Scan barcode
A review by ptrmsschrs
Stay: A History of Suicide and the Philosophies Against It by Jennifer Michael Hecht
4.0
interesting, but not convincing case against suicide
The subtitle 'A history of suicide and the arguments against it' is a correct indication of what the author's intentions are: building a case against suicide by exploring how philosophy, religion and science has viewed suicide in Western Europe since against Greece.
She relies heavily on [b:History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture|2140657|History of Suicide Voluntary Death in Western Culture|Georges Minois|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1266576881l/2140657._SY75_.jpg|2146145] by [a:Georges Minois|202208|Georges Minois|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1559494201p2/202208.jpg], which -in my opinion- is a more comprehensive and objective view of the historical perspective. Nevertheless this book offers a well written and concise view.
However the two main arguments against Mrs. Hecht puts in the spotlight, don't sit well with me:
1. suicide is contagious : the evidence that suicides happen in clusters or that there is a "Werther" effect are circumstantial at best. In my opinion suicides don't occur, because a friend, family member, public figure, etc.. took their own life. The author herself relates the case of Kurt Cobain, whose suicide did not cause an increase in suicide in youths. I do believe that there is a genetic component to personality traits that might lead to suicide (mood swings, addiction, impusivity, etc) Hemingway is probably a good example of this. Moreover we can't be held responsible for the actions of others, if we haven't purposely instigated them.
2. suicide is contrary to societal norms and is an evasion of one's responbilities towards family, friends, society. No man ever asked to be born, no man has ever had control over the way he was raised or the environment in which he grew up. We are 'thrown in this world', like it or not. Some people will call this a blessing, but others will call it a curse. There is no right or wrong here. Nobody should feel obligated to live a life of misery, because society says it's the right thing to do. Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves if they find their lives are worth living.
The reason why I still give this book 4 stars is that the author mentions some very interesting and unexpected philosophers at the end of her book: e.g. Emile Cioran (known for his anti-natalism); Albert Camus (the existential philosopher); Arthus Schopenhauer (notable pessimist). All these thinkers had a decidedly negative view of life and the author tries to make the point that even they argued against suicide. However the arguments she quotes are notable the weakest elements of their philosophy. To give Schopenhauer as an example: it is true that he denied that suicide was a solution to a miserable life; Schopenhauers posited that the 'Will' is all encompassing and that one suicide one make any difference. It is better to try to combat the Will by -and this if where his philosophy becomes muddled- adhering to Eastern techniques to try a conquer the Will and all its manifestations.
In conclusion: a challenging and interesting book that didn't convince.
The subtitle 'A history of suicide and the arguments against it' is a correct indication of what the author's intentions are: building a case against suicide by exploring how philosophy, religion and science has viewed suicide in Western Europe since against Greece.
She relies heavily on [b:History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture|2140657|History of Suicide Voluntary Death in Western Culture|Georges Minois|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1266576881l/2140657._SY75_.jpg|2146145] by [a:Georges Minois|202208|Georges Minois|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1559494201p2/202208.jpg], which -in my opinion- is a more comprehensive and objective view of the historical perspective. Nevertheless this book offers a well written and concise view.
However the two main arguments against Mrs. Hecht puts in the spotlight, don't sit well with me:
1. suicide is contagious : the evidence that suicides happen in clusters or that there is a "Werther" effect are circumstantial at best. In my opinion suicides don't occur, because a friend, family member, public figure, etc.. took their own life. The author herself relates the case of Kurt Cobain, whose suicide did not cause an increase in suicide in youths. I do believe that there is a genetic component to personality traits that might lead to suicide (mood swings, addiction, impusivity, etc) Hemingway is probably a good example of this. Moreover we can't be held responsible for the actions of others, if we haven't purposely instigated them.
2. suicide is contrary to societal norms and is an evasion of one's responbilities towards family, friends, society. No man ever asked to be born, no man has ever had control over the way he was raised or the environment in which he grew up. We are 'thrown in this world', like it or not. Some people will call this a blessing, but others will call it a curse. There is no right or wrong here. Nobody should feel obligated to live a life of misery, because society says it's the right thing to do. Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves if they find their lives are worth living.
The reason why I still give this book 4 stars is that the author mentions some very interesting and unexpected philosophers at the end of her book: e.g. Emile Cioran (known for his anti-natalism); Albert Camus (the existential philosopher); Arthus Schopenhauer (notable pessimist). All these thinkers had a decidedly negative view of life and the author tries to make the point that even they argued against suicide. However the arguments she quotes are notable the weakest elements of their philosophy. To give Schopenhauer as an example: it is true that he denied that suicide was a solution to a miserable life; Schopenhauers posited that the 'Will' is all encompassing and that one suicide one make any difference. It is better to try to combat the Will by -and this if where his philosophy becomes muddled- adhering to Eastern techniques to try a conquer the Will and all its manifestations.
In conclusion: a challenging and interesting book that didn't convince.