Plato and Epicurus both believe that one should not fear death, but for different reasons. These reasons are associated with disagreements about the soul. Plato believes that the soul is immortal, while Epicurus believes that the soul is not immortals. Despite their contrasting views, Epicurus and Plato believe that our views on death should inform how we should live life. After examining these views, Epicurus presents the argument that is closest to the truth.
Plato believes that the soul is immortal. For Plato, the goal in life is to attain a truth that is only accessible outside of the body (600e). In order to adopt this view, one must believe that this realm of truth exists outside of the body. Thus, the soul is a distinct form outside of the body that seeks after the truth (605b). Essentially, any form that is associated with an imitation of the truth will always be inferior to the spirited part of the soul. With this view of forms, Plato places an emphasis on immortal things that are not subject to decay (608b). In an attempt to develop a hierarchy between the body and the soul, Plato finds that nothing in the body can touch what is in the soul. Within this belief, one’s earthly experience is associated with decay, vices, and evils (609d). Plato qualifies this idea of immortality by stating that “the soul isn’t destroyed by a single evil” (611a). Because the body is defenseless against the inherent evils of the world, the soul will always be superior to the body in all instances. Plato uses this idea of the soul’s indestructability to emphasize that the body is immortal and continuously everlasting.
This belief in the soul’s immortality, leads Plato to assert that one should not fear death because there is an afterlife in Hades. Hades is being used in an instrumental way because Plato claims believing in the afterlife is crucial in mitigating our fear of death. Substantially, in the building of his ideal city he must ask guardians “not to disparage the life in Hades,” but rather to praise it (386a). The afterlife allows the warrior to face battle with more courage and strength, and life without the fear of death (386b). Although Hades is believed to be “full of terror,” it is a place that is true and beneficial to future warriors that permits this optimistic outlook (386). Plato finds that the truth in the afterlife is greater than any vices that the world has to offer (426b). In addition to the afterlife’s veracity, it is beneficial aspect is found in the promises of an opportunity for rewards and prizes for one’s virtue (608c). Ultimately, a belief in the afterlife allows us to mitigate our fear of death as we walk to through life.
In addition to Plato’s belief that we should not fear death because of the rewards offered in afterlife, Plato finds that our views on death and immortality should inform the life that we live. For instance, belief in the afterlife creates a sustaining belief that a just man is rewarded not only by his society, but also to a marginal extent through death. Socrates recounts the Myth of Er and finds that there are “prizes, wages, and gifts” that are available to just persons on earth, but even more is given after death (614b). In order to access these gifts, Socrates recommends spending your short life looking after your mind, and cultivating the part of you will get to keep for forever (498). Socrates suggests that youth and children should be primarily concerned with this preparation because one’s soul needs time to reach maturity (498c). The main route in building this maturity is through acquiring education and philosophy because it will add to both a happily life and death (498c). Fundamentally, Socrates’ emphasis on educating the youth with philosophy implies that earthly life is supposed to be a preparation for eternal life.
While Plato’s belief that the immortality of the soul should drive how we lead our lives, Epicurus does not even believe that the soul is immortal. Epicurus puts an emphasis on empirical observation of the tangible, find that we only know what exists through what we can observe. In describing the soul, Epicurus writes that the soul “is a finestructured body diffused through the whole aggregate” (313). He adds that this soul is composed of “features” such as powers, feelings, mobilities, and thought processes (313). However, Epicurus finds that the loss of these features marks our death. On the other hand, Plato traces these “features” throughout one’s journey to build the immortal soul and its entry into the afterlife. Epicurus’ evidence for the soul is based on markers of nature such as “heat,” and “wind” (313). Through the use of perennial images of nature, Epicurus finds that that human existence only has an earthly dimension. As a consequence, these aspects of the soul are not carried any further beyond death.
In addition to Epicurus’ belief that the soul is not immortal, Epicurus finds that there is no reason that death should be feared. In fact, Plato and Epicurus both believe that death should not be feared, but for vastly different reasons. While Plato believes that death should not be feared because we can have faith in the after-life, Epicurus believes that death should not be feared because death “is nothing to us”(316). Although the Platonic looks to Hades to mitigate one's fear in death, the Epicurean does not find solace in this idea because there is not choose not believe in the afterlife. By understanding that death is nothing to us, Epicurus finds that it makes the “mortality of life” more enjoyable than Plato’s yearn for immortality (316). Even though death is “the most awful of evils,” still, the Epicurean believes that death is nothing to fear. There is no reason to fear death because death exists in the absence of life (313). Epicurus treats life and death as separate states that do not overlap with one another; therefore, death has no ability to harm us. As a result of this logic, when we are dead, we do not regret being dead.
Because Epicurus finds this lack of a threat in death, this has a domino effect on his philosophy on how we should live. Although Plato and Epicurus both believe that death should inform how we live, these ways differ because Epicurus believes that we should not be burdened by the need to ask questions. In the 11th principal doctrine, Epicurus finds that if we had never been “molested” by the misinformation that death “somehow affects us,” there would be no need to study “natural science” (319). Basically, Epicurus finds that we are creating pedagogical burdens for our society that are preventable and unnecessary. Although Plato places an emphasis on the fact that we need to build the rational part of the soul, Epicurus finds that this is unnecessary. Epicurus sees that a living creature has no need to go search for something “that is lacking” (317). Subsequently, if one becomes too worried with maintaining or reaching a Platonist “rational state,” one would be violating the main epicurean conceptual requirement of freedom from pain or fear. Furthermore, unlike the platonic view in which one should prepare their mind for the afterlife, the epicurean view holds that there are no other stages in life that are valuable for us to experience or understand.
Although Plato and Epicurus offer insightful views regarding death and the immortality of the soul, Epicurus offers a view is that is closest to the truth. When looking at the empirical evidence provided on the soul and its mortality, Epicurus offers a compelling argument surrounding the soul not being immortal. Epicurus uses evidence of nature to explain the “finestructured body” of the soul (313). Epicurus likens the body of the soul to “wind with a certain blending of heat, and resembling wind in some respects but heat in others.” He uses a scientific approach to explain why this soul is not immortal. In his Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus explains that death is simply the dissolution of atoms that were once colliding and coming apart randomly (310). This evidence on the nature of soul emphasizes that death is nothing more than the ceasing of atoms to exist. When addressing if the afterlife is an accessible place, Epicurus says that our bodies would not have anywhere to be, move, or exist. (310). While Plato uses the fantastical Myth of Er, Epicurus refutes this by saying that the afterlife can not exist in either imagination or analogy (310). Effectively, Epicurus’ reasoning surrounding the death and immortality is based in tangible evidence.
The problem with Plato’s belief in the afterlife and immortality of the soul is that there is not enough tangible evidence. Nevertheless, there is no need for tangible evidence if you believe that the truth exists outside of your body. Plato clearly states that to examine the soul through its association with the body would be counterintuitive because the soul is “maimed” by the body (611b). Therefore he chooses to compose his “logical reasoning” of the soul in its “finest way,” finding that philosophy is a means to see the true nature of the soul (611). [In addition to his composition of the soul, Plato seeks to provide evidence for the existence of the afterlife. On the other hand, this “proof” is grounded in the wondrous Myth of Er that claims that after receiving judgment, souls that were came to the doors of heaven and souls covered in dirt came to the doors of earth (614d). Although Epicurus finds these aforementioned “doors” inaccessible if we believe that the pure truth has a separate existence outside the body this myth has to be true. Setting aside one’s personal belief, if we are looking for tangible evidence surrounding the immortality of the soul, Plato’s evidence remains intangible in comparison to Epicurus’.
Although Epicurus is closest to the truth, Plato and Epicurus agree that death is inevitable. For Plato and Epicurus, shaping a view surrounding death becomes a reflection on life. If Plato were to Epicurus “What questions should one ask about life to prepare a life after death?” Epicurus would simply reply “None” because there is no afterlife, no need for questions, and no eminent threat of death. Plato would scratch his head in response because of his belief in the immortal soul. No matter which opinion we find plausible, both Epicurus and Plato would agree that if we look forward to death, our earthly experience has a purpose. Simply put, it is up to us to adopt an Epicurean view of living a life neglect of pain and fear or a Platonic view of using life to strive towards virtue. Although Epicurus and Plato view this purpose differently, we still find ourselves placed with a task to do something. Conclusively, we must examine these views and choose. Regardless of our assured death, Plato and Epicurus’ contrasting conversation must continue so that we can add value to our lives regardless of what is to come.