THE CONDITIONS OF A SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE

This paper presents first the difference between the field of thoughts were architecture itself is com-position of figures resulting in architectural objects … without any contact with social Sciences and the field of thoughts where architecture itself is a dis-position of matters resulting in an architectural operation in the ‘Real’ so that architecture becomes a fundament of social science. And these fields of thoughts are under condition of how we consider the ‘anthropos’. Knowledge can stay in a field of thoughts considering that the anthropos –the so called Human Being- is ‘a priori there’, is ‘finite’, is central to itself, is capable on his own judgments or is a Cartesian subject. But Science to-day contradicts this thoroughly. For Science, the subject isn’t anymore the Cartesian subject. For Science, the subject isn’t central to itself. For Science, the subject is the crossing of the others… He is limited but in-finite. For Science, the subject isn’t com-posed as a Cartesian subject but is dis-posed towards the Real. The paper develops what is the architectural space for the Cartesian subject on one hand and for the Scientific subject on the other hand. Further, departing from the fact that the subject is the crossing of the others or is social as such and that, as such, he needs a social architecture, the paper will describe synthetically what are the conditions of a social architecture. Three conditions for that: A non-opposition between inside and outside; a non-opposition between sur-face and depth and a non-opposition between finite and infinite. An existing example of what a social architecture could be in the future is analysed.status: publishe