Reptile Respiration V. Mammal Respiration

What is the refusal? Why

I am a third year student in foreign languages in Bordeaux. There is now a week, blocking my university has been decided by students and teachers to protest against the present policy of the government in research and education. Since the President's call the Sorbonne in February, the movement is growing.
Teachers are now underway at the railway station, trams, before the mayor of Bordeaux.
In the street, they organized the mock trial of our rulers.
Every Thursday, Bordeaux and other cities tremble in the rhythm of events, blocking the transit networks.
No doubt the movement is well organized and impressive.
face much opposition, I wonder the significance of the refusal in existence. That means saying no? We could of course mention the idea of rebellion (Camus). What do you think?

David.

the question box

- You talk, dear student Bordeaux the Rebel Camus, who is the one all the freedom - and thus all humanity - s is denial and refuge in the revolt.

I gather that the question you ask is whether the refusal was a sense when one takes itself, that is to say regardless of what is denied.

What do you think?

-> We will guide us to the interpretation of Nietzsche in one of the most famous texts: three metamorphoses of the spirit in Zarathustra, (see text here).

The first metamorphosis of the mind is a camel who claims to bear heavier burdens: the camel never refuses anything. The second transformation is one that changes into a lion, which denies the obligation and fight the dragon of moral obligation: the lion refuses everything. The third is one that changes the lion children: refuse or accept it, but he asserts. He said yes to his inventions and his games.

-> can be distinguished in my three kinds of denial: the refusal to refusal and denial of change - and more particularly, the denial of this change- alleged to intrude here, and finally to the contrary, the refusal of immobility.

1 - Denial for refusal, is what might be called the nihilism. Whoever said no, that is resistant to the delight of deny and refuse. This one is the lion mentioned Nietzsche and nihilism if is untenable, then it is clear that the systematic refusal is not a tenable attitude in itself.

2 - As a result - and not specifically in the text of Nietzsche, except that is also the refusal to be the camel who says yes to everything and anything - there is the refusal of change that would lead me to become myself another. It means that there are limits not to cross: a step beyond the current situation and that all reality that rocks. It is the refusal of transgressing boundaries - the limits are changing direction (reform of universities), or when regression (reduction in purchasing power).

More importantly, by refusing to become another, I refuse to bend to the will of others, that is to say to abdicate my own will.

Because that is what calls the Dragon of the obligation: "Everything value has already been created, and I am representing all the values created. In truth it should not be any "I want"! Thus speaks the dragon . .

3 - And then there's the refusal of immobility: that while the non follows a yes, he presupposes. I refuse to do that we wants me to do, because I want to do what I I consider to be the best.

To understand the denial, we must first know that it is acquiescence. Nietzsche said it child who carries the yes " But tell me, my brothers, what can the child that the lion could not do? Why is it that the lion becomes child abductor?

The child is innocence and forgetfulness, a revival and a game, a wheel that rolls on itself, a first movement, a holy affirmation.

Yes, for the divine play of creation, O my brothers, we need a holy affirmation: the spirit now wants his own will, who has lost the world wants to win his own world . "

But if need refusal yes, yes no need for the refusal, since the child's weakness can fight.

remains that the child comes after the lion. And the lion is there to fight against the dragon. Without him, this is inflicting

summarize:

- The refusal is made absolutely nihilism;

- The refusal as opposed relation to the denaturation of itself as Will

- Denial presupposes the affirmation, it is justified by it - if not nihilism =

Fastest Shutter Speed For Point And Shoot

icons?

Hello Doctor Philo, one question nagging me for some time, I wonder why the" icons ", as they are literary or mythological Juliet or Ophelia (eg Ariane) fascinate us all ? I ask this question because myself being passionate, I have some answers but they seem rather incomplete. Thanks for your reply

If I understand you expect from me complete response?

not easy on such a subject I'll try my luck anyway.

Let if you like the icon, as tradition gives it to us: this is a picture that shows us a scene or a religious figure.

So, give the icon to see something that does not occur naturally in our everyday world. That's the first point.

But at the same time, if the icon is religious (the will around Christ's head, the profusion gold and purple) is that it invites us to worship: it does not only see but also gives worship. That's the second point.

So if we want to generalize the meaning of the icon to not re secular world, we must say it is a symbolic representation of a behavior, feeling, activity, being, which must seem exceptional and at the same time admirable.

Such is the love of Ophelia and Juliet. Exceptional love that only death can stop coming (And Ariane: Ariane , my sister, what love injured / You died at the edges where you were left "said the Phaedra by Racine).

Now let us come to your question: why the fascination? Is it simply because it gives us to see something extraordinary, just like the stars in celebrity magazines?

course not.

I have the idea that the icons are fascinating not because they give meaning to something human, but because they are superhuman - And at the same time this one is superhuman desirable: it is a passing of ourselves that we invite icon.

Juliet, Ophelia, Ariane are heroes who invite us to heroism: Who would not love to die? We love them because we want to be like them.

So, the icon does not simply show an example. The icon is a call to holiness, heroism, courage, strength of character, etc ...

To my knowledge, only Bergson themed it with the call of the hero - the saint or the mystic - in Two Sources of Morality and Religion : to act morally, we can say Bergson

- or be forced by a system of bonds (closed morality).

- Or we can be prompted by the example of a man who goes beyond the ordinary limits of human conduct (moral open). It is an aspiration supra-rational, as opposed to the rules of prudence that govern obeying the rules. What applies to the corporation, also applies to religion.

Thus we have the icons like the Abbe Pierre, Mother Teresa, etc. ...