La Boétie o dell’ambiguità del concetto di individualismo
Two antinomic theoretical situations, co-present in the Discours, draw a sort of embryonic manifesto of its focus, presented in the Boétian style in the rhetoric of oppositional couples; one, the result of conjecture, the other, more obvious, on the line of what was called histoire universelle, incl...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/tp, |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autor: | |
| Médium: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Jazyk: | Italien |
| Vydáno: |
Teoria politica
2023
|
| Témata: | |
| On-line přístup: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Shrnutí: | Two antinomic theoretical situations, co-present in the Discours, draw a sort of embryonic manifesto of its focus, presented in the Boétian style in the rhetoric of oppositional couples; one, the result of conjecture, the other, more obvious, on the line of what was called histoire universelle, including the history of the people from which to extract the ideal repertoire —both, anyway invested and united by a paradoxical synchronic valence. In the theoretical and pragmatic impossibility to distinguish tyranny and monarchy, the singuliers remain (yet again) the result / presupposition of the dynamics of power, of its pyramid or chain, and draw the homology of an identical situation of paradoxical inclusion/exclusion. Along the line of the historical narrative, in La Boétie Caesar had already understood that the secret of the dominance, its founding and its maintenance, is constituted by the power of ‘impure’ mediation, that is, the exercise of a network of tyrannical bonds that all refer to the One, parody of lost unity, of relationships based on individualistic drives and the desire of the master. Only the search of the causes indicated by La Boétie will make evident the aporia of human action caught between the gaze of the external observer who grasps the voluntary nature of the act and the internal gaze that, on the contrary, experiences it as nature, therefore as a necessity and fatum. A theme that presupposes numerous mises en abymes, rendered ‘impure’ by the dynamics of a passage that has remained unrelated because it is perverse. From freedom to servitude, will it then be necessary to hypothesize an act of censorship or a metamorphosis that somehow brings to completion what was in nuce in nature? In the common home/homeland constituted by the earth and the cosmos, all men are equal in their capacity to be rational and free, and therefore also citizens of the same state or city. But this had also been the root of Stoic cosmopolitanism and natural law, to which La Boétie will return —before Montaigne dealt with it closely— for which justice and law are not the fruit of a convention, but have their own foundation in the same nature (or reason) that sets the rules of right and wrong. The opposite of the socially apodictic logic of the theory and practice of the singuliers, of the individualism that separates, denies freedom, suffocates the seeds, alienates the individual and denies the nous, the common self that founds the community, dispossesses him and makes it, to paraphrase a now classic expression, a divided me and us. |
|---|