| dc.description.abstract | For over forty years Alain Finkielkraut has been part of debates that have structured, and sometimes divided, public and intellectual life in France. He is an intellectual who arouses controversy, disapproval and admiration. The aim of this thesis is to go beyond these normative considerations and propose a hermeneutic analysis of his work. We argue that the question of limits is a constant feature of his thinking, and his conception of limits is crucial for understanding his critique of modernity. Limits, in their temporal and spatial dimensions, structure the relationship between the Old and the New, ensure the durability of the Common World, and delineate the public and the private sphere, thus ensuring both the separation and the bond between the Peoples of the common world. For this reason, Part I identifies limits in their various forms in Finkielkraut's thought and focuses on his “negative” critique and sheds light on how his conception of limits shapes his critique of the contemporary world. Part II looks at Finkielkraut's vision of literature, which the philosopher sees as a counterweight to ideology. We show that literature constitutes for him both an epistemological and an ethical exploration. The epistemological exploration refers to the idea that literature is a source of knowledge: the knowledge of the particular and the unforeseeable, specific to the human condition. It differs from the common philosophical concept in that it is not aimed at the general but at individual lives. The ethical exploration of, and through, literature means that it enables us to move beyond subjectivity and understand other experiences, thereby broadening the horizon of understanding. In this sense, we identify how the novel, in its Finkielkrautian conception, offers the possibility of accounting for the plurality of human beings. Part III focuses on Finkielkraut's “positive critique” and highlights what Finkielkraut advocates as necessary for the human condition, a human condition that he believes depends on both the Old and the New, on an alliance between universalism and particularism, and on the combination of freedom and culture. | en |
