Paleonymy of the Human

Abstract

In its naming of the institutional and contentious legacy that is human rights, the paleonymy and its predicate of universality is produced just as both are deemed to be expiratory of any worth. Kanta??s preference for the concept over the example and Hegela??s apparent Indifference [Indifferenzpunkt] towards this relation necessitates a rethinking of the philosophical concept. While exemplarity turns out to define Kanta??s transcendental idea, Hegelian Indifference [Indifferenzpunkt] to diversity, externality and indeterminateness can only sustain reasona??s interest in the Idea while risking a pure functioning of the Aufhebung. Hence the philosophies of Kant and Hegel are pertinent for this present study not because they can revive any essential meanings of the human or humanity. Instead, it is at the limits of their writings that the paleonymy of the human intervenes in what produces it and sets it to work.