Mirror here displayed, as much times used metaforicamente in field of psychoanalysis, demonstrating assimilation unconscious of individuals distinct, as for example, when people comment that citizens feel rejection for attitudes of others, exactly for enxergarem themselves, having a species of repulsion to the consequence. Reading Auguste Comte, I came across myself with a ticket that sends the quarrel here displayed. ‘ ‘ But it is evidently impossible to the man to observe in its proper intellectual acts, because, being been the observed agency and the observing agency, in this in case that, identical – by who would be made the comment? ‘ ‘ (COMTE, 1972: 222) Shiningly, Comte displays the incapacity of the brain in analyzing itself at the same time where it executes its intelligible functions, therefore to being formulating its problematizao intellectual, it cannot at the same time analyze it. What she sends the Perseu, in the legend Greek where defeat Jellyfish (woman with hair of serpents that petrified who looked at its face), where she uses its shield as mirror to be able to visualize its adversary, without looking at directly for its face. How to decide such question? I think that it cannot be decided of direct form, but in search of a solution that it sends to another philosopher consecrated, Jean-Paul Sartre, and its dicusso on alteridade in the workmanship ‘ ‘ The Being and the Nada’ ‘. Sartre demonstrates under a existencialista perspective, the necessity of the Other while one another perspective regarding proper itself. Coming back the Comte, as this Another one would decide the question of our incapacity? From two perspectives, being first of recognition and the assimilation, that is, we enxergamos in the other what in them it is similar, thus being able, of indirect form, to enxergar proper itself, experenciando from the Other an analogy of cognitiva order.

Coming back the Perseu, now knowing that it possesss a shield, as to use it to decide the question? What in it sends the second perspective to them, that is, perceiving the Other, we leave to perceive itself proper, what it would facilitate in thesis, from the affirmation of Comte, power to analyze itself. Keeping the reasoning line, the Other is one another part of we ourselves, analyzing it, will be analyzing proper itself, at the same time something different of us is, exactly for to be extrinsic we, then, we can in them analyze extemporaneamante, answering the Comte, that we can make the analysis in rementendo for it are of itself.