Well, for starters, it's unavoidable and, for the most part, out of our control, so why worry about it? Given death's inevitability, make the best use of your time here and now. Hence: “It is not death that a man should fear, but rather he should fear never beginning to live.” —Marcus Aurelius

I'm not a Stoic - more an Epicurean if I must have a classical orientation - but I intuitively arrived at the above position on death when I was still a boy. I revisit it every now and then (as friends and relatives die) but I can't move past this.

Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege

Could you please summarise the key points of Stoicism's concept of death and their thoughts on it? Thanks.

Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege

Doctor to a Stoic: "You're going to die"
Stoic with a bland expression on their face: "Ok".
Stoic dies months later expressionless.

Not much else to explore really. :D

As a non expert on Stoicism, my understanding is that Stoicism would come into play in reacting (or not reacting) to impending death, as opposed to directly addressing it.

"How long I might live is not up to me, but how I live is within my control." -- Seneca. I like this quote. I think the Stoics emphasize concerning ourselves with what is within our control, rather than the things that we do not have control over such as the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

Marcus Aurelius says in so many words that death is (A) natural, and (B) not evil (also not good, it's neither). He seems to say that when viewed "objectively," what is happening is dispersion of atoms; he recommends us not to be afraid of death.

Stoicism's views on death seem off to me. Stoicism seems like kind of a hopeless philosophy in my opinion. The concern I have is that stoics seem to condone suicide. Cato the Younger is an example; not to mention Zeno (founder of Stoicism) and his follower Cleanthes both killed themselves. I think suicide is always wrong.

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.

Your question does not include what speaks to you on the matter.

I may as well honk at the moon.

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

A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Spinoza

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

Spinoza seems to have had been short-sighted in the saying about death. Death is a part of life. Death and life are not separate. Hence death must be contemplated, because it affords us to come to the idea how life should be lived.

Well, since Epicurius is in the mix, I'll try to add some meat to this thread.

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.

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

Because life is intimately and inevitably linked to death, contemplating on death and life together would give insights on the meaning of life and how to live life to the thinkers. No other subjects deal with the topic apart from Philosophy and the clinical Psychology.

I think suicide is always wrong. — NotAristotle

Why?

I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle

And how should we "address trauma"?

And how should we "address trauma"? — Ciceronianus

Post Restante, somewhere obscure. And put enough stamps on that it won't be returned to sender.

If only...!

One who has been traumatised is brought face to face with their trauma in every relationship, the fear, the abandonment, the shame, or whatever, is reawakened by random normal relationships with others and with the environment. We can address it if we can recognise it in each other and make room for it without being 'triggered' ourselves. If it is recognised for what it is, an upwelling of old emotion, there is an opportunity to welcome the feeling into the present that has not produced it, and in experiencing it to experience a catharsis that liberates one from it, one reclaims the hurt in safety, and can then let it recede into history.

That's easy for me to say...

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."

CBT, [...] is based in large part of Stoicism. — Ciceronianus

Was not aware of that; I thought it was based on behaviourism.

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

Yes, I have worked in the trauma space for many years - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was developed as a way to assist people with their responses to trauma and particularly to manage their behavioral reactions (what some like to call their triggers). It seems to work well. Albert Ellis, a seminal figure in this area, drew from Stoicism especially Epictetus.

I.e. memento mori, memento vivere. — 180 Proof

Slaves live. But what does it mean to live?

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

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.

In contrast, an ordinary person whose outlook on life is sketchy at best, who doesn't have a developed philosophy of life, can readily become overwhelmed by life's challenges, thus experiencing "trauma".

It's like the difference between a well-trained person and a couch potato: if they have to run for five miles, the well-trained person will do so with ease, while the couch potato will probably collapse before he even runs a mile.

... memento vivere. — 180 Proof

Slaves live. But what does it mean to live? — baker

To begin with, 'living' consists in finding out for oneself 'what it means to freely live one's life'. "Slaves" merely survive (i.e. function); as a rule they do not thrive (i.e. do not flourish).

Stoicism is about acquiring and maintaining equanimity, and is a very practical philosophy. It instructs one to focus on what is within one's control rationally, and to not worry about what is outside of it.

The Stoic interpretation of death is NOT indifference, but rather the healthy recognition that it is inevitable. The Stoic ensures that their decisions keep in mind that they are mortal, but equally ensures that they do not become irrationally engulfed by it.

It is natural and inevitable that one will die and, thusly, is outside of one's control: so why would it, let alone should it, bother them? Focus on the present, use it to shape the future; and remember that your time is limited so that you never squander a moment of it.

:fire:

--
"the longest-lived and those who will die soonest lose the same thing. The present is all they can give up, since that is all you have, and what you do not have, you cannot lose"

"there is a limit to the time assigned you, and if you don't use it to free yourself it will be gone and will never return"

"Concentrate every minute like a Roman--like a man--on doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice. And on freeing yourself from all other distractions. Yes, you can--if you do everything as if it were the last thing you were doing in your life, and stop being aimless, stop letting your emotions override what your mind tells you, ..."

"And what dying is--and that if you look at it in the abstract and break down your imaginary ideas of it by logical analysis, you realize that it's nothing but a process of nature, which only children can be afraid of"

--
Marcus Aurelius.

Stoicism is about equanimity not indifference.

Interesting. I think the Stoic approach to death is the only healthy approach towards it. Anything else is an exemplification of a personal attachment to what is outside of one's control.

Was SJ a stoic?