Robert Spaemann on Death

  • Thread starter Thread starter djeter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

djeter

Guest
http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/spaemann3.jpg?w=390&h=431

"The European tradition’s ritualized culture of dying and burial was a dialectical phenomenon that enabled society to relativize itself. By embedding death in cultic forms, society integrated into itself the very thing that called it into question. This integration required a religious sense. The thing that relativized society also legitimated it. By acknowledging that it was not God, it was also able to understand its authority as divinely sanctioned. Faith in eternal life also relativized the opposition between life and death. There is an old executioner’s axe in Münster that bears the words, “When I raise the axe I’m wishing eternity for a poor sinner.”

Because modernity is structurally atheistic, it has to conceive the opposition between life and death as if it were absolute. **“I’ll live on in my children.” — What an empty phrase in the face of man’s experience of himself as an individual person. **Society thus struggles doggedly to prolong life, only to be forced to capitulate in the end. It is unable to develop any authentic rituals to accompany the journey to this end because it lacks any horizon in which to relativize itself.

The first result of this is a tendency to put death out of its mind. Death takes place with increasing frequency in some out-of- the- way holding room in a clinic. The consequence: repressed and yet increased fear of death. Most people today face the prospect of their own death without ever having been present at another’s.

But then there is a further tendency simply to eliminate quietly those who can no longer be perceived as members of the social world. **Holland has legalized euthanasia and yet it is by no means ejected from the international community. On the contrary: its doctors think they are in the avant garde when they kill. **And all of a sudden it seems as if things cannot happen quickly enough.

The new definition of death as “brain death” makes it possible to declare people dead while they are still breathing and to bypass the dying process in order to quarry spare parts for the living from the dying. Death no longer comes at the end of the dying process, but — by the fiat of a Harvard commission — at its beginning. The Jewish-Christian custom of burial is increasingly replaced by the machine-like disposal of corpses through cremation without any public to look on."

more here.

Your comments most welcome. TIA

dj
 
Djeter:

Thank you for this post. I think Spaemann is exceptionally profound. This is an interesting take on the problem mercy killing and abortion. I want to re-read this tomorrow. Perhaps then I might be almost able to make a cogent comment. 😊

God bless,
jd
 
I knew an artist who chose to die because he was terminally ill and could see no reason for living when he was no longer able to paint murals in a Dutch church. I can understand his frame of mind when he could no longer keep down anything he ate. The temptation must be very great and it is not for us to judge anyone who has no firm beliefs about the sanctity of life…
 
it is not for us to judge anyone who has no firm beliefs about the sanctity of life…
So we shouldn’t oppose them? Based on that line of thinking, the world becomes a pretty laissez-faire place to be…

dj
 
So we shouldn’t oppose them? Based on that line of thinking, the world becomes a pretty laissez-faire place to be…

dj
We should certainly point out why euthanasia is wrong but not when people are in extremis or approaching that state. It would be wrong for us to inflict a sense of guilt on them to add to their suffering and the probability of persuading them to change their mind is negligible especially if they have no religious beliefs.
 
We should certainly point out why euthanasia is wrong but not when people are in extremis or approaching that state. It would be wrong for us to inflict a sense of guilt on them to add to their suffering and the probability of persuading them to change their mind is negligible especially if they have no religious beliefs.
So you don’t believe in deathbed conversions?

I keep getting the impression here of your extreme avoidance of speaking gospel truths when you fear it might be “inappropriate.” You sing a message of tolerance that doesn’t exist:

“The scandal of Neutrality is that its worshipers cannot answer the question “Why be neutral?” without committing themselves to particular goods — social peace, self-expression, self-esteem, ethnic pride, or what have you — thereby violating their own desideratum of Neutrality. Yet even this is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, namely, there is no such thing as Neutrality. It isn’t merely unachievable, like a perfect circle; it is unthinkable and unapproachable, like a square circle. Whether we deem it better to take a stand or be silent, we’ve offended this god in the very act of deeming.”

More from J. Budziszewski here.

dj
 
We should certainly point out why euthanasia is wrong but not when people are in extremis or approaching that state. It would be wrong for us to inflict a sense of guilt on them to add to their suffering and the probability of persuading them to change their mind is negligible especially if they have no religious beliefs.
You have the wrong impression of my views. When have I avoided presenting the truths of the Gospels? I was simply pointing out two fundamental moral principles:
  1. We should not cause unnecessary suffering and anguish.
  2. We should take into account the prospects of success for what we are trying to do. Otherwise we may well do more harm than good.
I had known the dying man from childhood and I knew he had made up his mind to put an end to his suffering. I knew he would go ahead regardless of what I had said because he had already made the necessary arrangements. He knew very well it was against my principles because we had often discussed it in the past. I was appalled, of course, but I am sure I did the right thing because we parted with deep friendship rather than animosity and he died peacefully the next day. May he rest in peace.
 
So you don’t believe in deathbed conversions?

I keep getting the impression here of your extreme avoidance of speaking gospel truths when you fear it might be “inappropriate.” You sing a message of tolerance that doesn’t exist:

“The scandal of Neutrality is that its worshipers cannot answer the question “Why be neutral?” without committing themselves to particular goods — social peace, self-expression, self-esteem, ethnic pride, or what have you — thereby violating their own desideratum of Neutrality. Yet even this is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, namely, there is no such thing as Neutrality. It isn’t merely unachievable, like a perfect circle; it is unthinkable and unapproachable, like a square circle. Whether we deem it better to take a stand or be silent, we’ve offended this god in the very act of deeming.”

More from J. Budziszewski here.

dj
I would hazard a guess that what TonyRey is talking about is FORCED preventing of the person from committing medically assiting suicide.

Personally, I would definitely try to talk this person out of commiiting suicide and would point out the teachings of Holy Mother Church on it–as well as trying to get this person to try to see the reality and truth of God and Christ in his/her last days.

Would I PHYSICALLY try to prevent this person from having his/her doctor administer the lethal dose? Probably not. I WOULD try to get some mandated court order to stop it, though. If not, I would then pray for the person’s soul and that of the doctor who administered the lethal dosage.

Ultimately, I think that FORCING a person to not kill him/herself was what TonyRey was talking about.

Just a guess.
 
I would hazard a guess that what TonyRey is talking about is FORCED preventing of the person from committing medically assiting suicide.

Personally, I would definitely try to talk this person out of commiiting suicide and would point out the teachings of Holy Mother Church on it–as well as trying to get this person to try to see the reality and truth of God and Christ in his/her last days.

Would I PHYSICALLY try to prevent this person from having his/her doctor administer the lethal dose? Probably not. I WOULD try to get some mandated court order to stop it, though. If not, I would then pray for the person’s soul and that of the doctor who administered the lethal dosage.

Ultimately, I think that FORCING a person to not kill him/herself was what TonyRey was talking about.

Just a guess.
I anticipated your post by a minute - not deliberately of course. 🙂
 
"The European tradition’s ritualized culture of dying and burial was a dialectical phenomenon that enabled society to relativize itself. By embedding death in cultic forms, society integrated into itself the very thing that called it into question. This integration required a religious sense. The thing that relativized society also legitimated it. By acknowledging that it was not God, it was also able to understand its authority as divinely sanctioned. Faith in eternal life also relativized the opposition between life and death. There is an old executioner’s axe in Münster that bears the words, “When I raise the axe I’m wishing eternity for a poor sinner.”

dj
The picture of Spaemann is fascinating.

The above paragraph establishes a contrast with what follows it. A pre-modern view of death. For this view, death does not have ultimate finality.

Is Spaemann speaking sociologically, philosophically, theologically - what is the site of his thinking?

I’m also curious what Spaemann would say to Heidegger about death as no-longer-being-in-the-world; there is undoubtedly a disappearance, an invisibility, an absence. But, as Catholics, we pray for the dead, ask for the intercession of the saints and believe that Jesus and Mary are present somewhere in their bodies. Indeed, Heidegger himself is present somewhere also, but without his body. Is it possible to reconcile Heidegger’s Being and Time with Catholicism?

This is especially pertinent given Spaemann’s analysis of the inauthentic understanding of death which is Heideggerian but also modified by Catholicism.
 
David B. Hart wrote a penetrating essay titled “Christ and Nothing.” Part of it referred to Heidegger and Nihilism and its relationship to Christianity. Do you concur with its analysis, I wonder.

I’ve never read Heidegger, probably because I’ve never needed to, having read Hart’s analysis here first – so I’m unable to resolve *Being and Time *with Catholicism for you. Does Hart serve to do that in any way or do you think he is writing Heidegger off? What is so powerful about Being and Time that makes it the basis of your query here?

Christ and Nothing is one of Hart’s most powerful essays and forms the basis for much of what I have discovered as well.

dj
 
David B. Hart wrote a penetrating essay titled “Christ and Nothing.” Part of it referred to Heidegger and Nihilism and its relationship to Christianity. Do you concur with its analysis, I wonder.

I’ve never read Heidegger, probably because I’ve never needed to, having read Hart’s analysis here first – so I’m unable to resolve *Being and Time *with Catholicism for you. Does Hart serve to do that in any way or do you think he is writing Heidegger off? What is so powerful about Being and Time that makes it the basis of your query here?

Christ and Nothing is one of Hart’s most powerful essays and forms the basis for much of what I have discovered as well.

dj
Hart is brilliant. His handling of Heidegger and Nietzsche judicious. I may have to replace my printer ink cartridge in order to print it but print it I will.

I’ll try to do a separate posting on Heidegger’s Being and Time.
 
I was struck by this: “The new definition of death as “brain death” makes it possible to declare people dead while they are still breathing and to bypass the dying process in order to quarry spare parts for the living from the dying.”

Catholic philosophy has always considered death as the separation of soul and body. When the soul departs, death has occurred.

We can’t see or measure a soul, of course, and declaration of death is done by doctors, not philosophers. It used to be pretty easy: the patient’s heart has stopped; he is no longer breathing. Now, we put the dying on ventilators to preserve the spare parts.

Catholic philosophy also considers the soul to be the life principle of the body. If a body is living, presumably the soul is present.

But that understanding is now dying, along with “brain dead” patients.

We can no longer wait for death to occur in its own time. Now we apparently presume that the soul must exist only in the brain. Declare the brain to be dead, and we can harvest the spare parts.

I’m thinking that if you’re really dead, there are no spare parts. Dead organs are useless to anybody. Are we redefining death just to suit medical transplant teams?
 
I was struck by this: “The new definition of death as “brain death” makes it possible to declare people dead while they are still breathing and to bypass the dying process in order to quarry spare parts for the living from the dying.”

Catholic philosophy has always considered death as the separation of soul and body. When the soul departs, death has occurred.

We can’t see or measure a soul, of course, and declaration of death is done by doctors, not philosophers. It used to be pretty easy: the patient’s heart has stopped; he is no longer breathing. Now, we put the dying on ventilators to preserve the spare parts.

Catholic philosophy also considers the soul to be the life principle of the body. If a body is living, presumably the soul is present.

But that understanding is now dying, along with “brain dead” patients.

We can no longer wait for death to occur in its own time. Now we apparently presume that the soul must exist only in the brain. Declare the brain to be dead, and we can harvest the spare parts.

I’m thinking that if you’re really dead, there are no spare parts. Dead organs are useless to anybody. Are we redefining death just to suit medical transplant teams?
Insteresting question. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top