File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1997/97-04-26.234, message 24


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:23:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Omar Nasim <umnasimo-AT-cc.UManitoba.CA>
Subject: Re: Warhol/sci-fi/turnips/death


On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Rachel Russell wrote:

> It will not be Baudrillard who decides he is dead it will be some 'expert'
> who decides this.The expert will base their decision on their
> scientific/medical knowledge. This changes and is therefore relative to
> that culture or time. In this sense death is not absolute, the nature of
> knowledge means that nothing is absolute even death.
> Rachel

	Dear Rachel, This is the exact thing that I have problems with, 
the falsity of the absolute.  From what you've shown above, it does NOT 
follow that Death is Not absolute, for the following reasons;
1) It *Will* be Baudrillard Himself, and his very "subjective essence" 
and his very phenomena that will be *conscious* of HIS death.  Even the 
so called "expert" will not be conscious of it, well not for a while.  
2) Yes I might agree that science and medicine are the relative terms in 
your equation, but, in your example, relative to the Absolute, i.e. 
DEATH. 
3) It makes no sense when you argue that, science and medicine change, 
therefore its object of study, (i.e. Death) also changes, thus 
relativism. This argument totally begs the question.  Death is *NOT* 
contingent nor dependent upon science and medicine, if anything, medicine 
is telogically dependent upon death.  In other words, death is the reason 
for medicines existence, and not the other way around, as you have 
protrayed it.  
I hope that was not too harsh Rachel, I would just to thankyou
for even taking part in this discussion, I've learned alot,
Thanks!!
Omar Nasim




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005