Ignace Haaz

The latest news from our planet is threatening: climate change, pollution, forest loss, species extinctions. All these words are frightening and there is no sign of improvement. Simple logic leads to the conclusion that humanity has to react, for its own survival. But at the scale of a human being, it is less obvious. Organizing one’s daily life in order to preserve the environment implies self-questioning, changing habits, sacrificing some comfort. In one word, it is an effort. Then, what justifies such an effort? The personal choice to act in order to preserve our environment is often made by simple altruism. This choice is based on our love for other human beings: our love for the others grounds our effort. Our moral values, our ethical reflections and our religious beliefs are the deep core of these choices. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (John 15.12 NRSV). This Charter shows the moral and religious values that can help us react regarding the current environmental crisis and it should empower us to transcend the ideas of effort and sacrifice in order to consider the respect of the shared house, in a prophetic fulfillment of the being.

Solidarity could be defined in the broad sense either as a means or as an end. Considered as an end, solidarity is the motive of any virtuous action based on altruistic reasons, such as helping others to rescue someone in order to prevent a harmful situation. E. g. contributing to lift and rescue a heavy person, lying unconscious in the street on the floor, who is being handled by rescuers, but who might be needing an additional person, could express the value of solidarity as an end, since an answer to others request for help is given in the situation of emergency and risk, without having a particular obligation to help. Solidarity as a means (to an end, not an end), could be understood as a property of dependency of a set of parts to a whole (in solidum), as when in a family or a professional group, individual and collective roles and responsibilities are melt together to some extent.This idea of benefiting others could be understood either as a way of sharing together moral sentiments as love, social virtues as friendship and shared commitments and common economic and educational interests, in a limited community circle, that of the family. Even if the division of labour is not simply based on patriarchal authority, mutual consent of family members to rules and to a common circle of interests, those of the family, resemble to a egoism of the group, and not yet to truly social and altruistic values. Solidarity as cohesion of human beings, by the means of "interchangeability of ideas, services, goods, of workforce, virtues and vices", is solidarity limited to the constitution of a process of exchange that is a means that could be used to different ends.

F. Nietzsche does interesting indications on the anthropological foundation of language in his lessons on classical rhetoric, at the University of Basel in 1874. Many quotations of Gerber and Humboldt, and older notions, drawn from the Aristotle's Rhetoric are discussed in this dissertation. Many studies highlighted Nietzsche's attempts during thirty years (1976-2006) to draw a consistent anthropological foundation of the language. Some of them shed light on the metaphor, described from the point of view of anthropology, as an innovative perspective on the philosophy of rhetoric. Would metaphor be a verbal vehicles for conveying scientific and philosophical concepts by attaching unusual importance to the veracity or the truthfulness of a claim? Is that in contradiction to any conceptual truth? Some interpreters suggest that metaphors seen as linguistic products fail to explain the unnatural way meaning is transmitted from the unconscious musicality of language. If imperceptible bonds move the meaning of a word in the musicality of language, then to transmit a message by non verbal means or metaphors relates to a subjectively felt musicality of language. Meaning is expressed, not because there are words with fixed meaning in a conventional way, but because the word is seen in the first place as an action. Living language, seen as metaphorical by essence, is a view shared by German idealism, on the so-called origins of language. A consequence of this view on language is a wide reinterpretation of the reason, from the point of view of a rhetorical turn. Schopenhauer, Von Hartmann and Lichtenberg are some thinkers who pointed out the possibility of a pan-psychist notion of reason that inspired Nietzsche, and later Piaget (e. g. his theory of analogy is built on similar roots). A first part of this dissertation presents the historical genesis of doctrines that don't see language as an innate substratum of the conscious mind, but as rhetorical and conditioned by environment in the wide sense. In the second part, we read the main arguments of contemporary studies in cognitive sciences, discovering new structural similarities compared to the 19th Century views of Nietzsche. In the third part, we discuss the form of poetic imagination regarding a relation between metaphor and melancholy in Greek empirical medicine.

L'éthique classique hérite avec Diogène de Sinope de l'idée maîtresse de simplicité, dont l'individu peut faire l'expérience dans l'existence, et dont la jarre est le symbole. L'école cynique, dont Diogène est le représentant, enseigne une pratique de l'absence de souffrance (apathia), caractérisitique d'une simplicité déterminée par la contrainte ou acquise par l'exercice volontaire de l'abandon de certains traits propres à notre identité locale, de ce qui nous entraîne à nous abuser nous-mêmes, et donc à nous décevoir sur le long terme; c'est une réflexion et un engagement personnel vers une utopie, où nous nous attacherions à l'essentiel dans la vie. Ce qui est simple pour moi, devrait l'être aussi pour autrui, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il ne faille pas faire un effort pour réaliser une vie bonne, puisque l'homme est traversé par des désirs et des besoins, ceci depuis l'enfance. Nietzsche parle de Diogène comme d'un premier cosmopolite et bon Européen, puisque le cynique a saisi certaines composantes éthiques classiques de base, qui traverseront l'histoire des éthiques ultérieures non seulement de la Grèce et de la Macédoine, mais préfigurant une ligne directrice de l'éthique chrétienne, ayant des accents d'une sagesse hindoue et bouddhiste ancienne de l'Orient.

Avant de peser les limites du pouvoir politique, l'auteur développe la thèse selon laquelle une société humaine doit réfléchir sur l'instance qui devrait être considérée comme souveraine. La réflexion sur le rapport entre puissance politique et puissance juridique est dérivée. Si le pouvoir politique constituait seul l'attribut de la souveraineté, alors les règles de la société seraient toujours bien faites. Dans une société idéale la seule force directrice des règles suffit sans force coercitive.