The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
by An American in London Sat Jul 21st, 2007 at 05:47:15 AM EST
In Sunday's NY Times, BHL reviews the autobiography of Sarkozy, 'Testimony-France in the Twenty First Century'
The link is : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/books/review/Levy-t.html
As usual BHL is flummoxed by the dichotomy of Sarkozy.
I am only saying that there is in Sarkozy a relationship to memory that troubles and worries me. Men usually have a memory. It can be complex, contradictory, paradoxical, confused. But it is their own. It has a great deal to do with the basis of who they are and the identities they choose for themselves. Sarkozy is an identity pirate, a mercenary of others' memories. He claims all memories, meaning that in the end he just might not have any. He is our first president without a memory. He is the first of our presidents willing to listen to all ideas, because for him they are literally indistinguishable. If there is a man in France today who embodies (or claims to embody) the famous end of all ideologies, which I cannot quite bring myself to believe in, it is indeed Mr. Sarkozy, the sixth president of the Fifth Republic.
Similarly it is an "Idea-less" personality: these people have never had an original Idea in their lives either.
This ability to clear and re-write their conceptual RAM (Random access memory) is also what makes them perfect liars.
They REALLY do believe the lies they tell, having lost, or never had, a critical component: "ethical" judgement or values.
Great advocates have the same ability: I have a few times worked closely with QC's, and their ability to absorb hugely complex facts, distil a case, and present it - all without making any moral judgment, and capable of being equally persuasive on either side of the argument - is quite staggering. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Not all readers here are from France, UK or the US, so might not be aware if he is relevant.
Personally I try to pay as little attention to what Lévy has to say as possible. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Diaries here generally consist of more than a link and advice to do-your-own-context.
Diaries are usually used to add you own thoughts, comments and informations to a link.
Your comment struck me as petty and anal retentive.
However, as far as I can tell she only posted as a reader - simply coming up with a question about context for the article you linked to - and a legitimate one, which could be translated as "why do you think this is relevant? How is what this person writes insightful or otherwise significant?" Since you were kind enough to post this diary with a link to BHL's text, you obviously have an opinion on the subject and think it is worth sharing. So the question was simply, as far as I can see, why this is.
Now you may not have the time or the desire to respond, but please do not go off telling people to go do their own research on a topic you started and where they simply react (politely) to what you wrote or linked to. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Your reply is not appreciated when looked at in the context of the petty comments which have nothing to do with the reason of the post in the first place.
When I have to worry about whether or not I have given enough information in my diary to satisfy the readers; it defeats the purpose of my diary. If you have a tough time grasping this concept; I suggest you provide what you consider to be the guidelines to what you consider a constructive diary should be. Of course then you will be imposing your beliefs which would be counter to the purpose of this site. Anotherwards; be thankful someone is posting a legitimate diary and enough with the petty comments which are not constructive in the least.
Perhaps you can tell us what makes you an arbiter here?
the comment was derisive of the nature of the diary.
No it was not. That you take it as such only says something about you, not about the comment or about Fran.
All the comments above were legitimate responses to your "Why not do your own homework!!!" reply which was completely inappropriate and flippant. There was no aggressivity in Fran's comment, just a question. A reply that stated "I don't really know, but I found the article interesting" would have been fine. Instead, you chose to be contemptuous.
If you have a tough time grasping this concept; I suggest you provide what you consider to be the guidelines to what you consider a constructive diary should be.
As afew posted above, the answer to that question is explicitly in the site guidelines. Let me quote them for you:
If you want to post a diary, first think about whether your thoughts are a good fit for a diary topic. Somebody recently opined that you shouldn't put up a diary unless you'd put about an hour's time into writing it. That may be excessive. But you should be prepared to put in a little more time than a few minutes to make a quality diary entry. If what you want to post isn't worth that kind of time, consider a comment on an open thread or somebody else's diary on the same or similar topic.
So there is no ambiguity there. We won't enforce the rule harshly, but if you post a very short diary and are unwilling to answer even basic questions about it, you cannot expect the community to react kindly. We do have standards.
Of course then you will be imposing your beliefs which would be counter to the purpose of this site.
Well, my beliefs, shared by many on the site, is that the quality of discourse here is something we care about, and that requires both the ability and the willingness to respond to questions without delving into ad hominems.
be thankful someone is posting a legitimate diary and enough with the petty comments which are not constructive in the least.
I am thankful for your diary, even if it falls short of the guidelines, it did open conversation on a ligitimate topic. The only petty comments, unfortunately, were yours. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If you are not willing to engage on the substance of the matter at hand, perhaps you should stop referring to this as a "diary." There are very few cases in which three sentences should constitute a diary.
I interpreted the original comment by Fran as petty and more concerned with what she perceived as the shortfall of the diary than the diary itself and deserved a reply.
That may be the case, and that may be ok, but when you received several responses telling you that your interpretation was probably too harsh on Fran, you chose to, again, react, haughtily. It is the second reaction, and your unwillingness to acknowledge the very explicit response of the community (4 unambiguous responses to your comment on the slowest day of the week) that made me react.
We can all have different interpretations of things, and that happens a lot here on a site where not everybody is a native English-language speaker and uses the right expression each time. But we should always be ready to give the benefit of the doubt to others. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, in this case, you got messages from many people, all telling you the same thing. I know it is hard to acknowledge that one overreacted, but this is something that we do on ET, and that we appreciate - and which contributes to respectful dialogue.
I've tried to acknowledge your points in various comments. I'm sorry you won't see it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Majority doesn't rule one's thoughts.
You have been incredibly arrogant and rude and have dismissed attempts to explain and discuss with you by yet more arrogance.
There's clearly something you don't get about this place.
So go ahead:
I don't mind you finding my comment petty or inappropriate - but I do mind the language you used. I don't mind disagreement, but disagreement can stay in a polite frame.
And it would be considerate of you if you could keep in mind that many people here are not native English speaking, so maybe our choice of words is not always correct.
Give us all a break.
Fran is not a native English speaker. She posts the Salon every morning (spending a lot of time and effort to do so), so you might have noticed that she is a pillar of the community. She is nice, it shines through all her comments. So it is not surprising that the communoity would be offended at your harsh interpretation of her words.
I've acknowledged that you could interpret her comment differently than it was meant, since you're not a regular. I've responded to your questions about who's an arbiter, and what are the rules here. I've suggested some ways for both sides to back pedal from the early confrontation.
Other members of the community have commented on the substance of the diary.
What else do you want? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Goodnight and Good luck
I'm not claiming my own diaries are literary masterpieces, but if someone raises an issue in the comments, I try to add corrections and updates. Obviously I contribute (however minor my contributions may be) because I enjoy doing so, but if I wasn't prepared to accept some constructive criticism, I'd just let my writings collect dust on my hard drive. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
It was a good link: it belonged in the Salon, but our friend, like me, hadn't read the Guidelines (lesson learnt by me!).
Add the fact that we're "divided by a common language", and this is what we get.... "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
My - very British - thought too :-)
" ... our friend, like me, hadn't read the Guidelines (lesson learnt by me!)."
Me too - I NOW learn you only have to spend about ONE hour on a diary ! CRIKEY! :-)
Perhaps the stubborn arrogance displayed needs our understanding and compassion - after all he is an American :-) Sadly they're not exactly noted for their humility and consideration; here in France I so Often hear American voices rising above those of everyone else (except perhaps the Italians) in restaurants - clearly THEIR conversations are the most important and we'd no doubt benefit from hearing them :-)
I read somewhere that this attitude comes in part from an education system which tends to emphasize positive feedback to boost pupils' self-confidence - while in France the feedback is often highly critical and negative (possibly in French or Foe by Polly Platt, a nice American :-)).
It's a pity that he uses "good night and good luck", Ed Murrow's way of ending his broadcasts, which displayed courage, lots of research, persistence, but not arrogance - like the contributions of so many of our American members - of course :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
While the 'education system emphasized positive feedback to boost my self-confidence' at the age of six; my favorite pet donkey died on our farm. As I was crying over my loss; my father said I shouldn't be too upset because the donkey would come back to life in my later years. I guess it has in the form of the jackass who wrote the clever comment I am replying to :>)
(and sorry for the delay in responding, I was travelling) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am saddened by your unprincipled way in which you monitor your site.
It is one thing for me to admonish Fran for what I perceived to be a petty comment but it is quite another for you to ignore personal attacks clothed in sarcasm and then rationalize them as side disputes.
Anyway, the standard to judge a comment is not quite the same at the beginning of a thread, when it is an overreaction to something that might be innocuous (or not), than after a 50-comment thread of "vigorous" discussion, where you generated, rightly or wrongly, a lot of hostility from several posters.
You chose to feel insulted by Fran's innocent question/request, lashed out and were unhappy to be called on it. Now you are again choosing to feel smeared here. To which I can only say: choose differently. Then I'll change my standards towards you. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
For regulars here, Fran is a committed treasure of blogging, who never has a harsh word for anyone - only queries. It is not surprising that some Don Quixotes (and if Daily Tossers are called Kossaks, then why shouldn't we be called Quixotes?), would rise gallantly to her defence. We ET males are, mostly, gentlemen.
I think both sides were unaware of the two-sided context of misunderstanding. I suggest that we draw a line under it and begin again. You can't be me, I'm taken
I only bring this up , not because I am offended by his comment ( I have much harder skin than to worry about a 'toff' like Ted) but to expose the double standard which you seem to modrate the site by. Your rationale of his comment being the 50th and not the 1st is not valid. Personal character assasination should not be tolerated at any time.
He should have been told this and possibly have his posting of his photographs suspended from appeaing on the site for a month with the exception of those photographs of his wife :-)
He is one of the mouthpieces of the French Ruling Elite ; supposedly being a philosopher, he was a member of the "antitotalitarian left" in the 70's, and like his colleagues Finkielkraut and Glucksmann, has moved rightward ever since ; unlike them, he didn't campaign for Sarkozy (but he chronicles in the Right-wing news weekly Le Point)
He is more a essayist than a real philosopher, but his look (esthetically unbuttoned at the top shirt, long flowing hair), easy, "moral" discourse, make him a favorite in the media.
He is extremely ego centric (also from a wealthy family : he lives in hotels so he has a tenuous link to "reality"). He doesn't hesitate to use the system for personal publicity. He is sometimes a bit insightful, very often ridiculous. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Sarkozy is the only person I know who is a perfect Sartrean subject -- the prototype of that subjectivity described in "Being and Nothingness" that draws its strength, and even its freedom, from the fact that it has no inner core, nothing in reserve; as if it were an empty place, a mere transit zone in which impressions, information and emotions spin around without stopping or connecting.
That is, if there is any truth in the quote. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
though on a more serious note, i was pretty stunned on my recent trip to France this summer by the number of French people i met whom i had pinned as dyed in the wool lefties, but who -- fed up with the status quo -- wound up voting for Sarkozy. and, while i cringe to say it in this forum, many managed to persuade me, a little, that Sarkozy might indeed have been the better choice for France.
having said that, i recall the malaise and pessimistic funk that many Americans were in in the late 70's, and how Reagan's "Morning in America" rhetoric led to policies in the 80's that were on balance bad for America, i believe. i hope that Sarkozy's "Matinée in France" administration does not lead in the end to similar on-balance negative results for France and beyond.
for all of BHL's sketchiness, this sentence reminded me of my original visceral reaction of fear and dislike towards Sarkozy:
... when he said that the Vichy government was not an integral participant in genocide, when he thundered that France should not be embarrassed by its "civilizing" work in Algeria, and when he vowed that if elected he would "liquidate the heritage of May 1968," which for 40 years has been a secret wound, a torment, sometimes the nightmare of the most radical reactionary right wing of this country, Nicolas Sarkozy cut himself off from men like me.
and yet, and yet, i am keeping an open mind on Sarkozy's policies, and i am going to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt until he really screws up. BHL thinks Sarkozy may be able to help end the Darfour crisis by compelling the Chinese to put pressure on Khartoum:
I am even ready to admit that he is capable of making the Chinese give in on the terrible situation in Darfur where, as everyone knows, they hold the reins of Khartoum's regime of assassins.
and despite BHL's cynicism that they may only be more of
The totems of the left to whom he throws pieces of meat for the sheer pleasure of watching them fight over it
i cannot help but recall an article in Le Monde in early June about the ethnically diverse members of his cabinet he appointed:
La présence de trois ministres et secrétaires d'Etat satisfait les associations des quartiers populaires qui soulignent volontiers que la droite a réussi là où la gauche n'a fait que multiplier les promesses. "L'ouverture à la diversité n'a jamais été faite par la gauche mais par la droite, qui avait déjà promu des gens comme Tokia Saïfi ou Azouz Begag", réagit Azedine Haffar, président de l'Association nationale des élus de banlieue (ANEB). "Je ne suis qu'à moitié surpris de l'audace de Sarkozy. Ça révèle un peu plus la frilosité et l'effrayant esprit conservateur du Parti socialiste", ajoute Karim Zéribi, président du Parlement des banlieues, candidat indépendant et malheureux de la "diversité" pour les législatives à Marseille. En banlieue, les associations saluent "l'ouverture à la diversité"
En banlieue, les associations saluent "l'ouverture à la diversité"
I guess for me, the jury is still out on Sarkozy. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Sarkozy is good at the spin. Really good at it. But there is nothing underneath. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If he sees a set of policies that WORK, do you not think he'd be off with them like a ferret down a drain-pipe?
Surely it's for the "progressives" to come up with that.
Bugger the Left/Right distinction: it's obsolete. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Look how Royal was called gaffe-prone when she actually did fewer gaffes than Sarkozy. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Another point to make is that only now do minorities are rising to the higher parts of the French meritocracy ; Dati and Yade have passed competitive exams (for becoming a magistrate and a Senate Administrator) which are among the hardest in Frace...
Sarkozy's government also claims parity between men and women, but strangely the left wing of the parliament is much more feminised than the right wing... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
when he vowed that if elected he would "liquidate the heritage of May 1968," which for 40 years has been a secret wound, a torment, sometimes the nightmare of the most radical reactionary right wing of this country, Nicolas Sarkozy cut himself off from men like me.
Believe me, the call to "liquidate May 68" was just a heavy wink to the most reactionary forces in France. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I got -8/-7.03, btw, so I'm in good company, by the looks of it ;) "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Link is here.
My result:
M: liberal-conservative, traditionally the party of the rich and big business, the second largest party for the last few decades. Has recently swinged wildly to the left on economic issues, seen as trying to be better soc dems than the soc dems. Which is why they won the election.
Fp: free market liberal/social liberal, has focused on a tougher stance on law and order issues, schools and immigration. Something which has been pretty unpopular in certain groups of the party (and extremely unpopular in the inbred journalist class), but wildly popular among voters.
C: Center-right, traditionally affiliated with farmers and has a history of cooperation with the soc dems. Recently gone madly neoliberal for no apparent reason, as the voters don't like neoliberalism. Probably has to do with Ideology then.
Kd: Center-right christian democrats. Don't do much besides telling everyone how important they think the right to abortion and the right for homosexuals to marry is.
S: Soc dems. Power party. Nuf said. Been in single party minority government for something like 75 out of the last 90 years.
V: Former commies. Had a period during the 90's when they were run by frihetliga socialister (freedomish socialists), but after the popular party leader had to step down after tax evasion charges, the commies took over and crushed the socialists. Becoming commies again was unpopular among the many leftish soc dems that had voted for them, and they are now small and pretty ignored. Generally do what the soc dems tell them to.
Mp: Greens. The party which has increased Swedish CO2 emissions the most by forcing the premature shutdown of the 1200 MW Barsebäck nuclear power plant. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
So 50%+ for everyone but the Moderates. Should I move to Sweden (which may happen in the not-too-distant future), I'll have lot of options to vote for ;)
As for Kd, I was under the impression the nutters...I mean the socially conservative faction of the party decided to form their own party. I guess Kd and Vpk aren't looking so hot for the next election (I don't know if Fp has rebounded after dumping Leijonborg, so they might be in trouble as well). "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Might have shifted some upward left since then, but no matter.
But I am supposed to integrate it into the wiki somehow? I don't think I know how to do that. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Still, this rightwing reactionary is still more anarchic and plan-economy hugging than Romano Prodi or Angela Merkel. ;)
Not to mention so called socialist Tony Blair. This does say something about the Swedish Overton window, no?
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
http://www.philomag.com/article,dialogue,nicolas-sarkozy-et-michel-onfray-confidences-entre-ennemis, 288.php
For Fran and others who may not have heard of Onfray :-)
Onfray is a well- known figure in France -- not just through his many books, which avoid academic cant and are rendered in an elegant but accessible, sparkling prose that is admired even by critics who abhor his ideas -- but as a frequent guest on French TV's numerous literary and intellectual chat shows. The national public radio network France Culture annually broadcasts his course of lectures to the Universite Populaire on philosophical themes. But Onfray has deliberately rejected the incestuous and corrupt Parisian mediatic-politico-academic microcosm and its seductive but ephemeral blandishments, and insists on living in the small Normandy town of Argentan where he was born, just 57 km. from Caen. Free from the distractions of urban mundanities, Onfray devotes his time exclusively to his intellectual work, which helps explain his astonishing output at such a relatively young age. http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/michel_onfray_o.html
Onfray is a well- known figure in France -- not just through his many books, which avoid academic cant and are rendered in an elegant but accessible, sparkling prose that is admired even by critics who abhor his ideas -- but as a frequent guest on French TV's numerous literary and intellectual chat shows. The national public radio network France Culture annually broadcasts his course of lectures to the Universite Populaire on philosophical themes. But Onfray has deliberately rejected the incestuous and corrupt Parisian mediatic-politico-academic microcosm and its seductive but ephemeral blandishments, and insists on living in the small Normandy town of Argentan where he was born, just 57 km. from Caen. Free from the distractions of urban mundanities, Onfray devotes his time exclusively to his intellectual work, which helps explain his astonishing output at such a relatively young age.
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/michel_onfray_o.html
There's an English translation of an extract from it in the New Staesman site, here's a bit of it:
Nicolas Sarkozy debates belief, freedom and work with the atheist philosopher Michel Onfray ... An exchange O: As our meeting comes to an end, I would like to give you some useful gifts before we leave. (He gives Sarkozy four parcels.) S (amused): Do you really think that my situation is that bad? (Sarkozy unwraps the books, while Onfray comments on his choice.) O: I give you Totem and Taboo because Freud talks about the murder of the father and the exercise of power in the herd. Then, 'Antéchrist by Nietzsche because of his radical critique of Christian morals - for you who sometimes goes to church with your family. I also recommend Michel Foucault to you, particularly in your role as interior minister, where you are fond of disciplinarian solutions . . . In Surveiller et punir, Foucault analyses the jail system and its relationship with the liberal norm. And finally Proudhon, because he shows that, if one is not a capitalist, it doesn't necessarily mean one is a communist. S: Have I ever tried to say such a thing? O (looking at his notes): Yes, in your book Témoignage, page 237: "Communism, the other word for anti-liberalism . . . " S: Are you a communist? O: That's the point: I am not a communist nor a capitalist. http://www.newstatesman.com/200706040046
Nicolas Sarkozy debates belief, freedom and work with the atheist philosopher Michel Onfray
... An exchange
O: As our meeting comes to an end, I would like to give you some useful gifts before we leave. (He gives Sarkozy four parcels.) S (amused): Do you really think that my situation is that bad? (Sarkozy unwraps the books, while Onfray comments on his choice.) O: I give you Totem and Taboo because Freud talks about the murder of the father and the exercise of power in the herd. Then, 'Antéchrist by Nietzsche because of his radical critique of Christian morals - for you who sometimes goes to church with your family. I also recommend Michel Foucault to you, particularly in your role as interior minister, where you are fond of disciplinarian solutions . . . In Surveiller et punir, Foucault analyses the jail system and its relationship with the liberal norm. And finally Proudhon, because he shows that, if one is not a capitalist, it doesn't necessarily mean one is a communist. S: Have I ever tried to say such a thing? O (looking at his notes): Yes, in your book Témoignage, page 237: "Communism, the other word for anti-liberalism . . . " S: Are you a communist? O: That's the point: I am not a communist nor a capitalist.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200706040046
Onfray then commented on the encounter in his blog - there's an English summary of it:
... So Michel Onfray's blog in which he describes meeting the candidate was a must-read. For those who can't face 3,113 words in French (and you thought I'm long-winded!) I will give a résumé (meaning shortened version, for those with no French at all). Michel Onfray is a 47 year old philosopher, already cited in this blog some time ago, who achieved high-profile with his book La Traité d'Athéologie, which sold a remarkable 300,000 copies. Put simply, he is a hedonist, believing in the present, not in the dream of a rosy future, whether religion-based or utopic. He believes in the value of our senses, that we should know the world and see the world as it is. Anyway, the French magazine Philosophie asked Onfray to interview Sarkozy. On his blog, he describes the meeting: Onfray is accompanied by two of the staff of the magazine, Sarkozy by two advisors. "A stormy beginning. Aggression on his part. He paces round his cage, looking, weighing me up, judging. A great wounded animal, he has read my blog and looks me up and down." Onfray recently started a blog for this election, and early on he compared Sarkozy to the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. In the same way that the wolf disguises his grey fur with the grandmother's nightdress, the lupine free-marketeer Sarko has dressed himself up in clothing of the left, claiming to believe in the Republic and its social, caring values. It is for this comparison that the following scene is enacted: "His legs are crossed, one of them incessantly twitching nervously, the foot never stops moving.....First blow with his paw, claws out, then a second, a third, he can't stop, lets himself go, aggressing, hitting, striking hard, talking to himself, a flow of words impossible to control or canalize. One, two, ten, twenty autistic sentences. His cabinet director and colleague watch and listen to him impassively. I can imagine them present at a heavy [police] interrogation, wearing the same mask, the mask of a person in authority watching someone die without a flicker of emotion. The monologue continues, interminable torrent, bitchy comments thrown out like gall from a sick, bilious man or the venom surging through the body of a person intent on murder. Boasting, provoking, sure of his ground as he pushes his adversary to fight back, he says in essence: "So you've come to see the great demagogue, you who are nothing whatsoever, you throw yourself into the wolf's jaws!" I say something, it is torn apart, destroyed, broken, rejected..... I try again. Same treatment, a torrent of acid words. I try again, same thing. I begin to find it's going on a bit long..." As Onfray says, how, if one has wanted, since the cradle, to be president of the republic, if one aspires to walk with the great of this world, be the head of the army, have a nuclear arsenal at one's disposal, how can one turn like a mortally wounded animal on someone just because they wrote on their blog something mildly critical. All Onfray said in his blog was that Sarkozy had recently converted to Gaullism, the idea of the nation and the republic. "In fact the whole of the first half hour were a hysterical piece of play-acting of someone lost body and soul in a dance of death around a ritual victim, while round about two men from each camp impotently watch this primitive scene." ... http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/portrait-of-a-president/
... So Michel Onfray's blog in which he describes meeting the candidate was a must-read.
For those who can't face 3,113 words in French (and you thought I'm long-winded!) I will give a résumé (meaning shortened version, for those with no French at all). Michel Onfray is a 47 year old philosopher, already cited in this blog some time ago, who achieved high-profile with his book La Traité d'Athéologie, which sold a remarkable 300,000 copies. Put simply, he is a hedonist, believing in the present, not in the dream of a rosy future, whether religion-based or utopic. He believes in the value of our senses, that we should know the world and see the world as it is. Anyway, the French magazine Philosophie asked Onfray to interview Sarkozy.
On his blog, he describes the meeting: Onfray is accompanied by two of the staff of the magazine, Sarkozy by two advisors. "A stormy beginning. Aggression on his part. He paces round his cage, looking, weighing me up, judging. A great wounded animal, he has read my blog and looks me up and down." Onfray recently started a blog for this election, and early on he compared Sarkozy to the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. In the same way that the wolf disguises his grey fur with the grandmother's nightdress, the lupine free-marketeer Sarko has dressed himself up in clothing of the left, claiming to believe in the Republic and its social, caring values. It is for this comparison that the following scene is enacted: "His legs are crossed, one of them incessantly twitching nervously, the foot never stops moving.....First blow with his paw, claws out, then a second, a third, he can't stop, lets himself go, aggressing, hitting, striking hard, talking to himself, a flow of words impossible to control or canalize. One, two, ten, twenty autistic sentences. His cabinet director and colleague watch and listen to him impassively. I can imagine them present at a heavy [police] interrogation, wearing the same mask, the mask of a person in authority watching someone die without a flicker of emotion. The monologue continues, interminable torrent, bitchy comments thrown out like gall from a sick, bilious man or the venom surging through the body of a person intent on murder. Boasting, provoking, sure of his ground as he pushes his adversary to fight back, he says in essence: "So you've come to see the great demagogue, you who are nothing whatsoever, you throw yourself into the wolf's jaws!" I say something, it is torn apart, destroyed, broken, rejected..... I try again. Same treatment, a torrent of acid words. I try again, same thing. I begin to find it's going on a bit long..."
As Onfray says, how, if one has wanted, since the cradle, to be president of the republic, if one aspires to walk with the great of this world, be the head of the army, have a nuclear arsenal at one's disposal, how can one turn like a mortally wounded animal on someone just because they wrote on their blog something mildly critical. All Onfray said in his blog was that Sarkozy had recently converted to Gaullism, the idea of the nation and the republic. "In fact the whole of the first half hour were a hysterical piece of play-acting of someone lost body and soul in a dance of death around a ritual victim, while round about two men from each camp impotently watch this primitive scene." ...
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/portrait-of-a-president/
Hmmm - maybe I should have done this as a diary - but then it took less than an hour :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/4/28/171617/546 Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
(Sarkozy standing in front of de Gaulle's tombstone in Colombey and asking: "when Gaullists come here, how long do they stay?"), which makes the following points:
But Onfray strikes me as almost as much of an attention seeking clown as Sarkozy, inasmuch as the latter can be thought of as such:
Sarkozy: I'm no more able to prove the existence of God than you are to deny it. Onfray: That's no good. It's the person who posits the existence of something who must be able to justify it.
Onfray: That's no good. It's the person who posits the existence of something who must be able to justify it.
Onfray strikes me as the idiot in that interchange: the very definition of religion is that you do not "justify" your faith/god in the same way as you justify something rationally or empirically. Sarkozy is in the right here.
And in this exchange, both of them sound like fools:
O: In French, the word travail comes from the Latin tripalium, which designates a torture device. Our activities can't compare with the burden of a worker who exhausts himself on the assembly line for eight hours a day. . . S: During my numerous visits to various workplaces, I have been struck by the happiness encountered in factories compared with the lack of it in offices. In Zola's time, in the mines, even if the work was very hard, people didn't feel lonely. The hardship was compensated by friendship and solidarity. The feeling of belonging to a modern world in the making helped the workers to hold on. Unlike today in offices, where you may sit at a comfortable desk obeying your boss, but you are isolated in front of your computer.
S: During my numerous visits to various workplaces, I have been struck by the happiness encountered in factories compared with the lack of it in offices. In Zola's time, in the mines, even if the work was very hard, people didn't feel lonely. The hardship was compensated by friendship and solidarity. The feeling of belonging to a modern world in the making helped the workers to hold on. Unlike today in offices, where you may sit at a comfortable desk obeying your boss, but you are isolated in front of your computer.
Whereas he is right that we cannot compare the long hours of an "information professional" with the long hours of a manual laborer, Onfray is completely irrelevant and comes across like a pedant by tracing the etymology of travail to a torture device.
On the other hand, Zola sounds ten times more stupid and frighteningly out of touch by trying to claim that coal miners' sense of "friendship and solidarity" made up for the abject misery of their jobs, and even made their jobs superior to modern information jobs.
But then, Sarkozy says something which have been expressed on this site:
... l'être humain peut être dangereux. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que nous avons tant besoin de la culture, de la civilisation. Il n'y a pas d'un côté des individus dangereux et de l'autre des innocents. Non, chaque homme est en lui-même porteur de beaucoup d'innocence et de dangers.
In other words, humans are not perfect and will do bad things: thus, the need for the State and the norms of society.
Though on the other hand, he does say things which -- at least in the U.S., I believe -- would cause an uproar:
J'inclinerais, pour ma part, à penser qu'on naît pédophile, et c'est d'ailleurs un problème que nous ne sachions soigner cette pathologie. Il y a 1 200 ou 1 300 jeunes qui se suicident en France chaque année, ce n'est pas parce que leurs parents s'en sont mal occupés ! Mais parce que, génétiquement, ils avaient une fragilité, une douleur préalable. Prenez les fumeurs : certains développent un cancer, d'autres non. Les premiers ont une faiblesse physiologique héréditaire. Les circonstances ne font pas tout, la part de l'inné est immense.
The English summary on Prospect Magazine is worthless. Pure one-sided, unfair caricaturing. BHL's piece is far better than that. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Onfray is completely irrelevant and comes across like a pedant by tracing the etymology of travail to a torture device.
The etymology of "travail" is the standard way in France of introducing the dichotomy of work as alienation/work as expression. It's pretty much a lieu commun. It's probably one of the defining divides between left and right. The 35 hours week was justified partly because salaried work is an alienation.
Sarkozy's discourse is clearly promoting the later : more overtime, claiming 35 hours is a "minimum length of work week" ; see the recent Christine Lagarde speeches.
Sarkozy even went a bit too far, claiming that Le travail, c'est la liberté in one of his speeches ; I won't translate in german but I don't like that sound.
In Sarko's mouth, it also means that those that do bad things shall be locked away for ever. And are wholly responsible ; prevention doesn't work, people let the bad side win and can only be corrected through punishment.
It did cause an uproar in the French blogs, although it wasn't much picked up by French media (which seem unable to do much uproaring about Sarko these days) Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
But Onfray has deliberately rejected the incestuous and corrupt Parisian mediatic-politico-academic microcosm and its seductive but ephemeral blandishments, and insists on living in the small Normandy town of Argentan where he was born, just 57 km. from Caen. Free from the distractions of urban mundanities, Onfray devotes his time exclusively to his intellectual work, which helps explain his astonishing output at such a relatively young age. http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/michel_onfray_o.html
But Onfray has deliberately rejected the incestuous and corrupt Parisian mediatic-politico-academic microcosm and its seductive but ephemeral blandishments, and insists on living in the small Normandy town of Argentan where he was born, just 57 km. from Caen. Free from the distractions of urban mundanities, Onfray devotes his time exclusively to his intellectual work, which helps explain his astonishing output at such a relatively young age.
The rest of it is well worth reading and might change your impression of Onfray.
Sarkozy: I'm no more able to prove the existence of God than you are to deny it. Onfray: That's no good. It's the person who posits the existence of something who must be able to justify it. Onfray strikes me as the idiot in that interchange: the very definition of religion is that you do not "justify" your faith/god in the same way as you justify something rationally or empirically. Sarkozy is in the right here.
Sorry, B-K, but if that's what you think then I'm afraid you're the "idiot". It's not the "definition of religion" that you don't justify it - are you not aware of the LONG tradition of Christian theology which has attempted to justify its beliefs, e.g.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically: ... Two other historically important "proofs" are the ontological argument and the moral argument. The former, made famous by St. Anselm in the eleventh century and defended in another form by Descartes, holds that it would be logically contradictory to deny God's existence. http://mb-soft.com/believe//text/argument.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:
... Two other historically important "proofs" are the ontological argument and the moral argument. The former, made famous by St. Anselm in the eleventh century and defended in another form by Descartes, holds that it would be logically contradictory to deny God's existence.
http://mb-soft.com/believe//text/argument.htm
Onfray is quite right the onus is on the person claiming something to give reasons to support their claim - as Christian theologians have tried - unsuccessfully - to do. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Onfray's latest book, Traité d'Athéologie (Paris, Editions Grasset), became the number one best-selling nonfiction book in France for months when it was published in the Spring of 2005 (the word "atheologie" Onfray borrowed from Georges Bataille). This book has just repeated its popular French success in Italy, where it was published in September 2005 and quickly soared to number one on Italy's bestseller lists. An acerbic, stylish, and erudite polemic against received religions in general and Christianity in particular, Onfray's latest book is a powerful antidote to the tsunami of religious fanaticism that is engulfing the Western world as well as the Islamic countries, and which is rapidly turning the United States into a theocracy. [NB] On the occasion of the publication of his Traité, Onfray debated on French national TV a panel of Catholic theologians that included the new Cardinal of Paris, Monseigneur Vingt-Trois (and swatted them all down like flies).
Onfray's latest book, Traité d'Athéologie (Paris, Editions Grasset), became the number one best-selling nonfiction book in France for months when it was published in the Spring of 2005 (the word "atheologie" Onfray borrowed from Georges Bataille). This book has just repeated its popular French success in Italy, where it was published in September 2005 and quickly soared to number one on Italy's bestseller lists.
An acerbic, stylish, and erudite polemic against received religions in general and Christianity in particular, Onfray's latest book is a powerful antidote to the tsunami of religious fanaticism that is engulfing the Western world as well as the Islamic countries, and which is rapidly turning the United States into a theocracy.
[NB] On the occasion of the publication of his Traité, Onfray debated on French national TV a panel of Catholic theologians that included the new Cardinal of Paris, Monseigneur Vingt-Trois (and swatted them all down like flies).
In clinton's case, he was able to find compromise solutions with all the advice he ingested, Bush seems to have cloned Cheney's personality.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 18 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1918 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1332 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1168 comments
by Oui - Aug 315 comments
by gmoke - Aug 302 comments
by Oui - Aug 304 comments
by Oui - Aug 3010 comments