Epicurus’s argument is flawed because it is firmly rooted in the values and perspective of his time. However, the same cannot be said for Rosenbaum’s reconstruction and defense. While I do think it is a little silly for scholars today to critique and undermine Epicurus’s argument because it’s not what we would think of today, I think Rosenbaum is almost equally at fault for trying to apply 2000 year old logic to the modern death dilemma. The critics of Epicurus seem to largely be omitting the context in service of their point, but the statement that ‘death cannot be bad for a person if they cannot experience the state of affairs’ is missing the point of the criticism argued by Epicurus detractors, and more than that, is blatantly incorrect. My biggest problem with his reconstruction is his use of the word “bad.” This word is incredibly vague in this context, and while it may be in an effort to make his argument as clear as possible, calling something like death “bad” doesn’t really explain in what way it is