Kant, in fact, is in my opinion the core of misunderstanding. Reading Dany-Robert Dufour, I seem to hear Bayrou, humanism to slap shots, never seeing that the problem can not be resolved through transcendental Kantian idealism, as a master of school mid Dad Christmas, mid bogeyman. If he speaks of Lacan, Kant, Freud, with hints I dare define "pedagogues" enlightening and always frankly stimulants, Dufour does not come out of his libertarian ... superego, with this rather annoying attitude of to justify his "authority" intellectual front doxa CNRS and other state sociologists (bo (n) urdieusien, actually) waiting confession: "No, definitely not, I'm not a terrible reactionary" .
Moreover, the plain reading of Pasolini enough to not swallow the social democratic lie, compromise between capital and labor, the one who wants ensure that Dufour called the true individualization. This approach is commendable but still irresistibly optimistic, yet imbued with the idealism of the Enlightenment. What is the purpose of my main criticism? She comes.
Dufour Kant ranks among the "taming" of the entire liberal fair. But he likes it or not - although he knows full well - Kant is the great "Father" of the Enlightenment, with all that they contain anthropological naivety. Consequently, when Dufour Kant wants to save the soldier of liberalism by maintaining a safeguard (which is only a crutch) by transcendental he sees any more than Kant Liberal IS, which explains the difficulties encountered contortion The perverse in Cité: Liberalism and pornography from Dufour to explain how Lacan has understood nothing of Kant himself, the immaculate concept, incapable of the famous "double bind" the Puritan perverse developed in his essay.
Yet the Frankfurt School had already solved the problem Kant / Sade (The Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments): "The affinity between knowledge and planning, which Kant gave an experimental basis and giving all aspects of bourgeois existence, fully rationalized even in break time, an inevitable finality of nature, has been empirically exposed by Sade a century before the advent of sport. " (Marx Horkheimer, Theodor W.Adorno, The dialectic of reason - Juliette or reason and morality, p.136).
Closer to home, Fabrice Hadjadj notes that "the defender of moral rigor is also the advocate of political liberalism" (p.60) and did not fail to address this sensitive issue in Paradise at the door: Test on a joy Inconvenient Hadjadj. Fabrice (2011) Paperback; from the first pages of his very rich book, the philosopher recalls sufficiently illuminating these lines to prevent blindness philosophical: "We see emerge some projects following different eras, and often full of against-sense, which aim to provide own to religion, throughout the whole of a people more shine together Show more strength before which we can not help crying. "Poor mortals, nothing you n It is undisputed that the inconstancy "Now make a supposition. Suppose the efforts of this man's wisdom is still, ultimately, produces fruit. Assume that the people themselves take interest, if not the more detail, at least in general, the improvement of its moral power. This movement is not imposed by the authority, it is born of a real need, in general aspiration. If it is so, does he not agree to let all these people go their way, let them do it? "
(Immanuel Kant, The end of all things, in Considerations on optimism and other texts, Festugiere translation, Paris, Vrin, 1972, p.229)
The "perpetual peace" has to condition of possibility that this "let it go" and justice, in this configuration, is only an adjustment. Hadjadj notes that "instead of a politics of the common good, just a mechanical individual interests." (P.61 of his book). Thus we can better approach the malaise facing Dufour Rawls, model-rival he tries to relegate the academic leftism with his "theory of justice", which will "respect [that] world is possible, that would be populated by zombies reasonable completely unrelated to the tragedy of the human condition, but this world is not ours, alas, perhaps. Lirénisme naive, pompous, academic and sometimes ridiculous developments of "Theory of Justice" mapparaît today a foul against mind . Do not see evil for what it is, this is an accomplice sen "(Dupuy, Had we forgotten the harm? Think politics after September 11, Paris, Bayard, 2002)
Ultimately, it remains to understand the liberal phenomenon in its religious dimension, without scanning the religious into a "flick" transcendental, but to validate the anthropologically. To this end, it would be out of the French academia, too supercilious about such thorny issues (just read the excessive prudence of Jean-Claude Monod ...), to the point of stifling yet (but not for long) Max Weber and René Girard ... not to mention Maurice Hocart ...