I don't see the word "death" in there either, though I see references to our mortality, and our being finite creatures, and of dread as a feeling of "being slipping away." But it certainly may be that I misunderstand his association of dread and "the nothing" or what he means by "dread." I have a limiting tendency to accept dictionary definitions and derive meanings from ordinary usage, and am ignorant of German. It's that association I try to address, assuming "dread" means dread or "anxiety" means anxiety, and "the nothing" includes the slipping away of our being.

Just about everything was a tributary to Christianity. The early Christians were adept at assimilating pagan philosophies and religions, and the result was, I think, an awkward and sometimes embarrassing hodgepodge.

The Stoic pneuma, which I think is what you refer to, was in varying degrees a part of everything and in its purest form comparable to what some call a soul. The Stoics thought there could be no void and so pneuma was corporeal and defined as a kind of vital heat or fire given the limited physics of the time. It was the organizing force of the universe. The Stoic God was immanent and not a creator of the universe but its ruling constituent.

See, if you'll deign to, my reply to frank by way of explanation (which it goes without saying you'll find inadequate if not dishonest--and will say so). But the OP isn't intended to be entirely about Heidegger, I'm sorry to say.

Oh, I forgot--fol de rol.

How kind of you to comment as you do regarding my shitty fabrication.

It's that association I try to address, assuming "dread" means dread or "anxiety" means anxiety, and "the nothing" includes the slipping away of our being. — Ciceronianus the White

Then you could just say: "This is what I was inspired to think about when I read Heidegger."

The Stoic God was immanent and not a creator of the universe but its ruling constituent. — Ciceronianus the White

Exactly. It's the reason a Stoic would say we can use logic to understand the world. I went looking for the contemporary equivalent to that. Some people believe we adhere to logic because we're evolved to do so. I think Kant is a better answer.

Then you could just say: "This is what I was inspired to think about when I read Heidegger." — frank

I appreciate the suggestion. As I said, I certainly may have misunderstood him, and by misunderstanding him wrote the OP as I did and not otherwise. But regardless we're stuck with it as is--quod scripsi, scripsi.

Staring at the thread title, it occurred to me that "curo" is related to "care" as much as it is to "cure."

I think the folks who wrote that meant to say that since they were dead, their illness couldn't be cured. It's really all about a sense of inferiority regarding their healthcare. Roman healthcare was essentially a list of massage techniques, some potions, and maybe a prayer or two. Their sense of unease about it was probably related to their overall sense of cultural vacuousness in comparison to Greeks.

I wrote it! :party:

That may be so. Or perhaps "non curo" if it means "I care not" or "I don't care" is intended to be an expression of the joy they're experiencing in the Epicurean afterlife where there are no cares, and they reside in a garden and chat of great things in a friendly manner with Epicurus and others.

:joke: