To my venerable predecessors in our Company, and the first of my Masters of Arts.
Since the understanding elevates man above all sentient beings, and gives it this kind of superiority and power he has over them is probably a subject that deserves its excellence that we apply to us to know As far as we are capable.
Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding.
The university seems to be after 1968, instead of a gown, symbol of his office, a morgue fun; human culture to the sufficiency of man he is that a step, and a soft revolution. It is, perhaps, probably even in the collapse of the structure of our society that are based foundation for the collapse of values, more than ever, characterize. Yet, explaining that man is merely the result of a package (that would be formed like a plastic bottle in the chain, requiring the mold ball field still hot form similar to the previous thousands and thousands to come) structuralists, Marxists largely as Bourdieu have finalized to sully the very foundation of the person's dignity. However, nuisance and caused no not merely a few books that should avoid the spread in the minds fragile, poorly educated and therefore impressionable; societal Marxism goes further. The individual, broken, cut millennia of tradition that led to its formation, is to drift, the heir of an orphan here. And these evil puppeteers to add that the man is inclined to consider his interest before thinking of interest-just as these other legitimate-billion people, it must be corrected, here are the saviors of the world to the detriment of humanity, at the height of their glory. To an interventionist, man is inherently evil and should, from this arbitrary orientation and anthropologically impossible to think in binary black-white, light-dark, dungeon-wicked-profit charity. In the latter pair, an aberration even more obvious than in previous matches. Indeed, interest does not go far away, with selfishness and the spontaneous nature of the search for satisfaction of needs does not mean, and that the structural-Marxists did not hear that research personal gain is not related to the destruction of another. As although we admit that homo homini lupus is (Hobbes), present in all humanity to prevent harm to his neighbor, is what would happen in a state structure leaving their place of individual liberties; each person is responsible, not feeling or feel guilty or assisted find its rightful place and would have de facto interest to respect others. There would therefore not a state-father, moralistic and preachy, spreading manure as fertilizer morality died of a political class too corporatist interests in order to be qualified interest National. The ideal of nation in mind, we shall not return, more a way of division (pushing one group against another by exploiting the spontaneous nature of the phenomenon of victimization and thus tend to the designation of a scapegoat whose 'dislike-even' killing civilian "think of the growing exclusion of people of Muslim faith on behalf of Republican dogma of tolerance (sic) - allows for a variable period to regain a semblance of stability and cohesion in the dominant group or presented as such) a factual representation of reality. Yet or less persons skilled in the study of the structure of human societies dare question the potential of individuals by impregnating the structure that tends to dominate, this funny mimicry uses the innate character of imitatio to imprison individuals in an artificial body. This "social body", theorized by Rousseau, must no longer be separated from the state he is one of materiality, and the future will, hopefully, due to those who work so that we stop does look a branch, leaf or some of the human tree. With this idea obscurantist legacy of the Enlightenment from which men are, necessarily, a fixed and indivisible body, could result from a common ideal artificial man-kind. This model of individual, shaped by the aspirations of the dominant groups in the population of France, could not but spread throughout the state structure, the same structure that is self-replication in all body caused by its leaders. The University is, itself, inherit from this structuralization salience: the academy is born. And raised, before the latter element does pour too much ink, few details Focus objections about our own. On the one hand, give a framework is not, by far, in principle, a bad thing, and besides, unframed, no man could build. Anthropology of mimetic should not overlook the following qualification: man imitates his fellows to build, it does naturally, this trend is in him - that order spontaneously. However, the structural-Marxist may seem to have anticipated the thesis Girard, it is a mistake. The man is formed by imitation, but is not conditioned by the acquisition automation (what Bourdieu will defend, thinking particularly of Distinction, A Social Critique of Judgement). However, it will integrate the structure of the society in which it operates. Then what about freedom? The answer is pretty obvious and simple fishing; mimicry can reproduce after ownership, behavior and not the codes that generate them. Hayek had fully anticipated this idea: human behavior is the result of a long social process transmitted from human to human (that is where Hayek seem to find the continuous exchange with the other, and Girard-catallaxy -Mimetic character of the relationship in the construction of the individual), the individual can not include a list of values as it would choose a sequence of numbers, abstract. But it may that is where the clean, and usefulness of the phenomenon-mimetic, reproduce situations, reactions, since they seem to agree intellectually with the facts it faces. In sum, the mimetic appropriation, the individual is initiated into the mysteries of the social structure that he feels it is both over, around and within him. With critical thinking, and some practice it will be able to distinguish in consciousness, which is of the order of its relative freedom and character transmitted and thus be able to choose, enlightened man, what is most consistent with its interests. And then say that the social order is a factual situation which must be distinguished from the lawfulness of individual conduct. It must be defined as a condition in which individuals are able, based on their respective special knowledge, develop expectations about the conduct of others, which are correct in making possible a successful mutual adjustment of their actions. (Hayek, errors constructivism) In sum, it should no longer produce any opposition in principle between the need to regulate human relationships and the freedom that should guarantee individuals. A structured form a framework, whether social or intangible, is a legislative straitjacket harmful to people than when it blocks personal interests without legitimate reason to do so (the legitimacy stems not from the majority universal suffrage, French democracy is in large part a fool's game). It is therefore appropriate that this structure is malleable, meaning it adapts to the expectations and needs, in real time, or in anticipation of expected cases. The academy, which is a rigid form of education and research, is one of the most egregious examples of this need for flexibility. It, too, is explained by him as a careful analysis of freedom conceived at the individual level as presented in the previous comments. Indeed, to recognize the academic all-powerful one based on individual interests and beneficial to all, should it be flexible-that is impossible with the current system hyperformalisation disciplines, or that provides free spaces reserved for an elite minority forces, but able to generate, to feel, great intellectual revolutions to come. The interest in analyzing the academic, and corporatism dogmatizing teacher unions, is obvious for anyone interested in setbacks, and failures of the French university system. The current system, fixed dies. To this reason that could encompass all: research (and teaching that is "only" sharing of knowledge generated by the above) is a living material whose orientation should not forget its essence: the human person. This is true of most disciplines, it would be if all one wanted to admit that the conquest of space, for example, is an emanation of a process driven by intellectual vanity. Again, therefore, the heart is the man. In sum, understanding the man, his aspirations, his will, the various layers of his organization into groups, and groups them (the companies) is to embrace the right research, one that elevates the spirit above the depravity of the material and, especially, is beyond the mind pride. Admit that we can not quite understand it, already rising, and here again, St. Augustine and Hayek agreed: the human mind is limited, limited in time by death and decay of the body, limited by his own weaknesses (the brain is a material envelope, with this character are the limits of material things of the flesh), also limited by innate characteristics too often forgotten by a science and an arrogant egalitarianism tends to spread. These patterns have led to deadly centuries of errors and systems still practiced ; Structural-Marxist thought is one. By denying the relative freedom of the individual, it removes any changes made and all humanity. The University should be able to bring the differences of students, integrate its organizational process. Recognize the difference is, already anticipating a more just world. It is also beneficial to create an emulation of all actors, direct (other students) and indirect (the population). Knowledge is shared, all dictatorships know, and generally take care to silence or deport academics. Rented But the search is that from the bottom of his library, his mind and offer limited time on earth, to cultivate his humanity, and, better afford to men. Through the sacrifice of his ego, voluntary and free, it rises above the multitude and offered him, in perfect denial, tortured the fruit of his meditations. How many philosophers, how many academics have followed Socrates in the tomb so that humanity present in every human being shines a little more? The researcher is essentially an ascetic bent before the entire light of knowledge burning flesh of his eyes to free his mind. By this sacrifice and this renunciation alone, the thought will crown her life. Yet many are those who, out of a very general training, imagine that compiling information and data may be akin to the discovery of knowledge. Those people are wrong, maybe they are good speakers, such as Cicero defined in the De Oratore: Do we want a definition now embrace the idea completely, the exact force of the word speaker? He alone, in my opinion, is worthy of such a beautiful name that will develop any topic with all the necessary qualities of invention, disposition, speech, memory, adding more of the nobility in action. It does not, in fact, the discoverers of knowledge. For whoever wants to have a subject fully, and who work in this direction will rarely pay attention to its attention in areas that its immediate and direct approach will delay or even worse, which it does not take care of interest. There is an intimate relation between the hyper-running in our time and the trend, dominant, that the disciplines are closing on each other, coming to rest in a methodological autism, and eventually collapse. Man the researcher, discovers that the time spent is lost, there is no need to develop how it can be morally difficult. And pay, often in new approaches his last hopes. But this is not about dying but the method applied to his intelligence. The systems are convenient thing, formalization, increasingly, studies applied to men is proof. After the utilitarian (for whom everything happens as being provided in advance freedom was a condition for achieving a higher purpose to the individual giving the impression of control its intellectual environment) see new dogmatists Methodological study on the grounds that the individual is complex, it would be better to cut our humanity strata. Disciplines trained and offer a variety of monsters doomed to a quick death. It is in the unity of knowledge to a common object that is nestled any search for truth. On the one hand, and their compilers are historical, on the other, the few minds capable of sensing unit bundles of understanding. To them find their own way of expressing an idea accepted, and discover (they find in original) that the conventional formulas sometimes contain flaws or tacit presuppositions unjustified. They will then be forced to answer questions that have been in practice long dodged through a turn of phrase but ambiguous plausible that conceals an unjustified assumption (HAYEK, Two types of spirits). And the same author, in the same text, add the fact that they are clearly some connections to, mean that they are able to describe in words. Even after extensive efforts to find appropriate words, they can still be acutely aware that the phrase they have chosen not fully express what they really mean. They also have another curious feature, which is certainly not rare, but I've never read a description, namely that many of their particular ideas in different fields can come from a single moral vision more generally, they are not aware of themselves, but they may later discover with amazement, as the similarity of their approach to various issues. There are two types of spirits: on one hand those whose report common standard is fully internalized and the more rare, who have an intellectual framework guided by a set of moral values and from which situations are interpreted. This second category will be brought to the hyphen between areas where it feels and where cohesion implied by their context within the first areas that will not open. The first category, majority is intellectually foreign areas it will study (a detachment front, the mind can not be truly objective) and the second depends on to build over the discovery that his mind will break and it will seek to understand. A stagnant stability of the first is for the latter, a strong tendency to scatter apparent that only the first two phases of their apprehension of reality: first meeting, surprising and constantly renewed, of a new object and then integrating this element to the flexible structure being extended is the essence of their spirit, and its particularity. And regain our separation of structures: static, hard to change or flexible, interacting dynamic environment. It sounds easy, then, to highlight the significance of trade and movement while standing in regard to man, emitting a fundamental dualism: mobile and alive, frozen and dead. However, between the accumulation of data and the discovery of new knowledge, we find the split between mind and put all those who, by their very nature, can only find new ways of Being.
