I think you may be thinking of Lucretius. He was the Roman Epicurean who popularized Epicurus's teachings in an epic poem. Because his work survives, he's considered one of the most eminent Epicureans and so they're often conflated. You make a good point about death being the cessation of any pain. And it's true that suicide is probably best avoided in most situations since it often inflicts pain on the loved ones we leave behind. As for avoiding pain, the case of Sage the Spy illustrates that it's for just this reason that someone might choose suicide. Of course, in reality we don't have assurances that the life ahead will be only pleasurable (like Carl living with $2 million) or only painful (like Sage if she doesn't take the cyanide pill). Only thought experiments can offer this level of certainty about intangibles.
I think what Epicurus meant by "nothing" becomes clearer when you consider the related treatment of death in the Epicurean Tetrapharmakos:
Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός,
ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος
καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον,
τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον
the word used to describe death (θάνατος) is ἀνύποπτον (anypopton). Now I am a Modern Greek speaker, unfortunately I didn't pay too much attention during Ancient Greek classes, so this is only my own very unqualified interpretation. I don't know why the adjective is in the neuter gender when the noun θάνατος is masculine. Perhaps the event of death is meant here, which would be neuter. In both modern and ancient use, anypoptos (masculine) means mainly "unsuspecting", "unwitting" or "unknowing", but also "unsuspected" (see https://lsj.gr/wiki/ἀνύποπτος and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%8D%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82). The verb ὑποπτεύω (hypopteuō) itself, while in most cases translated as "suspect", can also evidently be used to mean "observe" or "notice" (https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%89).
With that in mind, I think the case can be made that death in the Tetrapharmakos is actually characterized as unobservable or unnoticeable. That is, it is nothing for our sense perception - since it ceases to exist with death. This point is probably more relevant as a counter to theories of an afterlife and the fear or false hopes generated by such superstitions. From the moment of death onward, nothing is perceived. When it comes to our pleasure calculus, death obviously matters, as pleasures are perceived through the senses and death would deprive us of senses. To assume this simple fact would escape Epicurus and all his students is somewhat flippant on behalf of Timmerman. I thus wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. It would be best if we could live a life of pleasure for eternity; death gets in the way of that. The next best option is living pleasantly now and as long as death can be avoided, and living in fear of an inevitability is antithetical to pleasure.
Thanks, Dimitrios! Those are fascinating insights and I’m glad you could bring your knowledge of Greek to this question. I’m glad to know that I was on solid ground with my take.
And didn’t Epicurus himself end his own life (or am I thinking of someone else)? I may have misunderstood the summary of the arguments. I thought ataraxia was about experiencing pleasure AND avoiding pain. Death cuts off expected pleasure, but also expected pain. We discount future pleasure and pain according to our own internal algorithms (in finance, the discount is provided by, or based on, the expected interest rate). Accordingly, if we cut off a future of net pain, then death, if it is truly a void, is not bad. [Obviously, one would want to be very cautious about predicting that continued life with pain was still a life of pain-on-the-whole; I think it would be rare, and a sudden unexpected ending of one’s life would bring much pain to our loved ones and friends, so I think that if anyone asked me, I would recommend against it.] The discussion, which I have probably misunderstood, seems to have been conducted entirely in the context of pleasure and expected pleasure.
Avoiding pain (particularly mental) is for Epicureanism an end in and of itself and the only certain way to lasting, katastematic (static, or established, pleasure) as opposed to kinetic, temporary, pleasure. As I understand it, the thinking goes that as long as you are mentally unperturbed you can't be anything but happy. On the point of achieving ataraxia even while in bodily pain, I think the actual manner of Epicurus' death validates your view. If I remember correctly, he died very painfully of kidney stones but remained in good spirits until the end, due to his mental tranquility.
I think you may be thinking of Lucretius. He was the Roman Epicurean who popularized Epicurus's teachings in an epic poem. Because his work survives, he's considered one of the most eminent Epicureans and so they're often conflated. You make a good point about death being the cessation of any pain. And it's true that suicide is probably best avoided in most situations since it often inflicts pain on the loved ones we leave behind. As for avoiding pain, the case of Sage the Spy illustrates that it's for just this reason that someone might choose suicide. Of course, in reality we don't have assurances that the life ahead will be only pleasurable (like Carl living with $2 million) or only painful (like Sage if she doesn't take the cyanide pill). Only thought experiments can offer this level of certainty about intangibles.
I think what Epicurus meant by "nothing" becomes clearer when you consider the related treatment of death in the Epicurean Tetrapharmakos:
Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός,
ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος
καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον,
τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον
the word used to describe death (θάνατος) is ἀνύποπτον (anypopton). Now I am a Modern Greek speaker, unfortunately I didn't pay too much attention during Ancient Greek classes, so this is only my own very unqualified interpretation. I don't know why the adjective is in the neuter gender when the noun θάνατος is masculine. Perhaps the event of death is meant here, which would be neuter. In both modern and ancient use, anypoptos (masculine) means mainly "unsuspecting", "unwitting" or "unknowing", but also "unsuspected" (see https://lsj.gr/wiki/ἀνύποπτος and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%8D%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82). The verb ὑποπτεύω (hypopteuō) itself, while in most cases translated as "suspect", can also evidently be used to mean "observe" or "notice" (https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%89).
With that in mind, I think the case can be made that death in the Tetrapharmakos is actually characterized as unobservable or unnoticeable. That is, it is nothing for our sense perception - since it ceases to exist with death. This point is probably more relevant as a counter to theories of an afterlife and the fear or false hopes generated by such superstitions. From the moment of death onward, nothing is perceived. When it comes to our pleasure calculus, death obviously matters, as pleasures are perceived through the senses and death would deprive us of senses. To assume this simple fact would escape Epicurus and all his students is somewhat flippant on behalf of Timmerman. I thus wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. It would be best if we could live a life of pleasure for eternity; death gets in the way of that. The next best option is living pleasantly now and as long as death can be avoided, and living in fear of an inevitability is antithetical to pleasure.
Thanks, Dimitrios! Those are fascinating insights and I’m glad you could bring your knowledge of Greek to this question. I’m glad to know that I was on solid ground with my take.
And didn’t Epicurus himself end his own life (or am I thinking of someone else)? I may have misunderstood the summary of the arguments. I thought ataraxia was about experiencing pleasure AND avoiding pain. Death cuts off expected pleasure, but also expected pain. We discount future pleasure and pain according to our own internal algorithms (in finance, the discount is provided by, or based on, the expected interest rate). Accordingly, if we cut off a future of net pain, then death, if it is truly a void, is not bad. [Obviously, one would want to be very cautious about predicting that continued life with pain was still a life of pain-on-the-whole; I think it would be rare, and a sudden unexpected ending of one’s life would bring much pain to our loved ones and friends, so I think that if anyone asked me, I would recommend against it.] The discussion, which I have probably misunderstood, seems to have been conducted entirely in the context of pleasure and expected pleasure.
Avoiding pain (particularly mental) is for Epicureanism an end in and of itself and the only certain way to lasting, katastematic (static, or established, pleasure) as opposed to kinetic, temporary, pleasure. As I understand it, the thinking goes that as long as you are mentally unperturbed you can't be anything but happy. On the point of achieving ataraxia even while in bodily pain, I think the actual manner of Epicurus' death validates your view. If I remember correctly, he died very painfully of kidney stones but remained in good spirits until the end, due to his mental tranquility.
Yes, that’s true. Mental tranquility is the goal and it was said that Epicurus was perfectly content on the day he died.