philosophy dissertation (6hrs Khâgne B / L ENS)
Topic: "It is nature itself, there is another me-too" Diderot
It is customary to blame one who delights in imitation to make only replicate what already exists. In this sense, imitation is the artificial breeding, which aims to identify, to resemble an object that is the original. In this perspective imitation nothing new hence the famous phrase: do not imitate, innovate. Imitation is also the one who plays the role of others, he is the one who adopts the same behavior, same mannerisms. This is the mocking imitation intended to ridicule those he imitates, this is also the imitation of the model makes it an admirer who the person imitated. In all cases, imitation involves reference to an otherness, it's how she opposed the kind of topic that imitates. Indeed, if the concept of nature refers to the idea of an essence of the subject, the imitation as she identifies with others differs from the ontological identity of the subject. Therefore, Diderot claims that is itself liable and that is another imitation. Can we imitate while remaining oneself? Why imitate when it is exposed to not be yourself?
Imitation comes to identify with others. It assumes that puts aside his own identity to assume the identity of otherness. The content of imitation is therefore intended explicitly different from the subject that mimics, in that it is a distinction between the avowed imitator and the imitated. In this sense, the actor imitates. It explicitly commits the distinction of his actions as they are the face of what he imitates. It follows that the actions he does play his control but must be attributed to the character he plays. Imitation is thus part of the role of others and not his own. It emerges from its nature and is in the nature of others. In his role of imitation, it is other than itself.
Therefore, Plato insists on the distinction between the poet and bard in Ion. While the poet is actually inspired by the gods, the bards are just acting poets. The bard does not really deliver the message, a message he does not elsewhere. The bards fit well in the role of others. Nature in this background, different poets who are the true custodians of the message of the gods. It is only in the form of imitation relates to be imitated. Imitation does that image and appearance of the imitated. Therefore, it is imitated on the superiority of the impersonator because he who is without being imitated can be emulated while the imitator is only if there is something to emulate. Once one follows the logic of imitation, it is subservient to that which is imitated, in its essence.
imitation is to reproduce the image of others. It is thus of the order of artifice. Evoking an object of imitation, mean its artifice. Imitating, it is therefore defined in the negativity of both as the artificial reproduction of the person imitated, but also because this reference to alterity implies a negation of his own nature.
But the assertion of identity can not be defined in negativity. Nietzsche, the will to power which is the assertion can not be negative. Therefore, the instinct is enhanced. The instinct is, in effect, a specific character of the self in Nietzsche's thought. It echoes the nature of itself that must be affirmed. Her assertiveness is opposed to the inability to say something. If imitation requires negativity of the self-nature, the instinct is to mirror the positive nature of self. It does not refer to others to assert themselves. Imitation is somehow an admission of weakness. The child imitates shows he has not acquired its own identity or at least he did not assume. In this sense, imitation is a sign of heteronomy because it involves reference to others to affirm his nature to exist. Nature itself takes the place of authenticity unlike imitation, which refers to others.
When Rousseau says that "man is good but society corrupts", it does not refer to both the state of nature and the nature of man as the essence. The concept of nature implies the idea of an essence. Therefore, it is question of the nature of a problem to describe what constitutes it. In his Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality, Rousseau shows that the issue of inequality arises when a man sings to assert his beautiful voice with others. Such an attitude creates an unequal relationship with others through song because this man stands as the best. Now is the best model and the model is that it must imitate. We thus find in imitation dimension of inequality is the one who imitates at a disadvantage compared to the person imitated. What is involved is the corruption of the nature of self in imitation to the extent that it involves someone as a reference model to achieve. It is this situation that are born of jealousy, lust and vanity.
The story of singing in Rousseau is in the context of seduction. Imitation is indeed a different result, eg seduction. So it's a role that is played. To achieve this goal the individual is imitation. The fallacy of imitation thus lies in the non-conformity to the nature of self. Imitate is veiling her face and take a face that is not hers. The refusal of this fallacy is reflected in the equivalence of formulas: "Be natural" and "Be yourself". They lead you can not be yourself than to the extent that it remains natural. Otherwise said, one is oneself when one does not play a role that is to say when one does not mask. For impersonate another is to take a mask. Now the masks are changed so imitation means the possibility of mutation. Imitate a way back to mutate as it is changing. Therefore, imitation does not correspond to an essence which implies continuity. It can therefore be self-imitation. Face changing, there is already something other than oneself. Only thus being natural would correspond to the true self.
However, if the natural hunting and returns to gallop, can not we design an imitation which is to be clear himself?
It may in fact that is itself only if it imitates. Such a state would account for the nature of being without essence of man. If imitation is the coating of a veil, so the being of man might be behind the veiling by imitations. In fact, it would imply the impossibility to define a species to humans. Imitation is the figure of the ownership of the world. The man can imitate animals, but the opposite is inconceivable. This means that imitation can be conceived as a mode of appropriating the world. So there is a positivity of imitation, which allows to affirm his being.
Desire also has a mimetic character. Should we conclude that the desire you are not yourself? The theory of triangular desire highlights the importance of others in the desire, that is to say that the object is desired by a subject only when it is desired by another subject. The fact that the subject arouses the desire to be coveted. Basically, the more it is coveted by others over the Desire is stoked. In fact, the mime is used to assert the desire to assert his ego. What is so committed is the assertion of the superiority of his desire to imitate others, even if at first. Mime the desire of others is only the means to assert themselves. But in reality imitation in itself is not sought, and it serves only as an hypothetical imperative to assert themselves. Can we find imitation explicitly distinguishing itself from others?
Pascal in the preface to the Treaty on the empty showcases imitation Alumni. The progress of science involves the imitation of the ancients, the reference to their authority. But it is not understood as imitation identical reproduction, because such an imitation condemns the statement of novelty and new generations. Imitation is the principle of seeking the truth that was dear to the ancients. Only as far as we refer to others in the former case, we can assert an identity. In this case, it is Pascal imitate than the discoveries of the ancients. Imitation which is not identical reproduction can therefore go beyond. There is no other than oneself, even if we refer here to an otherness: the authority of elders.
believe being yourself is not likely to involve no pulse or social conditioning that is constitutive of self. Imitation, how relationships with others, is no less ambiguous. Symbolic sign of submission or a lack of creativity, imitation is also the guarantee of progress in the conservation principles that underlie it. This means that if imitation necessarily refers to an otherness, it does not mean that either another.
0 comments:
Post a Comment