During the writing of my thesis, I often visited the site of the French philosopher practical and philosophical counselor Oscar Brenifier, site rich in content, ideas and information about the practice of philosophy in France and, especially on "Philosophie pour enfants ".
So, yesterday I went back on his site and I discovered some interesting news: some videos of "consultation philosophique."
His other videos are available on the Google-video (in French, English and English).
Clearly this is just an example of philosophical counseling. The approaches vary from a philosophical the next.
The structure is definitely followed by Brenifier analytic and Cartesian. It starts with a question, you isolate the concepts and go from time to time toward a greater clarification. For now, I have translated only the first 7 ½ minutes of video. Anyone wishing to cooperate and continue with the translation will certainly be welcome!
HERE EST-CE QUE JE L'AUTRE RENCONTRE RENCONTRE Quand je?
ABOUT MEETING WHEN MEETING ANOTHER?
A (Oscar Brenifier): What is the question?
B (Consultant): The question is "Who encounter when meeting each other?"
A: What is the concept that poses more problems here? You're hesitating, why?
B: Why a little ' scares me ...
A: What scares her?
B: The meeting with the other
A: That's ... What is the meeting? In general, what a meeting
B: E 'presence
A: It' s a presence ... and then ... what it means to be a presence, what means "be a presence"?
B: Being with, be listening, be heard
A: Well, now we see the 'other' What is it?
B: E 'for me
A:' for me ... Let's see, what is the main difference between the concept of direct meeting (to be listening and listening) and 'other' which for me is, how can we categorize the relationship of these two concepts?
B: In listening there is ... presence and absence
A: Well, then we can say that there are two contradictions, there is the presence and absence, then what is there?
B: The meeting
A: The meeting is invited. And the other one then?
B: 'the absence
A: So what then is the problem that arises?
B: As you can see what is missing ...
A: Well, then: the presence of absence. This raises the question of the presence of absence. He's not sure?
B: Just
A: Why?
B: Because around the idea of \u200b\u200banother meeting and I never made the association, I never related to 'the absence and presence.
A: I agree but the fact that the other is absent is what worries us and the fact that the meeting is a presence could also go, is not it?
B: Yes
A: Yes, so the question that arises here is like no other, right?
B: Yes
A: What is the problem of defining the other as an absence?
B: ... There is no recognition
A: There is recognition: the other is absent if there is no recognition. And besides, in general when it comes to the other makes sense to say that there is no recognition? The more you come to is it recognized, or rather the absence of recognition?
B: Lack of recognition. Why se si può incontrare, chi non lo fa è assente, chi non lo fa è altro.
A: Ma lei dice "si può" incontrare. Può incontrare qualuno che è qua? Come lo conosce? Se lei lo ha già conosciuto lo può incontrare?
B: Ma è un processo...C'è un processo di riconoscimento con l'incontro
A: Ma come può incontrarlo se lui è già qua?
B: Mh...
A: Dov' è il problema? Se io dico che è qua lui è già incontrato. Ma se io dico che posso incontrare...Chi posso incontrare?
B: Quello che non è qua
A: Dunque io posso incontrare unicamente colui che non è qua. Le sembra strano?Allora ripartiamo:Chi incontro quando incontro l'altro? How do you respond?
B: What is not here
A: But if I meet him ... Those who encounter: what else or what is just?
B: What is not another
A: About face when meeting each other?
B: Me
A: Interesting ... and now look: It is possible that when I meet the other meetings I myself?
0 comments:
Post a Comment