Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege
Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege
Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not? — Epicurus
I.e. memento mori, memento vivere. :death: :flower:A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Spinoza
A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Spinoza
In his paper “How to be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus,” Stephen Rosenbaum contends that it is unreasonable to fear death. Given that a dead person cannot have experiences, and that a person must experience something for it to be bad for them, it follows that being dead is not a bad for the deceased. Since it is irrational to fear something that is not a bad for us, it is irrational to fear death. In this paper I argue that this argument fails due to two false premises: P1- “a state of affairs is bad for [someone] only if [they] can experience it,” and P2 - “when one dies, one ceases to exist.”
Key to P1 is the supporting proposition: “a person does not experience a situation simply by believing that they have experienced a situation,” rather “one experiences a [situation] only if it can affect one [causally].”i Since this proposition assumes a difference between actual states of affairs and experiences, it is fair to assume that Rosembaum embraces the existence of an external world that continues to exist after our deaths. Almost universally, people have strong interests related to states of affairs in this external world, interests that are not necessarily predicated on their ability to experience said states of affairs. For example, people desire that their loved ones are safe even after their deaths.
It seems apparent that it is bad for a parent if their young child dies, even if the parent is unaware of this fact. Rosenbaum argues that situations like this are not a problem for P1, since the claim is that situations can be bad for someone only if they “can experience [them],” not that they must experience them...
...imagine a city suffers sudden, severe flooding. A mother must make her way to her young children to evacuate them. Her path home is dangerous. Because no one else will evacuate the children, if the mother does not make it home, her children are certain to experience a terrible death. The mother cannot save her children if she is killed enroute. Since she must traverse a low-lying area, she may die prior to the deaths of her children.
If we accept P1, it follows that it is not bad for the mother to have her children drown, provided she dies before they do. Yet, per Rosenbaum, had the children died before the mother, even if the mother still drowns before reaching home, their deaths would be bad for her.(2) This conclusion seems bizarre. It is far from clear that desires related to events after our deaths are necessarily irrational. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how society could function if people did not care about what happened to others after their deaths.
In response to this contention, Rosenbaum could argue that, while people have preferences about events after their deaths, these preferences cease to exist at their death. Yet if the contention that “death is not bad” is forced to rely simply on the claim that, definitionally, bad things can only happen to people who have experiences (i.e., who are not dead), it appears guilty of begging the question.
Even if we accept this counterargument, in the prior example it is the mother’s being dead that would prevent her from saving her children. Thus, the living mother has a valid reason to fear death, as her death will result in her children’s suffering and death. Our fear of death remains rational if our fear is tied to the experiences of others who may survive us.
Rosenbaum’s claim, that our fear of death is due to our irrational tendency to imagine that we will experience things after death, misses a key reason we often fear death─ we fear death because we know our being dead will negatively affect loved ones(3) It is not irrational to think that living people will continue to have experiences after we have died. The mere fact that our loved ones will suffer is bad for us; it is not our experience of their suffering alone that we care about. Thus, Rosenbaum’s argument about the fear of death, i.e., “that we should not fear death because it is not bad for us,” requires the claim that genuine concerns about others’ future experiences do not exist.(4)
(2) - In his response to Nagel, Rosenbaum makes it clear that far away events that a person is not aware of, such as being betrayed by one’s friends, can be bad for a person, even if the person is never made aware of them. All that is required is that an inability to have experiences does not logically preclude someone from experiencing the event.
Spinoza thinks least of death in the context of contemplating life. Thus: memento mori, memento vivere. Nothing in the quote cited recommends that a free man (or free woman) neglects or denies 'facts of life' such as death which we can neither change nor ultimately avoid. — 180 Proof
I think suicide is always wrong. — NotAristotle
I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle
And how should we "address trauma"? — Ciceronianus
CBT, [...] is based in large part of Stoicism. — Ciceronianus
CBT, regularly used as I understand it to treat trauma and with some success it appears, is based in large part of Stoicism. So, I wondered what was meant when it was claimed Stoicism fails to by "address trauma." — Ciceronianus
It seems a Stoic is unable to experience trauma in the first place, since a Stoic's outlook on life is such that it can accomodate whatever trauma-inducing hardship might come his way.I also think the "objective" attitude of stoics like Marcus Aurelius may be a form of dissociation, particularly concerning one's emotions.. seems unhealthy to me. I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.