It is customary to view the development of the Western economies as a straight line, leading from scarcity in the 19th century to affluence and abundance in the 20th. This interpretation neglects the dialectical reversal that took place and is taking place within a continuous development. The relative affluence and abundance of the Western economies is indeed the result of the economic system with all its institutions and its value-attitudes which emerged during and after the Industrial Revolution in the West. At the same time, this affluence was accompanied by a change in the character of its institutions, and especially also by a change in the underlying value-attitudes and in the style of life which it prescribes. The development was and is a truly dialectical one: the economics and psychology of scarcity and its institutions brought about an economics and psychology of affluence which is, in some respects, the antithesis of the economics and psychology of scarcity. This antithesis begins to undermine the institutional, psychological, and moral bases of the original system. A dialectical reversal is under way which shakes the foundations of our economic and moral order.

“What essential things are happening to us in the foundations of our existence, now that science has become our passion?” The modern sensibility is still greatly disturbed by this question of Heidegger's. We realize well enough the great value of science and the benefits obtainable from industry and medicine. Yet there remains in our hearts a certain disquiet. What indeed are science and technology doing to us at the roots?

The twentieth century has seen the appearance, one after the other, of interrelated sciences which go beyond the confines of specific scientific disciplines. For example, there is biochemistry, physical chemistry, and bionics. Within the humanities the science of stylistics also provides an example of a discipline closely related to other ones. In studying the synonymy of the means of expression (the word synonymy here being used in the broadest sense of the word) and above all synonymy in literary language, stylistics occupies a position midway between the theory of literature and linguistics. It is impossible to conceive of a theory of translation which would not take into account stylistics. The translator's role is not to create a new work, with everything that literary creation implies, that is to say, the indissoluble fusion of subject, ideas, esthetics, and images. The translator only recreates an already existing work, making use of processes which belong to another linguistic system. He transcribes the original into another system of signs which are determined by another historical, cultural, and literary context, and especially by another linguistic structure. The object of a theory of translation is not to develop rules and formulas for translators, but to systematize the most general aspects of the translator's work, to distinguish those aspects which lend themselves to analysis.

My purpose in this paper is to consider the reaction of certain literary artists to the ways in which language is used by philosophers. Such an investigation is I think worthwhile for the light it throws both upon the nature of philosophical thinking itself and upon the preoccupations of certain workers. In particular it makes us enquire what it is about philosophical thinking which can be exploited imaginatively.

The word “alienation” is today one of those fashionable and hence suspect words. It is very often used and therefore misused; it is an ambiguous and therefore obscure word; moreover it gives rise to the defensive reactions of those who believe that what it represents is dangerous in practice and who are interested in maintaining a situation which, according to them, is worthwhile defending. These reactions stem from different ways of reasoning and practical attitudes; starting with those who consider that it is necessary to fight against all obscure and ambiguous words and ending with those who oppose the pessimism of “ the philosophy of despair.” There are therefore, among the opposers, all those who believe in the traditions of neo-positivism and in the postulate of the semantic analysis of terms. There are some catholics and even—astonishing as it may seem—some Marxists who, historically speaking, are those who are most responsible for the actual popularity, not only of the term “alienation” itself, but also for the theoretic concepts connected with it.

As an introduction to the study which is the subject of this article, we would like to provide some definitions and make a few elementary observations, in order to make it possible for the less informed reader to understand better the origins and the raison d’être of the propositions that are under examination.

Moslem countries have a high birth rate (4096-50%) and a rapid rate of natural growth (28%-34%). Not even in towns where mortality has decreased does natality appear to have decreased, and not even where the family nucleus is beginning to assert itself can a drop in the birth rate be ascertained. This is attributed to a “backward attitude toward economic and social changes.”