Book 1, Chapter 36

“Death offers escape from these things even if they have not happened, simply because they can happen. But people do not consider that such things can befall them: everyone hopes for the fortune of Metellus, as though the fortunate outnumbered the unfortunate, or anything in human affairs were certain, or hoping were wiser than fearing.

“But let this very point be granted, that death deprives people of good things:

87 “does it follow that the dead also feel the lack of life’s advantages, and that this is miserable? Surely that is what our opponents must say. But can someone who does not exist lack anything? The very word ‘lack’ is sad, because it carries this meaning: he had it, he no longer has it; he misses, seeks, needs it. These, I think, are the troubles of one who lacks something: he lacks his eyes—hateful blindness; his children—bereavement. This holds for the living; but no dead person lacks either life’s advantages or life itself. I am speaking of the dead, who do not exist. Do we, who do exist, lack horns or wings? Would anyone say so? Certainly not. Why? Because, when you do not have something that neither your use nor your nature calls for, you do not lack it, even if you realize that you do not have it.

88 “We must press and insist upon this again and again, once we have established the point which, if souls are mortal, we cannot doubt: that death brings so complete an extinction that not the faintest hint of sensation remains. With this firmly and securely settled, we must examine what ‘lacking’ means, so that no error remains hidden in the word. To lack, then, means to need something you wish to have; wishing is implicit in lacking, except when the word is used in another sense, as when someone ‘lacks a fever.’ There is also another use of ‘lack’: you do not have something and are conscious of not having it, even if you bear that easily. It is not <in this sense> that we speak of lacking in death; there would be nothing to grieve over. What is meant is ‘lacking a good thing,’ which is an evil. But not even a living person lacks a good thing if he does not need it. Still, in a living person the notion can be understood: you lack a kingdom—though, strictly speaking, that cannot properly be said of you; it could be said of Tarquin after he was expelled from his kingdom. In a dead person the notion cannot even be understood. For lacking belongs to a being that feels; and a dead person has no feeling. Therefore a dead person cannot lack anything.”

“Dying saves us from all this. We escape it even when it hasn’t occurred, since it could occur. People never consider that they themselves may suffer these things. Each expects the luck Metellus had—as if happiness were commoner than unhappiness, as if human life offered any certainty, as if looking forward hopefully were more sensible than being afraid.

“But grant the very point that death takes good things away from people:

87 “must we conclude that dead people miss life’s pleasures and are unhappy as a result? Our opponents certainly have to claim so. Yet how can a nonexistent person miss a thing? ‘Missing’ itself sounds sad. It brings to mind someone who used to have a thing and hasn’t got it now, who wants it, searches for it, needs it. That’s the difficulty, I take it, in missing something. Without eyes, a man suffers the misery of blindness; without children, bereavement. But these are living people. None of the dead misses life’s comforts, or even living itself. By ‘the dead’ I mean people who no longer exist. We do exist. Would you say we miss horns or wings? Surely nobody would. Why not? Something may be absent, and we may know it’s absent, without our missing it: we have neither a use for it nor a natural need for it.

88 “This deserves repeated emphasis; we must keep driving it home. If souls die, we cannot doubt that death destroys so completely that no faintest possibility of awareness survives. Settle that firmly first. Then examine ‘missing,’ clearing every misunderstanding from the word. Its meaning is to need what you wish you had. So a wish is involved—except in a different usage, such as being ‘free of a fever.’ There’s another usage too: being without something and knowing it, but taking the lack quite easily. That isn’t the ‘missing’ meant in discussions of death. It would give no cause for grief. What people mean is ‘missing a good thing,’ which is an evil. But even while alive you don’t miss a good thing unless you need it. We can, however, make sense of saying to someone alive, ‘You lack a kingdom.’ In your case that wouldn’t be strictly accurate; it would fit Tarquin after he was driven from his throne. Applied to someone dead, the idea makes no sense at all. Only someone aware can miss things. The dead have no awareness, and therefore nothing is missing for them.”