History has shown that men have always held all the concrete powers.
True alterity is a consciousness separated from my own and identical to it.
Each one tries to accomplish itself by reducing the other to slavery.
갈 길이 멀어서 그냥 한글로 된 거만 읽으려고 했는데, 이런 문장들을 보면 영어본을 읽는 재미, 나아가 정말 그 문장에 담긴 의미를 생각하고 또 생각하지 않을 수 없어 더딘 길을 다시 택하게 된다. ㅜㅜ
The conflict can be overcome by the free recognition of each individual in the other, each one positing both itself and the other as object and as subject in a reciprocal movement.
내가 누군가에게 남이 되고, (내가 남을 남이라 여기듯이) 상호 주체가 되는 것을 인정하기란 얼마나 어려운가?
But friendship and generosity, which accomplish this recognition of freedoms concretely, are not easy virtues; they are undoubtedly man’s highest accomplishment.
그래서! 우정이나 관대함 같은 덕목이 위대한 가치를 가지는 이유겠죠?
This is where he is in his truth; but this truth is a struggle endlessly begun, endlessly abolished; it demands that man surpass himself at each instant.
Put into other words, man attains an authentically moral attitude when he renounces being in order to assume his existence; through this conversation he also renounces all possession, because possession is a way of searching for being;
But the conversation by which he attains true wisdom is never finished, it has to be made ceaselessly, it demands constant effort. So much so that, unable to accomplish himself in solitude, man is ceaselessly in jeopardy in his relations with his peers: his life is a difficult enterprise whose success is never assured.
이 한 문단만으로도 주옥같은 책이라는 생각이 든다.
인간이 왜 끊임없이 타인과의 관계 속에서 도(?)를 실현해야 하는지 이렇게 분석적으로 예리하게 포착하는 글도 없는 것 같다.
Woman embodies positively the lack the existent carries in his heart, and man hopes to realize himself by finding himself through her.
이렇게 되면 여자(타자)는 보충재 또는 대상이 될 뿐, 온전한 목적성을 가진 존재로 존재할 수 없게 된다.
Perhaps the myth of woman will be phased out one day: the more women assert themselves as human beings, the more the marvelous quality of Other dies in them. But today it still exists in the hearts of all men.
실체가 드러나는 만들어낸 순간 신화가 위협받게 되죠.
The representation of the world as the world itself is the work of men; they describe it from a point of view that is their own and that they confound with the absolute truth.
세계를 표상하는 것은 남자이고, 그들이 그것을 절대적인 진리라고 착각하는 것은 그들의 자유인가?
It is always difficult to describe a myth; it does not lend itself to being grasped or defined; it haunts consciousness without ever being posited opposite them as a fixed object.
그래서 신화가 재밌는 거겠죠?
It has already been said that the Other is Evil; but as it is necessary for the Good, it reverts to the Good; through the Other, I accede to the Whole, but it separates me from the Whole; it is the door to infinity and the measure of my finitude.
타자의 존재가 이토록 중요하다.
Man feminizes the ideal that he posits before him as the essential Other, because woman is the tangible figure of alterity; this is why almost all the allegories in language and in iconography are women.
흐음, 그렇군.
기독교 신화가 주류 신화가 되지 않았다면 어땠을까? 유발 하라리에 의하면 기독교라는 변방의 비교(비밀종교)가 주류 종교가 된 것은 우연에 의한 것인데, 이것을 확정하고 이유를 풀어내는 건 좀 시들한 구석이 있다. 이 즈음에서 <키르케>를 읽어봐야 할까.
They did invent her.
But she also exists without their invention.
Man succeeded in enslaving woman, but in doing so, he robbed her of what made possession desirable. Integrated into the family and society, woman’s magic fades rather than transfigures itself; reduced to a servant’s condition, she is no longer the wild prey incarnating all of nature’s treasures.
These very dangers make woman captivating game for an adventurous man.
From the moment the woman is free, her only destiny is one she freely creates for herself.
He projects onto her what he desires and fears, what he loves and what he hates. And if it is difficult to say anything about her, it is because man seeks himself entirely in her and because she is All. But she is All in that which is inessential: she is wholly the Other. And as other she is also other than herself, other than what is expected of her. Being all, she is never exactly this that should be; she is everlasting disappointment, the very disappointment of existence that never successfully attains or reconciles itself with the totality of existents.
이런 문장을 쓸 수 있다는 게 참 놀랍다.
(물론 영어로 쓰지 않았겠지만….)
