Maybe the impression is deceptive, but recently man has been more and more talked about. As a man, mark you. The term is strolling through public discourse as if there was no tomorrow. Well, maybe there is no. Thanks to man.
After all, there have always been men since there have been men. Only that they have not been interested in that for a long time - Nature, the Gods, the Pope, the Emperor, the Prince were of greater importance. It is no accident the era when man became aware of him- or herself the first time was called humanism. Since then the problems have not ceased to exist, for an observing subject making himself the observing object triggers off cognitive paradoxies. And at the latest since the invention of psycho-analysis man has been failing to break open the doors of objectivity with his throbbing head.
This has been merely extempore, for originally the author had not intended to succumb to high-flown writing. After all he addresses men. However, he is one of then. And the core question is: What is man? What to make of him, as he is the talk of man's town?
It is interesting, to begin with, he actually is a topic - 20 years ago, for example, public discourse was much more focused upon acid rain and dying of forests, 10 years ago more globally upon climate. Men then only played a part as the singular scoundrel (Man destroys the ecological system ...). Or as handy groups (the foreigners, the asylants, the skinheads, the politcians ...). And today? Today the politicians deliver speech after speech about the men outside the Reichstag, radio listeners bawl to the 'man' song, the debate storms in a teacup whether the protagonist of the 'decline' may be shown in such a human way, professors teach us he may, since he was human after all. Once again - what is man?
Following a good old procedure language analysis practices we answer by posing the another question: what is the meaning of the word man? As it seems to be one of those keywords we have to assume different contexts, namely a factual and an evaluative one. The first can be dealt with quite easily: all organisms which are mammals and capable of speaking are eligible. We should not narrow down that definition, since the author is not in the least inclined to dispute about one-legged, blind, fair or coloured human beings. The notion of subhuman creatures ought to be reserved to those who believe in it. Needless to say, capability of speaking applies to sign language, too. The only thing which might remain to be interesting is from when on a cell formation can count as a human being. But as a male man the author is not entitled to an opinion of his own.
Man's evaluation is much more complicated; depending on context both pathetic positive and pejorative meaning hues can play a part. Case 1 refers to efforts (especially in institutional connections) to free functionaries from their fixation as just another brick in the wall. After all it is human beings compelled to make ten thousands of their peers redundant (or to set them free, if you prefer). The old topos of the fate behind the numbers, so to speak. Our representatives follow that example - maybe to remind themselves of the fact the ballot cattle has human traits during the legislative period. People claiming to be good judges of character seem never to be wrong. On the other hand we must state liars, criminals, child murderers are human beings, too. This paves the way for the pejorative trait of word use - e.g. when it is said 'atrocious' is too euphemistic an evaluation of atrocities. Suddenly even animals whose brutal struggle for survival in the savannah gives the Middle-European couch potato a pleasant thrill are a lot more human than man. As we can see, man is sometimes better, sometimes worse than anything else populating the world.
Just because and even though mankind believes to have emancipated itself and compels retarded ethnic groups to follow the example, it has no clear self-conception. This is due to the fact the point of being human is based on de-trivialization. Man is free and unpredictable, unprogrammable. For exactly that reason he has no idea what he is. Modern theory of social systems consequently avoids talking about man in general and in particular. For it, 'Man' represents - if the author is not mistaken - a kind of semantics developed by cognitive systems tightly coupled with organic systems; it serves as personal address stations so that the social systems emerging from communicative coupling of cognitive systems can work out a handy self-description to remain reflectively functional. This might not be as easy to associate as the good old term man, but avoids deciding on a unequivocal good/bad judgement.
Perhaps this is a completely wrong reading. Maybe man is neither good nor bad and the approach of the theory of systems wholly incorrectly reported. But at the latest then the uncertain author might be sure of being a human being. Errare humanum est.
After all, there have always been men since there have been men. Only that they have not been interested in that for a long time - Nature, the Gods, the Pope, the Emperor, the Prince were of greater importance. It is no accident the era when man became aware of him- or herself the first time was called humanism. Since then the problems have not ceased to exist, for an observing subject making himself the observing object triggers off cognitive paradoxies. And at the latest since the invention of psycho-analysis man has been failing to break open the doors of objectivity with his throbbing head.
This has been merely extempore, for originally the author had not intended to succumb to high-flown writing. After all he addresses men. However, he is one of then. And the core question is: What is man? What to make of him, as he is the talk of man's town?
It is interesting, to begin with, he actually is a topic - 20 years ago, for example, public discourse was much more focused upon acid rain and dying of forests, 10 years ago more globally upon climate. Men then only played a part as the singular scoundrel (Man destroys the ecological system ...). Or as handy groups (the foreigners, the asylants, the skinheads, the politcians ...). And today? Today the politicians deliver speech after speech about the men outside the Reichstag, radio listeners bawl to the 'man' song, the debate storms in a teacup whether the protagonist of the 'decline' may be shown in such a human way, professors teach us he may, since he was human after all. Once again - what is man?
Following a good old procedure language analysis practices we answer by posing the another question: what is the meaning of the word man? As it seems to be one of those keywords we have to assume different contexts, namely a factual and an evaluative one. The first can be dealt with quite easily: all organisms which are mammals and capable of speaking are eligible. We should not narrow down that definition, since the author is not in the least inclined to dispute about one-legged, blind, fair or coloured human beings. The notion of subhuman creatures ought to be reserved to those who believe in it. Needless to say, capability of speaking applies to sign language, too. The only thing which might remain to be interesting is from when on a cell formation can count as a human being. But as a male man the author is not entitled to an opinion of his own.
Man's evaluation is much more complicated; depending on context both pathetic positive and pejorative meaning hues can play a part. Case 1 refers to efforts (especially in institutional connections) to free functionaries from their fixation as just another brick in the wall. After all it is human beings compelled to make ten thousands of their peers redundant (or to set them free, if you prefer). The old topos of the fate behind the numbers, so to speak. Our representatives follow that example - maybe to remind themselves of the fact the ballot cattle has human traits during the legislative period. People claiming to be good judges of character seem never to be wrong. On the other hand we must state liars, criminals, child murderers are human beings, too. This paves the way for the pejorative trait of word use - e.g. when it is said 'atrocious' is too euphemistic an evaluation of atrocities. Suddenly even animals whose brutal struggle for survival in the savannah gives the Middle-European couch potato a pleasant thrill are a lot more human than man. As we can see, man is sometimes better, sometimes worse than anything else populating the world.
Just because and even though mankind believes to have emancipated itself and compels retarded ethnic groups to follow the example, it has no clear self-conception. This is due to the fact the point of being human is based on de-trivialization. Man is free and unpredictable, unprogrammable. For exactly that reason he has no idea what he is. Modern theory of social systems consequently avoids talking about man in general and in particular. For it, 'Man' represents - if the author is not mistaken - a kind of semantics developed by cognitive systems tightly coupled with organic systems; it serves as personal address stations so that the social systems emerging from communicative coupling of cognitive systems can work out a handy self-description to remain reflectively functional. This might not be as easy to associate as the good old term man, but avoids deciding on a unequivocal good/bad judgement.
Perhaps this is a completely wrong reading. Maybe man is neither good nor bad and the approach of the theory of systems wholly incorrectly reported. But at the latest then the uncertain author might be sure of being a human being. Errare humanum est.
No comments:
Post a Comment