MICHEL TERESTCHENKO: Petit aphorisme

lundi 25 avril 2011

Petit aphorisme

La tradition est une rive sur laquelle on s'appuie pour s'en éloigner, aventureusement, en direction du grand large. Le traditionalisme, une maison dans laquelle on s'enferme peureusement, portes et fenêtres closes, pour se mettre à l'abri. C'est pourquoi il faut s'attacher à l'une et fuir l'autre.

3 commentaires:

cathy a dit…: Qu'il est difficile de choisir l'un ou l'autre en se demandant lequel est le plus juste. votre formulation correspond en écho à l’aphorisme bouddhiste qui dit que s'il est bon de naitre dans une église (temple..), il n'est pas bien d'y mourir, sous-entendant qu'il faut faire sa propre route spirituelle et se détacher de la tradition enseignée, tracer son chemin. et qu'il est parfois difficile ce chemin !; 26 avril 2011 10:45
Michel Terestchenko, a dit…: Merci, chère Cathy. Cet aphorisme bouddhiste correspond très exactement à mon petit ptopos. Et cette route que l'on doit soi-même tracer est, en effet, parfois bien rude et solitaire.
Bien amicalement,
Michel; 26 avril 2011 11:47
cecile odartchenko a dit…: privilège de la solitude: avoir tout son temps pour célébrer.
et encore:
Toujours le chant, annonce le jour, annonce la lumière!
Supériorité du merle!; 26 avril 2011 20:26

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)

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.