Transcript
Claire ParnetSo, "Q" is "Question." Philosophy serves to pose questions and problems, and questions are constructed, and as you say, their purpose is not so much to answer them as to leave these questions behind. So, for example, leaving the history of philosophy behind meant creating new questions for you. But here, in an interview, one doesn't ask you questions, they really aren't questions, so how do I leave this behind, how do you leave this behind? What does one do, make a forced choice? First, what is the difference between a question in the mass media and a question in philosophy, to start at the beginning?
That's difficult, because. . . I'd say. . . That's difficult, because. . . In the media most of the time, or in conversations, there are no questions, no problems, there are interrogations. If I say, "how are you doing?", it doesn't constitute a problem, even if you aren't doing well at all. "What time is it?" It's not a problem. All of those are interrogations. People inquire about each other. If one sees the usual level on television, even in supposedly serious broadcasts, it's full of interrogations. Saying "what do you think of this?" does not constitute a problem. It's an interrogation, it's "what is your opinion?" That's why t.v. isn't very interesting. People's opinions, they don't have a very lively interest for me. If someone asks me: "Do you believe in God?" That's an interrogation. Where is the problem there, where is the question? There is no question, there is no problem. So if one asked questions or problems in a t.v. show, [the number of broadcasts] is vast, sure, but it happens rarely. . . The political t.v. shows do not encompass, to my knowledge, a single problem. They could do so, they could, for example, ask about people: "How do we pose the Chinese question?" But they don't ask, they usually invite specialists on China who say things about contemporary China that one could figure out all by oneself, without knowing anything about China. It's great! So it's not at all their domain. I'll return therefore to my example, because it's huge: God, what is the problem or question about God? It's not whether one believes in God or not, which doesn't interest many people, but what does it mean when one says the word "God"? Does this mean. . . I'm going to imagine the questions. That could mean: are you going to be judged after death? So how is this a problem? Because this establishes a problematic relationship between God and the agency of judgment. Is God a judge? This is a question. Ok then. . . I suppose someone might say to us, Pascal. Pascal wrote a famous text, the one on the bet: does God exist or not? One bets on it, and then one reads Pascal's text, and one realizes that it's absolutely not a matter of that question. Why? Because it's another question that he asks. Pascal's question is not whether God exists or not, which would not be very interesting, but it's: what is the best mode of existence, the mode of existence of someone who believes that God exists, or the mode of existence of someone who believes God doesn't exist? Such that Pascal's question absolutely does not concern the existence of God or the non-existence of God. It concerns the existence of someone who believes in God's existence and the existence of someone who believes that God doesn't exist. For various reasons that Pascal develops, which are his own, but which can be clearly articulated, he thinks that someone who believes that God exists has a better existence than someone who believes the opposite. That's his business, ok, it's a Pascalian matter. In this, there's a problem, a question, and it's already no longer the question of God. There is a story underlying the questions, a transformation of questions within one another. This is the same when Nietzsche says "God is dead," it's not the same thing as God does not exist. I can say. . . If I say, "God is dead," what question does that refer to, which is not the same as when I say, "God does not exist"? One realizes if one reads Nietzsche that he could care less about God's death, and that he's posing another question in this way, that is, if God is dead, there's no reason that man wouldn't be dead as well, one has to find something else than man, etc. What interested Nietzsche was not at all whether God was dead, he was interested in the arrival of something other than man. That's what the art of questions and problems is, and I believe that this could certainly occur on t.v. or in the media, but that would create a very strange kind of show, on this underlying story of problems and questions. Whereas in daily conversations as well as in the media, people stay on the level of interrogations. One has only to look at. . .. I can refer to. . . sure, all this is posthumous- the show, "The Hour of Truth." There aren't any truths, it's truly full of interrogations. . . "Mme Veil, do you believe in Europe?" "Ok, fine". . . What does that mean, "believe in Europe"? It would be interesting if one asked, "what is the problem of Europe?" The problem of Europe, well, I'll tell you what it is because that way, I'll have for once expressed a forewarning. That's exactly the same as China right now, they constantly think about preparing Europe, preparing the uniformization of Europe, they interrogate each other about it, on how to make insurance uniform, etc. And then, they find a million people at the Place de la Concorde from everywhere, Holland, Germany, etc., and [the interrogators] don't control it at all, they don't control it. Fine, so they call on specialists to tell them why there are so many Dutch people at the Place de la Concorde. "It's because. . . etc." They just skirt around the real questions at the very moment when they need to be asked. . . What I've been saying is a bit confused. . .
Claire ParnetNo, no, for example, for years you used to read daily newspapers, but it seems that you no longer read Le Monde or Llbératlon daily. Is there something on the level of the press or the media precisely not asking these questions. . .
Oh, I don't know. . . I have a lot less time. . .
Claire Parnet. . . that disgusts you?
Oh, yes! Listen. . . I get the feeling of learning less and less. I'm quite ready, I want to learn things, since we know nothing, but since the newspapers say nothing either, what can one do?
Claire ParnetAnd you, for example, each time that you watch the evening news since it's the only t.v. show you never miss, do you always have a question to formulate each time that is never formulated in the media?
I don't know about that, I don't know.
Claire ParnetYou seem to think that questions never get asked.
The questions? Well, I think that, at the limit, the questions can't be asked. If you take the Touvier story, you can't pose questions-I'm choosing something quite recent. They arrested [Paul] Touvier, ok. . . So, why now? Ok, so when everyone says, "Why has he been protected?" Everyone knows that there must have been various machinations. He was an information director, so he must have information on the conduct of distinguished dignitaries in the Church during the period of World War ll. Everyone knows. . . Ok, so everyone knows what he knows about, but there's an agreement not to ask questions, and they won't get asked. That's what's known as a consensus, it's an agreement, the convention according to which problems and questions will be substituted for simple interrogations, such as "How are you doing?" that is, ah, well. . . "That convent helped him hide.. Why?" etc. Everyone knows that's not the real question. . .
Claire ParnetWell, I don't know. . .
Everyone knows. . . Let me take another recent example, regarding the reformers on the Right and the political apparatus on the Right. Everyone knows what this is about, but the newspapers don't tell us a thing. I don't know, I am just saying this, but it seems obvious to me that between these reformers de drolte, there is a very interesting problem. These guys-it's not that they are particularly young, but their problem is this: it's an attempt to shake up elements of the Party organizations that are always very centralized around Paris. Specifically, the reformers want regional independence, something very interesting, and yet no one is calling attention to this aspect. The connection to the European question is that they want to create a Europe not of nations, they want a Europe of regions. They want the veritable unity to be regional and inter-regional, rather than a national and international unity. Now this is a problem, one that the Socialists will have to face at some point, between regionalist and internationalist tendencies. But the Party organizations, that is, the provincial federations, still correspond to an old-fashioned approach, specifically, all that goes back to Paris, and the power is extremely centralized. So, the conservative reformers are an anti-Jacobine movement, and the Left will have one as well. So, I say, fine, they have to be made to talk about this, but no one will do so, they even refuse to because, when they do, they will reveal themselves. Hence, they'll only answer interrogations, and interrogations are nothing, it's just conversation. It's pointess. Conversations, interrogations, they are pointless. Except for rare exceptions, t.v. is condemned to discussions, to interrogations. It's worthless. It's not even a question of lies, it's just insignificant, it's pointless.
Claire ParnetWell, I'm less of an optimist than you, but it seems to me that there is the journalist Anne Sinclair who, within the consensus, doesn't realize it, and thinks she's posing good questions, not at all interrogations.
Fine, that's her business, I'm quite sure that she's very happy with herself.. yes, that's certain, it's her business.
Claire ParnetYou never accept invitations to go on television. Foucault and Serres did it. Are you retreating from the world like Beckett did? Do you hate television? Why won't you go on television? For all these reasons?
Well, here's the proof, I'll be on t.v.! But my reasons for not accepting relate exactly to what I have already said: I don't want to have conversations and discussions with people. I cannot stand interrogations, that doesn't interest me. And discussions, arguing about something, especially when no one knows what problem is being raised. I return to my example of God- is it a matter of the non-existence of God, of the death of God, of the death of man, of the existence of God, of the existence of whoever believes in God, etc.? It's a muddle, it's very tiring. So when everyone has his turn to speak, it's domesticity in its purest state, moreover with some idiot of a host as well... Mercy, mercy. . .
Claire ParnetThe most important thing is that you are here today answering our little interrogations.
On the condition that it's posthumous! On the condition that it's posthumous!