background image
W
hen we talk about ageing, most of us think
simply related to our
birth. But there are three different
ages we should be aware of. The
chronological age. (The Greeks have
two words for time, Chronos and
Kairos. Kairos is the right timing and
Chronos the time we measure and
mostly think of). Then there is also the
mental and the biological age. What we
most focus on, the chronological age,
is the least important one. On today's
TV shows, when relatively physically
fit people are presented and the host
mentions that they are in their 70s or
even 80s, the audience responds with
amazement. This amazement tells us
that their belief system can't classify this
age as normal. Furthermore, they think
it's unbelievable to be so fit at that age. In this
concern, it is important to understand the difference
between `natural' and `normal'. We are `normal'
when we do what everyone else does. But does this
correspond with nature? Because the majority of
people act in a special way, this doesn't mean that this
is automatically healthy and natural.
That is why we have to see the
difference: what age should
we be able to reach naturally
in the country we live, and
what is regarded as the usual
age? The bible in the book
of Genesis states, `His days
shall be 120 years'. Modern
scientists seem to agree that
an age of 120 to 150. Time
Magazine's cover recently
stated that children, born
today, can live to 142 years
by natural means.
But is this correct? Before
delving into this question,
I think it is necessary to
understand that we and our body are
not one, but we own our body. Figuratively speaking
there is no compelling link between the age of a
car's bodywork and the age of its driver. This is how I
understand this quote from Barbara Rütting:
`The soul withdraws from the body and it is
not damaged'. It withdraws from the `vehicle.'
Is it really true
that we have to die?
by Wolfgang Sonnenburg
Image: f
ot
olia