.
weeks ago, the French Minister of Culture rejected because of their "filthy anti-Semitic writings," the national honor was going to dedicate this year to writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline in the 50 th anniversary of his death. I believe that this exclusion is fully justified and contain some implicit lesson that should be brought to light. Among other things, teaches us unconcealed differences in value between the different values \u200b\u200band, ultimately, the primacy of moral values \u200b\u200bon everyone else. Then it will hear voices of protest. Who comes up with these days dare to compare values \u200b\u200band even then to declare a few more valuable than others? If for environmental relativism establish a hierarchy among cultures or institutions already sounds like blasphemy and measure the relative merits of individuals is at least a suspicious transaction, what will not pretend to be the very values \u200b\u200bare placed on a scale highest to lowest? Would it not be wiser to consider the values, intellectuals, religious, aesthetic, political, moral, etc.-independent of each other and randomly distributed in unmarked individual difference? But the truth is that we scored.
Why could not the French maintain their admiration aesthetics to the writer, and venerate it deserves, while reserved for the man and the citizen rather its moral revulsion? Simply because it is impossible to keep intact the first if the accompanying second. To withdraw all credit to Céline as a moral subject, his undeniable literary talent remains in suspense, and even somewhat decreased.
still be replied that no one would be so wonderful, if to be had from this were the whole and must be a block. At best, someone will be extremely valuable in a very low value, while only negligible in many other and even negligible in some. Common experience teaches us that man sage may be a mediocre painter, since the lack of artistic qualities does not diminish at all its celebrated wisdom. But that experience is an exception to the moral value precisely. This field
barely achieved quell a scandal at the time to try a lack of sufficient eminence moral support. That is to try the thrill that followed the revelation of Heidegger's Nazi past and another famous philosopher, summarized in this formula that does not stop sonarnos paradoxical: "Martin Heidegger was the greatest thinkers and the smallest of men" . In what concerns us, the mayor of Paris has ruled that Céline was a "Great writer", but also a "perfect bastard." With the discovery of his moral weakness such great admiration for the eminent philosopher or writer is not extinguished, true, but did not because his figures are pale and questioned?
And, compared to other values, the uniqueness of the moral is to be universally applicable . As explained by Protagoras, other qualities and skills are shared between men by nature or by chance, according to some extent, as a society that is enough to survive. With that in our city has a few bakers we ensure the daily supply of bread. But the "moral sense" (respect and justice) must learn all because their lack civilian life or destroys human life prevents dry. Nobody can ask us all to develop outstanding musical and intellectual faculties, it is not in the nature or the vocation of each individual to become, say, an accomplished pianist or research scientist. By contrast, the neglect of the moral capacities from the family and the school we are reprehensible, because they contain our vocation as persons and citizens.
So, back to our starting point, the French were forced to cultivate their writing, much less to rise to the literary heights of a Céline. But this, like all his fellow in those circumstances, should have reached the moral high enough to see the Jewish people and expose their persecution and genocide. A partnership is formed with a few writers of unquestionable quality to enjoy the beauty created by the word. But one citizen who is not aware of the equal human dignity, as he missed Céline, can shatter the lives of many or consent to their destruction.
We know that a lofty moral character does not lose its notorious credit regardless of their faults from other points of excellence. But, conversely, it is impossible to admire the genius or artist enthusiastically if his conduct-private or public-looms considerable shadow of squalor and inhumanity. It seems that moral excellence is the most worth it because without it, the other excellencies are worth less ...
..
