I noticed (please forgive this indulgence), in a "chronic" in October 2009 :
"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. "
But once will not hurt: compilation .
Reminder:
1.
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. "
See also:
The art of not reading Freud . By Jacob Rogozinski.
2.
Michel Onfray: a return to obscurantism . By Jean-Daniel Causse
30/04/2010
"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:)
Posted by "words are important.
"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.
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."
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. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment