To answer the question of suicide as a political act, it should send this document to show that transforms public opinion, changes minds, changes the world in which we live. That is to say, distinguish between the aim of the act (by topic) and its effect (in the Other, discourse or reality).
No matter what Carlos Ghosn, or rather, although he wants to, suicide in series Technocentre in their repetition, their cumulative aspect, have this effect was at least force him to propose measures for the group. Obviously the answers will never be good if the question is badly put. In particular, claim that an act is strictly individual by implying that what lies around the employee does not count is absurd. Ghosn has excluded possible causes. When he claims that management is not involved in the suicides, how not to hear: "I'm not here for nothing! .
In conclusion on the subject, I will repeat and summarize the argument advanced by Arendt.
What Arendt evacuated immediately in this matter is the will. It seeks to define the effect of a possible universal instrument without having to rely on free will or the will (which it denounces as divided). The will has no power over itself, on the other, it becomes a tyranny . Free will is "anti-political [1] . He opposes the will of one than the other.
With Arendt, the act policy can mean a beginning, a beginning, a foundation or an opening to the future for us all, which has a universal dimension. By refusing, the subject contrasts with what was there before and what is around him. In the process, the act takes issue with what precedes it, slice it, it breaks, it undermines something of the existing audience. It could mark an opening to something new. "Man is free because it is a beginning [2] .
is when the act is posited that we can measure its effects. The effects are "unexpected" and "improbable [3] . They can either repeat the existing copy. Slice the foregoing. It was in the aftermath that the subject could judge. This leads to another division that focuses on the effects of the act.
The power of an act is independent, outside the will and the effects of the act. The desire to relinquish power to be free, the act has no power of its effect. Its effects are the order of the unexpected. The unlikely and will combine to take away its power to act.
The match between the subject and referred to the effects of his act is impossible.
The loss of power requires a political act is similar to Arendt's "collapse" of Rene Char resistant. The act replaces thought, suddenly, he opened a hole in the story (conceived as the rational sequence of events) that thought must fill in afterwards. Therefore, suicide (policy) is "a call to thought . Ethically, the man must have "moving into the breach."
Repetition appears twice: when the act fails to justify the unexpected and when the subject fails to "think of his act." The act is in a field bounded by the will and its effects. The act is between two "antagonists [4] . A new in-between, like the Lacanian idea between the two death for Antigone.
Now we see what separates Arendt Lacan. For Arendt think it is possible that the spirit takes the subject of this in-between. In the aftermath, the issue comes to think his act is allowing it to move into the breach while "overlooking [5] "in his mind. Thus, it is no longer in the inter-repetition. Arendt think we can stop it. It has rather the idea of a possible beginning with the act (that of thought).
And if it was endless? And if those who committed suicide was the one who agrees to remain in the spirit of this in-between?
For this in-between is the area of eternal repetition. This is the place where Antigone, Oedipus at Colonus, King Lear, Rene Char. Where the subject is the state of a scrap, waste, thing of St Paul (Epistle to the Romans, VII, 7). The scary place, that of horror. The one where the spirits roam spectral. Where we do not stop wandering. An "empty prior whose name is the Freudian death drive [6] .
The subject who committed suicide would it not he who accepts the horror of "infinitely unlikely fact that the very texture of everything we say real [7] ?
[1] - A. Arendt, The crisis in culture, (1954), Gallimard, Folio tests No. 113, Paris , 1972, p. 213
[2] - p. 217
[3] - p. 218
[4] - p. 22
[5] - p. 21
[6] - S. Zizek, The sore subject , Paris, Flammarion, P. 206
[7] - Arendt, P. 220
0 comments:
Post a Comment