الفردية قديما وحديثا

by John Dewey, خيري حماد (ترجمة), مروان الجابري (مراجعة)

America's most renowned social philosopher John Dewey shines his powerful intellect on the serious public and cultural issues surrounding the place of the individual in a technologically advanced society. In this penetrating study, he addresses the fear that personal creative potential will be trampled by assembly-line monotony, political bureaucracy, and an industrialised culture of uniformity. Armed with his pragmatic approach and his belief in the power of critical intelligence, Dewey argues that individualism has in fact been offered a uniquely higher plane of technological development upon which to grow, mature, and redefine itself.

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, Nonfiction, Politics, Research, History

147 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1930

About the author

John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism and of functional psychology. He was a major representative of the progressive and progressive populist philosophies of schooling during the first half of the 20th century in the USA.

In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.

Reviews

[بسام عبد العزيز · Rating 2 out of 5]

جون ديوي يشن حملة شعواء على الحضارة الصناعة الحديثة و يتهمها بأنها السبب في حيرة و قلق و ضياع انسان العصر الحديث..

الغريب هو إتيان هذا الحديث من على لسان احد أئمة البراجماتية.. او هذا ما يبدو للوهلة الأولي بحسب النظرة السطحية لدى عموم الناس للبراجماتية...
لكن الحقيقة أن البراجماتية هى فلسفة هدفها الأساسي هو سعادة الإنسان.. عندما يتم ذكر البراجماتية ترتبط بها كلمات مثل النفعية و المادية.. لكن الحقيقة أن البراجماتية تحاول ان تربط بين نتائج الفعل و بين تأثيرها على الإنسان.. فهى لا تقول الغاية تبرر الوسيلة.. و لا تقول أن الإشباع المادي هو هدف الإنسان النهائي.. لا .. على الإطلاق.. إنها تقول أن كل فكرة لدي الإنسان لو لم يكن لها تطبيق في عالم الحقيقة .. تطبيق يتسبب في جعل حياة الإنسان أفضل.. فهى فكرة غير صالحة للمناقشة.. ببساطة البراجماتية تربط بين الفكر و النتيجة.. فلابد و أن يكون لكل فكرة نتيجة حقيقة مبنية عليها.. فالحديث عن المجردات من نظر البرجماتية شيء غير مستحب طالما أننا لا ننقل تلك المجردات من عالم المثل و الأفكار إلى عالم الواقع..

ماذا عن الكتاب إذن؟؟
ديوي يبحث فكرة "الفردية" .. كيف كانت في ما قبل القرن العشرين -أي قبل التطور التكنولوجي الصناعي الحديث- و كيف تحولت -أو بالأحرى كيف يجب أن تتحول- تلك الفكرة مع معطيات العصر الحديث..

ديوي يرى أن الفردية في العصور السابقة كانت فكرة محبوبة و مفضلة عن فكرة الاشتراك الاجتماعي بسبب أنه في تلك العصور لم تكن هناك الحاجة إلى الإشتراك لعمل أي منجز بشري.. فلم تكن هناك مصانع مثلا تجمع العمال و تجعلهم يشتركون في نشاط واحد.. في تلك الظروف القديمة فالإنسان "المتفرد" هو الإنسان الأكثر قابلية للنجاح من أقرانه.. فهو بمجهوده و تميزه يستطيع الوصول إلى حياة أفضل دونما الحاجة إلى الإشتراك في جماعات..

لكن ما حدث في العصر الحديث.. عصر الآلة.. أن الإنسان أصبح جزء من كيان أكبر منه.. أصبح التخصص هو السمة الحديثة.. و أصبح الإنسان مجرد ترس في آلة كبيرة اسمها "عملية الانتاج"..
هذا التغيير أدى إلى محو شخصية الفرد و إحلال فكرة الجماعة محله.. بل أنه أصبح من الضروري حدوث هذا.. فالفردية في المجتمعات الصناعية الحديثة تعنى إنهيار الصناعة بأكملها..

و هنا ظهرت أزمة إنسان العصر الحديث الذي لا يزال يعيش بفكرة الفردية القديمة في عصر لم تعد تصلح فيه تلك الفكرة.. ليجد الإنسان نفسه مشتتا و ضائعا.. يشعر بالانسحاق تحت ضغط المجتمع.. و لا يجد نفسه قادرا على الإبداع.. بل أن المطلوب منه هو أن يكون مثله مثل آلاف الآخرين من حوله..

إنها مشكلة قديمة - حديثة.. مشكلة دائمة.. كيف نوفق بين روح الجماعة و بين فردية الإنسان؟ ما هى الحدود الفاصلة بين الفردية و بين الجماعية؟ هل الجماعية تأتي في المرتبة الأولي أم الفردية؟؟

نستطيع أن نناقش تلك الأسئلة طويلا جدا .. و كل الإجابات ممكنة و كلها لها مبررات منطقية .. و في النهاية سنجد أننا لن نصل إلى نتيجة نهائية..

ديوي يطرح رؤيته للإجابة على هذه الأسئلة.. فيبدأ أولا بأننا لابد و أن نعترف أننا أصبحنا في عصر الصناعة.. و من هنا ننطلق في بناء تصور جديد لفكرة الفردية.. الفردية الجديدة في نظر ديوي تتم عندما يجتمع الجميع تجاه رؤية واضحة و أهداف ظاهرة.. فيصبح كل إنسان يدرك أن دوره الصغير هذا هو جزء من رؤية أكبر و أشمل و أعم.. أنه ليس مجرد ترس في آلة لا يدرك ما الغرض منها..
ولكن لحدوث هذا فإن جون ديوي يطرح فكرا "اشتراكيا" إلى حد ما .. يقول فيه أن العلوم و التكنولوجيا و الصناعة لابد و أن تكون في خدمة المجتمع و ليس بهدف الربحية.. أن يكون هدف التقدم هو سعادة البشر و ليس رخاء فئة معينة منه.. هنا فقط يبدأ الأفراد في الشعور بأنهم متوحدون تجاه هدف واحد.. هذا الهدف في النهاية سيعود على الأفراد أنفسهم بالفائدة.. فهم ليسوا مجرد عمال لزيادة رأس المال لأصحاب الأعمال..

الكتاب ثقيل... و عباراته صعبة اضطرتني كثيرا لإعادة قراءة فقراته عدة مرات.. لكن أعتقد أن ديوي كان يمكنه أن يطرح فكرته باختصار أقل من هذا بكثير و بشكل أوضح من هذا...

على أي حال .. بعيدا عن كل هذا فإن أهم ما في الكتاب في رأيي هو تأكيد ديوي على فكرة "عدم ثبات الأفكار" .. فلابد دائما و أبدا من أن يكون لدى الفرد الاستعداد لتغير فكره و معتقداته تبعا للتطور من حوله.. فأسوأ ما يمكن أن يحدث لأي مجتمع هو أن يؤمن بقيم و أفكار بالية و يحاول تطبيقها على مجتمع معاصر الحياة فيه تغيرت كثيرا عما كانت عليه وقتما سادت تلك الأفكار البالية.. هنا لابد من إعادة مناقشة تلك الأفكار و محاولة تجديدها لملائمة العصر.. و من هذا الأفكار بالطبع فكرة الفردية التي يطرحها الكتاب..
فيما عدا تلك الفكرة لا أعتقد أن الكتاب أفادني كثيرا..

[سماح عطية · Rating 3 out of 5]

# 16 _ 52-books-target

[Anna Whitney · Rating 3 out of 5]

The language is a bit dense, but it's a rather quick read nonetheless. I would recommend reading this with a knowledge of the historical circumstances. I would also recommend this to any student of the University of Chicago Lab school, considering Dewey founded it and his views on individualism were certainly informed by his views on education.

[Ihab Darouss · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why use ten words when Dewey can use a hundred to say maybe?

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

DEWEY PROPOSES “CONSTRUCTING A NEW INDIVIDUALITY”

John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher (best known as a Pragmatist), psychologist, and educational reformer whose ideas of “progressive education” have been very influential (as well as controversial, in some circles). He wrote many books, including 'Reconstruction in Philosophy,' 'The Quest for Certainty,' 'A Common Faith,' etc.

[NOTE: Page numbers below refer to the original 171-page hardcover edition.]

He wrote in Chapter II of this 1930 book, “The problem of constructing a new individuality consonant with the objective conditions under which we live is the deepest problem of our times.” (Pg. 32) Later, he adds, ”Because of the bankruptcy of the older individualism, those who are aware of the breakdown often speak and argue as if individualism were itself done and over with. I do not suppose that those who regard socialism and individualism as antithetical really mean that individuality is going to die out or that it is not something intrinsically precious. But in speaking as if the only individualism were the local episode of the last two centuries, they play into the hands of those who would keep it alive in order to serve own ends, and they slur over the chief problem----that of remaking society to serve the growth of a new type of individual.” (Pg. 80-81)

Interestingly [since Dewey was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto I], he says, “A movement has caught public attention, which, having for some obscure reason assumed the name ‘humanism,’ proposes restraint and moderation, exercised in and by the higher volition of individuals, as the solution of our ills. It finds that naturalism as practiced by artists and mechanism as taught by philosophers who take their clew from natural science, have broken down the inner laws and imperatives which can alone bring order and loyalty. I should be glad to be able to believe that artists and intellectuals have any such power in their hands; if they had, after using it to bring evil to society, they might change face and bring healing to it. But a sense of fact, together with a sense of humor, forbids the acceptance of any such belief.” (Pg. 67)

He observes, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please, and no matter what it will be called when it is realized. Economic determinism is now a fact, not a theory. But there is a difference and as choice between a blind, chaotic and unplanned determinism, issuing from business conducted for pecuniary profit, and the determination of a socially planned and ordered development. It is the difference and the choice between a socialism that is public and one that is capitalistic.” (Pg. 119-120)

He observes, “If our public-school system merely turns out efficient cannon fodder, is it not helping to solve the problem of building up a distinctive American culture; it is only aggravating the problem. That which prevents the schools from doing their educational work freely is precisely the pressure… of domination by the money-motif of our economic regime… the distinguishing trait of the American student body in our higher schools is a kind of intellectual immaturity. This immaturity is mainly due to their enforced mental seclusion; there is, in their schooling, little free and disinterested concern with the underlying social problems of our civilization… Engineering schools give excellent technical training. Where is the school that pays systematic attention to the potential social function of the engineering profession?” (Pg. 127-128)

He suggests, “I can think of nothing more childishly futile… than the attempt to bring ‘art’ and esthetic enjoyment externally to the multitudes who work in the ugliest surroundings and who leave their ugly factories only to go through depressing streets to eat, sleep and carry on their domestic occupations in grimy, sordid homes.” (Pg. 130) He continues, “The philosopher’s idea of a complete separation of mind and body is realized in thousands of industrial workers, and the result is a depressed body and an empty and distorted mind.” (Pg. 132)

He proposes, “The solution of the crisis in culture is identical with the recovery of composed, effective and creative individuality… Originality and uniqueness are not opposed to social nurture; they are saved by it from eccentricity and escape… A new culture expressing the possibilities immanent in a machine and material civilization will release whatever is distinctive and potentially creative in individuals, and individuals thus freed will be the constant makers of a continuously new society.” (Pg. 142-143)

He summarizes, “I have attempted to portray the split between the idea of the individual inherited from the past and the realities of a situation that is becoming increasingly corporate... I have urged that individuality will again become integral and vital when it creates a frame for itself by attention to the scene in which it must perforce exist and develop… I have indeed attempted analysis, rather than either a condemnation of the evils of present society or a recommendation of fixed ends and ideals for their cure.” (Pg. 146-147)

This is not one of Dewey’s “major works,” but it will interest anyone seriously studying his philosophy.

[Dustin J Allen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good old 1930s American anticapitalism afraid to be Marxism.

[أحمد جيو حسن · Rating 5 out of 5]

يحلل جون ديوي في هذا الكتاب أزمة الذات الحديثة في ظل الرأسمالية الصناعية ويقدم مخططًا واعدًا للمستقبل. في أسلوب واضح ومتفاعل كُتِبَ في بداية الكساد الكبير، يلاحظ ديوي أنَّ أمريكا أصبحت ”مجتمعًا ماديًا اجتماعيًا مؤسسيًا“ مدفوعًا بالربح الخاص حتى في الوقت الذي لا تزال فيه أفكارها الأخلاقية متشبثة بمثل أعلى من الماضي تتمثل في الفردية المتشددة. يحذر ديوي من أنَّ هذا التناقض قد ترك الناس تائهين في ”ارتباطات متعددة وشبه عديمة المعنى“، مما أدى إلى انعدام الأمن الاقتصادي، ودورات الازدهار والركود، والبطالة، والعمل غير المستقر. من وجهة نظر ديوي، فإنَّ الفردية غير المقيدة للسوق – ”الفردية الاقتصادية للدوافع والأهداف“ – في الواقع ”تقضي على الفرد“ ، مما يخلق عمالاً منفصلين ومجتمعات مجزأة. ويصف ديوي بوضوح كيف أنَّ الافتقار إلى المعنى الاجتماعي المشترك يدفع الكثيرين نحو شعارات فارغة عن الحرية أو القومية التي لا تعزز سوى التوافق السطحي وعدم الاستقرار الجماعي.

يدّعي ديوي أن التغلب على هذه الآفات الاجتماعية يتطلب فردية ديمقراطية جديدة ترتكز على البراغماتية والمجتمع. ويصر على أنَّ الحرية ليست مجرد عزلة بل هي القدرة على الاختيار الذكي والتفكير النقدي. ويقول إن الفردية الحقيقية تكمن في قدرتنا على التداول بين البدائل الحقيقية – النشاط الأكثر تميزًا للذات – بدلاً من اتباع العادات أو الدعاية من دون تفكير. وبالتالي، فإن الإصلاح السياسي والتغيير الثقافي لا ينفصلان: فاستبدال ثقافة الماضي المدفوعة بالربح بمؤسسات تعاونية وموجهة نحو المجتمع سيحرر الأفراد بالفعل. يتحدث ديوي حتى عن شكل ديمقراطي من الاشتراكية، بمعنى أن الصناعة والتعليم يجب أن يخضعوا للتنظيم المشترك من قبل جميع أصحاب المصلحة (العمال والمواطنون والمهنيون معًا). وبهذه الطريقة، يصبح الاقتصاد نفسه مدرسة للديمقراطية: يصبح العمل أداة للثقافة بدلاً من الاغتراب، وتلحم المدارس حياة مدنية مشتركة من التعليم الجماهيري. في رؤية ديوي، سيتم في النهاية تحقيق توازن حيث يتناغم الفرد والمجتمع بشكل عضوي - عالم لا يشعر فيه أحد بالضياع.

طوال الكتاب، يتسم أسلوب ديوي بالجدية والتفاؤل، وحججه فلسفية وعملية في آن واحد. يكتب ديوي بصفته براغماتيًا (باعتقادي): يحدد المشكلات الاجتماعية ويقترح تجارب ديمقراطية بدلاً من الاعتماد على العقيدة الصارمة. لا يتعامل أبدًا مع قرائه بفوقية؛ بل يستخدم أمثلة ملموسة واستعارات لتوضيح الأفكار المعقدة. أسلوب ديوي واضح وملائم بشكل مدهش اليوم - فالتحليل الذي يقدمه لكيفية قيام الشركات العملاقة بتخفيف الشخصية أو كيفية بحث المواطنين المتفرقين عن المعنى لا يزال يتحدث إلى عصرنا الذي يهيمن عليه عمالقة التكنولوجيا ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي. سيجد القراء المعاصرون أن إصراره على التفكير النقدي والمشاركة في المجتمع والسيطرة الديمقراطية على الاقتصاد وثيق الصلة بالجدل المعاصر حول الرأسمالية والحرية. وبفضل ترجمة دلال إسحاق، تظهر هذه الأفكار بلغة واضحة وسهلة الفهم.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, almost 100 years old, is more relevant today than the day it was published. This book is a demand that we engage with the present as it is given, not as it is described by others to us. The anxiety, fear, and constant state of confusion we move through in late modernity can only be overcome by reconstituting the individual, yourself, ourselves, which can only be done in collaboration with the community and society you live in.

It is only through this active, and intentional participation with the present, with your fellow neighbor, that individuality can be reconstituted. Then and only then can we in community overcome the malaise of late modernity of which the elites - through the corporatization of America (and the world) - have intentionally removed the tools and pathways through which we can overcome this atomized, morally confused, modern self.

We must rely upon each other in the culture and community we are constituted within *today* and not on some ahistorical ideals constructed in some a long-ago dead culture.

[Salpi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m quite taken by how coherent Dewey’s philosophy on everything is.

The way he connects community, education and individualism just makes sense. Although, his approach and ideals are rather utopian on a grand scale, it can easily work in smaller communities.

In his work you can find fragments that address the struggles of the individual in the liberal paradigm, which honestly hasn’t changed all that much since 19th century.

If you’re into experience economy, education and emergence of the individual you’d enjoy Dewey’s work.

In the birth of let’s say ‘scholar’ bit of liberalism the emphasis is on self interest and not necessarily individualism in the sense that we perceive it today.

His argument does not contradict with what individualism is or what it should be. The way we define individualism is based on what it is not and therefore there is further ground to cover on what *is* individualism.

I enjoyed the book

[T.R. Ormond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read, written at the beginning the Great Depression and before Dewey became acquainted with Hitler and Mussolini. I suspect he became a little less enamored with new individualism after he saw where "associations" might take it.

In any case, here is some interesting food for thought: "Individuals who are not bound together in associations, whether domestic, economic, religious, political, artistic or educational, are monstrosities" (p. 40-1.)

[Sol · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cogent study of 'Americanism' in the corporate industrial age by John Dewey writing in 1929. Many of his conclusions hold true, and complement the libertarian socialist tradition :) . Syndicating the workplace, horizontal cooperation, the plastic and free human mind, it's all here! It's a sweet book.

[سارة · Rating 3 out of 5]

"إذا بقي الفرد على المدى الطويل ضائعًا فذلك لأنه اختار اللامسؤولية، وإذا بقي ضعيفًا كئيبًا على نحو كلي فذلك لأنه اختار مسار الطفيلية السهلة "

[Gamal soliman · Rating 2 out of 5]

يحلل الكاتب معنى الفردية قديما وحديثا من منظور فلسفى ممل ومنظور اجتماعى أكثر مللا

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dewey gives a historical account of the ideas that loosely compose the "flaky" liberalism of early 20th century America. Dewey believes that the current installment of liberalism make citizens insecure and want to obtain more and more control over property, investments, and labor to derive their self-worth. Dewey proposes a new liberalism, which owes much to the later work of John Stuart-Mill. Mill identified flaws in Bentham's utilitarian approach to government, which organized societal goals in terms of maximizing the individual's ability to pursue pleasurable activity. Mill sympathized with the Romantics, who believed that the individual's growth depends upon his/her participation in and contribution to a flourishing society. Therefore, societal goals should aim beyond individual pleasure for the benefit of the intellectual and spiritual growth of all. Mill reveals the need of establishing an entire social order, possessed by a spiritual authority that directs the inner and outer life of individual minds. These minds must be imbued with reasonableness in order to guide the organization of society.

Dewey's plan to create a cooperative industrial order begins by changing the corporate institutions that control societal development. Once the institutions cooperate and dissolve coercive strategies of control, men will feel free to organize intelligently. Dewey defines the goal of liberalism as creating resolute thought amongst individuals. Intelligence has a public, rather than private origin. In order to make societal decisions by method of resolute thought, we utilize public criticism in virtue of a socially generated knowledge. Political parties must be replaced by intelligent ideas for social change created by the engineering mind and carried out in far-reaching social plans that model the amazing organization of nature. We utilize public discussion and mass experimentation to discern intelligent ideas, which gain focus through wider and further union of individual efforts to accomplish common ends.

Dewey has an excellent prescription for establishing efficient government in a highly intelligent and global society. However, he needs to do more to explain how the volatile economic patterns of a society would adhere to an intelligent design. Additionally,Dewey needs to better evidence that his idealistic public wealth can sustain itself. Adam Smith's theory that people have a natural desire to grow their estate seems to hold true in case examples and larger historical studies. In our society, wealthy people generally want to grow their estate to a level that supports their extended family, but do not always have enough left over to grow society's estate over the long term. I believe that the natural desire to grow a private estate can be balanced with a desire to contribute wealth to the public good. This would be an interesting topic for anyone to expand upon.

[GMO Burt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up because I've been reading another of Dewey's books, The Public and its Problems, and I wanted greater clarity on Dewey's interpretation of individualism. As you might guess, this book supplied that clarity for me.

It's a good book on its own merits and had me engaging eagerly with Dewey's ideas. There is enough in common with our contemporary era and the time of Dewey's writing (1930) to get the mind working. The technological changes occurring and the seemingly perpetual crises of capitalism are hallmarks of both eras.

Dewey declares the old individualism to be unfit for purpose in this new world. He then tries to talk about how a new individualism might be able to grow out of the new conditions, though he doesn't really say what it would look like. It could be that conditions have to change again for a new individualism to grow.

Dewey was writing very optimistically about the technological progress he was seeing but was discouraged about how readily that progress was co-opted and put out of democratic control by the wealthy elites. Is it any wonder we're now living in a time where many of us are beginning to wonder if we've hit the limits of what tech can do for us? Or is it, rather, that we're still caught amid the strain between those two cultural edifices (democratized technology v. Profit-seeking)?

There's plenty in this book for the radical and the liberal and it sure feels germane to the world we're living in. Give it a shot

[Steven Fowler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book could have been written by Dewey today. His perspective and analysis of Americanism is every bit, perhaps even more, accurate now than it was at the beginning of the last century. Written between the world wars Dewey analyzes the changes that industrialization and technology were making possible then and the disconnect with the archaic forms of life that were being espoused. Now, a century later, these changes have only grown through the advancement of technology and our fervent clinging to, perhaps overly idealized, forms of life which are no longer applicable is all the more dangerous. Although not a work of fiction it is also a short and easy read for the non-philosopher and a book that every one, especially Americans should read. With this book Dewey actually has set up a basis for American progressives to engage entrenched conservative (in a uniquely American sense) and liberal ideologies espoused by corporate America still today.

[Alfresco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dewey arguably with this text sets up a foundation for American liberal critical theory. His creative critique of the industrialization of life from mass products, to mass violence, mass culture, gangs, challenge the idea of individualism and its importance. For Dewey the rights of the individual are important in allowing them to participate in democracy. The only way out is not a return to the past but creatively calling to task the technologies of the times to be of service in creating a humane world. Definitely a worth while read by one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.

[Beroha · Rating 3 out of 5]

In "Individualism Old and New", John Dewey, an American philospher, describes the emergence of a new kind of American individualism. His analysis helps us understand the meaning of individualism today.

[Bola Shokry]

مفهمتش عايز يقول ايه بس لازم اعترف انه مقريتهوش بتركيز كافي.
اللي فهمته انه بينقاش تأثير التطور العلمي والتكنولوجي وتبعاته السياسية والاقتصادية على الفردية.