Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt Littérature

Literature · Essays

Diderot Or The Philosophy Of Seduction

Diderot Or The Philosophy Of Seduction

Summary

Denis Diderot conceived of a new approach to philosophy based on freedom, libertinage, pleasure, freedom and lucidity. Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt now sheds new light on this philosopher previously recognised as a materialist, a positivist and a scientific thinker.

Diderot is presented as a problematic, uncertain figure, tempted by both light and shade, the rational and the irrational. He was the only eighteenth-century philosopher to pay such attention to nights and dreams, madness, enthusiasm, ecstasy and man's genius.

All the contradictions and dilemmas of the human mind fascinated him. For him, truth was an inaccessible ideal, but it was the thinker's duty to think this inacessibility. Schmitt's Diderot sounds more like the Sphinx than Oedipus: few answers and a lot of questions. Diderot clearly offered a new philosophy as well as a new way of understanding it.

Far from convictions, he stuck to paradoxes. "In the morning, I see probability on my right, and in the afternoon, it is on my left!" Schmitt shows us a Diderot who flirted with all sorts of theories the way he flirted with women; he was seduced by them, and it is the amatory aspect of Diderot's philosophy that Schmitt evokes here.

Reviews

Le Monde - « Diderot Or The Philosophy Of Seduction »

Roger Pol Droit
The joys of doubt. You can't rely on anything nowadays. Time and again the cry goes up, as though it's necessarily a cause for concern. But why see doubt as synonymous with distress? Take a look at Diderot, an example of happy uncertainty. Avoid change; distrust randomness; steer clear of fluctuations; guard against the insidious fear of the unexpected and the upset of unpredictability; go for st…

Comments

Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt - « Whimsical and fair-minded: these are... »

Whimsical and fair-minded: these are probably the two qualities for which Diderot is so dear to my heart. He has always had a lot to offer and he continues to do so. He teaches us things that can't be taught: freedom, effrontery, lightness, contradiction and boldness. Anyone stupid or humourless would find his company unbearable. Maybe that's why I always carry him with me. Anyway, he shows you the way without being intrusive.

He can't generate disciples, only rakes, because you'll only learn bad manners from him. I don't always agree with him. Neither does he with myself. Some philosophers like Kant, and especially Pascal, are more intimately bound to me. They answer my questions more fully and our paths meet more often, but along with Lucretius and Montaigne, Diderot belongs to that wild and marginal bunch I like so much and whom I call 'the Knights of Doubt'. And yet, for me, he is, together with Pascal, unquestionably the best of our thinkers who were both philosophers and writers.

Diderot is not like Rousseau the autodidact, far from it; he never makes any effort. He's not like Voltaire either, cutting short his thoughts with his sentences. On the contrary, he lives, he looks everywhere, he destroys any kind of rhetoric to fit his moods. He continually quivers in the twist of his sentences.

He remains an unattainable model. As a writer, he is my model.

Paris, le 23 August 2000

←