For once I find myself envying people glued on Twitter, or Facebook NRJ 12. They, at least, must ignore the pompous ruler, Marcel Gauchet has just committed a new book, The Rise of Democracy, Volume 3. The house Gallimard, which publishes the person (not interesting, unfortunately ) has enough tact to impose, according to the reference elevator system that now characterizes the French edition (or rather international, because the French, there is a lot more) on all trays on all media that claim to culture. It is therefore difficult to escape as the last Houellebecq or last Onfray (quickly forgotten, well, that one). We will be brief. Why continue to believe Gauchet he is a thinker? By interest? Surely not, nobody buys his books [...]. Christian charity? Surely not, our time is neither charitable nor Christian. So why? It is cruel. Let's stop this charade. Mr. Marcel Gauchet is not unwillingly he has, a thinker. Besides, there are more than thinkers or intellectuals in France from say Michel Foucault. Shuffle Master, to whom some people sometimes accuse peremptory judgments to the punch, will, at helots that compliments their comments virtuous indignation, support his opinion by arguments whose lucidity vies to depth of analysis. Gauchet has no thought, no original analysis; he simply recycle what others have (and already better) said before him. To his credit (public ...), it must be recognized that all or almost already mentioned. The advent of democracy has, therefore, found its audience all: that of the students preparing the IEP (not all, is not just those in the third or fourth way) and be in a reduced packaging, most of what we'll ask them in constitutional law, political economy and history of political ideas. Production of Gauchet is reminiscent of factories of various SICTOM dotting the France and produce compost which nobody wants. What good is an nth analysis of totalitarianism? Gauchet pricks of universalism; one day I touch of philosophy, another of law or political science. When will a sum from the hard rock of the seventies (careful, Marcel, here the past clients)? Encyclopaedists 18th, which Gauchet would look like as had, in turn and in spite of the diversity of disciplines, a style, a paw. Gauchet has none (e): This monkey gibberish philosophers (The Disenchantment of the world) and that of lawyers. Last remark, which was sufficient in itself; Gauchet does not understand, he's on his cloud, beside his pumps. Proof: page 627 we read that "the vast majority of French was favorable in 1945 with the idea of a new constitution." At 45, the French thought of everything, EXCEPT for a new constitution. Go see people, Marcel, question them, instead of telling anything. A new constitution .... How to give any credibility to someone capable of writing such ...... the French language, despite its wealth seems here helplessly. Awkwardness, perhaps? Thank you that? I said that I will make short, I lied.
