From the literature on the science of men

admin — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:59:15 +0000

I will begin by giving you a quick historical perspective, as far as has begun in our world of culture and writing, will unravel, we can not stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive move.

If you are French through the centuries, you will quickly understand that this knowledge is obvious to the conditions that are culturally connected to our view. Now we should be aware that it is what we said recently. “Was the Middle Ages, texts, the French were worth There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university that has full French texts, including those produced by Rutebeuf Villon or ignored. And why the age has deliberately set aside these texts? Since this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche put it very nicely: it was the “gay science” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of the time and to the sixteenth century, Latin, French, and these sciences had been no more than a gay science.

When was the first shift, which brings out the birth of “French literature”? appear in the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ridiculous, “Gaul”, a pig and all you do is it because he was only the restoration of the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very big revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course there were a few years ago that it was prepared. There was a pre literature, a “prehistoric” literature, if I may say, by those who since the great men rhetoric that rhyme in French and began to try, it’s called in the company refined its production site. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen, it is the French all fronts, The Gay Science carefully promoted

But what this has done to promote the gay science.? At first it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation: a real passion! But gradually, the passion had returned, and this was the birth of what we call “literature” that the hardest things was expressed in French, things of that time, the science of the time. But this was not the science of the university, which are expressed in Latin continued, but in some ways, a science in college, which was presented in French. Under these circumstances, we understand that texts like those of Madame de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere literature, and the speech of Descartes’ method were the ideas of Pascal or the Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings in the XVII ° manuals of literature we can see, this: “What do the speech by the method of literature?” Well, the answer is, because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same with Pascal. There are certainly many things illegible on his works, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now, what good is a tragedy by Racine, Descartes, Pascal, Montesquieu, was that these authors in French is a science to say that siècle since the Middle Ages to the XVIII °, not someone who would interest because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature” as a phenomenon on the edge of the university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see it, University was the science of the “right”, and literature, the science of the “left” to speak This literature was like a “decent person” and not like an old magic book reader, and that was not a science is the same as that of the university. They understand under the circumstances, why the ancestors of today’s “humanities” are the psychological novelist, the classical theater, the moralist writers, etc. We are the texts regarded as works of art. They were certainly of this character here, but they had before all their particular way of representing a science in isolation with the University of that time, and not just one that was to be a high school teacher of science but one that had exceed hoped too well.

When the second shift, the birth of our supervised “humanities” do? In the XIX °, was that the era of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic motion, things are starting to develop. Literature is a “literature of the message.” From the time ?. that has worked with sociology, for example, Zola is the thesis of message, if I dare to say: These novel, theater work, written by philosophers (at the university, at that time there was a long time that we think not)

We are in the third shift, it means: the culmination of thought (that means the end of the literature), as Sartre: read what he says in situations of From the moment literature has been committed, this “committed literature.” is nothing more than a weapon of war, this is nothing more than a science gay (it is even terribly sad!) and that is not more literature, it was a different matter (it belongs to you . to the name as you want)? “And according to Sartre, you may ask, what remains of French literature” is the answer. There is nothing Byzantine I mean the “new novel”, the “theater of the absurd” Nothing “new criticism.” One day, asked me anybody know what the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now left My first reaction was to respond accurately and then, after a thought, I replied!.: “Nothing!”: “. Perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of the emperor Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar” You have to admit that this is not very much you have to understand that French literature is dead, when science was born of men!.

This does not mean that they have no interest. For he spoke of the man until the middle of last century? Well, literature. For the reason that was born since Bacon, it was what he called the naturalist philosophy of the Renaissance and from this philosophy comes the questions of our “science.” And to a science of man (to do with a capital letter!) this creature divinely virtually been excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), the historical role of the winter garden of the man filled (“pre humanities,” or the gay science of modern times) Some people ask me that question. “How is it that after your liberal arts studies, it is dedicated to linguistics, anthropology, and then ? did understand “that the only thing I was interested in life, the answer to this question is: What is a man (with a small letter) literature gave me the first answers, then I began to participate are? what are the highest antiquity and the first real science of man (thinking, language course, was for men), to be exact, it is grammar, called “linguistic” When I was teaching, I took linguistics, logic, anthropology see. you . that in my route, a spiritual and a perfect consistency, I agree with the clip here and I return to my business to understand

you that if someone says to you. “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It was totally cliched (it’s good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all this work in the same shopping cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we need to see that the texts that we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinism. This is what I am responsible to my childhood, because teachers instead of deconstructing the text, they took it global (it was the famous “text declaration”), but it should be different specialists who had treated the texts with different methods have: there is, indeed, works in the literary text, the sociologist, psychoanalyst, historian, psychologist, linguist, etc. In a literary text, there are a lot what to pay for a whole year, the year would be more informative than testing, more or less intuitive from a series of selected pieces. “But it is true that, as would require education, the professor of French literature, a number of knowledge ! and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual, you can believe me, that’s what I tried to practice while I was still a student (a superior student, it’s true) But believe me, I do not regret it.: I am proud to believe it, I am proud to declare my passionate student of the license to it … “The Hare and the Tortoise,” I have never ceased to teach, to read, but wearing a different glasses (already !) This is why I have always thought and continue to believe that the issue of programs and schedules are not interested (this is complete the kitchen.) Content in a general way to have little to do with the spirit of education. What really counts are the glasses, this means that call what some people the method. Therefore, I am of the opinion that literary texts do not succeed in higher education.

Is it necessarily the teaching of French literature in our secondary schools as some people ? remove, will not be used without reason, do I answer “No”, for the simple reason that no one (only a barbarian) is to burn files, but if we do, we should also burn all of our museums.! But a museum, we can field, can we have some stations range to choose from certain oeuvres I could take another example:.. the metropolitan area you go into the train and search the line, with the intention in a few stations to stop. Take this little tourist trains again make the “historic” tour of the city will stop marking time before this or that monument. They all go to laugh, but when I arrive in a city, I do not know, I borrow this little tourist trains and then I’m back to visit, or that monument that interests me most. In other words, what should propose literature French teacher at the end of the secondary, there is a perspective Tour. But this perspective Tour has been demonstrated by the gym coach are proposed, why not, if he has a good taste and if he knows how to read the Michelin Guide and literature to capture the interest of its students

It says, I quickly realized that at the same time that “humanities” were taught our “faculties of Literature and Human Sciences” (it is the “and” here that significant here), were only just literature, although parts were the philosophy License shortly after my studies. It seems that these “humanities” have taught in our schools letters one goal: the man with a small letter, and not a capital letter, as is the case in humanism that never ends, to die Then, some of these literary specialists. Humanities “derived, decorating a man tries to make an object that scientific look. They have taken over from science, not its formalization condition, but his language and appearance, no more or less. So many psychologists, christened” neuropsychologists , “put up with white blouses, have measured their labs, online, etc. However, in the” Labs “, it is certain that they are trying to” verify data “, but the data that is never defined! sociologists make them statistics “and they do not have a model of the underlying phenomena they describe, they can do anything, but they describe (and can not be explained). But how can they describe? with numbers (all the same, it makes them smarter). But statistics are like computers. If the data that we trust to computers is silly, it is certain that the computer with this silliness (computers are ready, with a little work) deal. It’s the same in the statistics. you stupid answer in the answer a stupid question

Finally, have nothing of the science, but the appearance taken my computer, statistical and laboratory, the object “man” (with a small m) is here and it is a virgin, as it entered. It is true that these “humanities” have nothing to do with science, but outside of flattering a simple on grounds of literary, not been able to build scientifically its object to testify.

not it was the sniper, Edgar Morin, who made good on his concept of complexity. I’m not saying that he is stupid, far away, but I say that he thinks we forgot everything from the past and start all over again: “The lost paradigm is lost for good, but I will invent everything” The result says it not for that reason shelters, he, like all writers, behind the complexity of man “Study phosphorus, ok!.! Analyze calves, it is already easier, but compared to a man, a calf is all just the same. One man, he is much more complicated, subtle, it has more endings! “

I was there to take on my career if I had, as it was twenty years ago, the chance to be part of Jean Gagnepain and his disciples. When I met him, I have quickly understood that a truly scientific knowledge of the man meant that we preach to the firing of the main obstacles to the introduction of this new knowledge, starting with this famous “Faculties of Literature and Human Sciences. “Yes, when you refer to as the Renaissance, you can see that was the humanism can not prevail unless under the blows of Rabelais and businesses, the Sorbonne, the block is cracked. But at that time was the old” Sorbonicoles “just . as of today, the reform itself to adapt, but there were other, more realistic, they understood that every reform has already been convicted: It had to do something different That’s exactly what Jean Gagnepain understood

.. In the age group that is no longer the age of humanism, but the age of the anti-humanism, I mean, the treatment of people by the people through the Presidency, the emergence of a true man “Science is the time to be aware what is the main obstacle to the start of this new era. The issue of training not only for tomorrow but for today, was the killing of the literature. Certainly, if the current literature had enemies, it is after the most beautiful Fleuron of humanism at the university. But, as Marx said, while speaking of civil, they were a necessary evil, they have their historical role of being won before the humanities. In this view, called “soft” to the sciences (psychology, sociology, political science) extend the historical role of literature (philosophy, lovely letters, and mentioned the story included). This historical role has passed to men in the fridge they study better while waiting for the science as “natural.”

I would like to say that these “soft” sciences yield before the “hard” sciences are the man known as the work of this genius is still not enough, Jean Gagnepain, which is the real founder of experimental science, man. Let me explain.

It is Freud, Jean Gagnepain was the idea of an explanatory clinic, in other words, a kind of clinic, which transmit it to constantly question the theoretical model of the man who allowed he has developed during almost half a century . This is absolutely fundamental. The one that has really won in the psychoanalytic treatment was Freud, which means that he has never known anyone healed! Freud, in fact, was more and more intelligent and in theory more and more evil, as he submitted his patients healing. That is, if what Jean Gagnepain with the idea of a clinic that he wanted to direct experimental. He said that it was not because we are of “object” I change my “pass” from nature to humans (the construction of this “object” Man, it’s obvious) that we change science: science must, in primarily a coherent model, but also a place of testing. It must be somewhere experiments, where the idea that the hospital had, in the man, the only place of the examination was. to talk about this clinic Jean Gagnepain referred often the work of a mechanic. In a car, it’s rare that anything is wrong at the same time: one is the ignition, then the gasification, etc. It’s why he is always in a mechanic who had learned the mechanical failure in the repair of a comparison car. For, as in a car, only rarely among the people is that everything wrong time. Nothing sets off a blow, we never lose clarity, but the reason could be a task of experimental science

became the way, that the theory of mediation is what we can call a clinical anthropology .. And the mediators (summarized under the name of the school of Rennes grouped), which are also the first in the world, the need to take a scientific approach to the man who follows, of course, to establish a theoretical model race, and also a place of experimentation. In other words, the link between theory and practice is so fundamental that no one can be separated from the other … except, as I will, most often by the convenience of this exposure (and then we can not do everything!)

I’ve talked about Freud, but this does not mean that Jean Gagnepain unconditionally liable on psychoanalysis. It corrects the excesses. Excesses of the detail, because, first, Freud had discovered the unconscious conscience representatives, while there is also a technical “unconscious,” a social “unconscious” and an ethics “unconscious,” and so is Jean Gagnepain the concept of the unconscious is replaced, it implies is .

The second correction is the service that he brings to historicism, in which Freud joined the “stages”, the “regression”, historicism, etc. To find, Jean Gagnepain is not for the primal scene (” primitive scene “), but for the underground scene (” scene fundamental “.)

The second stage is that Jean Gagnepain recognize Ferdinand de Saussure and his structural design of the verbal signs (in fact it is an anachronism: Ferdinand de Saussure never has the word “structure”, he used to “System”) speaks, the discovery of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) has been for Jean Gagnepain, as for many French intellectuals. A real revelation, a revelation that came late (in the late 40′s), while the famous general linguistics course date … from 1916! (It is to say how it works in French university!) Now, the famous linguist Genovese is the first to show that the language was not obvious, but have that after the phenomenon, it was something that Jean Gagnepain baptized as “grammar” for the item to the “rhetoric” that can only be as we see manifested in the set.

But it must be clear that the idea of the “system” Implementation of Saussure and then as a “structure” has been completely by the followers of Saussure, those who are called “structuralists” and then “semiologists” and other All these people are given an important sign of abuse have perverted “semiotics.” everything is for them a sign! This is the full recovery! Jean Gagnepain is the character of considerable importance, but not all in the same way that the structuralists do. He uses it as the analog, this means that the principle of explanatory label is worth, analog, for the tool, the person and the standard. That is, very quickly, which owe Jean Gagnepain Saussure.

Finally, it is the Marxist practice, Jean Gagnepain to the theory of rationality is a membership led. In other words, this idea of practice, borrowed from Marx, led him to the reality of the explanatory principle that the reason is from the outside to ask the man, but in people. And it is also the difference between the sciences of “man” and include the sciences called every two the same rationality, but it turns out that in nature, there is no reason anywhere “nature.” It’s the man , who stated in the other hand, the man has reason, it is even one of the characteristics of the “object” (the man) to study scientifically. So if science as a “man” can (talk mathematics) is not science in a double room because rationality is, at once, the thinker and the object that he studies. It is also important to make this integration of rationality in the object itself (the man), if that’s who we want to study scientifically.

Among those who preceded Jean Gagnepain need that this reality has pushed all alone, it is Marx who, as you know, the story was not the fact the “professional” historians (if historians from France, Art , literature, etc.), but the historians that we all are. What Marx had planned, conscious? A theory of man and the man was defined by history, it was necessary to scientifically as possible to process through the development of historical materialism. Only once have and enjoy the semiology and semiotics a tour Saussure played and mocked the structuralism (including the one of Levi-Strauss), which was a new idealism, the same angel and Feuerbach have played in the same train to the historical materialism of Marx enjoyed by drawing, as long as they were in a position in what has been called. Then materialism generalized, this means that (what Marx has aged, and tired, ended by drawing) the “dialectic materialism”, and all for the evolution of the cosmos was! In other words, the “dialectic materialism” in the production of dialectics, a method to culture (this means for the man), and for nature, there is a complete materialism. In short, “dialectic materialism of Marx drowned, drowned, like Saussure’s structuralism.

That is, at the conclusion, I want to tell you to describe a word to my relationship with Jean Gagnepain. In general terms, I would say that the master does not respect the one we, nor the one with which we break, is that we live by it. In other words, the master, we respect each because the respect is a sign of death. When I speak to you about Jean Gagnepain, I exist. But where am I? But it is not important. This does not say that the memory of Jean Gagnepain is not, in itself, deserving of respect, that we owe to human genius, but we can not minister to me personally to you, through an intermediary, to the extent that we digested, where we do our case. Not a question that can not stop us, a master in history: that would be fine and good, “destroy” according to Sartre

I would add that the master go if he is a master of thought. (Which no longer exists in France a long time) is not a teacher, on the contrary! Take Maître Albert, in the Middle Ages: confusing as Master Albert was with the Sorbonne, he took his clique and his cheerleaders and he did secession, I believe that his neighborhood was on the court, in Paris, gave it its name: the Maubert Plaza. He was there and he followed his cathedra installed outside, and all of it. He had the charisma, he drew crowds, he thought, and he was free.

Now, Jean Gagnepain, if you want, Master Albert of the man is “science. Do you understand these conditions that interfere with his ideas or even indignant, especially for science.

So much better if this thinking that I try to give you is to forward (if “we” made the honor, “us” to follow) I invite you to think

On Writing Well » literature

From the literature on the science of men