“On meurt deux Source fois, je le vois bien : > > Cesser d’aimer & d’être aimable, > > C’est une mort insupportable : > > Cesser de vivre, ce n’est rien.”
This poignant quatrain from Voltaire presents a stark philosophical choice. The French Enlightenment thinker suggests we face two kinds of death. The first is a profound emotional and social end. This is the unbearable death. The second is the simple cessation of biological life. He dismisses this one as “nothing.” This powerful statement challenges our deepest assumptions about what it means to live. It forces us to look beyond mere survival. Indeed, Voltaire argues that a life without love and connection is a fate far worse than the grave.
Voltaire’s World: A Crucible of Ideas
Voltaire | Biography, Works, & Facts | Britannica wrote during the Enlightenment, a vibrant intellectual movement. Source Thinkers of this era championed reason, progress, and human rights. They questioned the authority of monarchs and the church. However, Voltaire was no simple optimist. He famously satirized naive faith in progress in his masterpiece, Candide. His work often exposes the dark underbelly of civilization. He saw that societal advancement did not automatically lead to human happiness.
Instead, Voltaire observed that society could create its own unique forms of suffering. While it might protect us from the brutalities of nature, it introduces new emotional plagues. These plagues include vanity, envy, and the profound loneliness of a crowded room. His quote about the “two deaths” stems directly from this sharp-eyed critique. He suggests the ultimate human tragedy is not physical extinction but spiritual and emotional isolation. This is the unbearable death of the soul.
A Philosophical Duel: Voltaire vs. Rousseau
To fully grasp Voltaire’s point, we can place him in dialogue with his contemporary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau famously argued that civilization corrupts humanity. He believed humans were at their best in a “state of nature.” In his view, society introduces inequality, property, and vice. These forces alienate us from our authentic selves. Therefore, Rousseau saw the structures of society as the primary source of our misery. He might agree with Voltaire that modern life is painful, but he would locate the cause differently.
The Source of Suffering
For Rousseau, the problem was external. The institutions we build are the cages that trap us. In contrast, Voltaire’s quote points to an internal crisis. The “unbearable death” is the failure to love and be loved. This is a deeply personal and psychological state. It can occur even in the most prosperous and peaceful society. While Rousseau wanted to dismantle the corrupting systems, Voltaire focused on the individual’s inner world. He warns that even in a perfect utopia, we can suffer this unbearable death if we lose our capacity for human connection.
The Hobbesian Contract and Its Hidden Cost
We can also contrast Voltaire’s idea with the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Writing a century earlier, Hobbes painted a grim picture of life without government. He described the state of nature as a “war of all against all.” In this state, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” For Hobbes, the solution was a social contract. People should surrender some freedom to an absolute sovereign for security. Thus, escaping physical death was the primary goal of civilization.
Voltaire’s verse turns this idea on its head. He effectively asks: what is the point of security if the life we save is empty? Hobbes prioritized the preservation of the body. Conversely, Voltaire champions the vitality of the soul. He implies that the Hobbesian bargain might save us from a “brutish” end only to deliver us to an “unbearable” one. The absence of war and violence does not guarantee the presence of a meaningful existence. A life devoid of love, friendship, and mutual affection is, in Voltaire’s view, not a life at all.
Echoes from Ancient Greece: The Meaning of a Flourishing Life
Voltaire’s focus on a meaningful life resonates with ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle, for example, spoke of eudaimonia. This term is often translated as “happiness,” but it more accurately means “human flourishing.” For Aristotle, eudaimonia was the highest human good. However, it was not simply a feeling of pleasure. It was an active state of being achieved through virtuous activity, reason, and deep social bonds, including friendship (philia).
Aristotle would have understood Voltaire’s “unbearable death.” A life without the connections that allow for flourishing is incomplete. It lacks the essential ingredients for eudaimonia. Both philosophers recognized that true living is more than just breathing. It involves actively engaging with the world and with others in a meaningful way. Ceasing to love and be lovable is to abandon the very project of a flourishing human life. It is an end to what makes our existence worthwhile.
Voltaire’s Warning in the Modern Age
Centuries after Voltaire penned these lines, his warning feels more relevant than ever. Modern societies have achieved unprecedented levels of safety and material comfort. Yet, we face what some experts call an epidemic of loneliness. Many people report feeling socially isolated despite being more connected digitally. For instance, some studies indicate a rising trend in loneliness, particularly among young adults. This suggests that we have not outrun the “unbearable death” Voltaire described.
Our focus on individual achievement and material success can sometimes overshadow the need for genuine connection. We may be living longer, healthier lives. But Voltaire prompts us to ask if we are living richer, more lovable ones. His words are a timeless reminder. The greatest plagues are not always the ones that threaten the body. Often, they are the silent ones that starve the soul. Ultimately, building a better world requires more than just progress and security. It demands that we nurture our capacity to love and be loved.