Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In the modern era, in an environment of tearing, the Radical Subject moves to the periphery of the circle of being, society, culture, to the periphery of man. He is “somewhere loitering in a near-human marginal state – “among” scum, revolutionaries, artists, third-class people who do not influence “the process of fundamental production, does not build a railway,” utility systems. He remains in a slight bewilderment and complete “ironic disagreement” among terrorists, alcoholics, but always on the ” periphery, although, again, not merging with this periphery. Its difference from the modern paradigm itself is that even in this environment of Modern Times, it retains its inner qualities exactly the same as in the environment of tradition. He's like a lost angel… Everything changed, the environment changed, but he didn't. Like the catechon, “holding now,” which will be taken “from Wednesday.” I'm not
I say that the Radical Subject is the catechon, but it is somewhat similar to it.
The main thing that needs to be said here is that the environment changes, but the Radical Subject does not. It changes its position, �ceases to be in the center and appears on the periphery. But in essence, he remains exactly the same as he was in the midst of tradition. This is the “swineherd king” hiding his royal dignity under the pathetic ” rags of a serf.
:from the book “The Radical Subject and its double”