I argue that if we do not want to fall either into the Third Antinomy, we must steer away from thinking of freedom as a predicate of a subject and reconfigure it as an experience or a comportment. Yet after a certain point the manner in which this question is to be asked has been canonized and sedimented: do humans (subject) have the capacity (predicate) for free and spontaneous action? The third antinomy of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, I argue, demonstrates the necessary failure, the perpetual aporia, of continuing to discuss whether humans conceived of as subjects possess the predicate freedom. The question of freedom has been a present and constant concern since the inception of the occidental philosophical tradition. My analyses in this short presenatation are based on the so called ‘sacred economy of breath’, informed both by Indian philosophy (prana) as well as by French feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray (Between East and West, “The Age of the Breath”). his economy is sacred because it is related to the question of forming a community, looking thus at something that is bigger than we are, and yet, something that is only possible within and for ourselves.

Already for Marx it was clear that “alle Naturkräfte aus- und einatmende Mensch” is an aspect of humanity that has been radically forgotten in the course of history.1 But why do we keep forgetting air in philosophy? Luce Irigaray once wrote: “I breathe, therefore I am.”2 Why are then we still evading this phenomenon, perhaps the only one that could bring us closer to our own becoming as ethical beings, towards a new form of mutual conversation, a conversation of humanity perhaps, as also implied in this becoming? It is from our bodies, impregnated as they are by the air we breathe, that we can perceive another being in pain, a being living at the edge of their body-self, a body of which “arithmetic of breathing” (J. We always realize too late that there was a life. While we all know and recognize radically the need of others (including animal others, and, in a way, even nature) to take in and give out breath, at each and every moment, we still reside in our life-worlds, in the grip of most elemental fears of losing the ground beneath our feet, constantly protecting ourselves and taking more than we possibly need (of ourselves, of nature) for ourselves, and causing others to sufocate by not getting their food of life – air. My aim in this presentation is to establish a platform for an ethics of otherness, ethics of breath/life, an ethics as a place for the future conversation of (mild) gestures – such as compassion, forbearance and care.

El vencedor del mundo invisible pdf