When one is offered a paradox, the mind is seized by a non-contradictory presumption. Is a paradox useful only to highlight the absurd of the misanthropist or to characterize the characters of a scene ? Is it enough to say the opposite of what the doxa proclaims to make a paradox ? How do we interpret, or read, the mechanism of the anthropological paradox of the misanthropist ?
CLIL theme: 4028 -- SCIENCES HUMAINES ET SOCIALES, LETTRES -- Lettres et Sciences du langage -- Lettres -- Etudes de littérature comparée
