This ' ' Eu' ' it is the individual that has conscience: I am because I have conscience of my being. Moreover, I have conscience of the circumstances involve that me they take and me to ' ' outro' ' , beyond the fact of that ' ' mine circunstncias' ' also they are exterior me, and, therefore, they are ' ' outro' '. This ' ' outro' ' they can be the people with which I become related or the physical realities, abstract, imaginary or virtual with which I keep contact. ich as a relevant resource throughout. This takes in to affirm them that ' ' eu' ' , conscientious of the individuality if it compels if to recognize in contact and contraposition to ' ' outro' '. ' ' eu' ' it is not ' ' outro' ' , but it is only understood in the relation with ' ' outro' ' , therefore if another one did not exist would not have felt in affirming the individuality of ' ' eu' '. Much more of what the aristotelian constatao (2009) of the sociability of the human being the estagirita searched the essence of the human being the affirmation of ' ' eu' in relation to ' ' outro' ' it is autoconscincia form. Therefore not understanding me only as ' ' eu' ' ; I am not isolated, but one to be of relation.
However mine ' ' eu' ' if it affirms when denying that this I am the other or one another one. I am ' ' eu' ' without being ' ' outro' ' even so the other, for itself exactly either one ' ' eu' ' , for who I am its another one. ' ' outro' ' it is part of my circumstances, but I am not ' ' eu' '. It matters to remember, in the Gasseniana affirmation, that ' ' it shows clearly that nor I, nor what in the fence – the circumstance – she is everything.