A passionate critique of Enlightenment--both in its contemporary invocation and its historical and cultural use--and a call to arms to rethink human equality and liberty without the sacrifice of individual rights and ethnicities.

The notion that all the world's peoples constitute a "brotherhood of man" is not a given among all human beings--it is rather the product of history. So suggests acclaimed philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in _In the Name of Humanity,_ an unsettling reflection on the twentieth century in its twilight hours in which he asks us to rethink our assumptions about universalism and humanism. While many people look to humanist ideals as a deterrent to nationalist chauvinism, Finkielkraut challenges the abstract idea of (...) universalism by describing the terrible crimes "civilized" Europe has committed in its name. At the same time as it challenges the inhumanity of our century's great universalistic solutions, _In the Name of Humanity_ also confronts the more onerous elements of unreflective nationalism--clearly condemning the dangerous use of claims for ethnic purity. However, the book does not put forth a standard-issue polemic against the multitude of nationalistic currents that continue to plague the international arena. Indeed, even as he deplores the violence that seems to go hand in hand with nationalism, Finkielkraut defends its underlying cause--the need to belong. Eloquently quoting the experiences of refugees from Hitler's Germany, he shows the reader why we must heed the call of this irreducible need. Finkielkraut reminds us that the concept of cultural relativism--indeed, the very idea of tolerating other cultures--is a relatively recent development in Western history. As he looks for answers he interrogates the differences between historical racism and the racism embedded in the philosophies of this century's genocidal movements, showing how modern racist ideologies like National Socialism look not to sin within the self as the stumbling block of human advancement but to a clandestine conspiracy by a particular, identifiable element of human society. What this form of radical racist thought eliminates is the notion of personal responsibility--instead of finding the answers to misfortune within the self, modern racism suggests that evil can be identified in others and summarily eliminated. Lucidly connected to the ideas of past thinkers, from Plato to Levinas to Hannah Arendt, Finkielkraut's latest work is a troubling indictment of our century that refuses to back away from the "messiness" of human life and culture. In his willingness to abjure simple solutions, he offers a glimmer of hope. (shrink)

Everything in their respective positions divides them: Alain Badiou is the thinker of a revitalized communism and Alain Finkielkraut the mournful observer of the loss of values. The two opponents, gathered here for their first-ever debate, have irreconcilable visions. Yet neither is a stranger to controversy, and in this debate they make explicit the grounds of their personal dispute as well as addressing, in a frank and open exchange, their ideas and theories. Guided by Aude Lancelin, the two philosophers discuss (...) subjects as diverse as national identity, Israel and Judaism, May 1968, and renewed popularity of the idea of communism. Their passionate debate is more than just the sum total of their disagreements, however, for neither of them is satisfied with the state of our society or the direction in which its political representatives persist in taking it. They agree that there needs to be change and their confrontation in this volume shows the importance of asking difficult questions, not only of each other, but also of our political systems. (shrink)

"Aujourd'hui, notre pitié ne s'arrête plus à l'humanité. Elle continue sur sa lancée. Elle repousse les frontières. Elle élargit le cercle du semblable. Quand un coin du voile est levé sur l'invivable existence des poules, des vaches ou des cochons dans les espaces concentrationnaires qui ont succédé aux fermes d'autrefois, l'imagination se met aussitôt à la place de ces bêtes et souffre avec elles. L'homme moderne est tiraillé entre une ambition immense et une compassion sans limite. Il veut être le (...) Seigneur de la Création et il découvre progressivement en lui la faculté de s'identifier à toutes les créatures. Ainsi s'explique l'irruption récente de la cause animale sur la scène politique. La nouvelle sensibilité aux animaux aura-t-elle le pouvoir de changer la donne ou l'impératif de rentabilité continuera- t-il à faire la loi, en dépit de tous les cris du coeur?" A. F. (shrink)

Alain Finkielkraut et Peter Sloterdijk mettent leurs pensées à l'épreuve des événements. Sous un ciel d'étoiles éteintes, les sujets s'imposent d'eux-mêmes : l'utopie qui menace, le culte de l'Autre et la question de l'ennemi, le destin des Juifs à l'heure d'Israël, la démocratisation du luxe, l'écologie de la beauté, la fracture de l'Occident, la critique de la raison extrémiste et la recherche du principe de réalité ; qu'est-ce qu'être adulte? Tout ce qui est sérieux revient et tout ce qui est (...) sérieux s'en va. A partir de ces deux évidences contradictoires surgissent les nouvelles lignes de partage dans la confrontation mondiale invisible dont l'enjeu est le poids des choses : la guerre du léger et du lourd. (shrink)

La crise est un moment singulier de l’existence des hommes et du monde où l’ordre habituel des choses se met à vaciller et menace même de retourner au chaos. On la redoute donc le plus souvent, en essayant de l’éviter. Mais plutôt que d’en craindre le pire, ne peut-on en espérer le meilleur : dans sa violence même, la crise ne fait-elle pas apparaître de nouvelles possibilités d’être? Ne faut-il pas alors tâcher de s’en saisir comme l’occasion d’une renaissance, aussi (...) bien dans l’existence personnelle des individus que dans la vie collective des peuples? (shrink)