MICHEL TERESTCHENKO: Répliques

samedi 15 janvier 2011

Répliques

Je vous invite à écouter, si vous n'avez pu le faire, l'émission Répliques de ce jour, où Alain Finkielkraut réunissait Marc Fumaroli et Stephan Vaquéro pour parler de Baltasar Grazian (1601-1658), à l'occasion de la nouvelle édition de L'homme de cour, publiée dans la collection Folio et préfacée par Fumaroli.
Les aperçus sur la civilité en lien avec la pensée française de l'époque, Montaigne (un peu plus ancien), La Rochefoucauld et, on aurait pu ajouter, les moralistes de l'honnetêté, tel Damien Mitton (avec lequel dialogue formidablement Pascal dans le fameux fragment "Le moi est haïssable") sont passionnants. Une belle analyse de la discrétion, de la réserve, du secret, de la dissimulation, de l'hypocrisie aussi sans doute, de la manière et du beau geste, dans tous les cas de la liberté du sujet, chez ce fascinant jésuite espagnol qui est, sans conteste, un des fondateurs de la pensée libérale moderne.

www.franceculture.com

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)

La « guerre sainte » et sans frontières que mènent les djihadistes contre « le monde des ténèbres » se déploie selon la logique manichéenne d’une lutte à mort où chaque camp prétend incarner le Bien et voit dans l’autre la figure du Mal. Comment en sortir ?
Du premier côté, on ne saurait comprendre l’extrême violence dont les mouvances de l’islamisme radical font preuve sans la rapporter aux doctrines dont elles s’inspirent et aux multiples causes sociales, politiques et économiques qui expliquent leur émergence dans le monde arabo-musulman contemporain. Mais, symétriquement, tout se passe comme si les démocraties avaient été prises au piège d’idéologies meurtrières qu’elles ont davantage contribué à nourrir qu’à combattre efficacement dans le respect de leurs propres principes. De l’usage de la torture à l’utilisation croissante de drones armés, la « guerre contre la terreur » a trop souvent été menée dans le mépris du droit, alimentant ainsi une spirale sans fin de haine et de ressentiment, tout en servant de prétexte à une remise en cause de nos libertés fondamentales. Dans cet essai, incisif et très documenté, Michel Terestchenko nous introduit au coeur de ces dynamiques de violence exponentielle, qui se développent jusque dans notre pays, et nous donne les moyens d’exercer notre responsabilité de citoyen afin qu’elles fassent enfin l’objet d’un débat public.

Forward

The “holy war” without borders lead by Islamic jihadists against “Netherworld” follows the simplistic logic of a fight to the death in which every side pretends to be the embodiment of the Good and sees in the other the face of Evil. Is there a solution? On the first hand, it is impossible to understand the extreme violence of the radical Islam movement without a closer look at its origins and at the many social, political and economical causes which explain their emergence in the contemporary Arabic-Muslim world. At the same time, everything goes as if the democracies were ambushed into the deadly traps of the ideology that, more than fight efficiently and in accordance to their principles, they have helped setting. From torture to an increasing use of armed drones, the “war on terror” has been too oftenly lead without regard to the law, and it has been constantly feeding feelings of hatred and resentment, while serving as an excuse for the questioning of our fundamental rights.

Such a Fragile Veneer of Humanity, The Banality of Good and Evil

Description This important new book by political philosopher Michel Terestchenko has been hailed by critics as one of the most outstanding and noteworthy essays in recent times. Expanding on the work of the German political theorist Hannah Arendt, who in Eichmann in Jerusalem raised the question of whether evil is radical or simply a function of banality -- the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their action or inaction -- Terestchenko proposes a new paradigm of “absence” vs. “presence” of self. The essence of altruism, he explains, has nothing to do with selfless acquiescence to a higher authority. In fact, selfless behavior is one of the surest paths to blind obedience and servility. Examining the psycho-sociological roots of the subservience that leads to inaction in the face of injustice, he cites specific historical examples showing that presence is more important than absence of self: forgotten cases from the history of Naziism, the “duty” performed at Abu Ghraib prison camp and, conversely, the heroic actions of the people of Chambon-sur-Lignon at the height of WWII.

www.frenchpubagency.com

On The Fair Use of Torture, or, How Democraties Justify the Injustifiable

Description The moral condemnation of torture has failed to prevent the exacting challenges of its theoretical legitimization as a “lesser evil.” In this audacious essay, Terestchenko dissects the arguments of thinkers, philosophers, and judicial authorities for whom torture, in its various incarnations and in varying circumstances, can be justified. In a thorough refutation of the school of thought known as the liberal ideology of torture, he explains how the use and legitimization of torture creates a deeply corrupting poison for civil society and its institutions. First Terestchenko presents a genealogy of new torture practices, from their origins in the 1950s to their present-day forms. He shows how such practices as “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” among others, have evolved over time. Then he examines the legal aspect, giving the example of the way the United States justified, or refuted, what went on in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. He goes on to debunk the myth of the noble torturer, illustrated by the fictional counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer in the TV series 24, and vigorously refutes the liberal ideology designed to show that even perfectly compassionate citizens might justify torture to find a ticking bomb. Developing the notion of abuse of public trust, he argues that this dangerous fallacy will turn our democracies into illegitimate states.