| Titre | Le retour du sujet et l'éthique de la complexité | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Gabriel Gosselin | |
 |
Revue | L'Homme et la société |
| Numéro | no 84, 2e trimestre 1987 Éthique et science sociale | |
| Rubrique / Thématique | Éthique et esprit scientifique |
|
| Page | 29-39 | |
| Résumé anglais |
G. Gosselin, The Return of the Subject and the ethics of Complexity
In his Method in particular, Edgar Morin Wishes to subject Science to the ethical question and to institute fraternity as an ethics of complexity. In order to understand this approach and to grasp its scope, we propose to clarify the foundations of a return to the subject. In the first instance, we are dealing with a naturalized subject which leads Morin to adopt an anti-anthropocentric approach thus posing several questions : these relate to the enlarging of the ideas of nature and of life, to the generalization of the idea of conscience, to the situation of subjects in the universe, to the passage to the meta-point of view of the observer. We then have a hyper-complex subject, an individual or a person, which poses the question of the constitution of a science of the present.
The foundations of an ethics of complexity cannot be sought in science, nor be translated directly into politics. The love of the living is fundamental here for Morin, and the consideration of any subjects as alter ego. Far from sacrificing everything to the thirst for knowledge, like scientism with eliminate the subject and brings death, the science of complexity should be subjected to the « living forces of fraternity ». However, as yet nobody knows was a policy of this type would involve, and the return of the sacred is a threat to the terrain itself. We are thus led to refer to certain * idols » based on an eclosed or sacralised fraternity. to understand this approach and to grasp its scope, we propose to clarify the foundations of a return to the subject. In the first instance, we are dealing with a naturalized subject which leads Morin to adopt an anti-anthropocentric approach thus posing several questions : these relate to the enlarging of the ideas of nature and of life, to the generalization of the idea of conscience, to the situation of subjects in the universe, to the passage to the meta-point of view of the observer. We then have a hyper-complex subject, an individual or a person, which poses the question of the constitution of a science of the present.
The foundations of an ethics of complexity cannot be sought in science, nor be translated directly into politics. The love of the living is fundamental here for Morin, and the consideration of any subjects as alter ego. Far from sacrificing everything to the thirst for knowledge, like scientism which eliminates the subject and brings death, the science of complexity should be subjected to the « living forces of fraternity ». However, as yet nobody knows what a policy of this type would involve, and the return of the sacred is a threat to the terrain itself. We are thus led to refer to certain « idols » based on an eclosed or sacralised fraternity. Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/homso_0018-4306_1987_num_84_2_2282 |
