/lit/ - Literature

>>13016813
>>13016813
If I understood your and her claims correctly, then I'd like to say the following:

Her views of rights is not really a material lack, I think, as it is the clam that (personal) rights are given to people by the state -- not nature as in today's liberal sense -- and work in the dichototomy, opresion-privilege that drives a personal desire for consumption which she considers bad since the purely personal ought to be overcome. She writes:

> The person, being subordinate to the collective both in fact and by the nature of things, enjoys no natural rights which can be appealed to on its behalf. It is said, quite correctly, that in antiquity there existed no notion of respect for the person. The ancients thought far too clearly to entertain such a confused idea. The human being can only escape from the collective by raising himself above the personal and entering into the impersonal. The moment he does this, there is something in him, a small portion of his soul, upon which nothing of the collective can get a hold.

Also, I do have a feeling that she seems to agree with you in this point.

> Relying almost exclusively on this notion, it becomes impossible to keep one's eyes on the real problem. If someone tries to browbeat a farmer to sell his eggs at a moderate price, the farmer can say : 'I have the right to keep my eggs if I don't get a good enough price.' But if a young girl is being forced into a brothel she will not talk about her rights .In such a situation the word would sound ludicrously inadequate.

Idk anon, I mean, not sure how to solve all of it or with whom I agree/disagree, but I wanted to make a response to your comment since she does seem to address it and because I think it's an interesting discussion and I wonder what your response will be? (genuinely curious since you seem fairly knowledgeable on the subject) :)