The human being is political in nature, and, to this effect, I will submit 3 arguments. 1) Aristotles Rhetoric or Perelmans masterpiece on argumentation both consider the (consensual) agreement between an orator and his auditorium as being impersonal in nature. Rhetoric is, in a sense, an activity whereby one attempts to elucidate possibilities in philosophical theses in a given auditorium. Does anyone contest that? how can one seriously aspire to be a solipsist? 2) The cognitive activity of the mind isnt of the ex-nihilo! The mind absorbs naturally embient ideas, language, images. (Not to mention Jungs clever work on archetypes and the collective unconscious.) Isnt an idea itself impersonal in its scope? Does it really belong to the subject? Can he claim sole property rights on any given idea? Personally, I doubt it. 3) In fact, I think it was Lacan who said the unconscious power is harnested with figures of speech, e.g. analogies, metaphors, etc. The fables of the Bible or of Jean de La Fontaine were, I think, extremely effective in educating people, in the arcana of courage, fidelity, and other superior human traits.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 03:12:02 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015