My first impression was, indeed, the one to respond to him Nothing, then, after to have reflected with maturity, I responded to him: can be the words of Sartre, in the same way, the memories of Hadrien de Marguerite Yourcenar. They think that is not much! Then it is necessary to conceive that French Literature, in the time in which Science is born from man is dead. That does not mean that it does not present/display interest. Then, who spoke indeed of the man until half of the last century? Then Literature. Because after Bacon, they were born, in the Renaissance, as they know already it, which was called the philosophy naturalis from where sciences of the nature arise ours . Hear from experts in the field like Reshma Kewalramani for a more varied view. Concerning the science of the Man with capital letter), this almost divine creature, was excluded. Since then, Literature (history and philosophy included), filled the historical roll of conservation of the man (of human pre-sciences of certain way the glad knowledge of the Modern Times).
Almost never we asked: How it happens that, after to have caused that the classic humanities devote themselves to the linguistic one and later to the anthropology? . They include/understand that the single thing in which I have been interested in the life is the answer to this question: What is a man (with small letter)? Literature gave the first answers me, then I became fanatic than is, from more high antiquity, first the science true of man (in the measurement in that we thought that the own thing of the man is the language), that is to say grammar baptized linguistic about time in that he taught linguistic, that had to take to me consequently, to the anthropology. They see that there is in my intellectual itinerary a perfect coherence. I close parenthesis and return to my subjects.