Comment le système d’enseignement d’aujourd’hui fonctionne mal

Les enfants vont à l’école, innocents et motivés d’apprendre et de devenir intelligents. Avec le temps, ils comprennent qu’il faut fournir des efforts pour l’école que l’on n’a pas toujours envie de fournir. Ils reçoivent l’explication matérialiste (et illusoire) qu’ils vont à l’école pour pouvoir plus tard avoir un travail (vocation suprême du citoyen selon les pouvoirs en place). Du coup, peu à peu, à l’école secondaire, de plus en plus d’élèves commencent à ne pas fournir des efforts pour étudier – ils vont à l’école non pas pour devenir intelligents mais surtout pour recevoir leur diplôme à la fin, après tout. Et leur dire que ce n’est pas ainsi, que leur vie a plus de sens et de dignité que juste de satisfaire leurs besoins matériels et d’être utiles à la société – ce serait un pire crime contre le relativisme et matérialisme de renier ces deux sens ou d’affirmer d’autres !
Grace à cette blague de “lutte contre l’échec scolaire”, on les laisse passer – la situation est tellement désespérante que l’on ne voit pas une autre solution à part les laisser passer… pour qu’ils puissent avoir leur diplômes et en finir avec ces Hugo et Mendeleïev “à la con” qu’ils n’aiment pas (car personne n’a voulu instaurer en eux la passion de l’intelligence). Ainsi, on décide de démocratiser l’enseignement et de le rendre obligatoire même pour les familles qui avant pouvaient se permettre de payer pour ou d’organiser une meilleure éducation pour leurs enfants. Cette démocratisation essaie de mettre les enfants de familles de bas statut social ou en précarité (qui, à cause du matérialisme et de la précarité, ne sont pas autant motivés de devenir intelligents que d’avoir de l’argent) avec les enfants de familles de classe moyenne. On finit – “grâce” au système et à ses valeurs – par corrompre aussi la classe moyenne… et avec ceci, la majorité de la population.
Pour se rassurer que les professeurs serviront les pouvoirs en place, on limite leur liberté professionnelle et on instaure un système de compétences bien précises et bien définies – mais qui sont complètement centrées surtout sur l’idée que chaque enfant va à l’école pour pouvoir, plus tard, avoir un boulot – et non pas pour développer sa propre humanité et intelligence.
Egalement, on enseigne aux futurs professeurs, sous prétention de neutralité, des idées révolutionnaires, “prolétariennes” (lire “marxistes”) et matérialistes, et pro la “démocratisation de l’enseignement” et de la société. Toute chose dite est sous les prémices de l’Education nouvelle, et toute pensée qui pourra se montrer à l’esprit qui contredit ce système doit être éliminé car elle empêche le conditionnement des futurs professeurs dans le but de faire d’eux des soumis aux pouvoirs en place.
Envoyer son enfant dans un milieu pareil, et sans instruction parentale pour le protéger contre les effets qui proviennent du relativisme, du réductionnisme et du matérialisme, est une forme de maltraitance de l’enfant.

J’ai donc décidé :
- que j’essayerai d’être un bon (et neutre) enseignant, en accord avec ma conscience, mon amour pour les élèves et leur droit à un enseignement humain, et ceci malgré certains éléments de la pédagogie qui m’est enseignée ! Tout ceci se fera dans le cadre de ce que la loi me permet – pour ne pas faire peur aux parents et pour assurer l’argent pour le pain et l’enseignement de mes propres enfants.
- que je laisserai mes enfants le moins de temps possible dans l’enseignement à l’école, et probablement que je leur assurerai un enseignement à domicile intégral, si pas ici en Europe occidentale – j’aurai le regret de devoir le faire ailleurs !

 

Remarque sur la démocratie et la démocratisation de l’enseignement

Le passage de l’ancien ordre à l’ordre moderne pouvait avoir deux fondamentalement bons côtés.
D’abord, il pouvait étendre graduellement la noblesse jusqu’à ce que la noblesse et le peuple soient presque la même chose (après tout, la démocratie dans son bon état est sensée être le gouvernement par le peuple qui est la noblesse). Ceci a échoué – le peuple n’est pas devenu d’une façon prédominante intelligent et honorable, et ainsi le peuple n’est pas noble et ne peut être vu comme un bon gouvernant.
Deuxièmement, la démocratie était capable de limiter le pouvoir du chef d’état en ayant une place constitutionnelle qui restreint son pouvoir. Même si les chefs d’état eux-mêmes ont peu de pouvoir dans plusieurs pays, la démocratie a laissé l’enseignement être entièrement géré par le gouvernement (élu par les représentants eux-mêmes élus par le peuple), laissant peu de place aux initiatives de groupes et individus non-liés à la bureaucratie au pouvoir. Ainsi, il n’y a point de moyen de restreindre les décisions du ministère de l’enseignement.

Where the case of our Holy Faith is strongest

“[N]othing is more beautiful, profound, sympathetic, reasonable, manly, and perfect than Christ [and] not only is there nothing more but there can be nothing more.” – Dostoevsky

It seems to me that empirical science itself, in order to be consistent with its method based on empirical experience, has to work with the physical universe as if it is a closed system where nothing else intervenes. This is its advantage (no arbitrary ex-nihilo appearances accepted) and its limit (science can’t tell anything about what is not contained in the Cosmos). Naturalists say that all knowledge other than that is either illusory or else useless speculation that makes things more complicated than they would be in the naturalist explanation.

Ultimately, practical reason and human psychology seem to be much more on our side than science. Science is limiting, because if naturalism (or, in other words, the “sexed-up atheism” called pantheism) are true, then God (or Being-itself), and we as part of him, are a meaningless thing that *just is* for eternity – which as a mode of being is still completely possible to be studied by science.

This meaninglessness, however, renders inherently purposeless (a) the search and knowledge of truth and (b) our decision to believe in free will or in determinism.
Knowledge of truth needs to be inherently significant, and thus we human persons need to be inherently significant beings – otherwise it doesn’t make any objective difference whether we know the truth (naturalism or supernaturalism) or we don’t. And for this, God (Being-itself) needs to be *both* transcendent and immanent, not just the latter. This should be an axiom of sorts, a first principle of practical reason.
In the same way, free will alone is the only explanation of the validity of our choice to believe or not in free will. What I mean by this is: if I was determined since forever to believe or to disbelieve in free will, then the absence of any real decision makes my belief about free will inherently irrelevant – and thus, from a practical point of view, it makes no difference.

The necessity of bona fide on both sides is absolute, that said. Both naturalists and theists should know that all the rational debates are done under premises, and that no set of irreligious premises is more neutral, self-evident or natural than any set of religious premises – and vice-versa. It is utterly unconvincing to argue that your beliefs are self-evident – and thus it is, in practice, purposeless.
Something similar goes about arguments about revelation – it is impossible to pass down the experience of the Triune God that prophets have from that one person to another – just as my personal experience of both the created and the uncreated is unique, different from your personal experience of the created and the uncreated. Thus, a leap of faith, a will to positively believe in either naturalism or theism is required.

Here, the Nietzschean can come and say that it is our duty to let ourselves be shaped by the unbearable and meaningless truth of our worthlessness and meaninglessness – and that if this doesn’t kill us, then one day the Ubermensch will emerge. Only the psychology of the human person can tell the him “No, rather than to will to believe that I am just an element, part of an eternally-evolving meaningless Cosmos, I will choose to believe that I was created by an all-loving God.” Only few are capable of living in the way that Nietzsche argued we should – both Frederich Nietzsche and Anton LaVey knew that one is by birth to be this self-made divinity or isn’t at all.
But just as anyone is free to try to become a self-made god, so even these strong men are actually capable of desiring God. Christians are neither monists nor dualists – and thus they can agree with the necessity of asceticism believed by Eastern religions, but also with the preference to desire and love the good rather than to reject and hate evil – the Nihilists’ idea that one ought, above all else, be a yes-sayer. We have much to offer both of these groups – as long as we actually show that there are saints who live by God’s law and love – that only in Christ is there a solution that denies no single experience of the human being.

It is, above all, by His presence in the lives of the Saints that God is capable of triggering a person’s will to believe in the Him. Also, even if we may perceive this as the logical fallacy of “ad hominem” (for example Christian hypocrisy doesn’t prove our Faith wrong), actually our incapacity to show non-Christians living examples of people living our Faith is the most compelling argument against our case – it makes Nihilists call us hypocrites who deny man all that is human to him, and makes them want to be unlike us.
As the Russian Saint Seraphim of Sarov has said – “Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved.”

Le vœu pieux de l’égalité

Objectivement, la nature ne suggère point de besoin, de nécessité et/ou de justice vis-à-vis le concept de l’égalité – que celle-ci soit entre deux ou plusieurs individus ou groupes, et qu’elle soit dans le domaine social, culturel, économique ou politique. Au contraire, la sélection naturelle suggère le conflit entre la volonté des forts et celle des faibles et la victoire des premiers, peu importe qui dit ou veut quoi. Dans le meilleur cas, l’égalitarisme est un vœu pieux, dans le pire – c’est une expression d’envie du faible envers le fort. En tout cas, c’est une opinion erronée. L’égalitarisme est le résultat des opinions erronés (a) que les choses n’ont pas une nature qui leur est propre et inhérente, (b) que l’ordre social spontané est toujours pire que l’ordre social bâti sur la volonté et les calculs de l’homme, et (c) que la société existe non pas parce que c’est inhérent pour l’homme d’appartenir à une communauté non-choisie mais que la société est fondée sur le consentement, sur un “contrat social”.

La seule manière de juger si quelque chose ne va pas bien dans le monde, c’est d’apprendre comment le monde marche proprement – en observant le monde. Il ne peut y avoir une injustice dans la façon d’être du monde, car toute notion de justice ne peut qu’être tirée de la façon d’être du monde (ou révélée par le Créateur du monde). L’homme ne va pas devenir beaucoup plus bienfaisant ou malfaisant si on essaie de réinviter la société selon des calculs – il faut toujours tenir compte de ce qui est bien et de ce qui est mal dans l’homme. Le sexe masculin, en général, est né plus fort que le féminin, plus autoritaire et ne peut pas porter d’enfants – donc c’est naturel et juste que tous les soldats soient des hommes, que la société soit patriarcale, et que l’homme ait plus de liberté sexuelle que la femme. Selon les standards naturels de notre espèce, ceci est juste – toute notion d’injustice ne peut venir que des opinions abstraits (“notre espèce n’est pas sensée être comme elle est… car ca me déplaît”).*

Si certains veulent prouver qu’homme et femme s’est “pareil”, qu’ils sont interchangeables, que, comme le comte de Maistre a dit, “la nature de la vipère est d’avoir des ailes et une voix mélodieuse, et que celle du castor est de vivre isolé sur le sommet des plus hautes montagnes” – c’est à eux de le prouver. Jusqu’à là, il ne faut que se baser sur ce dont on a déjà eu l’expérience – notamment le monde, tel qu’il est.

 

*Dans d’autres cas, la révélation peut aussi donner une explication de la souffrance des personnes dans l’état dans lequel le monde est et leur sens d’injustice (“l’humanité est déchue de son état originel”). Sans cette révélation, c’est Nietzsche qui a raison: “Il ne faut rien demander d’autre, ni dans le passé, ni dans l’avenir, pour toute éternité. Il faut non seulement supporter ce qui est nécessaire, et encore moins le cacher — tout idéalisme c’est le mensonge devant la nécessité — il faut aussi l’aimer”.

En défense de l’Homme

(contre le panthéisme écologiste)

L’un des opinions les plus dégoûtants et répugnants du monde, c’est celui de l’homme las de l’homme, l’homme qui ne veut plus de l’homme. Et pourquoi ? Parce que, certains disent, l’homme est mauvais pour la nature. Avons-nous évolué et somme-nous devenus l’espèce dominante sur terre, le “roi de la Création”, juste pour finir par être fatigués de nos passions et de nos désirs et de dire à l’homme qu’il doit laisser la “nature” tranquille, comme s’il ne fait pas partie de la nature; qu’il doit disparaître pour qu’elle demeure belle, comme si sa beauté peut valoir quelque chose sans l’homme; qu’il doit non pas évoluer mais s’en aller, comme s’il doit d’un coup devenir faible; qu’il doit renoncer à ces instruments “artificiels”, comme s’ils ne sont pas le fruit de son intelligence suprême. En effet, c’est cet opinion névrotique qui empêche l’homme de regagner de volonté de vivre et de se remettre sur ses pieds.

Non ! L’homme est la mesure de toute chose ! Soit parce qu’il est créé à l’image divin, soit parce qu’il ne peut juger l’univers que de son point de vue et en son faveur. S’il n’y a pas de Créateur pour rendre toute particule et toute personne signifiante dans l’univers, alors il n’y a pas de mal objectif dans l’extinction de l’homme, mais il n’y en a pas non plus dans la pollution et la destruction de la terre…

Non ! La terre est là pour l’homme ! S’il ne peut pas toujours la traiter avec amour, il peut encore moins arrêter de la traiter tout court – elle est son “chez soi”.

The authoritarian leap of faith

In modern society, it has become common, thanks to modernity and, more specifically, the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, that we question authority. Almost everything that has good and beauty in itself is questioned, as long as it doesn’t conform to the emancipation of individuals from dependence. Critical thinking is, of course, nothing new. What is new is the modern “will to disbelieve”, “will to subvert”.

 

It is interesting that Nietzsche has accused Christianity for starting that, by refusing to believe in all but one God. Alain de Benoist seems to have a similar perspective. But I believe that the centuries of Christian monarchies and the hierarchical structure of the Orthodox Church (as well as the Roman Catholic) have shown that the problem cannot be, intrinsically, Christianity. Certainly, Christianity insists that it is important not worship false gods, and that the negation of what is false is a duty. Indeed, Orthodox theology is primarily based on the experience of revelation. But in theology, unlike in modern empirical science, the argument from authority is to be taken seriously. A Christian as the duty to at least try to submit to Holy Tradition and believe, he must have the “will to believe” towards the Truth which has been experienced and once delivered unto the saints. A Christian can refute as much falsehoods as he sees, and still things will not crumble, because of the direct experience of Truth, of God’s uncreated energies. Man can be in communion with Truth, Truth is not (like the, in a way, Gnostic modernity says) “unattainable”.

God has created all things good, and depravity is certainly not total. Thus, like the pagans, the Christians also serve to their rulers and their fatherland, they also respect the fatherhood and priesthood. What was adored was now venerated; the old natural gods were now the venerable and beautiful creation of God. The cultural, spiritual and social benefits of this mindset were enormous – society was sometimes thriving, and rarely decaying as ours does perpetually.  In the same time, individuals lived lives of humility and simplicity, and were more advanced to the realisation of their personhood than modern, vocationally and TV educated man.

People, in Christendom just as in Pagandom, were informed that man can be malevolent but this didn’t mean that humans should mistrust each other. They knew fathers and kings can abuse their authority, but also knew that these cases were the exceptions, not the rule, and that authority should be obeyed the most often possible, at the expense of self-interest and desire. This is devotion, the thing that our society of free “love” seems not to have in abundance.

 

I will propose, here, two explanations which are not self-serving to modernity that can tell how we have arrived at this point where authority is seen as inherently untrustworthy and human rights as axiomatic. The first one is the abuse of authority by imperfect men (clergy, nobility, husbands, etc.) as having created suffering, doubt and finally rebellion, led by a desperate desire for emancipation. This narrative can be seen in this essay by Abp. Lazar of Ottawa. The second explanation is the adoption of a dogmatic principle of negation by the Enlightenment, who decided that they will refute all authority and leave the individual free to become educated and good. This article by David Withun seems to speak about the prejudice in this very principle.

What seem to have happened are indeed both of these things. Sometimes through telling the truth, sometimes through slander, revolutionaries have subverted the traditional Christian authorities in religion, politics and culture. The immorality among the clergy and the impiety of certain monarchs have lead the leaders of the revolutions prefer not to eliminate these authorities because they were immoral, but because they didn’t let everyone else do the same. Dry spiritual atheism became also cultural and political.

Of course, the outrage that hypocrisy itself created was a honest phenomenon for some, but others only shouted down hypocrites because those hypocrites defended the gates to complete freedom and well-being.

Today, we can see that they were wrong (in beliefs, at least) not only from a Christian perspective, but from a post-modern perspective as well. They were prejudiced, like the “Dark ages” they so despised. They held the prejudice that it is the default view that man has freedom because of his supposed “state of nature”, that men are equal because of the unjustified belief in an inherent dignity of the animal homo sapiens, and that authority is a social construct – but somehow human rights are not.

 

The post-modernists, of course, have prescribed the wrong cure – through their prejudice. They saw fit that it is more desirable to leave the individual to be liberated from all cultural “conditioning” and be the only source of his beliefs and opinions. On the other hand, I think that it is necessary to re-establish authority within culture, if individuals are to get along at all. The family, for example, is being destroyed; nay, men-women relations are being destroyed by the constant questioning of the trustworthiness of the one by the other. Women must be encouraged to take the leap of faith, at the risk of suffering, and to trust unconditionally that men will not rape or disrespect them. Men must be encouraged, culturally, to take the leap of faith, at the risk of suffering, and to trust unconditionally that women will not put them in jail or dump them for an alpha male.

And in order that we establish a culture of trust, we must establish an authoritarian culture where authority is not seen *only* for the mutual benefit, but also for the very preservation of what makes us human. Men must be seen as good by women, and women – as good by men, community and family – as unquestionably good. Where there are rights, there is a provider/protector of rights – and it is him that the beneficiary of these rights must obey. Rights are only one part of the very principle of the community (rights and obedience on the side of the ruled/weak, duties and authority on the side of the ruling/strong). These rights don’t exist outside of the community! (It may seem repugnant – but prove me wrong!)

Unbalanced by the “will to believe”, by communion with and faith in God, the “will to disbelieve” becomes the Gnostic thought prison in which the West will, probably, die.

An evolutionary argument against non-essentialism

“Physical reality does not exist only in local points or constructs; the parts are consummated in the whole, while the whole is not simply the sum of the parts. The parts behave as they do because of the whole, and not the reverse. Even with humanity, there is a single nature of all mankind; however each person is gifted with an individual personhood, a “hypostasis.” The single human nature consists in what all have in common and which is subject to the so-called “laws of nature.” The hypostasis, or individual personhood is added to man be grace…Without our distinct hypostasis, we might be only a member of a herd or tribe of animal. It is this hypostasis that we develop individually, yet within the framework of the human nature.” — Archbishop Lazar of Ottawa, Our changing paradigms, Science and faith: a dialogue*

 

“If [human nature] evolves, it would not be much faster than the geological profile of the earth.” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

I find it difficult to believe that a person who believes that we have descended from apes, who – like all animals, extinct or living – had a fixed nature, would believe that human beings don’t have one.

I am not opposed to the idea that we should accept a common existential condition which binds all human beings but which is lived (and suffered) by each of us individually.
I will also not argue here that human beings are unlikely to be capable of reasoning in a valid way if evolution has happened and materialism was true. Indeed, this article will not talk at all about metaphysical materialism.

Here is my argument, briefly expressed:

  • Major premise: All species have a fixed special nature/essence.
  • Minor premise: Humans are a species.
  • Conclusion: Humans have a fixed special nature/essence.

My argument presupposes that a theory of evolutionary common descent is true, otherwise there need be no necessary common property between the human species and the other species. I do, however, think that humans have an individual personhood, as the above quote by archbishop Lazar of Ottawa suggests.

Thus I think that the whole idea of “existence precedes essence” to be, chronologically speaking, untrue. Indeed, if we human beings are whatever we desire to be and are bound  (in an essence of sorts) only by the fact that we have free will, we would deny that we are one species since biology presupposes many determined and physical properties in common between the members of a species.

So, just as there is a place for individual privacy, freedom, consciousness, there is also a place for the tribe, nay, for tribalism and communitariansm. Indeed, if there is a “state of nature” that binds all human beings, then this state of nature would be composed of that which all human beings have in common, in the past, the present and the future (the last not being empirically observable). Thus, man today is just as much a man “in the state of nature” as he was during tribal times. And “herd instincts” are what we have inherited from our ancestors, human and pre-human, as explained by the concept of biological altruism. In this state, animals have all in common with us humans except the individual personhood. If we have the capacity not to behave altruistically, then we are an exception, but because we also have the capacity to behave altruistically, we are still a species.

In the “state of nature” of all other species, there is no personhood, there is no private property, there is no pure and uncorrupted “good savage”; there are only the genes, “telling” the animal to spread them; hence the impossibility for the claim “human nature is a social construct” to be true. Just because you think that a fixed (albeit evolving slowly and organically) essence can be disobeyed and/or transcended doesn’t mean that it does not suggest itself as a norm.

Even if we have free will (I believe we do), there is still a lot of determinacy in the cosmos – including much of the biological functioning of our own bodies. Determinism denies free will. Libertarianism does not deny all determinacy – it accepts free will as an exception, in fact. The non-organic matter from which we evolved certainly doesn’t have free will. Free will is necessary for man to be existentially conscious, but it does not necessarily trump down all causality and its influence and/or its prescriptive nature.

Just because if essentialism was true you would be less free than if it wasn’t doesn’t mean one bit that essentialism is false, or that you don’t have free will.

If we are to preserve any sort of community, we have no viable and historically-tested choices except to look at how other animals preserve their communities – through the “herd mentality”. Because only in a community can we be altruistic, and only in a community can we recognize each other as human persons – something much more than simply individuals (that is, individual manifestations of the same species).

 

* The reader is warned that this post does not guarantee to represent the view that Archbishop Lazar of Ottawa has on these issues.

 

Further reading: