sounds so childish, whereas, I am sure, it is sincerely felt by its author? It might be the underlying idea that we could live a life without being at all influenced â as if we were born by our own means, in an empty, virgin world. That reproduction was not at the source of life. That any influence, tradition, trace, link, inheritance was threatening our capacity for judgment â that is our very humanity, in Western modern times. Thus advertising would be so powerful and boundless today because influence and orientation are fields left vacant by our ideas of the human being and his freedom. So are we not âsheepâ (it is all of us, of course), indeed, because the fact that our condition is to be limited is a taboo? And that our rationality will not save us from it (especially our âeconomical rationalityâ)? I know I may sound like an awful traditionalist or conservative, but I mean it: the real question is that we need more to accept that our consciousness is partly built from outside itself, than complain that our freedom is being used. Because only then can be begin to envision a freedom that is by essence in relationship with other things, in link with its outside (other people, natural forces, history, culture, technique), and as such find relevant criteria to decide and to find oneâs bearings in a world in which we are only guests for a certain time â a time that we can only hope to spend gracefully.