From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 14:34:59 EST
Re Michael E's [8421]: > Individualism should not be confused with egoism or capriciousness, > which often happens. In the West, the notion of the individual has > deep historical roots which go back further than the modern age > of human subjectivity to -- you guessed it -- to the Greeks. The > distinction between the _idiotaes_ (private individual, 'idiot', some > who 'owns himself') and the _politaes_ (member of the polis) is > fundamental for Greek thinking on social life. _idios_ means 'one's own, > pertaining to oneself, peculiar to oneself, private'. An _idiotaes_ is > someone who is 'his own person', independent, who belongs to > him/herself and not to another or others. As you know, the modern meaning of the term 'idiot' is quite different from the ancient Greek meaning of idiot. Indeed, there even seems to be an inversion in the meaning of the term to the extent that one who is independent, critical, and thinks for him or herself is only identified by the dominant culture as being 'idiotic' in the modern sense if she or he puts forward a perspective or embraces a way of living that stands apart or is in radical opposition to mainstream culture. Thus, mainstream thought often fails to recognize the logic of opposing perspectives and instead dismisses those perspectives as idiotic. This raises the question (why I do not know the answer to): when, where and how did this change in meaning of 'idiot' take place? LaFargue defended the right to be lazy; should we defend the right to be idiotic? Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:00:01 EST