that precedes death itself. In this respect, he offers a seamless transition by describing the passage from existence to non-existence. Epicurus strips the awareness of death of its terror by presenting it as irrelevant to our lives. In doing so, however, a central motive for reflecting upon death is removed. It is precisely this awareness of mortality that has prompted peoples and civilizations to construct monumental structures—for example, the pyramids built by the pharaohs—in an attempt to secure a form of existence beyond death. Religions, too, can be understood, at least in part, as responses to the awareness of mortality. This must have constituted an important evolutionary development, given that human beings have continually sought and continue to seek meaning in their existence. Epicurus, by contrast, takes a pragmatic approach to the awareness of death and seeks to demonstrate that death is merely a state of non-being—a condition in which we no longer exist and therefore no longer feel, think, or act. Neither the loss of great happiness nor the suffering associated with profound tragedy can affect us once we have ceased to exist. In this respect, Epicurus’s approach may free us from our anxieties and perhaps also liberate us from rituals that do not correspond to our individual needs, thereby allowing us to live more fully. On the other hand, Epicurus’s position could be criticized as displaying a certain degree of irresponsibility or carelessness, since the death of a person is also connected to that person’s own freedom and responsibility. Has this person lived a healthy life? Does this person have friends and family who will be left to grieve in the event of their death? Death is certainly inevitable, but its timing can, to some extent, be influenced by our conscious decisions and actions and may thereby be postponed by years or even decades. In this respect, I also consider Epicurus’s proposal problematic, since its practical applicability cannot entirely compensate for this limitation. In conclusion, Epicurus’s approach has both strengths and weaknesses, and its value ultimately depends on the individual and on that individual’s relationship to the finitude of human life. On the one hand, following Epicurus, we may be able to free ourselves from the heavy burden imposed by the awareness of death. On the other hand, however, we should not regard death as something entirely beyond our influence and simply surrender ourselves to the fact that we will eventually die, accepting it without further consideration. Rather, we should seek to prolong our lives in order to remain present for our families, friends, and loved ones. This aspect of human responsibility is comparatively underemphasized in Epicurus’s approach.