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.
It is noticeable that French students on average can construct better arguments than their peers thanks to these teenage philosophy lessons.
I was going to say that I had few French students, but one of the brightest wrote these quite elegant essays - but almost devoid of evidence. Then, checking something else, I came across this from Perry Anderson, former editor of New Left Review; writing about the intellectual scene in France in the late 60s:
Viewed comparatively, the striking feature of the human sciences and philosophy that counted in this period was the extent to which they came to be written increasingly as virtuoso exercises of style, drawing on the resources and licences of artistic rather than academic forms. Lacan's Ecrits, closer to Mallarmé than Freud in their syntax, or Derrida's Glas, with its double-columned interlacing of Genet and Hegel, represent extreme forms of this strategy. But Foucault's oracular gestures, mingling echoes of Artaud and Bossuet, Lévi-Strauss's Wagnerian constructions, Barthes's eclectic coquetries, belong to the same register. To understand this development, one has to remember the formative role of rhetoric, seeping through the dissertation, in the upper levels of the French educational system in which all these thinkers - khâgneux and normaliens virtually to a man - were trained, as a potential hyphen between literature and philosophy. Even Bourdieu, whose work took as one of its leading targets just this rhetorical tradition, could not escape his own version of its cadences; far less such as Althusser, against whose obscurities the sociologist railed. The potential cost of a literary conception of intellectual disciplines is obvious enough: arguments freed from logic, propositions from evidence." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n17/perry-anderson/degringolade
To understand this development, one has to remember the formative role of rhetoric, seeping through the dissertation, in the upper levels of the French educational system in which all these thinkers - khâgneux and normaliens virtually to a man - were trained, as a potential hyphen between literature and philosophy. Even Bourdieu, whose work took as one of its leading targets just this rhetorical tradition, could not escape his own version of its cadences; far less such as Althusser, against whose obscurities the sociologist railed. The potential cost of a literary conception of intellectual disciplines is obvious enough: arguments freed from logic, propositions from evidence."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n17/perry-anderson/degringolade
Fortunately now there is Michel Onfray, whose works, like those on Freud, Nietzsche and Camus, have massive amounts of evidence, meticulously researched. Though even he is given to rhetorical flourishes which would have been alien to British philosophers - until some succumbed to French intellectual fashion. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
On the other hand, you have the survivors of the old French empiricist tradition. No good examples really come to mind at the moment (Braudel, perhaps? But I only know him by name, never got around to reading his books, sadly), but I have several memories of reading VERY details and evidence oriented historical works by French authors. Many French historians were also involved with exceptionally solid and sound economic and demographic reconstruction projects. French anthropology, especially the early stuff, had a reputation of being too detail-oriented to be useful as anything other than reference material - just the facts, m'am.
On the other hand, you have the survivors of the old French empiricist tradition. No good examples really come to mind at the moment (Braudel, perhaps?
As it happens, in the very next sentence, Anderson says:
Historians were least prone to such an import substitution of literature, but even Braudel was not immune to the loosening of controls in a too flamboyant eloquence. It is this trait of the French culture of the time that has so often polarised foreign reactions to it, in a seesaw between adulation and suspicion.
Anderson is trying to identify some general features of French intellectual culture at the time which were dominant and very influential outside France (e.g. the people you cite).
Significantly, in considering exceptions to his generalisation you say:
No good examples really come to mind at the moment
He would, of course, acknowledge that French culture even during this period did include many empiricist works. But they were not at the top of the hierarchy which existed:
Traditionally, literature had always occupied the summit on the slopes of prestige within French culture. Just below it lay philosophy, surrounded with its own nimbus, the two adjacent from the days of Rousseau and Voltaire to those of Proust and Bergson. On lower levels were scattered the sciences humaines, history the most prominent, geography or ethnology not far away, economics further down.
Also he is talking about those works which had national and international influence:
The reception of this effervescence abroad varied from country to country, but no major culture in the West, not to speak of Japan, was altogether exempt from it.
by gmoke - Oct 4
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 38 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 12 comments
by Oui - Sep 3025 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 285 comments
by Oui - Sep 2722 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1338 comments
by Cat - Sep 1312 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment