Site Overlay

possibility and responsibility

If human beings were or had to be this or that substance, this or that destiny, no ethical experience would be possible … This does not mean, however, that humans are not, and do not have to be, something, that they are simply consigned to nothingness and therefore can freely decide whether to be or not to be, to adopt or not to adopt this or that destiny (nihilism and decisionism coincide at this point). There is in effect something that humans are and have to be, but this is not an essence nor properly a thing: It is the simple fact of one’s own existence as possibility or potentiality …

— Giorgio Agamben, The Coming Community (1993), section 11.

this sounds to me as responsibility.

So, human is a simple fact of possibility (not an essence nor properly a thing) and under russell’s paradox (theory) that: “most sets commonly encountered are not members of themselves” nullifies the assumption that collections can be defined freely and without any restrictions or criteria and under a definition of Agamben: “whatever singularity” and also with help of “evolution theory” (harmonization with changes in the living environment or disaster and screening of only vital things), should create a responsibility to defend human against himself and the world. And this responsibility shows itself in the words of Chomsky “try to know” for undrestanding our always current situation as a responsibility.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *