Suicide

Suicide

Rational Suicide?

A Calculated Departure
For Someone in Good Health, Can Suicide Ever Be a Rational Choice?
By Barron H. Lerner

Carolyn G. Heilbrun's suicide this past October could not have come as a great surprise to her family and friends. After all, the 77-year-old former Columbia University literature professor and mystery author had written for years about her plans to kill herself.

Heilbrun was suffering from none of the conditions commonly associated with suicide when she evidently took an overdose of pills and put a plastic bag over her head. She was neither terminally ill, in severe pain nor, apparently, depressed. Instead, she committed what some have called "rational suicide" -- ending one's life out of a conviction that one has lived long enough, that the likely future holds more pain than joy.

Rational suicide, a coinage dating back nearly a century, has also been called balance-sheet suicide, suggesting that sane individuals can objectively weigh the pros and cons of continued life, and then decide in favor of death.

Even if one countenances euthanasia or some type of expedited death for suffering or dying individuals, rational suicide pushes the envelope further. It raises a provocative question: Can it ever be rational -- or defensible -- for a sane and healthy person to kill himself or herself? Medical ethicists, clinicians and experts in suicide find themselves at odds on the matter.

Margaret P. Battin, professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, is a defender of the idea -- one she calls, given the aging of the population, "an issue for the coming century." Rational suicide, says Battin, "represents one of the fullest forms of expression of one's autonomy. It is the right of people to shape the ends of their lives."

Daniel P. Sulmasy, philosopher and ethicist at New York Medical College and St. Vincent's, a Catholic hospital in New York, couldn't disagree more. "Anyone who is not mentally ill and chooses the irrationality of committing suicide has done something morally wrong." says Sulmasy. Many other Christian denominations take a like stance.

Nor do those two positions represent the whole spectrum of opinion. There are also those who view any rational suicide as a failure of a medical system that should have identified a patient calling for help. "Most suicidal persons desperately want to live," states the Web site of the American Association of Suicidology, a group devoted to the understanding and prevention of suicide.

This concern is what makes Heilbrun's decision such a disturbing one, says suicide expert John L. McIntosh, chairman of the psychology department at Indiana University South Bend. Even someone making what appears to be a thoroughly rational case for suicide, McIntosh says, can be suffering from depression or cognitive rigidity, an unwillingness to consider other options. Health professionals, he stresses, should be diagnosing and then treating such individuals.

And always lurking in the shadows of the debate is one other concern: the so-called slippery slope. That is, once a society condones suicide, for whatever reason, what's to stop it from one day promoting the act? An individual's right to die, then, might become his duty to do so.




No Safeguards
Suicide has been in the news often in recent years. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed state laws passed in Washington and New York that prohibited physicians from prescribing medications to end the lives of terminally ill patients. The high court upheld the laws, ruling that there was no constitutional right to such "physician-assisted suicide." Individual states, however, were free to pass such legislation. One, Oregon, did so in 1997.
Any more active involvement of doctors in patients' final acts has raised consistent objections. In 1999 Michigan physician Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for causing the death of Thomas Youk, a man with end-stage Lou Gehrig's disease. Unlike in previous cases, where Kevorkian had counseled patients on how to end their lives, in Youk's case, he actually injected the lethal medications himself.

Kevorkian had for decades advocated physician participation in ending the lives of patients who sought help in dying. This process, known as euthanasia, has been practiced for decades in the Netherlands.

But these recent discussions about physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have dealt with individuals who are extremely ill and dying. The Oregon law, for example, has safeguards to ensure that candidates for assisted suicide indeed have less than six months to live. No such legal safeguards or parameters exist for rational suicide.

Among young adults or adolescents, suicidal thoughts usually indicate an underlying mental illness, such as depression. There is no question among health professionals that such individuals should receive aggressive psychiatric treatment.

But what about the elderly? Can old people convincingly argue they have completed their lives and want to check out before experiencing a stroke or other debilitating illness? Is this type of rational suicide, often called elder suicide, ever justified? Here, the debate becomes more complicated.




Science Out of Fiction
Fiction writers have long worried about societies that tolerate -- or even advocate -- premature death among the elderly. In his 1882 novel "The Fixed Period," the British satirist Anthony Trollope mocked an imaginary country that admitted its 67-year-old members into a so-called college for a year of contemplation before euthanizing them.
In his 1954 short story "The Test," Richard Matheson described a society similar to Trollope's: Because of concerns about overpopulation, people aged 65 or older had to pass a test every five years. Those who failed were labeled inadequate and killed. In the story, the 80-year-old protagonist, Tom Parker, commits suicide rather than go through the humiliation of testing.

Despite such cautionary tales, some prominent figures have argued that there may be a point after which life loses its value. In a 1905 speech, legendary Johns Hopkins University physician William Osler, then in his mid-fifties, mused approvingly about Trollope's scenario. Given the "uselessness of men above sixty years of age," he announced at a lecture, "incalculable benefits might follow from such a scheme." Osler quickly backtracked after he was attacked in the newspapers. He died in 1919 at the age of seventy.

But debate about assisted death and its permutations continued.

In the 1970s "the right to choose" became a mantra in American medicine, from abortion to the treatment of breast cancer. Wasn't there also be a right for elderly people to die as they saw fit?

A person who helped bring this idea to the public was British journalist Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society, which endorsed facilitating death among terminally ill patients. The society took its name from the poison taken by Socrates when faced with an unjust death sentence.

Now known as End-of-Life Choices, the group supports state legislation to permit physician-assisted suicide.

In 1991 Humphry published "Final Exit," which provided readers with explicit information about how to commit suicide, including the proper doses of medications and other tips, such as placing a plastic bag over one's head. The book sold more than 500,000 copies and topped the list of hardcover advice books in the New York Times for 18 weeks. A third edition of "Final Exit" was published in late 2003.

Humphry stated in the book that he was opposed to rational or elder suicide, arguing that laws that helped very sick patients to die would actually obviate the need for healthy people to preemptively end their lives. The inclusion of this type of information led to concerns that Humphry was encouraging a slippery slope: The suicide cocktails described in "Final Exit" might be used by those who merely lacked health insurance or saw themselves as a burden.

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study suggesting that such behavior might be occurring. The authors of the study found that the number of asphyxiations using plastic bags in New York had increased from eight to 33 in the year after publication of the book. More worrisome was that 16 of the 33 people had no known medical illness. In nine of the cases, copies of "Final Exit" were found at the scene of the suicide.

But more recent data, Battin says, don't bear out the idea that broader public knowledge of options fuels a rise in suicide incidence among vulnerable individuals. Since the passage of the Oregon's Death with Dignity act, the number of deaths due to physician-assisted rose from sixteen in 1998 to thirty-eight in 2002. This is hardly a surge of inappropriate deaths, she states. And, according to 2003 article in the British Medical Journal, the number of requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands has remained stable -- at roughly 5,000 per year -- over the past decade. Three-quarters of these patients had cancer.




A Legacy of Questions
It is hard to say how many people commit rational suicide. As Douglas Harwood and his colleagues at the University of Oxford reported in the Journal of Affective Disorders in 2002, the surviving relatives of a person who commit suicide feel shameful and rejected, which may lead them not to discuss the event. The Heilbrun family declined to be interviewed for this article. Information about Heilbrun's death was obtained from obituaries and tributes that appeared in newspapers and New York magazine.
Sometimes the subject draws attention when a failed suicide attempt leads to a hospital admission. For example, Columbia University Medical Center recently held an ethics conference on a woman with a nonfatal neurological disease who, having contemplated ending her life for years, finally attempted it -- unsuccessfully.

Nor, given the aging of the population, is the topic of rational suicide likely to disappear.

Heilbrun was a highly respected feminist scholar and expert in modern British literature known for her independent thinking. Among her achievements was being the first woman to receive tenure at Columbia University.

Heilbrun, who also wrote popular mystery novels under the pseudonym Amanda Cross, had been especially open about her plans. In her 1997 book, "The Last Gift of Time," she described life after age 70 as "dangerous, lest we live past both the right point and our chance to die."

Two concerns that Heilbrun mentioned were her "inevitable decline" and becoming a burden on others. Her motto, she said, was, "Quit while you're ahead."

But though she was then 71 years old, Heilbrun chose not to act -- not yet.

Her sixties, to her surprise, had been a source of astonishing pleasure. She wanted to keep writing, enjoy her family and friends, spend time in a new home and keep certain "promises."

In the July 2003 issue of the Women's Review of Books, however, Heilbrun wrote that she feared "living with certainty that there was no further work demanding to be done." She had consented to life, she stated, "only on the terms of borrowed time."

On Oct. 9, 2003, Heilbrun was found dead in her New York apartment, having committed suicide. A nearby note read "The journey is over. Love to all."•

Suicide. A Rational Choice?

The Question

When discussing ethical issues surrounding suicide, our main question is not, "Should people who commit suicide be criticized morally?" Experience and intuition demonstrate that most persons who take their own lives do so because they are emotionally disturbed and act compulsively. Thus their freedom of choice is greatly restricted or nonexistent. Too many of us know dear friends or family members whose suicidal deaths demonstrate the lack of psychological freedom. Indeed, many experts in suicidology today seem to take it for granted that all suicides are compulsive and irrational (1). Rather then, our question in this essay concerns the contemporary tendency to present suicide as "a rational choice," that is, to present it as the best manner to die in some circumstances (2).

History

Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, suicide was both condemned and defended as it also was in Eastern cultures. The Epicureans who considered pleasure and peace of mind the highest good, argued that it was better to kill oneself than endure life if it had become more painful than pleasurable or peaceful. The Stoics, who believed that rigid self-control was the highest good, argued that it was permissible to kill oneself if suffering or torture might force one to lose self-control. Dualists taught that the soul which is the real person is burdened by the body in this life; hence suicide might be justified as a laying down of this burden. Even today, some believe it ethical to choose suicide for the sake of honor. Recently some Irishmen and Vietnamese chose suicide by self-starvation and self-immolation to protest injustice and oppression.

However, the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have always opposed suicide because they regard life as God's gift which people are to use not as owners but as faithful stewards. Consequently, we cannot escape accounting to God for our stewardship of this one life which is given on earth, nor can we reject the body which will always be part of us. This view was anticipated by Plato, who argued that suicide is a rejection of our responsibility to self, to the community of which one is a part, to God who gave life. In a different way, another philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, argued that suicide is the greatest of crimes because it is man's rejection of mortality itself, since man must be his own moral lawgiver. For a person to kill himself is to treat himself as a thing. (means) rather than as a person (an end in himself). In sum, in theological and philosophical reasoning, suicide has been considered for centuries as an unethical act even though responsibility was seldom imputed to the unfortunate persons who performed the action.

Mythologizing Suicide

Today, however, this classical stand is being called into question. In the United States and England, societies exist which promote suicide as an ethical action, a "rational" alternative to life, especially if a person is beset by depression, loneliness, severe infirmity or serious suffering. Usually the reasons put forward for approving suicide as an ethical choice are that people should have the right to be autonomous, to control their own destiny, or that people should not have to suffer pain, loneliness, or degradation at the time of death. Though these are professed reasons for the modern reexamination of the traditional stance, a noted psychiatrist and suicidologist, David Peretz, sees a more subtle cause for this change of thought:

"Under the unprecedented stress of recent decades denial mechanisms are breaking down and we have become increasingly vulnerable to the threats of intensely painful feelings of anxiety, fear, panic, rage, guilt, shame, grief, longing and helplessness. In order to avoid being overwhelmed, we seek new ways to adapt.... I believe that the growing concern with a good death, death with dignity and the right to die reflect this search.... If our deepest known fear is of being destroyed, and we cannot deal with that fear, we take refuge in planning death and rational suicide. We find comfort in the illusion, 'It will not be done to me... I will do it myself.'"(3)

Peretz feels this is a dangerous motivation because it fosters the harmful illusion of personal omnipotence.

Two other unrealistic and therefore unethical elements are involved in rational suicide. First, the call for rational suicide is based upon the notion that personal autonomy or independence is the goal of human life. Rational suicide says: If one cannot be autonomous or independent, then life is not worth living. This is simply one more expression of radical individualism, a philosophy which weakens human community and places little value upon social justice. Both experience and wisdom demonstrate, however, that interdependence, not independence, is the goal of human life. To admit that one is weak and needs help is not a denial or a perversion of one's humanity. Rather, accepting help is a means to fulfill one's humanity. The weak and suffering offer an opportunity to others to fulfill their humanity by responding with care and kindness. The perfectly autonomous person would not need other people; can you imagine a more boring and self-centered individual?

A second unethical element in rational suicide is that it mythologizes the act of self-destruction. To mythologize something is to give it powers it does not possess. Rational suicide presents self-destruction as a problem-free solution to the very serious human problems of physical suffering, loneliness, severe depression or infirm old age. But we do not eliminate human problems by eliminating human beings. Rather, we eliminate or alleviate human problems through compassion, care and loving concerning. The problems that rational suicide would pretend to eliminate are often problems with which individuals learn to live through the help of caring relatives or friends.

Conclusion

The present day emphasis upon the right to die and death with dignity may blind us to the right to life of the weak, infirm and aged. The cost of combating the human problems of loneliness, infirmity and depression is not self-destruction, rather it is the development of a compassionate, caring and generous community. Though this is not simple, it is a development rather than a perversion of our humanity.

Suicide

Suicide
Life for many people is clearly not worth living,examples range from the elderly person wishing for euthanasia to the AIDS infected children of Romania.The situation of many alive today was mirrored by the situation founded by many in post-war Europe,where men ended up in a desolate landscape - where God is not only dead but buried.Men werre without hope that a better world would result from their efforts.The additional responsibility of forming a new society was neither wanted nor chosen- so the question 'why is life worth living - why not end it?' assumes a most important status. A.Camus captured this mood in his essay 'The myth of Sisyphus'.Here [F1] Sisyphus was condemned (as perhaps we all are) to do an useless and absurd task for all eternity(viz.rolling a stone up a mountain,at the summit the stone rolls back down,Sisyphus must roll it back up ad finitum).Sisyphus,like most of us(including I suspect politicians) will not make the world a better place nor will he make himself happy or even self-fulfilled.Camus suggests that this mirrors the human condition - it is pointless,absurd and cannot be justified in either religious or humanist terms.Camus suggestion as to why life is worth living is that it is in the recognition and willed acceptance of his absurd fate that this is itself transcended. I have mentioned the absurd - Camus has an interesting distinction to make [F2],that between feeling of the absurd and the notion of the absurd. The feeling of the absurd arises in many ways,the indifference of nature to human life(eg.Armenian earth-quake),the realisation of death,the pointlessness of daily life and its monotonous routine-all of which reveal the iuselessness of daily life.This feeling of the absurd is different to the notion of the absurd although it is its foundation - the conviction of the absurd belongs to the sphere of clear consciousness,which is essential to the very existence of the absurd.The absurd does not exist in the human mind alone, nor alone in the extra-mental world but in their presence to one another- destroy one of these terms and the absurd is destroyed.The absurd ends with death.The absurd cannot exist apart from man,it is through him it originates- the world is simply irrational.One can say that to Camus,the world and human life appear to be absurd once therir irrational and meaningless char acter is clearly perceived. To say, as Camus does[F3],that suicide is the only really serious philosophical problem,is I feel,certainly on the face of it an rather odd conception of the subject.However the pressuppostion upon which this assertion is based is not as odd-man desperately seeks meaning both in the world and in life and history which would form a basisi for his ideas and values.He needs reassurance that his life is part of a process which is directed to an ideal goal.The great religious and metaphysical systems of the world have tried to supply this need,these however cannot stand up to criticism(result of a lack of faith or verificationism).The end result is that the world is revealed without meaning.The world simply is.Some philosophers understand the absurd,but pursue a policy of escapicism eg. K.Jaspers[F4] leaps from human belongings to the transcendental.The man who is able to look the absurdity of human existence in the face,who sees the meaning of life disappear is still faced by the question of suicide.Camus believes[F5] that suicide is not an adequate response to the feeling of the absurd.Suicide supresses one of the two poles which produce the absurd i.e. the human being,the other being the world.Suicide is an admission of incapacity and this is incosistent with human pride,to which Camus openly appeals.According to Nagel[F6],arguments for absurdity insist that the reasons which are available within life are incomplete,from this it is suggested that all reasons which come to an end are incomplete- which makes it impossible to give any reasons at all.Life is not a series of actions,which each action having its purpose revealed by a later member of the sequence. Their points of justification will come repeatably to an end withing a person's life.The process on a broader universal scale has no bearing on the finality of thses end points.There is no need for a larger context to prevent these acts from being pointless,justifications have to come to an end somewhere. If there is to be a philosophical sense of the absurd,it has to arise from something which is universally perceived.This condition is supplied between the different viewpoints viz.the seriousness with which we regard our lives and the perceptual possiblity of regarding everything which we are serious as arbitrary.Absurdity results when the two viewpoints collide.It is absurd as we deliberately choose to ignore all the doubts which cannot be settled,we take our lives seriously despite the absurd.Nagel despite asserting that arguments usually used for absurdity are inadequate,does believe that such reasons are trying to express something which is diffficult to state but is fundamentally correct.Nagel[F7] does require defence on two counts,he has to show that seriousness is unavoidable,and that doubt is inescapable.Despite our aims,no matter how humble,in life we take ourselves and other people seriously and devote most of our energy and time to the pursuit of our lives. Because we are human we have the capacity to take a step back and reflect on this process,it is the result of self-consciousness.We have the capacity to step back and survey ourselves with the capacity for detachment with which we can watch the struggle of an ant. The crucial backward step is not taken by looking for another justification and failing to get it,as we have already seen justifications come to an end somewhere.Our absurdity lies not in the external view which can be taken of us,but in that we ourselves can take such a view without the extinction of being the person we are viewing.A person could attempt to escape from this position by seeking aims nroad enough to make this stepping back impossible (e.g. service to state,religion,even to the revolution)- the idea behind this is that absurdity resluts when what we take seriously is small, insignificant and individual.One problem with this is that the larger role must be itself significant,in order for significant be conferred,and this larger role can be doubted in the same way as the life of the individual. It would seem that once this fundamental doubt has been started,it cannot be stopped. Nagel[F8] is critical of Camus in that the world might satisfy Camus's quest dor meaning if it was in some way different,unfortunately this is impossible.Doubt would occur in any conceivable world which contains things capable of self-consciousness,consequently the absurd arises in opposition to Camus from a collision of viewpoints within ourselves. An objection to Nagel[F9] would be that his viewpoint does not exist,this is however to misconceive the nature of the backward step.Its purpose is not to give us an understanding of what is really significant,thus revealing the absurdity of our lives.Normally we judge a situation to be absurd when we are conscious of some standards of seriousness with which the absurd can be contrasted.This contrast is not implied by philosophical judgement ,as such judgement is dependent on another contrast which makes it a natural extension from more ordinary cases. Nagel[F10] then contrasts the absurd with epistemological skepticism. There are four parallels between the two,first the final doubt is not contrasted with any unchallenged certainties;our limitations is combined with a capacity to transcend those limitations in thought,both can be reached via initial doubts raised within systems of evidence and justification;both influence the attitude to our beliefs,they change in that they are now coloured with irony(this colouration offers no escape from the absurd). Something more basic the reason and action sustains us- we continue to live our lives when we have no reasons.If we relied entirely on reason our lives and beliefs would collapse.When we take the backward step as we become the ineffectual spectators of ouw own lives-ineffectual as we continue to live them just as before,we devote ourselves to that we view as an curiosity. This explains why the sense of absurdity finds its natural expression in the bad arguments used by Camus and others.They act as an metaphorial expression of the backward step.By taking this step we illustrate the capacity to see ourselves without presuppositions,as arbitrary,one of the countless forms of life.Only humans have the capacity for the sense of absurdity,as only man as the capacity of self-conscious. Is it possible to avoid a sense of absurdity by trying to avoid the backward step? There are four alternatives[F11]. First one would have to avoid any of the self consciousness involved(as we cannot consciously refuse to do that, he would be aware of the position we were refusing to adopt) by neither attaining it or forgetting it,both of which are impossible by will power. Second,the other component of the absurd can be destroyed by renouncing ones earthly life in order to identify as closely as possible with the universal viewpoint(this is the aim of the atheistic buddhist religion).If you are successful your superior awareness will not have to be carried though the grind of mundane life -absurdity will be diminished.This result is often the result of many years exertion of will power,which means that you must take yourself seriously,the danger here is that you might undermine the aim of unworldliness by pursuing it to vigourously. Third,one could allow ones animal nature to drift,only responsive to impulse, without making the pursuit of its needs a central conscious aim.Here at a considerable disassocative cost less absurdity in life might result,although such a life would be meaningless.Here a transcendental awareness is not needed(this is the main condition of absurdity - the forcing of a unconvinced transcendental consciousness into the service of a very limited enterprise viz.human life). Lastly, there is suicide.Camus approaches the absurd as some sort of problem which is waiting for a solution which must be found.Camus rejects suicide and urges defiance as a solution,although this does not reduce absurdity it does lent it a certain nobility.Nagel believes that this response is both romantic(in a derogative sense) and slightly self-pitying.It is an over reaction as absurdity warrants neither as much lamination nor defiance as Camus suggests. The sense of the absurd need not be a matter for all this emotion unless we make it so.A dramatic attempt of defiance betrays a failure to understand the cosmic unimportance of the situation.If there is no reason to believe that anything matters then absurdity itself does no matter,our approach to our absurd life is one of irony not despair. In this essay I have tried to show how two differing conceptions of the absurd arises and how one can react differently.On the whole,I agree with Nagel,however I feel one's reaction to the absurd will differ with one's mood and circumstances and thus there should be room for defiance.

Existentialism: related terms

anguish - (from NDE) (Latin angere to tighten, choke) One of the key terms in existential philosophy, anguish (or dread) reveals the character of human life and illuminates the nature of the world. In Kierkegaard’s conception, dread (Angest) is not fear, caused by some external threat. Rather, dread is an inward passion, either a continuous melancholy or a sudden and terrifying emotion.

Sartre treats anguish (angoises) as the reflective apprehension of the Self as freedom. Anguish is the realization that a nothingness slips in between my Self and my past and future so that nothing relieves me from the necessity of continually choosing myself and nothing guarantees the validity of the values which I choose.

Jaspers, differing from Sartre, defines anguish (Angst) as “the dizziness and shudder of freedom confronting the necessity of making a choice.” As he develops his thought, anguish is experienced in those ultimate situations, such as before death, in which Existenz faces its most extreme limits.

As one of Dasein’s possibilities of Being, anxiety — together with Dasein itself as disclosed in it — provides the phenomenal basis for explicitly grasping Dasein’s primordial totality of Being. — Heidegger, Being and Time

The normal, existential anxiety of guilt drives the person toward attempts to avoid this anxiety (usually called the uneasy conscience) by avoiding guilt. … The moralistic self-defense of the neurotic makes him see guilt where there is no guilt or where one is guilty in a very indirect way. — Tillich, The Courage to Be

authentic - To be true. If something is “authentic” it is exactly as named or described. According to some thinkers, nothing is authentic. Because people evolve and alter their essence, people cannot be authentic for more than an instant, frozen in time.

The thought of death can give rise to the fear of not living authentically. One glimpse of the void within and without, and we take refuge in ceaseless activity, eschewing reflection. But the secret restlessness remains. The life force delivers us from it only in appearance; only the sheer force of the thought of death itself frees us in truth. It affirms that other than merely vital significance of man: the eternal weight of his love. Peace in the face of death springs from the awareness of what no death can take away. — Jaspers, Philosophy Is for Everyman

existentialism - The doctrine that among sentient beings, especially humanity, existence takes precedence over essence and holding that man is totally free and responsible for his acts. This responsibility is the source of dread and anguish that encompass mankind.

An existential system is impossible. An existential system cannot be formulated. Does this mean that no such system exists? By no means; nor is this implied in our assertion. Reality itself is a system — for God; but it cannot be a system for any existing spirit. System and finality correspond to one another, but existence is precisely the opposite of finality. — Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

Existential Vacuum - (from NDE) The psychological condition in which a person doubts that life has any meaning. This new neurosis is characterized by loss of interest and lack of initiative. According to Viktor Frankl, the existential vacuum is apparently a concomitant of industrialization. When neither instinct nor social tradition direct man toward what he ought to do, soon he will not even know what he wants to do, and the existential vacuum results.

Because of social pressure, individualism is rejected by most people in favor of conformity. Thus the individual relies mainly upon the actions of others and neglects the meaning of his own personal life. Hence he sees his own life as meaningless and falls into the “existential vacuum” feeling inner void. Progressive automation causes increasing alcoholism, juvenile delinquency, and suicide. — Frankl speaking.

Sartre wants men to accept their own absolute responsibility for their lives. Thus he opposes any reliance upon the divine. All of man’s alibis are unacceptable: no gods are responsible for man’s condition, no original sin, no heredity or environment, no race, no caste, no father, no mother, no wrong-headed education, no impulse or disposition, no complex, no childhood trauma. Man is completely free. Man is condemned to be free.

Our description of freedom, since it does not distinguish between choosing and doing, compels us to abandon at once the distinction between the intention and the act. The intention can no more be separated from the act than thought can be separated from the language which expresses it. — Sartre, Being and Nothingness

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech. — Kierkegaard (Victor Eremita), Either/Or

Freedom, however, is only in the choice of one possibility — that is, in tolerating one’s not having chosen the others and one’s not being able to choose them. — Heidegger, Being and Time

Existentialism: A Primer

Existentialism: A Primer

真假

有时候，别人会觉得你很假，其实是因为你太真了。

民主死亡？

美国大选前天落幕。今天晚上，没再收看英国广播公司的网上新闻，改回扭开933的习惯。 很巧，还是抛不开政治。原来台湾法院今天刚宣布了陈水扁合法当选的裁决，但蓝营不放弃，表示会继续上诉。于是，他们的做法应不应该，成了鸟王今早讨论的话题。

不用多说，和台湾一样，美国刚过去的大选，也是在一片极度边缘化的气氛中结束的。突然，意识到，今时今日，民主在人们脑海中首先唤起的，我想，应该不再是它那标榜着自由的光环，取而代之的是各派选民之间日益加深，有时甚至到了一种完全不能容忍对方候选人的极度分隔。当然，还有选举后，因对成果不服的种种纷争和司法程序，都为民主的光环笼上了一层阴影。

可能是我对世界政局的认识不深，但从我懂事以来，记忆中的多次各国选举，都甚少出现这样的局面。虽然，很有趣的，我一直都活在这种局面的另一端。（我国的大选结果，不是以绝大多数支持率当选，就是walkover，也早已是家常便饭了。）

我想，民主，这制度，是建立在人们能够理性地判断自己所要，以及同时尊重及包容他人在看法上与自己的分歧的前提下诞生的。然而，纵观今时今日，从几年前随着911而突然猖獗的恐怖主义，到其最新的演变--无辜人质莫名其妙被捉斩首等，这些在以前绝对仅属于不可思议的病态趋势。很明显的，不论是恐怖分子，还是挥舞反恐旗帜的民主大国，人们对于别人的容忍似乎很大幅度地式微了。就说两位美国总统候选人，他们在电视辩论时，振振有词地宣布自己会缉拿恐怖分子，并将他们彻底消灭时的理所当然。 这里，抛开对与错不谈，我想表达的是，这动作对于人性潜在的残酷的揭露，尤其是当人们受到威胁时所流露出的冷酷，让人不寒而栗。

就像共产主义，最终因为无法与人性潜在的私欲相符合而走入历史，民主会不会也跟随着人与人之间相容忍的消逝而迈向死亡呢？

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

觉得片子中最残忍的，不是将另一个人从记忆中删除的过程。而是，当你发现事实后，想要思索却发现自己根本已无迹可循的挫败与无力。

Kirsten Dunst 真是绝呀。