Robert Spaemann:
The Metaphysics of Reality and the Revolt Against Abstraction
(Written on Dec Dec 14, 2025)
The Metaphysics of Reality and the Revolt Against Abstraction
(Written on Dec Dec 14, 2025)
In the intellectual topography of post-war Europe, Robert Spaemann occupies a position that is as commanding as it is solitary. A philosopher who engaged with the most pressing issues of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries—from nuclear energy and bioethics to the crisis of the liberal state—Spaemann refused to be conscripted into the ideological trenches of the Left or the Right. Instead, he forged a philosophical path that might best be described as a "revolt of reality against abstraction." In an era dominated by the hermeneutics of suspicion, where traditional metaphysical concepts were routinely deconstructed as masks for power or psychological projection, Spaemann practiced a "hermeneutics of trust" (Hermeneutik des Vertrauens). He operated from the conviction that the pre-theoretical intuitions of the ordinary human being—intuitions about the reality of the external world, the objectivity of good and evil, and the distinction between "someone" and "something"—contain a deeper philosophical truth than the complex systems of modernity which seek to explain them away.
Spaemann’s work represents a sustained critique of the "dialectic of enlightenment." He argued that the modern project of emancipation, when absolutized, inevitably turns against the human subject it sought to liberate. By reducing nature to mere material for manipulation and denying any intrinsic teleology (purpose) in the world, modernity strips the world of the very meaning that makes human freedom intelligible. If the world is nothing but a meaningless causal mechanism, then man—who is part of that world—is ultimately nothing but a machine to be optimized. Against this nihilistic drift, Spaemann sought to rehabilitate the classical ontology of the person, the teleological understanding of nature, and the rationality of theistic belief. His philosophy is not a nostalgic retreat into the past but a forward-looking recovery of the conditions of possibility for a humane future.
This essay offers an exhaustive analysis of Spaemann’s life and philosophy. It explores the biographical crucible of his thought, his rigorous ontological defense of the person against utilitarian functionalism, his ecological ethics of "letting-be," his critique of political liberalism, and his profound theological insights. By examining his debates with figures like Jürgen Habermas, Peter Singer, and Richard Rorty, we reveal a thinker who saw philosophy not as the invention of new worlds, but as Anamnesis—the recollection of the eternal truths that constitute the ground of our being.
To understand the urgency of Robert Spaemann’s philosophy, one must understand the historical landscape in which it was forged. His intellectual trajectory was not shaped in the sterile environment of the seminar room but in the collapse of a civilization.
Robert Spaemann was born in Berlin on May 5, 1927.6 His family background was a unique amalgam of radicalism and orthodoxy that inoculated him against the bourgeois complacency of the era. His parents, Heinrich Spaemann and Ruth Krämer, were originally radical leftist atheists, deeply immersed in the critical discourses of the early 20th century. However, in 1930, they underwent a dramatic conversion to the Catholic Church—a move that alienated them from their leftist milieu and placed them in a precarious position as National Socialism began its ascent.
This conversion was foundational for the young Robert. It taught him that truth is not a matter of consensus or historical inevitability but a matter of personal encounter and conviction. The subsequent tragedy of his childhood deepened this sense of existential seriousness. His mother died of tuberculosis in 1936 when Robert was only nine years old. Following her death, his father was ordained a Catholic priest in 1942, a rare dispensation that made him a singular figure: a widower-priest raising a son in the heart of Nazi Germany.
Spaemann came of age during the Third Reich, belonging to the so-called "Flak Helper Generation." However, unlike many of his peers who were seduced by the Hitler Youth or the promise of national rebirth, Spaemann remained a perpetual outsider. He later reflected that he never felt "at home" in the Third Reich, a feeling of displacement that paradoxically gave him a sense of intellectual freedom. He learned early on that "normalcy" is no guarantee of morality and that the collective consensus can be profoundly, murderously wrong.
A defining moment of his youth was his active pursuit of the truth regarding the fate of the Jews. While many Germans chose a "communicative silence," shielding themselves from the horror through willful ignorance, the seventeen-year-old Spaemann sought out soldiers returning from the Eastern Front. He refused to accept the euphemisms of "work camps" and questioned them until he learned the gruesome reality of the extermination camps.2 This refusal to look away—this insistence on piercing the veil of appearance to touch the "hard wall of reality"—became the methodological core of his later philosophy. He witnessed the bombing of Cologne in 1942, carrying dead neighbors from the rubble, and saw the annihilation of Dorsten.7 These experiences instilled in him a permanent skepticism toward the "myth of progress" and a profound sensitivity to the fragility of civilization.
After the war, Spaemann studied at the University of Münster, where he entered the orbit of Joachim Ritter, one of the most significant figures in post-war German philosophy. The "Ritter School" (which included other luminaries like Odo Marquard and Hermann Lübbe) was dedicated to recovering the resources of practical philosophy—Aristotle, Hegel, and the tradition of the polis—to understand the modern world.
The Ritter School was characterized by a specific "compensation theory" of modernity. Ritter argued that modern society is defined by "functional differentiation" (the separation of spheres like law, science, economy). This abstract differentiation creates a "compensation need" in the human subject. To remain human in an alienated world, subjects need "compensatory" cultures—art, humanities, religion, and history. Spaemann absorbed Ritter’s deep historical consciousness and his skepticism of revolutionary utopianism. He learned to view the history of philosophy not as a museum of dead errors but as a living conversation in which the ancients might be more "contemporary" than the moderns.
However, Spaemann eventually broke with the functionalism of the Ritter School. Ritter tended to view religion and metaphysics as "culturally useful" compensations that stabilize society. Spaemann, with his characteristic insistence on truth, argued that this was insufficient. If religion is merely "useful" for mental hygiene, it ceases to be true; and if it is not true, it eventually ceases to be useful. Spaemann insisted that the questions of metaphysics—God, the soul, the good—must be answered with claims to truth, not just cultural function.
Spaemann’s academic career took him to the universities of Stuttgart, Heidelberg, and finally Munich (LMU), where he held a prestigious chair in philosophy until his emeritus status in 1992.6 Unlike many German academics who retreated into the ivory tower of specialized jargon, Spaemann was a public intellectual in the grand tradition. He wrote with a lucidity that made his work accessible to the educated public, engaging in debates on nuclear rearmament, abortion, euthanasia, and education reform.
His relationship with the Catholic Church was central to his public life. He was a close friend of Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and served as a personal advisor to Pope John Paul II.6 Yet, his Catholicism was never a shield for dogmatism; rather, it was the vantage point from which he critiqued the dogmas of secularism. He defied easy political categorization. In the 1970s and 80s, his fierce critique of nuclear energy and his defense of the environment aligned him with the nascent Green movement, leading some to label him a "leftist." Simultaneously, his uncompromising defense of the unborn and his critique of the sexual revolution aligned him with the conservative Right. Spaemann rejected these labels, stating that he stood simply for "reality," which does not adhere to parliamentary factions.
The cornerstone of Spaemann’s philosophy is his anthropology. In his seminal work Persons: The Difference between 'Someone' and 'Something' (Personen: Versuche über den Unterschied zwischen 'etwas' und 'jemand'), he articulates a rigorous defense of the person against the reductionist tendencies of modern thought.
Spaemann identifies a fundamental error in modern philosophy that traces back to John Locke and finds its contemporary expression in thinkers like Peter Singer and Derek Parfit. This error is the separation of the "human being" (a biological organism) from the "person" (a moral status defined by psychological continuity or capability).
According to this view, "personhood" is a status that is acquired when a human being develops certain qualities—such as self-awareness, rationality, or the ability to envision the future—and can be lost if those qualities disappear (e.g., in advanced dementia or coma). This "qualitative" definition implies that there are human beings who are not persons (embryos, infants, the severely disabled) and that there could be non-humans who are persons (advanced AI, great apes).
Spaemann rejects this view as metaphysically incoherent and ethically dangerous. He argues that "Person" is not a description of what something is (a set of properties), but who someone is. It is a nomen dignitatis—a title of dignity that belongs to the human being as such.8 He argues that human beings do not have personhood as a property; they are persons. The "I" is not a bundle of mental states but the substance that supports those states. To be a person is to exist in a mode of Selbstsein (being-a-self), which is not an achievement but a gift of existence.
The practical implications of this ontology played out in Spaemann’s fierce public and academic debate with the Australian utilitarian Peter Singer. Singer argued that the "sanctity of life" ethic is "speciesist," a prejudice similar to racism. For Singer, the ethical standing of a being depends on its capacity for preference satisfaction and suffering. Therefore, a healthy chimpanzee might have a greater right to life than a human infant with severe disabilities.
Spaemann countered Singer with a battery of arguments that exposed the contradictions of the utilitarian position:
The Performative Contradiction: Spaemann argued that the discourse of "personhood rights" for rational agents is only possible because those agents were once embryos and infants who were cared for unconditionally. If our parents had applied Singer’s criteria—treating us as disposable until we achieved self-awareness—we would not exist to debate these criteria. The community of persons is founded on the unconditional acceptance of new members before they can "prove" their personhood.
The Argument from Potentiality: Singer dismisses the potential of the embryo as irrelevant ("A potential king has no rights of a king"). Spaemann retorts that this analogy is flawed. An embryo is not a "potential human being" but a "human being with potential." The identity of the living organism is continuous. The "I" that debates Peter Singer is the same "I" that was once a zygote. To deny this continuity is to create a dualism where the "mind" haunts the "body," a view Spaemann finds scientifically and phenomenologically untenable.
The Danger of "Graded" Rights: Once personhood is detached from the biological humanity and attached to "qualities," rights become graded. Who decides how much self-awareness is required to be a person? This opens the door to the arbitrary power of the strong over the weak. For Spaemann, the only secure boundary is the species boundary, because it is objective and inclusive.
How is personhood disclosed if not through checking a list of qualities? Spaemann draws on phenomenology to argue that personhood is revealed in the act of recognition (Anerkennung).
When we encounter another human being, we do not first analyze their IQ or their capacity for pain and then decide to respect them. Rather, the encounter with the human face (to use Levinasian language, though Spaemann is rooted in Aquinas and Kant) demands an immediate "halting" of our instrumental drive. We perceive an "absolute demand." To recognize a person is to perceive a center of being that has its own telos, its own perspective on the world, which is forever inaccessible to us.
This recognition demands "pure letting-be" (seinlassen). This is not indifference, but the active restriction of my own power to allow the other to be. This is the foundation of justice and love. Love, for Spaemann, is the "approval of the existence of the other" (Volo ut sis — "I want you to be").3 This recognition is not a conclusion of an argument but the starting point of all morality. Singer’s error is to try to "deduce" moral standing from empirical qualities, whereas moral standing is a "given" in the encounter with the who.
Spaemann applied his ontology of continuity to the other end of the biological spectrum: the definition of death. He became one of the most prominent philosophical critics of the "brain death" criterion.
Spaemann argued that the shift from defining death as the cessation of breathing and heartbeat to the cessation of brain function was not a scientific discovery but a pragmatic redefinition motivated by the need for viable organs for transplantation. He pointed out that a "brain-dead" patient on a ventilator is biologically alive: the body maintains temperature, digests food, fights infection, and in the case of pregnant women, can gestate a fetus to term.
To call such a body a "corpse" is to annul the "basic perceptions of the ordinary person." A corpse is cold, rigid, and decaying. A brain-dead patient is warm, flexible, and functioning as a biological whole (albeit with support). Spaemann argued that the brain is an organ of the person, not the seat of the person’s entire being. To identify the person solely with the brain is a form of "cerebral reductionism."
His ethical conclusion was derived from the principle of tutiorism (playing it safe): If we are unsure whether a being is a person (as with the brain-dead or the embryo), the only moral course is to treat them as one. He used the analogy of a hunter: If a hunter sees a movement in the bushes and is 90% sure it is a deer but 10% sure it might be a man, he is morally prohibited from shooting. Similarly, since we cannot prove the brain-dead patient is not a person, we must not harvest their organs.
Spaemann’s defense of the person is grounded in a broader, radical critique of the modern scientific worldview. He sought to rehabilitate teleology (goal-directedness) in an era dominated by mechanism.
Spaemann traced the crisis of modernity to the methodological decision of the 17th century (Bacon, Descartes, Galileo) to exclude final causes (teleology) from the study of nature. Science would no longer ask "what for?" (wozu?) but only "how?" and "by what cause?".
Spaemann acknowledged that this objectification was necessary for the development of technology and physics. By treating the world as res extensa (matter in motion) devoid of intrinsic meaning or soul, we gained mastery over it. However, the error of the Enlightenment was to elevate this methodological restriction to an ontological truth. We began to believe that because science does not see purposes in nature, purposes do not exist in nature.
In a provocative reversal of standard scientific dogma, Spaemann defended anthropomorphism. He argued that interpreting nature through the lens of human experience is more rational than interpreting humans through the lens of dead matter.
His argument proceeds as follows:
We are part of nature. We are "nature from the inside."
From the inside, we know that we are teleological beings. We act for ends; we strive, we hunger, we desire, we avoid pain.
If we assume that the rest of nature is fundamentally different from us—mere dead mechanism—then we are inexplicable anomalies, "strangers in the universe."
Therefore, it is more rational to use our own "inside view" as a key to understanding other living things. When a dog writhes in pain or pursues a rabbit, it is not merely a machine executing a program; it is a center of striving, analogous to us.
Spaemann called the refusal to see this aliveness an "anthropomorphism of the negative." When we describe an animal as a machine, we are projecting our own artifact (the machine) onto nature. A machine is a human creation. Nature is not a machine; it is an organism.
Spaemann was an early and profound philosopher of ecology. He argued that the environmental crisis is the direct result of the "denial of teleology." If nature has no intrinsic goal, then there is no "right" or "wrong" way to treat it, only "efficient" or "inefficient" ways to exploit it.
True ecological ethics, Spaemann argued, cannot be based solely on "human survival" (anthropocentric utilitarianism). It must be based on the recognition that living things are "ends in themselves" (in a biological sense). They have a telos. A tree strives to grow; an animal strives to live. We have a duty to respect this striving.
However, Spaemann avoided the trap of "deep ecology" which dissolves the human into the whole. He maintained that humans are unique precisely because we are the only beings capable of recognizing the teleology of others and voluntarily restricting our own power to let them flourish. This "self-restriction" is the essence of human stewardship. We are the "shepherds of being," not the tyrants of nature.
Spaemann’s political thought is a penetrating critique of the liberal state’s claim to neutrality and a defense of the pre-political foundations of society.
Spaemann argued that liberalism suffers from a fatal internal contradiction, often summarized in the "Böckenförde dictum": The liberal secularized state lives by preconditions which it cannot itself guarantee.
Liberalism values freedom, tolerance, and human rights. However, these values do not arise from the liberal state itself; they arise from pre-political communities—families, churches, cultural traditions—that cultivate virtues like self-sacrifice, honesty, and solidarity. The paradox is that the liberal state, in the name of "autonomy" and "neutrality," often aggressively secularizes and dissolves these very communities. It treats religious and moral convictions as mere "private preferences" that must be kept out of the public square.
When the state erodes these moral foundations, it destroys the social glue that makes a free society possible. A society of pure individualists, held together only by contract and self-interest, eventually requires a massive police state to maintain order, as internal moral restraint collapses. Thus, liberalism tends to drift toward "statist individualism" or soft totalitarianism.
Spaemann critiqued the liberal tendency to relativize all values while absolutizing tolerance. He argued that a society that says "everything is relative" ends up with an intolerance of anyone who claims to know the truth. This "dictatorship of relativism" marginalizes religious believers, labeling them as threats to public peace.
He distinguished between interests and rights. Interests can be negotiated and traded. Rights, if they are real, are absolute boundaries. But rights can only be absolute if they are grounded in something absolute—God or an immutable human nature. If rights are merely the product of a social contract or state legislation (legal positivism), they can be revoked by the majority. For Spaemann, the defense of human rights requires a reference to the transcendent. "Only if God exists is man not merely a sophisticated animal".
In 2007, Spaemann engaged in a historic public discussion with Jürgen Habermas in Munich.24 Habermas, the great proponent of secular reason, had begun to speak of a "post-secular" society, arguing that secular citizens must be open to the "cognitive potential" of religious traditions, provided those traditions "translate" their insights into secular language.
Spaemann challenged the asymmetry of this proposal. He argued that secular reason is not "neutral" but has its own blind spots. To demand that a believer translate their convictions into secular language is to demand that they leave their convictions at the door. Spaemann argued that "methodological atheism" (acting as if God does not exist) distorts reality. He contended that without a reference to the Absolute, reason devours itself in skepticism. Faith is not the enemy of reason but its "sanatorium"—it heals reason by grounding it in a Logos that makes the world intelligible. While Habermas sought a procedural consensus, Spaemann insisted on the truth of the religious claim.
Spaemann’s philosophy of history is a critique of the modern obsession with the future. In works like The End of Modernity (Das Ende der Modernität), he dissects the myth of inevitable progress.
Spaemann offers a crucial distinction between two types of progress to dismantle the modern ideology:
Finite Progress (The House): This is progress toward a definitive end state. When building a house, every brick laid is progress. Once the house is finished, progress stops.
Infinite Progress (The Accumulation): This is the progress of science and technology. There is always more to know, more to invent. It has no endpoint.
The error of modernity is applying the logic of Infinite Progress to the moral and political realm. We assume that society should "progress" indefinitely like technology. Spaemann counters this with a third analogy: The Sonata.
Playing a Beethoven sonata is not about "progressing" past the notes or adding more notes every year. It is about performing the work well. A performance today is not automatically better than one yesterday; it must be realized anew. The moral life, and political justice, are like the sonata. They are "praxis," not "poiesis" (production). The goal is not a future utopia but the present realization of a just and good life. Every generation is equidistant from eternity; we are not mere stepping stones for a future "super-society".
Spaemann argued that "Modernity" as a project—defined by the constant overcoming of the past and the liberation from all constraints—exhausts itself. We have reached a point where the "emancipation" from nature leads to the destruction of nature. The "end of modernity" is not a catastrophe but a maturity. It means realizing that we cannot "progress" beyond our humanity. We must integrate the achievements of modernity (science, freedom) into a broader "cosmic" piety that respects limits. We must learn to "dwell" again, rather than just "march".
One of Spaemann’s most impactful public interventions was his critique of nuclear energy, summarized in the phrase "Nach uns die Kernschmelze" (After us, the meltdown). This was not a technical critique but a profound ethical argument about time and responsibility.
Spaemann argued that nuclear energy introduces a novum in human history: the creation of dangers (radioactive waste) that persist for geological timescales (100,000+ years), far beyond the lifespan of any human civilization.
This constitutes a form of intergenerational tyranny. We extract short-term energy benefits while imposing an indefinite, irreversible burden of management and danger on thousands of future generations who did not consent to this risk. Spaemann applied the "Golden Rule" across time: "Do not do to posterity what you would not have them do to you." Since we cannot ask them, we must refrain from actions that irreversibly narrow their possibilities or threaten their existence.
Spaemann challenged the technological determinism that says, "If it can be done, it will be done." He asserted that humanity proves its freedom precisely by refusing to do what is technically possible. Renouncing nuclear energy (or human cloning) is an act of moral sovereignty, asserting that the "good life" is higher than the "maximization of power." This position resonated deeply with the Green movement, though Spaemann arrived there from conservative, natural law premises.
While Spaemann was a rigorous philosopher who did not rely on revelation for his arguments, his thought ultimately opens onto the theological. He viewed the question of God not as a niche religious interest but as the "constitutive question" of human reason.
In his book Das unsterbliche Gerücht (The Immortal Rumor), Spaemann argues that the idea of God is remarkably resilient. Despite centuries of secularization, the "rumor" persists. He suggests that atheism, not theism, is the position that requires a "sacrifice of the intellect." To believe that the universe—with its mathematical order, beauty, and consciousness—is the accidental byproduct of a blind lottery is a "desperate belief." It requires us to believe that Meaning arises from Nonsense, Reason from Unreason.
One of Spaemann’s most original contributions is his "Proof of God from the Future Perfect Tense" (Futurum Exactum).6
The argument proceeds as follows:
We strive for truth and believe that our actions have a reality that cannot be undone. We care about justice even for the dead.
Truth involves the "Future Perfect": It will always be true that "X happened." Even in a billion years, it will have been true that you read this sentence.
But what if the universe ends and all conscious life is extinguished? If there is no mind to remember or know the past, in what sense does the past exist?
If total oblivion is the end, then the statement "X happened" loses its semantic anchor. The past vanishes into nothingness.
Nietzsche understood this and accepted the "innocence of becoming"—nothing matters because nothing stays.
But we cannot inescapably live as if our lives are "written on water." We have a deep intuition that Truth is eternal.
For the past to remain eternally real, there must be an "Absolute Consciousness" that holds all time in an eternal present. This "Memory of the World" is God.
Thus, the very grammar of our language, our ability to speak of truth and the past, presupposes the Absolute.
Spaemann emphasized the importance of the "useless" in a utilitarian world. Liturgy, prayer, and art are spaces where we step out of the logic of "means and ends" and exist simply for the sake of God or beauty. This "holy waste" of time is the ultimate act of freedom, defying the totalitarianism of efficiency. He was a staunch defender of the Traditional Latin Mass, seeing in its objective form a bulwark against the "banalization" of the sacred.
Spaemann was the primary German antagonist to utilitarianism (represented by Singer and Norbert Hoerster). He defended a classical ethical realism.
Spaemann argued that consequentialism (judging actions solely by outcomes) dissolves the moral landscape.31
Complexity: We cannot know all the consequences of our actions. The future is opaque. To base morality on calculation is to base it on guessing.
The Abolition of the Act: If only consequences matter, the "action" itself disappears into a causal chain. Adultery, murder, or betrayal could be "good" if the calculus works out. This alienates the agent from their own deeds.
Responsibility: Spaemann rehabilitated the concept of responsibility for what we do, versus responsibility for how the world is. We are responsible for our acts (omission and commission) in a direct way; we are not gods responsible for optimizing the universe.
He defended deontology: some acts are intrinsically evil (intrinsece malum), regardless of consequences. This provides a secure "wall" against political abuse, whereas utilitarianism always offers a "backdoor" for tyranny (e.g., torture for the greater good).
In Glück und Wohlwollen (Happiness and Benevolence), Spaemann reconnects ethics with the drive for happiness. He argues that we cannot be happy without being benevolent. We are "ecstatic" beings—we only find ourselves by going out of ourselves. The paradox of happiness is that if we pursue it directly (egoism), we miss it. If we pursue the good of the other (benevolence), happiness follows as a byproduct. This structure of "self-transcendence" is the key to human flourishing.
Robert Spaemann’s philosophical legacy is a fortress against the dehumanizing trends of the technological age. At the core of his thought is the conviction that the human person is not a biological accident or a social construct, but an absolute—a "someone" who stands before God and demands unconditional respect.
In his debates with Singer, he defended the vulnerable; in his critique of nuclear power, he defended the future; in his "proof from grammar," he defended the eternity of truth. He teaches us that the "advanced" position is often just a forgotten error, and the "traditional" position—that we are created beings in a meaningful cosmos—is the radical truth needed for the future. As we face the challenges of artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and ecological collapse, Spaemann’s voice rings with prophetic urgency: We must remember what we are, before we forget ourselves out of existence.
Works cited
Unpacking Robert Spaemann's Philosophical Contribution to the Brain Death Debate - NIH, accessed December 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6880064/
Remembering Robert Spaemann - First Things, accessed December 9, 2025, https://firstthings.com/remembering-robert-spaemann/
Poetically Man Dwells: An Aesthetic Being of a Person*, accessed December 9, 2025, https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:238996867/238996867.pdf
TELEOLOGY AND TRANSCENDENCE: THE THOUGHT OF ROBERT SPAEMANN - Communio: International Catholic Review, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.communio-icr.com/files/45.3_Ramelow_WEB.pdf
End of Modernity Spaemann | PDF | Experience | Science - Scribd, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/845918989/End-of-Modernity-Spaemann
Robert Spaemann - Wikipedia, accessed December 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spaemann
Teleology and Transcendence: The Thought of Robert Spaemann | Articles | Communio, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/teleology-and-transcendence-the-thought-of-robert-spaemann
Robert Spaemann's Philosophy of the Human Person: Nature, Freedom, and the Critique of Modernity (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs) [1 ed.] 9780199576777, 0199576777, accessed December 9, 2025, https://dokumen.pub/robert-spaemanns-philosophy-of-the-human-person-nature-freedom-and-the-critique-of-modernity-oxford-theology-and-religion-monographs-1nbsped-9780199576777-0199576777.html
Robert Spaemann: Nach uns die Kernschmelze. Hybris im atomaren ..., accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/robert-spaemann/nach-uns-die-kernschmelze.html
Lesebericht und Nachgefragt: »Robert Spaemann, Nach uns die Kernschmelze - Klett-Cotta, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.klett-cotta.de/beitrag/lesebericht-und-nachgefragt-robert-spaemann-nach-uns-die-kernschmelze-b-142
IS EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING A PERSON? A DISPUTE ..., accessed December 9, 2025, https://journals.akademicka.pl/relacje/article/view/519/526
Persons: The Difference between 'Someone' and 'Something' by Robert Spaemann (review) - Project MUSE, accessed December 9, 2025, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/636318/summary
Is Every Single Human Being a Person? A Dispute Between Robert Spaemann and Peter Singer - ResearchGate, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331738203_Is_Every_Single_Human_Being_a_Person_A_Dispute_Between_Robert_Spaemann_and_Peter_Singer
WHEN THE HUMAN BEING IS SEPARATED FROM THE HUMAN PERSON AND THUS ALSO FROM THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. SOME ASPECTS OF CRITICI, accessed December 9, 2025, https://journals.pan.pl/Content/128900?format_id=1
Reconsidering the Political: A Realization of a Person or a Way to Depersonalization? - Redalyc, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.redalyc.org/journal/6945/694573724006/html/
the intersection of philosophy and medicine in the brain death debate (ii): the philosophical argument against the equivalence of brain death and human death - CEEOL - Article Detail, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1306000
Beyond the Harvard Definition: A Critique of Josef Seifert's Realistic Phenomenological Approach to Brain Death - MDPI, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/11/1327
Beyond 'Science and Religion' (Part II) - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/after-science-and-religion/beyond-science-and-religion/639045BE46D4694AB6EB49174BCD6E39
The most inescapable perspective: Revaluing anthropomorphism in biology and natural sciences. | Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, accessed December 9, 2025, https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1185
Moral Ground | The Ted K Archive, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/kathleen-dean-moore-michael-p-nelson-desmond-tutu-moral-ground
A Doctrinal and Practical Continuity: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis on the Ecological Crisis - MDPI, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/2/206
Christian vs liberal conceptions of human rights - Ave Maria School of Law, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.avemarialaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/12-Piotr-Mazurkiewicz-Christian-vs-liberal-conceptions-of-human-rights.pdf
Journal of Christian Legal Thought, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.christianlegalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CLSJournal_Summer19_web.pdf
FROM ECLIPSE OF REASON TO THE AGE OF REASONS? HISTORICIZING HABERMAS AND THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL | Modern Intellectual History | Cambridge Core, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/from-eclipse-of-reason-to-the-age-of-reasons-historicizing-habermas-and-the-frankfurt-school/33D9ECA23E27F0072C2A958D58E827B5
Robert Spaemann. Rationality and Faith in God. Communio 32 (2005), accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.communio-icr.com/files/spaemann32-4.pdf
The History of Human Dignity and its Brutal Disregard, accessed December 9, 2025, https://ub01.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/162034/Vellguth_182.1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Why the Progress Debate Goes Nowhere - The New Atlantis, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-progress-debate-goes-nowhere
Robert Spaemann, Nach uns die Kernschmelze - YouTube, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryiPrAQy_84
The Environmental Apocalypse: Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Climate Crisis [1 ed.] 9781032038216, 9781032038063, 9781003189190 - DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed December 9, 2025, https://dokumen.pub/the-environmental-apocalypse-interdisciplinary-reflections-on-the-climate-crisis-1nbsped-9781032038216-9781032038063-9781003189190.html
Vom unsterblichen Gerücht reden Über den Philosophen Robert Spaemann und sein Buch „Das unsterbliche Gerücht“ Thomas Lac - Institut für Glaube und Wissenschaft, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.iguw.de/site/assets/files/1493/lachenmaier_t_rezension-spaemann-das-unsterbliche-geruecht-2007_iguw.pdf
The thought of Robert Spaemann between criticism of modernity and teleological ontology, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292425625_The_thought_of_Robert_Spaemann_between_criticism_of_modernity_and_teleological_ontology
REVIEW OF ROBERT SPAEMANN'S PERSONS - ResearchGate, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227779707_REVIEW_OF_ROBERT_SPAEMANN'S_PERSONS