Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
Epicurus.
The Epicureans get a bad rep in the new Testament, IMO. Epicurus had found a realistic consolation to the existential problem.
Paul is describing a literal physical resurrection there, don’t you think? Is there any reason to believe that is anything other than belief in the supernatural? Paul says the perishable must cloth itself with imperishable. What is the logic behind that? Paul based everything on his vision of Jesus and his reading of scriptures. He identified the Spirit with the risen Christ. Must we have an experience like Paul’s to believe like Paul? What is the likelihood of that in the modern age?
You’re saying that Epicurus gives us an explanation for why we don’t fear death: why should we fear death when we won’t even be there to experience it?
But then Paul give us an alternative explanation: Why should we fear death when, if we live our lives right (i.e. through Christ), death will only be the begin of eternal life in Heaven?
The former says there will be no pain in death, whereas the latter does the former one better: not only will there be no pain, but eternal bliss.
If I have this right, might I ask what your point is, Felix? Are you saying that because Paul’s argument is based on the supernatural (which is unlikely in our modern age), we should fall back on an Epicurean solace in our dealings with death?
I don’t think Epicurus is referring only to pain, but rather to consciousness. And, I don’t think Paul is referring to living right per se. He looks at that primarily as an outworking of the Spirit. They are two approaches to the same problem: the fact of death. Yes, the Epicurus proposition mainly eliminates the negative whereas, the Paulean offers a positive. But, I would argue, Epicurus’ proposition is better supported.
If this idea works for someone, then it works for someone. For me it would be no solace. Or, I suppose, a slight solace, but a very, very partial one.
IN any case something is eternal.
Or the natural that cannot be proven by science at this time. And for those who do not Believe, may or may not be the case. I don’t Think the term supernatural is very useful.
If you are purely a modern, not very likely. If you do not accept some of the modern Western paradigms as either complete or correct, then you are more likely to have experiences that do not fit with those paradigms. Or if you had experiences Before being trained to Think they were impossible. Or if you grew up and were given a complicated, perhaps contradictory set of beliefs from a number of sources - to some degree this is inevitable - and had a set of experiences that made you skeptical about the dominant modern western paradigms to some degree. Or if you were curious, felt longing, or from some other motivation explored one of the various religious or spiritual traditions - engaged in their practices which are designed to lead to experience like Paul’s - this also could lead to the experience. But lacking those experiences the only option is faith or trusting an authority. Some manage that, many, likely most - not brought up in a religious or indigenous tradition - understandibly cannot.
In a very general way I Think both trying to read Paul and trust what he says and trying to read Epicurus and convincing yourself that it is LOGICAL not to be afraid are problematic. It seems to work for some people. I mean basically Epicurus is saying if someone is pointing a gun at your face, you very Little to worry about. If he shoots, you will never experience anything bad or Death. If he is pointing the gun at your thigh, that’s a good time to worry.
My mind does nto work like this. I have plans for tomorrow.
I see. So the fear of death in both the Epicurean view and that of the Paulean is not based on some negative (i.e. painful) experience that will come upon us, but in losing consciousness (losing ourselves?). Under that light, Epicurus says that this is nonsense: why fear your own non-existence when you can’t even be there to experience it? Whereas Paul says that there is nothing to fear in the first place since your non-existence will never occur (but then, the fear of pain and suffering in Hell for all eternity does become a real possibility, and so one must grapple with that–hence living right does become a real concern).
But have I got this right? That the Epicurean view is preferable in your view because it doesn’t depend on the supernatural, whereas the Paulean view does?
(BTW, the fact that the Epicurean view removes the negative whereas the Paulean view adds a positive in addition was just an aside that I happen to observe–not really relevant).
when it comes to death and dying we need all the help we can get…natural or supernatural…people will go for it
to ease them through life…neither epicurus or christ does it for me…
Slight or not, i don’t see how it can be different for one than for another. We’re all in the same boat.
I have been of the same opinion until recently. But, I think the term is useful in this sense: that the supernatural represents a radical discontinuity with our everyday experience and natural is that experience. It is natural to witness the death of others and to have no memory of such periods of time when we were unconscious. So death is taken to be a permanent state of unconsciousness. Consciousness is always an embodied experience. For it to be a disembodied experience, I suppose it would have to be supernatural.
If someone points a gun at your head you have several things to worry about that Epicurus’ proposition doesn’t address. First, you may experience pain before you die. Second, the loss of your present conscious experience. So, if you are in any sense enjoying life, it is something to be avoided. If Epicurus’ proposition is illogical, please show me how. According to tradition, his experience was initiated by Christ. Paul did nothing to prepare for his experience, so preparing to have an experience like his is impossible.
Observation shows that neither the Epicurean nor the Christian model eliminates all anxiety. We have a basic existential anxiety about nonbeing. According to Epicurus, it will never be more than that. The anxiety about death always occurs within consciousness. There is no consciousness associated with death as far as we know. The Christian belief proposes some kind of experience in death. While that is not impossible, there is a complete discontinuity with life as we know it. Therefore, supernatural is an apt term for it.
I have plans for tomorrow too, but they all depend on me being alive and conscious. Imagining carrying my plans out as a ghost seems silly.
My intention is to compare and contrast the two paradigms and to weigh their relative strengths and weaknesses. Yes, Paul’s vision is far more positive. But, it is supported with far less evidence. Epicurus idea is grounded in everyday conscious and logic. Paul’s idea is based on special revelation in stark contrast to everyday experience. So on the criteria of positivity, Paul wins. On, the criteria of evidence, Epicurus wins.
Concerning death who should we trust the most, Epicurus or Paul?
Epicurus strips away all the superstitions from death. Paul, pulling from his Pharisee beliefs, gives us resurrection … and even new bodies :
“These bodies will die, but the bodies that are raised will live forever. These ugly and weak bodies will become beautiful and strong.”
And he wrongly predicted that the parousia would happen during his lifetime :
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”~1Th 4:17
And Paul couldn’t tell the story of when he was knocked off his horse without changing it, and making it contradictory.
Paul doesn’t strike me as trustworthy.
So, “if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” 1Co 15:32b
I am not sure how true this is. But as far as the boat I am in, Epicurus, it seems to me, has no idea how my mind/heart work. If his idea works for other people, then we are not in the same boat. We have different ways of feeling.
It’s a bit like someone coming up to me after a break up and saying, there are plenty of fish in the sea as if I would now drop the grief around the end of the relationship. They don’t really understand me, in any case. I suspect they don’t really understand humans, but today I will epistemologically cautious and say, well, they sure as shit don’t understand me.
Our everyday experience is a radical dicontinuity from what is natural, I would say. constructivists would say all the various different norms are discontinuous and constructed. I am not at all a pure constructivist since I Think one can get outside of Culture. But either way your sentence seems to accept things I cannot accept.
This would mean that only in the last hundred years have a significant number of humans began to be natural. Which would be odd. It would mean that natural views can only be developed via thousands of years of civilization - of a certain kind, with a specific and so far not at all proven metaphysics.
Big shotgun, chute does not open as you are falling from an airplane…unlikely to feel pain in either instance. And frankly, I would not be primarily worried about the pain in either scenario.
It is illogical because he clearly does not understand most humans. I know Iamb feels like he does not understand him.
Incorrect and incorrect. paul grwe up in Cultures that supported having such experiences. Even if he was a Jew -, I Believe, first, he was in a World where there were such experiences and they happened to some people and this was believed. he was born into a devout family and studied the religion. And then it is well documented that people who engage in long periods of various kinds of spiritual/religious practices do have such experiences. Anything from Shamanism to Hinduism to Mystical Christianty to Sufiism to mystic Hassidism. It may take years, but there are even predicatable stages and steps.
For those who either have not died Before or cannot remember.
I just don’t Think so. It would mean that if it turned out to be real, it is beyond the natural. But if Hindues who reemmber past lives are correct, for example, then what is natural to them, this remembering, and which they take to be part of the nature of the universe, is somehow supernatural even if true. I can see how from your perspective it may not be real, but that is a different issue.
Then you may feel more confused adn terrified in the Bardoes. Also one of the main things that people do when they Contact ghosts, say to help make a house more livable, is to inform to ghost about what it can do that it may very want to do. They are often stuck in a state of shock, which is unpleasant and confusing.
Now I don’t sit around making plans for what I will do as a ghost, in fact any improvement is coming out of my desires and urges - re: Bob’s thread - around spirituality, understanding myself and becoming whole and ending self-divicive mental patterns.
Firstly; I’m with you here Felix, in general; I’m more attracted to Epicurus’ articulation than I am Paul’s (which makes sense, since I appreciate the temporal embrace and never could connect with “after-live” want).
That said, I think there’s a different concept that Paul is conveying than I think is usually understood because the translations (which are right) don’t really convey the cultural meanings or vantage points.
A different way this could be written would be: For that which can decay (neuter) must immerse itself into that which cannot decay (feminine) and that which will expend itself out must immerse itself into that which expands (perpetually) knowledge (feminine), but if that which can decay has immersed in that which cannot decay, and that which expends itself out has immersed into that which expands knowledge, then at that time, it will be as the saying that is written, “death has been swallowed in victory”.
Note: I’m not looking for a directly literal here, but a cultural rendering.
The “immortal” that we translate out is “athanasian”, which is rooted in a Doric variation of Athena, the symbol of knowledge and skill, or perpetual pursuit of increasing knowledge and skill…which kind of became linked to the idea we now think of as “immortal”; though I think “immortal” somewhat misses the cultural link to continually learning and refining more and more.
What you could see this as is a commentary that a person needs to, ultimately, immerse themselves in the pursuit of life; the now, and in so doing, death becomes vapor; non-existent, as the mind is too busy immersed in these things; which is the “always give fully to the work” tangent loop around.
This doesn’t mean that the theological aspect just vaporized out of the text (my intention here is that what I wrote would be layered over the top of what’s already there in typical translations, as the text has more than one thing being expressed, but we just miss some parts due to not really being part of the culture of that time); it’s still there, and Paul definitely thinks of bodily resurrection, but this element of focusing on your now and your work was part of his remedy.
In this respect, I think Paul comes reasonably close to Epicurus in that, while Paul does continue a tangent of resurrection, they both prescribe focusing on “now” and ceasing worry over “when I die”.
I’m concerned about consequences of beliefs. If Epicurius" statement would be accepted as ultimate fact, those who are bad would be worse and those who are good would be better. Death would become the sole way in which one could view life. Hope for anything beyond death would be extinguished. Our lives are too short to place some absolute such as death as it’s final end.
How did you reach this conclusion? I see the focus as being on conscious life which is all we know that we have.
As would fear of anything beyond death.
Our lives are the longest experiences we have. There is an experience of dying, which is part of conscious life, that some of us will experience. But, as far as we know there is no experience of our own death. So, the final end[goal] of life is life, not something else.
When Paul said, “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it (1Co 10:13).” he didn’t mention that the way out may be death.
Paul was trying to convert the Hebrew way of seeing life into words that the various Hellenistic cultures could understand.
What he’s referring to there is something you see before in Job, kind of.
It goes back to the view that there is a divine that is your breath, and a testing continually in repeated pattern by a new actor of the same character, and that this was part of the mechanism of existence.
As such, the notion is more not to worry because your place is not to worry, but to be and to do, in your station and place in life.
Not surprisingly, it shares heritage with some of India’s ancient views.
