Death and the Soul—Epicureanism and Stoicism

Introduction
What happens at death and the idea of the afterlife put human logic and science to a test. However, ancient philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, use the science of thought in order to understand complex ideas of the nonexistent. As David Lund, put it philosophy can suspend the facts of death in order to help search for life after death (Lund, 6). The ambiguity that science sees can be approach and open-minded thinkers. Life’s mysteries are evaluated by philosophers as results and the phenomenon of death on the physical plain is clear where science is not. The question as to whether or not life is simply a finite experience that disappears and fades to dust, or something more than this, falls into the disciplines of both philosophy and religion. In addition to death itself, the aspect of the soul is likewise a topic of considerable dispute and discussion within these two areas of study. The debate over whether or not human beings are purely physical in nature or something more is inherent within this ongoing discussion. Epicureanism and Stoicism will be explored to this end to better illustrate the varying theoretical and philosophical perspectives that are in place regarding both death and the element of the soul. In doing so, the acts of creativity that are relevant to this, for example, art, architecture, history, literature, music, and religion, will also be explored to better illustrate the subject.

A Philosophical Roundabout Prior to moving into an in-depth consideration of the Epicurean and Stoic perspectives regarding the soul, it is useful to explore those related conceptions as advanced by other disciplines. Through a brief consideration of the views proposed by the Platonic school of thought those put forth by the Stoics and Epicureans will be effectively framed. The Platonic perspective is largely one that may be considered to be “dualist.” Platonism maintained that the soul and the body are two distinct elements. Moreover, the two may or can function independent of one another. From the Platonist point of view the soul of an individual would thereby be mobile, in that it is not tethered to any physical body in particular permanently, but rather this tie is more temporal—with the soul thereby having the capacity to affix itself to another body. The Platonic view is that the soul is an “incorporeal substance” that may exist independently of the body. In light of this perspective, the soul would be immortal; a perspective that stands in sharp contrast to the Epicurean and Stoic perspectives (Long, 1982:34) The Platonic discourse was adapted by and rationalized by many of the world’s leading religions.

Stoicism The beliefs of Stoicism are expansive and cover a considerable portion of life. The Stoics’ perspective was one that was largely of a materialist nature. All things that exist, including the tangible and intangible alike, are material and, likewise, physical. Stoicism’s fundamental perspective was shaped by Zeno, who taught the idea of “sense-perception,” generated by “pneuma” a special material compound of fire and air (Inwood, 101). To this end, there are two kinds of matter—those of the grosser and the finer—that are joined in a symbiosis of eight parts. The grosser matter is that which may be touched, while the finer matter is defined as breath and spirit. Furthermore, it is this breath and spirit that holds the material elements together (“Stoicism,” n.d.). As will be discussed in greater detail further on, this is largely in tone with the Epicurean perspective advanced on the invisible element of “pneuma” and the composition of being.

Stoics view humans as having two components—body and soul—dualistic conception fused together by inertia. It is the forces of inertia, not atoms (Clark, 56), that push through and radiate like a “perfectly good and wise gas.” (“Stoicism,” n.d.) It is the epistemological approach fueled by ideas of personal virtue and social responsibility, which feeds the soul (Clark, 54). The element inherent truths therein gained religious tracks in the post-axial ear progressed. The ideology of human nature to this end would likewise be composed of inherent truths, based upon their purported theory of matter (“Stoicism,” n.d.). The breath of wind that gave life to the Stoic view of the soul is further seen as Epicureanism reshapes the manifestation of “pneuma.”

Epicureanism Epicureanism’s school of thought was built around the teachings of Epicurus, an individual born in 341 BC in Samos, and would later relocate to Athens (306 BC) from where he would advance his teachings. The primary advancements of Epicureanism may be seen to promote a narrow sense of ethical interest; however, pleasure and pain are sensations that dictate truth (Clark, 3). Epicurus promotes his views in letters to Diogenes. In Epicurus’s letters, we see functions of his mind working in order to gain a greater sense of truth. Epicurean concepts elicit a level of awareness that see “all phenomena are to be explained in terms of atoms and void” (Clark, 4) and unattainable desires cause pain, which leads to the belief that one should only pursue that which is attainable (Inwood, 26). In other words, live as a god among men because gods overlooked the fact that the “soul is immaterial or mortal” (Clark, 7). It is an ideology that takes the power away from the gods and brings to mind the notion that the fear of death is irrational and “makes a happy life impossible” (Clark, 5). Emotions were likewise considered to be largely superfluous if taken out of proportion. Epicurus believed that emotions would be best if they were eliminated, stating: “That which is blessed and immortal is not troubled itself, nor does it cause trouble to another. As a result, it is not affected by anger or favor, for these belong to weakness.” Strength comes from controlling anger, and favoring balance and order. Finally, death is not something that should be feared (Syfert, n.d.). The Epicurean perspective involves an unconcerned approach to the properties of the soul as it relates to death and places an emphasis on free will.

Stoicism and the Soul Stoics fuse together body and soul in a phenomenon that is not one of great clarity. As such considering that position, the philosophy sees the soul as an immortal substance of matter. The relationship, however, can separated through the epoch because the physical body and the intangible soul is not entirely transparent. The Stoic perspectives of “unified bodies” (Long, 1982:34) are separated by suspending a unified object and directing concerns to cause and function. The “spermatic principle” is composed of eight individual parts, including the five senses, voice, generative power, and the “leading power” that is inherent within the mind, and located in the heart (Inwood, 101). The individual soul, however, is not differentiated as in other perspectives advanced on the subject, such as those of Plato or Christianity. Rather, the universe is itself a giant living body, with those objects and beings living within it as part of the universal whole (“Stoicism,” n.d.). As the universe feeds off heat, matter and nonmaterial, the life on earth feeds off a “measure of heat,” (Inwood, 106). In nature, heat provides a source of energy and that power nourishes all things; thus, connecting the universe and soul (Inwood, 106). The soul in this perspective is connected and part of the overall whole and unifying a collective without originality. A collective that is interconnected with the universe becomes the driving force that commands the body and shapes identity (Long, 1982:34). The actions brought through the mind are turned and felt throughout the fabric of this universal whole. This connection would likewise serve to function as a predetermined influence upon life. All that exists is interconnected, and a part of an already functioning plan as well. This connectivity makes the actions of one impactful upon the lives of others, establishing some semblance of order that functions outside of ethics and morality, but rather more on a cause-and-effect level (“Stoicism,” n.d.). The individuality of the soul, however, is not entirely lost to the Stoic school of thought.

While the human soul is a part of a great, predetermined, whole, it is nonetheless capable of making its own decisions. The concept of free will is inherent within the Stoic philosophy. This would seemingly be in opposition to the concept that all is predetermined and likewise interconnected. To allot for this seeming lack of consistency, the Stoics explain that life is like a great river. The current leads all in the same direction, yet there are eddies through which individual choice may be exercised, thereby diverting the flow laterally, while keeping it moving in the same direction. The flow of life from their perspective is likewise powered by outside forces, with the Stoics believing the world existed on a cycle of fire, in that the world was once fire, will become fire again, and the order of being will repeat itself (“Stoicism,” n.d.). The perspective of the Stoics on the soul is interesting in that it allots for predestination as well as individuality, while at the same time includes an element of an ongoing cycle that could point toward immortality given the cyclical nature of events.

Immortality Central to the discussion of the differences between Epicureanism and Stoicism is the aspect of immortality. As exemplified herein, it is clear that these two philosophies are opposing in this regard. The Epicureans consider the soul to live alongside the body, and it cannot do so independently. To this, end immortality is not possible. There are some perspectives, however, that, when considering immortality, find there to be varying degrees thereof. Immortality is a conception of time that is limited to our current understanding of it. This, however, would put forth the possibility for there being alternative iterations of time.

Immortality is a term that is thereby unclear. The term immortality, prior to the year of 1874, during which time science would create new understandings, meant simply an unending sequence of years. This would mean that each year experienced would have a number, and thereby immortality would be an “omega-sequence” of years. The use of numbers that are considered to be “natural,” however, would limit one’s capacity to achieve true immortality. Rather, there are infinities that are of significantly higher duration that exist—with that which is based upon “natural” numbers being called “aleph-null” (Fischer, 2006:355). Thus, conception of there being more time than simple conceptions of infinity is expanded upon to present alternative means of living and being that would seemingly side-step the theories advanced by both Epicureanism and Stoicism.

Given that there is in fact an “aleph-null” of infinity, there are likewise differing and alternate conceptions of time. Were immortality to be achieved, it could theoretically be done through the use of one of these conceptions of time. It is advanced by Martha Nussbaum that these views on immortality are useful in considering the Epicurean perspective regarding immortality and death. If immortality were to exist, it would thereby have to exist within all confines through which infinity is understood. To this end, there may in fact be “trans-omega longevity.” This presents the prospect that there are possible worlds or means of existence that exist beyond a single “omega-sequence” of years. This is to say that a person could theoretically survive in these worlds from one “omega-sequence” to the next (Fischer, 2006:355). Upon having clarified the presence of immortality, this presence of bilateral worlds becomes all the more relevant.

Epicureanism is concerned with the assembly of particles that generate the wholeness of being. The assertion of immortality is to say that there are particles that are intangible and not regulated by the rules of the existing fabric of being. Were there an alternate world that had the capacity of “trans-omega longevity,” the rules of existence would likewise be quite different. In her exploration of the limits of Epicureanism, Nussbaum ruminates on the possibility of such immortality already being in place. Within the current state of affairs in the reality known to mankind immortality is not possible. Nussbaum, however, concedes that there is “some possible world, even if quite remote from our own, in which I have trans-omega existence.” (Fischer, 2006:355). This potential of parallel existences and eternal immortality that surpasses “omega-sequences” is a subject seemingly reserved for science fiction. When making a claim that immortality does in fact exist, however, it is then necessary and logical to make an attempt at quantifying the duration of this period.

The Epicurean Death From the perspective of the Epicurean position, death is not necessarily a negative experience. While immortality is lacking the state of non-being that accompanies death is one that does not produce negative feelings within the individual. When an individual dies from this perspective the invisible components that he/she is made of cease to exist, including not only his/her physical being but whatever iteration of being exists beyond this as well. Furthermore, when human beings cease to exist from this perspective, they no longer have any interest, and thereby are not frustrated or negative in any fashion. To this end, death is not necessarily a bad thing—in that the dead can have no sense of anything at all (Hershenov, 2007:171). When considering this condition of death, it is necessary to take into account what could potentially harm an individual, even in this state.

The argument is put forth to oppose that of Epicurus that even in death negativity may persist. For example ill-will may be spread about an individual regarding his reputation. This could be compared with being spoken poorly of behind one’s back. However, when there is no being to perceive damaging comments, then one cannot possibly elicit harm. The same argument is presented to quell the advancement that after one’s being ceases to exist, the prevention of some good may be prevented, thereby causing harm. Again, good or bad, nothing is tangible to those in death, and thus, it cannot possibly be negative. The Epicurean state of death is simply one of non-existence; thus, due to this, it is neutral, posing and presenting nothing whatsoever (Hershenov, 2007:171). The Epicurean perspective of death is thereby both bleak and affirmative at the same time.

The Epicurean perspective on death is one that enables the believer to cast aside those advanced by religion. As opposed to being held accountable for one’s actions during his lifetime, these actions instead dissolve upon death. Given this state of non-existence, there are no repercussions and no implications of the actions pursued during life. The legacy of an individual is advanced as being of value, and something that may follow a person into death. This legacy, however, is something that is only felt by those who are still living. The dead have entered a state of non-being; thus, regardless of what is said or remembered of them, it has no effect. This is an interesting assertion, and one that eliminates the moral and ethical necessity of “good” behavior, making all actions largely irrelevant insofar as they will make no difference to the status of the person upon his having entered the realm of death.

The Epicurean Morality of Death The morality inherent within the perspective of death as advanced by the Epicurean camp has far reaching implications that are able to transcend the realms of both ethics and morals. To the Epicurean, death is not “bad,” but rather something of an indifferent experience. If death is not “bad,” neither could it be “immoral.” According to Ben Bradley, in support of the assertions of Jess McMahan, “the view that death is bad for the one who dies seems to me to be what McMahan calls a ‘fixed point’ or ‘starting point’ in ethics.” This point is of particular significance to the subject of dying, in that it is “...a conviction that would require extremely convincing arguments if it could be overturned at all” (Hershenov, 2007:171). If dying is a fixed or starting point in the consideration of ethics, the implications behind the act of murder would likewise be inherently tied to the consideration.

According to Epicurean views death is not bad, and thus, could not be immoral or unethical, bringing into question the rightness of the act of taking a life. As stated by Harry Silverstein, “the morality of killing is another area where the Epicurean view has implications that are seriously disturbing.” Lacking in the element of morality, death becomes something of a different object in both perception and reality. Silverstein goes on to elaborate on the acceptance of the Epicurean view of death, “its acceptance would wreak havoc, in my opinion, with our considered judgments” (Hershenov, 2007:171). This perspective is relatively unique and also eye-opening as to the expansive reach that the Epicurean discussion possesses.

From the Epicurean perspective on death, given that death is neither a bad nor negative experience, the act of killing would not necessarily be wrong. The harm done in causing the death of another would thereby not apply to the situation from this perspective, bringing rise to significant more and ethical considerations. Taking this angle into account the “wrongness” that is associate with murder would not stem in the act of murder itself, but rather would be felt by the impact the death had upon surviving individuals (Hershenov, 2007:171). In death the tangible nature of it fades from the deceased.

Given that death is a release from the various tensions of life, the weight of guilt on a murderer from the Epicurean perspective would stem not from the act of death, but from the implications that the death has upon the survivor. Those who remain following the death of a murdered individual would be denied access to that person, thereby sensing some ‘wrongness’ in the act of murder. The role of utilitarianism likewise comes into play in this regard. The inherent ‘wrongness’ in an act of murder when death is not seen as negative would come due to the loss of productivity on behalf of the deceased. The utilitarian perspective would weigh the greatest good for the greatest population, and thus, reason that to deny many the benefits of one’s life based upon a single act of murder would not be of optimal utility. From this point of view, Epicureanism advances an improper perspective of death that in turn shifts the view of murder (Hershenov, 2007:171). The fact that murder would not be inherently wrong from the Epicurean perspective is to some quite alarming. With regard to the perspective of Stoicism, this likewise is something that is largely divergent. When the belief is in place that immortality may be achievable, it is a natural extension of this that the value of individual lives is decreased. Should the soul function separately from the body, then the death of one body would not necessarily be the death of the soul. In turn, this decreases the overall impact of murder, in that it is merely denying the soul the capacity to inhabit one particular body, for a finite duration of time. These perspectives are largely amoral in nature, and stand in stark contrast to the rules and regulations on the matter as advanced by religion.
Stoic Happiness The Stoic lifestyle is largely connected to the pursuit of happiness. Contrasting with the hedonistic assertions if Epicurus, however, the Stoic perspective involves more of a passive harmony with nature than a proactive pursuit of pleasure. For the Stoic to achieve happiness, harmony with nature, and the natural order of events, is achieved. This by some has been advanced as being apathetic, in that the Stoic views himself as a passive actor holding a place in the pre-ordered and destined state of affairs .This in turn has been translated as being largely apathetic. Life is already etched in stone from this perspective, with the person merely having to serve his role with honor and acceptance to achieve happiness. It is the prerogative of the Stoic to maintain both health and happiness, and in doing so, harmony with the natural order (Stempsey, 2004:451). The way in which fate is viewed is thereby interesting, and likewise related to the expression of medicine in the modern world in relation to suffering.

Stoicism and Suffering The perspective of the Stoics that is often advanced as being fatalist has been used in modern medicine to review the way in which patients perceive and react to their own suffering. The Stoics would apply their wisdom so as to make an attempt at better harnessing their existence with nature, to provide for the most positive experience necessary—however out of control it may be. Suffering from the Stoic perspective is not necessarily something that demands immediate control, but rather is something that directs one’s actions. Most individuals when experiencing suffering will seek whatever means possible to end this suffering. However, the Stoic would understand that the suffering was in place for a preset reason. Thus, the strife is there to provide insight and input into future movements and decisions (Stempsey, 2004:451). This Stoic perspective of suffering is interesting in that it is more in tone with Christian ideals than those of Epicureanism. The former would seek to find a divine reason or motivation behind the suffering, while using the religion to draw the strength necessary to face down the issue. Conversely, the Epicurean perspective would encourage the elimination of suffering so as to maximize the amount of time during which pleasure may be included.

Epicureanism and the Soul The perspective of the Epicurean camp is one that advances there to be a tie between the body and the soul that is both temporal and also interdependent. Epicurus advances that the human being is a composition made up of both the body and the soul. The being of an individual is composed of a collection of “invisible bodies” that make up for the entirety of its being. These invisible bodies, which would now be referred to as atoms, are described as making up the physical elements of human beings, including their flesh, blood, bones, and other physical and measureable elements. It is these same invisible bodies, however, that are purported to comprise the “vital powers of the body” that are essential to the motoring of this body (Long, 1982:34). From this perspective, the soul and the body are one and the same, composed of the same elements, yet inherently tethered together. This is quite an important perspective to advance that encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs.

The Epicurean perspective of the soul is largely in opposition to the major religions of the world. The body of the individual from the angle advanced by Epicurus is inherently tethered to the soul, and the two cannot function distinct of one another. This in turn is influential upon the perspective of longevity and immortality. The Epicurean perspective stands against immortality, as the body and soul are composed of the same elements, and thus, when the body ceases to exist, so does the soul (Long, 1982:34). The finite nature of the soul and body on behalf of Epicurus is one that is largely unique and, in a sense, dismal as well. One of the primary benefits of religion and those philosophies that advance an afterlife—or in the least the eternal nature of the soul—awaken the romantic idea that immortality may in fact be achievable. The Epicurean perspective, while more logical and scientific, is nonetheless comparatively bleak and negative in nature.

Epicureanism and the Christian Soul The Christian soul is one that stands in stark contrast to that of the Epicurean beliefs. Within the realm of Christianity, the soul is considered to be something sacred, created by the divine being of the religion. It is attributed to having lasting and eternal value. Should the human live well and in accordance with the teachings of the faith, the soul is in turn taken back to “live” eternally with the deity, God, within his place of residence. This indicates individuality inherent within the soul, as well as implications to the actions that are participated in throughout life. Should the soul fail to abide by these teachings, it is still immortal, but rather than finding itself back with the creating deity, the soul is instead cast into a realm of eternal suffering that is governed by an so-called fallen creation of the deity. To the Epicurean this is largely superfluous. The soul is confined to the physical being of the individual, and so faced alongside him in death. There is no superior ownership of the trait of individuality within the being. The concept of the soul as advanced by Christianity is quite impressive given the circumstances surrounding it, although this concept cannot function beneath the light of Epicureanism.

Epicureanism and Art The Hellenistic world is the period in human history that would experience both the Stoic and Epicurean philosophical movements. Given the influence these teachings had upon the people of the time, this impact may likewise be felt within the art and literature created by these people. The art that was created during this time would often stand in stark contrast to that of Epicurus. The artwork produced during this period of history was labeled as “Hellenistic Baroque,” and would oftentimes represent the opposite of Epicurean teachings—specifically, in that emotions were expressed substantially. This particular style would encompass art of all mediums, including music, visual arts, and literature (Syfert, n.d.). The influence of Epicurus is thus tangible due to the opposite reaction to his teachings as opposed to a testament of support.

One piece in particular from the Hellenistic period that seemed a direct refutation of the teachings of Epicurus was that of the Laocoon. It is within the style of baroque art that would emerge during the time of Epicurus. Baroque art is typically one that exhibits “a theatrical manner of representation, which emphasizes emotional intensity.” This is clearly something that stands in stark contrast and opposition to the tenets proposed by Epicurus. The piece the Laocoon was a sculpture created around 50BC. It depicts Laocoon, a priest of Troy, alongside his two sons being attacked by serpents that had been sent by the gods to interfere with Laocoon’s intended warning of the Trojan Horse attack. The representation of Laocoon has a furrowed brow expressive of emotion, conveying despair, pain, and wonderment. His sons are likewise in the midst of experiencing substantial emotions. From the perspective of Epicurus, such displays of emotion are indicative of weakness, and are likewise superfluous (Syfert, n.d.). The indifference of Epicurus to death and emotion would lead one to believe that much of the art of the Hellenistic period (during which he lived) as counter to his beliefs and teachings given the art’s strong emotional content.

Laocoon, in particular, is a strong example of the style in place at the time of Epicurus, and demonstrates how his teachings did not significantly influence the perspective of the artists at the time. Within the image, the men depicted are likewise being entwined by the serpents of the gods, eliciting fear. According to Epicurus, the gods are indifferent to the fate of man and likewise uninvolved, thereby making irrelevant and undeserving of fear. This particular baroque piece of art sharply objects to this, in that the gods are in fact quite fearsome, and capable of not only interfering with life, but also ending it (Syfert, n.d.). Hellenistic art was largely emotive in nature; thereby refuting the teachings of Epicurus and demonstrating that his teachings would not influence the content of artwork during his time.

Stoicism and Art The Stoic perspective is one that was largely supportive of the arts in general. In regards to poetry, the Stoics maintained that the great poets, Homer included, were in fact the first philosophers. The Stoics would thereby use quotes from these poets to illustrate their own philosophical arguments, as well as to elaborate on their philosophy in general. It is the Stoic perspective that poems can serve as allegorical expressions of truth. This is the same view they hold regarding religion—in that values and lessons may be derived from what society otherwise would consider to be stories. The interest of the Stoics would be quite strong regarding poetry as a result of this recognition of value within the story structure, thereby placing them within the literary field during their time (DeLacy, 1948:241). The participation of the Stoics in both poetry and the dialogue regarding poetry would place them centrally within the artistic world of the Hellenistic period.

Conclusion The relationship between death and the afterlife is a correlation that has been explored by a wide range of philosophies and religions. The Epicurean perspective is unique in that it is largely dissimilar to many of the beliefs that were in place at the time. To the Epicurean camp death was not something that was necessarily bad, nor was it something to be feared. This was coupled by a sense of the fleeting nature of life, and the importance of maximizing one’s enjoyment during this limited period of life. There was no afterlife from the Epicurean perspective, as the body and soul were inherently tied together, and thereby the death of one meant the non-existence of the other. This perspective would contrast sharply with the highly emotive artwork and literature at the time, failing to grapple the indifference that is inherent within the Epicurean philosophy.

The Stoics present an interesting point of comparison with the Epicureans regarding both death and the afterlife. The perspective of the Stoics was one of cycle and destiny. Life is an ongoing experience that follows a predetermined order that is innate within the universe. Each individual is not a separate entity, but rather a composite to the whole of the universe. The issue of predestination, however, in this philosophical camp is likewise presented alongside a conception of free will. While all is predetermined, there is room for the human to make choices, although the choices are merely momentary and do not affect the ongoing preset cycle that is under way. The Stoics would take a more direct role in the art of the era, actually creating poetry and participating in society through this outlet during Hellenistic times. Through a comparison of the perspectives on the afterlife and death as presented by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophies, two widely disparate schools of thought are viewed. All the more significant is that they were both present within the same era, in the same society, underlining the diversity of human belief on the important subjects of death and the afterlife.

Works Cited (Revise)
Clark, Gordon H. Selection from Hellenistic Philosophy
DeLacy, Phillip. (1948) Stoic Views of Poetry. The American Journal of Philology. 69(3): 241-271.
Hershenov, David B. (2007) A More Palatable Epicureanism. American Philosophical Quarterly. 44(2): 171-180.
Inwood, Brad and Gerson, L.P. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings
Lund, David. Person, Soul, and Death: A Philosophical Investigation of the Afterlife.

Stempsey S.J.M.D.Ph.D., William E. (2004) A New Stoic: The Wise Patient. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 29(4): 451-472.

Long, A.A.. (1982) Soul and Body in Stoicism. Phronesis. 27(1): 34-57.

Fischer, John Martin. (2006) Epicureanism About Death and Immortality. The Journal of Ethics. 10(4): 355-381.

Stoicism. (n.d.) Religion Facts. Retrieved on 17 April 2012, from: http://www.religionfacts.com/a-z-religion-index/Stoicism.htm

Syfert, Kristen. (n.d.) Epicurus and Baroque Art: Emotions in the Hellenistic World. Hellenistic Philosophy. Syracuse University. Retrieved on 17 April 2012, from: http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/his301-001/hellenistic_philosophy.htm