In news reports and discussion of the death today of Sen. Edward Kennedy, I keep hearing references to the “Kennedy family tragedies.” This might suggest to some people that the death of Sen. Kennedy is also a tragedy. It is not. (Please understand that I don’t mean to suggest it’s not sad. I mean it doesn’t meet either the ancient or the modern definitions of “tragedy.”)
The ancient definition of tragedy was, “The story of the violent and premature death of a great man, which he brings upon himself through some flaw in his character.”
The modern definition is, “An early or untimely death marked by a notable loss of human potential.”
Sen. Kennedy’s life fulfills neither of these criteria.
Sen. Kennedy died at an advanced age, fabulously wealthy and one of the most powerful people in the world. Whatever the indiscretions and sins of his life, he managed to avoid suffering almost any temporal consequences for them.
Almost the diametric opposite of tragedy.
Only if you believe in predestination.
If you believe in free will, then Sen. Kennedy had the potential to go to heaven. Assuming that what I know of his life is accurate and the pattern didn’t change later, it’s quite likely that potential has been lost.
He got the full allotted time given to man, and more. I suppose one could add a category called “spiritual tragedy,” but that’s not a classic definition.
I concede this point.
You’ve just had what I call an “Inigo Montoya” moment.
I thought about it some more. We call death a tragedy, because we’d like to pretend it’s not part of life. That seems to be a facet of US culture.
Of course, if I wanted to be snarky, I’d say that the media treats Kennedy’s death as a tragedy because he was a competent Liberal politician. His death will probably hurt the Liberal agenda.