Você está na página 1de 92

,

AND' ....... ,E COMT' :-S,PONVILLE



In twelve chapters, _, on morality, politics, love (,the most lnterestlnq of subjects'), death, knowlsdqe, freedom, God" atheism, art, time, Man and wisdom - he inspires the central question of phllosophy ~ 'how should I live?' - as an inquiry into how we mrqht I'ive a Ute of 'oy and wiSdom'~ both fulfilled and curious,l providing, the reader with slqnposts towards a happier; wiser life.



n thl k 1e ittle book, Andre Comte-

Sponville in reduces the reade to the wes ern

ilosophical tradition, not by means of a, chronological exploration of the ideas of the great philosophers, but 'in a series of sparkling chapters on the 'big questions', from "freedom' and Iknowledgle' to 'morality' and 'love' ~ In doing so he reveals the essentla bones of' philesophical thought. And 'he shows wlhy philosophy is relevant in our day-to-day lives, how' we can use i:t to battle against stupidity and fanaticism o'r simply tOI understand and

relish our existence in the moment of the present, when what IhIB;S gone before cannot oe changed: and what is, ln the, future cannot be counteo upon,

,Andre Oomte-Sponville is, professor of IpjlA~llosophy at 'the! ,Sorbonne land the author 0'1 fi···· e scholarly works on classical p'hilos'oph'Yi He is also the author ,0 - the' lnternatlonsl bestsell,sr A snon Iieetise Ion the Greet VirfIU'19S'.t which haa been translated 'into twenty ... tour Ilangu!alges~

Cover photograph: Getty'images, ISBN:' 0 434 01118 S

Willl'iam Heinemenn

The IRan co rn House Group It'ld 210 VauxhaU 8ri,dge Roadl London SW1V 2SA

- - - .

WWW',. randornhouse.co. u k

..

..,'

-- "l 'B k

Th'- .. ,', e·: Liule Boo. .,' .. '"

,," :.' " ""'" _:. 1.'.'- .' ". [' . ," ',"_" . :_: ..

01""·'" P' "h-'" ttl, '!·,'O···"···S"·"o· '-"P' """"'h:,y-'"

I' , .... '.,', "" " " " .,', ':'

I . , . 1 •. :": I >' ~ .... _:_ ..... " .. : .. , . : . ," ...... _' ._" '.

_-," " .....

AN'··'··'.'D:R-":··:'E~" ·c·'·-.'O· r ·'.· •• M' ....... 'TE-S-,'PONVl'L,LE

' -', .. .: ... :~ . I . [ . . ". ". ' .... ' " ...' ~. ... . . . • I. I

"r-,'-'" .. , .. ",."-,, "M' A"N"'N LO·····-N'D" .. O··N·'·WILLlAM H,ElNE",", '_, : ,I ... ,.', " ' ... ' '.

..

Pil,~jjshed ,m f1be. 'U: Ir:"'fl,~d, P"i ... ~I"'m·· ~I'II 2\Oi11,.iI' '~.,., ~~I:~",.":,, 'H: ' '''''''I·,.,;;ol!omo!ii .......

. ~,!!!~.!Ip __ !I\.---'-!J!!~~~ _ tI!!ll!ll _jUV.,. ~1 __ ~jt[!I~~ II,I! I ,'W-!lii!V _~!!,IIII!I.

:~ 3,5'7 91cn:t 6 4,'2

F'jltst. plilM~shed is P~n~~ ~ ~ ,hUOsophie'1' 2000 Co:pyriglu~ @, Ed~tions Alb:itn Michel S,A.:~ Patis!. 2000 'Th]S :~:cms~~tio:n oop,.n~t !© Frartlk ~ne, ,Zi004,

A:m:.dre CAI'I1'!t;e-S' ni!""'!li,.\~[le' ,a-Plod F: -ir-all'1l.lII~ 'Ii'iP;,'!=""'~ ~.;1iIll""" ,i§;~Ol'w.r4I ... ,;a1 ,.,I!F-.;o:;.iijO. 'i'il"'1!r,jo

_ ~ ~ Y.!!~~L ~ C ¥!!itlii ~ ~ ~!!J!;~ t=l ~!!;i!!w. i~1f 1f"[IIIi~ WIIQ~'\r gil!~L wr:r.UJ "Wlt'Mtlal llli-~~L

und,~~' rhe C®,'j'!r.I~t, ,D~s:i.~ ~ Pat~nt5, Act! 1~;l88 t~ 'be 'identified, as tffillie 3ti1ithot: ;0£ m~ 'work

'This booil ''''' sold '~U~;"'C!lo' j .... (1. ... ""'"...,..;,;1:.·t,; ........ tII"lleIlt' ',F shell '-C-''''''i''i' ' ..... ,'. C"''l:i Mit ~~,-_j ~~" -

_ _ __ _ _ ~ __ \!! ..., J""". 'I. ,'!.!' <Iii,,", .......... Ji~~ -'JIuu. 'i:. _ aJ," J.~ ~ . alLl n"", .. , L!} W;t;JlJ' ~[' 'ILIi_Eliu.e ~

,o.!the~i!S'e~ 00 IImJfl :[,e;ro1.d.~ hl1',ed. '0'IiI,'t, 'Q:r atlherwi~ ciJ,c~lated wiltthOllJl:~ the· ,~!iL!Jbns.lle'l';s; :prior eonsent in ~RY' f,il)nn of bmdi~g '00" cover oth~f' than '!'hat .IJr:Il whk~ it is, :pu'lbli1hed alod wiJtJU)ln a s:im~la~' c:on,mti,on ,midud,[n~ tt'hi'$. (;ondlmlon 'he1D1 im,os;ed. ,~ the' :~u~eq,ue;_ot pu~>c'haSief

W:iilllila'm Heir.u:~m.iMli1l

Thre ,Rando.m House Group, Limi~ed,

2~i V:a!oxh811J B' .... id,'e. ~d.,1 :~]1JJdanl swrv 2S,A,

'~do:m House Aus,U',ali~ (Ply) Ltm~t:ed

20 Alr~,ed, .sttee't~, M'l[isoils Po.mt,~ S~nev.

New SOiJth W~des 2061 ~ Aus;~ra~li9, "

'Ft~~rnldlom 'HJou~e New' Zealand, limii:ted, '[ 8 Plo]aJhd. Ro-adi) G,lenf~eldl Am~k1md rn O. N.ew Ze~J~!ld

Rsndbm Hln1S~ (Pty) UmiJlted l~~[ujilLlilmi. Sa Ju:bilee' illQ.~d P~rktgwn 2193~ SOl!JJd'bl A&i~a,

The :RmdJom ~~fi'u:se Gww'p lAJn~tedl Re,g. No,,954'009 www.;~n~®~n.holl:s-C.CO .. u'k

F"',.... -C,-, ';1-,,,,,,: d..iinm R!-"'" 1'_,',,-, U'~' ': ",:,~\~. 'Io·JNI·r~'I'~ " ·~\;r.I'inJ.a

.A. en- ;cata~!e reciJl}J:d r~;r' .i$ 'book :1.:5 ,av,ai]ah[e 'om the Britis!JllJbrary

'P:a:pers l!I:~Bd. by' Ralld:om HOlill~.e

aoo matuii,at· Rc;y-ela'bJe p'l'od~~ts made "'O:m wood goollNn in susta~:Dahle £~'res4L-S:. The ma~1!lilaC'!:Ulijmg, processes com.o~ ito the ~nvirmlJErentlll mgUliU,t®iFl:S. of the ('fJIllinrlw ,~f origiiflj

HSBN (I 434· {U 1 '];8 s

Typeset. :in Fan@]d LH i:ry' s:x Co.mpMing, DTt? R.:ary:le~i' Es.~ fl:ilR'ted, :arn.d, 'oolLtnd ~n Gfie~!t Bdtajn by

,Mae'kay'S of ClUrhanl pic, Ch.ad:u:Im~ K~nt

C···:-·· ,t" ... -., ·t .',

ontents

F' ,..1 _,: orewl}:m:u



:Xl

N' th 'T~ '~I , ..

ote on t re .1" :ra:ns,.wat~,(Hl

X'VIll

ill Ethics :2 Politics 3 Love

-4 Death

5: Knowledge

6 IV d

, 1l~"l1~e, :'o.m

7 God:

,8 Atheism 9' .Art

10 Ti,me

11 Humanity 12 Wisdom

~ l3 26 3,'7

·46 57'

7'0 .8..3 98

'IQ'-IO ,~ .1 .• '7

lli25, ~,3d6

Bibliography-

146

D,~derO't

~ ,.

!

, I

"

. '

o,

~J.:

i-

. ,

.. ,

•. ',. I

.1 • ~

Fo .. ··rew·········· ·O>·il'i·-' ·d···

I - ,I', . I • I '

I - I . .. ",_" " . ," "

Kant.

TO' p:t:d·~osophise is to think for oneself but no one can truly do so without drawing on. the thoughts 0.£ others ~ e$p~c:rnl:I,~IDy those o:f the great pbjJosophers of the past. Ph Uos.ophy is :n.ot. simply an adventure; it is also a task which cannot 'be accomplished Vlit.:hout effO[r.t~ 'withoru t, reading, 'without tools .. A:s 'Often as not the first steps are

ff-:" . . d-' m .,iIi.' 'TL ..' t,

o: t-putting ano 'Wln 'U:ruscoUlrag:e: many, . .rus is wnat

p'fom.:pted me to publish ,9, series of notebooks: a, philosophical primer in twelve s Jim volumes each contatning some forty, oft,en 'Wlty' br.ief, selected tests, each prefaced 'by ,8, foreword of ,8, ,fe:w :pages in which I tried to summarize wha,~, seemed to me to 'be, the: essential ideas !' • '.

These twelve forewords, revised and considerably augmented, constitute the present. volume .. The modest nature of the preject remams unchanged; it remains a primer, let us say one among the hemdreds 'Of doors. into p.hilosophy·. It leaves to the reader the task" once you have f ntshed the book, o·f settjng ou t to discover other works, as, :you must d.o sooner or later, and, if you wlsh, of compiling 'four own anthology. 'Twenty-five centuries o.f philosophy represent an i.n-exhaustible' treasure. If this little book. inspires anyone. to explore, :~f' it he,~ps someone attain some pleasure ,and some knowledge". it ·MU. not. have been in 'vam n,

.At first .1 intended these books for teenagers, hut I. realized from the letters I received, that their readership was much Viider. My 'Or.igins, I intention IS still evident in the exam'ples c hos·en to illustrate certain points l the perspective, the tone, The s ty.~e is informal ~ 'p,robab~y because I was thinking [of my own children, who are teenagers, rather than of :my' prupi~s. or students, w~tb whom I have never been .info.rm.al '" .. ~ did not thin:k it necessary to change these' stylistic [qua.~]ties .. There is no agf!~Iimit to philosophy, but teenagers, more than tEulults.~ rI[eed a guide,

\Vha't :i;s 'philosophy? . , have often. .addressed. thws question; and wrestle with it agarun in the Ias~, of these tyJ:Edve chapters ,. Philos.ophy is not a. science, nor ms itt w,wsdon1:~ nor even. .lm.owmedge,: it is a. meditation on what knowle)d,ge 'is o'VaUable., This is why you cannot learn ph:rn~os.o'pbf., according' to Kant: you [can on~y learn to

.1

,

[I

h"1 h~ H ''''!!'8 b·1 h 'p ,. l·iir b

P } ,osop nze, ow r .iY p:_ IUOSOp lzmn.g yourse lI!:: 'f

thinkin,g about your own. t~houghts; 'i'he thougbt$ of others, the woddJ society, about what experience has, taught. you, and 'what. it hasn't taught :you i • • llo.pefuUy" in doing SO~ you wUi come across a. work by some. professional philosoph.er along, th.€ way. In this way you 'wiIDl think better, more pro.f,oiundly." more deeplY'~ 1l0ilJ wi~ , get fs'rther';, faster, Such ,8; philosopher, Kant aad·ed. t shoul.dl not be considered a, .m:ode.~ o.f judgement, but simp~;y an (lp:portunity to make a judgement of him, even

.' . h'· J ·N·· . 'L~:'m , .. -·h!· _ .. ' ir beha l'~ 0·:£"

,agrunst. !lm '" ~'. 0< one can. :p.UJl.wOSOp 12e 'On your ~I e .. ·· : t~'·····

course philosopby has, .iul specialists, ru:ts J?J!lJ{re:ss,.~.o.nals:t its teachers, But it :';$1 not first and foremost ,8 speciallty ~ nor a job nor a univeirs'ity: :. course; it is an intesral P art of

I· ':]i ~'!!""!I'.. ' .• -,' - . ~. . ," ..• _. _. '." • •• - •• '~.. .

h ,. . S . _. 'ft . d · 'iL.. L . 'h- ]"'.c' .. _ d

[··'Uman ,existen.ce, .. ~I.ul!ce 'we are gjL~·e i Wi[t~~ uoL_i .~[!e an

reason, :it inevitably OC:CUIS b) an of us to [combine these :fac~.ddes. Of course it is· possible to think. 'without. phHosophiziing (in the sciences, fOir example}, 'to .Iive without p,bdosophizin,g (in moments o:f stupidity OI passion). But .it is i:m:possible~ unless you phffilosophize, to ·th"nk you:r life or to live your thoughts. f~)r [hat is what

hil h· p osop .. Y is ..

B'· 'm '"]11 "'111 b" 1 -"'. h _ he 'ill.. l·.l l'~' .

- IOlO.gy 'WID· nev;er tt[e1 a " 1[0 o~st . ['Ow ~.,;e SJiI.OU, U .. w,re;!,

whether he sn.ould live" or even whether he should study biology. The human science's MIl nev:el' tdl you what humanity- is worth,. G,( 'wbat they themselves are worth, This is wh.y we· must p,hnosophJze~ because we need to think ,about. the thin,gs. 'we know" the things we experience, the ·t:hin,gs, we destre, questions 'which

knowledze alone cannotanswer or dismiss, Allt 'f R,eIDiQi~ion?

~l I~

po~itircS 7 These are impoetant subj;ects~ but subjects

whicll the mselves must be questioned" And as $0 on as you begin to question them" [10 think about [bern deeply, you step outside the subjects themselves:' you take: a, step '" -h~'[ , "'h N ' h 'Ji, nh -" , '" '[d de J 'i,L_,iI" mto prJ.OSOp,'IY., 0 pr 1JJOS'Op ,er W()U", 'en~ .. 'Im~

philosophy .itselF should be questioned, But to ,question

bil hv is nott ' '.I .. ' b ,,- , . "d-

P' 10S0:P iy is not to :step' outside n. but to step InS]'! if:+.

What path should one ta,ke? I 've taken the onJy path I: am, really famlllar with: that of Western philosloplby,. This does. not mean that there are no others .. To phtlosop] iz,e

is to Iive by reason. which Is universal, Why should philosophy he the preserve of any particular group of .

~"""E kn h h her snl I

peopte t ,-' veryone '.~_ iows ~ at tl ," ere are' otn e spintua

and speculative tradinons, notably in the East. But :it Is impossible to Ideal 'with everything;, and i,t, 'w,ou~d be somewhat ridiculous for me l[OI attempt to present Eastern philosophy,", 'which J. lar:ge~y know only at second hand. I do not .for a. moment beJfev;e that philosophy is eich.jer exclusively Greek '0,[ excluSive:my 'Western. B, t~ like most people, I beJi,eve that there bas been a great

'h'·'I h" 'II[ d-'" ," t, "W'" "b" ri " " 'h h

p []OSOP _ Ileal tra, lnon. sn the ,'es:t ". egmmng 'Mtl t ne

Greeks, and. it is towards this" through this, [[bat E 'would

~i"'I__ ld d Th 'b ' 'f' th' ,

nse 'to guu i e my rea er, , ::~ e ~re'Vlty 0' , Ii e pieces

themselves belies the vast ambition of these preludes, I n

. 'h ]d h '. · 'I ch; 'h '"

a 'w,ay", It snouio excuse their Inc,o,mp eteness, wmcn rs

pa,rt !of the deftnirion 10.£ a prelude i

'To lw,ve by reason, I. said, This indicates, the path - philosophy' ~ but could never exhaust it~s content.

Ii'

I

"rJ_ ... L' .~ - B'" "k- '-~t'p'· 'iL '~'~" ' LJ' ' J; w:., 'tt"se ',00., ~i .'..,n:!.:t'()SOPrfir xv

PhUosoprby' is a, Iradi.cal quesUoning" a sea 'cb fo,t a g~,obal 01' ultimate truth (and not - as, in the sciences ~' a particular truth); it entails the, dev;e:iopment and use ,of concepts (even though this is elso a, part of other

..JI'" "1' ) ,iIrII ,', h- "hr ,(., •. :IL", 1'~~: ' "b- iii- t'l'.. nind

ulS,Clp mes, ~ re]]l,elQVe tn OUl,g 'I t ,W1nHJIn,g a ,QU ~ me rmnc

and a'bout reason. dlinkin,g abour thinking) t meditanng on one's history and that of bumJanity; it is a search fur the greatest possihle coherence, the ~eatest pos,s'lble rationality (i t ~s the art. of r-eSt5'O'D t if you. like, htl t :~t also

1 d h f I' "') .. ~

ea .. s to t, Ie art 0" ,uvrn:ng,l; sometimes it creates, systrems,

but always it e.1(ttapo,~,ate51 theses, ,arglllm.ents ~ theodes , , , Philosophy is also = perhaps ,first and fOl'e;mvst ~ a

.' · f' ']1' !It '''..J' "d' i' AI' -]-

critique 0< 1, ussons, or plreJJU~J"I'Ce'.Sj' or I "leo ogles. ' "

:I)rhnos(G;phy .~s a battle. Its weapon? Be as 0 n, Its enemies?

S' ~d-" t: " b " t, h'l h

:tup~,[, ,~tyJ tanaticism, @scura:ntls'm - or tne p (l~O:SOPY

f 1_ I l]~") Th .. -I bi '" 1:'1 hi

0' o i,ner.s'. Its a ,'leS,rr 1[, e sciences. ' ts S:I!J ~,ecti ~,veryt ,'lIng"

"~ , , d . hi · 0" b' 'h'

witn man containec ,\Yi[ lin 1t.., ., ~r man, :'U ~ wu:: [In

'IL • 11' m..., W" , d haool 'ilL h-

,everytJun,g. ns ,g0f,tw r' ": .. is , • om: n appUle SS witn tru t "

In practice the subjects, of philosophy are numberless. nothing wh.ich is human, nothing which is true ,is, alien 'to it. This does not mean that ~d~ are o,f equal importance,

, " C f L ., h fl" Id f'

Kant, m a rameus passage 0', ogtC ~ sums. up me e ',0'-

h'"l h ith [' ," '1:]',11r_ ~, l' 'l_ ~, II'n~ - '

P I:W ioscp ';.y wit '~. rour questions: V~!\f.ui1. ,can ' ,R.nowrvt'nat

j'_~_,.,~..1' 1 d ? 'lIWut- ,- Iwp ~ 'I''I'n~ ~ , 7 ' he f

rnvDtu. "i1,' ".:-';; m:h1ll' : mer ~vnat fS man " . toe nrst

.l! . __ ~ .. '. tI'.I'-..r/ ~ _ ',~.' . I" _. • • _., __ I II!! !I 'Ii ., i • ~

three que stions relate to the last, he remarks" But aU of'

h =1 Id dd' I d fi "ft' b h" h h'] hi ='~I 1-'

t em, _. wOU ,: a" ,[ ',"' eac to.a rt I W'" ic ~!:" P ,-II_,OSOP' iJ.rCW Y

and humanJy j' is. probah'ry the most important; How skouU

I 1'· ." i\ ", h .' ,

= ,',iva! nS, soon as one tnes to answer tr IS quesnon

jnteJligent~y, one begins to philosophize. And: since it is

impossible not to pose the question, we have to conclude that we can. avoid philosophy only through stupidity or

b ·

," I. 'I' .... J ".- - ••.••

o scurantism.

Should we phUo"sophize? As soon as the ques don is

ask ed 0- ill'" 3' t ~""""3IS,··t' ~.:;'i so '0: n Q ~ W' D 4-ro to anew' e r it 'W" e 3111";IfQ.

~.;;iI\ 11;..-,_ ',' ',:10 ", l!l, ..... a a;;:j, ii:I', .'" CiII,~ '~I~"j, _ ...... ~J ,.;::1'_' .:lip, ' __ . ' i!L'I!,;O

~l~ready philosophizlng, 'This does ,not mean that p:h.Uolsoph.y can be red! ced to s.elf-interrog,atio,n, ,~et alone

," ," '1 f .' , ,tI"'E"~ '. atio 'TI:' ',', - . .... te t £; - b ·t .. '....... or - ·0' S Q

ro sen '-J us, aca _ ~,on. o some ex, en ~,.or .8, ,~, _f W nrs '~~

we philcsophize eiVlery' time we think (both rationaU.y and . 'd"" ,~iil )" ab '.--.. th - .-- ,- ,md ·b - . h .. 'I ·~t ib ,- ," Fa lcaWJ!Y a .out the won" I,~ at out numarn :Y'i,. about

happiness, about justice, ahout death, about G,od." about KnO\\-fledge ... And. how c,ou:~d we not? Man. is a p.hi~o:sop hieal animal: he can renounce 'phi losophy only' if he renounces a part. of his. humaniry.

Therefore we mu st philosophtae. we must think as far' as we possibly can, and further than what we know. The purpose? A, life that is more humane, more lucid, more

+ ~'~I ~I f'" Wh' "'II '

:se'rlene~ 'm.'OII,e ranonal, mo.re fUlppy" :more . ree ... '. ',' 'at

we' traditionally can W~~ sdorn - happiness. without illusions or IDies '_ is, it something we can attain? Probably not entirely, But this should not stOPI us fr-orn strivm:ng :for

f- loser to 'Phil hv,' 11',..

lr, nor rom coming ,c, oser t10 it, ',' i osop . y; wrote .I\{int,

<i],." .' , ~ st .', '.' fo - --,-,' d' ','. ,-, -h"· '·h :.", :"" '. -,' ': .:,' .'~ ji.," ~

is man s s nvmg or Wl$J, om, W.IC,. is ever meompieee,

Al~il th . , ., " , --'~'" '-,' '( +oil!-' d ", - " . di ,"'- t .j ,-

.~ 'I., e more reason to g:e. starre imme J;)~.'e-:.wym

'P'h"'~II' ls ab hl '~ . .:: b" "' d' li bet

, - i.' w~osop' I ,Y IS a out I " In.Kl:n.g :" etter In. orLe[' to lve :, etter +

Ph' "10 C" - - 'h' . th ' '~I,. 'WI" sdo m- the PD ,,- - e-

, ,: ]] .'~ sop r 'Y IS, e worK]', " ~,' ,':.'.1: 1J,.nJ.',. ... epose '",

'1:Ii.fL '. hil h .." TIL I'

'IV nat IS pr l. 050.P'. Y r '. nere are a rnost as 'many

answers as there are philosophers. 'This does not mean

h ... :IIL d h· l S' '~ .'

t at 'ooey -' 0 not agree on tne essennats, omce my

.,:I,,,'

-' .

~ . -" "1'0

.

'c"

,~ .

The L'it:tle Book, of-.Philosoph,

student days I have a]wa:ys had a particular ,fnndness for

E ,,~, 'Phil h" . .. hi h

, PICU[US answer: -, ,~. III osopr if ~s an activity, w :'1C' ~

thr-ough discourse and reasonmg, procures for us a. hapPY'

I",f' .!' Th' d f' ·1IL.,dl '~L b " 'BL •

tre . ).:~S ( __ ennes p,m.~osOp.ny 'f' Its greatest actnevement

(wisd.omJ ~).~is;s) and it is, better to define it thus, even if the achievement is. never absclute, than to confine it to its failures. .. Happiness is the: goal, philosophy ~h.e. path. B'Qin,~ge!

This translation follows dl€ French convention. of' using the masculine plfonollD 'hewhen :referring to people In general; it should. of COli rse Ibe read to include people of 'both. SmtI!S ..

i

I I

, I

,j

.1

Noteon t:h- e Translation

. ..,:":",, : ," : ,- 11· ~~ .. :~>:, .. ,_.'~. t_ •••• ,.'".r;

1: Ethics

ill; is better to be a. hu man being unsatisfied than ,3 pig satisfied; benei to be Socrates unsatisfied than ,8J '1001 satis,fied. And if'dl,e £'001 0[' the P,II .~s of a different,

•.• •.• 'IIL .. _ ' h 1, L_ l..' n ..JI f

oplnlo:n~, u. ,~S, oeeaase ~ '. le.y onlY J;!l;JIi],oW 'bwe1f OW-TIl s~tte 0'" .

dl€ ques,tion~ The other, to make the comparison, understands both sides,'

People have the wrong, idea about ethics, .. It does not exist pdmar;',~y' to punish, to repress,;. tOI condemn. There are ICouI1'S~ p ohce and prisons for that and no one would. 'c~ajm ·lih.ey ar-e governed bly pure morali tv. Socrates died in prison, but he ,d~ed more free: than his judges. It is here, perhaps, that ph]~().:sophy begms, It is, here that ethics begins, ceaselessly, in each of us: at the point where no 'p'll ni.s:hmenm: is possible, no sanction is, effective, no condemnadon - at ]eas:t no external

, I

I I

condemnatton - is necessary, Ethics begins 'when we are free. it is freedom ~ts.eH~ when that f.ree,do.m is, considered ,and controlled.

]. hi C'-D k ~d lik ]' n a s op, you see a, :._' _ '. or a jac et 'you . ,P. "f!: to steal

... but there's ·3. security ,guard 'watching YOU;, or maybe' there's a CC1V system, ormaybe you're just scared o,f being caught, of being .P;u nished j' of being condemned '. ~ , This is not honesty; it .~;s self-interest, r t is not ethics; it is caution .. Fear ,of the po}i[ce is the opposite of virtue', 0.[' it :i;s; the virtue of prudence.

Imagine, on the othe-r band, that you had the' ring 'that pma,to wrote about, the famrJus. ri:~g of [C:yges~ which enables f'Ou. to become invisible at mIl . '0 • It was a magical ring, discovefcd by a shepherd i A11 he had to do was turn. the stone towards the palm of his hand to become ,comp.lete~y invisible." and turn i': back to beCOID[e

~ '·b~ - _. G _. h ~ - . "1 ,'IL.- h d - d' .-

V.I:S.]j ~ !IJ.e ,8,gamn . ,.' -' 'yges, w .. ,0 unti then ,ar ,appe'ar-e.·., to

be an :honest man I' couldn't resist the' temptations offered by tbe r""ng.!, be used its maglcal powers "-0 enter the palace, seduce the q ueen, assassinate the kingj, seize power for 'himself and exercise .it e.J«:!us,)vely for his

L fl'" l' Pl - " R"," hi'· th 111. lk.

nenet t ' .. ' . JJn ! lato s '_epu,~. rc.: ie person tel lng, tnestory

,conclude:s that. whae d~stin.gu~shesl a .. good man from. a bad man" or those who appear 'CIO be good or bad, IDS sim·pty. prudence: and ~yp'Oc~ris.y; in other words, it is ,eidher the ino,ro.ina,te significance a ~good man' attaches to other' people' S opimons, or his ability to conceal his wickedness

I'~ 'IL - . h ~h .~ .. .J1 d h 0 'I'~ ed d

• '"., '11 bott t: e gooa man an. t ne M,CW>. man possessed

Gy,g~e.s,' ring" there would be notbing to di-sting.u:~sh them;

.t

, L ~ .

• r

I

. i

[

[

I !

The Lit.t r ~ B,.· ·~~k· £li1: Phj los.op" -- hJl" 3'·,-'

. . lei', . ~~. _ v.. ' .. ' . ,.1, "': .•

. ' ~ . [

'bo .... L ~d~' :r ·~Il- l. "Th· . -

''cIUJ wour IlO,iIOW tne same course I ns IS to suggest

.' 'mL ~. ~. L· . I - .J]'. I' h '.. iii: d d

that etmcs IS mere yan l:.JU 5:WO:I1~ a ie, t .~.t It 1.5. :I[ear I resse

up as v.ilirtue., 1 t suggests 'that if 'we on~y had the power to

.. 1_.~ - I ., '. ibl ]m t, ~1.J.J'· d

make ourserves InVWSl.~; ,e" a ~ taboos WOUu, tlI.msapp ear an .

e:veryo.ne "fouldl attempt. only to satisfY the;~r persiona~ :pieasure,s: or serve their own interests.

Is this true ~ Plato." of course ~ tbou.ght not. B lit. you do~l" t. have to be ,8, Platonist . , ., The on~,y- valid response, inasmuch as it con-cerns .YOUr. Is within. you". Imagine ~.

his i tho .... ~ . . oF "'h' 't...... 'L

t is IS, a .'- .. ug~.Jl experiment _, nnagme ~,' at you nave tne

.... - - - -W' rL...- . . .... ~lld . _., d· !! .... ·C'Wh'·· -' .'. lld~ , ., -. - d - ....

,nng. . nat WOUJL you I-Oir' .,::. at WO~l, .you not nor

WiouID.d. you continue to respect other people' s p.roperty ~ for €XB.mp.~e~ their privacy, their secrets, their freedomJ

th 'Jli"' • h-" I" .... N' .f - h

_ err digmty, t ieir nvesr .1····.0 [one can answer ror you: t ae

question concerns you alone, but it concerns you entirely, Anyth~ng '[hat you. do not do now but would permit yourself were you ~nvjs~.b.1e owes less to ethics than it does to prudence or h.ypoc.dsy .. Om tbe other hand, that which you would still require of yourself or forbid.

If' . fe, . • lbl I-w lf

YiiJurse r ~ even 1- 'you were mvisio e ~ 'DO~ out -0. se I··~'

interest, but from a sense of d.u'ry -ltih.al alone is strictly moral, 'You r send has its tOY chstone. Your moraJity has its touchstone by whl ch YOILl judge yourself., Your morality i-s that which you require: of yiou self, not because: of what others might think, nor because of some external threat, but in the name of a. particular conception of g,ood and evil, of dut) and of proscription, of what is. acceptable and unacceptable, of 'humanity and of yourself, In practical terms; moralm.ty is the s nn total of the rules to

,I

:. !

which y:.Oll 'woumd submit, ~n were 'WliU tnvis"ble' ,and

,,' , " ,- . .. - , . 'l' .,., ,. ,,', _.. .I" "'" _. _. ,. , ..1 .- - '- --

. . ~'~-~'~nVt~i,vw"

:fs: that ,a, lot? Is :rnt a H~der That is, for vou to! decide, I:f

,J" "....

'You could make yourself :~n:visib~e W'I)tdd you condemn sn

innocent man, far ,ex8'mpillej or betr-ay ,a friend, beet a

h"'l-j 'td d- .... 0·· 'I

c 1 (JE,~ 'W'OUl~·' 'Yin] ,ra,pe, torture, mur err .• , .. , '0 ,f you can

answer; your ethic s depends entirely on YOUEr answer, Even thou:gh. YOUl don't have the ring,. that doesn't prevent yeu ,from tbinki,ng~ ju.dging" ,a,C'tJng, If there is ,(1 d,ffiffer,ence -, bevond ap':"r' earances, benveen the viUmn and

~ 'l'""!,, - -'~'![" .. ' . " . ,. ,~ - . ,. , . \ -, .,' ",' '--

the honest man, :~t Is tha~~ fOI' the latter, what others think is. not everything, prudence is. 'not eve'rythi,ng. This is the wager oif ethics, and ,ruits ultimate so~itude'~: aU ethics connects us ro others j' but also connects u s to (Jurse~ve~s",

-T' . .., , 'iIl..:! ,~m- ''', , IL'" 1-' .' 'IL "d' f' 'L_

,~O act 'f;twH.!cau.y rus'jo 'QOV,IDOU,S; ¥, to ee consi erate 0',' tne

. f-:' h' 'L_;(. b .JII b ·~'il d

interests or ot ers, but Ul1@ -:: serveo ~ry' ei;Ui,es ,g():, s O:f,'

men' '- ,as PIa-to. puts It, that is to say Vl,iJthout hope' o.f

rd " L., " , b l'f'

rewa __ or pumsnment, requ mng no one' ~,ut onese to

witness the: act, Is it ,8, w,a.ger7 Maybe I've expressed mySie'~f' bad:~y~, since the answer, once a;ga,in., depends entireJy on you, It is not a gamble, itis a choice, 'Only' you kno,w' what you should: do, no nne elsie' can make the

j .. if' Th 1'·..J d f" h h

nectsron tor you. ,,:,c!e so nude an , power Oi ' et iics is t " at

you are only as good as the good, that you do) as the ,€;vU,

t, ......... ,C' '!',~ doi ]'i1i' h th d L

tnat YOill rerram [tom .•. ~ .'Olngj, a jJ witn no O'ttl·· er rewar [nan

the satisfac tion ,_ even If no one ever knows of it - of

'I!... '.JI d

ua.vffi:ng, o one, gooc '.

TI'.." '. h _ S,· '. b '~A 'n.] nIS IS W"I at epmoza means oy reason. Act 'we1,[ and

"" 9' Thi 0' '''~' f-' 'H·- b h

,"" .11" "', I .... ,". • . . " '. -, - .. ",. I' _, ',. _, • .-.-~,-, .-. -,. ,_, •. .." ", _., __

,reJ oice, , IS IS reason rtse I .• ' '" ow can you ne , a,PP'Y

)' "

{ ,.

I i I I

, ~ r~

!I,

'!L': '

l "

~'

1'<1.

~ ..

c.

,

I 1

"ilJ,Il~,e,s\s, you have :510'm,e self-respect? And how' can you. ~[)eSlpeC~ ]rouflself u nless you control yOllrse.~'f1 master

'~f J!:] ....' h 'L n

y()utSel:~ OV(~tlcom,e, your :~'ai :~n,g,sr T re t)a.~~ is, in your

court" ,as they say,; but n~ s, not a, g,ame~ still less an exhi:bith)I1 march. This is YGUr li:fe,; :Fight here, right :n(PN'~ you are what you do~ Eth~ca]ly speaking, ,j:f:s; pointless wishing you were someone: else, You can dream of being rich, healthy ~ good-looking, happy . , .' But it :rns absurd to dlre',am of being villrtuou:s,,, W,bethcr you are a vi1~ajn or a ,g:oodJ person is for you and you tdoo,e ~.O decllide;, you are 'won'h, precisely what you want.,

'Alhat is ed'd,c's f It is the' S'IlJ,m, total of those things that an individual imposes on :himself or denies himself, not primarily to further his own welfare' or happiness _, that wou:~.d be, nothin_g more 'than, egotism - but in consideratlon ,o.f the, interests or the rmght s of' others" in order 'to ,aw,fd. 'being: s, vJUain., In or-der to ,stay true, to ,9. certain, conception of humanity and of' himself, Edli,cs Is the

'h· ·W"iIL - 'L Id 'I' d "', 11' h

aln$W€t' to. the question:> hat S,nO'U •. .. ~irl JJ.t is ti, €: sum

of m:v dut~es." in other words .of the: ]mpeo.tives which I beJ~eve to be, legitimat,e' = even ]£ from time to time, as everyone: does.. break them, It is the .Jaw 'w,hil(;h I .impose - or whieh I should impose '~ upon :m,yself~ in.'dependently of the judg;ement of others and of ,any expectation of reward or sanction,

'ilIIL t, ld 'if d '"'\, d ,''t'JiJ1.. UL l.l -h d-I "",II

V'ti'~tat. s\u.ou~;_, ,~,_,-or an not: v'Vnat SnOU u, others .. Or

T·Ih..· • h' do'.' . 'h . hi 'f" ~'" '.

HIS IS, w1.Ja:t I ~ 1stlngunL tes eL~lCS l_ rom morawIDZlng ...

'Ethics,' according to AJain.~, lis, never fo!:r. one' s oejghbour~:: someone who is preoccupied by his, neig,hbour"s duties is

not moral f but ,8 moralizer, Is t possfble to Imagine a more unpleasant person, a more pointless task? ,EthiC's, is leg~dmate on:~y in the flrst person singuja:r. ITo say' to someone: You ought to be generous' displays no genercstty, To say: You should be brave' iSI not an act of bravery. Ethics, is valid only ~or oneself duty applies 'Only 'to oneself, F or O't~hers r. compassion and the law are enough.

Besides, who can know another's intentions" his reasons or his me'l~ts'? N one can be morally j u dged lexcept by God~ jf be exists, or by himself - and that is .suf6cien't" Have 'YOU been sle~fi.sh?' Have you. been. Icowa.rdly? Have 'Y'OU! taken. ,advMtaoe of an.other-"s weakness, his distress,

.0' . ._. . .. ~."'.." ,.'. '. . '~. . ."

his innocence ( Have you lied, stoJenj! r.a.ped~ 'YO! knC)W

al~ too well, and that :se~f-know,ill€d.ge. i~, what 'we can conscience. F rom an ethical standpoint, it ~s the only judge that matters, A trmaJ?- A fine'? A prison ~H~ntence? These are' the tra,pp'~ngs of human justice: nothlng but a matter lof pohce ,and Ia,wyers~ .Hlow ma.ny thugs are 'w:a.lking :free?' How' many honest men in prison? You Ul~.y be ,able: b) sq uare YOWlrse~f wi~h. the la,ws of soc~ety~ 'and no doubt you should, But that does not exempt you from. squaring yourself with youlse~f,. 'with your conscience, 'whfch is, .on. fact 'You r on~,y true law,

..

"

..

-.

I .r'

...

AI· 'Fh'" th . - ~ . - 'iI!.... • , h . d ~ "d ]' ....

e b ; ere .. l.en as, manY' eto:mlcs as t, ere are :1 n::: i:VI .. ua .s (I

A- b ~l . ~l This i h d .'

- _.:.80. ute:lIIy not. ,,' Is is the 'p,ara~.ox: of ethics,';' it applies

on~y' in _ the first person singular, 'but it ~;~.~o applies

.' ~'r' 'h d h 1-.

UDliVerS31 y", In ot ier woros to every inman ,oeing (sinoo

TL .... L;"'t'l,- B' ;p'~.t p~= ,,~ . ...:L . 7' .I ,r;ee:' ~. J,I.:U::: "oo~ oJ . atr.Osop,nJ' :

b ..: ;j;) Th I 'h

every' human . elng, is an 'I •• ,. '1. ,at" at east, ·~s, i,O-W we act.

We :b.tow that in practice ethics. m,ay differ depending, on

:I' d t" .. ']L . ,. PI" d the era i;· -- h' 'IL. one

ones e.·· ucauon, me 'Socme1iY an. ., e ~.' m w ~ len ',.' ;" .'

lives, the ctrcles to which one moves, the culture with

1.. .. ' .. ~h . '11 -~~ ~ . Th' , .', .'. b··· .], -+"'" . thics .. ,--

W.uJC: one: identmes . "" "ere IS no 8: so.w U ~ Ie. lCS·~ or

at least none that anyone can fully know But 'W -I en I abstain from, cruelty, racism or murder, it is not simply a.

':f' 1 c hi ln h

quesnon o~ persona :p:r,ererenlce,. some,", mg WI ,~c "

depends on ,wndiviiduaJ tastes. It is, essentially, a, question of the s urvival of - and the dignity. of = society as. a who.~e,

• .. :II!.. =..l f h . f" .,ri, ·

In otner WOfuS 0 ' humanity, 0:", C1JVllZatlon.

'If everyone hed, no. one would believe anyone an.y

1 £.. iIId b "'"hI 1-1-

onge;r: in act j.t WOUru- I. eenme lmpossm:' e even to ne

(since lying presupposes the trust wbi!ch it betrays) and ,aU cemmunicadon 'would become absurd or futile.

If everyone stole, life in society would beco:me tmpossible or miserable: there would no longer be anyconcept 0(1' ownership, no] wen-bein,g for.' anyone and nothing le::ft. to steal . . .

If" - l~.::n.J 'ill... -- .--. ",- ·d· :~. '.'11' '::. .. the ,

r everyone KJ.w.weu, numamty an ~. ctvinzauon t em-

selves would 'be on. the road to min; there would be. nothmng but violence and .fear" and we would all be

_. ... . . -- . f. '.. . . ....1 . - '. . r\..... 'L~'1-] " ,

Vl.Ctlm,s 01-'1 OlUS~,ves:, tne kr .'er.s. ~ , .

These are on~y hypotheses, but they mke us to the crux of what. ethics is. You want t.o· know whether an act is: virtuous or repreh e·' n ·~,~;'b;~e) A·· -~l{ y: 0-' 'U· 'I"~le-~f.· , wha :It hfe would

'''~ ,I..w. ~v ,"~-·,IJ,~ .. -,;;:'.I·,W, III rI;I!.~,., .. _,"'ri;'! 'tW ,'.11.. •. ••

.. ,

b m"ke . If· '-b h d . d Wh':, ,h· "'M'd~

e lik .... r everyone nenavec ,as you ~O,.:··, en a ct ~l' .

h hewi ,. h .. . ~ rtf' trows c .i ewmg-gu m In the street ,. parents say: II ~

everyone behaved like you imagine all the rubbish there'd

8 A,- -- :1....£ C",- . S· 'l~ = '. 'n4t.1 e: ". omt.e:= .. ·l'tJnvtue

I I

,II

formulated, h.y .ROUS:~H:~:au) "roue h less perfect, but perhaps more u s ·e·f'u; 1 than the former: D.Q g"v-ad w 1100158·1'" with as

.. iJ..'~ ' .. ,', ._- IL.·". ,",' I.!. .~. ~~'... ', .. 1,_".' , •• , • J"' ~. , -.1.', .

little ,os~h,le: .na,rm to ,othefi~~ It is, at least in part, to live. fo[ 01 hers, or rather for oneself, 'but a self whwch l:eaSQDS

...1 th 'L - iAlr- ~ Al' -; •. .' .]11\ ~. 'TI L· •

anu,'.~' inks ~ , .... - one 1 says . '. aln:p 'Unlrve:rsa~.!Iy . ~. . uIS ~s

hat ethi "

w at etmcs ~S~

.00 we need a. basis to justify. this ethi·cs? It is not

necessary, nor perhaps even possible. A ·ch.rnld is drown ing. Do you need to justify' your decision to save him: .A tyrant massacres, op'presses.:r tortures ., . ~ Do you. need to j~sdfy your decision to ,oppo(se him.? Such ,3; basis could only be an iDcu.ntestablle truth which would g~ar:antee [be. value of our values: it would. ernlble u So to proveJ even to someone 'who does. :not share OIJlJ:r- values, that we are wight and he is 'wrong .. But in order to Idol this we 'would have to 'provide ·8 basis ·FOIr reason ~tselfl and that Is something which we cannot. do, 'What proof is posslble witbout a prio.r principle which wou~d in turn ba.vl€ to 'be. proveni In ,any esse, 'what basis can there be for a morality' which.potS:tu·~ates, the very .mor,ality which it sets out to prove'? How' can we prove tOI a person wh.o prizes seIfwshn,e·ss OIVeI genef.os.j~ty'~ :~y.ing over honesty, violence and cruelty over gentleness and ccmpassicn, that he is w.rnn.8t and what 'would it mean. to him if we could:? Why shou ld someone who ~hinks only of ·h .. imself care about reason r Why. would someone who lives only for himseff care about universal prmctples? VJh.y w:ould someone who, does not hesitate to vi();~ate the freedom of othCl'$" the djgnity of others, the liives of others pay the shghtest

be j! wouldnjt it be horrib~e for you and for everyone else]' Imagine .~ at the extreme -- that everyone ~iesJ eve;ryone . ldUs;" everyone steals, rspes, assaults, tortures .. , ,Ho,w could anyone wish for such a. world? How could you Ms~h such a thing on ')lOur children? How then. can you exempt yourself 'from whalt you wish for? You must rherefore abstain from those things Wh:fCh you would condemn in others or eLse refrain flom he~ievm:ng, yourself to be g.uided by the ul1tversa~., that ls to sa:)' by reason and the .mwnd. This is the cm.c:ial point: to be moral is to submit ourselves. to a IDaw whi.ICh we he'beve applUes ,. or' s,bo,uild apply J to' all.

This is the suhstance of the fa,mOtu.s Kannan expression of the categorical Imperative in Fou.ndations IOj'the Metal"nysics of M:Qfub: '~Act o.n~y on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should be·come a universal I91W.~' It is: to ace. as humanity mjj.ght act, rather than as j";]wtde old me', to .ft)UoW one's reason rather than one" s inclinaltions or one's s.elf -mterest, An action is good on.~y jf the pnneip]e which sustains it l( the. ~'mmm~) could app1y' ~n practice to everyone:. to act mor,~llIly is to ,SCt. in such a manner that you wOIU~d wish that everyone might submit to those same pnnciples .. This corresponds to the s.pirit of the Oospels, or indeed the sp,~rillt of humanity (since comparable ideas are D)t be found in. [other religions), what Bousseau refer to as the 'sublime maxim': 'De unto other-s as you wou.ld. have them. ldo unto you.' It corresponds, OO~ 'though more modestly and more clearly ~ wiLh the spirit of compassion, once ,agajn

" ,

I

!

L

I

I

I I

t"J!'1__ L' .l.pll~,:n .' 1_ J. p.L . J.~ .. ' .... 'h' . ,1. ne . ,,~iUe ,DOG',,, I~~'-' nt,wSop ,Y

attention to the principle of non-contradictieni' ,And 'why if we are to do battle lNi.th him, would we need arguments to refute hwm? Horror cannot be refuted. E vi~ cannot 'be refuted. In the war against vi,o;~ellee.1 against cruelty, ,ag:ainst barbarism we: need courege rather than

, 'L • ]' b . A del d di 'r I'"~

an etmcat ~aSlS, /',n:.C ror ourse ves, we nee, '~~lS'C~p, me

d-'!; 1 h - I _JI- !Ii:'

an , :fOYSL Ity rat ,:' er than an, lethi.cat basis ~or out actions.

What is essential is to prove. that we are not unworthy of what human ity has made of Itsell, Why should we need' a basis or a, safeguard for this.'? 1,Iow could such a thing; be possible II 'WiU is s,ufHcien[" and is worth ,far more.

~E 'h" ~ ,,,.', A]'-" rr. • , t f_,~ '" ·L._" .

:u~'wcs. wntes "'~aln~ consists or ,tl!.tWOWlng tnat one ts

f' h ' d 'il f" 'bJ d' b "I ~!

o t te spirit and, theretore, is 0 -I, igatec a -:soIute~~.y;

' .. ' '~~'l~. '. 'I':",J'·'·, 'Th' - '.., . -. hi .'. . , ' . " . -. . , " 'h ,. ,- t, '

noy~s'Se (JDf"tge. '" nere IS not ung more to let ~ I~C S ~,[ ian

, f;1' d'" jo E -h' . ,11:'

one s sense 0' one s own ,I ID,g.nlty'~ - t ics ,IS a respect lor

~ h ' ,JJ1L f'th Th" d '

ones o-wn numamty ano tnat 0'; or aers, ".I us ~ oes not

- ' 'r. 'h J:C d .' I " 1.. ffu" ' . h

come wuhout se "1Il- emai, wttnout errc rt, lAfI~: out

struggle., It req uires YOll to denY' that part of you which

d- h' k h" h' h . 1__ 1 f" .. If"

I oes not tnmk, or W' 'u::1 . trunks on Y' 0 ttse r. t requires

you to, refuse = or a t ~,eas:t rise above ~ your own violence, your' own selnshness,~ your own baseness, It requires you to strive to be a man or a, woman and, '[0 be. wo,rthy of it.

"II[ G d d' . I f' 'D' In~j. h

u 1·,:',O~I: oes not extst, 'One O,tlostOyevsA)":S C ·:',anu;ter.s

says, 'then everything is permitted.' Bnt ,tIlls is not true, since, w,hether or not you be,heve in IGod., you do not permit you.rself everything: ev~f1;hing _, including the worst - would. be: unworthy oif 'YOU I'

A, believer who respected ethtcs merely in the hope of heaven or the fear of heU 'w'Ould not be vlrtuou s: he

I •

,I

wou d simply be selfish and. prudent. Someone who does good only that he may be saved, to paraphrase Kant, does no. good, and win not be saved. That is to .say [hat an action is, good, ethically :spealting" only on condhion that it does n.ot depend, as Kant .says t on the result expected from, that actlon', It is at. this point that 'we com€ tOI modernism, or -secularism (in the most positive sense, the sense: in whlch ,8;, 'believer can be as seen ~ar as an a:theist)l. It is the s,p:wr~t ,of the French Enl~gbt.enment philosophers. The splrit ,of Blayle) of Voltaire, of Kant. Religion :i,SI not the' £oundat~ on. of' ethi!cs; rather it is ethics which provides the 'foundation. for ~ which justifies ~ religion. It is not because: G'od exists ,that .I should do ,gQod; it is because I mu st do good that I may need - not to feel virtuous, but to. esca,lP e despair - 'to believe in Ood ~ It, is not because' God commands something: that i~ is g.ood; :it is because a, commandment is morally g:o (lid tha.t r' can believe that it comes from. God. 'Thus. ethics does not preclude be~ief; in fact, as Kant say;s~~ it. gives rise to religion 'But. it is :not dependent upon, it, nor can it he' reduced merely to j.'t, Even mE IGod shou~d not exist, even :wf there were nothing, after death, that 'would. not exempt you &um d,oiing your duty) mn other words, from actmng

,. 'Il,.~

compassaonatery,

~N'ottdn,g IS so beauti£um.~ so right,' wrote Mon1Cii,gn,e" 'as acting as a. man should,.~ One's only duty :~s' to be human, (in the sense In. w hich to be human: is not :merely to be, a species of an~maj,~. but to act in the light of the collective lrn,£.fwie:dge of civifiz,atii.~)n) ~ the only 'virtue is to 'be human,

i

I,'

I

: :

_

" "

'!!~ "

and th ds I~:~ som ''f:'I'tL']'--:-:'g'" which no one ,i!'''''ll'1Ijii do on Yi'nIl'lr

• .j. 1 ;;, 'Y._,";'. Wi.O _. . u , ,,'IU_" ~ !",o1!;!l·U U 'ILI-. .' vu,

b 'h' lf

e'I'la' '

, !II,

This does. not rep. alee happiness, whi.lch is. 'wby ethics is not everythin,g. It doe's not replace love, which is why ethics, is. not: the most i~piortant thing, :But happiness

d _m....' 11 ~ 1 f"f' .,

oes n'ot make <t any 1!!e$S necessary, I or is ove su ncient

1- ' .. ' Iitv.th f" •

to f,ep, ace Tit; mum. u:y~ tneretore, 1S· necessary,

Ii' •. .', h' 11·' h hI hi • m bei t ' L '""- 00 IS t! I.S W I]C ' ena nes you.;; WI': ue semg rree [,0 lit:

yourself (rather' than remaining a prisoner of )'lOU r

. _.' . id if .) '~. f' '[1 -' _. tho '

Instincts. an yOUI' rears), to nve I r:eeJlY amongot i ers ..

Ethics Is Q, universal (or at least potentially uni versal) necessity which has been conferred upon you. pe:rson.aUy,.

'It is : ry doing good to man and to woman that one helps

h A d d--

umanily to. exist. ,·'\ni it is necessery: it nee s 'YOu justas

d ,. I you nee lEt..

2:.:, .Politics

:1

'We' must Ih~nk about politics, if we' do not ihmnk.

'L e m", . ] _ .. 'l~ '~. ' - _ .. " ]-1-'· .. .' ·iIL· .. d '

about .~l sUnu:llentj¥ we W.L~ ne erne y pumsne ..

A.illa:Ell

. I

Man is a soc ·ia] animal: he can only W'OW' and flourish among others of his kind. ..

I If' ish . rn H ~ . ]

But he is a so a se fisl animal. ~: :m:s 'unsocial

so.cia.bil~ty., as Kant calls it, means that he can neither live without 0, hers nor abandon, for their sake, the

~ ,f: + £' h' desi

sanstacnon 0, ms (~IW.n. \ es:wres.

This is why we need politics. So that conflicts of interest can 'be resolved without violence, So that our forces can be united rather than oppos,ed. So that we can aVloid 'war~ fear" ba barism ..

'We need to found a State, not because all men are .~o()d and j u st, 'but because. they are not; not because they are united,. but ;S'Il' that they may have a. chance to become'

~ - L" -l._, B t, f' p; 'L'W h-'

J He '~lt:he 'no,,-( G"'l!r.:I ,1~nfll,V

. ..' .. ".~ v· [ . ,_" '- l.' - '_ -.~:.~ C . -:1

15

NI .' "b ,. t.; Ii, _.. l~ L

SO." ot.''Y' nat ure ~ contrary to Wciat ru-tstot~e says, IUU~

through culture, through history. That is, the de~fillition. ,of

1"·' hi ", .. d ..l d d .

po incs: r tstory as It, 1$ IDa: ,e;~ unmaee an , rema e, as :!t

f· d h" .. -h '" .

moves Ol'1N'ar, , ;. '];SE:ory in t, e present tense; ~t IS our

history, and it is the only hiszory, How can 'You. not be . ' d' · ]. ~ .... v '" h '11 bel .JI mterestee In PO,_'WDC s r I OU m~g' . t as we! not _,: e mrerested

in anythlng, since everything else depends. on It,

and often is, a particu lar mix of these three types of

. =w- -h~ h . h l' .

regime Oif government, ',", ,~~C" ever is t ie case. po' lflCS

C'(~U ld not exist wi thou t this power, 'which is, the greatesr of all - on this etu:th .at, least - and the guarantee :of all

'b F t. • here' F 1 "_JJI

ott ers, t-or power IS eV,€!;l}W: erie as. roucau t sate ~ o.r

rather} there are mnurnerabie forms, of power; burt they can only coexist. under the accepted or imposed au tho ri ty of the strongest amongst the'm, A muI~iplicity

f d auni f- . S' h'" .

o 'powers. ani' , a umty 0: s.overe.~gn. 0,1" ." tate 'power: t_, 'ws is

the field on which :po~:ruttcs is. played out" and that is 'why ~t is necessary, ,Are: we to submit to the' fir.s.t thug who come s along.? To the firsr petty' tyrant? Of course not ~ W'e· know that we must sub-mit to some: power, or perhaps several, but we should not submit i ,,0 just anyone, nor should we do so ,at any price. W,e 'wis.h to choose to o'bey; we want the authority to which we su bmi.~ ~ far from takin.g, away our own power, 00. relnforce and :safeguard j t, In this, we do not always. q:u ite succeed ,. nor do we ever quite abandon. our quest. This is 'why we engage ~n poHtics". It Is. why'w,e continue to do so. So that we can be fne~,e'l., So that we can be happier .. So t-hat we can he stronger", Not indjv,ID.lduaJJy stronger, nor pitted. one

'. h h b 'all h j. h .

against tile other, l,ut at toget er , as tne protestors In

the P rene h IGenera,~ Strike of ill 995 said; or rather, together 'but opposed ~ since otherwise there wou lid he no need of politics.

Po~jdcs presupposes disagreement) conflict,. con tra-

d~·- .... -'. 'Wh··· l .. - .'", ""." -,~ - - :{ h th .' ], 'h:" . 'b .... ', ", h·

! ictton. " . .: en everyone ig,re,es '~t·, at ,!: es, L~ is - etter t ,,I Ian

Illness, happ + ness 'better it han un happtness), there is no

What is. pQ<~itic:s? It is the management of conflicts, aUlanc,es ,and balances of power withou.t resort to war -= not simply between mdividuals (as, in a family or some

. .

,other gJO lip) but in society as a wbo.~e. It is the art of

living together, within a single State or city (p()lisJ in Greek) with .othe:[s whom, we have not chosen; to 'whom we feel no particular attachment and w'hotf in ,many

" ,. ~ , h t, m'ml' 'Th'

respects, are nvais ratr er tnan ames. ~I U;, supposes

shared power, and a struggle for that power. It supposes government, and CltBtnges of gOVrernm,ent. lt supposes

fl· I. . '( l"b ' . d' b 1) .' (~b"

Icon Jets ia ·'e:lt governe .... cy rill esj, comprormses ',a,w,:,elt

previsional), and eventually agreement on how to resolve

d· , ' -W' ',,, h . ~:.' , ," . iI!.. lIid b I

I tsagreements ',._ ,~t . iout pOIttwcs,~ mere WOUll~:- .' :e' on y war

d- th u 'h t .' iff, ' • der: . . p' I' .

an L: , ',at JS 'W' " a ' n: mus I~ prevent In or, er to exist, :0 l(JCS

begins 'w-'her,e war ends,

. I '"1'1m" h" d d h b

' t enti8l1~S snowing W'_-~ 0 gJives oro:" ers an W~~~O o,ey:s~

'IL, I •. ~ r. , ~.~.~ h iL. ,,' h 'Th' . .'

Wn,O nul us' :t'n8 ~" W )l) or wnat is t" e IOIV,erie:~gn., ' , IS,

can be a king or a despot On an abso~ute monarchy), it can be: the peoplie (in a dem oe racy l it can be a particular group of :in divi.duaJs· (a, social class, a political p1arty" a. real or presumptive e'~i[e,; an aristocracy) ~ "' ., It can be,

16" A'-~.J: .r C· .... f,,,,,, S· .' - .. ~,~,=

,,:_ , mt:-TiI':_:lQm~;- .. po:nmu..e:

~~ ~ L "_LJ, .. B'· _ .... ; k'· ",ri p: h'·- '1 ~.' . .-J_,. , 1 ne . - 1,tue , ' , on ,'. OJ ' ~. tWSOfny

17

need. for politics. But neither is it pohnc s when everyone keeps to himself . or cere's only for his own. affairs. Polit 'c:s brings us together so we maY' ap',pose one another- it pits us' against one another in the 'best way posslble. Politics is, unending, People are mistaken when th,ef s,av that pohtics is dead: if it 'were, it we uJd: mean the ,end of hu manity, the €;nd of freedom, 'the end ,of hi:s'to:ry,. all of which endure, and must endur-e 'thI'OUJgh conflicts which are acknowledged and overcome. Politics, like the sea." endlessly renews ttsell, It is b oth a, battle and the only' possible peace, Let me repeat: it is the opposite of war,

dill· 'I' 1~~" ]' " h

an" ~~ta~ aione speaks to tts greatness. I t :~S' t lie opposite

of the natural state J and that alone speaks 'to ,~ts necessity, Who would wish to live alone'? Who, would ~~sh to Ulve in constant conflict with others, The natural state, as, Hobbes potu ts out! is 'where every rnan is, enemy to every man"; and man s life is therefore 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short''"" Much better [0 share, power-;; to have a, common law, to harve a State: po]i ties is, better than such a life!

I-I' ow' do we live tog,ethe-f';, and what is. our g"o.aI?' These ate the twin problems, we struggle to, solve, only to begin ag~Jn imme diately (since everyone has the d:ght to change, his mind, his patty ~ his aUe,gjjau,ce . . . .) Esc h has a du rty 'to F,cflect) to discuss,

What is, politics (' :1 t is the coofl i cts of a life mived within society where each is governed by the Stale and each strives to centre] ~t; it is, the art of taking, retaining and wie,l,dirrtg power, I r is also the art of'

sharing, if only because: there is no other way to take power,

It would be w,rong te think of politics as a secondary or contempuble activity. In fact, the opposite is true: to govern a comm unruty" its; share d destiny" its shared

£1- ~ .. 'k h" h ~ . r-J h

con tcts, IS a las;~ wr .we., _ IS essennal to every numan

b · f' h~ h .' .r .

e]ng~ one rrom W nc . no one is exempted, Are w'e to

leave the way o-pen to' fascists, and demagogues? ,Ar'8 we to allow bureaucrats til' make our decisions f,or us,? Are, we to ,~et technocrats or careerists mould society in their image? If .sOJ what right do- we have to' complain when things go wrong~ How can we pretend not to be cowplicit in the mediocre' = nF the' worst ~ ifwe do nothing to prevent it.? Inaction, is not an excuse, Incompetence is not an excuse, 'To refuse to participate in politics is 00 :S urrender a part of O'[J r 'p(),wer'~ and this is always dangeeous; but it is alsO' to renounce some of our

"b~ e , , hi h i 'nL__ h" "

responsrtn ines, W.,' lie IS a,ww'ays repre sensfble. To. be.

-]" ]. both . k d' " .

apounca IS sotr mistaken ane 'M()n,g: n is to g~o agalnst

our' Interests tlnd lour duties.

8· 'I!d b IIJ ,- . -

, ut it 'WOUI ~.~ ne e.q U,3I y wrong 'to eq uate politics sim'ply.,

with morality" as though 'it were concerned rQn~y with

d .' ~:aI dl . d O' ". - 'h

goo ness, v:mrtue ane .'. IS.l" terestec ness, ,.' nee again, r I e

. . ,. I f ~" ~ d h Id b

opposite is true.T - morawmty resgne .·.1 " t sere wou ~_ ee no

need of police, laws" courts, armies: 'we: w:ou.ld have no :neeid 0'£ ,8, State and con seq u:endy no need of ,po:mmltics]1 To rely 011 morality to prevail over misery and illjus,Uce is simplly to delude oneself, To rely on humanitariamsm Sl.S

I i ,

The Liule Book. of PkilosDp.hy 19

a form of :fru[eign policy, charity as ·a form of social policy~

dl c: f · ~. ]"' ..

an.' . anti-racism ·3S· a. rorrn ·0" Imm~gr.atlon 'po _lC'Y.~ is to

delude one:sle~f, That is. not to, 5·ay that humanitarianism i' ·chadty and anti-ractsm are not fundaments] moral

m"' b liti j'I~' '" bl it' ,,;,

quannes, ,. ut po .ltlcal Y' tin,ey- are ~ncapa.~' e Om SOJ.V]Jl1g.

even the least social problem Uf' they were, we wouldn't

d ]"" )"

nee . pn rues any more).

Morality operates across borders, poli.ti:cs. operates within them Moralitv owes no alleziance to countrv.

, " ,no . I, .. '."'" Q. ')' "-,. -,.~., ',- -" -_.. "'J ~

polities does, It goes without :s.aying that netther morality nor politics attributes the leasr importance to- race: the

-] f' I'~::: d' • ~. . -'ro--

co our o. your ssm ,':1 oes not In any w,ay arrect your

humanity 0[' 'Your ciUzen'5.lh.[p. Bu'~ mo.mIDity :has nod:ting whatever ~Q do with Franc,e or the French, Europe or Europeans. .. M·Ol'8,Uty refers only 'to the indjv~dual,: on~.y to,

h" 1,:Ut.., h th . h 1 f' · F:- - h .. umanity. 'vv·,fi.le'reas,~ wnetn er .ng t- or e tt-wmg, ",f<'enc_

0.1' European, politi.cs exists [0 protect the in terests of a specific people 0.1' peoples - not to the exc lu sion of humanity -e-e- that would be immoral and suicidal _. but as a priority l something which mora lity could. neither aJpprov:e nor absolu te:~y prohlblt.

W,e might wish morality were sufficient~ humanity were sufficient: W'1e mmg_ht wish that politics were unnecessary. But to do so would be to misunderstand history and to deceive ourselves.

1:. .Ji - '" , .[. f 'h (

Politlcs does not stand in opposrtion to se ' :IS.: ness tas

.mn.r:81lity does), it is· .8; collectlve, confi~.cted expression ,of it: ~'t is ,8: 'matter ~lr being. se.~fish together" and being so as effect~.VleIDy as possible. How? By wo.rkin,g towards a

I ~

!

l

convergence of our interests, ~OiWard:s, something, 'we call so,midarity (as opposed to genemsity ~ wh.i.,ch implies disinterestedness] ,

The distinction between the two is of~'en misunderstood, so I win underline the point, It is true that ,if I. show ,SOUd.8ri ry~ I am defending; the interests of o thers, btl t onm)r 'because ._ din:!cdy' or indirec:dy ~ :mt is also In ,my interests to do so, In acting. on 50-meV'De ,els,e"s behalf I am also actjng on my own, because we have <common enemies, common interests, because 'we: face common dangers, This. is the pnnciple behind trade unionism, insurance and taxation... No one would a,rgue 'that having

, 'b . L._ f ...

insurancenemg a. member 0 a union or payrng, taxes IS

,8 mark o.f .ge nero sity ~ Generols.ity is something very diFferent:: it consists ln defending 'the inter-ests. of' othersJ not because they are also mine, but despite the fact [hat I do not share them; not so that E can get something out of h, but so 'that someone else might. I am 8Jcli:ng on someone else's behalf, but not on my own: it is poss.IDble~, in fa,ct it is likely) that i stand to lose, How can. yOU' keep 'what you. ,give? If=(ow can you grve what YiOU keep:t That would no longer be a. gj,(t. but an exJChan.ge; not an act of generosity but one of s,ojmda:rity"

SO)'wdadty Is: a way of collectively Ideiending ol1e~s,e.~f'; generosity, when it comes down to it, ls sacrificing oneself for others. T.his. is why, mora,Uy speaking" generosity is, superior: mt is also why $tOcilla~~y and pol·t..~caUy speaking, solidarity is mor€': crucial, more realistic, m.ore effective .. , N10 one makes their social security cont,ributioos out of

20·•··· A~'·-~J:"*:,5 'C.·--"i'1'"~~·--!~:,-,,S·.·" p •. ~(~.l·L~

'_ ,., 'tttf,,~ . vmK:;; U',~!!t'" re

-'T"!'L L ' .... I' B l'__.& p,~-, "'~ 'J~ 2 "

1 nf. :tU'lif$ '-OO~ OJ' ~:J1,'~~Qsopny .- .... Jl.

generosity. And it 'would. be a rare union member indeed 'who jO~Jled. a u n~o:n pu'rely out of ,ge:ne,rosity!~ None-

. 'n 1 ' ']" Il· ii d'· ~ h- d'

t -In ~.it:- £~ Cl·O· s: ..... ·~a cn..;alu'-nc 'tt(. i 'iir.;n-:-·':1ii!~r.;n- ~ ~in taxatton I ," !i.lIV··"!CII I' :~;n'·e-'

_ . ~ '~;::i!,~~ ;;;i<._-'I;;;.~JI1l,. ,;,J'IU'1i... - , .. _ j. j 'Y.·' .iI!V ,,'" (;II,II;,J;.. LaA_Q· .. ,g. 'I!;.,. '. 'IL!', : "

more for social justice ,~ much mom! - than the scant generosity we occasionally display. 'This is true, too, 'Of polities. No one respects the. law out of genelfosity", No one is: a citizen out of g~nerQ;s.ity ~ Bu t t~h.,e law and the State 'have: done 'much, more for' j ustice ~nd for freedom than finf' sentiments",

This, is not to ,slay' that :soli(la:dty and generosity are incompatible': being generous does not prevent one from showing soH,da_riqr~; showing solidarity does not preclude one 'fn)m 'being generous. But neither are they' equivalent, and this ]s 'why neither is s ~ffic,ru.ent tn itself, nor is eith.er capable of :substituti:ng, for the other" Bather,

" '"gh - b f"f'" - f'f" ·d· ,"

g:::1~(n:'B'iII·O:-'·~Jlil'-y··1 -m·:>'iI:.···-f,ll ~.6, ~!iiI~l; l~ll-~n,t W·~I~t.!ii w:.!<.t!Ii ~',U·"'l[.r-l,t!ilin·;!l U1

, : '"' ,!!;;,..\~._. iO '~_. .. Jl.' .. " ',i, , ~ ;J<U. .....~J.,II: J .. ~,II!, '!;;;. _ r ~ ,.::I' .,.Iio..":' .. -;'

generous. U nfortu nat'€'Iy 'W~, are' generou s so inadequately and 'SiO i.nfr,equendy and. when 'we are, our generosity is, so meagre ' , '" W:e' need solidarity only beCaUSi€ we lack _generols,rnty ~ and because 'we do we badly need so Hda:rity.,

'G,eneros,Uy m:s t8J, moral 'Virtue", snBdarity a poHtical one, The business of the State . is to regulate and socialize the demands !of comperlng egotisms, This is why ,[t .i s necessary. That is '~:f'hy it Is irreplaceable, Po~itic,s, is not a matter of morality ~ du,ty·~ or move '" " m It is a matter -of :power.·=str"gg1e;s,~ d:~fferenlce:s of' op-ffinion" vested in teres ts and. conflicts of interest, Look. at Machlavelli or M arx, Look at Hobbes or Spinoza, Politics is not a form of

I ~

.

altruism: it is int,e:~IDigent~ socialized egotism, This is not to condemn it, but. to j us:Ufy it: smce everyone is selfish, we might as w,eU be selfish mnteU'rngently' and collecttvelyl :1 t :~;$, obviou s ~hat the patient, lOrgi,caJ pooling .0:£ interests, _j $, better fur almost everyone than Illnrnv1er;s,aJ conlrontetion and. elia,os" It is obviou S thet justice Is 'better for almost everyone than runjusHce" It is obvious that such so~id.arity is moraUy jusnfied, and de'mon strates that. mo,re,~ity and. politics do not have Op'Po1$jng: g'.01815,,, Bnt it ,is obvious" too, that morality is not s;uffi:cw.eDlt to 3(;hieve, such goals, 'which demonstrates rhat morality a:n,d politics are not to be confused,

M ondit-y is" 'hy definition, disinterested; not so any political system,

M Q,raUty is ~ or strives to be, u:n:~versal:; politics Is always particular,

MOI:rality is mdividual Ut applies on~}r in the first p erson singular): po,~j_tic s is, I(;OUec-Uve,.

This Is why mo[,aIity' carmot take the place -orr politics, any more 'than. pohtics can. take the place of mo,[,ality:: we need both, ~nd need the diffeE,en,oe, that esists between them:!!

Elections, 'with occasional excepnons, are' not confronta-tions b etween the' good guys and. the: bad. guys:: '~~h"ey involve opposition 'between differ,ent camps, d:ifFefient soc ia~ or ideological group s, parties, alliances, vested interests, opinions, prlorines, choices, po~'i tical pla tforms ,. " '" Of COU:F.se.,. morality :p,la.ys a. pan (.it.is pos:s;wble. ~or a vote' to be m,oraUy reprehensible). But that should not dj.str:act

I!

, ;

us flio.m the: fact that, mor:aJ:ily is, .l1.O'l a pIat[onn ora Po.Ucy. \Vh,3t is morality's POtiLJ' for tackling. unemployment, war" barlbadsm? True, i~ tells us that we shmdd taclde them." 'but does not tell us how to overcome them. HO'W is precisely what is important .~ n pehtics .. Are you In :favour' of jusdc·e and ~:iberty'~ Mora ly, that is a bare minimum. But poUti.caU,·, that does not ten you :h,lOiW' to safeguard ,-,

or to reconcile . justice ,and liberty. We might believe that

the I sraelis and. the . c alestinians should each have secure, internationally recognized States; that the i.nhabitants of Kosovo sihould be able to live in peace: that globa.m.~mtio.n should net trample peoples and ind~vidua~s; that every senior cl tizen .should e~Joy 8. decent retirement and every young person enjoy an educanon wnnhy of the: name. Morality would. heartily ,app.rove such sentjments, "but it wiU not tell us how';; [og:ether~ 'we :m.~gh.t increase the chances of achieving these things" Does anyone re·aJJy

.-" d h f k ffilo .

believe that economics an, t "e tree markee are sur cient

i ' dlems!elves,'? Markets are vahd only -for commodities. '8 '~'Id- , di . " ,_. I-,ut OU[' wecw: rs not a c.o.mmo: l'~y., nor are justice -or

freedom, It would be madness to entrust to market forces

t· h'~ng"1I:' w ',h'y;'c,'h, cannot l,.,o for salel ~"'''' £'0' r C,' 0' "Im, ':P' anles thev

" I .• !II . I • " ,.;;]J .1 J: '., 11i;..~ ,,,.[Il, .... ,. D,.". l' ';;"..' ~ i, . • .' U-.l Uf· . '''I ' .-""" J

are motivated p1dma:rily by profit, I am not condemning them for this: it Is thewr fUnction, and, each of us depends on their pro.fits. VJho could possibly believe that profit alone is Sl1 fficlent to ensure a humane SOCiety? The economy 'produces weahh; we need wealth, we can never have ton mUlc'h of it .. But we ,also- need justice, freedom, security, peace~ fmternity, hopes, ideals . ~ .. 'No market

"T!'Jl~ ~ L';trf'l.'.~ B, ,,::..; ,·k,'it. P' '}~""J,i"fIi.'.'- :; "~"':' . 2' '}

J ,00 - i> i,.!B ' . GO., oJ ,unvsv:pny ,,3

can p.rovide these things. This is why we must ,e·nga,ge. in

]-" • 'I)' "'h li ,.

pO~.ltU::S:: ecau se ne~t rer morn Ity nor econonncs are

sufficient in themselves and it would therefure be mo.r~Iy

h "b~ d 'r .... .'1] di J!:

repre ens} ue ano econemicar Y' isastrous 10r us to

,muddl·e, along,

'Why:poUtie:s? Because people are n.either saints nor

- -

mere consumers: 'we arc' citizens:. ,and that is how' it

should be:,., Politic s makes it possible for us. to continue to

'b --

'.e eif zens, .

'r'~

,

,

.,

l

,

I;

A c th h 'L ,_ I" ' .. h ld b

_S rortn OS€! W ",0 mase a, career In pOI I'tICS, we S OU, .. 7 oe

if: 1.iC -h" ff:'. ~b' L ~'~f' f" ,,'I.. blic i

grstet u,~ ror t', err ettorts on behat - 10' tne pu ure mtere st;

eq ually ~ we should have no illusions as to their com-

heir vl . ~~I lsah - . ...,1Jl, d

petence or' t en vntu e: viguance is a -e nman ri.~.t an.: a

., • ! . .J

cinzen S liIuty,.

S uch democratic vigtlance should not 'be confused

• III idlcul h'!L k h· '"d' ~il

Wltn nc tcu eJ wmcn rna ses everytt lIng fl' l,CU.wOUS;i' nor

wmt'h contempt, whic h makes. everything contemptible. To 'be vigilant is not to take every man at his word:

• Ii!.. n re . d' h"

:neltw ser ]S 1t toO con emn Q:F pour scorn. on eve.ry··. Ing: as

a. matter of prin cip.~e. W;e 'wi~~ never succeed in rehabilitadng politics ,- somethin,g we urgently need to do - by continually hurUng abuse at . 'hose who practise

10. .. 1- d- ., h '1" . .

POllUC!;. , n a . Ie.mocratu:! state, 'we g~et t " e po lUC18US we

deserv-e. Another reason to prefer such a system ever all

th . ,. 1.. 1-. he r ral rl 'iIL, ~.,.,

0' ers is trlat no one m.18;S· t ne mora , ftgut to crmc ruze It ~.

Ji h . .•. r-l h' ,.,

ana t I erie are: many reasons to cntlcIZ€ Jt = un ess r e ms

prepared to work together "rith others to change it.

It is not enough to hope for justice, peace, .liberty and

!.

""ii""l_, .... L"ttl . B·' . 'k- .t p.1_ '~I .. - ~~" 2' 1,,-

1 ,Re" 'z; ~ ,e ',00" OJ' . nno!sopny ',: I

prosperity ... , We must work to. safeguard and to nurture them, \.l\jI'hwcn 'we: can do effective.ly only' as a collective and j' consequently, through politics. I have ,emphasiz,ed that pontic s cannot be reduced :dmply to morality nor to economics, However, that is not to say that n is morally

- d"f-" h "I 1~,~ ,. di " · F""iJ

inc 1: i,e.r,e:nt nor t 'a it acxs an. eCOnOIDlE'C .' umension. ,I' or

any Individual concemed with hu man rights and with. his own well-b eing, be:'wng involved in politics :~s not s.~mpi~y a r,[ght: it is also his (jlll'ty~ and in his interests - and perhaps the. only means by which those duties and interests may 'be reconciled, Between the la'w' ,of the jungle and the laws of love there is. the law II self. Between the purity of angels, and the savagery of beasts, there is politics, Anget~. can get by without,. Breasts can get. by without. ,Mankind cannot, This. ts why Aristot Ie was righr, in one sense at least, to write' that 'man is, a political animal' bec,ause

W, i t'ID·, 0',- u t P O' "'1111-]" if'io'S' hll 'It;!! wou 'I,d:' b t:J; III n a ble to '£'uU,.r em brae his:

.,' .w. 'Il~. '. ~O> " •• ~" I~~ 11. ,[ ~ ''',",._ '. -,' )~ ILII t_' ' •. ' 1IJI I; [J"" ',' ,c '.' • &

hu manity,

'Actin,g as a man shou d' (morahty) Is not enough, W'e: must also fashion a so ciety which is. humane (since mt is society w'hich, in many respects, fashions man)" and to do so." it must connneally be remade, at least partially, Th -nld . . 'II] h' ,'t_" h d' "d

ie worra :~:s. continual Y c ~ a ngtng;, a Sloe lety' wr lIC:- 'j 1,: '

not. change with it would he doomed.~ W;e' must therefore work, struggle, resist, invent, safegu~~lrd.~ refo.rm , .. This is the pu rpose of p o,litic.s. Are there more interesting tas ks? Perhaps. But on a social scale, there are none more: importan t, History does not stand still; it does not hang around foolishly and wait ~ .

I:

History' is not ,f. ate, ilit is not, sim:piy those t~hings which

L '. . ". 'J h " h" 'R!= h

l,~appen to us: n IS also those t j mgs we rnaze ~ appen,

those things which shape us" and that is the very definition of politics,.,

r i'

Ii

Ii,

:~

,

I .

The Lit.tle Boo,k" of Philosophy 2"7

, ,

i

SP'Oirtf Then yiorU love sportl Films? Then yo.u love the cin.emal' Money?' 'Tbe:n you love money or the things it can buy. you, Politics? Then. you love politics or power, or justice, or freedom ... Your work'? Then you ]crvle' :your work or at ie,ast what jt can. offer you or wiJ~ one Iday offer you .. + • 1:TiOU'f own happiness? Then you love YOUfs'eI f,. as. everyone does: happiness is probahlY' no more than ,~ovin,g who. youare, what you have and what you do . " " Are you Interested in p.hUoso phy( 'Love' is part of the 'word :itself (,'hi1(}so.pbia.~ in Creek, h' .. the love of 'vrisdom)'~ and part of its meani ng (what greater' wisdom is t - ere than to ruovie?). So crate's, revered bY' :aU phrn~o~sophers, Id.rnd. not clahn otherwise. You might even be mterested in fascism, in Staj~nism:t in 'war? Then you ~()iVe them, or a~ternativ:ely' ~ and more jusdflabIDy = you love th.o se things whilch <contend with them~: democracy; human lights! p e',8/C e , fratemity, courage ~ ,. , There are as maJ~.y differ·e:nt loves .8S there are interests, ,8. t ~here can 'be no' interest

..• .h . r d t, COl bri b ~i.I.. . o. TIl

W!tR.:~ out rove, 8.n.':1 tms . rln,gs me oacx to. .my ongmat

point; love Is the most mteresting of subjects, and no other s uUlJe,ct is of interest except inasrnuch as we invest it with Jove or' fin d love in it.

'We must therefore ]OVi8 love itS'elf~, or Jove nOI:h ing ,_ we must lov-e love or die; this j s whY' love, not suicide, :ws the only tru,ly serious. philo sophical problem,

I am referring to the opening o.f Albert. Camu $' S The Myt,h ·of Sisyphus:. "There is. but one tru~y. serious philosophtcal problem, and that is suicide. Judg,ing whether or not Hfe: is. worth liVJi.m.g .. amounts to. answering

3'" L, 10·' i'1i·~e:··!

[ llil ••••.•• V'I. "

! I

Love ~s the most interesting of su'~j,ects, . n itself, because: of the happl ness it. promises. or see ms to promise .- or which mt takes or threatens to take: away, 'What topic of conversauon could be more pleasant between. friends, more' mtimate, or more emotive? What word could he' more secret between lovers ~ more tend cr l' more troubling'? And wha could excite more passion between . two people than. passion 'its/elf?

It might be said that love ~s not the only passion nor passion the only form of love . ' ... This IDS true, but simply cenfirms 'my point: love is. the most interesdng o.f subjects, not only by itself - in the happiness it promises

h b . do' ] L .

or trea~ens·- out even mnr.~ ~rect ¥i necause e-very passion

lay's claim to it. 'What are you most passionate about?

I .

the fundamental question of philosophy." I bappily

b ib ... ,'IL d . ,. d Tt· .,ill.. • h· h

$11 scribe to I;.:"U~ seconc proposmors, an - n 1:5 d 115 W .: ic _

prevents me. from wholeheartedly agreeing 'with the first. Is life WO[l h ,Uving? S I!.J icide elimi nates rather than resolves the problem; onlY' love, which does not eliminate it (since the question is posed ,again every morning, every evening), comes close to resolving it, for as ·~o.ng as we are alrnve,~ for as long as it keeps us alive, \Nbeth.er ii~e' is <Of is not worth the pain of being liv~:d ~ ur. .. rather, whether it is 'worth the pawn and dze pleasure of being, ived depends." ,first enid foremost on one' s capacity .for love. This is what Spinoza .r-eaUzed.:: 'One's happiness or u nhapplness,

d d d d d . I th 1· f

in eed, is. mac e to '.' epen entire y up on n e 'qu a Ity or

the object which. one loves.' Happiness is to be happy in love, unhappiness 1:5 to be uAhap''P'Y in rnovej 0.' to :harv,e no ,~ove a:t all, Depressive psychosfs or melancholy, Freud. would say) is charactenzed prlmarl ly by 'the loss of the: capacity to love' - inclndingthe a,biHty to love oneself, It

,. 'h' fa -'h "" f··- '" '''d·~·~

is hardly surprtsing, i sere .r ee, mat ~t 1S.:SJO etten SU:mCl ID.

I t is ~ove wh.~ch keep s u s, alive, since it akme makes ] wfe , . .' hi ill ;, • .- h i£' I' h" 'ill loveable. It IS ove w ucn saves: rt IS t iererore rove W' ncn

must be saved.

But what love? And what object of lov.le?

F or love' is lele.a Iy as diverse as irs obiects are numberless, W:e may love money or power; as I have said, but we may also love' our friends, our partners, our ch ildren, our parents, mdeed anyone st all: someone, who simply happens, to 'be" there, which Is what it means to

I l" 'Ill ill

ave one s ne I g(UlJ 0 ur ..

We may ove God, too, those 'who bene~ve in him, and believe in, ourselves m:f we love ou rselves even a ]_ tde.

'Using one 'word . 0. refer to so m!sny different affec.Uons give's rise ~o confusion and ~ since desire -~nevitably comes into pillay '~ to ill u sian. Do we know w:ham: we talk. about when we talk. about love,? Do 'we not often, take advantage of the equivocal nature of the word to conceal or to embellish equivocal loves (by which I mean those 'whooch are selfillsn .0,[' narciss i stic), to delu de ourselves ~ to give the' impression ~ 'hat 'we love' some hing other than ourselves, to- conceal, - rather than to. correct - ou r errors and our ~apses,~ Love pleases everyone. Wh'ne that is tl nderstandahle, :~t should. encourage us to be mote 'vl,gila:nt,. The love of truth should gOI hand in hand with the love of love ~ shou ld enlighten it; guide it; perhaps even temper its enthusiasm, That one s,nould love oneself is. obvious: how ot'hemrise could 'we be enioined [0 love our neighbour as ,our-se'ftJes? BUt that people' often love onilly themselves - or on:~y for themselves ,_ is a, risk and a danger, \Vhy otherwise are we asked to love ,ou r

ne;,a-hl . bou r a·f ~o.':)

J JI!~i j" .... ,,!··,~ll .. '~

There should perhaps be diffelient 'words for djff.eFent loves. And it is not as though 'words are lacking:

f~·' d h'· . _1' • f:t ,. - - 1lL.-

ne·n ... srnp ~ ~enUernes.s,~, pas sion ~ a lIlect~onl' aitacn ment,

inclination, sympathy, penchant j' predilection, adoration, ch8Jrity, concupiscence .. ,An embarrassment of' riches, and one which ls, indeed, embarrassing, The Greeks; perhaps because the'y were: more lucid than we are, or more inclined to synthesis, generally confined

I I:

themselves to three word s to describe three differlBrmt fa.rros of love. The three G.ree:lc. words for love and, in. my opinion, the most illuminating in any language. are: eros, phii~Ul;J agape.. I dealt with these a1 length in my Shoo Treatise on the Great 'Virtues; here; .I wi]~ give only a broad outline.

What Is eros? It is the . ove of that which we lac k, rut is. also passionate ~(~'ve. I t ~s Platonic love: f. + ~ • that w·bic.h he has not" that which he himself is, not, and that which he is in. want of. these are lhe objects of desire and of love.' l't Is the love which takes 1 wh.ich seeks 'to possess, to retain. I love' y~JU: .1 want you .. I'~ is, the simplest form, of love, The most 'violent .~~ol:rm. of love, How can one not move what one misses. I. ow can one love what one doe'S, not m:w;s s l' This Is the secret o-f P,Sl;S:S'WOn. (th at it thrives only in absence, unhappiness ~ fTustration); it 15 the secret of religion (God is. that wh:ic'h is a,bsollJtely absent), How can such ,8, love, without faith; be happy? One must love that ·wh· ch one does. not have and ,S,U fie!, or have that which one no longer ,~OVf!S (for one ~oves only what one does not have) ~nd be b ored ,. , , The suffering'S of' pass .. ~on" the sorrows of lovers: there is. no such. thing as a 'happy love: (eTQs),

But how can we be happy without love? And how' can it he that, ~o.r as long as. we .Jove~, we wUI never be happy? Plato's concept is not entirely :fi.,ght~~ nor rns it appropriate to everythin,g. We do not only love wba,'£ we do not: possess: sometimes VI,e love what is not absent ~ what 'we have, what we do, lAfhat is. - and we take 'p:~ea;su:re in

~, .... L··41"-~ ~ B" ~~.t 0"_ '1_'- 31'

l,~ ',·t~he ~iOOK OJ" r,-,m.t WSDp1P"iy:'; .

-L ,t, ll' d' ". h . ~~ ·Th-·'· h h

tnem, reei JOY ane rejoice 1n t at JOry~ 1:.1:S :15 W' ,lilt tne

G'ree ks cal~ ph,t!f:ia - let us call it love according 'to' Arilistode (70 Jove is to be joyfur) - and the 'secret of'

h' " P'h ·:1'· •. . J L d- l' ~,~ 'h

ap-"'p'~ nness. ,." ·,.'!ua is to iove 'W~-dJ,1t 'we " Or not lae'~,) what we

" ,

'k m '" d- h' b . ,. ill, I

ta ,e e pteasure m, an,' . t ns i I,[] ngs us JIOY or rather au r {J,ve

itse'~f ~'S that joy. The pleasure of ICOihlS and of action (the ,~o've we make), the ha,pp.rnness of c'oup:~es and of friends. (the lov-e we share) = there is no su ch thing as an unhappy love (phil1'a).,

,Friend.ship? That is, how philia 'would usually be: translated, bu t in doing so. we reduce its power and its scope,

B - . - -'t_ If-" d II!.. " ~ • IlL. d d L. d .' ,(.

ecause SU.Cn . ner» $,.nmp IS not. noun - ec li)ry .- esrre trto

AI .. - - -, . ,. b . -" " b .,' .- ','. ,',' .) .. '-', . "'~'" I( "', '" d'

,~on.ger an at -. ,s!ence ,ut a. powe~. J' nor 'p8.S:Sl0n '. eros sno

phiUa can, and oft,en do, mix), nor family (Ar~stode uses ,h,ilia to denote 'bo,th the' ~Olve of a parent for his; cbild. and the love between spouses: much as M ontaigne, later, mlks. of I' 'ami.:ti.e mantalt) t nor the mystifyin,g~ infi.rl~tely

,. . . t, ] '1" ~II

pr-ec.moIJ'S mtnnacy between .overs .' ., ., ._ t IS no .~onger

sim.ply what Aquinas r'efers to as. cone upiscent love

(°1' h f'-' , 'I ~ ) b 'AII '~II

, ovtng anot .,er .or one s own saxe ; :it is a. .'enevOl!lenl rove

(,roving another for the other's sake) ,aud. it is. the secret of happy reiationships, Certainly this; benevolence does not. exclude sexual love: between .~oveZ's,~. p,kilia feeds on and

··u .' d b -H' ~, .. h

is urummatect . y' :S1e1(,,, , ow Iran one not rej OlC€; rn t_. e

ple~su:ite on-e' gives or receivesr How can we not 'wi . sh the person. who gtves us p~eas,u[e we.lJ.~1

This. joyfu 1 benevolence, this, benevolent joy, which

-'IIL G'" k ].~..J h ·'r·!" 1 ·dl Ar' - ,.m ~

~ ne ;'. ree .::5, cauec ~. :U~W~, IS" as. ,Il saic ,,;'~ isrone s con=

,~ .

. f" ] ] - t, - f-' m d1 'b

eeptton 0' . ove: to ove is to oe joy ~'l(J,~ anc to WlS.·

"2' A- _,- _.1',._....:" e'-' .... 's- - - - .:n~

.);, ~ , - 'ntf:J7e- " ,lofH.te-."~"onvi t~

,

I

happiness on. the person one :~ov,e,$,. But it is also Spmoza's concept~oln of love: 'pleasure,' he writes, in the E tn,ics', ,i accompanied by the idea of a n external cause.' To love is to take pleasu,Tte ·in. This is why th,e~[,e is no other pleasure but love, it is 'why there, Is no lov;e which, in principle, is, not pleasure ble .. , Love does not require tha the object of (NlI love be absent - it is. an accrudellta] drawback when the object of our love is missing, or 'when bereavement strikes [and tears u s apart, But sue 11, absence c{)umd Dot hurt us if the initial happiness, even if it were merely an illusion, were not alre'ady there., We do not simply desire 'what Is absent; love what is absent: desire ispower (the power to ,enjoy" the power of pleasure), love is joy, Thls is something al~ lov;ers know 'when they are :h..apP'Y ~ aU :frme:nds too. I. love 'yoU! I am happy that you exist.

Agape is a, IGreekword which appe'ars, mu ch later. : ", either Plato nor .Aristotle nor Epicurus would have known the word. Ero« and .ph-ilia were enough. for them. they knew only passion or friendship." the su:ffe:ri,n,g for' what is absent Of' the Joy of what is shared, But it so happens that, long after the time .of these three' phru~o$oph[ers~ an insignificant _ ew in a. far..,off Roman

~ -

co,Iony began, I.D his strange Semitic tongue, to say

astrO~n~shing things: ~God .~s love . .. . Love thy neighbour . . . Love thine enemy . .. .J These sentences, which wouilld probably have seemed strange in any ~angua,g;eJ.' app-eared to he vlrtuaUy untranslatable into 'G'[cek. To what .form of love could they possibly refer? ,Bros? P:hilia? Either would

1.1

lead to an absurdity. How [could IGod Iack anything whatever? How could he be a .f.r~,end of ,anyone? 'There is something ri"diculous,, Axis. lode had said ~on,g before, In claiming to be 'God~ 5 friend,' It Is pretty diffic ult to imagine how our Uves,. so mns,ig_nifwcanl , so pi tiful, could add anything to Hms eternal, perfect di'vine joy " " . And who cou Id reasonably ask. us to faU in love with our neighbour (that is. to- say anyone and everyone ~) ott absurdly, to be' friends with our enemies (.' StUI~ these teachings had rJO be translated, Iruo Greel~ as nowadays one would translate somethmg In to Enghsh so that It [could be und erstood throughout the world ~ . " In order to do so, J esus' early disciples _ since obviously it ls 'h~:s,

.t_ 'ir f L'm ..]I -

teachings !l a'm referring to '--.- were obliged to devise _. or

popularize _ a nee ogism created fr-om a verb (agapan: to love) which as a ,[U J,ie had no su bstantlve :for:m ~ the word was, aga:pe l' which was translated into Latin as. ,CQritas:~ and which in English is usually translated as charity .. , What does n mean? It means move [of one's neighbour, Inasmuch

, ,

as it is :pos,!),,i·ble.; to love someone who neither saddens us

by his absence, nor makes 'Us .hap'py: bY' ,h is presence (someone J in other words ~ 'who is neither a lover nor ,8, friend) ~ someone who exists j 'who mer~y exists, and whom we must love uselessly ~ for no reason" or rather purely fo.r his sake, regardless of who he is regardless O-F h:is wo rt h." regardless of what he' does j even if he is our ,enemy, ... This :~s Christ's conception 0'£ Iove, it is also that of Simone Weil or Vladuntr J ankeleviteh, and it is the

. \ .!C . - i. 11\£- b ,_. !IJ Ii W'h I·J

secret OJ]; sanctity - I. sue ,j a tmng exists~:":','e 5,,:0'0 o not

I •

confuse this compassionate and lovjng charity 'with the giving of alms. nor wIDth condescension: rather it is, a :spirit of universal fr.w.enddlip, comp·metelY Uber-a:ted from the. ego (which ordmary friendships are not: oecause it was him~ because it was rne', as Montai.gne 'wrote of his ,[ri.endshlP with La Boetie] ." liberared from egotis:m..~~berat.ed .fr,om. everything and therefore in itself Jiberat~ng .. It is. the love of God, if He exists CO Theo« agape estin' as Sr John writes in his frurst epistle: IGiC d is love), and if IGod does not eDst~ it. is !that 'which comes closest to Him in our hearts and :in our dream.s.,.

Ef,D,s'" ph·ilia, ,agape';; love 'which is, ye:am.'wng or posses:~d.ng; love whi.'cn is, joyfiu I and whi ch Is shared; love: which is welcoming and gj,ving ~ ~ ~ Can dtcre be happiness wlthout iongjn:g? How can one gi:ve' without sharing? If 'we must dlisdng,u tsh, at least .inteUect,uaUy J between th .. ese types of love, or these three degrees of love, it is chiefly so that we understand tha ~ aU three are necessary and intertwined, and ~o :~nu,minatle the path. wh ich .~eads. from one: to another. They are not three di.screte:, mu·(tuaUy exclusive entkles; they are rather three' points in a s:[ng~e realm, the realm of love, or ~hree possible impulses in the process we caU life, .EirO!S' :~:S. the be,~nn~n,g~ sornethi n,g of which Freud, after Plato or Schopenhauer, remmds us; tlgape is the goal (towards 'which we may at least strive), something which the IGospeJs: continuaUy tend towards: lastly, phi-1m. is the path, or it is Joy as a path: that 'which transforms longjng into pO'wer~ poverty' into ri.ches.

The Little· .Book ,of Philowpky 35

e

I . t, 'IL. h b m_~ ... iIl.. ~ '. h"

,.magme; a uaoy at t ie ':reast; .~ 11:5 mou ~[er g~.VJJng .mm

SUCkT She, too, was. once a ·ch:w]d~ we al ~ be,g,w:n by taking;; and that too is a form of love. Later, 'we learn .. -0 give~ at

~ - -' I'!· .J. ". 1,-, - ., .. ' .. a ... ", . do .'-'. '. ,oL.... ] -.~r- ..

JlJeast a itne, at east semenmes, to •.. 0 so 15 me on.y way

[.0 be completely fa:mthfu1 [01 the Iove we have received;. this all-too .. numan lovell so fT.agiIe, :50 heslrant, so ]imit.ed:~ at .~.()v·e 'which nonetheless gives WI S .~ ghmpse .of somethi n,g • t':. ,. roo' I f' 'h"' r-h i.'L. b" " d- 'h" ih mrmtte; t, ··IS eve 0'" w uc .. we are tne ,0 .JI€C·t an, W' rc .

has made subjects of us; this love, unearned, 'which preceded US; through which 'we: were begotten not created, this love which cradled U57 washed, fed, proIte!cted and. conso.:IDed us; th is Iove 'which is always. with us, for which we long, in. whi.,ch we .rejGice.~. which moves us' and wh~ch illuminates us ... " 'If there were no mothers, what would we know of love? If there were no love, what would we know of God.?

A ,~,ilos0i'hical declaration of love .might ,~ook. Uke this:'

TI_ .~- - . . p." ~ t-"." 1(. C~..n'~41"~o-··n O'til ~ """"'e'· 'ir ~ ~'.d "\Ii"",,,,.,,, I Infl!C1.' j fWTe ·~s .. ~,w ,"_ Vil'~!l:ir:'''~' .:). I~'V'VI, !l toV!Vt;;. rU'''''",. :.. ~1!.;1',,,,,,,,,s;

/olr yo~ I want you, '

"'f"1~ .~ • A' 1_ ' - _.1 S· ~ ~ . ~t: l M1ie ~'Sc': nstoue S tJ·7UJ,·pu·wza s concep.bon OJ

:1' ~l ~. 1_. , .. f, 1~. =" __ .J' ,~Olle; . iove' you: you ar.e tne c.ause OJ ·tny OOPP1.ntsS' ana;

r '... I

. ' •.• ".' ',' ,1"'-

. ~eJo1oe Ul you .

There is Si·tnaft.e 'We:Us ,or VkUli~M1r Ja'U.I<tdevitc'h~ oonception of lave: 'J l'we you ,as 1 love myself, wh,Q' ·am

· ... ·iL~, .... ':'. :l'··,· "to ,. ,*J_,~ ... " l'l .... '.~ .tTrfi' 'G- .. ,.l'(liill~mit' .'.S

tWJlnlng:J' or a »1QS no .. ,ung, .... ~ you Y-'ftlI . Qu h"'''l~ U p

.;.1. ,Ui' .. ,.'" <IF\[" l':r .~: ". " ... -,~,~ l~·l'·· .. ' ... " . I . . .....• ",. , .. ,,: .:~'g·t~·l"- ,:"

I) n,e ex1S~, .. ~01Je. you as: ' 0li8 a:nyone,. my $~re.n~ . "' ts

I I

here 'to' serve ,(Ju.r w.eakness, my ftutbLe $tT~gth. at the

S"if;t"i'iH ..... ..., oj',;, ,- 'iII1f:td.lr ,O'i."d:;"j"t "I nL).n;k'-'""ih~""'" '

~~. IV. ~'" ":. /. Y'w.. a~' ~L I~~'W '. 'r'i~ e r. ~'

E .. , " '("h' 'iID';' ':0" ;i:J~",: :t_,..~~" ',:h,~h:' ,j_ .... J",';o;,~, ,]I__,~ C',:t,

__ ' ros t ,P' ] ia, a,gape,. ",ue KnYe w, JC "-' KI-,~~ Wr.U.;C,"

knOlVS ,only joy or sufferin& posse,;ssion or loss; the ,love'

1~ ,. 'J,~ •• " J_,. l .. ,", T~ ,", l-_ ~ 'L~, •

W,U~Cfi. reJ'o~ces In $'ntlN'rtgO!! 'wn",Cn; Wl~ru1S ru-tf1'1.n€:ss rOn.

': -1.:.., - - - l~ ,~- - -,,'ii~ = -, - - 1',. _ .. ,- • 1." J '~. J' :, -, ";~'- J,.,

tnOse Wr.w 't'H'aKe us ,nuppy, IU1$b:y, t,n,e !t7lVe 'WntCn

OC'Cepts a-nd ,'rotects, wltic.h gives of'its'eif" abandons

_·t" '~t ,h'->h"" '. i,_ " :-,' "--),~, ._ .... ]I~_:~J~~,.,_,.J

1, S~~'~ w_,_~C- -no ~()ng"er neeu:l ,t'!1i!' ,oe ~~ '" " .

11'- -',- ,', ,~, i ,}~~~'tt-,~- '1,--' ," 1" 4-_,",1_,~ '-,- ~: -,--" --:,~:- I'

__ ,lcQ1l6 you. tn ,an OJ ,ne.se wa:rs. " M*K.fi: you ,eageny} e-

joyfully share your Uisp your bed;, yi(~u~r' looe.'p 1 ,give

l'l' h Hdo If tenderl

~"." t " " . '.-: .:' I I • • .' _", r ~ • ~.: .:. • I

-n:t),se" a ta, ':, tl myse .' '", ,,' ...

'Th'I-li"!l~:,,:l ~'J. (;..'r-- ~~D";_.-O -;J':i']l-~t,:, 1.I-U nr!n.'·' -iIi,L'c---~k") 1.IQ <ill j' Inf-, , . :~.,t.1C ,:"_;:rrrr i)'V' L[I~I"'f-~o t-"i.!"fUi', rv: 'Hi!E;.i1i ~nun_.· r ::n- J1V-i

'I'"i:il'l'J-:w.O -- ~ .r t'j.'Ij'" r. - 11!J ~ Mig "i:.'i;i'D. -f-.... '1~i'J'1

O~-~"':~L~ U7U1·J'v.l~,' nel,J.r·J.,p.'~I'. ~rlr~ ~ ,ftC-In

'It is. possfble to provide sec uriity apmnst other Ills, but as lar as death is concerned, ~e men Iive in a c~ty'

'M thout walls or.

Epi-c. urus

ITo the human mind, Dearth is something both necessary and impossible.

Nee e--'c"!t"ary" sln .... 4. _farn/, rn orne' nt in F\'u'r-' 1-1"':/-.::51"'. ~:,~ - --'''ri, l",:--,d'

,,', ,'_ ';",,-,', "",~ "', I;..,~ '!L;. 'If. !.:;.,~ J' ! - .'_,_, ,:__ 1 ~' " ,. 'ry[~~, .IIi';;!!' mair.K..e '

by mt~, JiL!e' a shadow from, another realm (if we- did not di:e ~ each moment wou Id deubtless h!8ve a different savour, be seen in a ~li[feren t Ught) ji .it appear.s to us' like a vanishing poi nt for 'eV<e~rything.

Impossible, because 'there is nothmg in death to- tthink about. W'hat is it? We. do nOit know, We cannot know, This final mystery im hues our wholle Iives with myst,ery ~ .like a path 'whose: destination IS unknown, or rather WhOSi8 destination (death) is. known only too w,eU~, though

3 8', A- _,_..J ._A,' C' - ,- 's-' .rr,

'_ " , 'n.u..re' ". ,Qmre-~ -p,QnmJ:-~

..iiI - t.; 'h ll" b JI! 'b d r h d

we IUO not ,UIOW what nes = eyonlW, ,_ I ~ ~yonl t~, e won I:~

beyond the thing itself ~ nor even 'whether there is anything at a.U.,

This mystery may be where humanity begi,n.s, (i't is t~ke~Y' 'that no! animal has ever speculated about ~t);. even ,50~ it is not as though there are no possible answers, P'h_~Ioso-phe:-rs, have a:~\vays provided answers to the question: mat is, death 7" Such answers make 'ALl,P' much of metaphysics. But their answers =, to s,m:m,plity them ~,ru.deTy' ~ fall i nto two categories: there are those who :say' that d.ea:tJ~, is nothi ng (strictly speaking, nothingness) ;, others who assert tha t there is another Hfe,~, 0[' a pill re, boundless continuation of th.~s one '" '" .' BOlt hare w'ays o.f denying death: as nothmgne S.$ ~ since' nothingness is ,noth~n.g; 'Or' as ,Uf~~ since de~th then would :sh:npiy be another ,~ife. When we thmk abou t death" it. ,rn,elu~ a,way:, the object of the' thoqgbt necessarily eludes US'~ Death is nothing (Epkurus), Ot de'ad} is not death (Plato], but another life.

Between these two extremes it is difficult to find a middle path" except - and even this is, not. ,8, middle :pa.'£'h ~ to ,acl\cn,owledge 'our' ·wgnora nee, ou r uncertainry, our doubt, maybe even our :indiffe~r,e(n'c,e .' .. ' 'But since, when it comes to death, ignorance is our common lot, this, thir,d position is merely admi tdng what is, tenuous .or unknOYlSlble in the first two, Besides, these two positions are less op'po\s:~'ng, 'Views than they are contradictory propositions, p:r,e;sented ,~S ,axi'o:matic against any possible third. Either death must be somethi~_gj' or it must he

nothing. But if ftt is something then, ~,o d~stmgu ish it fn)m, nothmgaess, mt can only be another :Mfe~ either da:rloex.' or :m,Ore ~um'i [lOU-S, than this one ac cording to one's behefs

. ,. . In short, the: ,my.ste'ry of death aJ:no,ws .only tWOI responses, and this :ma.y- be the reas on. that it has so powerfully in~uen-ced :hum,anilty and the nature of plnlosophy: there: are those w:ho- take death -veryseriou sly, as, a nothingness (th.e ,m,ajority of atheists end materialist philosophers 'wou,~,d be' mcluded in this camp) and on. the, other hand there are those who 'see it sim,p,ly 8:S a passage, a transition 'betw,een two lives, maybe even as the be,g~nn:rn:ng of one's true ~ife (which is what 11100St rehglons affi.['m~ along w,~th mos:t. spirituahsts and. idealists], The mystery'~ of course, is not d:i minished by ei.'t'he['. As E said before", when we thrunk ,about death, it melts ,aw:a'.y" But that fact ba-s, never stopped a n~one from , ,d.ymng~ f},;OIC given anyone any in s:ight into what death 'r# means,

'\Nha.ti' we might ask, Is the point ;of pondering a questlcn which, :for us, is insoirtJhm,e'?, The point, as Pascal realized j' is that our entire ] ives ~ our every thought depend upon it: whether or not. 'we, believe that thete' is ,t so me th.w ngt ,after death rad:ic ally ,i nOuences how' we ~:~ve and. thi:n.k., In any case, if we- Hre to interest ourselve s ,pu,ndy in problems w'hi,eh ,can 'be solved (and therefore cease to 'be problems), we should. give up' philosophy. And yet how' could we, 'unless we amputate OUf 'w:ho],e ,semfj, or at IJe~s.t a 'major part of our tho,-ught. processes? Science bas not provided answers, to the cructal

4: iO .. _·... A~~,··j'-,··I' C" ... "".n c_· .. ,"i~~,

;nu,f;e. _ om""-~:ro.n'Vt.'-'Ut.

questions we ask ourselves. Why' ':s there something rather than nothing? Is H Fe 'worth li.vin,g? What is ,goo dness? What is evil (' Are we free or are: our a.ctio.n$ determined?' Does 'God. exist?' I s there life after death? These' questions, 'which 'we might call metaphysical run the 'broadest sense. (for they' go ·beyoo.d any possible physical reality) j .ma:mre.: us beings. capable of' thought, or rather capable of phiios1ophizing, (~or the sciences also think, bu t do not consider these q uestlons), and this ws what makes US human or, as, the Greeks would put it, mortal; by which they mean not those who wHI die - anlrnals die ~-(}.O - bu t those who know that they 'wUID die, without knowing what that :might. mean and yet being unable not to think about it '" . . Man Is a metaphysical animal: this is 'why death is, his constant problem. We do not need to resolve the problem, but to confront it.

" 0; p,.hd()soph lze is to' ~earn how to die' rQ,u:s ph~ilolsopher,. c'est apfTend·re II mounl),. :18. this, form this famous

hr '~...~: f f' -M'- ., ,; E' (III I

P ~ ase is hie tmt~e 0: one 0', .-:' .ontaigne s -- ssays :_ vorume i,

number 20) " 1B ut M:ontaJigne expres sly borrows the thought from Cicero, who attdbu.t~es iJ to Plato in. the:

T1t.SCff.In,nes •. , • Let us say' that it. is Plato's idea, translated into Latin _i)' Cicero, and. into French by Montaigne ~ ~ i It doesn't matter where it comes 'fI'(Hll~ what matters is that, as Montaigne pointed out, the phrase can. be interpreted in lW10 ddferent 'w'eys. In choosing between them OUf whole lives - and a siseable part of ,phUo:sophy .... are determined,

[There is the P Iatonic interpretation: death:. that is, to

h . f' -h 1 f h bod . - h

g,ay t e separation 0, tne sou I rom. t'!c,e'w:Y'~ .IS t -'e

,j; 'I'f" - rd l..' h ch·"l h ·d

pttrpOSB' Ow. r 'ie ,. towa· . S Ww He ·11 p _ ,1 osop ~ 'Y provi .. 1 .es a sort

.£ ··h· '- ,- -Th-----·-'h- ,. -'"d' ~ N'" - th -.", -,

o[ snortcut. '. ' . fOU,g " 'StU lCID.t e· ;_ o~, on t I'e C{)in trary,

. h h I'~ t'-h - ~ 'F ~ - d f

t 'Iroug,( a iue ,{, at .is more spmtec " more pure, more ree

., ,.. f d' f'" ... 'iIL.". '" f o'h· L

smce .it :~S; ~ ree sooner: rom this pnsen - oil-lorn I'_IS. tomb,

as Plato s,ays j n the ,G,org,ias .~ which IDS the body . . . True

h·] h ~ Jli de d:l' . -p'~ . d- - h .

P _ LOSOP .. €',rs are aneaoy c eac, wn tes lIla.to, an I t I at is

• r- - If ""'].. .'IlL - 'a'r.~ f-

'why death does not frigl iten them. what can it tal.~ " rom

th .. em:?

Tit.. h · -M- . ,'. -'..iII thi

.~ ien t . ere lS'~' ontaigne s mterpretanon: ,uec&t .' is not

~. ~ .-!II" (' ~ 'L_. ) ~b f,. h d . 'n ~ 11_ ) f"~I· f . -

tile eno $ u.ut . ut t I'e en, mg I~m ,rJllUt 0" nre: ns term"

its culmination (not its goal), W'e mustprepare for :Jt~ 'we must ac cept ,~t ,_' since one: cannot escape it ,~ wm.thout. a.1Jo\-vin,g it to ruin our lives or our happiness .. In the early Essays. j' M!~)nta.jgne attempts to think sbou t death constantly, to become accustomed to it, to pn,~p'ere for it~ to steel himself ,~ as be puts .j t - again 51. it, In 'tne later essays, the hab-it has become so ingrained that the tbought IDts.e~f seems ~es.s ne cessary 1 less constant, less urgent: acceptance is enough and 1- in time, that '[00 becomes quieter, ,~ess insistent ... This is less a paradox

-h ",. 1· ill..' h I., •. ~ -M"- . '" .

than rut IS an eve ution Wn~C_:,: marks .' ontaigne's

achievemen t, or ,at least his progeess . Anxiousness? It passes. Courage? It pa.$ses. Much better to 'be nonchalant, which is. neither distraction nor forgetfulnessj but serene acceptance, .M,ontaigne~ sums this up in a sin,gle sentence, one of the' most beautiful he eve-r 'wrote':

;[1' . -b dol h· ~ ,0 ~ -e f" .r .

- '. want u.s to .·e'· .s iOln,g t , lngs., :pro,~oJ1gwn;g,w:m:. e S duties as

much as we can, . 'want death to' ftndme pl~an;m'I';g m,y

bb . 'IlL ~ b 'G, h f"·· ill d-

Ica' ages, neitner wo.n:ymng ,11 I, out mt nor tr e unnrusne

gardening,' TOr pbnosophize' is to learn how to di,e, simply' because it is. to Iearn how to live, and because death ~' the

'd" f d IL 'L; .' b' ili f'd "b· f~'~' .'

]1' ea 0.' death, me inevrtat '1 'lty 0'" 'CI eat :', -],S part 0 ~ 'u,VIng,.

B'" I· 'f'· ,. h '. " T h"m ill h

'U tie ,~S' W" at is precious. I rue p I ,dOr;Sop'[ier.s" ,ave

Ieamed to love ~~fe as .it 1$.' why should they be frightened to be mortal?

.. f

.'

Nothingness or rebirth?' Another life" or no life:? Each of us must choose between these; two paths, we can even ,_ li~€ the' sceptics, m,wi:e Montaigne himself~ perhaps _' refuse to. choose: to, leave the question open" as in truth it js, and live :wn that 'open'ing that is Ufe',,, Bu t this, too, ts a, 'way of re~nec't~ng, on death, and that is, as mt should be. For how co u,~d one not think ~lbout that which is - for' all thought, for all fife' - the, U Inmate .ho.ri~on?

SpinOLa, by contrast, writes: fA ,free, man thinks of

h 1 'h t, h'l k f d .. t, d h '

noU'ling less t, ~an he :"Iin':s, ofdeath, ano his wisdom IS a

meditation not on death ~ but on life.' The second part of this sentence seems as obvious as the first seems paradoxical, How can one meditate on .life - tham: is to say philosop hm1~ - without meditating, too, on its brevity·) its precariousness, its fragility? I accept that the 'Ms€! man (he alone is fr-ee, according to Spinoza) thin.ks, more of befn,g than of non -bemg, of Hffie rather than o,r death" of his strengths rather than, his weaknesses, But how can lone: renact truthfuUy on ,~jfe without thinking too - every affirmation has a neg~d:o:n. - about ns end or ruts mortali~?

In. fact, later on, in his Ethic.s~ Spinoza revises what is over-unilateral In this. thought. For any complete being, he exp',~alns" there is another, stronger being, that can destroy him. This acknowledges that €v:ery living being is morral, and that no one can, live or persist in his. being

II' h' ,. .J ' h hi ill th d' J, 'L,

W1tt 1- out reststmg oeat I " W, len t neatens an ,:. assails him

from every quarter, The universe is stronger than we are. Nature is stronger than we are. 'This is why we die . To live is t-O st£u,ggle, resist, S[I rvive , snd no one can do so mdefinitely. In. the end J' 'we mu st dte, and i. is the only end 'we can 'be certain of To think ,about death eons,tandy' 'would be to think too much about it, B,u~, never 'to think ab out it WOIlJ ld be to give up think:j:ng,

-, "d' ..] m f} -

esrdes, no one is cornp fete'lIJY ree, ,DO one, 15

supremely wise .. This, ,~eaves thoughts of death I' 0 happy da.ys or gruelling nights, w hich we 'must accept.

We would, Ike there' toile ,~wfe after' death, because that alone 'would allow' us to definitively answer the question, Bu t euriosity is no more an argument than hope,

In death, some see a sa~vation which they may attain,

"-,' " P·l. '.' .... ,1.. " . ,. rd " th"" . l..lJ .. "-1' - L. 'h"" d 'd~ 0"" h '

or. ,wn .' ,~a,LV s wo . .s .' lat uesen;,~'s, Co V.e ",: I 8za:r ',e:._ ~ , . t :: ers

who, expect nothing but nothingness, see death nonetheJess, as ,2 respite, an end to tiredness. Both ideas are, or cain be" com:forHng., 'This is one of the uses. of' dea.th~ to make life more acceptab]e either through 'hopefulne,s s, or through j,t s uniqi - eness, .A reason, in either case, not: to

W-- OI<C"te," -:::., mom ae nt 0' f ;·t'

.q~J . Ig; ." ." ,_. " ': . = " ,II. 1.

I am among those to whom noth~ngne.ss seems more'

plan sible = so plausible i' in fact, that it seems a near cel~a:i;n:tY'''' I make the 'best 'I' can of 'I" t~ and all In all ] do pretty well, The death of the people I ~CfV@ worries me less than t'heIDf suffering, ,MY' ,own death, less than theirs, Perhaps 'It is something, that comes with age, or with being ,a parent, M:y death will take only me, 'which, is, why 'W hen :~t comes :1 'wHJ. lose' everything and :n.othrnng, since there wHl no longer 'be anyone ~eft: beb:ind 'to feel the loss" The death of others is real, taflgi,'b~e and painful in a different 'way. Even so." it is something each of us must face. It is what we cal~ rneurning, something which, as Freud has shown, Is first and foremost something, 'we work through ourselves, something which takes time ~ something without 'which none of us would 'be able to reconcile '011 rselves to existence, ll1 his ,E'ssays on Psychoanalys~is t IF reud wrote: ~V\l:e recall the old saying; Si vis p'alCem", para: ,:beUum",~ ,II you want to preserve peace, arm :fo,r war. It would bein keeping with the times to ~ter U ~ 8i m.s vitam) para mone1n. [f you want to ,end,u:r.-e life ~ pr-epare yourself for death. Endure (' We should demand more than that. F would be ,m,(i'fe tnclined to say ~ ~f you, want to love Hfe, if )fUll. wann: 'to appreciate :rut lucidly, do not forget that de'a~ h is, a part of it, To accept death -

d th fth -] . ~ 'II

one's o,wn) ~Ui.1 that 0 th os€: C ose to you - is [~e, (),Ila:y' w,ay

to, be truthful to 'Your life ~

We ave mortals and IOIV'ers of mortals, that is, wlfru,y 'we II:'; !''lif+'e'' r But O·U' 'I;'" ~'u"cce·Ir~:'n"i[JI' W·:', : .. hieh m, ,. '·',..:'ti:k,·· A~ m-·, I~n and, worn,en

,."y ·1,." . ' "., ,,", i;;)' _: .. rn . !I!, J; "-,il'!)~ ., .W,'L, ";(ill,, ":;',;:]1 " ,IG

of us, :[s also w:hat makes lwf:e so precious, If we did not dle~ if our existence did not unravel in ~be endless

'I

..... f

d lp_. 'f··JII· h ~d' ']'''f' b ,r. •

oarsness 0.11 uyeaL, ':~, 'YOU,WI'~" nre ne qune so precious, so

extraord ina ry ~' so moving? 7:0 be, 'inconstant in you r contemplancn of death/ wrote Gide, 'is to devalue the sm,af1.est moment in 'your life.' Therefore Wl9 must th~n~k

eh ,-,. d·· . ,'I'_·L '~ .. '-,: " '. ]. '. il"'f:'· irto l .. ' ' .. ,"',_ . ,.,. ' ..

a · out 'ci. eatn t~ J.'Ci! l1)etter to iove .11: e = or to ove i t as, u zs:

frag;Ue and transi tory = the, better to appreciate it j the

- -

better' to live it and ~ for this chapter ~ [hat is justiflcauon L

enougn,

5- .. K· n' !··:'o·i"liule·· ·d:··g'fJ.,

" l' i "", :!IIII': . ...: ... _.-~~

The nature of 'p1henomena cannot be u nde~~ood by the eyies.

"

~

.'

Lucretius.

To know Is to think what is: knowledge is. a. certain relationship - of conFo.r.mitY·i of resem blance, or suf ..

fi .. l. - h· JII - d' L. - - ~Id' I b if '.' --

_ cien t .~ between t Ie m~nu an __:_ tne worm, :. er ween

subject and object, This is how w,e know our fdends, our neighbourhoods .. our houses: what is :h~ our mi.nd:s. when we chink of these things corresponds more or mess 'to what exists. in tleaHty,.

That mon~ Of' less. is what distinguishes know~edg,~ [rorn absolute truth. Because W~~ could be mistaken about our' friends. We cannot know everything: about our neighbourhood, EVjen in our own. hemes, there are many things

f .. . - f d . h ltes.b ·~I'

'we may be unaware 0_" [S it infested wit termites, eu ~t

(liver bur~ed trees ure'? There is no su.e h thin,g as absolute

a.

kn 'I dl ,.. fe, . it' kn - J - d D' "0 . kn ow c III''' neieh

. '1O',W 'e\-_.ge', In _'lnh;,e Co-ow !e~ .ge.. C " we ' I.. OU~ ",~~,~,~ .: r:

bourhood? [Of course we do ~ Bu to know ~t 8 bsolutely, we would have to 'be able 'to describe, every little· street, eve:ry' bui~d ing on every street, every apartment in every bunding~, every nook and cranny in every apartment, every speck of dust in every nook and cranny, every atom

in every' speck ~ '1' • How cou[d we pos.slb~y do this.? It

]d . !C L - m d d - ~ . ' ., - U·

'WOlL· ~ require pen:ec I l~JrIOW,We ge an u Inu,nru _ e In te.~.i.l =

gence; neither of which is possible ..

This, however, does n.ot mean that we' know notlang. _[f that were the cas €r, how would we know wbat

~,~~ ., 1 , ]- •• JlI. e , h t .... .. -~ - · , IB' ··t- 'h- 'M'-'" mta '.go " :I' co

Mlow·euge: IS, W .. a, 19noran·ce ']s~,o _-. _ ,'.,.0', I al."ne ;;;

iques.d.on, which is one of substance (VVh.at do I kn.ow?~'), or Kant's, which is one of capa.bjUty- (Wha.t can l know ~ how, and tn what C ircumstancesr') posntlate the tdea that truth is at least attainable, IF it were not, how

. l-d ,,,,,.- .. ";:0.0' n ... -dl W,L st 'IlJ'O·U~I.J be the u'lI-e' of

COll ,I w'e rea;;' JlJ.:J! 81n.1 .. .ua._ ''''!If'. I . .!LU l.'~' . 3~ :- "

:phiillosop hy?1

Reality is. that 'wh ich is (verita-$. ,ess:endt:: the reality of existence) or that whic h corresponds exac'dy to that

h " h i (' . - =-- .jI'" 1... 1· ·f' m_~ - fl d· - .)

\Y -1(;, __ lS1J.e'BtnS cagliWsC~tu:": tne rea:Jty 0 .i~\.!ITlOWwe,· ge, r-

This IS why knowledge j.tse~f cannot 'be absolute truth. because we can never absolutely' know what Is, nor aU that Is, 'We can know anydling only through our senses; our reason, 'Our concepts, H,ow could there be su ell a

h· - - - .. dl . d 'I'~,- -- ,~. d .. he ~j-~ ,.1 -d' i.' h' .

t mg as un me .. 13. Ie.. knowiec ge, W en ~ J.ow~~e. ge ] s, y

its very nature" me disli.o-n? Our s.Hghtest thou ght bears. the rnmprint of' our bodies, of our minds,~, of our culture ..

Every idea we have is human, subjective, ~-rn:m~te)d~ and therefore cou,~d. never correspond absolutely 'with the Inexhaostible complexity of the real.

According to Montaill,gne~ 'Human eyes can only perceive things in accordance with such Forms as they :kn,OfYiol~, and we can nnly think them~, Kant showed, thro;ugh the categories of understanding, Other eyes 'would show us a different landscape. Another mind: would think things d'~fferendy. A d~ffe['ent brain migh~, devise a different mathematics, a d:~:£Ietent physic s, ,8,

d"'£r b" '{ H '~I-, "h'" h

I terent ,"lOOgy., .. _ OW' can we Know t" ,wugs as t I_ey are

~,n t,hems:el~es:p since to know' ,3 thw ng, ,is ahw,ys 'to perceive it., or to think o:f :it as :it appear;s, tr) 'us? W:e have no direct access to the real (we can know it 10,l] ~y through the medium of ,our senses, our reason, our instruments of observation and o:f measurement, our concepts J our ideas, ~ ; .) ~ ,11.0 a bso.:[u,t,e' contact with the absolu te, no ~n_finite perspective of' the i [1fin~te ~ 'How cou ],d we know thesethings completely? We are separated from the real by the very' means we use to perceive and understand. it: how ,coll,dd we know it abso,j:uteIY'~ We can know only about sp ectfic ,theme.s. How could any themes, however SicienU6,lc" be: pemiecdy objective?

.

,

1 .. 1 ..

...

, .

" ,

Knowledg~' and reality are, therefore, two vety diffet,ent concepts, B ut they also stand together. ,NO' :knowledg,e is truth; but knowledge which contains. no, truth wou:~d no longer "be know.~edge (it would be: madness, error,

'·'n ,r ) N kn 'all d . b 'II b'"

lw.wUS,IDon . . '.'.':0 ':' IOWle, ge IS a. solute: :ut wt rs

, "

,

.,

"'l""1.-'_L~t~'IiJl_B: "k' ".tp",'J~~,~~~,,~., 4'9' l ne ,- '!:' we, 00, OJ 'rnt.;oot':P,ny "",'

.know,~edge -,rather than belruef or opini,orn ~',only because of that part of the abso:fute it contains. Of:' makes possible -s

Take the. ,orb~lt of the earth around the sun, for example. No one can knOIW it absolutely, totaUy~ perfecdy,. Stil], we know' that it does move, and that it moves in an orbit. The. theories (~,f Copernicus ,and Newton, howev'eI' relative they may be (since they' are theories], are more true and, more certain. - therefore more absolnte - than those of H~p',parchus or Ptolemy. SimHarly} the Theory af 'Relativlity is more abso;)ul,e (and nOit,~, as its name m~ght s.ufge:Sl:t more relative ~) than the celestial mechanic s 'of the eighteeneh century, w.ni ch it encom ~ passes, 'but 'wh~ch cannot encompass it. The fact that edl knowledge is re~,at~v.e does not mean that ,aU knowledge ,~Sof equal value, The' progress from '",elNton to Einsteirn ts 8:5., Indlsputable as that from Ptolemy to Newton.

'This, is. why there is ,8 history of the sciences ~ and w,ny

th hi' . b th .. d . bJ b"'

:~ at .:.. stoty IS: ,.',oti ,- nonnative an: irreversi :,.~,e:' because i:t

opposes the more true against the less tru e, because we do not fall back into errors we have understood and refut1ed .. This is 'what both Bachelard and PopiperJ" after their own :fas.,h,[on J demo.nsttate~ ,N 0 science ,ws defimtive. Bu l if the hj,s.oo,ry of the sciences i s, as Bachelard Sil,YS). 'the most ,i . rreversible ,of an histories' J" it is be cause here progress is ,pro¥en and, provable: it is in fact 'the very dynamic of scientific eu ltures', No theory is a bso-Iutely true" nor even. absol teIy velrifiab~e. But it should 'be possible, in the C8!He. of a, scientlfic theory ~ to Vtedfy. ~t through experi mentation, 'to test i: ., ,0 the rwise " as Popper

says, to falsify it.,~ in other words", to expose it. as false: if indeed it is '. Those theorles which wtthstand such tests ,fep~ace those 'whi,ch fail::t whIch 'Ehey encompass or improve on, It amounts to a natural selection ~f theorrn,~s

(. D' " ." f' , h .. .. nral I"" tlo - "f -"~:,,, )

m , ,I,arwul s sense 01 t, e natura. se eenon 0, spectesj,

through whk h science moves fOI'\N:ard ,_ not fro.m certainty 'to certainty, as is sometimes beheved, 'but through j gc,ealer understanding and d,eille:t1.on:s.,' as Jean C a.vaHles, says; in Popper's terms conjectures and refutations'. ]'0 this sense scientific the-odes are a]ways partiSlj, :pro ..

- ,," .t, 'h hl d' ,.' ,'IlL -:~ 'h--- -,

visio i"-n-C.;o'I·I reI31tivp', thoue - 't 1 -IS .'- oes not Q"ai'!e us the ng :t to

'!!" 11.,.-" - 0;, " '. .".., e- - " -, 10' - , ",,~ -

rejiect them, or '[0. favour ,wns.t,ead. ignorance or' sup er-

stition - w'hich would be to reject know~ed.ge itse,~f, The progress of the sciences is so great, so '~rle'futable, that 1't conft .ms both the relative nature of wts theories (an absolute science could not progress) and their.' truth, how,ever'limited (a science which contained no part of truth COM~: .not lP':ro,gress.~ and wou ld not be a science) ~

We should, however, be' c,arefu~ not 'to. confuse ,~:now,fe.d;ge and science} nor to. r-ed uce one to the other. We know' a thousand and one thin,gs ~ addres.s~ date of birth, neighbours, fde:nd,s,c tastes ..... which science has not taught u.s and which it can not prove. Perception Jtself is kDow'ledg:e.,. experience is knowledge, however vague {wbat Spinoza refers to as knowledge of the Hrst kind) 'without - which all :sc.iences would be impo:s\s.,wble~ 'Scientffic truth' Is therefore not a tauto:mogy: there are: 'iI!~rC~~'IIi"h' s w' :,I!,..'~.:-~h are not s clentifi c. and there are scientifi,c

!Il.._ U,~I. _'_. '·:,[·I.!IA~'~. '-~'!'" 1 •• 1. ',·Il~ 1I."'Ji!~' "."', ;). '~"-' ._"_ ..... - --

theories which we w~n one, ,day disc over are :not true.

S' - - -' , h ,. " l' ted - - ·'f' · '., eomeone WJ'O is asseo to t,estlY' In .81, court case :ws not

asked to prove 'tnis or that fact scientifically ~ but simply to sta e what he believes or, better stiU~ what, he knows". Cotdd he 'be mistaken] Of course. ThIDS- is w'hy it is alw,ays b h I ," B' 'IL • 'I

etter to:a.ve severa 'witnesses. _ :ut naving severai

'witnes.s'es makes sense' only jf we postulate the possible' existence of truth" 'wit.hout which there c,ould be no justice. Ifwe had no access to' truth, or ,rnf truth. ,simply did not ,e·x.mst~, what diff,er-ence, would there then b ' between ',L ~l d he I .... B-' • d tne gUI ty an t~ e Innocent- Between testimony ane

per] llry? Between justice and the miscarriage of ju stice f And if there were: no, nuth, then :h.ow 'would W'e fi,ght revisionists" obscure ntws:ts, and ] wars.?

Th kev l toccnf . ". . L, h·' T'

'e,,· ,. Y 1,$ .noOt to conruse seepnctsm with :sop' 'Ilstry. ,10

be 8l sceptic, as Montamgne and Hume were, . is to believe that nothingls certain ~,and 'we' have excellent reasons to

L ], th t..,"" 'W h·" . f'

oeneve '.- ~ at that rs so'.' e SalY somet 1 ] n;g. IS certain l 'we

are unable to doubt '~t. But bow does. one pro-ve an ,]na.bility? For centuries j. men 'were elena] n tha t th e earth was :stationary: that d~d no .. t stop ~'t f[,o,m turning . ~ . 'Certainty wou~d be :knowledge which has been proven, But our' proofs are uustworthy only inasmuch as our

.' ~ b h . "

reasonmg IS;' M'£ now ca n we prove our reas onwn.g ts

l.... d lvb '''''

trustworthy, since: we can e 0 so oUJlJy: ."y using our reasonr

'W" Co_ • - h-' .r b-' ~,

.•. ',' e regtster t, e appearance o~ objects,' wrote

Monta-~,gn,e". 'to judge them we need an instrument of judgement; to test the yerac.ilty of that rnstrument we

d t'· 1! [" , - h f d'

nee , prac scar proor; to test that proo we nee an.

instrLlment. We are goin:g, :round in circles. This is the

circle of kno'wledg~"i which prevents W.t from clahnlng to be shsolute. How do 'we [b:!'eak the circle,"? 'We can do so only through reason. OIl' experience; hut neither wiU su.ff'lce: ~Ierienc:,e'j! ~leca.us;e, it relies upon the senses; reason bee a III se it relies upon ttself, 'The senses them .. selves being fuU of uncerta,mnty cannot decide the issue' 0:1 our dispute,' M:on taigne goes on, 'Ir win have to be

Re' ason th , e in' B····u- - ~II- n 0' .. I "R' ',~~S', on can be estabbshed. except

'. _~'!!J ~l ~ 1 \ ,til ,111.,., ,~u . ~. . ~ .

by anothe:r Beason. We. retreat into ,wn:6n ·ty .. ~' 'We have a

choice" therefore, between 'knowledge's viclous [circle or an infinite series of bacbrard steps: the result is. a eater ... .22. The 'very things which make knowledge pos.slble' (the senses, reason, judlge:ment) make it impos,s.:wble for us to

establish it as truth.

ki '~1llil1..... b '-t"

ules Lequ.t.er has a str~'lng ma~tlm;, 'vv hen we ~ e ieve

Vlfuth ,every :f~br-e of our being that we have reached the. truth~ we must know that we' believe, and not believe that we know.' Long Live, 1-fume,., long live tolerance!

Marcel Conche also has something striking to sa.y about Montaigne,. Doubtless 'we have certainties, many of 'whi,ch seem, to be ours by right. (.ce[ta~ntffi,es which are a'bsolutely legittmate or justified); hut 'the certainty that

th ,.

there are certainties by right :~ S no more' an a certainty

of fact', So we must ,conclude that the most unshakeable cert .... in .. ies str niedy' speaking .. prove nothing. '; no P',fi(ito:fs, are

I~. La u.' .~~ ~ ~ ";] __ ',:. I, -: ,'. [ .. t "l~ _- '., ,' •. ' -'.- -

abS~llu,tely eonclu sive,

Sho'ldd 'Ville therefol1e give up th~nki:n.g? Absolutely not,

'It is possi ble that there are true proofs/ Pascal remarks, 'bu t iit is not certain,' 1 t cannot, in eff,ect ~ be proven -

.. ~

The Litt'le Book of ,P,nil(}saphy 53

since €ve:-ry proof presupposes ft. The, proposttion There

f' ,j1 • '11... -Th" • •

are true proo..s cannot oe prove~n.m _,' .. _c prOposltH)n

~-M" , ",",ill. .0", ] b·· 'II. b

,,: I atnemanes revea ,S 0 -,}ectlve, reanty cannot e

..J ..J IL .' II ThL . . 'Th

demonstrated rnathemattca y. I e preposnton ',,; e

experimental sciences reveal objeetlve reahty' cannot be proven 'by experiment, But this, doesn't stop U$ from,

'. hemad h ,; t, > ] L .....

pursu mg mat emaucs ,. p lySJlCS or [JIQ, [O,gf,! nor 1 rom

believl ng that a. proof or an, experiment is more val uable than an, opinien, 'The' fact that everything is u ncertsin ~s nO reason to gmve up the search for trut h, since it is, also uncertain that. everything is uncertain" as Pascal went on

, d i is thi if hi 'h th .

to note ,. an ~ .u rs t _: IS tact w I~'~ C. 1'.' means t[ .~ e sceptics are

rtght, even though they are unable 'to prove it. Long ~ive scepticism and Montaignel Scepticism 'i So not antithetical

•. C f'" I "":~l 'r m·, mm"

to reason: It is a rorm 0 UCu ranonalisrn taken to 1 ts

'~I ical lusi , h . hi h 'b

~o,gIDea, cone usion ~, to t (at point at W_,IIC reason.vey

virtue of its own rig:o[ous.ness! comes to doubt its own apparent certainties. After' all, what proof is there ,~n

!"li'prnn,o,p,;;:.'n··c" e·""' .... ' a > r ~!~11!. g~J ",I v ~ r

Sophism is a very. difFerent thing! it I"S not the heUef that nothing is certai n ~ but the belief that nothing is true, This Is something neither Hume nor Montaigne ever suggeste:d. wny~ if they believed it to 'be true, would they have engaged in philosophy, and to what end? If scepticism is the antithests of dogmatism, sophistry is,

"-~l. • L '. f' - . . J' ff' h . '" h -I

tw ~,e antithesss '0 ranona ism, u nO~1 . Ing lS tlrue, W nat ro ,€

is there fur' reason?' How could we discuss, ,ar:gue,. know'? We cannot say of knowledge. '(To each his own.' ,If' we did' SO;~ there 'would be no truth at ,31]1., sl.tu:;=e it can be truth

-]' ""f'·· . I iC I b h '~

on"y n rut IS urnversa '0 I"O'r examp ,e~, you may'e the OhJLY

person in the 'wodd who knows that you are reading this 'book. Nonetheless, l.t ts universally true: no one, regardless of where or when. he lived,~, could deny it witheut proving himself ignorant 0,1' fa ~ia:r. This ,m's why it he universal is the domain. of thoug:hts:;' as, Alain :re~ma:r~)d; it is this which 'makes us an eq ual before the' truth .. Truth does n.ot do. as. it is t.old'~ 'that is. 'why It is free, that ~s' why it frees us.

- . .

Of' COU""'~.a, it ;IS' impo issible to nTOii:IO th at ,t"~I, '£0 soph 'ists

w. ", [',.'! I~I,~~, ,I). ~:'" ,,",III,,> .. "' ... ti]i ),l~ ~J ~~1,.: .. !jrl~ ~~~ .a_" n~ .~ .. I_ ... j, ~·:~.~l

( f']- h ..

are wrong I since every p,rno postu ates t" e existence at

least of the idea of truth); but. the possibility [h.a~: they m:mght be right is, something which we cannot even formulate coherently, If [h[e-rie were' no such. thing as truth} tbe fact that there is no such. thing as truth wou~d itself be untru e. ),f everything were false, 8J:S N.i.etz'S{;he wished r. ,~t WOtl~.d be false t'hat everything was false, In

hi '-h· - like ... . d· I d

t 1$" sop, ,],s:~ry" un ],' ..• scepticism, IS para, I oxica arx as a

,phrn,~osophy' self-destructs, True, sophists, however" [do not worry about such things. 'What does, contradiction

.... 'W'" 3~i hoi hi .... B 'h·~ h

m,a.tte,f!:">· . at does ,P ~] osop , y mstterr ut p ::,rn,~osop" ers

since Socrates have 'believed that s uch thi ngs matter; they have th,eir reasons J which are: reason itself and the love of truth. If .nothing ws ~[[u.e,~ it Is po\scsible to thmnk. ,ao.y=

hi 'h- .' h ~ '. f' , h htsi b· th h'

t Ing~ w "1~C ~ ~:S' conventent ror Lil€ sop, Hits; I!' ut thought

is no longer possible, which is fatal to 'phj:~osup,hy~

What I call sophism is ,any form, of thought WhIDC'h defers, to anything other than what a ppears to be the

h h h if h Ill... L' h

nut ,'~ orw ric forces uut_· to submit to anyt(fi:ng at' ~er

.,'

J,.'

~,

~ I

[ "

than itself (to power" to vested interest, to desire, ttl [de'O;~oov . _')1 = n theorv, knowledee is what keeps us. from

.. ", bJ" 2! - i'II e -_. , " ..... ,I:1i' . '.. --0' [!I.' '. ~_ I ',' " __ , ~ ••

this, m practice, honesty, -t'ar if nothing were either true or false, there would be no diffe1re:nce between knowle dge and i,g:noranc,e, nor between. hones.ty and

d"· h S' '. ~" d-I d ld

, rs sonesty, 'c~en:CieJ moranty an '. emocracy cou u not

exist. If ,everything is. falseJ e¥er:yth~ng IS permitted; fa]si~'·:ng,: experiments an .. d 'P-: roofs tsmce none are

, - -- - --. I -', -~, I, ,.. _ _ g~., .~, v ~ \:~y:; _ .~.l' _.,.;.. • ~ . - ~~I!,'~

[ . ['

gen.uine). pHtillng supersti don agalnst science (si nee

there would be no truth to distinguish 'between. them)

• 0 h" ( ," . L Id b

COl1VlCUng t e mnocent vsmce there wou 1.1 ne no,

g,igni.ficant diffe,re:O!ce betw'een true and false testimony), denyi ng the most establ ished tru ths of hi story (since they are a's, false as any other)" al[oHNing crirni nals to go free (since it ,'.,5 untrue that they are guilty), allowing [oneself

" '. dl ~I ., . 'mi. fb h u

to. ,run,' ,u~ge ~n. crurunanty ''i"I .. eceuse even t e ,gU.Ilty are no

I· ,,", . ,-.', .'~'iiI'.')' ref .,,' ' ... , .... '-. ,1., -, -I'·d' "'f ."

onger g.uuty.~, re uSIng to accept tne va l' llt1' or any

election (si nee an elec tion is valid Oin~y ref' one can tndy know the result) ,., ,. '. The dangers are obvious, l.f it is. possible to thin'k anything" mt is pos s,j.bIe to do anything:

S ophistry le',ad s to nihil ism, as. ni hilism leads to barbarism

I ' 'I~ '" h ~ h zi f ~'= J' d' . " 'I d- · ,oj. •

t ,WS, trns W uc ,- gives unowre g,e: Its spmtua an, C,]vm rnng

dimension What is, enlightenment?' asks Kant It is man emerging .fru:m, his, own minority.~, he replies, and one can

,-., ,. i onlv th . I· 'L kn ~ _ _-~I - dl '~s- '--, J.' ~p D'" .

emerge. on.y irougns owre _ ge: .. Ia:pere '(l~" r : are ito

knowl 'Have the courage to make use: of YOlLlr own understanding p is to'lI1,.,u,s th e, m otto o·;f- enlig ... h ten m ient, \~':iIj.7~~"h· 0: ut

.;J. al "":." {;lI II.; W J .... L , " _ . 111,... ., _ It 1[~rlL~. ~ I _ =',. '~, . rv !I! IL- 11. ! •

5 6 And' ~ C>-' - $' ':C' Ie

':. .' '. -_ -'_ " .. :h " ':,oi'lI~'+.n~ I , -e .. -lflIn"4l_li'II", . --:

". " I. _If.I~ : .,ur'-iI?~ . 'r"Vt' ~Vl~ ._

moralismg {to know is not to judge'j' to judge is -not to know), aU knowledge teaches us morality: since without

," .• • ~ i I-"" ~·b'~

mi~ ~ or In opposnron to It" no- mora Ity IS POS$i. ~ Ie,

IP'~ '". " • h - . ~I,_, h ' -"-h - 'lpll . "d"~ ,. h

rms rs W- ,Y' we: must sees t~ e tru t .• " as ,~"la'to sam, wnr

all one/ S SO'!!.l ~'" _, ,81] t'h,e more $10 because the sou 1 may '\i'H~U

'b th- " - 'ilL ",.iL • h

'e 'rlO'"'I-.IDng more: h'l(ln tms search.

It: is also 'why the searc h never ends, N'!ot beeau se We,

'~l-,- 'h '" hi h 'It.. • gh'~l. 'il, IL 1 .

can: ,MU]W not] _.wng{l' W~ ic seems m -~,~Y' j_m,p'.rolDaIDj,~,e., but

'~ ... " .. _-,,- j' :-,.', ~,t ~ , .' -' " .- q~ .. ]I .. -. ,.' ,iI": ", I_,~.,.-."" " c· ,. _. ,,--'h'·" ., ·Th··

necause 1 is l.m.pOSS,IU "e ever ",0 ,K.UOW everyt ,. Ing. ' , e

great Adstode", with his, customary fla:ir',~ said ~t 'best ~ Th!e. search for truth. is both di~"c[dt and ,e:a,sy: none can ever

~~,- lt b ]1· ] ,;'. :a-l_ j'

,NlOW 1 _' ,3; . '. SOlute ,y-~ nor cD1ID:S:S :~t anogetner,

This is what. aUow:s us 'to go on ,~e,a.rning and what

',".- '- .. ,- tm .. _ doi ..... ,-. ,(-, 'h ,.]-',--,'. h sa., the x h-···1

prove'S I ne ,ogm,a nsts '. W! IQ ciai rn to nave (I e w,:' o~e:

ttu-Ml') and the sophists (who ,cIQ~m there IDS no truth, or that :i[ is c()I,m.pilletely' heyond ou r reach) 'wrong.

Between a'bsolute ignorance and absolute wisdom, there is a, place for lmowledg:e' and for progress,. 'We slm p']Y" 1Ij"II,~J:!I;d' t """ U"'O- r ~L-, at ml~ I

~'"' ',', -. ':. ~,J,~'!IIr V ·VIf.!._" .!l\, g . Jtl~~

6'" [;.yzJ'e·::-'d: ~o',.·.m·.-:-',

_ llil r'''',,·~.-. ~~,.-' ... 'I;, '_.

To be fr,ee is to' do as one wishes,. But this can be construed in many' dwfferent ways .. ,

F jts,dy~ It is the freedom ItO do,~ freedom of action, and. as g,uch. [hie antithesis 'Of constraint, of hj ndranee and of slav,et'y,. Liber[Y'~ wrote Hobb eSl- ~"I$, the absence of external imped ~:ments which prevented a course of ,a;ct~~o.n: as such, 'w,ater ,held in, a. vase is, not free, since the, vase preven ts it ,f[,om flowing;; when. the' 'vase: breaks, the water is free again: in this, sense a. person enjoys ,~iberty proportionate to tb.e' space be is al~owed, ~ :I am free to, act, in this sense, when nothing and no, one prevents me.

S·' ilL ;[:'.). L 1 (h '~!

t: ,U en ,!II. reeoom 15 never a~I,$O ute : t,:· ere are aiways

obstacles] and rarely entirely absent. ,[Evcn the prisoner

in 'his cell can u sueUy choose to sit ~ to stand, to sp eak OI" [0 be sHent~, to pian h:~s escape '0[' curry favour with his g3,o~€rS . .' . And no citizen :~n ~ny possible S tate could do everything he :might wish: people and la,ws. impose certain constraints which he could ,flout only at 'hW5, own risk, This. is whY' such freedom is often referred to as

freedom in 'tiw p,olitica:l sense'; since the Statl€! is the principa] agent wruch cu rtawm,S fre~dom,~, ~3Ul[d prob1abilly the only one which can safeguard it. Such freedom, is greaier in a liberal de.moe'racy than. it :i 5, in a total itarian state, And greater too in a state gove:rned by laws than in the natura] world: becau se. on~y the Ia,w gives freedoms to aU :aUowing ind:ivi,duals [olive, together nwther than oppose one another ~ [0 be stronger (even If this entails mutual restrlctions] rather than to destroy one, another. Where

L • ~' 'l k IL d 'th 'b~

tnere 1$ ne ~aW1~ , ocxe ooserve " ,t, ~'ere can I.e no

freedom, For to be free: means to be free from the persec ution and the: violence of others: something which 'WIOU~.d oe impossible if there were no aw .,~ Does the State curtail your freedom? Probably; but it also curtails the ,ftee do,m of others, which. is the onlliy thing, which makes your freedom real, Wmthout. laws, there w~u~d be nothing but 'violence and fear, lean there he anyone less Iree than someone who 1$ constantly 'terrified or th re ate n ed?'

To be feee, tbere'fr~)l'e" is to do wha~ 'we' 'want: :freedO'm, of action, freedom in the ,po~i tical sense, relative pbysica : freedom, It is, the fr'eed.o:m, ofHobbes, Locke and Voltaire fliherty is: snnply the pow-er to act'), and pe:rhaps the' only

""J"'1 __ L·· ~41·,I! r., B'~ 1.,1 p;'~ .-:,. " .'L" i!:""9' ,I, ,~t~~u;: ,~, oo~ OJ .' .. ft:no,wp["l J '.

,kIDnd of freedom whose re.al1[y end whose price: are. incont.esta.b:me.,

But are we abo ,free to c[nODse' what 'we: want? Th:w:s rns the second sense of the wOird freedom~ freedom to choose, freedom in the metaphysical sense, some ,mmght claim, absolute freedolm~ even perhaps supematural freedom. P'hilosop1h'icaU,y, this is the most pro blemanc - and the most mterestlng ~ in terpretation of n:be word.

Let us take an example, In any democracy worthy of the n Sine " you ,are: free to. vote for any candidate in. an election .. Your 'i[i€edo,m o'f action in the privacy of [he poUing booth is total ~ even ahslQlillute (though it is circumscnbed by the list of candidates), and therefore

YOU C'~~~ in effe!c~' vot ~ ;""r' who imever V0U, W1, dsh Politic '''J,'~I

, .~ ~~~]!], ... IN., .', . ~ [roo .- .~.,,~..w, I Y __ ' ' .. ~ ill ,,~~y ""~I

flieedom: freedom.of action.

B 11 t are you also free to choose 'to. vote, fo.r ~~his candidate or dlat? If you are: lett""wingJ are you ,foe€. to choose to vote, for the :right? If you ale r~,ght-Mng~ are you free to favour the left? If you fan into neither camp are you fr,ee to choose one:? Can you freely choose your opinions" desires, fears and hopes,'? And if' so, how'! You could do so based OIl other opinions, ether desires, other fears, other hopes, - or 'yOU might. make a purely random, choice, whi.ch would immediately cease ' 0 be random. fro vote ,a:t r.a'naom wou]d. not be 'to vote freely., Bu t in voting £0([' whom one IC.OO·QS'es are we net prisoner of our choices or the causes (social, jnte,nec.~uJal. ffideolowcal . . .)1 which determine those c~hoi[ces? We

make a choice based on OUI' opinions, But who can choose his, opinions?

,1.1iuman beings 'think themselves to be free/ Mote Spinoza, 'Insofar as ~ihe.y are conscious of their volitions

, and of their appetite, and do not even dream, of the causes by whillch they are Jed 'to .aPIP etitlon and 10 win. ~ Are we flee [0 do what we. want? 'Of course we are I But wh.y do we want what we 'want? Our choice is. ,a part of tea]i:~: it is subjected, a's, everythmg iSJ to the principle o:f sufficient reason (D!O'thjjng: 'exists Ylithout reason: everythi ng can be explained), the principle of ceuseltty (nothing Is born of nothing: ,everytl1'ing has a cause), and ]ast]y to the determinism which affects macroscopic obje.cts. And ,e'ven w{~ at a microscopic level, there were some ultirnat[e indetermlnism (as the Epicureans believed and as quantum physics seems [0 confirm today)" you wou]d nonetheless be de.le:tn1.ined~ at a neurobiological ,~e.ve,~ ~ by the atoms of which you are m,ade up~ :If their movements are un:pr,@,dictahle:,., they cannot then be: su bjec t [.0 your will: ~t. is your wil 1, rather, whiich is subject to them. Randomness is not fr-ee. How' could a. will worki n,g at random he, :free?

There is a more puzzling secret than that of the' poUin,g boo tb: it is, that which is contained within you r brain, a place where no, one can venture, not even you, Whose name 'wiU he ticked on the ,form you put Into the ballot b~)x? Are you free to choose? Certainly. But what do 'YOU know of the neural mechanism which makes tha~, cholcei'

I'

Lastly, your choice, even. if we ,admit that you make it freemY,j remains sub;Ject to 'who you are. MilUons. of others

'·'1'] ] ,- d",tt 1 W=-h th ,.J·d decid

M .e ece to vote " I:rl,erent y,. ',' J en, t ien, url[ you .'. ecioe

to be iY'OU1'" r-ather than someone else'?

, '

This is U ndoubtedly the thorniest part .of lhIe p[,[ubrnem,.

l'f 'I' d h' ho iti h -h fi ~). 'fl ,lir - ,. JJ.:. [0, not C"OOSf' WrQ It IS W' 0 cnooses [Ii.. me ), Sit (~]r my

choices are determined by who I am, some!thing, which ,I ..l,~..l' no'" choose I:j- ,.1 the y can no- it, therefo 're be f"'i'la"e- 'u't",

l(lJ],WU. 'I,; Il"'l ' ,,11,..: . I[~l.·,~ r[Jl[lU t_;' . :.:. i. OL . llr~, 'Il~ [!l.W[I,I~J.~J.)._· .. _.'. 'I;;. n":~" 'I! '.'

how' could I poss"bly choose who '~ am, since any choice

I I'. d d . d '. 'Ii' :L 'h'"

make [ eperx " s on ~ t ~ anq smce ..J, cannot c noose anyt '-, mg

a[ al~ unless I am already someone w'no has chosen tOI be, someone or something?

Th- dl b D"d ~ J

is accorc ~S 'wit I -i!' tarot s two questions in ,acques

J_~, ~"":., j", ',. '~' ~ - ',' . ",," "hI" f'''', 1-' - -:-:-': '., b-c'., ,', ,-', -,) An" nd

tne ratanst IS It POSSl" e ror me not to ,f! me. ,',',' '" :I!

b "·'ng' me' c 'an 1 -W"-~l',ch' (to', b o ther?' If 'Ii' cannot Le other

e, ':'-:]I:I,~''-:''l can 1 :"':'~L-; :) I .. re; I_~[;~ r I. 1 ~·"';l~.l: .. ' IlJ _,I .. ~,[,

:L ' J hi' h 'ill, f- "'I. tnanme tnenrne is a prlson. how can I ne rreer

, ,

One should not be rD~) hasty' Jn concluding that such freedom does not exist, or that mt is pu rely an iHILl sion, 1'01 be fn:~e~ as, I said ~ is to do as one 'wants . To be free: to choose ~ is to wan,t what one' wants ~ I' tan g,llJarant[ee that this is a, freedom \;vhich 'wUJ never le~ you down; how [can you not 'want. wha~ you want, Of' want something else" in . 'I "

rts P acer

Far from being non-existent, the freedom to choose is, rather, something of an [oxym,oron~' a,~ lchoices are free, as the Stoics say, and it ,~s' in tfijs. sense that 'free,. spon ... taneous and voluntary' (as Descartes describes en action in the process .o,f taking place) are synonyms, Thws

I[

"

6 2 •. '. A, ',.,~, J.«,,:h C' ' '"I'lI.ft1'''":-'''! S"'11.j."fIM'Ii1~:r,' ~

.' '1Ja.)~-fc,. ," Urf-~'i~!!!!!I!~ r v.r,,"v;I;·£.W

freedom:! whose existence is not [d~:sp uted by most philosophers~, is what 'we might call t 1- e spontalle:iJy o.f desire. Thls is Freedom according to, Epicurus and Epictetus, bu t also" broad! y speaking, ac,cGnrding to Aristode, Leibniz or Bergson., It is, the. &ee)dom to choose, or rather ~ it is choice its/elf when it depend s solely on me (even thou.gh that 'meIs determtned): I am free to desire 'what I desire, and that." in fact) 'is 'why I am 'me .. ~

Does my brain [dictate .my chomc.eC?" Of course, But 1 am my hr:ain; so I am dllic.tathl_g to :myse'.~f. That I am determined by' what I am proves that my fTeedom is not absolu,t,e,. but not that it does not exist: in this sense fre'edom is sfm plly' the det[ermined abiHty to determine my own acttons. The brain, according to contemporary' neurohio,~o.gls[s.,~ is an 'open seJf-,r.eg~~a.ting system', Cie,arly [ am dep endent on it, Bum: to d,et·ermined by what one is, (and not some external force) ,is the very def niticn of lndependencel It Is proper to speak of choice be,mng,aetermined to indicate tha t it is neither submissive no-r weak. That j So not the converse of fr[eedom,~ it is freednm in action.

Besides, it do esn' t matter whether we are . aUdng about the brain or sbour an insubstannal soul To be ,fr[eeJ Jn either. case, is still determmed by 'what one is j and, In principle, on that a~one, We are :freet" Bergson wrires, 'when our actions proc-eed from our whole personality, when they express U~ when ~hey hear that i.n,deft nable stamp that one sometimes finds which .Hnks an artist and his work .. ' 'Obvious~y,. Raphael cannot choose to be. Rapba.eJ or ,M'ic.be·~elJ.g\eIDio. But far :from preventing him

. .

fr ." f ] . . -h' h' h him.H

om pamtmg: ree y, it IS tl ,'IS whic ,,I empo-wers ' ! rm, ,I ow

could, nothingness [be free? How coukl an impersonal being choose? 'It ~n be alleged" therefo.re:J that we yield

, , he all ....f 1 • 1f1:i' 'f' , . ~ B

t(JI [I:.J;~ a, -powernu mnuence Ol! our c naracter, , ergson

continues, but bnmediately observes [hat this objecnon

. .] '0' L., t" d t iL

IS meanmgiess: '.U[· character, 'OOJ is US., and tv ne

influen.lC'ed by onese.~f (how could one not beet) is preclsely what ,wt is. WI he' free. 'In a word, j' Bergson conc ludes, (~f we agree that freedom is every action. 'whil(:h proceeds from the self and it a]one. then that action wh ic ,h. bears. m.'e impdnt 0.£ our personality is, truly free,

," 'I h 1£' ~'d '~II lai ''', "Thi h ii'

smce on.~y t ,Iat sen wouk .~ay C aim to it. ms .IS, W' iat JJ.

mean by the spontaneity of choice. That it is determined does; not in, ~ny way prevent it from determining: in fac t

_1i T_ -,

it [can luelerm~:ne only :oecam--e it is determined. I don't.

. h' I h d i . " ~.

want J IJS[ anytllu1.g,., w-ant 'W . lat , want, anc _. It is, in. trns

sense that I. have the freedom to choose,

'.

f

t'-

Very 'we.mI. But am I free' to want s:omething oth.e:r than what I want? Is ,my choice a S'poHtane&u-s :fn:!edom to

,'h" -- ,-- (. ;--- othe "..JI', . -b"·' ," ,- 'J"'"' 'IL.., ,', I Co,l·

C, noose In. ot ier words, su I ject OD_Y to wnat amj, or an

undetermined freedom t-O chOOSE' (which is not subject to anytbing, not even to 'w.hat I am)? ,A relative freedom Of

" lsd d h ]-" bsol ("f~) h

It: IS 1.1 epem ens on tc_' e se ~ J or- an. aeso ute one '1 even tt >e

self depends upon :rnt)? Am ] free: to vote for the right only if' am r~ght -wmg, for example, for the reft if I: am. I eftwmn.g1, or am I: in fact free to vote for e.it'luT.· light o.r left, which would ~m'p,~)l' ..... except in very p',arti.cuIDar circumstances ... that. I am free to choose whether to be'

,i "'7

right- or left-wing? This secondary .freedom to choose, which is mysterious (smnae it appears ~o violate the principle of identity: it postu lates that I. can 'want something. other than what I want), is what philosophers

if.:. t: h' ~- ... ~ 1[-.l ;!: __ ,J':~

or lien rerer 'to as tile pnttoS'&priY OJ·" ~tJJ ~Tenc:e, or, more

usuallv as fro ';U wiU Marcel iConche [mves a perfect

• ..~I ~_'_ . , iJ':t ' '. . ". I •• ,._J" - " , •• -.,'.. ,,_. _'._ er'J" '. . - _" -' -

d f~;· ~ . f'" 'F '"]1 'i' ~. ·'t ~... h C .d to

e irunn.}on 0 It.=", ~tee 'WL(I),) ne wrr eSf :1;S tie rree I om '_~

determine oneself, undetermined 'by anyt:h'wng else.' This is freedom according to, Descartes, Kant and Sartre. It postulates that what I do (my existence) is not determined by what I am" but on the: contrary creates the

:se" If"' ,",'" " 'h:, ,',', 'ili:'!m~, -"'t ~:~, '~·Wh,"·" " ,0"'1;'" 'D' , ,.,"" "," ,pt.~"" un 'd' ';i:ir",":c.::f-,'- ad

_. _ ~, or ,c, .oO~!Ib;]j ill J ,J ~e"y.. ',' I (J,L ' eSC8, u;;~ I '. I, ~·r.SI~OO ",

......c ~!' ,. s' ~", h - h if fr'" d

p;en!.ect~yji" wrttes : sartre, is ttl iat t C" e [concept 0: rreec om

"- '. ,- ,'" ,'. ,.'~ ., .," t," - . ", b '~. t, . , - ,"," ". " fr "" .,.,_.

neeessanry con ams an ae SOJiU e autonomy, a rree act IS

absolutely- new; no seed of which. could be contained. in the world as it previously- wa.s and that action and.

'. 'h f I' So, h f ~~ . ~I

creauon are ~ ererore one. ~:'ucreeuo'm IS, on~y

b' .. 'd f-oI! d

possi e, as Sartre realizec :,. i,' existence precedes

j 'f"" co f .. '1\'11.. " ,I. • hi

essence: 1 " man is :~I tee It IS om y neca use man IS not_.~U'i,g

else, I as Sartre puts it, but what he .m,akes of hlmself", J am free only on the ~.I condition. which I grant is. par.ad[oDcaj~, that :I choose ,myse~f absolutely': i.Every

j' S ." B' -- J' N" 1~ • ~.

person, ',' artre wntes ~n""eing aJUJ :, ,o:b:dngness" ts an

'I)] h ~ f'" 111£'"

S 'SOlute COlee !O) I" 'Sie~ , .

This. choosing of the se,~£ by the seJf~ 'MthQut. whmc~h (Tee' wi.U is impossible, unthinkable ~ is. illustrated 'by ,pm at 01 at the erose of The Re:pubH,e by the mifth o.f .B'E' (in 'whi(:h souls between rwo incarnations choose their bodies and

h irIi ")"'" L[ 11'._ J] d i '~II'~[' '·-hl- h'

t e']!' lV€S; It IS, what Mnt ca .I.e Int'e,ulg1.' e C.·~ aracter,

.a~d. !it i s what Sartre, m a further paradox, refers to as orig~ rial :fTele~do·m" which precedes, all choices and upon which all choi ce s are dependen t . S u ch flr''e)edom is either a bselute or not a t ,aIDl, It is the undetermined freedom to determine oneself in other words 1 the power to; :flee]y create oneself. 1.t Is something which is the prerogative of [God.~ according to some, or whic h makes gods of us, j;f ~nde:ed we have that freedom,

There are therefore two principal meanings of' freedom --freedom of action and freedom to choose ,~ the second of which su'bdivldes in turn into two: the spontanei [y' o:f

h ". d (' "I]

c osce an:.. tree 'WI ..

I 1.. l"I!"'" A'-b I I S h h I

S tl181 a l,r .-" so ute y not, Since t :,!oug" It is. a so an

action: 'to do as one. wishes can also mean to think what one wishes, This poses the problem of fr~eedom of

.'Il.. h·'" t: d 'd" d f ind

'tI[OUg;~tl or as It is rererree to, In: epenoence 0. mmu,

The problem in part retraces that of freedom of action, and therefolie' of freedom :wn the political sense" Fn~edo.m. of thought (and, all that it presupposes: free,dom of ioformation, of expression, i().f debate ... ) is. a. fundamental human rlght an d ·an integral par . 0;( democracy.

But it goes beyond this,,, For example, ill£' we imagine a mathematical problem, in 'what. sense am I. free to solve it? 1:0 'the sense oI &eedom, to choose? CJea:r.~y not; if I understand' be ,proof~, the solution is, obvious to met just as it escapes me if am unable to understand it, This despite the fact that no au [side force constrains .my thought or hinders me: I: th.'mk what :I 'wish, t.hat is to .say

..

what ,I know (or believe) to be true, Wlthout that knowlle.dge~ no freedom could be effective., If the mind had no- acces s, however incomplete, 'to the truth, it would. remain a prisoner of i.t:seJf: its reasoning W1QiU ldl s:lmpI,!y be

c(, d-I f 'Lb L h ~

a rorm 01 maaness 0'. which every tn.oug::ct 'was mer:e~y.8;

symptom .. It is reason. \\lh~~cJl. .bees, 'Us. from this, It .Ere-'Ies, us -{Torn ourselves and opens us up to, the universal. The rntnd 'OWr8$, no obedience/ writes Alain, ~A geometric proof is suffi.reient to prove this; for i:f yi()IU blindly accept it, yo u are a. fool; you 3Fe betraying the mind.' This is. why tyrants have n.OI love of truth, Because truth obeys only its:e:~f; truth is fr.e.e. Not 'because we can think 'wna: ever we like, but becau se the necessity of truth is: the very d·e.frnition. o:f its independence ..

In Eu chdean space ~ what is the sum Df the .ang~.es of a tri8:ng~e?' .Regard~ess of' my body, my country, :my subconscious" of anything at aU~ .I can only answer ~ assuming 1 have understood the proo.1 - <t }·80 degrees', Nonetheless, it ~:S' possible that i am never more free:' han, when; as now l I su.bnltt on!y to the' truth as far as I know it, let us ,say 'when l su bmi~. to reason, in other words to that need .in me w.hich Is not me, but w.hieh moves throu.gh me and whtch I understand,

There are numerous examples we could take .. 'What is 3 x '7'( What is. the ratio of matter and ene-rgy? Who tiUed H',enry'lV?' Does the sun move around the. earth, or ~be earth around the' sun'? Only someone m,g!Floranl of these things can cheese h.is, answer, only someone 'who knows

L I can answer rree y.

The Little ,Boo.k of Philosophy 67

Freedom of thou.ght; freedom to reason .. This IS not a

( - [L .• - •. '". 'h fr d e fI ~ h

ree cnoiee, Ii[ ms t; e .ree '- om O.l!!. necess '~y. .!Jl is tile

freedom of truth, orr truth as freedom, This ts fr·eedom according to 8pinoza,) to Hegel and. no doubt according to Marx and .F reud: freedom as an understood necessity ~ Dr I,atbe-r as an understanding of necessity,

To be free, in the true sense of the. word, is to 'be subjl€ct on.~y to one's own necessity, explains Spinoza: ,th~;s ,·s· 'why reason is free" and why it fr,ees us,

F.reedom of action, spontanefty of choice, free willIt, freedom of thol1~t or of re'ason '" . ,. of these four meanings, each may choose the one (or more than one ~ they are .not mutually exclusive) which seems most :~mportant or most firmly established to him. Is this choice, too ~ free? There can be no absolute answer, since n.OI knowledge wo 'ld 'be sufficientj, since any answer W10tdrd presuppose and: depend upon a. choice already made .. F.reedo.m :ms a mystery, at least i\1'Sloifar as it is a. p,hj~osophIDc.am problem: we can never prove its existence, nor can 'we understand it completely, This mystery ~s

- h t c t· . " . 'II!... • ~ f' .

wnat cons.' uutes us,: In this sense eacno - us rs a mystery

even to r(~1L1 rselves, If l have chosen to be what I am, the '. " "~]'"'' ' .. ·d·· I;b· .-. ate ·dj : h -; .. - .. 1d-' -I . h '.' b ,- - .l resu ,Ll.ng . e t.~ .. era .. eo enoree ,c.OU!lIJI.:_ on y .. lave. een mace

in another life .~ ·as Plato ~sugg!es'~s - in another wodd -as. Kant would s sy ~ Orr at le ast in another J eve~ of this wcrld - in Sert re' s terms .. But of this other UooJ. this other \voddJ this other level, I can, by definition, have no

kn 1 d hi ,. h 11' b I' h I f- (.-

oWJ.e, ge: t us rs 'W'I ,Y 11. maY'e'~leve: t ,s,t _. am .. tree 'jn

.

68 Andre Cmn:te=$porn,ville

- h t 'b ,0 f~ "n)·. - h b' iIL'-1

t ~e sense, 10.£ I :,I;B,Vlng :- ree wiu •.• 'WU' our ever ! oeing ,~iO" e to

prove It,

I t is possible that this ]'$ not the most: -importanr sense of the' word. Of the four p ossible meanings, at least three are difflc'U.~t to dispute: freedom o·f action, spo;ntanemly of choice, the: free necessity of reason, These three freedoms have ill common ~he fact that ,for us, they exist only in relative terms (w'e are more or les« free to act, to- choose, t-o know), ,and that is e:no-ugn to establish what is, at stake: the point is not whether you are completely free but ra ther how 'you can b~come

f' Ie ,.,~~,~. h .;. -" 1

more rree, nree wm, wmcr is a mystery, Hi ',e.SS

important than.,freeing o'n'Selt, 'which is ,3.) process, a gl,OlaJ ~11I:d. a task,

'One is, not. born free,! o:ni€ becomes free, That, ,at [east,

L IL] d ... ·iIL f d 'b 1

is wnat i believe, an r , ,y-I.~S trees 'om is never at so ute,

n'ever in.f,in.rnte", never' def.ill:n:itive: we are 'InOT1J or les» free and our purpose" 6learIy~, :~s to 'bee-orne, as free as we are



able,

It is possible that Sartre is right i.. 'but. t'hat . in itse ~f wOldd not be sntficient to refute :my Iast point. ·\¥hether or not

1 d f" d N' '-'. 'L

we, are a rea y i ree r oes not exempt U:S'~ as rv lie t zscne

ld !' 'b ..In 'IIj·C h

wou i saY:t rrom ecormng 'Ww,la.t we are, ,lj.ven lit eac ~

person is, as Sartre maintains, 'a self~dle~ermjned self ~ th:i:s, would not. exlempt us' from acting, nor from choosing n.or' :f:r,om. acquiring knowledge,

Freedom is not on]y a mystery; it is also a goa] and an .~d'~'~>i?:]-,_,A,'mth- >i'"\iUgh,·-"l'.- W' ·.liCii Iof"a' n n ever co nnpletely shed I"l:g" ht on

.:.Il. ,ua. r. ,nJIL ,.u _, ~ I!i.r " . , ~ V'w .. ; .~ .... ~, ~ J ~.. ~. _

. .' , .

the myste~ry'~ 'this, does not mean that tile ideal does not

enlighten UlS., Though. the goal IDS, unattaina.ble ~ this does not prevent us from. striving :for ,i.t~ nor from m,ov.illn.g towards 'it,

It i~, a question 'of learning" and of fTee~:ng ourselves: freedom IDS hut another name, as, 'we can see ,wn Spinoza, f.or wisdom.

.,'

7- ~ G-·· .... · 'od

'ii . . '.1",. ~.:~. ~ .

'To he Heve' In 'God. is to realize that life bas a meaning' Lud.wrng Wittg:enslein

We do not know whether God exists. This is 'why we must q:uesdo£li .whether or not w'e beHeve.

~ __ ;!Il~,-- \1 knowled ()b' ""'" id 17 ~"n" oil, 'in o·c- der to m·· ake

,0 • '. l!!!.~ni .KJ[~._,I.' ·, ", W,~:"~'C.,,, _."aL J!'\.a: .'I...~ .,._ Ill,..;;.. 'II.'. ,I.,~.,~,

- ;.'.:. -.'- fc : 'f- lth " D '[' kn ~. 'dl, .- ', .. ·d·~····' .c._ ·-···t··- nl~;, I ":1i. d ru ,:~,

room nr am I, nut .. ' ,ow.~.ege IS -e Ji.1iC o d.mh€ ., nor

on ~y because 'we can. never 'know everything, that goes

vitho iIi-.,...... b 'I't 'b· . ',':' ,: - .th .' .... , .. ','., "to,:. I '. '!Iw'", .- lud -W [, ,ou ~ sayln.gj; ,u, "ec.au.se ~ , e essen la 3JL ays e ,,_ e s

'UI' is. W,'_·'-:o, are a: s ienora nt '1'11;£,' the first c.··"a-TIII:"""e a- ~ we are 0:[-' tho e

_. _ _ ~ g, ~ .. ~_V~. ~= v.~ . lfl.l.. L! rl.1~ ... _~~...~ ... .~ _ I . _

u'~tj'mate goal. Why' :rus there something rather than

-~'I :t-Il..'., _'" W:,:,~r:I' IJi" '-'-,-;Ij" 1"""_1·-r- -W·_.r.,·:-·, .. =c~]m -"'-j--' l' .. --;-,,,,,,-_~ W"':'·lh.~?

no L~[ 1],ng:,. . . '. e uO .nOI~ KlIOW.. '. e. WI .w, neve.r .KJ[ J.O~ ,;,. , y .

To what purpose] W:e do not know, nor even whether there is. a purpose . But :ruf it. is true i[h.a t nothing is, born of

- -' ..

nothing, t he very existence of someth ~ng - the world,

the I" .. - .. ,}_':~ " - to ~ -'" ,·1, . th ,t th .. - ~ .

_~. ~Ie unIverse - wou ~y_ seem ~ 0 1 mp y t ,I 8 .. _ _-.' 'ere lIIl;l'$

'm'b -'l." th bei '" ] .J

a.wway"S aeen sometnmg: t .. II,at.elng rs eterna ',,, uncreated,

"-!

The Little Bo(},k ,af Philosophy 7,1

perhaps creator, and this is what some people call God. ,Ha;S. He exj;s'~ed ~o:r all time,'? It would be more accurate to sal,Y that He exists out of ti m,e:~, creating it as he created au' thtnes, \\'hat did, God do before the creation? He, did

!~

nothtng, according to St ,Augusitin,e,~, but in truth there is,

no bejorr:fJ (since any 'before' presu.pposes die existence 01£ time). there was, only the 'unending toda,y of God, w'hieb is neither day- (what sun was, there to measure it, since: ,every su n ,depends on :Hjm:~) ~ nor night, but something which precedesand contai ns every Id!iY l' every ni,ght that we ,~j.veJ that we will live and ;~d~ the nu mberless Ida,ys and nights when there 'was no one liv.ing. Eternity is not contained in. time; time is conrained within eternity, God ID s not in the universe; the ILl niverse is .i n. IG!{} d. Should 'W~ be~:~eve:'? It seems the least 'W'B can do. W:ith-out this absolut.ely necessary bemg, nothing wou ~d have a. reason 00 exist, i--I'ow could He nOl exist'?

God is outside, the wo:d,d.." it'S cause and its end. E verythi ng comes from, him, everything ,I;S contained 'wi't~h[n Him e it 'ms in Him that we have being, moveme nt a.n.d. Jjle",~ acc~o.Fding, to St 'Paul) ,~, everything tends towards

H ~i-m-'- '-H-j a ]~ it! IF-IL ob ;;<'I ll,..;l__ Q it."IId th a iI'1I_~O\;f"il of bei ng 'f. ~ oiO

.Ill . I.. ,. _ I.~ . {~ l~~·l'~ "~[,t" 'lUI ~~"i _:._ _ ~_ .}~ tV:~'·~6,1i;.t; v!·, .... ~. i .~;_: r: ~[l~

absolute Being ~ absolutely :infin ite~ sbsolutely perfect, absolutely rea] .= without which nothi ng relative could exist, YlhY' is there somerhing .r,a~her' than n,Q-th~ll_g? Because God.

I ~ may be said that til is does not answer the question {why God rather than noth.ing?) ~ and this is quite true,

7'2 A'" tu1. 'I': C':" . te S:" - .: .. "lie":' ,

. . , ..... r.. ,~, ,-"""n~"'fii .. _

o _'.'! •• ,N· '. !I.#!Ir!'.~' "C'·U·rr~v.. .,',

But God would be the Being which answers, t.be question of His own. exis·tence. He is .1. :is own cause, as philosophers P'IJJ.t ru.'t.~ an.d thm:s· mystery (how' can a, being. be its own causer) is p\art of what defines Him, iBy cause of futself I understand. that whose essence involves existence, I 'wrote Spmoza, 'or J that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.' This applies only to God; i~~ is God. At least, it is. the god, of philosophers,

'~'H ..J G" d 'b·' hil h )' d

- ow uoes ," '"0.':_ come to ~,e ~n P ,- i osopL,~_Y'~' won ' •. ers

Heidegger, As. His own cause, Heidegger repHes; 'the being ,of being, in the fundamental. sense, cermet be conceived as a. causa ,su1,r. To do so is to introduce the metaphysical concept of God." Heidegger adds tha[ Man 'cannot p:ray to this God nor make sacrifice to H im' ~ But withan,' Him, no prayer, no sacrifice: would be philosophicaUy tm;~\ginabIe,. What is God? God is a being which is absolutely necessary (se f-causing), abso:~utely creator (the cause of everything) ~ absolutely absolute (He is dependent on nothin,g~ everything is dependent on ,I Im]: He is the Being, of beings, and the: founda 10'R of a.U.

Does He ,exist~ He exists 'by deflnition, though 'we cannot tab that de IDn~tion as a proof, This is 'wh"alt is both fascinating and. jr.rit8tin~g about the onJo',logical Foof, which _, at: least from St Anselm 'to, Hege] ~ dominates 'Western p,hlhJ50phy .. How to define God? The sop,l}em.e being (St Anselm: "dlat than which nothing greater can be thought'), that supremely perfect being (Descartes], that being wil.ich is, absolute~y' infln ire (Spinosa, Hegel) ~

,.

ri!J!.1 ~

~-t{

. ,

But~ if He did, not exist, He would not be sup!rteme, nor truly inl~nj~te end. thereby lack. some part of his 'p erfection (to say the leastl), He therefore 'exisrs bY' definition: to think God (to conceive Hlm as, supreme, perfect, infini te . . .) is. to think Him as existing, 'Existence cannot 'be separated from the essence of God:,' writes Descartes, 'any more than an isosceles triangle {To:m lts 'I:\\/-:O equal angles, or the idea. of a mouatai n from the idea, 0,£ a 'va.~~ey;. ~t ls no more repugnant 'to think of a God ( het is to say a perfect 'being) as lacking existence (that Is to say lacking 'perfection); 'than [[0 conceive ,8 mountain whi,ch has no valley ,.~' '1 t might be said that this does not prove that mountains and valleys lexj,St '" '" '" CertajDly':~ ,agn2es Descartes, but the idea, of mountains and of valleys cannot be separated from nne, another, The same is true of IGod,:' His ,existence is in separable from His essence, inseparable from H·!m:~ hence 'He necessarily exists. The: concept of God" H:e:ge:~ ~a~er writes, 'includes within it His existence j.; G,od is the only being 'who exists in essence.,

• r.

co ~

,

.'

-' '. '

;

"I:

';; ,;

e ,

'C]e,arly~ the ontologica~ proof proves nothing; otherwise we would all be believe.rs. - somethmg experience alone

, ,itt~·"· di f' I h'· h . .

~s ,S,UI,[jjc~en.t 'to nsprove - ,or ,. oois - wi· ic ;-1 It is not

sufficient to p,roive. In any ,Ca.SIe, how can ,3 defimtion prove anything, whatsoeverl' One. :m~ght as well claim to

b ~. b'" iL d f · ~ h iiA' 'n dr d J e wean ner uy .. ·C ~lnlng w,eawt -I •••. ', nunc ec aetual

[francs] do not: contain the leas; bi.t mor-e than a hundred

'"'Il.-L ~, 'v.... L_ b '1' • h- ··f-" I h

possm.1) e ones ~ ,~nt remarks, I" lit i am. rIC, ner 1 "" _ "_8:ve one

hundred. real francs 'than. with the' mere concept of them, (l,e. their possilbHityJ~· .. l't is not enough to define a. SUlD of money to pnsseS$ ir, It is no. s:ufficient til) define God to prove that .H·e' exllists,. In any ease, 'how can one .prove an existence :&om ,8; concept? It seems to me that the world is a better (not a priori 'but. a posteriori) argument: wha is known as the .costnologic-al.proof;

W1lat is this,( It Is the application of the principle of :s.lJfficie.nt cause to the 'world .itself'. ,iN'o fact,' wntes Leibniz, ~,cou.~.d be true or existent, no s ratement could be

'I - fif;' h h '~ld'IL

true un ess there is su IJ.cienl cause t cat ~t S . l()u1 : of! so

and not otherwise. ~ That is ito say that it ough[ to be possible to expID8:~n everything that exists in principle even w-ere )lie are Incapable of dOling, so in practice, And. yet. the woi!d exls,ts; Mthou.t expl.~a,nQtion (it ts contingent In that it ,cotdd have not existed). Therefore in order to explain its existence, we must postulate a cause, But if that cause, too, were contingent, it would, in tum have 'to be (~Jtpmai; ed by another, s,nd so on ad; i;nfi,nitum" such that the whele series of causes ~ and the'refoJr,e: the world - w()H:~d remain unexpl~:ai",ed. Therefore, in. order to exp a..~n aU conttngent beings (the 'wodd)~ W~ must postulate an absolutely necessary being (G'Od)l, I t follows, Leibms giQ'es, on ~ that the final reason of things mt~ st be In. a necess ary substance in which the variety of parttc u.]ar changes exists only eminently, as in its. source; and this subst.ance we call 'God. "fro put It mn other werds: ~f'dte wo,da", then Gad; the' world i$~. the~eJ()re' God',

To .my mind 'this proof a contige"Jit1: munili (fro.m, the

. J

~

, ,.

': II

conting:ency t~f the 'world) as, expressed by Leibnfz (though it is also that of Thomas Aquin,3s and, to an extent, o.f Aristotle) ,~S: the most compellmg, the most troubUng~ the only proof 'which oc:casio:nally makes me waver, 'Contingency is. an a.bys.s ~n which, it is easy to lose your :fo,oiting: 1~low could it have no ,end" no cause, no, reason?

However the cesmological proof is based entirely on the princtple of reason. , ,.ow can a prinCiple p.rove anythi.n,g wba.tever~ To tl}' to prove the existence of ,Cod fr,Qim the centingency of the 'world ms stiU to move from a, concept I{tha:t o:f necesssry cause) to an elOs:t,ence: ( . hat of God) and in this, as Kant noted, the ccsrnological plIUof 'bo~Js down to the same ilij,ng as the ontological proof. \Vby s,hou,~d our reason be the norm? How can 'Wl' be abs.omutely certain of its value, jts sCi(),p~e ~ its trus . ,. worthwness? Only 'God! could warrant such 'things. Whb:h Is why 1.t is imposs.ib.~e ranonally to pifo1v<e that He' exists; since in order to guarantee the truth n:f our reasoning, we would have to, presuppose the existence of Go d., whose existence we' are att,e:mptin.g to' prove, 'We step back from the abyss onlfy to fjnd ourselves in a vlciou s circle. we move from one trap to another.

At best, the cosmological proof' proves no more than the existence iof a necessary being. Ii,ow' can we be: sure that such a being IDS) in the leveryday sense 0.£ he word, a IGod? It could be Nature as Splnosa contends, an infinite, eternal heing~ but one which has neither

b ] b .... 'L

su 1ecti.vWty nor persona ity::a ~eblg ·wim . no conscious-

ness, no' wHl~ no mOve1- a being which no one would. regard as a satisfactory 'God. Why pr,ay to Him, if He cannot U:sten(' VVhy obey' Him i:f He asks n.othing, of us? '\Vhy lliove Him if He does not love Us.?

, "

From thts springs. the third of the tra,di.tional 'pn)ofs for the existence of God: the p'h,Sio~t'heologicaJ p"oo/, whjch I prefer to call the phy$~O=M·18o',l:og1cal, proof (from the [Greek ·t6ifos: the purpose ~the aim). The world is too ordered, too harmonicu s, too obvjousJy ,ctJrmpiete: for us to be able to le.xplain. it 'witbolu" postulating a benevolent, methodlcal .in'b~Uigeulce as its c,a IJSle, How could mere ehanee create .8, world so beautiful? : .ow could ~.t account for the; appearance of Iife, ii' s mcredible complexity, its· observable de:s,wgns?' If we' were to find a watch on anot_her planet, no one could believe that it was created so.~.ely by t:he laws of nature: everyone 'would see it as the res ult of :inte~lrug,e.n t, deliberate action, And yift" the least. ,living t~h:ing is infinitely more complex than the most sophisticated watch H" O,rW' C: ould chence w,Jf"l·ch,

.' '."V _ _ ~~ .. "_ ~.~l~ !L~·.· '. ·(BII1LW],. ', .. ' ._ , J' ~ !_: .:_._, _. [~ ~,

cannot explai n the: for.mer" explain the latter?

Scientists may one day be able t(~ provide an. answer" But if s striking to note that this argument - long the most 'popular and the most ~mmedialeIy convlncing (rut 'was Cicero's view, and later that of Voltalre and Rousse:au) - has lost muc h of its force. The harmony has begun to fall apart _.. witness the randernuess of the universe, the horrors o.f the wodd - and. what remains becomes easier to explain (by the Iaws of nature, by

chance, necessity, evolution and the' natural selection of species, by the immanent ra,tmonaiiqr oif everytlnng , ~ .), There can be no watc h wld1.011l'i a watchmaker ~ accordi ng to Voltaire and .Ro·usseau" 'But :it is a .sorry sort of watch that in.,ctudes.. earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, carnivomus animals, numberless dlseaaes _, and. Manl Nature is cruel, unj ust, indifferen.t. H,ow can we see the hand of IGod. in such a thing'? This is what .ws traditior~any

n dl t-L ~.'~ f' 0']) T · d ,. -

cane " me pr:ollLJ!.tem o evn , I. 0 consn er .m.'t a tn:Jstery ~ as

most believers. do - is to acknowledge that: we are · 'b~1 f" '1' . h- hvsi 1Ib'1!.. I I t:

Inca:pa .. ee 0 reso ~-n!g it; t, ne p _I. ~YSlo-:tneo.ogw.ca proof

thereby loses much 0'£ its impact, Too, much .su.fferin.g (lo:ng before man exisred: animals ,suffer too), too, .much c arnage1 too, much injustice, Certainly life is a marvel ,of engineering, but it is also a "cIrlfyin,g litany of tragedies and horrors. The fuct that. millions of animals feed on

"111' f' h ~\-"'""' C " f '1"Il, "

mu lons 0,' vi: ers makes ror a certam sort. 0 .' eqmnnnum

in the biosphere, btu at the price of what atrocities for the li.ving? The fmttest survive: all others disappear .. This

m,... r :I' f-- I ii Il B- ,

mases ror a certatn sort ,0. ~ seieenon among species, "ut.

at the cost of pain and inj'usti.ce for individuals" Natu:ral

historv i b ·.Jil~. di t.,~ 1 N "IlL

.lstoty ms ' ,arUJJi an ie. bjr,:a.ng spectac e. I ··10:1." IDS hu man

hi st,o!),", VJhat G,o,d after Darwin ~ Whart. IGiO d. after Auschwitz,?

The ontn:~o~g,ica] .proof~ the ·cosm.olo,gical proof and the

h -' th I" f' the '", .1'''-'-'' -]11 th

P .~Y'~Ho-t "eo ogicar proor i , • these are tradmona I :y tne

three great proofs fOIl' the existence o.f God and j: COUlid hardly have failed to mention them in this chapter ..

78··,: A·· . ~ :,",J'r' ,A C" ,(), ~"'.lO'I'·~S,·· fl,O·. :_'li1'; n,

J ~ if: ._",,' 'IIrt~l,...c;; . C" rrl-'~' .... fle

Nonetheless we are forced to conclude that they pr-ove .n.otnmng, ,3S Kant 'bas adeq uaJ:tely demonstrated and as Pascal 'be£o.re :h i rn recognized. This did. not prevent either of these geniuses from believing iD. God, or rather ilit made their be,mief what it is: faith, not knowledge; a gra,ce or a. hope" not a theorem .. Both believed aU the more f-e:lV,ently :in. rGod as th·e:y abandoned the~r attempts t-o prove His €xi.s,t,en.ce. Their faith was stronger, snbjecnvely, :in knowing that object lv-ely it could not be verified.

This remains the rule today. I know few' philosophers 'who aiB interested in these proofs for ,anythin.g other than historic al reasons, nor' believers 'who hold t,o '(hem as proofs ~ If there' were p.roo.f~ what need 'would w,e· have of

'. 'h')' ld . d- h d- L i~

fait! .. ' Wou :, a Go· wnose existence was <: emonstrable

s,t~UI 'be a. God?

This should not prevent us from considering the: problem of God.~ examining the proofs, nor from devislng others. F or example, l:l: is possible to imagine a. purely ·panthe:ist1c proof (from the 'Greek pan; everything) :60£ th.e existence of God. Let us say that IGo d is eveqt~dng that exists: therefore, once again, he exists 'by ~:lef]nit.ion (since: everything that exists necessarily exist s). But such a proof j S of no s~gnifi:c,fU1.,c;:.e ~ since it gives us no info.rma.tion as. 'to I-Hs nature or Hls va,~ue", The universe clouJ.d make a. plausible ,God only if the universe' itself could bejieve it. But can it? ~God/ my fdend. Marc Wetzel once [old me, is the: consciousness of Everything,' Perhaps, But what proof have we that Everything has. a. conscious. :i ess?

'Afha[ is. common to .a.l1 o·f these pr,o-o:fs is that they

·r

I _



'YI'I_. ' L' , . r, B':'· '. - k ,rlP··h'·, 'OJ', 'J'.., , '7"9-'

.f ne ttt.~ . -. 'DO, 'OJ . uOsopny:

prove both too, much and 'ton Ii nle, . ',veil :If they prove the existence of something necessary, absolute , e!tern~ I' infintte, etc., th@'Y fail to prove that this ~ something" :~ s a God in the sense: in which most rcligJions use the: word, not si mply a being but a person, not only a reality but ,8. cause, not only something but someor e - not onlliy a, P.rincIple but a Father ~

Th.ws is the weakness of deism" too: it is bel ief wit~ho ut worship, without dogma .. 'I believe in God,' a woman wrote 'to me; 'but not in the God ·of religions, which is, sw:m.ply human .. The true 'God is unknowable ..... ~ All w·eJ~ and good. 'But if we know nothing whatever about Him, how do 'we know He is God?

To believe in. God presuppo.s.1es, a~ least som .. e knowledge, of Him, which is 'pns..S.nl~e only ~hro'Ugh reason, revelation ~ 0'[' grace, Bu t reason increasi n:gly ac knowledges ttself to be i.neffec:tuaI. This leaves revelation and grace: which leaves [;e.hgruo.n . . .. Wh~ch f'eJi.gion'? From our present pomt 0,£ view it makes Htde.: differenc,e~ since philosophy has no w'ay of choosing between them. The philosopher's God matters less to most .of us than the God: of the prop he ts the: my.s,lteS or' the. believers, Pascal and Kierkegaard. cut toO the essential more effectivemy than. Descartes or Lei.bnmz~; God is an o~j'ect of :faith. rather' than of thought ~ or rather, not an object at all but a s u bject, ,givin,g himsdf onIDy through revelation and love, Pascal believed he had such an experience one. fmery nfght:: ,jGod of Abr.ahamJ. God. of Isaac, G,ocd of jacob, not of philosophers and scholars.

8'0'-1 A' . -,~, J ,')(' C' .-_ Co. '. ;"'.-- :S:~MII'lI~H .[1 ~

,. .. n:u.\r~ .. om,~, - F'V-','II>'v,,, re'

Ce:ltainty t heartfelt joy" peace, Gud of jesus Chris t '.' · .' Joy, jo:Yt joy, teats of joy,,~ This is not a proof. But no proof without such ,e:xperi.enc,e~ cou:id equal faith.

This is where p:hwlos.ophy ends, perhaps. What need is there to prolVe that which has 'been revealed? How can Y'OU prove something which has not been revealed, to you'~ Bei ng Is not a predicate ~ Kant is d,ght. on this point - and thws. is why ~ as Hume says, one cannot either prove or dis,[plr:ove: an exlstence. 'Bein.g, af6r,m,s, rather than proves

l;"'''''AJfi ~ ~:t r,;e. --. (- '0'(;- but ]'s~ no-' ·tl p·'rIQv.;a'n

lli.,,;)l!C'. ) .iiI, l~ ,prQ - II) ,',. III c" , ". .~,., ..... ,~A·

One ,might say that e:xperien,ce is, proof. But experience is not. proof since it is neither repeatab:~e ~ ver.~fia.ble~ measurable, nor even entirely c.omm,un.ic,able' . '" "

E-·· hi '. "

. xpenence proves not ung, smce som,€ expen.e:n.cc's erie

false or illusory. Vis,mons snd ecstasies? Drugs can induce similar states, ,and what plioof can be ha.d fro:m

d1i ""t H-' d kn h IL h

u.fU,gs' r "o-w,~ 00 w,e .. ' - ow w, ,', ether s,om,eone w' ·0 see:s

'G,od. ,actuaUy is seeing or haUuc:~natifl;g? How do we Know 'if som eone who, hears !G'od actually hears, or' speaks in 'His stead? How can we 'mow 'whether those who experience His pre$enee~Hls, love, His grace tru~.y experience something 'Or simply imagine it'? I don't know ,8 single believer more certain of the truth of his faith than I am of ,my dreams, C ertaJn.'ty ~ masmuch as it is purely subjective, proves nothing. It is 'wha,t we call faith. 'a faith which, is only s ub] ectlve.'lliy sufficient,' Kant wr.wtes"and which one cannot therefore impose - either in theory 0.[' in practice ~ on another.

To 'put it another w,ay" God is. more mystery than

concept, more question than fact, more a wager than au experience more a. hope than a thought. God, is what we postulate to overcome despair "accom:ding 'Co Kanr, this is the purpose of the postulates of practical reason) and it

.' IIL_ 'h - I'L !C. - h '" . h :1 "'~II' ," ..

iDS wny I,-ope" ike taitl !,~, rs a t eOlog.lcSl,m VIrtue ,_ smee It

postulates 'God. as its object. 'The opposite of despair is.

f · n. ., 'V'~ k d G: . d i h I "'-bl t, ,.

, Silitn" wrote N,ier: egaare: , 0·,_, IS t . e o.n~y ,P0SSII.· i. ,e I)e,wng

who can cempletely s,atisfy our hope,

In conclusion, we must acknowledge tha t this, too ~ ,P1r.:OV'l!,S nothing: hope is. not an argument, since it Is possible as Henan said, that the, truth is cheerless. B,ut what use are arguments 'which ,~eave no room for ,hope~?

'VIh,at do we hope? That :~OVie is stronger than death, as it s,ays in the Song of Songs." s tronger than hatred, stllOiffi'},geT. than violence, stronger than. anything, that t.hh;. alone. is, truly God: love all .. powerful, the love which saves, the one God ~ since he w'OuJd be ,absolutely loving - 'who. b;

, ] 1 .. - 'b1 - I 't. 'G' d f sai d' - ,. loG' d i

tru Y' soveaote, t 18 the ~)O o I, satnts an, :mys ncs: ':U - 1$

love,' wrote Bergson, !r,and the o bject of love: herein . rues the' 'whole contnbunon of mystic. is m, About this twofold ~ove the mystic w,iU never have done tal kmg, His

d- ,. ~. . ~bl b h h

escnption .Il:S, mterrmnan e'~ _ ecause w ~Iat I e wants to

descnbe is Ineffable. But 'what he' does state' clearlyis

h - di 11· h' f G d . · G £1' H' It: J

It a[, IV),ne love IS, nnt ,8 t, mg 0 ' . -0'- ,; It IS; '., 0= :. nnse .II!..

O '''.1".:1-., 'b' .11.. G- d i I .iLL (. h 'b' £ I ne mignt <0 .1,ect t~at '0 _ is ess a trum ': t 'j e 0' -'jec.t O!,f

know:led,ge) than a va l~'Ue' (the 0 bjec[ 0'£ s, desire), Probably. BtU, to believe in him is to believe that this supreme value (Iov:e) 0:s: also- the supreme truth I(God}. It cannot be proven, It cannot be reFuted. But wt can. be

8 2· A-'~' .J'_.L' C-' .: . '.' .. te-S .- - . nn

. :_' " n:ure ' .. :OJ1i;K;· _ ponVln~

'thought, hoped, believed. God Is truth as the standard= the coniunction of Truth and Goodness - and in that capacity the standard for aU truths, A·c this higbest.leveIl what is dlesira'b~e and what is ~nt-eUig.ru.ble are ildentical~ exp,~a ins Ar~stode,," and it is 'this identity, tf.it exists, which is 'G'od. How' 'better to expla:in that He alone can fulfil '0['

'~I b 1-' ~I '..... 'O I G d Id ,Jo

COhSOme us a so ut,lruY( ,-,:.n.~.y' a '(l' ODD ,U, save U'SJ

I" 'eid.e,gger admits. We must therefore believe: = or renounc:e: salvation '.

W:e should note that. this Is why [God has meamng and gives meaning; ,firstly" because with.out: Him aU meaning falter.s on the madness of death; secondly". because there [can be: meaning only for a su bject and absolute meaning only for an absolute subject" God is the .m.eaning ,of meaning, and In that sense 'the opposite of absurdity or

d ,.

,e:spa]r~

Does He e:xis:t'? We cannot know. 'God woumd be the answer to the que:s~tjon. of being, to the q uestion of ttu th, to the question of goodnes.s, and ~" , ese three answers - or three persons. = would be one.

But being does not answer: th.at is 'what we. call the ~d-'

WOfJll' .,

But truth does not an swer: that is 'what we call thought.

'G-o0 dness ? It has not answered yet, and that is what we call hope,

,

, '

I '

8 A'· 'hei

I : ,~t:_ ssm

Atheism is a singular th:iog in ph~iosophy<> It is a be Hef" but a negative one, A. thought, but one wh~c:h feeds, endreJy' on the absence [of jts, object.

This is clear from the elynlO~ogy of tbeword: the small, negative a next to the immensity of theos (god) . , ~ To, be an atheist is to be without gad~, either b-eca:tI.se one is content not to believe in one or because one a ffirms that none ,eidsts,. In a monotheistic world such as ours we can Itherefo,rc:' dis.tj nguish two separate: forms of atheism. not beUeving in God (neg;aliviB atheism) Of' believing, that God does net exist (positive or mjiitant atheism) .. Absence of beJief or belief in absence .. The absence of C'od ,0'[" the neganon of Go d..

-W:" jo di 1m h dtx. -

. ve won't ,:, 'weu on me c ifferences between these two

8,4" A" -~.l7.(' ,c", , "" 'f.n,=S>'---1f.ori~1{U ~

" ,;,:rw1~ ;" om~ ,ptJl'",,,,,U.W

atheisms: they are separate currents rather than. separate rivers: two poles hut within one Held," Between the two, ,all non -believers plac e themselves, hesitate, fluctuare ' .. '" Th,ey- are atheists nonetheless. You either b eheve in God or you don't: an atheist is any person 'who chooses the latter,

Agnostics are those 'who refuse to ChOOtH~., 'This brings their position close to what: I have called negative atheism but ~ :Wlt is their hallmark - more oplen to the possibility of God, It amounts to a metaphysical centrism, or a re~~i.gj.QU5, scepticism, The agnostic does. not commit hImself} does not. take a stand, He is neither be~~.h~:v~e-.r nor n,Qn~ben,ever';, he, ~eaves the problem unresolved. 'He has excellent reasons fo,[[' doing, so. Once we admit that 'we do not know wh.ether God exists (if we knew, the question would. not arise), why pro:nQun,ce on 'hj,$ exlstence? Wb,y- affirm or deny something one cannot :know'? Here, t.QO-~, ety.nt,oruogy IDS enJigntenin,g. ABn~st(ls'r- In

G k h 'nL, h I:_ bl I l ..

, _ ree\ is the unknown or LJe un tl __ nOWEJ" .' e., "n fe' ,~g,]OUS

terms, agnostics are those' 'who do not know whether 'God. exists and hold [0 that ,ignoran,ce. 'Why should 'we reproach them for this'? Humi:~ity seems ito be, on the:~r s;wde" S~mpHcity seems to side with them. I n Protagoras' beautifum passage ~ "Concerni ng the gods ], cannot say either that they exist or ['hat they do not, or what they are, like 'in :~onn; fUll" there are many hindrances to knowledge: the obscurity ,of the g,u.bj-ect and the: brevity of human life.' 'It. goes without saying that it Is, a respectable position j' it seems a, sensible. one, It refers both believer

and atheist 'back to dlf~ir common excesses, both assert more than tl~ ev ,...6'Fi'1 kn ,"IL'O::Il1'

. . _ lE;I!ir}.!" 'li-O.l.LIl _ U ~. III

BtU agnosticism's strength is also its weakness, If to be agnostic were s:rn:mply to 'be jgno.ra,nt of whether orr not God exists ~ we 'would all be agnostic s. In this sense, agnostlcism wou]d not be a philosophical posnion bu.t ,8 part of the human condition. Someone 'who tells y,oIU:~ ~,I'

kn , ' h G" d ,.J' -., £' l!

._ow tr am: '0: aoes not, exisr is a, 10Dl not an atheist, Let

us say a fooID who takes. non .. belief for kn,'Oi\~'~,edge. Simil,arly", someone 'who tells you; 'I know' m:hat Go d

,. ~". f' '1- L ill 'm -, -

exists is ,a; 1,00 wno De,wieves. The truth, and I: mnst

- h-' . "h' ., 'ii!...' d kn ",'. ,

emp :q8:S,];Ze tms, is that we, 0 not •. ' i~ OW', Belief and non-

ibeUef' are not proofs , that rns the:;~'!Ij" d eli n '~'IIj"ii,~, aualirv: -w-'-h· en

[I. ~ - - -- . - . ~~J • , •. , __ •. ~J.I,lil~I~'· to I 1.,"'1l ;.: _ 'Pip'

you know' something vou no Ionaer have tu dec ld ',-

o ••• 1, " - - .'.'. _" ! .. ' •• ', .. - _~I I'"' I, . , .. _:. "_',' "'e~l, Ig.''''~ '!Y' . ~0} ·.1 .. - ,Ie

whether to nor to' believe, Hence, as phU.o~{)p,hers put ID,t" agnosticism 10's,e s in understanding what: mt gains In

b·, . '!I',t' - h ' " ,

u IqUJ ty. u everyone is agnostic, 'wl,.y' bother to ,cIa:im to

be one "'l,

lO" ·.I!J,~,r

J\g,nosth::is,:m, only becomes pl,hiloso,phi.lcaU.y relevan t when. .it, too, goes ,further than ,si,mpl~l aff~rm'~ng .its: igno,mnc,e,;: 'when it asserts that su ch an aff.~r.matio.n. :1$, sufficient, 0,( is better than the other position. I t is choosing not to choose, This c~,early :h:mghHghts what a.'t:h.eism, is: a choice, one 'w~ich can be negative (not 'b.eHe~~g, in God) or positive (oeliev],ng, that God. does not exist), but one which takes a position, whlch engages 'Mdl, the question, which answers where agnosticlsm _ its strength and, its weakness ~ its content to ~eave the quesnon open,

86" A-·--.l f ,C" ',S'~-·· , "l:~-

~' ~ ~r.l{..v:e,' Qm,te-,pon'Vt.~

'The agnostic does not take sides .. The atheist does': he sides against God" or rather against .1 lis existence,

I· , '

n-

the poor thing doubt I~Us own existences) and, a number of his prophets (who are suppose d to have encoun tered

'''., )"' 1·' h h h 1 h ]']

, I wm In pel! son' ~ an implication W I lc - ~ p, I: i~o.sop ,!.:ica~. y

and th.eologic.aIly ~ is hard to swallow,

S ,. -.Jj 'b _."" 'I ] II: ".

econc _ Y ~ , ecause 'One IS ,3, w,ays Jess rree m ignorance

than fn :know:l·e\dg',e" ShO'ldd 'we stop teaching ch i~d'ren .in order to preserve the~r .fn~edom,? ' ~",ery teacher and every parent believes the contrary: • 'hey 'be']ie¥e that the more children know, the more tbey wit] be' fr'ee ~ Ignoranc'e ~:S never freedom: knowledge is never slavery,

Lastly, and most importantly, because the arg.um.ent seems to me incom p8tjll~e with the orthodox view of God the, Father", C lear~y~, I. sho uld respect my children's

f:· sedo c, ~fh:>"'" ',' fr . ,t· .. l,,, .. ,·· .. ,:-·-· , ',' ""··1··,, ',' ,', .. '. obe , .. fee om" . .'fey are. ree 0 iove or not, to ove me, to 0.,' ey

or di'soibey me, to respect me or not to respect me, wh k h

• .-.' - m.'" .-', . th , ' ,', - m "" '" .":ill... ',-'. k· . .," h 11' z ; , I A If .' .ilL .

impnes .... , t a1 at reast ~ney know t .Iat l e:~ast. n.3tner

W ho, in order 0 respect his c hildr-enls, .freedom 1 refused

1·, . h . h to b . h h d b ~,

to ~V€ wIt, I' , t I em, i -0 oe 'WIt .'. t • iem an:' even to oe known

to them would be a. P'~ ufu~ excuse for a. fathf~r~ Revelation? In r'abJng his children, what fatber' would be: hap .... p'y- to send t'h,-, em word th ro.·'·u,aL 0" thers who '1Il.. '!:Iilli:r:a be en

•• - " . - ''''.' -., ' , 1, ~,n. . ,~\~ ..... ".' . ,1]IU"~ I_ .•...

dead for cent uries, handed. duwn through ambiguoa s and debatable tests? What father 'wo-u~d send, h:~s, children to read his selected works or those of his disciples (and

_ 'h' ~."'" Th H 'IL. I! .... 'T~'Ii..·V '" Th U' '. t, d .... ) h

'W' icnr .. is: . mnrer .ne horan.r :e'_ pa]11S!Ji1l~' $;1:"1.) rather

than speaking to them dmrecdy and ho,~ding them to :bis.

·h··" .... ";1 A',' ,:.' -culi "f,::t., .~. . ... '1'1",·· .. - :G", ""d' 'H1iL .. - .L';. th .

. _ear,!!.. ". pecu. tar [alu.er. a .pecu ],ill' .. itO'·I., 'vvnat tat Iler

would hide from his children. while they sufi'fer'?' Wh!&t father would hide himself from Auscb\-vitz; fr.:o,m

Why a.tlu:dsm'? . t is something which cannot. be proven+ atheists have often been more hicid OD! the subject than believers. There are no ieq u ivalents in the history of atheiS'm, of the famous ~ SUPPi(Dsed 'proofs for the existence of' Go.d~ " " '" How do you pJil)ve non -existence? 110lw could, you prove' that Santa Claus does not exillst? That ghosts. do not Iex]S',( How can. you PliOV€; conclusively that God does not exist? How can our reason prove that nothing s u rpasses it? How can it refute something w hie ',~ by deHn~:tion,~ is beyond its comprehensioni Even 501 the. fact that ,wt is impossible does: not condemn us' to ignnr,ant)e" nor ~'s it an exc tm se for not considering the q u,esU on.", "rhere is no ploof, but there: are ar-gum,f·nt:s .. s.~ nee I am an atheis e, I. would like to outline some of them.

The firs. is. very simple, and. wholly negative: a con- I vi nc.iJng reason IJO, be an atheist is the weakness of the oppos.ing. arguments. ,N'ot only tbe. weakness of the 'proofs', but the weakness ,of the revelations. If God existed, we shou ld see or feel jit more ,clear~y! 'Wh~7 should Cud hide Himself? Believers respond that He does so to preserve our freedom: if God. showed Himself ln all His glory, we w(n:dd no longer be free to decide whether in! believe ..

.1 don't .f~.nd this answer satisfying,. F irstly, because if it were true, then we' are more free than God (how could

88·: A·~,,.·J'·A· C' .,. "'·&;I··S·: i'JI) . <"le

, . . :n.u.:r~_.om.:~ r ~nVlil,_

Bwanda, when his chddr.en are sick or fTightened? The: hidden God of Pascal and Isaiah would be a bad father indeed. How cou Id one love :Hlm?- 'How could one believe ~n Him? Atheism makes a more compellmg hypothesis,. If God can.not 'be perceived, and His, absence cannot be understood, perhaps it is simply because He

d ,. ,

, _,oes not. extst . -e ,

,

[

I

[

The second argument is, also negative but" mf '1 can put m:t like that,~ less empirical than theoretical. The principal

'0 d inh 'h gh- - 'I" h md ]~t

[ole of: o in I, uman t~ OU>,llt Is to exp am t -; ,e wonc i' "Ire,

to ,e.Kp,jai.n thought .itself .' . . But wit,at use- is such an explanation :if 'God'if ,s:hould H,e exi st, is by .(I,efin.ition unexplainable? J: do not; deny that ,reUgion is a possible beHef system, . It goes withou. saying ,that it is highly regarded. B,ut I wonder about the quality of its thi:nkmng., What is a, reMgw.on mf not a. doctrine wh~.ch seeks to explaln something we do not understand (the existence of the universe, of' lmfe,. of thought e -e .) by means of something 'we: und,erst,an.d even less (God)?' ,And from a rational po,jj:nt of view ~ what is such an explanation worth? This is

S.. i" 1 f · ~ d'"t 1"," t . - pmoza s asy urn ,0_ ignorance , ano r ,app ies JU,S ~ as

mec h to. his. conception of 'God. In the ,Ethics,~ he: writes:

God~ that is to say a substance constituted by an infinity -·f ut '-b •. ".... ", h ··f" -h' .;t,. exeresses an etem al .fillr'

01 ,3., ll.rl .u,l,!.e,s eac, 0.1 w' len ' ...... '~r·J.~,;;J!.;gI. ,< " ~ -, "~,J~_. V,iIi.

infinite essence, necessarily exists,' But what do we know of sueh a God. or of the ,runf~n:'·'ty of infinil;e attrmbut'e's ( N'Oith~ng) other than, those attnbutes which resemble .our ideas (scope i' thought)! which do not make up a. God.

',1

Why then bcliey;e? Freud has: the answer to this: ',Ignoran~e: is ignorance: no righ.t to believe anythlng can be derived from i 1./ Or rather, we have the. d:ght to b eli eve !J ibwrttbatt, cannot take the place of knowledge. Long ,~ive' scepttcism. Ignorance is no jus.tification fo[' faffith, nor, Inasmuch as i.t concerns God, can reason refute ]],gnorance:~

In th.at case, using God to explain anything (and, a fortiori,,; in an attempt to explain everyfh~ng) explains notning whatever J i:t~ simply replaces one :form 0,( ignoranc e with another. Wha:es the potrunt.?

· lJi . thei I f'· d 'd t q:'b 1· , 't_

-, m not: an at i etst, a rienc salLO me J r ee teve tnere

is; mys,tery i • .' Soo?' Does being an atheist in.vio.lve ne'g~dn:g the existence of mys:['er.y f' Does the atheist claim to know' everyth:w ng, urnde,rstaJnd everyt.hi n.g, explain. everyth.wng? That would not 'be atheism 'hut scientisrn, bUnd'ness'l l.d~ocY" Even i.f. we could explain everything In. the universe ..... and. we have ,quit,€! a way to go - we would still halve to explain the universe itself,- something we cQluld not do. We would stiU have to jud$;, to love, to- act. to, live, things, which no science could. ever encompass. Thts IS, what distfnguishes a:tbeism from sclentism, wnmch:b a b.l inke.r,ed form 'Of ,athedsm. Sclen tism is a religion of the' sciences: it is not the essence 0:( atheism, of rnaterialism

f a '~., •• ," dl . d r: "~; d "

or 0. ,r.ahonansm;, U, IDS 8, ., ogmanc ana ~OSShlZe· quasi-

religious caricature of these things, We might ,caU mt the [e,Hgruon of non-believers: a .syste::m, o..f' free thoughf almost incompa,tlb],€ 'with a th.ougb~ that ~s free,'

Obviously science cannot explain everything" reason

cannot expmajn everything". There are' things we do not know and. things we do not understand, there is my~tery and there always will be'. Scientists are wrong to wirn

th · B'" 'h' ,. 'iL.. h b -]. 1-'

ot serwise, ~'u,tt wn 8!lt rl!g~],'t ave " e severs to monepo ize

mystery l to- appropriate lt, 00 make it their domain t The

f.~ h ,- Ire' -

act t!, at mystery' exists does not rna' i"- religion right. 0,

reason wrong! I t means that dogmaJtis,m~ whether

I, . .. . 'IF" • -Wh= "' h '. d~[ . e

re 1,gt,OUS ocr rattonelist, is 'wrO'ng.-~ ncr ];S I, 'amrnng, ror

religion, since it relies entirely on dogma, ,A scientist

d -. L" "' b h .- b m·' d[

nee not '\VOr5£lUP science, out W,·~ at I "e'~Jever 'I oes not

worship his, God?

To be an atheist is not ,8, refusal of ,m.ysterY',; U is a. refusal to push ~.t aside or take. the easy way out, by an act

f~ .c:... b f'" .' ~ A 'h' .

.0 ::s.,illlt' I or 0' su errnssson .. :-.t[~,e~;sm, is. not an atlte'mpt to

] '" h' f' 'I 1 h" by-

',- . , , '- '" ' .. ' "', ,', I ~ - ", .,,' . - -. -- c- ", . ,

;exp a_.l1 everyt" In.&, _ut are IU:S"a, to expram lev, ryt ung oy

means of the unexplainab e.

O· ,"h, ... ,11__ hand L ,1:" " ." .. ~ G" dl A .. '" ~~ ..J'.l

'D. t f e otner nanc ':Ji ee ievmg In .' -o ~' ooes ,nol! aao

- - h Id'" 1 .. (' '''f' mystery iJO; t~ ie wor~' ,; n, simp Y grves a name"leven ]J]~,

unpronounceable) to that mystery and reduces it. neatly

- f-' f" 'J' f ] G" d'

• ..., • ',' " ._ r -, - -'. -:- _J', _,'.' ( •• " "., '.' ,I • - - -" ,- I' .

to ,a stery 0. ,power or ,amt.yJ ~), covenant or ove ' ... ' .'.0 I

almighty', God d'ue creator, [God the merciful judge - 'Our ,fathet wb ich art in heaven , , ." This explains everything, but. by means, of something which. itself cannot be explained", Consequently '- it explains not~hing;, it simply relocates the 'm,Y5-_ lery ~' almost always, in anthro~_ - irphism f~ th beztn -_ '" - G" '- d· 'r~di!'.i!iid th h . - . po.'lIIO .'" -.,: ,., .!ln~le~,~, ,'DJJng,·· -,0 IC'~G~-_~ _'~ e '" eavens

d h th dl ,~~ 'h'" .' ~ Thi ·

an, ~' tie ear '-I, an~ man. a:Iter ,'_"[5 own Image ~ ~ . IS,

expIains the universe i n terms of .Siometh.~·:n:g which resem b~es us, OIl' 'w,hich. we resemble. "1£ IGod crested us

-

• !

~

in his ima,ge~' wrote. Vohaire, 'we have amply returned the

:I!_ .' I'" p: ... :'L..] ~ ·, .... · .. III'AI ,. hat ,'" ld ~... : ,-~. . " .~-; ~'~~- ...

nwvour 0, ' . syCJ])o,~og,l.eauy~, W na· co.' IDe more compJ..~-

herudble?' P'hilo\sophicaJly,~ w,hat [could be more d.ubious? The universe is :mOI1f 'mysterious than either the Bd)~€ or the Koran, How can. what is contained within these books exp',~,ain It?

The smajlest :fIDower presents an unfathomable ,mys te:ry',. But why should we hope to find. the so~ution to tha.t m.ystery through faith?

'What is essential is unknowable to us, But why should 'we 'wish that unknowa.bl[e to be God?'

The three other arguments are mere positive, The first. ms

] ~ ,- II '1.. 'L}

the most trivill,a, and the most .compe ' ing; the proo em 0' .

evil. 'There is too :much horror in the ''''!urld" too much s ufferrnng, and inj ustice for us' 'to easily believe that it was created by a God who :~s absolutely good andl allp owe r-.fut

The followmg paradox is we] 1. known and dates back to Epicurus and Lactance: either IGod wishes to wipe out evil and cannot; in which esse 'he is not aU -powerful, or 'he, could do $!O but chooses not to." in whj1ch case he is not :penecdfy good . " . But if he ~s' not both (and, more ,~m,poJ0tandy" mf he is neither), can he still be: God.? This is, the problem of all theodicy, as Leibnfz frames it: ~If God. exists, whence comes ,e:v.il~? If he does not exist, 'whencI€ comes goodnes Sf" But the problem evjj~ poses to faith is more serious than that which good ,poses to a,tn,eism,,,, It is

• nil • c· ", "1~ bm -Wh"

more: categoncat, more mnmte, more nnpiaca .~.,w,e. '-,:' I~_ en

.

:'11

p.)~

»; ,.

,~

a chfld smiles, we :hatdly need a god to explain mt., But when a child dies, 01' suffers, ter,ribly ~ who WOM ~d, dare, praise the' ,glory .of 'God and His creation to [be mother of that child,'? 'Yet how m,any c,b]~dren suffer terribly every minute all over the world?

B,e;~iev,eIs answer that Man himself is responsible for many o.f di.es,e horrors .' ~ .' 'This ~,S true, But he :rug not the cause of al~, ,o:f them" nor .of hnnself. Freedom does not ,explain everything. S~n does not ex,p~ain evetytbin.g. One Is reminded of Diderot's great quip: 'The Christian g-,o:d is a. father 'who. makes m,ll,ch of h:rn:s, apples" and Vle:ry little of his children,' This is JUSt as vaUd for~:h.e God of the jews and, ,t~be Muslims, It Is Just as damnmg to any God 'who is supposed to. be a god of love and mercy = and :how cJoul"d :H,e, he God if He, were otherwise? Why should we accept in Him things W~ would not find acceptable in a, Ea:ch.erf I have spent many hours in the: paediatric u nit of a. large Paris hospital. It leaves nne with rather a hi,g,n. opinion of

man .1_!'i'i',d·· A' nd i"""];'''' her ,"IiI 1- ..... ,w· ooin iO~ ,n- c· O~,~ G: -, 0- d '(·f' H· ',tJ, ;If!i,V~;c,ltc'

"II,.~ ;t~ __ ~~~, "'.' .. ' .. ,iii, a,L· ,''I;U,o. a Ju,,:, Ut--,!IJ. .. il.,' , "I , . ..ll! ',. .', .. 1 ':I' ' ..... "!.;--<!'l.l!:Q! "-"'",'

The ,S Ill~fedng, of children,' wrote Marcel IC,oncJ'e~ quite

correc If-',]v- 'is an absolute evil 'j w1l..'~""h '~;n·· ltself ··cO d" - '1m ...... : -1 ,,,.;:I!!. J ~ '''';;', an ~UJ·IL,."':': ";;'YJ,ji.lhL\":': 1 ,~, llll.;,j)iu ,I rene ,eFS au

theodlcy impossible. How' many atmckies have the'Fe been which no human fauh: would 'be sufficient. to. explain (' How much suffering, preceded the first $,in.? How many horrors: precede the existence of humanity itself. 'Who 'is this God who abandons ga,zeHes, to- tigers and child-re.n to cancer?

The second. argum,ent is. more subjectfve, and, I ,offer i[ as sue h.:: I do- not have ,8, sufficiently h.igh, opini-on of

t"

.

I

hu:manrn'ty in general nor (~i.f myself rnn particular to believe

th ~"" .-. ,. 'c-,'··d.' -. -:-::-,'-,t: - d'l . 'i ,c 'S"'· -"h ,Oil : ~,~ ':"''''~I~: tc ,j)<~, ch 1,·tllf'I,Q . ,la,,,, a go I. cr.ea:'l,Ce U$" . lie " ,J"ei!Jl'l pvW..-;;f 0 ~,u"", ,II .H Ill.. ~

effectl~ There is, too much mediocnty, too much



baseness, too much mis-ery, a's Pascal said, and too little

greatness bob -~,~I!p'

This is not to say that we should add to :it. AJ~ misanthropy is inlq uitou $': it s upposes that heroes do not exist, that good people do not exist ~nd leSi.ves the 'world

to evildoer 'C' ~'n·lIll 'to '0· coward c' fi'!ll't 't...miil"fiaC' t-;i'1'i;;fi'j; have their lllr ,I,' 'y''';~ U'v. _,J,';j;j. ~=~ lIIJ _,._<. ~V··~···.· ".' ::.~. ,D'~,_ I',W~!tI.v.~~ lLV'Y!' _, :Qnf~ L:·I, - t

petty foibles whw!ch make them human. Neither one nor the other requires God to 'be conceivable. Courage IS enough, Kindness is; enough, Humanity ~:S' enough, '\iVhat god, on the other hand, could, j usUry the hatred violence, cowardice and id;~,o~cy 'which are ,ev:e;r}Wbe:re,'? Leaving aside the monster and the viJla.lin~ a l~rttle, self -'knowID~dge" as Bergson reaUred~ is suffl.cie-nt for us to be, more co:n:cern:l1ptu!ous than admiring of Man, Humanity displays too much selflshness, vanity and, fear. 'Too little courage and generosity. 1:00 much a,mOUf 'propr!B'~, too little love. Humanity is such a pitifu I creation, how could 'God, 'want 'tn""fi

,, __ ts .

R,eThigiQn ~ aU reUgionJ is narcissistic ,Uf God created me, ~hen I am w'O,[fthy),~ 'which in itself is reason to be atheist:

b I';' "G· .. : d i " h ~ f id

!If',O ... ~ ~IA-'ii:.f.::fll ~'n'" ,0" 1h~ to commtt tnl . le- ~~rn '0"', 'nn. I'" ~

!!lJ __ '9! .. W~~',!;;> ,iI .. ,· ... ,' ,,', J:;i]I , V !!;..u,! '"' .,11; '. '., ",,'I·I r . i!l ':-." r" . 'I~'

,Am:h,eis:m,,, on the other hand, is, a form ofhumi:Uty,. It is ~o 'think. of ourselves as animals" which indeed w:e are" and leave to us the responsibility of becQm~ng' hUn"uul" It might be said that this ~ff:pomibilny was given us by God l' in, order t,o enable us continue His creation. a • ~ Perhaps.

Bu t the. burden is too hea,vy and the gate too strait for me to be satisfied with this answer. [n'sign~f~cant beings'tha.t we are, Nature seems to me cause enough,

T'h- , h "'rd . · " If- 11' d

~e t I_[ ': J posinve argu ment .m.ay seem surpnsmg, .'~ ~ '1 <0

not believe in Cod it Is also, perhaps especially, beeaus e

if ld' _L h H' JlII"d " Th' "." , thO, f

!l WOln,' , rather t,1 at e 11,.u:1~, Ie_xn:st.'- IS· IDS some rung 0'_' an

, . r- n 1'~ 'I'· ' • , h-

inversion 01 .ra:sca S W'8:ge:f .. it IS not important t "am: an

~dea be advantageous to. us ~ [hought :~s not a bill siness O:~ ;8, lottery - but that it .shou~.d be P Iaus mble.: ... And] yet God. seems to me to be less flla'U1sibte than he is advantageo·us:

He accords S;(~ closely to IOU[' keene st desires that we have to wonder whether we did not create him to that end,

'What do we desire more than a:nrythj.ng? Not to d.weJ to be reu nired wi.th loved !ones 'we have lo!u:) to be loved , , , And. 'what does IC:hrisda.nity tell us? That 'we will not die, n:.,- '0- ot .p~g~~l\'L th':, at 'W",,~ wl-:'~Il-, b ,.r.l, raised up: a Gain' secondly

U£ L I j •• It. J. ~~I,W 1 l'I' ., Iii., ~ .. l tW . ~ G.~ _.' - - 10' - :tJ - - . • - .', Ji

rhat 'we w.rnU be reunited with the lov-ed one s W~' have lost.; las.tly that we are now and will :(,01" ever be ~oved. 'with an

, f""·· -] Wh'l ' Id k ..... N" h'

.mn._ .. tmte . .ollie '" '" " "., I at mo.re ('0,0·. we as; r ': ot, I 'm ng~

obviou sly; that's wha t makes reJig~on imp robabJe! By 'W hat mirac le would reahty ~ SOl atypically ~ accord so

f' [ . h desi '"", Th ,. d :L G-' d

per ect y wU,'" our c l.eSIres.r .1": ts coes not prove [~lat .' 0,

does not exist - since He} by definition, could .make such

iracl ,ubi L . d' ke d '

8J miracie [pOSSl~; e =. but It i oes max one 'won ~ er

whether God Isn't ':00 good tOI be true, whether 'we are

- .

not simply d.eluding, ourselves, whether reltgion 1.$., not

.', ... I ' '·ll' .•... '. s: the 'F'" -d: ta . '" of ~l- .- ... "111"'+" not ~amp y an t-. '@StiJn~ ]n !i-' ,e ,reu. I .. n s,ense .' I, IbU,e wo,,- CW.' .IJ ! .. , .'

necessarily an error (rut is posstb ~e~ after all, that God

exists), but 'a belief derived from human wishes', Though this does not refute the: existence of God" it makes the pUlssibj]ity· of h:~s existence more tenuous, {'We shall tell ourselves that it would 'be ver.y mee if there were a God wbo created. the world end was a benevolent Providence, and if there wer-e a, moral order in the universe and an after- tfe; but i.t is a very strikmg fact that all this ~s e·xac,dy as we are bound: to. wish it to be,' 'I'o believe' In God is to believ-e in Santa C]aus to the power of a thousend, '0.[' rather to the power of i.n.ffnity. it is to provide ourselves with a surrogate Father 'who 'w~n console us for. the failings or the' .~oss of our actual fathers-: Ile' \evill be true JUstice)' true LOlVe~ true Power, and He vfHI accept us and ~ove us, for 'what we are, He 'win fu.lfil US:.~ I-Ie wiU save tis. .... I can 'wen understand 'why we mjght wis.h for su:c:h a. thing. But why should we believe in :~t? 'Faith saves,' said Nietzsche" 'therefore it lies, j' Let us simply admit that God is a. litt Ie too convenient for us not tOI find. Him suspect.

SU,ppose I say ~10 you: 'I'm looking to buy ,8, three .. bedroom flat In Paris behind the .JaI'd1:~n du Luxembourg 'with ,3 magnlficent view of the park ... I' don't: want to spend more than €lO;f.OOO; bu.t I'm confident, I believe]' o bvieusly you'd think:. j He's deluding him:self.;. he's ,confusing what he wants with w.hat he (;an get ' , . j' ~b-villous ly~. you~,d be dght (though [hai ~ strictly. speaking, pr'ove'$ nothing. who KnO'WS 'whether I 'll come acres s some. crazy person 'w~Uing to seH to m.e?). And yet when

tell you that God exists, that we wU ~ be resurrected,



I

l

,

etc., you don't find that a little more unbelievable than. a. three- bedreom Hat with a flat w~wth a, view of the: Jardin dl:u Luxembourg: for less than ten g,mn.d? Either you have a very P (lor opinion of God ,. ora ve'ry h~g.h one. of' rea 1. estatel

The position of the atheist. :~;S. reinforced by the' fact tbat,~ as often as not, he would ,~jke to 'be. M'On.g~, This, does not prove that he is ri.gh.t~ but it. leaves him, less open. to the suspicion that,~ like others, he beheves simply to. console or r"eassure himself .' . .

I.'

E shaU stop here, J. intended only to outline a number 01,:'

~ ,

possible arguments, Each of you. can weigh up their

strengths and :~jmi rations. It is not. .rationaJIy possible to

m d h ·'b~'l· h G dO' " Thi '. h 0

excsuc e tne pOS,~L"l I ty t:, at . .30: €Xlsts,. , IS lS W': al,

makes atheism what it is~ not know~edg~e,. let me repeat, but bel.iref~ not ,8; certainty ~ 'but ,8 wager,

I't is this which should encourage us to be tolerant, ,Atheists and believers are separated only by a shared ignorance .... ,(JW could, this be more important than the knowledge they share. a certain experience of life 'I of love, .of suffering humanity'" djgnined In spite of its misery, suffering but courageous? 'This! ~s what I caU ,(aithfulnes;s, somethtng which should bring: together those whose fai~h or lack of :fai.th m:wglat otherwise pU them against one another ~ It we ill ~ d 'be madness 'b) 10] 1.

iiI-h ~1I1..1' ' , d t 1,,= ' It' 0 'b.nrl'ji- ,

one ,anOIIJ, 0 er over semen (In,g we: no no' 1U:iOW', 0 IS . etaer

for us to fight together' for those things, we know .0[' acknowledge: 3), certain conceptton of mankind, and of ,C'mviThizadon ,. a certain way ()if living in the world ~ in Its

mysteries, 3, certain rigorousness of mind ~ , .. IT his is what we might can humanism} which is not a .re]m.gioDj but ,3 morality. Faithfulness to mankind and to the hurnanity of

:m ~~ JI

marne nn,

This, cannot replace a God, Nor can ,~t e~:IDmlna.te a IGo,d.

Hut without this ,f~aith no possible religion nor any Form -of atheism could be, h urnan Jy acceptable.

"Wha.t: we Sleek. in alit as ,run. thought is truth.

Hegel

Arilt' 1\['" a prod uc ill ~t: man 'NT ;;0;1' ~'h, ier a b J'I"d': 1-~, nes t nor I" rei sonn

IIJ.. . ~ ',_. ~: . . .'-11l.. vi . ~~,,~, ',' ~ .Ie,. .:. ...~.~ .. ' . ~ ,~". Y!iJ.l ILlr~ ,~V, E;l1

are works of art any more than are the hive or the: dance

of 'l'h'" ·b··: ".". It ,;', , .. ot be ' tu'l ,·h,· ~~. di ,', 'iIi-~' .. " ishes ,., .. ~I~.o, ..

0'. C"_, e jaee, "l;S no" ,eau!"'l w _len .. , SlllJ:ngUHi!~~~S rnem.

'What flgurative painter 'would. claim that his works are

","C, .i:"il,r.r',fj '~b~,- -n" ~f~~ l' than ",,"nl,j:"i;.~";::;' h'f: " at r-1-r":i:j which 'ill..tzj, if"'a'" iIfj;

mo ~ IlJI!k;.U!U" ut man l.J,~V,;:]lJIb u, D,t;I" ure, : "~ h......' ,u~ II!.., iii ,I,

imitate but never equal? Vlhat abstrace painter could better the s:ky or the seat' 'Nhat :scu:~,ptor could better l ife, or the wmndt' And 'how many musicians are ]es,s, easy on the ear, alas l' than the lowlilies[ nighnngale?

~ ~

" •

B e,,auly if one of the possible a:m ms ,of' art; but Jn :~tself it is

._. " . ~ ff" k'"' "'. ~ - . ." - ..J:D" - ~", ~N';'" ;i'j -. _. ".. ls b . .. "<t- '1

not S.Il· ncient to cenne lit., ature, too, IS :,eaUn!ltll -....,.

more beeutiful. If man alone is anertist, it is not pd manly because he is an artisan 'tan ape can also make

tools], nor an aesthete (who can [,eill:[ whether the peahen feels some sort of aesthetic pleasure when g"a,zi,ug at the taU of dlf, 'peacock?), nor even t hreush the ~1"r--'~'''''''iC I ~.'f·"' t"·h·- .~-

" _ _" ~_ ;~, =VI'iI<,.'Ii,;o, ,'U"u.~w . 'G UDluU [) "ese

two fac tl ~ties. A 'work of art, 'is not simply the beault~:flJ,~, end-product ofa:n activity, nor is every beautiful object ,8 work of art. There must be something else, which Nature" without M,an~, is. lac,llcing, and which undoubtedly no other animal perceives. Wha;t? II um,anit)" itself, Inasmuch as it questions, its eruf and the 'w'odd;, inasmuc h as i t see e k,e, truth ,0:: 'JIr' m ieani ng inasmuch as '~i,t q uestion '~,

- - - " -~ !~~ .. I~ r , _,~ I .. , I.)t J ,wu,;:, , ,. .._,~rn 1. iElr3. .. w. l"~ .;f.!fJ.~"YI _.;I

and interprets; inasmuch as It reasons l' if you Hke; let us say' that Man can depict Nature as it presents itself only on conditicn that he' prejects himself into ill on to lt, that he 'finds' h imself within. lt, a:s, Hegel 'puts it, 'which

imnli ··N - L L~. 'iIL_ 'h

nnpnes - smce .•... 'atu re nem ier asks nor answers, ,- that ie

transform 11:;" lnil[' re -c reates I' ~ , "T' "-hi ~,~, >!""<:N:Fii 'b,J'j;,~I''''''I'' .-, ' I ~:h( 'I t srt

___ " V' i;;J' v,,~"'" .. If;;;oQ, .!i,;;~ !Ii. •. , , .~.;;i! 'Ii.z.oOIliI, "!!;;; Uu,ne Who" OU. a. . ,.

But ,3,[111: does it better and more profoun.dly. This is 'because the m:i,n,d is Jess distracted by its usual goals, 'w,hruch ,are func~~rnon~. piolwer., effici.en,cy,,, It is bOCa.U~H~ the artist; seeking only' to imitate the 'world, has no other model ~ since the world does not imitate itself -, than he: :h:rnmslelf as he imitates it. If it were :5 u:ff'JJci,ent ~dm'p']y to look" paintru:ng, would be easy, But would it 'be art'? In mus"rnc~wba;[, mo cle 1 could the ardsr 'work from, other than. the work itse:~f 9:$, it 'unfolds j other than a. certain Idea which Is neither concept nor word. Consider

R 'Il._ dt "d M"' 'T'IlL·'· h b f emnran I r, consx er ,· .. ·"O'Z8rt", ',m;]lS is not t e .... eauty 0'

this, world" This is not the truth of this 'world. 0:[' iF it :ws of dlis world, ·~t :i~s so 'Only because .1t :WS ,M'ozaresi or

Rembrandt' s. 'The things of :N ature are content to be" ~ 'wrote Hegel, ~dlt,ey shnply ,~re'; they' exist only one e:;, but Man, through conscioi sness, splits in two: he exists once, but he also exists to Idmse,lf~1 [This is why 'he, needs art; to 'externalize 'what he is' and to find in it 'a reflec ion [of himse~r. Anyone fo:r 'whom the wodd:, 'without Mm, is. suffl,ci.ent s-hould not be' here.

In art, humanity contemplates it5e:~f in the act ~)f contemplating; q ue sdons .itse~f q uestJoning,;, recognizes itself in the' act of recognizing, This re;flex~.V'ity ~ when i~, is incarnate, tangjb],e~, is art. ~ AU arts are like mirrors,' according to Alain ~ 'in which Man learns and. recognizes something of .himsej£ of 'whi.ch he was unaware.' P:[;f;.iba,'bly' .. Not because in art ,Man io'oks· ,on1y at himself. Bather because he cannot look at anything whatever ~ unless he' loses himself completely ~ without being aware of himself in the. act of looking .. The 'true mirror in w hIDC.h. Man searches for himself is, the wudd. Art is merely the

f]~ ,~ . hi 'b h c· d ~ 'h" 'If'[:

re iec non m wruct ne nne S' ~ imse 'I.,

Should. the ,artist imitate: nature'? It is. only one of many ·po:ssi1b,j~ities.. [The ,old Greek. dilem:ma of Mtnesis (lmitatlon) l' as enlightening as i~ ms ~ ls both partial and simplistic ~ it ,colld,d not apply to all the arts, nor to aU art .. , lmi ration has little place in mush: or in architect ure j' nor in a large part of contemporary painting VI sc ulpture, An.d wha.t does, it matter j f a pai nter, a novelist, a. fw hnmaker mutates nature, if he' brings us. something new, st)imethi,ng pleasing or stirring? A 'work of art, accordi ng to Kant, is not 'the representation of ,3 beautiful o·~J,ectJ.'

c

-.

..

J

'If'

" ,

,;

-.

,~

l

,$'



The ,Litd.e Book of P'n·jlosophy 101

but ~ a beautiful represen ration ,of an ob]iecf. Look at Van Gogh's Sho~'~ Ch_srdin'\s La, Rt1w o.r Goya.~;s Black Pa.intings ~, hese are not imitations of what is beau t~:fuI, which hardly needs i m,~tatin.g; they celebrate beautywhere it exists: create or reveal it 'when it is ebsent 01' unremarked, This ms. some/thing of which photography for[cib~y reminds lID s, ,AllY snapshot is a reasonable Uke:ness. But how many photographs ,ar-e art ~l How many are valuable in [be:mselv:es~ Imitation is often a means or a, requirement of art .. But: it is, only a means, nat all end, It Is only one req uirement among others, often stimulating, often. true, of tell salutary, but it is. not ,S, necessary requirement nor is it ever, in itself, sufficient, Imitanng what is, 'beautiful is a post card aesthetic, An artist does not ,copy~ he creates,

Kant. brings IlJ S closer to the mystery, (Beau(j£uI art is

- f' ," ~ h " '8 hat I ..... ~ h

art 0.: gen~us;; [' e writes. .~ ,ut wnat IS _g'e'DlllS t' . ., .. tie

talent (natural gjft) that gRles the rule to art' ,. ,accord:~Qg to Kant It doesn't matter w.h!ether this creative forc)e is innate, as :Ka.nt would have it, or. acquired - it must be one or tbe other. ·What is important" and 'what makes Kant right, is that it creates the ru ~.es of art only through creating art 'for which no dermininate rule can be given', Geniu s is the opposite of a set of instructions, nonetheless, it functionsas just that. It cannot 'be r-educed to aUf given set of rules (which ,is, w'hat d~;stingulshes art from mere craft and genius from know-how') j' bur.". 'through ~t the artist imparts ru ~es ~ however implicit and mysteriou s they may be ~ to his successors .. In. art, genius

is th a·~·t which C' anne t be ~,aam'I~: ed an J y" et ca n life' a ro h - Th -', EI;'i-

J:. _-'. '_ . !I!I'V . I.. : _,Q_ . . l' 1I.~ .. ~ __ , u, ", _' ~ It. . -. '- . 'e , (jilL

hi h . .1 -... d vet is imitat d :Th" ..• h

w . ic .'1 uoes not mu tate ann yet IS mutate, '., IS IS W .. Iy,.

M 1· id 'ii.,. • h '. I

as alraux sal" ~ t 1S, In, museums t 118t one iea ,ns to

" . ~ b ,. .. d···· d' ,.... u ~ .,.,

pamr: = ecause It IS In ae 'mlnllg an' unltat.~:ng, tne masters

that one ,may have a chance of' becoming one oneself,

. h d f h'h 'b

F rom this comes t: " e para 'f ox or genius, W Ich is to Ie

other original and !exem:plliary. Original, since' it cannot be redl!l(;ed to a set of rules", to imitation -or knowledge, B,ut exemplary ~ too, since orlgjnality its,e~f is not enough

('~ h' ""- ~II beortsina ml ~ ] z.~ 'iI}' .

-it .'er.:e can aiso .ie ortginal nonsense, remarks Kant:

something which prefigures some of t"t1,e art of the

, "-I:' th ce - I .. :)1 .... ; ..... " ,-;",' ". ~ .:c·- _ .' _.:~., .-. "/" 0 "-', .; " ..

twe nne .' century .. ~, since gemus must aw so s erve as a

model, a reference, wbieh means . ihat works of art,

. ..l~ 'U~.,~ h'] th 1! . t, ill f'

accoromg to Kant; 'W, :'~Le not '. ernserves tne result 0'

. ..., h . thers i th f. "

umtatron 1.' t. .,1 ley' m ust yet serve ot . ers .m,n tnar way" ,m .• e., as

a 'standard or a ru]e for judging'. One can crea te .any old

Lb·' h. i " . ,TJi.. ,. B" ] d bL' ill •

JUDI-IS :. ~ Ul art as In anytntng, '-: U t any 0 _;.:._ rubbish IS not

- .

art, Th i.arr- &I: are medio icre artists but the v are' .. ~ not

.L!L11! , v· ""'" ~ ,.111 .. ~ a~I!,IL --,. -- --- 'I .'"

~mportant" Only the genius makes the m~es; art IDS 'Only

~I .' d '·'h · h" h 'h ]

tru,(y' :reco,gn~ze,_ In t~ .. e exceptions, W ucr I are t ·.e ,ony

rule,

Great amsts are those who com bi ne sin,gularily and uni.vers,aHty t subjectivity' and objec. j,vity ~ spontaneity and discip~ine, and th~ s is posstb~y the true miracle of art, which distinguishes it from. technology and sc ience In. .aO:V'fI""' i"'J''il:t-i~li!~~t' ion -w· vhich has U" sed ~'he bow, the a rrow

..... """''''.J ..... ,,"'.lLbLiSI., -' . '. - [1.'" . - .,,.... III., _. - :Ii __ "" . __ ,V""

tends to be 'ba,blflced at a, pomt two .. thfrds· along its

le tIL Thts rem arkable '!Ii-'- hnic .... f convergen CD II!..n·w

i _Dg,_ ~il,II~' '.p,.,. '. cii M' . il-ec,.·I.'.;;U .. ': ... y.,;;. ,!~, ~:! .0,,,1,"

ever ~ says nothing abcut humanhy, nor about its.

I n "I..

~"

a:

. !

.s-

•. fl.>

The Littu .Book of Philosophy 10.3

intel~igen-ce." still Iess about the :wndiv~duaIs. concerned: it owes everythi ng to the- physic,a} world and 'its ~a.\Ys. It is i,n~ention·,~ not creation~, and the inventer is. of no ~·~o.n'~'fi·'''''o'''iIn·c·· a W":-J"t'h-,'o'u" the II umiere brothers we w· zould

~ti,r:J'~&I!II ',' b~ ':_:~I! . ,., .. " .. -_,Ib, ~W"·I.·. , "It:: '<_:. - I r. '_ l~_,"_ J. ~""', ... '. ,.11_

stiU have had the cinema. 'But, without Godard, we wOldd never have had Brea-.t.hless or Pit1J."at' le Pou", W~thout Gutenberg, seoner 0,[' later we would have ,had the ,pnndng, press, Wlthout VUlo:n, we would" never had ha.d The B'tdlad of the' l-fanged M'~n. Inventors save us' time. Artists 'waste it - and saveit.

This .is: also tru e of the sciences. Imagine if Newton or Einstein had died at birth, The ,history of tbe: s ciences wou d. certainly have been 'y;ery dwfferen,t~ but in its. .rhythm rather than its [content, fn its detail rather than mn, its direcnen, Neither' the laws of gravity nor the equiva~enoe between mass and energy would have been lost: someone else would. have discovered them, later, a,n:d dns is 'why they are discoveries.", and not cfeation;s ~ But 'wE' Shakespeare had never exi sted, .If Mlchelanglo or Cezanne had. never exiseed, we would Dot have a single o.n,e of their 'works nor an-ythin,g that might substitute for them, It would not onmy be the rhythm, the: personalities or the history of art 'which 'would be dr~ferentf but some of the, most essential 'part of. its content and, to seme extent, 11:&5., d~rec:tion. 'What would Mozart have been without :I-laydn?' Schubert vvithout. Beethoven? AU of' them 'wi.t,hout Balch t' Geniuses. move art. forward, they censtku e ~t, ~h,ey are as, IDrrepla.ce'ab~e a fter t~he fact as the·y ale U npredictable before ..

I should say i opasstng that the same is true of 'pb.i.'~,o\sophy. 'Without Plato, without Desearte s, without :N ietzsche it 'would have, been - and, \:You~d. sHU be, - essennally dlfferenlt from the way we ,bi,ow it today. 'This is enough 1:0 pr-o'V'e that ~t; is, not ,9 .$C ience, B u't is it tart? It Is a q,lle stton of definttton. But mt, is an art in the sense that ~t 'would. not eJdst~, or 'WO[l,I.d. be :r,adicaJ~y diffe,renti withou t a number of si ngular geniuses who were ,1 as; 'in J8rt'j O'rig[na~ yet' exemplary; it is they 'who serve as a. measure and a, ru le, as 'Kant put itt in judging what a work 'of p',hHosophy' could and should o.ffe~r,,, It is, the art of reason, if Y1(JU .1j,ke:" f{).~ which t,fur[h" ev-en the possi:biIity ,gf tru th, is beauty enough,

'-;0 return to the arts: '[radi.dionaHY'jl there are thought to 'be sa; thou.,gh the, H s t has changed over rime ,{ cu rrently: painting, scull' rure, architecture, music, dance, ~iterature) to 'which it has long been customary to add a, 'seventh are ~ cinema, and in France even an ,eighth~ which, is the graphic novel, What d,o they have :~n c.·omm.on:? F l:r.s(:],y I the ,S!U b~ect~vity I mentioned earlier ~ 'b-y which a. gentus can atrain the universal, Art expfes,ses the i:irreplaJ;ea.ble in OUf' lives', a's Luc Ferry puts, it ~ to which

al] a II'IIT s- contribute But ... hev o:~iI!'O h,!;:I'!I;;I'D. in ·'-'o-"m'Miflil"!";;'1'ri1 ,lIT hi Q

~ .• _ ',' ~~ I~' ~ .. :.. . :L.& ~ .I.'I"·~" ~ 'L!I . I' __ 1 HI'. ',:j': tgl~'.:··' ~~"li'~ ~,~~: ,! I • II~' ~1~~~II~-~ 1Ib._ i~

'p:~,easrnng emenens they evoke in us; independently of whether one posses:s, them or '\-vheth,et they are 'Usefu,~. Who needs to own ,3 Vermeerto (J.,e~~~ig,ht in ft, to 'be moved 'by it? Wffil.'o needs anything more ,mf' Mom" than the pleasure - even when it is. he art-rending - of n:sten~n,g to .his, ,music? To describe this, dismterested pleasure we use

, "

105

the necessarily r ''Va,g'.lle term beautv, It. 1$ not oeculiar to

" I",] - If - - '.

art, but. 'w.hi1l.t art wou Id there be without ,~t'?

Somethme .~~ ~."" utiful -1:·:, U'~ ,t, "i:~.., -", ro- -- .'

_IV __ , __ ~'~ ,iIlill.L,1§ l[a' ueau I _ 1< eJrP.l81]lS !I;~n1 lill dt IS rec-og'~

- d h - -.

nized as the object o:f disinterested p,illeasuI,'€ (we tend, [JO

~eel that by ,d,ghts everyone should ,[~nd beauty in what. we ourselves judge to 'be beau Ufu])~ and whleh manifests a certain 'fonn of finality wiihout any goel being man~fest (there is a sense: of completenes s in a. flower or in a work of art whic~h seem to 11:S all the more be~auUfuJ, :wn that they are: Independent of an external purpose. I am not a

'V.~.-- .'" - 'IL. I b l' h h . b

,n.a[l~~anl! Dut , ne teve t at t aere .IS no beauty w.ithout

pleasure ,,'I:,"',[L il:',,-. ,-~- ~ \.- '- ,--, end ,'. ,"':'., ',]f'i 'p:.,., ," "",~,-",

l~a~""" ,~~ wmcn, [or me IS an enc 11[1 .rnlse .1.", OUS-Sln

ifiLl I .'il""~~·'k" . '::'11" :,',. ~. - .,-, -, .:" .. - -o.' . '·'f'" , : - ,'" d - m .. ,', '._- l' .-

rno ugnt ,jjL:cC"\iV]J,Se,. j, ne pu rpose 0, ,an is .'. etectanon, aJS,

did Mollere: 'The only rule is to ,pmease',.' 10 fact art is the mind. itself, deli,ghung, in 'what it loves,

What it loves: or what it. kno~:? B,oth" in. fact and. U is, this that ,m.(l,kes art aU the' more precious, I.t teaches us to lo,'ve truth, by bringing, out the beaut)" of' an object, even :If the object :~t:self is ugmy or- banal, Two apples, an. onion, a ,pair of old shoes '" . " A couple 0:£ notes, ,a couple of musical notes. And suddenmy ~t is as .if the Absolute itself were ha:ng,in_g, 0:11. the waU or' in the air." radiati ng in an its splendour, aU its timelessness, all 1[5 truth ~ fin.ally revealed, as though 1t had n.e¥er been revealed b~'ofie . . u 'Real lffe,' wrote Proust, ~,~i£e at last ~a:nd, bam and illuminared ~ the ol1f~1' life in consequence wh:wch can be

. id -b ]11] ,. JI ,p ,,~., Th . .J

,sru:~ to -,e, rea, 'Y :w.vey ,-, ES !dt~rot~ure " , ;, '. . his uoes nor

ro- .. .,,'00-., '-b L 'L·· h '1':(' '-h . 1·

mean that .. OOKS are better t .~:an. lw.-e ~ nor t , at writers rve

1-0"6 And~' C S "~le

': ".':', , ,', ,: :: "Ai !' .~+:~~ "1"-, ~1,V'i£, ,<

• " • _"J ~ • vr,.·~~ r,,-#"!f,P! - - ~-

~ife. more ~n.t.en:sely than. we: do. 'Arhat it mean Sij o I' the con trary, is that literature, like all of the, arts, helps us' to perceiveand to inhabit this, .rea] mife.:~ which IS~ es Proust conti naes l' .~ an [be time immanent in o.rd~nary' men no less than in the artist,' It Is something which most people do not perceive through inattentlon or lack of ah';lity but which the artist, in his singularity, reveals to us, Beauty' is. not sufnc:i,e:nt. Still less, ugliness, nor, despite Nietzsche, illusion. Wife need beauty ~ we need u'uth~ even more do 'we need the confluence of 'the two, their fusion, their unity" and this is why we need art~ sts: not 'IdO make life more beantlfu 1 to us, which wou~.d be no more than arti~fwce 0[' ornament, but to reveal to make manifest Its intrirssie beauty, to teach us how to s.ee it, to take pleasure in it andl rejoice in. :wt ~ to love It. It is no', a question of prettifylng, nor of r(;rea:Ung a H~enes·5. It is love without deceit -- consider M.OZBIt) conslder Vermeer - that ms true art.

~Art brings forth truth,' wrote Heidegger ,. 'in a :~dng~.e

bound" art brings to the fore, as, an established safeguard, the truth of existence, j Not the trut n of science, with Its, concepts ~ theories and abstractions. Artistic truth is

'l~ l~ re- ]1 J • ,.

a ways concrete, ,e utays practice '" a, ways} In rts ·w.a¥Jo

sj len t (even when expressed In words or sou nds J: i~ Is the' truth of being, inasmuch as we are able to grasp U:, it is - according to Heidegger - 'being in search of be.rung, Itself', and as such it is the hum!an~, necessari ly human, face of t h, a. A" ,'L,rt":O' J'u't,Q wh ich enco m ';p,-,,?,~¢-o.'~: 'I'C: which is us. T'. 0""0,,:

, . '!!;,. 1lJ.;,:,;,,~... v ' , . ,.U. . I, ~";'h~III.;;;," IU.;:Ii" lI!l~ ~ __ ,_, _"_, "

bad for the ,aes the res and virtuosi if they are 'DO more

The .Little' Book of P:hilosopky 107

t nan that, Be,QUly is .not eve:rything; technique. is not e'V,er.ything. Art is first and. foremost revelation :[.athe~· than cr.aft or abHity, it is he' establishmg or the implementation of a truth. And : ,or .M.an, what truth can there be 'Without language? Wb..at silence, even, without lan.gua,gct 'This ~$ where poetry exists. Poetry, wmch 'is, the. essence of art in every art and its, apotheosi s bee au set

ilLI d 'th f --

as Heic .e,gg:eI again says: ' t :I.e· essence 0 art is poetry', and

L £ ,'h f' .. . 'h ' .. f' h'

necause tne essence O~ 'p(letry IS tile statmg 0." trutr .

If fM:.an live s the world as .8; poet' j it .~'S thanks tJO those creators (.i n Greek, those powt:ai) who have taught us to' see it" to know ir, to cele brate it ._ both to conf-ront ~t and '[0 tr:a,n:s'form i:t ~ to r:ej oice ~ n it even 'when It is unpleasant" ; '101 rejoice :in itt 0[' to bear :IDl even w hen ft. is sad or cruel, in s··hort. to love it or to 'forgive it" since in the end 'we mu st, since that is the sole wisdom of mankind and OIf art. This is where the aesthetic encroaches on the ethical, 'F or there j s certainly something in the conception that the end. of art is the beautiful,' wrote! 'Wittgens:tein, ·'A,nld the beautiful is what makes happy·.j' N 0.'£ any form of beauty however, nor any form. of happi ness. In art 7 the only 'oe,auty which matters is hat which does not lie,

I: spoke earlier of what' music w-ould. 'be like wilthou_: 'Bach ·or Beethoven, or the' :pJasUc arts without Michelangelo or Hembrandt, literature without Shakespeare or .H ugo . ,. . But surely .rnt is obvious that without these incompara bIDe artists = each u niversal,

each singular ,- humanity ftself woul d be other than it i:SL

:B,eca:u:se 'it: wou 1d be less beautiful, less cultured, less happy? Thls, :rn:s not the only ~ nor dl,e, most 'i rnportant reason, Because it woumd be ,~,es S true and less huma:n.. Art Is a (HYOd.UCt. of man. Man is a product of art,

,.

10"':"

" I'·'

',', [!!]

TIme

VVhat is dm,i@'? !If no one asks me, I know what it is,' admitted St Aug\II sttne, If I wish to explain ,it to :h~:m

h 1'~. _. d 1.~~' T b h 1.. '. d

W,O asks, 1;.:0 not fJ]Jow,." ,: hue is ; 'ot-, O~l'V]OU:S anc

mysterious: each of us experiences it;, none can com = prebend ~t. I,~ rurrs on constantly. If W.t stopped, even for o. moment, everything WO~ ~d stop and there would no longer be .any' time, There would no longer be ,anytbing at all, N,Q movement (since mim,e is necessary for motion) ~ no rest (since, time is nec,e'ssary to remain stationary). 'Wi~,hO'lDl .. t time, there would no l,o,nger be a. present, therefore then~ would. be no '~[hi!:[e, ,rus~; hov,t then could there be, an.ything ( Time, Kant demonstrates, is the ,~: priori; prerequisite of all phenomena. ]'0 other 'words.~ to "US~ it is the prereq uisite (If ev:e1J1thjllg~

~.

,110 .Andre Com.,te-Sponvilte

-, <,

The LittlB Book of .P~kil()sOfJh, J 11

'1 h ld ti . . f

i n a ny c "'lhi("D ·IIOW·,.' c ',0, ·'.U: "., ~~ m 'Ie· ~·tIOi"P' sm C' e any'" 00.- Inc- eot Ji'l" I

=. _, .. , ,C];.;]I~.~ . ,._ ~' ... _ 1!I,..l!;=~,. ;;), ._. ,. ;;,. ' ".. ' . . . r- v.

stopping is contained with if? (0 Time slJspend your nrughd j' So p leads the poet accoroin,g to Alain, but the plea 'falters tf one asks: for how much ti me shou ld Time

d i fligh' (",j 0'" '1 t: 'ilL..' .• • fL.]

sus-pen ItS.· .. t·' I', in y one o ill, two tnmgs ms POS'S:110J!e;

'L Ti 1 ,+; ~·hr. " hi h- '0

either i tme stops, on y)OT a ces . .:«.'Jn. :tt'f'n6,~ In. W', ic case It

l d d ~ '1 h h Ii!...

nas not stoppec ", or it stops I, eftniwe Y:I in whicl , case tne

V;,ory': concepts 0' f= 'stopping ,i' or 'en d '" 1''-''.,Q,;oJiCa. to'· have any

~ ,. I,-U I :.~' ~I ',., r':'lIIJLt.jll _, I "~.:.'. u· ~ .. '"_ I"_I;~~~~ _', L_ ~ _ ",- .' I'

• 'J '

'" :Th- IL ,r ].

meamng. . ere' can ne no stop [except m retanon to a

"he/oTe; something can be. defininve only in relation to an aftet. But before and after presuppose the concept. of time: ehe ~de.a that time could stop, whether temporarily

] I!.., ". d 1 ." hi ,~ · mf

'Or permanenti y,. can ne concesveo on~.y \iV,~t . In time Itse~' .

F' ." h hori f" 'L, " d f ]1 -b ·

, OJ us]! time: 1$ t e onzon 0.: nemg ano or ,a, ",e~lngs.

Eternity would be the contrary of time, something we cannot know, cannot think, cannot experience. As he walks among ',: ru j ns Dkle [ot thin ks: evervth i ng:· ceases to

.' _ • ,'. ,_, _',: I • II! I . ,I" ., , _ _ _ '_!!'!l Ii.. •• iii. }" • ".",. ....; _ _."

exist, everything peri she s ,. everything passes ,away" ·OlnIy

h Jid . .. 'T- • ,~ ] .., It'

t I".e ·wo.r.', . contmues, .lm.e am.one persists i . ,n. tact ,.

without rime, nothing, could remain, pass away, endure

'" To be i bei · .' '.

or even cease to extst. 0 _- €' is to r e in hme'r smce It rs

either to centmue or to cease. B U1~ '\y ha t is time ~ which

J' 'f - ,. h' h · ~l"f '"

passes on y rt it remains, W·~. JCII , remains on ~y ~ ~t passes,

which can. be experienced on~y as it passes, thereby eluding US?'

Time - - - il'l - II! b - ." ii"'e 'II: it 1'1' it ho -u 11+ ,'[t'· oc iIt-~l.:]"ng C' o· u md" be' '(]"-ut

.IIi ,j m':".SiI;" ,eji Slu,'N..,.." TT' II" '!. ,j I 11:.. ,.n ~ 1!\...tn._1 ':',: ,'.!II," •. D,- .'

wh~t j s .it.?

Wh.at \\"'e can time is,. primarHy; the succ.es·sion. of 'the

'h" t and 'h' f' B' h ". ..

past, tr e present anc . th e ; uture.B ut t "e past ts not, smce

it is no longer. Nor the future; since it is not y-et. As for the present, it appears to us as': ime ....... rather than eternity·

1 . , h- - 1., • • '1If' if"J"i"'

_. on y In t, ar, moment uy moment, It erases nser '" 1. nne

. ~ "8--' A ' 'onl . d d-

is, wrote S 1:< ugu snne, on _y as it ten is towan s non-

bel , T'h···· h I"] h - he di

.,e.lng. . . ms W:S wnat we cau t !',e present: tne I, rsap-

pearance .of 'the future :in '0 the past; what Is not yet, ;engul~ed by what is no Ionger, .1 s ~·t between these two?

Th '1'" bs ··I.r. ..l u

ae pas"sage = fUI]SlV~:, .U1SU ,stantl,a, ~ or no Ulura'truon -

f-·· p ~ , ... iIL • J] d- - '. h

rom one to ~ne ower" since a ,. :, uranon presupposes the

notion of' past and future which do not exist. It is transitory being (the present) flanked on either side by nothingne:ss (the future, the past). A 'Heeing 'between two .' b" " . - '." c- A' ]:', 'h-'-~' " ,liII h ,£1 : 1 .. =, JIl b ... ,.. h -H--",··· " . ,Id'-' a ,sene es, ,,' 19, tnmg nasr "a I]Ke(JJj "y mgnt. . .0'\" COU, .

such a thing make up the w·odd? How could such a. tlring make up ·duration?

Let us consider the present moment You are reading ~h.i.s s hort essay ab out time, . . . What you were d.o·i:ng

. 1'" h " "h' '" m h ,. I'

previous _y is In t ne past, IS not "Wllg~ or al most not lIng; ,et

us. sa,y .wt is no longer: wt exists only inasmuch as someone

. h . bers it.B h '"

In t . ,12: present remern oers 'It" I .• ut that memory rs nor ~ nor

it b h .. ~I f'" .

can :wt ,:e'~ t :e past: l~ ts mererya trace 0.' 1t. or' an evocation

of :~t ~ both of. which are part of the present. If you r memory itself were .j n the past j. you wou Id no longer remember it: it would. no longer be a memory, but som.eth:in,g you :had :~o'rg,otten.., The 'Past exists for tilS On ~y in '[he pn:~.sen.t~ s,s. p'art of the .p.resent: it exists = and this. is the .paradox of rn.emo.ry _, 'ol:nly in that it ~s' nm the 'past.

'0' 'h- fh h> L b

'oes 't.!JlS nlean t ': at a past·w lew]. no one rem.en} '·ers

112'" A:' ~;-_j-,.x: 'C" r. ----,- S'-- -·11'',' "n.ut:~ ',omU"'-p,O:n~~, e

wou]d 'be noshing, absolutely .nothing(' .I t is not 'that simple, For even though something is, no longer it re;ma:[n;s, true, ~ eternally true - that: it was, A, l~ttle' girl cries; she is :in. AJlschw~tz~ 'c.[]iin.g because she is cold, because she is :hu,ngry; a, ]:rutde girl who will be: led to the: gas chambers a OC~ d~ys late([ = let us say in December lli'942 .. No one remembers her name or her :face. It was too long ago; an of those who knew Jher are dead, Her 'budy has disappeared: how could a.nyone, remem ber her 'Ciears? True. 'But tha t 'which took place nevertheless remains true, ,a:nd. 'wH~, ,always remain true, even if~ today or tomorr-ow ~ there W'S no one to remember it, Each of her tears is an eternal truth, as Spinoza wou 1d put it, and without it there could be no truth. Does, this mean that the past exists after all? No, because this truth, to 0." ~s' present, is aJiw'ays the present: to the mind, e~ler.nrn.tJ is nothing more than the ever-presence of trutlr, I t is not that the pa:st remairts; it is that the truth, does not ,pass ai,Wa.y,

You have just read the: previous sentences, They took up a few' brief moments of 'Your present, which you will 'qu:i,ckly Forget. 'Will it s.Un be true' that. you read the'm? Probably, 'but :mt MIl also be true that you have forgotten them ~ ~ , In, any case, even if you 'VIele 'to remember them for 'your whole life, those moments wou](JJ still be de&n~tiv:ely behind 'you. 'Though 'You might reread these pages tomorrow ~ Of ten years &~)ill now ~ you c:&n never recapture 'that moment vih ich no lon,ger exists, that moment 'when you first read them O[ when 'YOU last n,~,~d

, :

11,'3:-,

, "

them i Tlme win 'ha,Vie: CQn.ltirnued, t-o pass, to change, and that is the real m,y.s.tlery: the presentcontinually ceases to exist (becomes the' 'past) 'du)U)gb ill: never disappears (because it persists). This .m,ys,oory 1$ t~:m,e,~, which the past can neither contain nor dispel, How' ,co.uld, the past be time, since it is no .1onger? 1.1:0\" could time be past) since it 'per.s ists?

The future? ''You r immediate future, most probe bly, 'wiU b~~ to read the: foUowing sentences .' .' e 'But it cannot be certain) it is not yet= a 'fri,end mjght interru pt you, you m1ght get bored, think about someiLhwng, else, mislay this book, you might even drop dead . '. .' ,If ~W'hSll is y[et to b.e~' existe d ~ it would not 'be yet to be i' i-t would be the present, I:t. is what it is - and this; is the paradox of an ticipation ~ onty' on condition that it is not yet, 1:t is not real; ii[ is possi ble, virtual, imaginary. Wi U you read [0 the end of this [chapter? 'You will know on:[y when you have Brushed ir: i[ w.Hl not then be the future, but the past. I n the meantime> AU you can do- IDS, to continue 0.1" ,s:m;i()p; that is.

h c- ilL th H' ...

not t_ ie i!(,·U[Uf''ej out .. : e present, . " _; ope ~ anticipation,

tm,agination" resolve? Al~ of these' exist o.n:~f in the present: thley are 'present or not: at an. 'Tomorrow, next year ~ 'ten y1ea:rs :from rHOW'? This. is the future o:n~y because it Is not, j,[ is possible only- on condition that it is not real, You can skip ,aJ couple of p,a,gl,es, rush to' the end of the

~m f - ~ iL III

book, bull. regardless 0, how' fast you, go~ Wllebl[er Y(NJ go

by" train, plane or rocket, you can never escape the

l,'. ,

present" the real, time. 'Yo u must pause or act and. these

things can. be done on~y in the present. How could the

future be: in time, since it is not yet'? How <::00. Id time be the fu ture, since time is. always here, now ~ s ince it

d les us.ccnt · .?

prece es us, accompames us, con 'aIDS US.:

Time pa:s,ses:j but ls not the past .. It :~s yet '110 come, but is not the :f1lltuFe'" Nothing is past, nothing is to come, nothing is bu the present,

And yet the present is the present only .at the Vl!.ry lnstan t that it slip s into the past~ try to catch it,. ~t. Is a~riead.y· past, fif it were always present .and never m.oved on to become the past,' remarks St A.u.gustine~. ~IDt would n.ot be time but eternity',' But, the author of the 'C.rmfessioHs continues) (].f;,. therefore, the present is time on ly' by reason of the fact that it. moves on to become the past, how can we say that even the pr-esent is r 'when the! reason 'why it is is that it is not to be ?~ .HIls conclusion takes the form. of a paradox ~ In. other word:s,~ we cannot .righdy say that time is~ except by reason of Its Impendi ng: stare of not· being .. 1

Theparadox is perhaps l,es.s chaJ~.enging than lt might at :firs:t. appear.

Firstly because St August~nej S objection (i f the present wer-e a~ways., present, :~t would not be time hut eternity) supposes that time and eternity are mutually e~clu:s:ive:1 somethtng which is neither self-evident nor proven.

Secondly, because nothing proves that time passes int~) past t.i.me ,. nOI even that such a thing Is ,conceiv:a;h~e. '\\'bere could it. do so ~ given that the past no longer exists? And how ~ since it can pass, !on~y in. the present?

Finally, and most imporrantly, because S:t AUlustine's.

The Litt·k Book of .P.niZfJsophy J J S'

analysis ~. which has been exem pla ry' u.p to this point -

h- - d iate f ...

seems • ere to c €ViJaUi rom OUf expenence, ave 'You

ever observed the present cease to' be] Does. it change? Of course if does ~ but it can do so on]y on cenditi on ['hat it centinues. It Is true that what 'WaS is no longer present, 'But the present m.ts'el!f still exists. Have you ever experienced anything ,e-~se? Since. you were born, have you ever rumved a single second of the past; or a m~nisecond. of the .future?' Have you experienced a.n.yth:in.g other than [he present, Iived ,3 s.] ngle day that was not a taday? In what sense can the present be said to .~ cease to be·'. since nothing can cease to be unless the; present c on. Un ues? . am pretty certam .I have never observ,ed the presen t cease to be} it has. always continued, endured,

, d T' 'hi ki b . hi . b b I h

persisre .. 1 .• . 'In Jng S" 0 ut rt, t . te present IS :Pf10 .' a. _:'._ Y' t .I'e

only thing I have always had in abundance. I have often needed more money, sometimes needed more love,

'ill... h I-'h- 'b'

veu.'er ~ ~ea t., more coura.g:e . . . . ... U t never mo·re p·:res!en't..

Like everyone else, :1 have often needed more t lme 1 bur the timeI needed was almost always in the future: (what we refer ito as urg,ency:: 'when 'we don't have an.y time ,,,head of us)'" s@me·timesrunthe·past(what·\v·erefertoas:

., _.' _. - - '::1' ... :. . __ . .. .. . . . I . '. . .. __ - ... ..... . '--

1 .. . f hi hi h) It

nosta ,gwa.; yea,fifllR_gor somet ung W·. ic -. was never r :. e

present: the present has always 'been here, present a,nd correct!

How then, is. i.t 'possible to need more time' ·wh.e·fj time

- ~~f" d L. d"'> -H- ., L1

itselt is :presuppoSi~)'- wy allY n.ee,_· .. · . ~ ow .~:S .it possible to

observe the pres en t. cease to be when the present is a.

~ ~t . h- t . .-~. bei ....

prere qursn .e to ,s.]g I . t, '0 cessation ano to :. er 'g.f

1.1'- 6" 1\; -- .1,4 C'· .... <'tIIW·jn Q ........ .t:Mo'I1~t U ....

,t '. l: ~·e l'_'_'.lur"-Ii'~""IJPV'''·~I;IIV.·'''''''-~

1

I

117

The present never ceases, never commences. It does. not come Erom the future ,any more the:" 'wt disappears j nto the' [past; it persists and changes, it endures and transforms ,~ and it [can change or transform only because

., d d ,. 'D" . · J id ·s-· ('-

It en, urns anc persrsts, . uranon, sam ' .. pln.oz a." 1;S, an

indefinite eontinuatica of existence .. ; It is time' mJtseIf: the continuous present - .ah~lays changing - of being. We must therefore invert St. AugustineJ s maxim, Thus / he wrote, 'can we not tru ~y say that time is only as. llit tends 'toward nonbe,wng~t. I believe the contrary to be. "true': we can truly se,f that time is ~ only as it [,ends, towards persis tence,

It might therefore be said that time and eternity are one. Why not'? But we 'wIll return to that later.

The pars:t is no monger~ the 'fulttu.re is not yet: there is o.nly the present, which .w s the only real time. This, however ~ is not how we experience time .. On the con trary, we are conS'ClOUS of time only because we remember the P,8.st" because we anticipate ~he :ffJlUre, because we mark. the diffe:r,e.nce between the two :Wn. t[NJI' minds or 'w.i.ih our clocks . ,. . With our clocks? Bu·t the movement of the: clock's ha:nds, is simply a. sliver of the present; it. is not tlme, according to Bergson, it is ,s',p,aJce. On.ly the mind" which. remembers the previous position of the hands of the clock, and. an ticipates their fu ture position ~i can disunguish duranon. Without. the mind there would be nothmn.g. but a continuous present" withou~. past or future: the-Fe 'would be on~ the current position of the hands

"

, ,

there 'would oe only space. Bat the mind does play a, role, because memory' exists, because tbe body exists and remembers the past the present a nd even (think. of 'you [. appointments, your pl ans, y;ou.r promis e s) the future. It is no longer space, but duration. It is no longer movement, but censciou sness + It Is no :~o:ngef.· an instant, but an interval, T.his is 'ljNhy we can measure time Oust try rneasuring the presentl); 'why we dfsUng,uish between time and .infinw.ty (which. would be pllf[€ present, 'witholLll past o.r future); in short :mt is 'W hy we are in time (and not sim.p~y in the present) ~ unless, perhaps, time :ws in

IILlS • + r

'Nhy the hesltationi' Because this thing called. time' - which we measure or imagine ~ is, .~or' the mOist part, composed of' the past and of the future" whicll exist only in the. mind. how can we tell whether time itself exists only in. the mind? P.hj:~.os~):phically, this q uestion - that of the objeo ivity or su~iectiv1.ty of time -. is an i .. m.porta:n t. one. Is time ,8 part of the world, of nature, of' reality in itself? 'Or does .it: exist only to us, only in our mi nds, only su'bjecti,vely?' It 'is possible' that both are true ~ frnm different points; of view ,_ in other words, that there' are two different times ~ or two different waY:$; 10.£ thinking 'tJ:me=. on the one band ,. o;bj:,eetiv:e time ~ thalt of ·the wodd

d f hi h .....] 'J'.f·1

an o nature - w uc .. ' is. ,3 perpetual nm.v:, as. negei puts

. d h i d'" . .l..] (,~. divid IL ~) ..

it;; an' as sue "In W''VlSIV' .. e .j1U:st t-11" tIO.J:Vi. e t.ne present ... ;

on the other ~ 'time' as i .. pertains to cons ciousness and the mind, 'which ,. s m.erely the sum. - m and for the mind ~ of a past and .3). future. We can ca~ the firs,t duration and the

1'.1' 8·,'·' A' ~~j' .. c C' .. ':~ iMi'..rl!.,Sp·'., .. ·to··.·nvil·,~:·~

=. ' nu.re V,tr,l'~ . . ... U::

"

second ti,tne,., But only on condition thatt 'we do not forget that tbey are one: and the same thfng considered from

I r- 'L.

two, d.ifie:rent viewpoiats. that time is simp Y' the .1T1Uman

measur-e of duranon, 10 determine duration/ wrote

S·· <I: • h d ., f ',lL ~ 1Il.." h

pinoza, we compare It to tl'le' uranen o trt.ng,s. W.E~lC '_

h ~. -bI' d d . d' d' " - d' i1!... •

ave an mvana . e an,,: ~,·e~,eFm.lne._~:' uranon, an. tms

. UI "B' · bri

comparison we' can time, -':ut no comparison can enng

something ~nto being". 1ih.~s is 'why it is important not to confuse duranon and tlme, but to dis,ningu ish one from another as though 'both. existed in isolation -s This, is not the case. Duration is part of .rlea)jty~ or rather it is. reality: ",t , .. th -. ,' . .l. if ,.... ,,"'. 't,O,- .' '.- ::- ··f' '''t ··i, t "~" "'"J!"I- . '" ..... m. .' IS t . e IDu,e, mnne con Inuanc'e, 0 , ,m . s eIXIDS ence. lime .. on

th L h JIi' ,. ] f"h- ind.It is th

e other ·1:anU,., IS slmp"_y a concept 0 - the nunc : mt is t . e

wav in which we think ofor measure the tnd.:_']~VI:·:S,:lib··le·.: and

_ .g,} '. . . ~,.' J ·w.!~ ~ • ,_:, 'Il'} _".' ., ~O~ u. _ ". . ",.IJ.!I. _ " .. ~ . ",. .'

~l1fmDmte duration of everything,

D 1":·" ~""" .: . 'f:" 'ct "c,'f bet :. ," tir I' "', .JL,. .• "", ,.,.. .: ....

U[,B;dO.n. IS a jacet 0_ : emg; nme, In tms sense,

S~IJ'I'I'1·iie··:. e rive . Th c us ] <:II t te r [" 1" m I e exne r ten ced sub Iecnve ti me'

_. D.J. Y... II ,;;I [iP.~~.. ,. ,I ~·~"I.r· tW.. ., ._ .. 'I .;:I - J' - - .

(wihieh alone allows us tlo ·~re' objectlve ttme. a clock

• '~1" .. ~ ~ 'h . . · h

can exist omy m consctousnessj, JlS what twentieth-

'h" t· 'h" '1')1 f , 'J. • It i

century P'= 'I OSop, ners U suai Iy re ,e[' to as tem,or.a~-d:v, " t :J;S,

an ,aspect of consciousness rather than of the worl.d. An. extendedness of the mind, as St Augustine put jt~ rather than of the body. A form of a priori~ :s,ensibility as Kant

ld . h h '".. b"·· I· A

wou I: I say ~ ra t_ :. er t Ian an mtnnstc o:r 0 Co ject -ve ,res. 'Ity .. '4

facet of the subject, rather than the. object. But the fact that we can experience time only through our -subjectwvllity.;, as .Kant or :H: usserl demonstrate, does. not prove that it can be reduced merely to this." nor does it.

b ml l~~l F-J • 'f" ". ~ dO. I ~

seem toO me to, e jJJ~~.y',. _,'or 11' ome exmste on_y lor' US~

I '

h ld h be i . ') 'lilt.. 1·

. -:QW cou ,. .we iave come ~t.o c .:e in 'Um,le',~ vii nat rea ity can

b . " ·"IIL d . h "I]; f' h' 'IL '~,..-

.• e attribute . to t .-Ie mi . .1nn.s 01' years 'W' ucn ar-e xnown 'to

us. (th.anks to scientists, geolo;gis:ts~ P.81meaontologists) on~y

. ,'" ~ ,'IL" 'L.." h d' d"' theti

retrospectively, as tne time wmc precede .. , 'U:S.~ t :!e nme

before consciousness, which must certainly have preceded it: and, cannot have emetzed from it? If time

.[~.

ex[sts only (,;0 us 1 how could it have .. assed between. the' B~g, Bang and the appearance .of life? And, how't :~f it did not pass, could Nature haVle evolved, changed, s.ha:pe.d?

If' ".. ' .... -·~l-- .', ·b·'·· . 'to .: how co '~dl . iL+·· ... -~'.. l. .' :. tnne were onillY SU-J€C ive, = ow couu s.UDjlectlVlty nave

co: Hli'iI,';&, II- ..... j ,q.,PI. pear in tim,' 1·le.-· t··,

'IL[~ ~~ !tJIU ~';- _. 'lWa , . ( [

Let us take an indeterminate period ,of time, let us say today + Some of that period has already passed; some is yl'et tOI come. As for the' present ~ which separetes the two '~it is merely' an instant of no duration {if It had duration lt too would bemade up of a p\8,SI ,and a fu.ttrl.re,) , which is

" . W'" , b' ." -b

not In. nme, ','. e experience t ,i IS as: trme .' eeause our

mind. remembers what is. nOI longer and ant~cipa,t.ies. 'what is not. yet, it causes both to exist in [he present ~ the present we, experience ,_ when .in rea:IDity theY' could not coexist, Therefore ~ as Marc el Conche understood, ~,em.po.ndi~ aUows us to apprehend time only because i~ is 8J negation 'Of time: Man resists time (because he

b b h ... ) d l _j,;, h

rememoers, .·ec,ause ,'l~: anncipates .~ ,an, U}, notng so ~,e

b ecomes conseious 'Of .~t. The mind constantly resists:

h · h ",'ilL • d· .... b ..

l at IS 'W at. me rmnc IS; memory, !ma.~natlOn7- 0. .. snnacy,

'wi~] , . . Bur it Is possible to resist time o.nly· with time.

M- ;". · b ~ '11 ~ I .. h·

-,. - ." .. ,[ • -.- .. , . ',: . '.- -, .-: -:'.! _ ' '. 'I ,"._. . :.". ' .,.' -, it ':"' '

emory, ID.maglnatlon, 0 sunecy, WI 7- extst on y WIt. In

th Th ~ d"" '11,. h·b...:l\,.,· h

' ,e ·pre:s'ent... ,: I, _ ~~ m.ID. . e:usts on.IY lIm t, e .O~ij! :wn t ;',e'

r,

Time zoes by~" orne noes bv my Lady':"'"

- _._'" .. lli···· -, ,:,., , l;:!i .-" . .- -1) .:. _.- -." •..

A.~a,s.~ Not. time: itselft but we gPI b.y!

121

l'')l11 A' ",~ . .J , . .(' C'" '-.'. #A. S-}····· "~l"-

J! 4.'V . - ~;r~om~·""-ron.m,,~:

Anothe.r. good reason to make the most. of youth~ of life, .But ho·w·('

By ~vin,g In the present? W:e must do so because it is the o:nlliy time given to us .. By living .in the moment? Absolu£.ely not" to do so wO'ldd be to abandon memory, irnaginauon, wi~1 ~. to abandon the mind and the self. H'ow could one possib.~y think without remembering our ideas; love without remembering those we love; act without remembering our desires, plans, dreams? When we study~ or S8V\e for our retirement, 'we are planning our future _, a wise thin,g to do .. But it is in the present, not the futu ref tha t we study 'Ot save', .~'f we keep our. premises, jt is first ,and foremost because 'we remember them, as w,e: must, But it 'is in the pres ent that 'we keep them, not In t-he past, Living in the present does not mean cutting ourselves off' 'from the past, Of :f.rom our

..

!

desires, sin ce both are part of' it, It does not mean living In the moment, because we ,car.ry· on, we endure, we ,gllOW

Jd' 'N .. .. .. I .r M I'

up OJ!' grow 0 ~.,_ .. , ...• , 0 mstant IS a r,esUn,g p ace lor _.' an, on y

the present, which persists and chan.ge:s; on.ly the mind,

wh·;l""·:L- remer bers "Jin._JII~. azines Th t .. .:ILe r--- ~ id "t ,~1,['

.~..:"':':u. I!L " .. wm'U";,;i.;J! g,' 'llII .. ~-mo& .. , ~~.. . . ~ a; m.'.- .IDID_'-· IS'ell

+ . 'r-., -h t· ,,-IL._. L.,· "L_." 'W'

extsts onty In t' ~:-,e present ,~ in me erarn ~ IS ·0 IJvlOUS,,, ". e

are of the world, .- that ~s OlU body _. and we are 'i'n the

-]d' - hat i . d h ' '" ,.

wor .. 'J [i: at IS our min- u; tt e two~ III my ~puru~on 1 are one,

'8-- h Id h " d An" d th ;...1 ,.. --IL

ut the wor, i as .no min, .. .: - .. :_1 tne mind ~s not tue

-c·' Id" '11..·· . . -h -- - . . ..... ' .... :m .h - - .. ' ed bv

wor .' , UlS IS W I.y we are constantjy t reatened : y

t. tfuJ d h _.mL ""d·' ..!i L··

[urge' . ,- fiess,~ I; ea. t exhaustion, l- lOCy aniDm. nottungness,

" . '0 exist is 'to resist: to think is to' create; to live is to act.

AU of these things. can take place only in [he :presen' .~ since there is. noth:wng else ~ and it is succeeded only bY' another present, Hil)'W' could. one live in the past or ·ih.e future ? To- do so one wou ld mean to no. longer he" o-r [iJ not yet be. :L~vlng mn the' present, as Stoics and sages have said, is no I a dream l' nor an, ideal, nor a utopia: mt. is: the shnple and extremely difficult truth oif b eing, I,~· e:ternity

'. ~" -- - - . . "~ tod ,~. '.' ·s·:··,t A"-' ' ... " . ". -. - " . ._ . d .....

is a perpetual toe ay as e .'. :ugustlne proposec J It ms

pointless tOI w.ait £0.£ tomorrow. If it is 'a perpetual

P- resen .. t' a. 'S"" hie a' lso s ·'ul~Cfa;.:.ii1.,~·te:··d·. then 1·'1: 1+;;::0: the present l·i>~Qmf·I'.

!!l, ."" .... ,, __ . _, __ . i .. 'CIC~~- J n.".., .. .~ ",":;'.".",,", , . 1Ii.;;J!' ..... JII.

• • l.. . . £. '1'- '".' I' h'· h ~

It IS . i I ot 'tW lie converse or ume, (jut rts rea Ity't ·W. :_.I:C' rs [0

be constantly present" constantly existent, constantly in existence, We sense and ·experience ~ha.t we are eternal,'

s . 8-1' • h £'",1'=.. Thi d th

wntes " .. pmoza m tne ':·mtc$ ... .r IS: oes not mean it C~lat 'we

do not di-e", no.r that we are not in time; what. 'wt means is that death. 'win take nothing fro·m us (smce it win ta:ke only the future: - which does not esisr), that ti.me take-s

world; that is wha it means to exist. I' ow can we conquer time, since we lean wrestle with it only on condnion that we are part of it?

Tl· I e is a_[Vi.H31:y·~~ th ~' victor: b ecause it ~!l:". alw .. avs t··-h· ;lD.1i"'",",

_~ "w g . ~ ~ lip - O§ •• ~b,D, ~ . _ ~, ,~i;JI !GlkW,. t:J),).. .. ,~\Il.'~,

because there is. always time ~ because the present is the

1 '~h' . ~ f bei ",. 1~1'" ~h . L il ". . f

oh~y tnere IS o oemg; m .n au t mgs pass, wm e It use I

doe-s not naif!'s' This 1"S. whv -w-"e·· OlTO'-W O'I;J· it is w-hy --- .. - d~ te

, .. ~ ... 11 r ,;,: .. J1.[1=~ .' __ .IV .' .•..••. ~,,; .. ' .. _ 1.ljjUi·L ~. :·.·.,·.'we'·l'"

R.ons·ard summed it up' in two Iines:

12'· '"2'" 1\.' '- -;.;r -.A; 'Cc -. ". ''''·-''"-.5: "i: •. ~.:n_

' . .'.: .' .. __ lnti.rt' ··om~-· po ftWrl~

nothtng from us (Since rhe present is· a U)~. lastly,. that it ~s· absurd to, hope for etemiry - since we are already there." 'I f by eternity / Wittgensteb'ID said, 'ls understood not

d] ra ,- b '-1 iL '-b I"

en iess temporal duration but timelessness, tnen he lives

etern~1tUy who lives in the present, ~ In which case each of ILl.- s h i'li.;e I·1Ii" alwavs: we a- !,<r.;. a] reg,d, :V' save d , B,_,~ .... gU;·S· e we are

. ".o[Ili!Il ~I!,.,J Q' '~l:"· - '._ ':_':Il,~ ':'_"-' u'._ ~" I ~Q - .. :_. "~Iy~,_.. '_'." __ ... '.

ti.me~~·ss? .I t' s not the 'w,o,rd I 'w(lu:[d use, But becau se, ill truth, etemityis nothing, more ~:han. ~h,e ever-presence of reality and truth. 'A'ho has ever ]:ffi.v~:d. ,a, yestef;day or a tQmQrrOW'f' We' live only in taJa,s" and that is what we call living"

Relativiw.y does not change this, Since Einstein, we :m,I~)W that ti me is dependent on. velocity· and ma tter t but that doe s not give rise to ,3 sIngle: moment which no longer is) or one which does not yet exist. (.What Einstein's concept of ,re·:~aUvi ty af£~!H;tS/ remarks Bachela rd "~'S the peri od '-. '·0. f 'U' hn .~. ·t"·~I;Q; ·d: uratlon of tlme, ~

l _,._.,~. ~_"~ j! ~~. L-~,1 ... ~~tY.V·. .l~ ~~, lw'~ . . 1 •• ,J, I'

But not the present itsdf,. This bears out the fame U~5, example of tJ~.e .Langevin. twins, This is; ~. thought experi =. ment, hut one '\:vhic:h has been confillnTled. by calcu ] at jon and experlmentatton with elementary particles. The.r,e are tM:n brothers, one of whom stays on earth, the other travels through space at close to the speed. of ,~ig"'L When the IDatter returns, the brothers are no long-er the same age: the astronaut .ha.s a.ged on~y a few months I' the homebody has aged several years: . . . The concl usion, doubtless accurate, is that time varies a.ccoroing to velocity, that there is no absolute, universal time, as, N',ew[on believed, hut a series of relative or elastic time s

.123

which. are susceptible to ,~and or con tract .re]ativ€ to 'velocity· ... , " Hence the actual, But this does not bring the past or the future into exi;s[·ence,. Neither of the twins 'NiH have :~eft. the present Ior an mstant. .As Bachelard continues, 'the present, according to E:lliust,ejn ~'s. ·mJueory ~

" "b ~ ":r.. ,. ~ •. '" ,f,i_~

remains an a :SiOJ.'lJte.. .It .~:S a PO~Dlw, In Sp~CE -ume: me e:t

nunc; not here and. tomorrow, not there and ~nday, but ne'r€' a~ now~'., This: is the: present - or rather presents, plural. Each differentl shifting, but aJ I: eq ua1ly present.

!!"-rL.·'·· h - '1m the uni h· h .JII iii' e

i i 11;8, is W.I at we ca .~ t .~. e unreerse, 'W men ooes no," ravour

either time or space: because it is space-time, and its unique incarnation.

=H- Id h -,. n'~ ll:rL

.! .. ~ lOW eou ,_J we escape t, e present, s,1.nc€ ~t is ,~H~ .''\i'~uY'

WOiU:[d. 'we wish tOJ since the mind itself is; of the present? This chapter is c'orn:~ng, to an end, most of it IDS behind 'You

·~I··I'.~ . h - ~ '~i .J! l' d'" 'n ,.3-.

now, jiltti;, a pa.s~ t (at is, a,wr-eauy ·i',aLrnng_., Jb)ut you reao It ,-

can only ever read it =. in the present, just as I wrote it in the present The same .~;S. true of your lffe, and this is: an important point, 'Your life ~:S not lying ~ n wait in the fublt:e. Hke, a wild a.nimaJ or' some ominous desdny .. N,(J[' is it

hidd . h 'L lik d'· "N

t .. I·. en In. uie neavens, IKe a. para tse or a prorruse, (or

a "" 'L.- je ,., - ._ th - -' -,-,-,-. - ,'- th _. ,_ .. - ", '''f-'' "." ." "t '1[, •• , ,'.

IS It SnU..: U .. P 10 t_ se cave or t" e pn son 0, your pas . ], I.. IS,

here and. now:: it is what you live and. vihat you do. At the h Fb h h f.-h' h h f' , eart -0' .; eiag; ,at the . eart o I~ t-Ie pre sent; at t ne ,_:-. eart 0·::

ev,e.ryt:hing - ln the great current of m:ife~ of' realruty. 'N othing is set in stone: nothing ispromised. If only the present exists ~ as the Stoics claim - only' acnons are

1- ·WI!.. f (I' ..'.':f + "'l Th "

rea ",u.8,tt 0,: creams, ,lma.g~nlngs" tantassesr , . ese roo

1'2: ·4: A'~ ··~.l.r·~..(' C-·;·n..:.M+ .... ~S·:'nn!<M't;M,f,~~,

II ,7tu .,f;; .. 1VI!f!"~~ _ r·~·,.-'"v,,!-w.

11': Humanity

are actions ~ becau se th.ey are llfe, but at Its lowest e bh, You, would 'be wrong to deprive y,ourself of them; but wrong too to, content yourself with them alone" Rather take your life in your hands: be present :run the presentl "The greatest obstacle to Hvi.ng,~' according to Seneca, 'is u~,itlli:ng., ,Ev,er.ym;hi ng t-,hat 'win. hap:pe.n belongs to the domain of the uncertain: ,~ive 'now ~ ~

Carps d-ie"m '~ seize the day? That rus. not enough:. since the d,ays pass, none remains, ,Rather seize the present, which changes and persists: Carpe aetern'ttatem"

It would be lm,po$.s~ ble' to live In the moment, How could we prep'ar,e. for exams" plan holidays, keep' promises, lfve a friends h.wp or a passion Jn the moment, The onIDy opd,o:n. ]S eo llve in the present. ,How could we. 'work" enjoy ourseives, act or love in the futu:r,e'(

The present is. the only real m for actien, for thought) fer memory and for annclpanon, It is the kairos (the right moment, the opportune moment: the moment of action) lof the world, or the world as ktii"'fQS ,_ the rea~ in action.

Being does not persist because it is. within time: ~t is because: 'being persists that time.' exists.

T o live' in the present Is simply to live in reality, W:e' are already in the Kingd()m,~ eternity is now ~

Seneca

, I

Wh 0 M' - "rt Th" 0 hr f' h'~! h fCf" d

at IS ,a:n!" _ ,IS " tstory 0" 1'" ,c']L~O(SOp,iy a .or ,: 'S no

shortage of answers. Is Man a political animal, as, AristotJe would n.31ve: it; or an animal tha,~ tan.~~, as he also sugg:e'ste1d?1 I s he a. feath,erless 'biped, as. Plato ~m,~,;:, 1 d'?': A " 1 lmal -h S ," d Jo~.ng, y suggeste. r r rational ammal as t ',e' '.' toics ano

"h S h 1 . " b -I'd'''' I r-h imal ill.. la nih,

the '_··C ·''o.mBsiUCS, ne aevec r is ,. e an ammai that Iaughs

(Ra belais), 'th.wnks. (Descartes) '- judi,ges (Kant) ~ labour-s

(M'a[X:'i creates (" Hewson)'?

. ,}" - . . ..... "',10 .. , ....

N· f 'IL • d _U f

" one 0, these answers - nor indee .1:_ ~~ 0;,' them

together ~ seem tOI me entirely satisfactory. F~rs'dy"

L. b " ;, . ~d m

because t aeir scope IS on oc casion too wic I,e; always too

narrow A, good defin~~tion should entir:e~y circumscribe

h '''., 'I £-.., do, l' -T·"L_" a h "h L

wn ar mt: ennes, an l[ ,3 one, j_ ms is not tne case W]t :~, tne

famous definitions I have Just cited. Imagine we crOtdd

prove that dolphms - OF some If:XltraterrestrjaJ ~ife form - possessed language, a poli tical system, thought, .~abo:ur,.

.. , Thi 'Ald k·' h ' h ..]1 ~ IlL • , h li

etc .. __ us WOUl'= not mal. e emtl! o'er t te u.o,Lp,"in or t "~ea . en

a man any more than .~t 'would make Ulan a cetacean or a.

M· ,. II., d- h :f 1 d h '··m r.

artian, fin [ w nat O~ ange S. ,an' t . elf ~augh t,er?

These definitions are too broad~, in [hat they do not apply mdr to what .ws defined: a person cou ld li.ve in. societv. speak think j~udue-lauo:h ~'n'd labour W· ":l'.I!·'~O'i[r,,~,

_. J}' ,_.. ,-~.. I ~ '. '",~" ~ .' ',. l:I -', .. vu=, ••• ~ lUI··· w~

beIng a part of humamty.

B h d· fl' I

. ut t" ese same uer mn~tion.s are a so too. restric trve ~

since.' they do .n,ot whO'll, circumscribe what is de·fined.:; someone who is profoundly mentally hand icapped :tnay not talk" reason, laugh, judge 0.1" take .pan in .P oUtics . . . He is no less human. :for ,a.U tha .. It can hardly be said mat

h ~II· .. ... , (d haps Iessj th

. e nves .wn .sue·lell' any more • artd pernaps ess •. ' t,' an

. "omestic anima~~s. N'o one, however, would suggest that we tre·,at him, Hke an anima] - however well cared. fOI,['. 'Who wou ld s.u,gg,e·st that \V~: pu t him. in ,8 zoo? It .mf,gh t be said that 'we have [done worse things, and 'this is true, B,ut what philosopher would consider such things acceptable?

.If a dolphin Oil' an alien, regardless of its intelligence, is not human and yet someone who is profoundly handicapped Is (it 1.5 the ,~atter point wh ich is Important) t 'we must cone] ude that our fiu DC f onal or normative definitions are at .fault: a humaJn is sti U a. .bu man even wben he has ceased tOifo.nction, normaUy. In other words, neither :func'ti.ons, '00.( norms are sufficl,ent definition. f:um,anity is not defined. by 'what it does 0;[ what it can

do. Is it defined by what it ills? AJ most certainly, but what is ,wt? Neither reason, ,po~iticsj IDaughter or ~abou:[, no- any' sin,~e.' fa,cu Ity is exchrsive t[Q man. Nothing is exclusive 'to man, or rather, nothing which Is exclusive to him is sufflcjen~ to. Ideftne him,

This is semethmg that D1iderot realized, In the entry' on f.M~an; in the B'ncyclop,ld'ie~ he attempts a, [defInition; 'iA

feelmg, thinking being that moves, about freely on the surface of the earth, that appears to 'be at the head of all anlmajs. which he dominates" that lives in society, that invented the. sciences and the: arts, that has a goodness and a. badness pa.r.t icular to it, ~hat has given ilSt"df masters) made itself laws, etc. l' This definition bas the same strengths and weaknesses as those we began with .. B Ilt· Diderot know th~s" And be concludes the deflnition witha smile that. both lUuminates and repudiates it; 'This word ha s a precise meaning only inasmuch as it remind s us of all that we are: but all t~hat. we are cannot be contained in a d.efinition. '",

Yet how' can. we talk about human dgbts. unless 'we kno,w 'what ~ or whom. ~ we are dealing 'with'? 'We need at lea st ·8 criterion, some distinctive ~;dgn ~ a ,malfik. of ·belongjng. what Aristotle would' call a species difference .. 'Nha:t is. that? It is the species to wh:wc h 'we be~ongL Humanity :ws not .fks:t and foremost aperformance judged by its successes. It, .~s a ,gjven~ which can be recognized even in its, failures ..

This is. where, we must trust to bio];oJgy .. N'ot ~n. order to discover additional ,djst~nguis.hlng traits, w hie h would be.

...

just as. debstable: I!l.pdght stance, the: opposable thumb, the 'weight of the b.ra:tn~. the c81:pab;mmIty' to interbreed are' not without their exeepnens in man, I we come down to biology tt 'it is. not in order to defiJl,e. a concept, but to return to experience, "[0 that of the sexual human, of conception, gestatwon" bir.th ,_ of the body ~ AIl are born ,of woman: aU begotten not created ,_ the :fool and, the, genh.ls", the honest man ,and the crook" the old man as

I th hild A d h'·' lai hi h no ali ..

'Sure y,as" e C ~I~', '. '~,n:;. t'IDS is a C' aim 'W,,:I,(:, I, no aaen, no

angel can ever' make, Manld nd is ,f.wrs~ and foremost a particular species of animal, We would be wI,ong to regret this: not only because of the keen plea:stJ re it, affords us, but because 'to do :5,'0 would be bJI ,regle:t that which makes j't pessible for us to exist, We are mammals,

Ed M' · d 'of th dl f · .

E;'gar: ,: orin remmos us" we are 0, tne or ·er o primates,

of the f8.mn~1' of hominids" of the. genus homo, of the species sapiens . . . ~ This belonging ~eads us 'ito another de fini'bon,;., w,hic.h. is. not functional but ,gene,de., I't :w:s, the one which ,fa;shioned for my own personal use, and

hi h h iii 'Il f~:· A h :L .. i --- " ....

w icn as a~ways oeen su TIC]ient: i- '.' ::u.-ma:n v,etng IS. any

1'_ j 'J_ 1:.. S" 'IL~I- d

c.reat.ure ,t],0ffl, vi Rvo' ",uffUin, oein:gs. Strict vio, 'ogy~ an ;'-

Wh 'il_ h 'I'~_~- 'h' ~p-'

cautious. ether or not ae s',peal\S~, thinks, creates,

'I~,~ - 'bl f .' 'II·' ,. ture whl h

WOf1~ or 1:51 capa .... 'e' -0 - :soc~a:u:za.Uonl every creature W,; Ie.,

conforms to this defm id,on has t-he same ri.ghts as 'we do (even if he cannot exereis e those rights) l' or rather -

, h h h hi L h

thou;gr,~ :~t. comes to mucn t ie same L1ID,g ~ we nave the

d d h·

same' I uties toware ,S ,: un,

Humanity is. p·rjm,~.urdy a fact. rather than a value, a species ra,ther than, a virtue, And if it can become a value

or ,8 virt ue 011 the sense in wh ich :h.n:m;anilJ is, the opposite of Inhumanity), it is, on.]y 'by frr.st being :fa~tJ1fu I

h £' h ~E 1 M'

to t :,IIDS tact, .. rls species." ',very man, wrote .< ontaigne,

'carries wirhi n him th€ entire Form of human condltlon.' The worst amone U 5, cannot escaoe it" So.me men are

- r~ lr'

i n,h uman, cruel savage, barbaro us; But to co-ntest their

humanity wou ld, be ~Ol be as bad. as they are, One is born ,9 man; one becomes human. Bu~, those who fail to do so are men. for aU that. H umanity is a given, before it is created or creative, Na:tur:a' before being, cultural, It is

"

n,.n.t- an esse n c ,,~ . ~,t is a d: eseent: man bee "JIjlll 'I se '50-"1IjIi ,o:f- man

~tlU~ a ,. b~.i;!.. .~, ~ _ ,; ... l. . !I:]I'Ibu.,_ l~... " Ill. '" lIOe lAY_-' IIJ. .. IliJl'" , __ ~tL·!!

'This raises the Pi[IObl~em$ of c lomng, of eugenics, of [~he eventual at~ifici,a~ fabric,atJ.ro.n of man - or of s uperman, And, to me, it is a compelling rea son, to reject them, :If humani ty defines ,wt,self 'by filiation rather than by its essence, through birth rather than through mind, by the' dudes .it owes tIC) others rather than ruts, fiunc:ti,oDS or performance, then we .mUSE hold 'to that fi.lfati,on~ to that birth, to ,thos,e duties.. '.umalli~y is not a gaJne:~ it is 3J.l1i issue, Not primarily a, creation, but a. ie:gacy. Not an Invention but an ane,g~a,nce. :Nobody would think o.f protesting ag.ainst. the, remarks ble progress in generics being used, to restore to every human being his full humanity (what we ,caH gene th.erapy'). But this i.Si, not a reason 'to seek to transform humanity .it$elf~ even to :improrve on it. Medic'jne fights illness' but humanity is not. an. iUn,les's: ~:h.erefo.re ~t doe s not ,~egitwmately fall under

h d~ .' f dici

ltel:~omJ,un ,0_ meaicme,

To improve on man wou~d. be to betr-ay' 'or· .0 ~os,e him,.

r.n~_ L·' L B' . - ,~ k' , i~ p~:- :~'~ .... " L.." 1 reu:. _' tttw ,'.'0',0, . OJ' rt.1,:WSOP,',c.j

131'

All L 'd ., :l.' '''d , beings ten ,.'. to persevere m tneir essence, sa~"'1

Spinoea, and the essence of man. woilll~d no less 'be destroyed by his becoming. an. angel than byhis becoming

,..;Jj horse Euzeni .... e and b arbarlsm on the' sa mil') ~':id;lOl,'~

~ ~ ~_UJ!.~rw ~ i3 i' '--"Uo":" ~1&Al~~J ~ ,. !. bJ.UH. JJ.' ,', lV\ I • ' .• i:J-' ,- ..". ~,In - ~Il

Certainly, 'we should heal the Individual; we can never Ida ,enoughJ but we should not modify the human species, I

.. ~I h 1 b h ~

realize that in gene therapy l I'le line . setween It r' e tvvo is

tenuous" even. problemadc. AllI the more reason to reflect on. it ,al,nd to be vi:gilant .. M.an is not G()d: be can remain trumy human only on rcondition that he accepts that he: is neither its cause nor its ruin,

,.

!

or threatens violence, 'wt enslaves, exploirs or oppresses others, in short. because U: jnfrins,es. on the human ri,ghts 0,( another, hIs jnte,grity., his freedom, his di,gnity ... This says a lOot about how morality has: c:h.anged in secular societies. It is no longer a. submission to absolute Of" transcendent com rnandments " but derives from a conn' sideration for the welfare of humanity, for this il1div.mduaj man, that woman. ,I't Is no longer an adj unct ~o religion, but the essence of practical humanism. 'Why 'nractlcal? Because it concerns ac tion (praxtS) rather than thought Oil' contemplation (theona.), t ,W S not ab out what we: know or believe humanit.y to be" bu~ what we want-it to be. If man is sacred. to man" as. Seneca suggests, it is not because he- is a GodJ nor because a God commands him, It is becau.s.e he is Man, and that is enough.

Practical hum,anis,m.~ humanism as m,o,r,alU.y.·:f humane ac t ion. for the benefit of huma n ity.

But there is another form, whic h may be cal led theorencal 0[' transcendental humanism. VVhat .is. it? It ,~s ,8 certain way of thi.nki.n,g~, a certain b relief, a certain .kno,wledge" or at least presents i.' self as. such: ,it. encornpasses what we sh1ou1.d know of man and his wonh, or what we :s,hould believe in order to provide the foundation lor our duti,e-s towards, him , ... This Form, of humanism stumbles on. the "Very .kno'\v1edge it purports to possess. For what we know of man is that: he lSI more .often capable of the 'worst = consider Auschwitz ~ and the media ere than he is. of the best. Sec:o:n.ld~y~, consider Darwin - tn,at he has not chosen to. be what he is. (he is ,8.

If humanity i.s ab 0 ve aU a species .o:f animat d, is raises the irnportam matter .of h,um,anis:m. The 'word can be interpreted :in two ways, There is practical or morn] humanism, 'which simply accords 3, certain value to hu manity - in other words, hnposing on oneself ,9. certain nu mber of duties and proscriptions as regards. our' behaviour to others. Nowadays, we refer to these as, human r.wghts~ or rather the philesephical fou:ndat~.on of human :dghts ~ we can have such right.s. chief~y because we all have duties, to. one another'. ~Not to. ki~t torture, oppres.s ,. ensjave ~ .r;ape~ steal, humjliate~ slander '" . . Such. humanism js more a moral {chan a political stance, and, for the most 'p- a[lt~ it is one shared bv' our eon temporaries.

I II' I

'Why do. we no longer consider masturbation or homo-

seXJuaHty· 'to be: wrong( Because' they harm no one, Why do we' condemn t,ape~ p,im,p'~ng~ paedophilia more passlonately than ev;er'( Because such beha!.v10ur entails

tul ' ll'

, -."::".' ~.; .," i!!: I

132 A. m 'Comt6-,Sponm ,I e

The Little Book, oj' P,hilosDp,ny 13,3

product rather tllan a principle). 'LastIy~ that he is net Cod, since he has a body' (which prevents 'him. from being either aU:-power.ful or immortal): a history, first natural, then c ultllI,al; and finally a. society and, ,3 subconscious which govern hjm far' more, alas, than he governs the'm" It ~ s here that the human s ciences .= Freud, Marx, D'Urkhei 111. ~ overthrow the idea that we are' capable of creating ourselves: the,WI theoretical antihumanism, as Althusser put it, prevents us from, beHevmn,g. in Man as we' once believ,ed. in GodJ 0:['". in other 'weirds, of making him, the 'basis of ,hj.'S b elng, :hrn:s, thoughts and his actions. 'The ultimate goal of the human

'" :J! .', '11" ...:::...~. S· ,~, t ~ t '~b' ~, ito,

sciences, wntes Levi-: tra,ILISS! IS no' , to crea e man i 'U~ ' .. 0

dissolve him' which. sllJp'poses. reintegrating 'cult I,:r:e into nature, and eventuaUy,: Ufe into 'the ensemble o.f its physio-chemical components', Man is not lus own cause, nor is he, for the most part; master lof himself, stiU less transparent to hi.mself He is the result of' a particelar history which, u beknewnst to him, runs through him and ccnstltutes him, He 'IS what. he' does only because of what has made him. 'who. he is (his b ody ~ h is past, his, educadon .. . .), F Man is, ,8.S, Sartre claims, 'condemned at every moment. to inwn~, man' ~ he does not do so {)lut of nothing .. Humanity is not a. blank page, nor a, pure' creation of the self by the self, It is a his tory: an inevitabiJ~ty;, .it is, an adventure ..

,j~M'~ " . ,. hi .' ~'S" .

- ',' .an is net an empire 'ML_11l an empire, opmoza

wrote: 'be. ,W.S a :PB,rt of nature, whose laws 'he follows (even when he appears to violate or vandalize them); he is, ,8

cart of history;, which he shapes and which shapes hrnm;, h.e· is ,Q. part of a. society, an age, a civilixatlon ~ ... hat he is. ic.apable of the worst Is on~y too easy to explam, He is an animal destmed to die; an anima] aware of his mortality; an animal with urges rather than instincts ~ passtens rather than. reason, fantasies rather than thoughts, anger rather than wisdom, Edgar Morin has a charming expression: Homo.. sapiens:1 nom.o de.mens~ . Mankind is sa full of v,ru.omence~, of destre, or .fe,fu~! 'W,e: are righ.t to protect ourselves from him, it is the o.n]}r wa.y to deal "r]J~h. him,

! l lament the fate. of humanity) ~ wrote La. Mettrle J 'that it is, so to speak, entrusted to- hands, as despicable as its own,' But there ate no others: our solitude dictates our d.ut ies, What the human sciences teach us about ourselves is precious, bUl it could not. teke the place o,:f morality, What we ,knulV of man says nothing .~. or very little - about what we WQuld w.is.n him to he. The fact that selfishnes s, violence or cruelty can be scientl fillcaHy explained (why shou~d they not be, since they exist), tells us little about Man's worth, Love" gentleness and compasslon can also be explained - they 'too exist: and are more' worthy. In whose naJrne? .I n the name 0:( a certain idea of man according to. Spinoza, 'as an exemplar

t: 1:.. _,J ' 'IlL h ~ l~~ ,-

0:( human natu re towards W.~YWC,' we may ~OO,K . To

understand is not to judge J nor does iit 'make judging any less necessary. The theoretical anti-humanism of the human sciences, f~H~' from dev.aluing, practical humantsm, is what confers on it its importance and its status. It is.

I'

not a r.eligion ' 'but a moralitv: not a theorv but a stru (II\I"r'me

... " ~'I"'~ -----!. ".~}'J'" ,.IL] _' . _", ~.-.

It :i s the struggle for human I1gb ts, and, it. is the chief duty [of each of us,

or 'to try and make 'your stride wider than your 118,g:S, can stretch, are 'things monstrous and impossible, Nor maya man mount above himself or above humanity.' AU. that remains - and there is. 11.01 guarantee of this - is for him not to sink beneath it.

All tha~ remalns is humanism Ylid'u)iut Hill sions to safeguard it. Man Is not dead: neither as a, species, nor as an ldeal. But he is mortal, and that is one more reason to fight fOor him.

H umanity is. not an essence to be contemplated nor an, absolute to 'be revered, no,:r a G'od, to be adored: ~t is ,8],

• 'IL d 11.. ~ - b 'Ij=~ f'·

species to ne preserved, a ,~llS[Oty' _ 0 ,~' e xnown ~ a group 0-

i ._ dividu~l~S, to 1., e acknow ledged:, I.as.dy a 'Value to be defended. 1:1: is t as I said of morality, a case of not being unworthy of what humanity has. made of itself and. of III s. This is what I C8.U :faithfidness). something 'which is more

[' mpon ane 'In ..... m n 't- t, ... n f;o;jj ith

. ,; . ~-'.' ... i~a" i,··1IIm LUI.:, 1 ',~ . _IDltI:: IffiIl t·· II

Should we bellev ... e in ,man? Bette:r to know him as he is and beware of him. But this should not exempt us 'from keeping faith wi~h. the best that men and women have achieved - civi ~izatj.on~ Intelllgence, hum,anU:y' Jtself '~ what ts handed down to u s, what we wish to pas'S on, in. short}. with a certain idea of man 'but one which owes less to knowing than to recogniei ng, less to the sciences [han 10 the h,u1ffllni.t-;Ss ~ as, the:y Ills/ed to be called, less to religion than 'to .m.or-aU.ty' and, h'~s,t:o.lJ'" lPr8ctwcm rather' than theoretical humanism,: the only' humanism 'worth the name is humane action,

At the end of his. Apology of Raymond Sebond~ Montmgn1e recalls a phrase from Seneca: 10,,- what a vile and abject thing, - is Man ilif he does not ,ris€. abOiV€

, "

humanity", end adds this commentary. {A p!1thy saying; a

most. useful aspiration, but absurd withal. For to make a fistful bigger than the fist, an armful larger than the arm,

Mont~d,gne

137

in proofs but In. tests ~ not ~n experiment bu :, ln act jon ~ not in science but lin- ],;f' ·e':·,

, • __ I' '. • _ L· '., JI_ ".:__ II

12'

:. -II!

.

, . II

l' I l~s-:-d: '0' .. ~ tV I' '.'. , r ~< . ,:" ,",',J!

The G.r.ee·ks sometimes. distinguished between theorer· ]- r-l~' 'd ( 1'_', d' ) lea O.r. contemp auve WIS 10m \sop,nt,a i aru '. practical

wisdom (phfiOffesis), But one 'cannot exist with out the: other and true wisdom would be .. 8 synthesis of the two" In French we bare Iy distinguish between them ,. '[udge well in order 'to act. well,' as Descartes ri.ghdy put it. 'Clearly some peopleare mor-e capable o!f contemplation and others of action. But no single gi'[ can. confer

... d have to l d' .~.

·WlS·. om: some may t ave to Iearn to jU.l·-ge." others to act.

Neither intelligencel nor culture, nor skill is suffi.ci,e..nt in

• 'Allf" ~W· ... d be a sci L!~ll j Ad ]

U:se.~.:,·lS··' om cannot : ,18 a scsence nora StU ;I! ..... stone

- ~ hs d "t' ~I\ bout t, . . ff" " d

emp nasize: : u IS sess a '. out what IS true; or e . icten ~ an.; ,

more ahout what is goo d for oneself and for others. It is, a kind of knowledge ~ the knowledge ,o,f how to live ..

This is what. disting~.ishe:s wisdom from philosophy, whic.h is the. knowledge of ho\-Y' tv think, B ut philosophy has, meanfng only if it bd.ngs us closer to wisdom: the only true philosophy ,~s that 'which helps us to think b ,.qj1. "..]I ~.. b 'Phil hv i h ·iL.! h~

~ ener In oreer to 1IJ1ve . oetter, ..,:'1 osopny IS tn e art w.We

h 'IL. I' '- · - .. ' . .' , h

teaches us' now to uve, wrttes Montaigne. Does t his

mean that we ,d' on't know ~n·'Il.Iil ~'O', r·j,v··,a";li Of c ,O"'U' rse l'~' .~~

( ~ _ ,,_ _ • e . l~ , ". ' _ If!Il"U YY Lt ,. ". ~ II . -·"1 ....,~ • ,~ Jl.;J1

because we are not wise that we' need p.hHosop'h.y .. Wrnsdom Is the goal. philosophy the path.

'ir~ , d d f'- 1" f A _... ·T'·· , 1 h

.lI, In reminc ec 0' a, me rom ro;~gon; .. rme to rearn JOW

to hve, jt is already too laee ,. , " Montaigne says somethmg similar (They teach us to live when OU[J IDife is over) ~

oI'L d- II!...~ • h iI!.. 's learni

·earn-e.·· we m.a'y~' '\~11t anotuer' man s )earn~n.s:: 'we

can on~y be wise. 'with wisdom of our own'

Th,- II'· gh f' d '~- ,.,. - 1'~ • ,.. G" . '~1_

ie etymo'IOgy IS s tra I, < :'.1'[' OnNar .; p"uw.sopnta, In. .. ' reek,

is the ~ove of = or the search fror ._ wisdom, But 'what is wisdom? Is il .kniow~edge? Certainly this is. the U $,ual meaning of the wnrd - sophia in Gr-eek~ ,mpientia in Latin. .= B.S, conflrmed by most .. p hU.o:sop:h.ers. since Heraclirus .... For Plato C1S fer Spinoza, for the Stoics as for Descartes and Kam, for E,p.'ICUru.S. as for ,Mo.n.ta'ig.ne or A~ain~. wisdom has. much to (~O mth thought, with intelligence

'..1 . 2th ·~I·· .' .. .' ,." ill... ~,. f~' ,'~ ~ L! d .. 'f; ji~~~ - ~ ,.'"",A.'h,

ana W J.I :. .ut~:arnJng; 11 IS, Itw I.ere~ ore, a LLn' -0' KnQ1.V~6.

B fi k d~1 h h ffi

• ~. ~ II ~ P . ~ r i'!

, ut a very specn c kind, w: 'le ., no science can con I urn,

no proof su bstantiate, which no laboratory can test or

d iL h t, f - -

.8 ttest all, . whic r: ' cannnt IDe. con .erred by any d iploma

WIsdo.m is practical rather than theoretical, it deals not

TL_ L"' '~' ,= B" '~~ hS P'_ ]' h-' , -, -',

J He ---tttw, -,aOK OJ ,"ni!f;,osop,y 1.3.9'

h h t." " ~ • - " b" ~ e, 1

t OUg! , ne is more opnmtsne, ,s.eellng. t ,1];5. sess as a tatal

:f1aw i:n the human C ondinon than a 'fault of ed icatton

"hO' - L ", 'd' "h' --'~d 1!.., ' -, • d 'Wh""" e j>,-

W .IC[J, can an , S: . .aUlIJ._ ee corrected, __ ,'_"~_y walt twO

phU.osop.hize when life does nott.·wait? '~A hundred students have got the pox before they have com,€; to read Aristotle's

1 ~Wh" d t, 'IL.. d

-e ectnre oln temperance , T .', at does the pO!X nave tOI~O

with phHosop'hy? Noth 'ng~ as far. as treatment or pre~ vention g@8S,. But getting the pox: concerns sexuality, prudence and pleasure, Jove and death " .. .. 'H ow could

d " " 'h 1- '" b ff' '... -" h 1.... I~f

me acme or prop', 'Y axws '"e su .ncient m t I.' emse vesr rJJ.Q'W

could they [take the place of wisdom,? "You are not dyin.g because you are i 1,1/ M·ontaign.e 'writes e'~sewhere in the

-- I .1' t, ]" 1--

.Essays,; you are uying necause you are' a tve, We must

[therefore learn. to die, learn to live, that is what philosophy means, f.J t is a, great mistake,' Montai:gnle centtnnes, "to

Ph· m h .. 'h ill h" f . , "f-' m

portray' __ lwOSOP ." Y WIt,,' a flaug, ~Y'~ rowrnng, tem :ymng

face, or as inaccessible to the young" 'Wh.oCVler clapped that 'wan and :frjghten~ ng mask 'On her fa.ce'~' 'Theile is nothing more lwelYt- more happy and gay·= I almost said .more amorously pJayfu].,1 Too . "ad for those who ·confuse philosophy with erudidon, discipline with boredom,

" d ~ h 1I1 ' 'b '1-_, Th- .IE' ... .'L uc "

wisoom Wltl.' uus.:ty· {)OJ:U;. '. e. very tact that .tlare IS as

djffi.c.ult" as fralgjle~ as dangerous and as precious as it undoubtedly is is all the more reason to begin philosophy

] ibl ('Ii' h- ,old d' 1-' "' , h

as eany as P()!S'S'~ ue "IC' .. :W i, . ren nee .to earn n as muc . ·as

we do at other ages'), m other words, to learn how to live, whm~e we s'tiU can' l:', .... L.ro it 'is too late'

, .!l, "'~" ',", ''-' ,ot::Jg).!I"~ .. ,'" __ . ,~_._ '.

Thi . th f 'h'~ L. d h t,

__ IS IDS the ,plll'po.se '0 I PI ".l!lOSO-,' 'Ily anc tne reason W.liY'

", " ." III I'" h

It 15 appropriate to ~u ages, at east as soon as one nas

begun to. master 'tIl.ought and. language. \Vhy should children. who study maths ~ physics, history" music ~ not study:phUosopby? An the more so those 'who are studying til) become doctors or leng~:neers,? .And when. d.a, adults, overwhelmed unth work. and. worries, find the' time to be1gjn. or to continue to study :it? Of course we have to earn a living;, but that does not exempt us from living~ How eon we live mtel 1i~ndy wim:'hout taking the time to think abou t life, by ours/elves 0[' with others , without questioning, without reasoning, without discussing life: in. the most radical and rigorous way possible, without c,oncemino. ourselve ~ mth·· what oth iers 'WIL,O' , are m ore

. - _"_, Ie .. ~. JJ~. ~ -, .. '_ W"W. "". ,,~~ . W,l.,· (, .. j!.'~, !', ~

knowledgeable or mOM ta~ented than the average

th ~ , b ' "... Wh:' discuss! 'I d ou~g[ I.'t a. out 1~ r .... ·,1 .• en. ·~J.SCu.SSlng art, ' quote .

M 1 II '. .' hi" j!:r . a raux: t :S In museums t I at we rearn to pamt, ,it

would contend that it is. in books o:f phHos.op,hy that we learn how to philosophize. But the goal is noephilosophy Use,lf stl·n less the books The' goal ;;,~ a' h--':8l"p. oie r '~-ba,~'

. ~ .. ,.J .. _. --, ", '!I -, l ... _'._~ ~~ ,'-1 "!r'o": ~ 1~1I~~,

" ,- ,'~ - a '1.'£ Wh·'· h f ~d' 1-' ,"' ilL, hi

simpler - 'WISe,! ~ ,ne ·',IIC'i· 0: us ·coU,!;: , C fum tnat . -lS

jife could not be better? In 'On the education of children' fE,nays ~ I:. 26) .Monta.rngne cites the same .Hne from .HO'[,9Ce that 'Kant wmU latter :mak€ the maxim of the

Enli L ts _.".J,~"" d ··~I-.- d

nUD'Jltenment· ,.·~'e:-re a~ t.ncf~·. are to .tUl0W ~- are

- _- e '0 - ~'1 ....-w[r - - . _'_ ,," ~. " ,C''!I!"'"II:. . . _. , ., " - g '"

to be, wise = begin ~~ '\Vhy 'wait any lon.ger·? Why put o.ff happiness? It: is never too early nor too late to philosophize} [;0 paraphrase E,.picuru.sj since it is never too e'a~·dy··'" nor too 118" .~ to. b' 'e'-" b' .~p"p-rti" So be 1"'· '[OU~· b"y.· .l.l,.,,;a.

, , '.' '_'.' ", '0 :_.:._' JJ _,.~. . a,"-"JIII .!II..I' _-.~ Lril .D_,~ -. lUl'I,,"

same ~o,gWc) the earher the better. ¥-

The L;ittle Book €?f Phi£osop.k1 1'·4.1

But 'what kind .of wisdom'?' On this as on everything, philosophers disagree. The wtsdorn of pleasure proposed by EpiC:UfU$,; the Stoics' wisdom of the will; the Sceptics~ \yisdo.m . .of silence; Spinoza's wisdom of knowledge and ~{nfe; Kant's of duty and hope? We must each for.m our own opinion on the subject, which may borrow' from several different schools of thought .. This is why each person must philosopbfze fOit himself because no, one can think or I'wve ,wn your steed, Bu t what aU - or almost all = philosophers agree on is 'the sense o,f happiness, of serenity, 'which charactenzes wisdom, i.t. is a J' ovful y:,et lucid Inner peace w",,:h'r;f"h-' ~p"of'.o;m-'-i'pa~ nies the

,-.I '. .' . ~.' W~""~ ,~J'JJ. . .w,.: ~ ,~-f. . I J..~'" Q~b·",1, . . . ._~ ~

rtgorou s use of reason, It is the anUthes:i.s of anxiety ~ of madness, of u nhap piness, This, 'i s why w~ sdom ts necessary, This. Is why we must philosophize. Because we do not lltno'w' bow to live. Because 'we' mus l learn, Becau se we are constantly th reatened by anxiety ~ madness and un bappiness '"

The evil most contrary to wisdom,' writes Alain, ".is. fooli.shness. j 'This also tens us. what 'we should. strive towards: towards the most icnte.,fligen·t life possible. But intellige nee in itself ls not en.ough; books. are not enough, VV-hat. ~s the point of thi nldng so much if one ] ives so little 7- How much knowledge is. there ~n the S,C ienees, in economies, in philosophy"? An.d yet. how much foolishness. in the lives of scientists, ·bus\i~ffi'u~:s.sm·e:n and. p:hi~osoph€rs.? lntelU.gence DW1tUn'!S wisdom insofar as it transforms or i llumlnates ~ or guides our live's" It rns not enough. to invent systems, to use concepts ~ or rather,

concepts; are merely a. means to an en, . The o:nJy g()'a~ ~s. to think end to live a Jmtde: better, or a litde less ·badlY·, .

. M arcus Aureliu s puts it well; "If the g(ods took counsel to.gether about myse1f:, and wllat should befall me, then

their counsel was good 'F •• Yet even i.f it is. true that t-hey

;L IlL .: f"" '1 I '~ - '~I

'care non un.g, .or our morta concerns, am sti .. ~ able to

take care of myself and to look to my 'DWn. interes ts . . .. " Wisdom is not saintliness, Philosophy is neither a

~ . ., 1]" Ihe':f'

re\W~.gIDon nor a mora sy:s~m. t is my uLe ~ am. ~rying, to

save, not the J iVres of others; my ,own interests I am fighting. for 1 net those of God 0[' of humanity, That, at least, ms· my starti n;g point. It is possible that I shall encounter God aJong the 'w,ay:; probable that .1 shan encounter humanity, But even then I shall not renounce

,.'IIL lif · fr d m' f- d

the . ]:IJ~ given to me, my .reec om, m.y clarity 0 _- mine J nor

my ha.p:p!wnes,s.

How sho uld we, live? That is the question which philosophy bas sought to tackle since .i ts inception. The answer is wisdom, hut wisdom made flesh, brought to :~ifeJ put into- aetlon; m:t is up to each of us, to create our own. This is where ethics ~ the art of HYing ~ ·dtsllng,uishes i'fseU' from morality, which concerns only ou r duties, .. That they can and shou J.d work in harmony' is obvious", To ask how we should live is aJ$O' to ask what ro,le our duties should .platy'.. N onetheless, the aims are very different. ,M'Q,rali.t.y answers the quesnon. VVhat :s.bcru.~,d. I do?~; ethics, the question: ~How should I live ?~. The apotheosis o.f morality is. vi rtue or sai nthness; that of

ethlcs, wisdom or happiness. Thou shalt not kin" steal) :Ue? Ce;rtainly~ but would that be ,enoiUg,h for anyone? Who 'would consider it happiness enough~ freedom enough, salvation enough'?1 A I-d.end once said to me: 'Not catching AIOS is not enough of a goal in life .,~ He was right, obviously ~ But neither is not k.iUin.g~, not stealing,

l' N ~ , h hal , ~, b ff" .,. . htsl t,

not ~y]:ng., '.' 0' t 'OU S : ~ a t not can 1_ . e su I rctent, t. IS is 'W.~ i.y

we need wisdom: b ecause morality is not enough,

b dutv : h L, ,,,.,,

oecause ,c:_uty :1 S not. e noru.g I. ~ because virtue ts not

enough", Morality commands. hut who would be happy

I bev' . ~ ., ·L. 'IIL ~lld b

mere y '00 or ey? MOlality.says 'no' out wno woinc ne

happy only with proscriprionsr Love '~;S more precious,

K led .. . F dom i ,

now e 'I g~e IS more preero us. ' ree nom IS more precu)u $:.,

We must sa.y 'y'es~': y'es to ourselves, yes to others, yes to

h ld ,-~.~,'" that Is th · f'

t e wona, yes to e:vel-'~U mng;;, tnst IS tne meamng 0' .

. ~~ . .J- ~A'''''' fi' ,.", .';',. ',' r-N"'~~ ,' .. - .. :n.... , .. J·]'I ·d··· . to t·h

Wlsuom, , mornUj wntes . ·.le.tzSCnie ~ ,a __ .u, _ins. ,0 Ill,' e

Stoics: 'that one 'wants nothing to be other than i_- rn.s~ not ln the future, not in the pas", not in all e ter.nir-y . " , t0116,~'

This does. not preclude revolt, nor ,does mt preclude struggle .. To- say yes to the 'world, is to sayyes to our own. revolt, which is a .. part of ~t: to our actions, whit h are a, part" of ~t, Consider Alben Camus Of' Cavail es ~ To

,it b '~. 'l., '" ...

trensrorrn t 'e ,re;al 'J s to suppose' t~ iar we accept rt as It :[ s,

'To- bring ,about something that does not yet exist preSUPIP0.5,8S working with 'what is, No one can do otherwise,

'W' ,. dom l _. N' '.'.. Th Id '

u; o:m u; not a, utoPU1.· I(~ utopia 15 wtse. . re worm IS

not to be dreamed but to be transformed, Wisdom, is,

f' d f' . ," I -. n 'II!.. ' , 'h h d irst anc .. oremost, a certa n re auonsmp witn trutn aac

with. action, an ~nvig~Iatin,g lucidity; it is kn.owmedge

which is active, in action. To see things as they are, to know' what one wants. Nat to delude oneself, not to pretend, 'Not to p;,]ay the bag.jc actor,' says M.arcus AlJre~~i us.' To know and to accept, To understand and to transform. T 0 resist and to overcome. :For' it is impossible to confront anydlwng unless, one accepts ]its existence .. It is imposs .. ~.hle to be healed u nless W'l~: accept UJness;. lmpossible to f~ght injustice: if we do not acknowledge it. We must accept re.aHty as it is, for' we cannot transform w ha t 'we do not accept,

Th·· 'h h f"S" .". h

.. rs IS t ne approac 'I 0 ::.'tolC.Wsm: to accept t, ose

things for which 'we. are not responsible; to act on those things .for which we are, It is Spinoza's approach. know, understand, act, It is. also ltharC 0'( the. sages. of the Orient, Prajnsnpad, fo.r example: 'See and accept that 'which is and then, .wf needs be, try to change it, ~ The wise man acts where generally we simply hope and tremble He confronts what iS1 w here habitually a.11 w:e can do. is hope for' that which is not yet or regret that \~lhic.h is :11,0 Ion g,e r . Prajn§npad again:. 'Wha:t is done has. become the past: It does, not exist now, VVhat wHI happen is in dle future and does. not exist now', SO(.I What exists? What is here and .now .. ,N·oth.ing mor-e , '" , Stay 'mn the present: act, ,act" actl' W~sd.onl is ~iving your l~fe rather than hoping [0 .~:~v~:~ a:nd creating yonr own salvation as far as. is P ossible, rather than w,aitin.g for it

W· -dl . t, ," " L th . ~-b-] h-' ,

:1:5: 'om Dnn.gs. togebl,er u 'e greatest paSS]1 .: .. e n appmess

. · ah!- ,'h - '. 'bl ] , ~ ,. ' I h d ] "£:

wur ,t .·e greatest pOS:SlI.:~e ,UCl(W.~tY' ... .It 1$ t" ,e g~n tre, as:

the 'G,releks said, 'but a. .liFe whjch is humane; one which IDS· responslb~,e an.d. dignified. E njoY' jt~ rejo~.c,e' in jt as 'much

·'b11 B' h" d' . '~E

a'S PC1s.s.i;'le:. , sut not any 'ow ana not at ,any pn .. ce. . very-

thing which hrings joy is. good,' writes Spinoea; ~but not all joys, are of equal worth .. '; 'Every p'~easure ts good,' wr~l,es. E:p,icums. That does n.ot mean that all are worth seeJdn.g out, . nor even that ali are ac ceptable .. We' must choose, therefore, w,ei,gh the advantages and dlsadvantages, as. Epicurus also said; in" other words, we. must judge. This .. is the purpose of wisdom. By the same token j,t is ,also· the purpose of philosophy, One does not phi1o.SOiphize to pass the timet nor to be noticed, nor to tinker with tdeas: one does so to save one's skin and one's sou I

Wisd.o.m, is that salvation. not. in some other life, but in this; one Is it something we can attain? Probably not entirely, But that is not a reason not to try' to move towards it. N o one .. s a,b.SioluteIy wise, bu t who 'wouid resign himself to, 'being completely mad?

If 'you wish to advance, said the Stoic 5, YOILl must :kn,OIW where you are headed, Wisdo.m is the gpa~: life is the goat but ,9 life that is happier and more lucid: happiness is the: goal, but one w:hi .. ch is lived in the' truth .. ,

Be. ,carefuill" however, not to ma.ke wisdom into another ideal, another hope, another utopia; to do 'So w;ou:~d be to cut yourself off from ~he real Wisdo.m, is not another Ufe For which, we should wait I.' towards vih.ruch we should

.. I· hi l··r l~· d· th tr tiL., hi h nust ~kn' w

stnve.Jt IS· ttns ue lye .m u e [1'"0 W." IC, we mus . I ,,0

and love, Because it. is loveable? Not necessarily, nor always.. B IJt so. that ~t might be!comc so.

The O1,OSt express sign of w~sdom~' says Montaigne, 'is unruffled joy; like all in the realms above the moon, her stale is ever serene .. " I could. also quote Socrates ~ Epicurus, Cone must laugh, as one ,ph:m.~OSi()phizesO~ Descartes, Spinoza, Diderot or Alain. . , .. ' All of l~ hem have argued [ham: wisdom .is ,on. the side of pleasure, of joy J' of

action, of love .. And that chance is not enough, .

'Ii b 'h 'h h h

1M, is not bee ause ttl e wise man is , sappier t ian we t: at

he loves Ufe more. It is because he ~oV'es life more that he is happier,

A,s for us, who are not wise; 'who are mere apprentices .of 'wisdom -- philosophers, in other 'words - we must Jearn how to live ~ .~e8irn how 'to thi nk, learn how to' love, The task will never be ,comp.~eted" 'which ls., \vhy'we wwU always

d h~I hi

nee) top 11 osop ~ ize.

t is not without its strugg]es~ but nedther ,w:$ it 'without

,". foCi][ _ m 'h ,1. , L''' ,t,.

ns JOYSl _ mai otr er occupations, wntes !UptCU[US~ joy

(".·11" .. " "k' - ~-~-"I'~" , dl -' th d'ff' '_", 't-I~. 'b Ii- a " .

• 0 ows a tas ,_ comp eter wit '. J. leu ,y, '.UI!i. m

_ ill" ~ 'h~ . y ~ -}, u re wa Ik-' ~ s ide -~ I' si JIIe wi ill" t, know ~]e- dae:

PUHOSOP I, pI._ea.s, e -' 'JIL S .. ~ ~!I: u)' i; U -- :_!Ii.U i:","' ,,:,_ 6 '

~t is not after one has learned that one, [rejoices in what

m__ ~ll • dreioici - h _ . ~ d" iIL.- d" I

one ,~10WS;,;' ieernmg an' : reJO'~Cln,g ,go nanc m nam ,.'

Tske heart: truth is, not at the end o.f the road; it Is the' 'road itself.

147

others daun tin,gjy abstruse _. ,and there are many abstruse bo oks (which are not :~o·lJJn.d on this ~:~s t) which are far :from he~ng rna sterpieces .. ,I'n any case, there are .11.0 .phHo.s1ophic',aj books which do not demand some effort of the reader, This does. not mean that reading them is. not B: pleasure, but that, in ph:m~osophy ~ pleasure and effort. go hand in hand,

In, d'ds short book, whi,c.h. is int,end.e.d merely as an

1Il._ ~ e !II. d- t: 'lb.ll IOd-

Introducnon, n seeme . to me prererame too avou

footnoes which \-vou:~d inevitably have been 'COpIOUS and! would have' needlessly weighed down the whole, The 'foU~l'w.rung bibliography indicates, chapter by chapter, most ,olf the books I have cited or aUuded to" or 'which seem 001 me important propitious to more considesed reflection: it is iess a. Ust of references than a s.ugg,estied reading list. The editions mentioned are ~:ndieal.dve (where possible, I have .fer,vnu:red tbose in paperba,ck) 0, r _~,(!otl-- 11' h . ut at' k 0'Q1 .. th ,1=.~ -h~ch La~:_-Jy~, .II, iave P'''*'':: n astens '. ,i8le-....DSIL _- eose WIOfKS W, w. _- _'1

are rnost accessible, those which ,I believ·e might most .p~ofitab)y 'be read first,; two asterisks against those which are moderately [difficult" three asterisks d.enote the most di~fHc ult works whic.h would be best saved until last. o bviousiy, this does not indicate a hj,~rarc:h.y IO:f the q:u,ality of these works. Some masterpieces are e.ffo:rd.e ss,

I-·if..il ,.·it

m "OtlU,Clulon

Pla~'O'J 11re .{Pst D'~rs 0/ Sreratef"', trans. Htlglli Tredennick (Peng)l!lin Classi.c~s)

Eplcurus, Letters and .M~mslfo:;' l' from Essent.ia,l .EVi!c."ffijl~ trens ..

Eugene' O'Connor (Pro'fne~heus Books) ..

,Marcus ,A urelias, Melit4ti.ons"'~ trans, ,.·.·axweH Staoocyrth (P'euguin C]assics:)

Mi.ch€.~ ,d~ M~),iMarg.,e~~ The ,C()mplete Essays""! tr,ens. M·. A .. Screech [Peeguin 'Classks.)

Rene D'esca~es ~ Disc~s.:e on .Me--diad ,~. The' .Me,di;Mtwns!ll! l' trans If.

E. Su~c1if~e (Penguin IC~~assics)

~illaise P'1~s.CaJJ PenseeS'¥'j tf~n.S:. A. j. Kraib:beimer (P'engu.in Clat5.sic·g)

D.- = .lit" "L S", .,. .... - . ·0···.. ;11'1'., ~ ,~'. .. - . - .. - _··t -.1 U····L . 0 - -~.J. .$·~·t 'R ID ent~u!l'~ _ .' ''p~nuza~ . _ in 1l!W .I imFlO'V'etnen~ '!/. r ~rsta1'Uf,l~ng· . ! .. rams,. , ..

.H. M. 'lwes (])~J~\e:r)

I:rnIDm:uj!o~e~ Kant" Opus pMthumli$~ ~..,. ~ :[mlns. E Cbl'~ F'orster and Mwcbae1 Ros~n {Cambridge UIDive.:rsity PIeRi}

,G·. W". F. Heg,e]) Plunome,oo\logy oJ S"i.rit,~ If "f l ~rans" A. V. J\fbUer {Ouord Un~V@.rsity Pr.es·s)

D·, . .J,,·.,..L N."····,If,.·,.-:~·· "'T'J...,,o ,G ,s·:·,',--,·· -¥1f. -.. .;;;.~' . .....::_ . .J .. ]- C·- : .

.If"n~unl;.:J iii . . leLZS{!Ue~, .:l. ,rRii : try . CW';f;lCe. ~ tr3:IlS. 1'WL,1iI"0I ue . ·ar-o

(C~Mbnd,g~ Un&ve:r.sity .PM;Ss)

Gilles De]eum~ ~at'is Phi':osophf'?.If...,. ", ~nfiS,.. .F',e[ix GU3Jtt3ri~ G.r,ahitfl], Bjrchim~ ,amdl.H:'ugh Tomti;1tlScOn (Venol BOOJd~.)

Pierre Had.ot~ 'Muu is' Ancient; Philosop,h,?"',*,; trans, Michael Ch~s.e

(1he 'BeUmapPles~s;)' ' ,

11._ M~ .'. e c '11'"9·1, "1" tv

,I., - '. - ., g. . '"

Pl]:arto~ 1M, Repub.Uc~ ~~, Uans .. Desmond Lee ("enguin IC~as:s~cs,} Epict,etus; 'The .Dlsc,Q'U1SeS- ,f)jJ!.p,;c'tlJ.rms,'riI) Ifo (Eve:ryM~n SeJiles Phoenix)

H€'ru~d~c~: SlPru!nl~,~ H"'hJc.s~!!f "'~, wns. 'G,. H. R. :PaikinsOll (Oxfc~ U1l'i,w'r:sity' Press)

Jec.a:n~:Jao~ues 'Rouss~au~ A D;i:~C-OU,fS8 O\n ,1Meqoolity':Jf'~ 'IT,IiI:n~;,. M:iJIUinCe C~n~tQn O'J,~~~,u~n Classics)

Da,v]d HH~~i Bn(fuiries C'oooemi11"g H'u~m;a~ U:n.ders,mmiling and Ct1'ucemj'ng the Pdn£Jp~ ~f M;Qfflls'~ if (O.db:ro, 'Un~v,e:f$~ty :Pir.-e:s's)

Immaneel Kan'tj G~rQtU~k,JQ:r t'he Me.Fi~ ,~f M'ara!s1foil- ~ tra.ns.

Am1l1f ZW'e~g (auom, 'lJntirverstr.y Press). On, the Rla,tjansh~p 'between :re]jgjon and ~ru')'r,a~jtY'~ ~ al5:1Q ,Rel~gjon 'Mdtfin tAB Bo'U~rie,s' ,0/ M,e:fe R'e~~'i trans. 'GeQI:~,~ Di ,Giovanni. (CaJwbrldg~ Uw:versity Pres\s,)

,Art'hIJU; Schopenhsuet, On 'rJ~' !B'iIf~ ;;;f M:Q~aUi~t~' ~~, trans, E,. 'f. J.

'Payne (H~lrett) _ _. .... . ,

John S~uart Mill~ UtJl~larM,td-£m,¥~ i ,ed" Roger. Crisp (Oxford

Un:i,~ersity Pre'~$,)

Frie,drj£:h Niensc.be J The Ge;wm~ ~lMQ~~~'III.'l¥i' (DQ<v:e'J" Publb:i'aJtlolls) Lu.d~.~, ·WlttgeltrStein. Phl~.h"~~~llnlJmi,ga~"ions~ i#~, trans, G", E, M:. ,An Sc·GmJbe' (B1a"ckw'eU)

Mich,d ,foucau]t~ "n..e HiswtJl (II Se:~iity; The' Ca~' ol "m S,(;lf~' 11\ trans, Robert H~if]ey (P.en,guin Books)

u '~ '~' Jt:. • ,,.. ·~ ... :i'_,· - -.-- -j! l:-"uc~ ~'h¥' '¥, '(D"lii'iI"iI1i i.;i!i;I!"!i:"i.iI'JI U"i"'i;~:rarli!'i·t'lJ'

.~.]JiJ'lm:anu.e.1I. .~VJlnG_Si:~ ,~"ntC-S ,aoo~ . :i~l!'n""':T . . .. ,., ~~'Yi~;:p,Ii."" '. H , .. """" ;;on,)

Press)

Hains jonas, 1M 1:mperat'h~' of Re~~ibjJ~'ry~ In S~~k ,of a~ BdHc for

t'ke' T ~cknDiog;ic~.1 Age""~' (UmVl€ifswty' '0'£ Ch~calgo Press)

P ] H· ~ ~- ',f. .il IJ·~~.!j.lj.,,,, ;Ii; -_. - 'I!,~",Ib']' . - - B]- --- .. ,' c 'a;U : ucce ur. , ~'6S-i:l~j' ,as ri;H)()"~lI' -. , IIl.fains,,, N'~IIIL ee'll' ame),

(U'niwiS~ty of 'Chkago' P'r-ess)-

Andd ,C~J11te.Sp-onv.il~e~ A ,S~ TreaUs~1' on :the' Grem '\tl,rtues~ ~ tr3JIlS-,

'F-':f,ank 'WYnlle (ViII t age ) .

2,. P,oli,ti,cS

P.[a:m~, J1u~' R,epu\~!i\C'~;if', trans, Desmond Lee (Pen~jn _cm~'s~:k;~)

A . .....::: - iI: "l"'t __ D ],. :If;* ' .. - ;['1~-- -E----··- iK!!,--'l_~.~ (·O-,·J. d U"'_· . ".h;.r' ,rl.H:sro[:J!e~, ,1M rO,~'~it:OC:f -_ ~ trans, .::l(Ir .m,est Dailt~l, .' ,',;uQ[I' Dl!Ve:r:S~';i

Pr'~S$)

'fi,.'T.'" ,.':, ,'I '", 'M'" ,-, 1;..,": ,_ ]]" "i]r1'-,-,:1;} .-." -'.. ':,,''- P'_'-, 'U' " . .J 'U' " ,~j' ~A',_, k M, -'"

!l,~ mcc![),w , -e- ,iilClfliLave .,],~ .ill ~ Fnnc'e "trans" . , (ii(f],y,f; - a al§ I!Y J!"",~r, _ ,,=i;lSi

(O)rFom, U'J]J'lwTsity Press)

nstil@'l1in@, De La Bo@(il@!, The ,Pa~itics (}j' ,Obedience: 11l,e ,Disc;otUTSe 0:/ 'VQl:tmtary SerwJ'~iu~ ¥, (Black Rose, :1B,oo;ks)

Mkk-e~ d.e ,M',onti31l,gn~~ The C'ampMM Essays1!!' Jf., 'tmns" M", ,1\. Screech (P,~n,gujn Classks)

Thnm:1iJs Hobbes, ,LevtathanO\f~ (Odnrd U'nih~ernity Press)

4 D tb'

_' 'i ~ .Iea :,',

P.tat101 Pbaedo·~ ~d. Dmd~aUo,p (Ox$ord !!mjvl~r:s~ty Press) Epteurus, Le,ters dXd: Mt~xim'Sifo j from ,Es.se:ntj:td E:p~nu. tn1IlS.

Euge.one OtConnor (Prometheus Boob}

Lucretius (Tilhms Lacretias 'Ca!rus) On the: Nature of the Unil~e't:S:e·lf; I ~nUl~'L :R. H. Latha:ru (Peflguin Classics)

Seneca [Lucius Anroae~s Seneca) ~ .Lette.rs from I~ S,rok~ Eyism~ MOFQks ad: Lucjli.um'~·~ ~ trinS" ·Robin. Cam,prell (Pen~itri, 'Clas.sics) Marcus ,Au[-elius ~ ~\f'eijit~uions;~\ 'tranS" Maxw"e~~ Smnir-orth (Peng,Ulm

C~ass.ks,)' .

Mi,c.hel de' Mont~i8ne~ ']'\e Cam"kte Essays;of,~ (.esped,alJy. 1"0 phllosop,ihiz:e is '(1) We am how to ,dl,~e:~ ,and ~'On the InriO'Uf ofthe Pad:hiarns)~ trans. M+ ,A. Screech (fenpin IC~as;~'ics}

'BWi:lws·e Pascal, Pe;P4SUs·:t 'trans. A. J. Krai~sh~imer (Pen.pin Boob} S:igmllfld, F:[,eud~ ~B,ey.ondl the P~eastllre Pri I .ciple' ~ fro'm IOn Me.tapsycoology = 'The Theary of p:~'h€]!l~Eyris ~ OdM'1' Works1f ~ (P'~rnglli.fj Freud Llbrnry)

Vladimir JankeleviEieb~ La M·on"· (P~ammarl'orn)

Marcel Co:ncbe'jo La M;~n ,e" ,Is p~mee'<1f, ~ 1 Ulllnn Q,Nm1Wtron p'h~~,h,'iqutJj'o ¥ (Presses unw;ercs;itaire'S, de' France)

,lFranC'n;ise 'D· .. ~,~IWU"" D"ea.:~J·,,, An E~~ ~ Fi.,;t,,·J:_",if,¥ ~l' ,,,,,,,,,,""""'5,,, J-I 'ohn

"JY'~ ~ ., ~:;W;!Ir. ~ l ' . ",n. ~" v...-.m: _ ~ i"~ _ ~ l~iII 6111.1

Llewe1yn (ConDtwuwn .ntemationaJlAthlone) 'Vin~e'nt Cerdennler, ,La M~n'~ (Qu.mtene)

;,,~, 'Knowledge

:Pll~'}. 'The. R.epub,lic ~ ¥, trans :Oeswond Lee (Penguin 'Cm8)ssk$" Mi~b,eJ, de M,olltaigne, ~:An apo.]ogyf.or :Raymond Sebcnd', ROm The'

C'om,lreM E~·!f.~) trans, M ,A, Scr;eee'h (P.e~in IC~a:$s.k:s) Rene D€5Ca'l'resj Disc:OIIn-e O~, Met.,Jujd anJ.: 1M Medif4silltHj'lf, ~ 1I3o.s,,, ,F.

E. Sutcli£le (Penguin Cillassic:s..)

Bbisf:' Pnscat ,On :"ke Geome:J rica l: ,M'ind~

Benedict S'PWflllQZa" On ~ lmp~ t oj' ,Utulersfandfng'¥."~ l trans" It" tl. M,. El,wes (D"oYer)

Jobl. Incb:~ A.n ,Hs!M)' ,C.Qncerning Human, U~man8b~g" '" (Eve~~n)

'Gottfried Le.,ibniz, Ne1;i.'I E~s. 'iP" liu.1l.o1.'a-n Vlulers.tandmg'¥o1f, fCarmbridge Uni,v'efS.~ty Press)

David Harne, Ja'nq'Ui:rles .CooC'e:rn~ng ,Human Untlersta.ndifl8 ,,;n:d (~anC'ernitig tM P'rincipUs oj' Mo,.afs~" (Oxford Un[¥ersUy Press], This ls 'hws most accessible WO[:~, tho.ugh his m~ste~ie.ce Ws. A TJ"e~:it'~e of f:l'UnuiI1H, ,Na!'urre!f· -(!O:dQ'~'d Un:~venjty Press)

~:mm~fUJlel Kantl Cri~' oJ' Pure' ,R~·'" .,\ ~nlins., P'a~m Guyer. and. ,MIen W. Wood (ICambridge Un~ver.sity Press) t (See ,ah~) ~:An' afiswer to the q[u~~iO'n: What '~S enli,g~te~Ment1l in P'mctrosi P~dt.~so.ph,.~.iIl " trans, M'aryJ, 'Gre,go,r (Cambrid,ge University Press)

Fri,~drich NietzoSche, The' Gay Sciftce¥'1 trans. Ad,-iao deW Care (C:amhr1dge U'~hr'ers,ity Press)

:M,artin He:id~W':r., n, Es:senc,e' of Truth~ On P,lQ,t.v;·s ~Pa:mhLe' ,of "he 'Caa1€" and :tlt.e 11teaet£t1l$1;1ji.,,~ l trans, Ted Sad~e.r (Cion tillU urn '_'nt,emalionaIlAdiloflie)

Alab.i (Emime-Au,gustt Chari.iC'E) 1 E'ntretiens I~U, bard de la mer¥' ( G"ai1imard)

G'ai,tOll B,ac~e~ant ~~rmati'o,n ,of tlw S;ci,:e.nt.,i/£c Spirit· if {Philo~o'phy' of Sc:wenc€ S~rje$} CUname~n)

KarJ P'o,p'pe:r, 'The Logic. of Sc,ieHit~fic. ,Di:~ry4'-lfo (:Rout[,ooge Classics) ,AndJ:(!: Comre.~SIPi)nviDe~ 'Valeur tt verite II- ¥ (Pres,ses IJw,v:ersiallr,es, d,e:

Frsnee)

'E • W" lU D'" L' ·._.:L¥lf.lf ( . ' . !["If1UlClS .:·o.~r~ . ~re ~'MQ,~ 'J?J1~S;510& 'Ul:lwe-I~iitarures de' ,F'r3l1llc@)

Pascal ,En,get. Tm£:n·!If> (,Acumen)

Je~fi~Mwch.el Besnier, Us durories Ide la coona;i$sance'~ ~ (F1ammariQn)

Alain (Ernnle-Au!'lIlsre IChartl!el')~ "Les Sentiments f~UlliltaIDr,~"';t(> ~ &om Us Passions et la ,sage", (GaIDmarrd)

S.ooone W€il, IGn'lhv:hy aM IGrace'" {Routledge C1assics)

Denis De RuUl,~etIUlfl~~, ~ 'm, lJu WeSUffl Wcrld.ill I' 'trans" Montgomety B e1giCJJ1 {Princ@t.OD U Il~Ve4$~ty Press}

Vladlimilr J all_kelevWtdl,~ Lss Verf~ de' !~~,.. J¥. ,(T'raite des wriues i ~ l)~,

(F~armm'3Jnon)

Andrt!, Com~e~S'PQnvill~! LIAm~f la, ,so,li;t~'·~, (Albin Mlch.el); see also Ch~p~ier -~, 8 o.f ,A Soon TreaUse on t~, G'reat Vi:·~~ j trans, Frank Wynne. (Vinta,ge)

M,arceJ Concbe, Analyse de l';a~r ,It autres sujel:slfL;i. (Presses u_njiversiuu'foe.S de ,Pr.ance); see also I,e ISe.ffS de. ,ra p.Jt~lo.wphje¥II'i'

(E- iIi'ii"":IJ",O!I -M' ,- - • . .) , : . ~~ ... iI/,,,;..: ,.', arm€!.

6+. Li,berty

P,lat:oJ TIte :Rep.ublic'·'·' (the Illy-th of leI is, in Book XlI traas, D~momd Lee fPm,guUl, Classics)

7 G d'

'-0,'1

iii! -.1." ....

153

Aris~o(tilleJ '1M Nk:omachmn. B'!hr!~s'" if. j. trans. J. A. K. Thom,son

(P'en~in C~assics.)

Epictetus, '1'he' ,[):J$tC~tse5: ,qJJJp,ic.~te~·~ (lEveIJlll8~1 Series, Phoenb:) Tll.om_as Ho'bbe.s:, On, 'the Citiun ¥~. (Cam bridge U ELjv,etsil:y' Press l Rent! ·Descarrtes." P:h[[osophicaJ. Leuet:S,lf:lil· (:,Qdiord U:nj\l\'ersity Press) Bm@d~c~ Sp.Jnoza, LttMrs'~¥~, trans. Samuel Shidey (Haekeu) Gottfried Le:rulh:l1I~Z~, Phi:losQPh-ictl~ Essa:Js,!jL~ (Hackett)

VoltaJire '(F:ran~\orn$~~19ri,e~ ,/U-oll.Jet), ,Ph~WsCTk;i'CRI ,Ok~iooory!¥",; trans, Theodore Besterman (P~iIl2Uin CiaSisic,s;)

Immamsel ({an" c'-' '''''O~'';tH.£D' rI~ I~'r\o'l""'iol!~' ... -"",,'~ iO .. ~.,_~~, .. ,~,,~ iC"""~"'le p .. ,'lI,~ ~,~ C··' -,I' liVer

_ .. "ll,It.~ . [(1I~~~Io?"'1.,...1rr ~J, £'1 ~lW_!k_~ ~~ !J ~L !m,J.W~~ UyW ~J' - -

and AJiteo M", 'W;ooC), (CaimbLi.d~, 'U ni.v.ernity Press)

A~rth1ll1 Schopmhauer 1 ~E's:sa.y on free 'w1n"~ ,if ~ :Eto:m ,Essay~: ~;nd A,horism;s (P,~pio. ClalS$lcs)

Henri '8 ergs on 1 Time ~~: ,Ftg~ '~!~: H~$aJ! an the .lm-meiHaM' D'am of

c .......... ,,: ..... '~,i"iiiI\~i~' . .u.:!'.:!'if- ~ ~ Ii) A"· 'm' ~"".,.'; .... O'P'r·) [~!I'~~JV..~.r.t~1 l!i~-' .' .. ~~~~~~a~- .'

A]oo~ (E:..;mU~A1!lgfU.s:I.e' 'Ch:anjeiF).. ~~Hjs~:o:ire de mes :pens6es;'!I!Ii'~ ftom Us ,A'rts d W~, iie.-~: (Gallimard)

J'em~P~u1 S~1' 4'Can.es.ian ifreedom,i;if.1fi ~ from E~ :m ,Exi:Sfentm'~:i$.:m"f'~

(C' .JI~'I 'i'J;..~, ) ] '-ill:' _'~l: h ;\!jL nd

!'~~t:aY.'t<I ,~~;~ss':; see ,aJS~' '~»stentj~ism is a . rnniim'~sm;- a ,_, mos·t

LmF0rt.aroi~y J3eti~g ,~ Nodri~!,~i!ii'~ ~ ~ trans, Ha~ E. Ba'me~ (RfJutle¥) .

Ji..![:arceI Conehe, L ~~I~-'wi~e¥o ~ (Presses ln~ruvoeTS'~ta]reS dle F'~aJn)c:e)

Lr,ill, ,Poppe£' The open uoiverse: An ,argumeo~ fOr. :~flJdete:nmin.i:$m.:"~"!if ~ from P01bU:enpt to :~ Logic of Sc.i'e-nt'ifoo .Di$~~ry~ ,ec;t WI]~lam W:alT,elll, Bairfdey (H,~ttcbmson Edueation~l)

,M.1stode" 1\,e Me.fwpk,sks''I';',i!f- ~ l' trans. Hugffil La.w'Son·'T anered

(Pe'filUiti; C]~'ss,ic's~ _

Rene Descastes, ,M'etJ:ftatJMS ~;nd 'O!,tli:e,' M e,tapJqrsictl~ Wr:ft;j,ngs;"f' (Addison. W'e:~aey)

Ben,edict SpiJnrO;~'~ EtkilC~'~ 'Ifi' ~:f trans. G,. 1M. :IR. P:a:'f.lcirison ('Qd:o::r.d Unltversity Press)

Blai.se Pasca], Ptlns:ees'" ~ trans. A. J- Krailsheimer (P:iS'~gu~n C.la;ssic5,) :Nlc!o~2rs, Mal~'br.anche~ Di.aM.~~ ~ M~M:physj'C$ ~:nd, on ,Re~"iofllf,[f,

(CI~m.b:rid.ge' Uf1We:r~~ty Press) -

GotdT,ii~~d Wilhe.]m ,Le:WhDiL'Z:~ D'is:oo;unct an, M'er-a,L:)I'S'.tc,s and' 01;~r E~: Disc~l.l~ ,on M£ta,lhpics; ,On me Uh;j:~t~ (D!rigin;at:iD1J ,oj

'iJl'!ifL n ,.l. .. ::11_' D' "-n_ M'~Jl-'I'- ijl1i-~ tH' 'L_ )

, . ·J:n~".'S:; ~;"r~Jac'e :£0' me ,l\~ew,~SlS~;' ',.l~',', on~~~D\,_',, __ aekett

,o.a.vj,d Hume, Dial~~s C~mi. NtnDt~l :Reli,gJ'~'* iI- ({_)JOM

15'5

9. Art.

AristiQt!,e:o PQ~,tic:s~ ~ (P,e!rilg!'d~ Classics)

bmma'niue~ Ka:llt, C'ritiq~ of Jndg'em~nJ~·'~1I!\ trans. W@:I.Il~r' s. Pluha:r [Haekett), ,esp~da.ny ~lhe 6[st section

.it,~ b e' t, rob ~. - 'ul.r :1'.11 W·u _- JIi R " if ~

att "Ilm!F :6cnQPle:n_~al:i1ler,; .~ ~ w:Qrw~' __ 'j:~iI'. a~~je,resentahon~, trans,

E. F. J. Payme {,DaYer); especi~Uy Book I H

G. W·. F", Heg~1 ~ .fntrMuctnry u.chlf'.€-S on A~g,t~r,ic~'ijl. ~" ~mn:s. R. '[).

BO~aJ'IJqu~t -(_P'eLn~j~ CI~ssi~s)

f_ W. j. SIC1~e~nDg;, n~ P.~Ho-sophy of Arf~ ~,. trans :D. w. Stott:

(U niversruty of M:m~esot'8, Press) , . '

lFdedlricb N~et7~che~ n~, Bii,rtb ,of Tf~dy~';;,; (OU~ro 'W'O,rl,d"5, CIDassks)

Alain (Emru~e~Au;g.usl're ;Ch~'rtooer)l S~t~ht!e des ~~,~~r~~ ~ (G,aJli:mard,) M:~ni~ Heidle,~ ~ The ,origffin 'CD! the work of ~~e (ill 93,6) in B~ Writmgs~ ~ ,- ed. D. KreH (H arrperCQ]Uns)

Luc Ferry,; fj:~ ,~~,~ic:u,~; L 'lnwrenMoo ,d~ ,grni,t i i''g:e'

_,~~f!~~~:~';(?~~se,~l __ ". '. ".-:-, r, -,'" . '." ,~e-~~'

,M .. tebel Haar, l.., Oe-U1lm d an. E.ssa~ SUr ,_ &.;jrow~ des oeu _ _ s

(Haded

,Renee Beuveresse, ,V&rlrietiC~ esih~U:qH8.!1/. ~ lAoo~J]d Colin)

~ ~ L' .~ ,:L 13(: .. :t o.J.··.)pC"iL:.I~., 'hr" .1 UB' ·i:ttl.f1 ,~·OO'It·' , . n-'W\~" ,

• -' _,1.1" "_'._ . -. '. ~-'r .a

,}€.a;n~Mj,ch~l Besw.dex~ L'cH~m~e' dlchirr'~ {Des?a~es et Cje) ~ :l"ut p,~rm:y'~ Man M,~ God~ L~, Me~~ng oj Lifo/,l\ t{~ns. Davtd

.P~]]a~~r fU".iversj'~ of' Chk:a<gQ Press) , _ ,', _,

A. - Ji'. ,:G. C' o ~'~I: '[ d L ~ r' ~ ,!t'-~O'~,!," ~ ,Ji -If" ~-~~ ~h""Ai~.Iifo ~

,~UT~ "',' ((lmtj(~hj'pOn"Vilj e a::Il'UC. r,erry:, ~, 'J,~\si';",.i",!!.i ,~,j; ~;j;.~, ,-..i

(Laff@fl't) _

T~'et~n Tedorev, The Jmp~'if~ct' G~t.d8"~' Tmt Le,~ I)f.H~100$~'~~,~ trans. Carlo!. Cosman (Ptrb:a,cetQ['Jl 'u.[]j~vers:tty Press)

Lt:H: Ferry and Je~n~Didier Vfurnce]lJ~~ Qujest;.c~ que' l'livrn,'mitt?* ~ (Odile J~cQib']

:N'ote ,o,n, e~a,cts

,~:n 8J .numbe:r. of fhe ~.mll~l~nioIllSi of ~xtr~cts h-''(Nn phnQS'(!!,phk~~ workfj~. the' Pt1I1b]j~hel's have fOillu]Jd it useful to oo:n.su]t the ~Q:]]@wing. :te~t~:

13,~ Wisd,om

P[alol, Ph'lebm~ llI' (Od~(fd 'UnweI'S,ity Press) _ __ _ __

Arh~~ode~ The N itoma.cke~n. E':~hics¥ ~ , ~!"ans, J. A. K", ThOlmpsJQ,n

(P,enguin Classics) .

[E,p.icums) uUers aoo. _ Maad\,ns¥ i¥\ :frar:n Esmf,2:tjQ[~ E,i'cu:rm) ~r.ams.

Eu:g~ne 'O'Connor O?'r-om~th@us Boob) , ' ,

:E,p,ictetu.s~ TIle D:i~Qu;rseS' ,oj Epi!C'fet'Us'!j!o (E;ve:tym:.an Series, Phoenix) Marcus Aurelius, M;~dimiw'n$;~ ~ hr'alFl:s. M~'eU St:a;njfo:rlh {Pe:rngldn Cb,s.sJ.cs)

Mkhel de ,M()illtaifl1~~' The Com",wte ,E'ssaysif.~ {in p,artiC'ulla;r 'On oou.'c·,atmg ,~hw~dj'·EHl.i' and vol, I U) ~ trans, M. A" S~[e~ch (P~l~ill

Cl~a~(sic:s) " ,

'Be!l1~d'i.'ct SpiJH]~a" E,~ikjcs'*' ~.If, ~ lItmIlS,,, 'G. :H. H" 'Parkinson. (O,xfo:r·d

'U~'dv~r&ity Press] ~ _

Art_hur' S[ch;open__ha,uer'~ Wisdom ,oj Lifo' fma CO#n5e'h',_~ Ma.~'d~ ~'~ j' ~mns,,, 'T. B:ai~ey Sat[n~leil:'s (Prometheus Boob'} r and also '"I1w Wo.rl:d (is ~U a~,R'e-p~nfa~j'M, nsns. lB. F'. J. [Pa.~e' (D~v~r)

Fried.ricb Nwe~il~che'1 Thm .s~ke' ~:ram~~1~'~~_ (Peng!lio Classlcs) __ Allitliin (Enil.er-,AJtlgm;s.'te 'C.hart~er)j A1\ij(f,~~ O~ de M s~e'~' (Ga~ilmarr,~,) ,Aillbert 'CaJ~m.l$~, l1ie Myt';~ (If Slqpk1i$.~, trans. J ~s~in OBdeID (P'eng~jn

BilOb) ,

Pierre Hador, PhiwsopH:y,as ,a: Way ,oj' 'Life':_ S'ii'ritl~~~d _'~~,rci$~ from S'ocrtit'es to F~~Hh:~~i!\, trans, Michael Chase (Btackw'eU) Clemen~, R.(Dsse~~ ,La .Fore~ mQje·n~Rf· ,!If {Ed~t~~F.i;s' de' mm.uit}

Mar-.od Conc.'he~, Ori.e'~1a:ttGn, p',hl.l'~~J'q!Ueil!'· (Presses 'lOOrJI~veOO'swtake:s, de Fmnces.)

,AndIe 'C()m.te<·Sponril]e~ .u, Mytke d'j,mH:' Tl'7-Qjt'li' au ~Sfiojf ef: de' &1'

,~tit~1f (Press€s, 'unmrs.[taii-ts de' :F:ra:nces) .

Je'~ln·,M:~chel :Et,es.nier,j ,Rlllexwm SUr La ~g~$e''''!Ifo (Le P,onlllti.e:r}

i

1

B]~i$ie :IP'i3JSCCl_t The J7\,iteruo.ria~', ~I] Pens/eso t_rn;ns" A, 1., Kr.aj]IDsheimer~

19616, :H,ar.m,on.d_sword]~ "etlglli.1l Boob. _

Pla~ol~ ,PhaeJo, ~n The IVo-tb o{Flato; Vo1 3, trans, 'Thomas ''Ia,ylor and Fiay.er Syde,___nham,~ 199[6~ F[o.me1 Prcmetheus Trust

- ~, The ,Rel'uB'/:j:C) trans, Decs.nlond Lee', 19 i 4,;. HahondS,\Vonh!t Poog~in Boo.b

J.ean-:Jacqu~:s, Ro'U;s:sea;u, A D',isc,ootse on lne'q1faJity~ trans, ,M:aur.,ic@ em. nston, 1 '9S4 ~ ]-~aJ.'n-,ondsw~fEh. :Pe:ngulin Boob,

-", The Socia" Con~~'imCi~, !!trails.. Maurice' [c.ranston~ 1968~, H~nnonds'WOrth~ Pen,BUin Boob

Benedler Spl:il1!tlZA, B:t'hicsl, trans .. G" ,H,,, R. :Parkins:O'n" 20001, O:xford Bli!u:kwell

-~ On f-~e: ,11~p~m:eo'~ of Und8.ma.,,di~g, trans., R. H. l'vJL Elwes. ] 883, (rp ] 9~5 5:) , New YOlk, Dover

Si An's,e~mj' Th~ Prayers. i~n.d ,Me4itati~ ,r.! ~,; A,nsel'wl; ill,jth t,he PrQslo:8ian~ ;trans, Benedicta W:ard, ·197·3~ Hamlonds:wo-nh1 Ptt[!}g'Uim Boob

St August~mle) C&nfe~irms., trans.. R. S, Plne e- 'Cofr~n~ 'J 96:rn ~' Harn)(J.ndJswarth~ Peng,gin Books

~ d -W' "'d J_ ~ ~L_ '1'9' '.£. _.l G- H 'W'" ... 1.,.1 Lu- wj,g ···:lu,gen$meiiJ~ ,n1Q\te~~ J..'14~11jj" '@IO]!$".::. !. !,' 11;.1\0[1 _: ·,n&'~t ~ntJ

G. E. ,M. AruH~{jmbe- trans, C:. E. htl.. Ans,comn'be'" ,~96,1 '- Oxf~f-d, B~a;ckwen

-, Tt.tl>e-tattfS wgico-l'hilosopbjcm~ trans, C .. f- O-gdeli~ ,J 922.~ lnndon, RolJllded_ge anrd Ke.gan P,iiui

,

PRAII,SE FOR

REATISE O'N . GR - .

~[,He] is, so goodl at the time~y appucatlon of those questions that make

phi losophy ,i'ntefiesti,nIQ.,~ ~ SUI!ch a clear yet: thoughtfull eXIPI icator ~ ~ .oj Here, at last, iis someone 'whlo can lay 'these matters out both inte,1I igentl'y'

and ,str,aightfol!W,ard'IIYi' Guerdien

'Andre Oomte ... Sponvl ls's attlractiiv,el~y literate and reflective dlscussion of this important viirtues ls especially [welcome]i'~;o [Hjs] engag'in.g, qualltles as a writer are such that an'Y 'i1nt-le- reste d reader 'W"I-ill be' ab ~e "to accompany hlrn "I"n hls phuo'so' ph"lc'a-I

........ -,' 11.' I _ I~._ _ _l_l",_,.: 1'0".1.- lUI:....' '_, _~I__: I, I >'' 1 _I' ' "I 1-' 1 -,~ _~I !:;_:. .',

explorations wiithloult lo,sJing 81ny of' t:h'eilr richness alnl,d iinslight'"I[~[~,ga,fnilng much ill'u'minatiion and enj'oYlme'nt 'in tlhlG' process.' A C G'ray~ing in the Financial Times

'The Igrea,t strenqth of this book ls that 'it removes phlililoso'p,h,y from abstract theorizinq and deposits i't where i1t belonqs: ln our d!a,iilly ives and the world around IUBi' ~ Mail on ,Sunday

"Cle',arlly and often baautiif'u~ly' writte'n~'i.' Comte .... ,S,Ponvillle cleaves to the aim set' out in hliJ:s subtitle, whic,h i,sJ to ,S,Uggl'9st that philosophy may aid us in the conduct of everydl,ay aff,ailrs~~1 ,John Banv1iUe lin the Irls,h 'Times

"That rare thing: a work ot philosophy that ls bot:h readable and good,,~~ Its, popularity ls easv tc understand, ~ ~ Precise, achotsetlc even, ')I',et aliso passionate' Ne'w Statesman'

"The book knocks 'you sideways. I could fill this whol'e p.age Iquotingl Comte ·Spon'v'ille·'s apercus .. ,. ~ You. don't geJt 'wit and wisdom llka that ln literary theory ~ ~ ~ I fiind [this] book hard to 'f'alullt~ ~ i Take mi'S' seriously and

buy this book. Literary Review

Você também pode gostar