Heidegger

—– Original Message —–
From: “Tudor Georgescu”
To: “‘Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger’”

Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: Aristotle on suicide [was Heidegger Email List?]

> > It was self-imposed, …in the same place (Phaedo)
> > he’s offered exile and refuses.
>
> Socrates was faced with the choice: “Should I run as a coward or face the
> legal sentence for my deeds?” He chose that he should not run as a coward.
> It is true that the sentence was punishment by death. Again, by running as
a
> coward, he would have betrayed his teaching about the immortality of the
> soul. He maintained that death is not to be feared, that after death
either
> the gods reward the just for their deeds or else there is complete absence
> of any experience, which, compared to the adversities of earthly life, is
a
> pleasure and a rest.
>
> The legal sentence was applied by the representatives of the city, after
his
> trial. He was not dying because he wished so, but his death was caused by
> the will of the city. He was not killing himself, the city was killing
him.
>
> He did drink the hemlock himself, but this was in order to avoid the
> dishonour of being forced by the prison guards to swallow the hemlock. It
> was not his wish to drink the hemlock, but it was the city who wished that
> he drinks hemlock, and he simply found a way to make it happen without
> having the shame of showing fear of death.

>
> The same could be said about Christ. Could Christ call upon twelve legions
> of angels, who could have rescued Him from crucifixion? He claimed that
that
> was possible, but he did not desire it. Christ was sentenced to death, He
> was not killing Himself. He did wish to die on the Cross, because this was
> His mission. But He did not call upon His disciples to crucify Him for the
> fun of being crucified.
>
> Christ preached His revolutionary message, and the power elite had no
other
> option than seeking to punish Him in an atrocious way. At the instigation
of
> the Jewish power elite, the Jewish masses appealed to Pontius Pilate, that
> he should crucify Christ.
>
> Christ said something like: “You have the option that you listen to my
> message and obey it, but I know that because you are wicked you won’t do
> that, and you will punish me unjustly. It is not Me who is robbing Myself
of
> My Own Life, but it is you who are killing me unjustly. It is true that
this
> has been predicted by the prophets, because they too knew that you are
> wicked and you won’t listen to my message. And God, in His infinite
wisdom,
> did not make My predictable death be in vain, but He made it be for the
> salvation of the sinners. I had the mission to preach My message, and if
> death is part of the package, so be it. It is your choice, not Mine.”
>
> The same way, the law says that citizens should not make use of violence
> against each other (except legitimate defence). Those who wrote the law
knew
> that some people will not obey the law and will commit arbitrary violence
> against other people. And then, the law defines the actions of the police,
> which seeks to catch these offenders and punish them. Now, the police and
> the law enforcers use violence against some people (the offenders). But
this
> violence is just. Although the offenders were compelled by their anger or
by
> the chemical imbalance in their own brains to act that way, the law
provided
> that in such cases violence should be used against these offenders in
order
> that they answer for their own deeds. It is not the law who pushed those
> people to commit violence. The law is meant against arbitrary violence and
> it only tolerates legitimate violence in order to punish those who commit
> offences.
>
> In the Netherlands, there is a different situation. There is a legal
> principle, the principle of opportunity, which says that a crime is to be
> pursued and punished only if it is opportune to do it. If the Dutch were
the
> occupants of India, Gandhi would have never succeeded to liberate his
> country. The prosecutor would have said in such a case, “Well, it is
indeed
> a crime that Mr. Gandhi did this or that, but I know very well that he is
a
> troublemaker and he meant it in order to stir trouble. It is not opportune
> to prosecute and punish him, so this case is closed.”
>
> Gandhi would not have succeeded under Dutch rule, because the Dutch are
too
> tolerant to allow him gain public recognition. He would not have succeeded
> under Nazi rule either, because the Nazis would have finished him off
before
> he could gain public recognition. His strategy was only good enough for
the
> British, which were neither lawless murderers as the Nazis nor as
pragmatic
> as the Dutch. If the Dutch were in charge of Christ or Socrates, they
would
> have surely not killed them, simply because the Dutch would not want even
> more troubles.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Tudor

His friends plead with him to go into exile. But he refuses, -to state it
positively, in order to preserve the integrity of his life and teaching. He
never acedes to the rightness of the judgement or sentence and clearly holds
the entire proceeding in contempt. So he choses to be Socrates, and that
choice entails taking his own life at that very point.
Similarly, Jesus. When they came to arrest him could, as is most often the
case, have fought his way out. And to that purpose presumably Peter draws
and strikes. But Jesus orders them not to resist. He felt called to
overthrow the spiritual falsity of rome and the sanhedrin; and intended to
face them, deludedly believing God would come to his assistance. In
gethsemene he steels himself for the morrow knowing the likelihood of
death. But he choses to go forward into probable death.
Sinilarly Achilles, …

So, …not to quibble over semantics or technicalities, the point is that in
each case the person actively choses death, and achieves thereby translation
into higher being, from man to god. And this insight is vastly more
profound on the meanign of suicide than ari’s .

Posted on Monday, July 31st, 2006 at 3:05 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback