I do not know. As harbingers of a revolution in my life, the secret announcement of a major event. The most trivial events, appearance, take a size ... I'm on the lookout, it is in the air, it s'rapproche is on my heels. Catching the signs, be aware, seize the kairos while he is telling me to enter. The bifurcation adequate in The Right Place At The Right Time. These are things we feel. There's quite a racket inside oneself. It is a revolution of the cells that gets under way. Something will come.
It's about keeping a cool head. Do not try to induce . It would be wrong. Because the event is not preceded by its own ad, it goes without saying. It's just finally have to say quickly, if not to say at all, to go with the flow of vibrational waves that concomitant concomitent. The channel is open. Reacting IS acting. Do not begin to act, until you Specials and other. Let come, laissez faire, but follow the movement, marry the curve.
A receptor activity, an active receptivity.
It's not that I want to get carried away, but anyway, there are crazy things happen that will not stop now, I am overwhelmed by a thousand interactions m'électrisent the neuron. I had more experienced such sensory activity for at least ... 10. Come on, let's say 10 years.
Because I lived it once, it was never duplicated, my channel was filled in and that's unfortunate. Synchronicities ... Yes, the famous synchronicities. It was like a dream. Everything happened as if it already happened, everything fell into place. It was like running a movie that I knew on the fingers while the discovering for the first time. Everything that was "me" was "out me, "everything that was happening outside was a projection of something that I had inside: things, people, words, landscapes, action. Finally, well, these are things that many of among you certainly know. And it lasted, it lasted ... it never seemed to want to stop. So, I was so surprised, this nesting harmonious, totally predictable at the same time totally unexpected, this sensation of "deja vu " (pronounced with an English accent), persistent - no, not "deja vu", in fact, infinitely richer: an idea that refreshes fully, a desire perpetually being accomplished, even in the smallest details and every detail has been conceived, designed, imagined, fantasized, before, in another time, in no particular order -, it scared me so much, so that I really took my legs to my neck. I came out voluntarily, at full speed, the "framework" in which events were happening. The fourth dimension, what, or fifth, I know. And then, pfft, nothing.
But here we go, I will not say again, because it is not all the same thing. It's a little bit like that, except that there is absolutely nothing notable happening. It is even a terrifying banality. It is the right word, for once. Precisely because, why does one qualify the banality of scary? It is nothing alarming, just ordinary, nothing to break three legs to a duck. But here it is frightening, almost. Do not fear it, let's not exaggerate. No, just lived with unusual intensity. Something that, you know, necessarily happen, but we are happy (and still is a big word) to happen. While unexpectedly. There are no secrets, no mystery Hidden behind. And this absence of any fundamental mystery in the order of things and sequences, it is precisely this that surprises you, you mobilize. is the routine itself that is more routine to the point you seem extraordinary. Each common object for itself, your interactions more usual for it, even repeated, more generally, causal pathways, you appear in their singularity and many events of interest. As if cause and effect had become one, indistinguishable over one and another. Is not it curious? You tell me: ben no, frankly I do not see is a banality, are you saying, no interest, really. And in a sense, it is true that has absolutely no interest. However, it did not stop for the day. course, is incommensurate with the adventure mentioned above, alas, three times alas. We are far. There's no "deja vu" or "occurrence" or whatever. It's just "seen" and "lived". But it's like little bits of it - Wow, very small-small-small.
So. Just yesterday evening. Around 23:45, to be precise. I realize that the tobacco case is almost empty. A rule of thumb, I estimate that I have just enough to make three cigarette tubes.
Well it did not miss. I could barely make it three. Not one more. Not one less. Already, strange.
I tell myself that if I go out within five minutes to go at night-shop - it is 0:15 at this point - I'll be at, say, 0:25. Whereas the night-shop is 5 minutes. That is exactly what has occurred. But that's not all.
night I enter the shop. I say goodnight to the type. He replied good-night. Until then, it's normal. But now I leave my card proton, with the intention to check on the proton distributor that I had enough money. After verification, I had 5 euros. Also what I suspected, because I still had the sum in memory. However, the case for tobacco cost 4 € exactly 60 cents. That's where I remembered this apparently trivial: when I reboot my proton is almost always at the phone booth which is two streets away. And I always charge for 5 €. Why? Ahaaa. Precisely because the cabins, you can not reload unless 5 €. Or Why should I, in normal times, that is to say all the time, recharge my card on a Proton car? Hehehe ... To buy tobacco. You enter the process? Obviously not, it makes sense. These things do not happen by chance. I say that things do not happen by chance. Are there connections invisible. Gotta be careful, that's all.
Well then I ask: "you have belgam 21"?
were. Because usually, there always are. Well, this time again, there were. You follow me?
No, but anyway. It was not me who invents it. It's real things.
But wait. 25 meters away, is a pedestrian crossing. I borrow always go home. On the way, I do not take it. In return, though. 'll Understand why. Good. I go to the crosswalk. And the light is red. For pedestrians. But there are no cars. As far as I'm wearing the look, there are no cars. As far as I listened, there are no cars either. At that time, there is never any cars.
And what do I do at this point? Hmm? Ahaaaa. I cross the street. Besides the crosswalk. Just next. As I usually do.
is still confusing, no?
I'll keep you posted, of course. But I fear that pffuit.
Onfray or "I enjoy everywhere." 3) across Onfray: resistivity
Attention proliferation tautological self topo-graphic logo psychotisante, platelet Luxury or Botins LF sealed at the bottom of a Klein bottle, very difficult to catch, is not the exclusive domain of a psittacosis-graphopathes always "Lacan" (see point 2) - and partly responsible for the deforestation of the Amazon.
" If so immanent in any situation has the movement, where she forges a vis-à-vis that resists it, if the lines can call their lines by lining cons-power, it is logical to see which operators of the resistance diagram dialectic, the vital waterway and the Goblet axiomatic preference.
[...]
Neither breviary theoretical or practical manual, this essay intends to stand at the junction of resistors thoughts and thoughts resistance, betting for the bifurcation and the game off in the area. With each wave of oppression sweeping across the sand, against a ridge of foam that transforms the sea every contradiction in the world, hit back by dilation of ways to exist, the narrowing of the forces are carries with it, respond in a concentration to be at a point with a maximum amplitude.
[...]
Rise flush from the inside the state of things which he only wrote out on. If any power generates the light cone of its strength, if their relationship turns to the entanglement, the typology of resistance grounded in a topological criterion - namely, how articulate the same and the other . This is the type of product tying dictates a certain curvature of resistance: the status granted to otherness and how to sit in the same report will guide the meeting. "
Only the foreword to the preface to the introduction of the 1,500 pages "in progress" in upstream as downstream - and in the interregnum of a halftime taupologiquement insurrectionary - who will hear hold a firm hand and without wavering on that same intersection resistors thoughts and thoughts of resistance. In striking ad libitum the same tubular bell sound z'et. The typo is anchored in the guidebook is the guidebook for the typo. It notes the Big inane With A Big Nose abolished. But not everyone who wants to La Monte Young. The Monte or wants but Young is not.
Anyway is nevertheless very beautiful.
And if you do not like it, do not disgust others. A minimum of respect for the work of thought, for thought to work, would be welcome. Collection practical work ", it goes without saying. Do not disturb the work. Too often we forget the praxis of knitting. A reverse stitch, a stitch in place ...
When you think that some prefer to play Minesweeper or Solitaire oxo ... Pff ... Should remind them anyway, from time to time, these big nerds unnecessary and neuro-vegetative, that the universal biglotron was not built alone or in a day, either. A little held, go. And the Channel Tunnel, it cost a lot of elbow grease and vests, too. Ok, the DVD, the suppo, shower, a little poetry in this cruel world, and it's tired:
" Swords silver turquoise lashed the body, able to swallow the moon at the bottom of its depths, not delivering any story stable, queen without a king to the huge trail of foam that cleft cormorants. "
... In these times of darkness where the horns and media philosophers operetta Syldavian squat without interruption the black screens of our sleepless nights, or otherwise, the essential has been said, is and will be, or almost, about the last delivery of graphopathique great follower of Aristippus of Cyrene and sycophant of apoplexy, Michel Onfray.
's work Freud, Freudian psychoanalysis postulates are questionable, dated, certainly. It's not a scoop. Schools and colleges proto-Lacanian which were forged by moving its contents on the side of linguistics and structural anthropology, and the formalization of mathematics ", can be criticized, dated. Certainly. All this is well known.
pain to see, moreover, a Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen here defend the magician of TV trays lunch, stiffening at the option years his criticism in their time roboratives (with " The Freudian subject, "then" Lacan. The Master absolute ") impoverish in dogmatic crusades also well known, synthesized for good and bad reasons, in the collective" black book of psychoanalysis.
There had been, well before the onslaught corporatist "experts" in techno-scientific behaviorism (the not quite forgotten Van Rillaer that inspired cliques gangster-circles of leather stimulus-response employee, in the scientific departments of Psychology, University of Liège and elsewhere, then Benesteau, etc.). There was the current systemic Palo Alto, far more interesting.
course, there are psychoanalysts pioncent that during sessions, and I've enjoyed, Freudian psychoanalyst but also neuro-psychiatrist, before taking my courage in both hands and finish by daring to say goodbye. But wait, I could understand, he is tired, the poor man. The story of my life and my misery overwhelmed me as myself, in the long run, so boring homework to do, and her silence worried me more when I would have preferred to keep quiet, move on, exit I walk in the woods of the court. So yes, maybe it was a good effect "placebo". Half paid by the mutual, should be specified. But basically, nothing changed to my life. I stayed with my problems and my solutions unresolved issues, and learn to live with it, chugging. I die healed, in fact, as one might say. Since a quarter of an hour before his death he had not yet told. Possibly true. course, embark as an "analysis" in a "cure" analysis - just as "interminable" - not so much get in the task of becoming "a thinker his life "(as stated in the suave Sibony, whose admirable spiraloïdes rhapsodies and ejaculatory fingering his works tirelessly as we delighted in the eighties) encouragement is often steeped in his neuroses, maintain and incubate its problems, generate, to tie in a mapping of the intimate, like Spider , subject thereto, and enfeoffing himself s'infantiliser oneself in a voluntary servitude, under the tutelage of a master signifier and internalized. And it's quite true what Watzlawick said: the search for the solution creates much of the problem. And that the "practice of analyzing" is similar in many respects to a form of "mental illness" consisting to take itself for its own remedy. Deleuze and was very well shown otherwise.
And of course, would qualify all this. Do not throw the baby out, still fallow with the bathwater. Freud, it's exciting. Lacan, is exciting. Quite a few Freudian, Lacanian not sore, called "orthodox" less.
Ultimately, we do not care a bit that the corporatism of orthodox Freudian-Lacanian suffer or conversely benefit (and the forum is distressing Roudinesco itself). They are anyway in agony, watched by aphasia promised a vortex that does glossolalic eventually pick up more language imitation psychosis (see point 3 below).
But Onfray Deleuze is not, nor is the Sartre of our feudal times. Onfray not benefit from his stroke editorial, which should (yeah, right, is not sure) to ridicule once and for all as oracle Multi Media asphyxiating all thought in the public space and determining the "media agenda" of topics to discuss ...
Onfray has become, over time, a major reference of the fight allegedly "secular" in Belgium for example. It prompted everywhere. Besides schools, the ethics course. It now reads like Voltaire's Onfray.
We can not hardly speak of atheism without having to stuck with aficionados of Onfray. We would have entered a new "war of religions" should choose sides. Friends of reason and free-thinking gay priests gloom and cons perverse crusaders Enlightenment liberation against the Crusaders from the darkness that threatens; feminists tonsured, and anticlerical fourestiennes against the chauvinistic violated their fundamentalist Fatima submitted under the veil oppressor; lit the balcony of the lodge against the arsonists of the terrace.
Onfray, this is not the question of the mediocrity of his thought is the problem. That is, walking, its ideological anchor became increasingly transparent (a version of "Nietzscheanism" among the most deleterious and, no joke, he is still calling for Deleuze).
Onfray has greatly benefited from the almost absolute absence of serious intellectual voice, that is to say, academically elite - as it should, in terms of its Barnum (although œdipianisées mafia and, without doubt, they are. Worse than a Scorsese or the office of the late Guy Mathot) - in the field of media, to grow its merchandising of "cons-history philosophy "meant to enhance the" small "masters overshadowed by the so-called official philosophy: one that delivers the Universities of Vatican doctrine sacrosanct decayed mummies, the jar and stirred entelechies other intangibles, excluding francs snipers, of Jonathan Livingston Seagull hovering lonely on the Sargasso Sea. This is of course anything as vision. But it allowed to sculpt the posture that the rebel Onfray upset the established order and everything. For a very wide audience, too long to bottle and Francis Clozet Pierre Bellemare, philosophy television in France is now Onfray, the irreducible, a free spirit, a scoundrel, a rascal sacred, as Lanzmann said about the brave Zeno Ligre bis Enlightenment - as because of "cinema bis" - Robert Redeker.
is a little unorthodox music from the Salle Pleyel explain how the figures of Debussy and Ravel have obscured the genius Maurice Fleming, Charles Koechlin, and Jean-Roger Ducasse, relegating them to the rays of the Sabbaths hated evil. Or rehabilitating the cinephile cross Jesus Franco and Bruno Mattei's cacochyme Fellini and cons antonioniens overpriced festival corporatist masses.
Today we see the result.
University "popular" of Caen, on behalf of "people", but without "remugles" latrinaires mass "impotent," "hateful," "bitter" and " jealous, "we dare not imagine how altitude of rigor, and protected from any "self-indulgence," it must fly ... With its select audience of fervent devotees. Rael is not far off.
Onfray, feeling free hand, wooed by all television and radio shows, has been raving quietly assured of yes-man posture "anti-theological," pushing his little mouth with multidirectional reels now left, sometimes right, but gradually more and more one-dimensional binary: the devil and God, darkness and light, etc.. He must have his portrait hung now in all the back-room kitchens fetes houses of secularism.
It was time to look a little Onfray, cut him a nice suit, with the hobby.
Today, some philosophers called "academics" take the time to briefly answer a false demystify demystifying, debunking an idol miserable weather misery.
Why would they do their "disgust", refusing to interfere in the said public space? Instead, it is the function of philosophy, minimally, or interfere in the field of public opinion. Especially when public opinion, which opinion and became the only authorized and audible thinking. no mistake, Onfray cry to the police operation clerics and round-of-the leather Thought authorized official, normative, dominant, unlike the jolly leprechaun costume vitalist, a provocation postanarchist in Don Camillo talk shows. Future portrait of the author as "public enemy", the victim sacrificed on the altar of an alma mater castrating. Apostille negotiable bestseller epistolary Houellebecq-BHL.
But all this is blame the boarding Giel. And it was bothering to St. Ursula. Ripening among priests, "the great little man" sees Orgone everywhere wants to found his own school. We have seen it 50,000 times. Like what, it's true that a "thinker" is derived from his bio-graphy, it looks as ours, that of Friends of the spelling. So he has carved himself same. Couvé the convent, the self-made man, "challenged" in his grove, built at the end of a sacrificial labor intensive, rich epiphanies, " hapax existential" and Conversions his small company finally allowing him to enjoy and share with the proletarians of the world the establishment of privileges: enjoy and enjoy.
Claude Vorilhon, which is not half of a con, had finely intuited, who immediately recognized as his peer, the honorary priest consecrating "in spite of himself." But a misplaced pride, thirst for respectability as well as by hatred of the mirror held by the brother-Siamese star on the verge of derailing his career in the jet-set, Onfray the snob. And with what fury atoning! Whole arsenal of flasks holy water and an exorcism anathemas seismic purifier. It was undeserved, as far as damage. They could have done folk singer Breton together. And Alan Stivell (I love) could match ...
What matters, therefore, is to remove the mask of "Nietzscheanism" of adulterated Onfray, show the truly reactionary aspect of his "thinking" poor omni-directional its production and demagogic béhachélisante in the race for the self-coronation as "philosopher-Herald these days," and whose nullity constantly insult the rigor of those he claims to seek.
For who in the state of regression massive ideological thought "French," is clearly operating divisions and socio-economic, destroyed the legacy of thinkers whom he claims to proclaim "hello" in the enjoyment of wealthy hedonistic and cynical, this prerogative of the privileged, the vulgarity of having, which is supposed to triumph over all the negativities, poverty, social conflict, such as Saint George slaying the dragon?
Who, by his omni-visibility, is distinguished by its more than active participation in ideological arrangements, under the name violated the "secularism", the "religious wars" and other issues of pseudo-identity "secular" obstructing such a superstructure mental time available brain to evade the real practical problems?
Who destroyed the issues of the philosopher that operates like a wrestling match between "powerful" and "helpless", benefiting the alienation, social deprivation, which alone makes possible the fertilization of its stem bulbar star?
Who deleting "Freud" as pruritus (6000 pages reviewed the microscope on his i-phone in a few weeks, and revealed in their true light, finally: an athlete), promises the return of a joyous paganism of cardboard that has already benefited and will benefit only those who are the legitimate beneficiaries?
What is it that this so-called "troublemaker" of gut tells us that television, like Ferry, no laughing or grinning constipated by the swelling of her love for him Similarly, the "philosophy" as qualifying private, everyone for himself, has good "responses" to eschatologies of all kinds, happiness and unhappiness, in these times of systematic dismemberment of every social and economic rights? He has only to delve into Aristippus of Cyrene, Synoch Smyrna, Deconokos of Pleintubos, Lapidaule of Halicarnassus, or Anarchadix of Dher? And secrete its resilient little gem?
Who's Butter staff operator in the most grotesque notions of "sad passions" and "joyful passions"?
Who turns the concrete issues of the philosopher of pure mental construction derealized in purely abstract games, worthy of the Jesuit seminary in padded cell?
Who is the new god of festivals "centers of action secular" (in Belgium) that unite than to grannies bagouzées chihuahuas, masseurs sixties, the enthusiasts orgastologues orgone of Wilhelm Reich, the excited shell for the two problems that most of our time urgentissimes are unveiling the emancipation of Afghan women held under the yoke of machismo and the Islamist war against the pedophile priests in parishes of the Sacred Heart?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Onfray. And
long.
For Onfray rolling?
For himself, see.
It is time to deflate the balloon overexposed and confit of its importance, Napoleon marketing libertarian.
"Years ago, the latrine is could read the graffiti on the walls where speaking any sexual misery of the world . No need for a sociology very depressed to understand what works quidam 's soul at the time of sacrificing the needs of the sphincter: it is empty, it is loose, it splashes with its animal remugles and etched his musings in the marble of a wooden door ... We have the rostra we can! Today, this function has left the public toilets, now maintained as an operating room, to join places much more commendable : comments posted at the foot of articles on the websites. This is indeed where we find the equivalent of literatures urinals yesterday ... Internet offers all the advantages of the anonymous letter: quick, well made, hidden in the night of the pseudonym, posted on the sly with a single click, the sycophant can give free rein to his sad passions, envy, jealousy, malice, hatred, resentment, bitterness, resentment, etc. . The Cook missed destroyed the kitchen of a chef who works well ten hours a day with his team missed the musician shoot down the interpretation of a quartet that has played superbly, the writer missed giving lessons on a book he only know by its author provision of television; the typical person who dreamed actor or filmmaker will pierce the pocket of his bitterness after seeing a movie, etc.. The extension of freedoms of expression has often been on the side of badness. Certainly, the critic appointed in a newspaper is driven by the same springs, at least the extra support that will ensure his reputation and self-censorship will produce some effect in moderating (sometimes) the ardor of the famous sad passions. Also requires the signature a little. If you are not stifled by the dignity, sense of honor, righteousness, at least, we can not totally wallow in ignominy because the reader knows who is speaking and may, with minimal sociological spirit, understand what the anime is much higher: dismissal elevator, construction of a dominant position in a specific field, admission to an institution, pledges for future co-optation money, etc.. The anonymity of the Internet we can not even a little hope for a gram of moral . What good is virtue because here more than anywhere else we measure the effect of the dialectic of Sade prosperity of vice and the misfortunes of virtue? These reflections come the train back to my campaign while I go on my iPhone an article on the excellent book of Florence Aubenas, Le Quai de Ouistreham. This is a wonderful book that takes us out of egotism and Parisian socialite of the moment, a pure text like a diamond who cares of a world literature refuses, rejects, hates, despise (the "little people" to say so in the words of the late Pierre Sansot **), a literary work that is both sociological and political without being pedantic, academic or activist, a fragment of autobiography without narcissism, a remarkable work of psychology at the French in the minds of characters of La Bruyere, a story which lifts journalism at the height of the artwork, often when we must deplore the contrary, a text which mixes the dry style of Stendhal, Zola information, speed of Celine - and a few Dwarf belch by posting their "comments"! In essence: it criticizes Florence Aubenas illustrate the failings of the caviar left with a feint rich compassion for the poor, is accused of misleading because a journalist, she poses as a jobseeker, he lends a venal motivation stating that she earns money with the misery of others, therefore we are willing to credit the sincerity if and only if he pays his royalties to a charitable organization, is tax immorality because it takes the work of people who would really need, she is denied the right to speak simply because, true and false poor wealthy, she knows that her experience will be short and she can go home in a fashionable district of Paris ... Let there ... Why so much hate? The answer is simple: the book is a bestseller and, last month, he was leading sales . Therefore, no need to read in order to talk, you can then save the reasonable use of reason and reasoning of the cortex, the reptilian brain enough: we have heard on the radio, seen on TV read in news interviews, it'll just make a final ruling. No investigation of the case, a simple reading, for example, but immediately the special court and the scaffold at the earliest. The anonymous commentary on the Internet is a guillotine virtual. He did enjoy the powerless *** who rejoice that the bloodshed. Tomorrow is another day, simply watch a little television that they claim to hate but which we wallow to find a new scapegoat his own mediocrity, his emptiness, his mental misery. In a democracy, the damage is relatively contained . In a totalitarian regime, this herd can recruit players the "appalling banality of evil" - to use full this time the words of Hannah Arendt. "
(**) Yes, but-z-Then who will take care of the literature of "little people" in the latrine, challenged, hated, despised?
(***) Conclusion: The world's misery is not economical. It is sexual. Michel Onfray has unhindered. Michel Onfray does not hide to enjoy. Because it is powerful . And he has an "i-phone . Jealousy hate graffiti in the latrines of the university "popular" in Caen.
Because this text is more interesting than all the rest (the controversial editorial): it makes you want to "philosophize".
The guy who creates a university "popular" against elitism, representatives of the norm for non-degree, people of "little", the "hated", the "despised" (this are his own words, in which he praised the noble object of concern for a fellow socialite Parisianism the cons), anarchy, rebellion, etc., and that severe loose about urinals the net to defend its gossip (Aubenas- Günter Walraff ), who wrote a piece "pure as a diamond", "top sellers" who had the courage to put themselves in the skin for a chômiste the misery of living inside and outside the report.
She is dragging in the mud, the poor. It is treated as less than nothing. Twice, then. And the guy in the columns of censure on the World remugles of animality, the inability to enjoy fellows, poor anonymous, hate, jealousy and passion sad, the terrible banality of evil, sources of totalitarianism, etc..
That's interesting. About a certain "left" (the Val and others) who squats media, and that puts us constantly on guard against the temptation "Poujadist" the de-professionalization of elites. We know the refrain: everyone feels responsible, everyone s'intronise journalist, philosopher, nowadays, and free, to boot. So do not be surprised that the discrediting of the information professionals that the insane power of the masses of anonymous and without "an ounce of morality" we rush again one day in the bowels of the still smoking filthy beast, etc..
Yes, it's interesting to meditate a little on the relationship between this text and the last pad Onfray: latrines of the unconscious hedonism versus solar the use of Nietzsche, the true nature of his "Nietzscheanism" where are the masters, where are the slaves, where are those who "enjoy", which are "powerless", the designation of fascism and oppressors, all that .
A funny thing (well, if you will) is that we do not understand too much, So, why Onfray accuses Freud of acquaintances with "fascism" to glorify the image of "leader". In fact, he just put his next cry of revolt with the above lines Civilization and Its Discontents: it is exactly the same thing. Except that if Freud's text can examine themselves and challenge themselves in terms of descriptive analysis, possibly "dialectic of master and slave", the prescriptive nature of the "rant" of Onfray does him, no doubt - all there, and it is a cry of "heart" naturalist -:
"... we can not dispense with the rule of the masses by a minority, because the masses are inert and devoid of discernment they do not like the instinctual renunciation can not be convinced by arguments that it is inevitable, and the individuals who compose them are mutually reinforcing, giving free rein to their disorder. Only the influence of individuals copies they recognize as their leaders, can lead to benefits of work and waivers which depends the existence of culture. "
Finally, although beyond itself, the" case "is interesting, and eminently reproducible. It tells us something about the mechanisms of thought, the cunning of reason, locking systems in the process of "liberation".
Who will challenge the "media" are a crucial place where " philosophy "is played? The neglect is the opposite camp in the "purity", the illusion that "philosophy" would have its defined territory, which ended with its own problems. As it is also a mirror reflection "in which a significant part of the" social "and wants to be recognized, a successful model, a set design to follow and imitate, far from being merely an" epiphenomenon " media, Onfray, his life, his work, enjoin us to think about the state of the world. Or at least to a state of our society, its values, its productions, she prepares to take directions, is already taking, or found.
"Michel Onfray [a] made his butter with thick ropes of soft-thinking media in distributing the cards of a Western-peplum played between one side of the mainframe-dogmatic rationalist frigid, mummies celebrated by the university academic (= idealism Judeo-Christian mortifying engaged in the priesthood psychoanalytic, etc.) and the other thinkers "rebellious", "subversive" repressed by the College and the dominant thought (= empiricists, thinkers of the body and enjoyment).
result is Onfray gets off donf by masseurs libertines fifties, the action centers on the secular Belcher, or they celebrate the Mass of the man-god Luc Ferry (its competitor already mediocrity) in rooms sparse patronage more depressing than a Tupperware party, and fans of folk anticlerical (when he has the air of a priest dressed for the remake of Don Camillo), it is a nice niche of exciting TV shows in FOG certainly, but it's not a thought.
[...]
Deleuze constantly annexed by Onfray provided by Stengers, has, it ceased to develop a "transcendental empiricism" (and after all, what is an otherwise transcendental field an empirical field who thinks or attempts to think, and think it himself and held a gap - constructivist - with himself - and that is what field I call myself, "anthropology"), and for it has never given in the flat or flattening reductionism. He believed in rigorous philosopher with Spinoza, Nietzsche, Leibniz, Hume, etc..
[...]
Manichaeism an opportunistic Onfray, returning briefly to his case, is thus impoverishing the instrumentalization and binarization of Deleuze (who has never valued the dualisms coarse).
And slightly (?) Démago: the prevailing thought is more easily toward the pragmatic empiricism and the celebration of the "enjoyment" and no one takes too much sweat in truth in universities to study Kant's transcendental idealism, "rationality" Not so good news, or so it's good for the "cheesy" blind "postmodernism" and nostalgic for the "philosophy of empire": no serious relationship with deconstruction by Derrida rigorously conducted, should say so. "
By Etienne Balibar, Alain Badiou, Michel Deguy, Jean-Luc Nancy
03/05/2010
"What bothers us in the recent assault against Freud is not being proposed and critical discussion, both historical and theoretical. Rather than truth and the massive load that is intended overwhelming removes its very purpose. "Freud," this is not just a life, or simply a doctrine, nor simply a possible secret conflict between the two. Freud it is a work of thought is an effort - especially complex, difficult, never sure of its results (less likely that the vast majority of thinkers, theorists, philosophers, as we want to call them) - and it Such an effort has not stopped opening, beyond Freud himself, a wealth of research that the reasons were very different ways of asking: "Basically, what is he? How can we work more before this vast wasteland? "
We will not debate here in the technical, historical, epistemological. Others are better qualified to do so. What we mean is larger. Indeed, it is the same as for Kant to Freud according to Mr. Onfray who believes he has inherited from Nietzsche's hammer (which also, fortunately, Nietzsche is not reduced). Are collected, frozen, what is the thesis and it is not known with great everything from the author and after it is moved, or changed the complicated situation. But in truth, the whole philosophy that is subjected to this treatment. By playing a spring well known, and they denounced the domination of the "big" and they cut held the "small" bright and cheerful troublemakers from the austere celebration of the "being" and "truth" and all other machines to bully the body and promote the sad passions. It will be hedonistic (an "ism" of most is unwise, but we are not careful) and shake with laughter the steep Dionysian Apollonian order of what is given as "the" philosophy. Nietzsche, however, is far from just oppose Dionysus and Apollo, but here as elsewhere, we will not complicate things, you just hit.
We do not want to know anything about this, that philosophers have never stopped to question, to challenge, deconstruct or to call into play "the" philosophy itself. In truth, philosophy, far from being a succession of several "views" or "systems" is always first revival - and without warranty stimulus - a question about herself. This is indicated with each "big" thinking. Therefore it is never possible to simply declare that holds true, good "philosophy."
Still less is it possible to reduce a work of thought to zero when proven fertility - of course with all the difficulties, uncertainties, paradoxes or failures that will detect even fertility. But our déglingueur not care: what matters to him is to denounce, and debunk dancing gaily on the crumbled statues that implies. As it should, it makes noise, it attracts the barges and with them so-called media delighted to find the scandal also in stately homes of "pure thought".
As it is understood that evil is now more or less fascist (or "totalitarian") Fascism is to acknowledge that the thinker, when you find an appropriate way to do it. But again, the spring is well known: we know in advance that can demolish a better writer, new or old, that calling him a fascist. The process itself has something - do not say "fascist" but at least doctrinaire and oppressive gear. For it is not off in the space known libertarian: the warder and anathema are posted everywhere.
That's why we say that there was no discussion or criticism of Freud, nor that of Kant or many others to finish or philosophy. There is a phenomenon, an ideological itch that could also trace the origins. It's not even just that everything is false or wrong: we do not talk about any of these points of view. We say only that mocks people and it is time to say it.
philosophy is experiencing a fashion that supports its public image, even advertising, publications tempting, the idea of some possible recipes for "wisdom." It should be more wary of what all the fads release: convenience, fair atmosphere, big mouths. We respond without doubt that we represent a relatively small wealthy elite, steeped in the University, the beautiful soul and scholarly discourse. Still small against the great and certain idea of "people" (happy) against the (sad) "learned". No, we are neither more nor sad that the most learned doctor wrecker. We believe that the public spirit deserves better than to be deafened by the roar of bulldozers and must allow him to regain the sense of hearing. "
"What we learned from the little controversy surrounding the Michel Onfray's book on Freud - Twilight of an idol. Confabulation Freudian - which was very well orchestrated by an entire media apparatus? What about the firebrand of Onfray which we grasp it easily meets the idea that it is today a good product marketing (we speak, we speak in fact, it is sold to all the rays)? Just keep taking this value of symptom: Onfray is a return to obscurantism. The claim is an apparent paradox since the gentleman in question just wants destroyer of all that, in religions, philosophies, or at various places of thought, it appears that name of obscurantism. What is darkness? That's what "into the darkness," including the contempt of knowledge and knowledge. It is always easy expose the darkness that manifests in forms of religion, or moral or cultural attitudes. It's so commonplace. It is somewhat more complicated to reveal where it manifests itself in appearance to the contrary, where he hides in a speech that is modern, rational, unfettered, criticism also against bourgeois conventions, referred to great figures of thought. But, basically, is what Nietzsche analysis so acute in the Genealogy of Morals when he shows this inversion of values that allows the man of resentment, by an effect trompe l'oeil, to convey his profound hatred for love, violence to the gentle, his desire for revenge to justice, etc.. The process has not changed: you can just as easily pass for the obscurantism of enlightened reason, and disregard for the respect of knowledge of the truth. Forgery is always appreciated. "The darkness is back - Bourdieu wrote - but this time we're dealing with people who cling to reason." Onfray is one of them. But it is only the sign of something that works then. We have beautiful game branding, the top of our complacency, religions and cultures that we deem contrary to our vision of a modern world. We no longer see what is in the heart of ourselves.
Onfray obscurantist? Just read - if you have little courage - his atheology Treaty, and we will see that this book is the 2005 trial that he has published about Freud, the method is still the same. Two examples will suffice: in his letters, the apostle Paul writes that he suffers from what he calls a "thorn in the flesh." All experts agree early Christianity to say we do not know what is the nature of this evil (the assumptions are many). But Onfray, he "knows" and says quietly that Paul is suffering from "impotence" and that, therefore, it would be "incapable of leading a sex life worthy of the name." One might find this funny if it was not the key to understanding all of Pauline thought, condemning himself to completely miss a multi-faceted thinking, and which includes, in part, precisely one of kenosis divine, that is to say, a deconstruction of representations classics of God (cf. in this connection Agamben, Badiou, Derrida, Nancy, etc.).. And Freud? According Twilight of an idol , the whole theory of the Oedipus follows from what little Sigmund would have seen his mother naked and could not help the poor. Is this an honest thought, and informed? Can not ignore that Freud invented the Oedipus complex, but it takes just a myth that is the timeless story and enunciation of a structure? Same for the issue of Nazism in his atheology , Onfray makes Christianity, especially the Gospel of John, the direct cause of Nazism - nothing less - while also swiping a backhand links between Nazism and neo-paganism. He writes: "Hitler was a disciple of St. John", unaware of the use of the word "Jew" in the Fourth Gospel, without putting anything in perspective, without distance. He can do what he wants to say so to the texts he studies. In his new book, is revealed as Freud qu'Onfray defender of authoritarian rule, and psychoanalysis as adequate to totalitarianism. Freud did not he dedicated one of his works to Mussolini? It remains confounded by short-circuit operations, the use of sources, leaving aside any complexity to assert direct and unambiguous causality: this leads to it, QED. Onfray reads like the fundamentalist out of context, literally, without running the conflicting interpretations. The financial game worth the candle probably because the books sell, and many people upon whom the seduction operates. In a time where "bigger is, the more it seems true, there no reason that the vein runs out. The funniest, of course, is to want the same time in the wake Nietzsche: Nietzsche the demystification itself serves a similar process of mystification, it had to do ... Well, he did. Until one day, without doubt, the mask will fall of itself. "
Jean-Daniel Causse is a professor at the University of Montpellier III, Dept. of psychoanalysis.
3.
(Always topical, against" agenda of thought "dictated by the Speakers Media, a magazine of cultural and Lawrence Ruquier consort:)
"It is difficult to ignore, except to boycott radio, television, newspaper kiosks and storefronts: Michel Onfray has added Sigmund Freud in his list of conquests. After St. Paul and Mohammed, who is held responsible for all the ills of the earth by the media more libertarian hedonists, it was the turn of the founder of psychoanalysis to pay for his sins: deceit, confabulation, careerism and convenience for fascism! firing of any wood, including such fuels are cheaper than the opposite direction, the truth-cons, the approximation, the shortcut and moralism as gregarious, Michel Onfray explains even among a thousand other sham, that Sigmund Freud was, hold you well, the fault is overwhelming ... cocaine! It turns out that the thing was (very) famous (roughly: for anyone who has watched a 52 minutes on Freud's life, or read its manual wikipedia), but no one had thought of making an argument charged against a theoretical and clinical work - but a few annoyed at the right-wing and cilia the most puritanical of the third age. Without being, the collective Words are important, the fans of Freud and Freudianism, and even while being sensitive to certain critical vitriolic as those of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari [1], we can not prevent us from finding lamentable this indictment as outrageous as it indigent substance, and tiring that way What philosophers television to win the jackpot editorial by spitting on the corpse of a great thinker: BHL and after Marx, Luc Ferry and Foucault, Nietzsche and Comte-Sponville, Nathalie Heinich and Bourdieu here So Onfray and Freud ... Rather than devoting energy to deconstruct a book that is not worth the trouble, risking further fuel the buzz onfresque, it seems more constructive advise the reading of Deleuze and Guattari, and the of exciting books include Freud The malaise in civilization , The Future of an Illusion , The Uncanny or the Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis ... And as regards Michel Onfray, it seems sufficient and necessary to again popularize a recent bill drafted by Spinoza (Society for the Prohibition of Nuisances Onfresques Zet Anarchoracistes). "
[1 ] See Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Anti- Oedipus , Minuit, 1972. See also the presentation that makes this book Gilles Deleuze in Primer directed by Claire Parnet and Pierre-Andre Boutang, the letter D for Desire.
"Reason.
There is talk in recent days, recent months and in recent years and the next few days, the coming months and years ahead, a new law banning the burqa and / or niqab and / or full veil and / or bandana and Islamic / or the Islamic banner and / or Islamic bun and / or Islamic cap and / or Verlan of Islamic and / or Islamic identity and / or the Islamic fold and / or Islamic minarets and / or Quick halal and / or list NPA Vaucluse and / or Tariq Ramadan and / or the Koran and / or pork-free menus and / or soft drinks.
We consider that the method is excellent in our democracy and dévirilisée sick, it's time to restore some banned and repression. We need to take a bad word Fadela Amara, to eradicate! [1] Or to quote the beautiful words of Nicolas Sarkozy: wind and clean! Or, to use the word beautiful Elizabeth Levy: put some Schlag! [2]. But we believe there is error on the target. We consider in our opinion that the urgency to safeguard democracy, the future of our thinking and personal development is an absolute prohibition of any overt display of the loudmouth Michel Onfray - in the service public television and radio, of course, but also in places of education and research, in administration, in hospitals and throughout the public space.
We see this as a matter of principle: Michel Onfray should be banned from public spaces because it is inconsistent with the values of democracy, human emancipation and simple good taste. His conceit and her poses philosophers are an insult to any ostensible corporation philosophers, his anti-religious catechism is an insult to what free-thinking has produced better, his anticalotinisme idiot, fool and his aristocratic hedonism skunk is an insult to Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Bourdieu and all the great authors whom he claims and that it only reveals, dirty and ride on.
Let's not angelic: the "radical left "He said to embody is a hoax, a double talk in which he is a master! Indeed, as if to confuse us, Michel Onfray says himself, and without laughing, libertarian, liberal, anarchist and advocate of market economy, pro-Palestinian and Zionist [3] [ note of blogger: the This last point is not necessarily antithetical ]. He also says, without shame, that's Camus was right against Sartre on the Algerian question: in short, that's right, when Algerians, "his mother preferred to justice" and refuse to a people the right to dispose of himself.
If Michel Onfray claims to be happy the people left, the only company he likes is a popular middle class sufficiently docile and complexed to hear him religiously when he pontificates on the "Popular University of Caen" [4]. Apart from this relationship not really libertarian and egalitarian mob not really a plebeian, political commitment by Michel Onfray has resulted in tickets for soporific Sine Hebdo books as hollow and sinister titles are pretentious and bombastic (attention: The art of enjoy the sculpture itself, tragic wisdom, power to exist, the rebel Policy, Treaty of resistance and insubordination, Beside the desire for eternity, Fragments or Egypt for an erotic lotion! - Not to mention grotesquissimes four volumes of his hedonistic Journal entitled, brace yourself: The desire to be a volcano, The virtues of lightning, comets and Archipelago The glow of the desired storms!), Some opportunistic stops Saint-Germain-des-Pres in which he prostrated himself with the utmost servility to the Nabob BHL (as revealed The recent Plan B) [5], a brunch in Philosophy Philosophical Magazine along with the leader of the extreme right plural, Nicolas Sarkozy in person [6] and finally countless television appearances in which his self, his ego Oversized and his incredible contempt for the other screen literally burst.
Moreover, since the issue of sexism has been raised about the veil, we would like to clarify that Michel Onfray is a big sexist. Its pantheon is almost completely guts his work completely androcentric, its ethos and its grotesque postures masculinist. Do not forget the ridiculous contest cocks television which Michel Onfray gave himself one day with the novelist Francis Bégaudeau: the cockerel had just published an Anti-manual literature almost as bad as onfresque Anti-philosophy textbook and the old rooster, like a good capitalist libertarian, for once more libertarian capitalist, had left his Epicurean ataraxia [7] and had the elegant idea to claim royalties for the "concept" so cool and so innovative anti-manual! The mask fell definitively: behind the austere rectangular glasses and the Philosopher's mane gray, a small businessman obsessed with money. Under the suit too big for him the wise man who despises the "vain desires" of fame and fortune [8], a little Jacques Seguela, Rolex and without UV.
Moreover, in good VRP itself, Michel Onfray has long surfs the wave of Islamophobia that has gripped the country. Remembered for a crappy television performance in which, with the inspired air of the great sage who reveals the secret of warm water, he explained that most of these harmful nuisances are fundamental religions was, guess which, won Islam! [9]. It also recalls a petition he launched a racist "for unreserved support" to anti-Catholic Mohammedan Robert Redeker [10]. We still remember a preface to a pamphlet indigent anti-Muslim, in which he calls the "defense" of "Western values" [11]
We remember last in a recent issue ( "Tonight or Never") during which he showed an incredible paternalism with respect to Houria Bouteldja. The latter he remarked simply, politely but firmly which provoked this reaction grotesque form of confession:
"Stop or I'll end up kissing on the mouth Eric Besson! .
Recently, finally, that he'd sell his mother, brothers, sisters, son, daughters and friends for a minute of prime time at Frederic Taddei, Guillaume Durand and Franz Olivier Giesbert, who has never participated in anything either group of which he is not the chief, which he probably did not pasted posters and distributed leaflets for a very long time (unless that is ever), he who is not running for him himself, He lives only by and for big media, Michel Onfray, therefore, considered it useful to go in an article published by Le Monde on February 19, spitting its venom on Ilham Moussaïd "the veil of the NPA" in him blaming guess what, she, active militant of the NPA, following the popular areas of Avignon, it argues that daily in an anti-capitalist party, which she did not ask anyone who has been literally harassed by the great parties and the mainstream media? Criticizing him for being a little scatterbrained in search of glory ... "media"! [12]
For all these reasons and many others we can not list in detail here, but which may devote a parliamentary mission, we believe it is urgent to act. A showdown took place between democracy and Occidentalism fundamentalist Michel Onfray. Only a strong signal will curb obscurantism franchouillard, disregarding social and racial hatred Michel Onfray is the flag bearer. That's why we subject the people of France the next bill.
Single Article
The loudmouth from Michel Onfray is prohibited in all public space. Any violation of this Act is punishable with entartage.
Postscript The Spinoza is the Society for the Prohibition of Nuisances Onfresques Zet Anarchoracistes In support of this citizens' initiative, send your signatures to the following address: contact.lmsi @ hotmail . en
Notes:
[1] In this charming amarienne formula, cf. Isabelle Stengers and Philippe Pignarre, "Most religious people are not believed."
[2] On this delicious formula Leviste, cf. this reaction.
[3] On the pro-capitalist anarchism Michel Onfray, cf. Jean-Pierre Garnier, "The libertarian president."
[4] Sold on CD and multicast on France Culture, the conference "People's University" are built on the model most academic lecture in history of philosophy. They are mediocre bill, devoid of all originality and deadly boring, despite the pathetic efforts of the occupant to punctuate the "good words "a complete mediocrity.
[5] In a telegram entitled "A BHL in shorts," Plan B, No. 22, February 2010, relates:
"Plan B would it cost 18 euros to inflict the "debate" held on January 19 by Le Monde, in partnership with FNAC and the club's third age of Saint Germain des Pres? Yes, because the event was significant: in the basement which serves as an auditorium, the evening daily Michel Onfray raised to the rank of philosopher retired Germanopratins (PPRG), inviting him to lecture on Albert Camus and Jean Daniel Bernard-Henri Levy. Front of 250 octogenarians sleepy and Ambassador of Sweden, the thinker "libertarian" is the peacock to attract "Bernard" (sic). He shakes his hair citing Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Wagner, Helvetius, Plotinus; béachélise Camus praising his "tragic hedonism" applauds the award of the master ("All is fair, I agree with everything said Bernard" ), the coax ("You can have a nice pen and a real philosopher, Bernard embodies"). This assertion causes crazy laughter in the audience begins to Uqi crawling toward the exit, but the little Michael prances to finish his oral: "When I read The Barbary human face [the first book, no, BHL], I saw the lyric."
[6] Cf Philosophy Magazine, No. 8, Spring 2007. On this nice chat, and more broadly on the ideological complicity between the two guests, cf. our analysis Paraire Éditions Spinoza: Who Michel Onfray is it stupid?.
[7] ataraxia, the absence of disorder, is the ideal of wisdom recommends that Epicurus, the guru Michel Onfray.
[8] See Epicurus, Letters and Maxims, Presses Universitaires de France
[9] See "From atheology Islamophobia. About the provision of television Michel Onfray.
[10] See Pierre Tevanian, "Blame it on Voltaire? Some thoughts on freedom of expression, at the end of the Redeker affair. " This text demonstrates the racist nature of the petition onfresque.
[11] Cf Sébastien Fontenelle, "Defence Of The West - and a call for tenders for the Production of an Individual Post-Islamic. "
[12] Onfray calls the battle of Ilham Moussaïd "provocation ethological" and "media battle" with this compelling argument: "In a world where television is reality, this piece of cloth provides that we attract the cameras and polemics. " It would have been more accurate to say that television is the real thinkers of our poor, and the port of this "piece of fabric, whatever its motivations will always have the undesirable effect of attracting Michel Onfray. "
