is from the final Houellebecq, Map and the Territory , which I put a flea in his ear. A passage absolutely ignored by the plethora of reviews this latest installment of the Prix Goncourt last. And because it takes only a few lines of the novel and does not conceal much interest in the construction of history (and the 3 rd part of the book, but that is another debate). Jed, the hero, is in an airport and now ... "Before him, a blond moaning about four years, claiming it does knew quite what, then all of a sudden he fell to the ground screaming, trembling with rage and his mother exchanged looks exhausted with her husband, who tried to raise the vicious little carrion. It is impossible to write a novel, Houellebecq had said the day before for the same reason it is impossible to live: because of the burdens that accumulate. And all theories of freedom, Sartre, Gide, are only designed for single immoralists irresponsible. Like me, he added, attacking his third bottle of Chilean wine. " begin the survey by explaining what Houellebecq says: To create an intellectual work worthy of the name, it must be master of his time. Must be able to reach a maximum physical constraints to change his mind in a world of intellect, be open to impromptu meetings and be guided by them and not let disrupt the laborious construction of a conceptual system by resorting to trivial objections raised by the daily "Msieur the Philosopher How can we talk about commitment and freedom when we have to deal with kids all day and we are delighted to collapse on a couch watching a movie before going to sleep? "
To deepen, and as we are in the XXI century, the century of performance and optimum processing of information, we need statistics to support our thesis. First, dismiss the objection that our investigation would be shared between philosophy and religion in general. The attitude of Roman Catholicism, for example is more philosophical attitude of Judaism: In order to properly develop in the spirit realm and focus on the Lord, it is better to worship him exclusively without the hassle or women or children (official course). It is not a theological dogma (since the Eastern Churches ordain married priests) but a well-established and on which the Vatican does not seem to give up, especially since the program already announced by the Gospel of Luke: If anyone comes to me without hating his father, mother, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own life, he can not be my disciple. " (the difference with Islam is more subtle but deserves a separate development).
Then go see the press philosophical people to check if the philosophers in general are like Houellebecq thinks of "bachelors irresponsible." Good thing one of the final drafts Philosophy Magazine is more or less devoted to this theme: "The family is unbearable?". And among other brilliant contributions, the magazine has been the practice for us. The result is instructive: 75% of the greatest philosophers of the heritage of humanity were single! And for those who eventually married, most (like Hegel) were late. Some philosophers have defended the institution of marriage and the family, like Voltaire and Kant, but have been careful not to bother with such trivialities.
It seems to be an invariant, as posed Mathilde Lequin in her article on links between philosophers and family "From the Greeks to post-68 through Christianity, the situation seems almost unanimous among the philosophers: the family is what keeps authentic life. "
It is no accident that we found this idea in more contemporary developments. I just finished a test at once brilliant and almost terrifying Belinda Cannone , who caused a stir among academics and practitioners of "Gender Studies" you know this new discipline imported from the United States by Judith Butler (I'll let you guess his origins. ...) of separating the concept of sex (which is a biological distinction) and the notion of gender (masculine / feminine, which is a social and built). Until then why not, but obviously, from the moment we make this distinction, the Promethean temptation to destroy the notion of gender or merge them is too strong. This is partly so these subjects tackled by Belinda Cannone in Temptation of Penelope . In short (very short, because the book is dense and fairly intelligent), She wants to fend off the men but also women who still consider including in some feminist circles, there are irreconcilable differences between man and woman must be reflected in social life. What horrified me personally in this book is the blind spot. Nowhere is there the idea of responsibility towards society. Nowhere Belinda Cannone envisages a radical change in the perception of gender can lead to extremely dangerous consequences for the evolution of humanity. This is particularly striking that the author (e?) Speaks at length about his intimate personal situation. And what does it tell? That since very early, she made the choice not to bear children. Why? Because it would prevent him from writing. Because the burdens of daily life would inevitably reduce to almost nil the necessary amount of concentration needed for the future work. Exactly what explains Houellebecq. Can we take seriously thought wanting to project into the future of humanity while not wishing to participate intimately in the future? That may be one of the crucial questions that Judaism might object to the philosophy, or rather to the philosophers. 
In different style and gradually approach to Judaism, it is also significant to note that Claude Lanzmann, in his wonderful memoirs ( Patagonian Hare) , he admits to have had many women in his life 's He also admits he married, finally never had children. He did not explain it really. But the question is legitimate: he would have done the work of his life if he had to care for children? Holocaust would come into being if the anxiety of dying necessarily amplified by parenthood had caught Lanzmann everyday? Even if the answer to this last question is negative, it seems that the Jewish tradition poses the exact opposite of what philosophers advocate a man is complete unless it has found a wife. Because the union with a woman is the prerequisite to achieving a form of spiritual fulfillment. It is a theme that runs through the rabbinic literature, it is midrashic, halachic or even (or especially) kabbalistic. And of course, even if the man-woman relationship is not limited to reproduction, it contains absolutely imperative that. Having children is the first biblical commandment commandments and other "collateral" related: circumcision (Brit Mila), study, teach a craft, or even swimming (yes, really).
At first glance, one might welcome the Jewish position: nearest material contingencies, it is a spirituality that does not ignore the constraints of life but instead looking to the sublimate. Asceticism, if it exists in Judaism, was not good news. Mistrusts the Torah, as it is wary of those wishes to achieve a form of absolute purity in the divine service. She prefers not to be fooled by the hypocrisy consistent to believe above problems invoices, business or family agreement. Many Jewish jokes are actually variations on this theme. Again, we could stop there and welcome to belong to a tradition that allows us (sorry, that we would have it) to eat couscous dumplings every Friday night rather than being flogged every morning with a hammer in treated steel.
But if we want consistent and take seriously the philosophical position, we must recognize that the Jewish way of life is not conducive to creating a great work. This is one comment I often heard: Jews have certainly advanced the science, they have plenty of Nobel prizes, but most are in fact assimilated Jews, or had significantly away from the Jewish tradition. Einstein, Freud, Spinoza, Marx, not to mention Jesus did not live Meah Shearim, Bnei Brak or even Meknes.
Without a definitive answer to this broad issue (I am unable at first and then I must take care of 3 kids all excited this time of holidays, besides my wife who is obstinately I do the dishes, I have no chance short of being a philosopher), I suggest a good track: Judaism does not seek what man produces a work . Who said work, said a group finalized a result, a system. Sometimes this system is so polished they say unsuited to the prosaic life of man (the famous formula Peguy: Kantianism's hands are clean, but he has no hands). Yet the Torah does not seek to systematize (the Talmud is an obvious example) and prefer to focus on the dynamics of the Study . On that it causes so existential humans, what it evokes a specific way in each of his actors, especially when they are at least two to "wake up" a text, each with its history and subjectivity. Sometimes, a study should be sterile in terms of utility (ritual question: "Why study a bizarre passage comparing the 4 types of kills possible?") Is obvious. Yet what has persisted for centuries among the Jews, this study is the Pharisees. Which we can legitimately think that from a strictly materialistic point of view, she is no stranger to the destiny of the Jewish people, nor to what has produced its fruits farthest outlined above. But the heart of the Jewish people was not intended to create a work. He lived on terms determined by a transcendence that no one cares or history, or progress, or science, only a man, his family and his people can accomplish a divine plan that requires a particular sensitivity to the interior of each, revealed by the study and a form of orthopraxy.
however I could not finish this post without mentioning that the Torah is fully aware of this paradox: the family can live but sometimes it is inhibitory for the greatness of a work.
Two examples:
1) The Mishnah says that Ben Azzai a time married to the daughter of Rabbi Akiva, was unable to bear this burden. Indeed he preferred to devote himself body and soul to the study of Torah. What was not compatible with family responsibilities. Completely contrary to the divine message? True, but the allegation that Ben is finally Azzai not categorical. Rabbi Akiva himself has abandoned his wife for several years to study the Torah even though it was she who led the study and to become the Master he later became.
2) The episode of Bamidbar (Numbers) which catches the disease called Myriam Tzaraat. The literal text tells us that this punishment was due to some unfortunate words spoken to it would have about the Ethiopian woman of Moses, Tzipora. The great commentator before Unesco what Marek Halter has found the first traces of anti-black racism and acted as if God had a badge hanging Hands off my buddy to defend Tzipora (out of pity, stop reading Marek Halter, you will do a great mitzvah). The sages of the Oral Tradition teach us something else. Myriam would actually slandered his brother Moses. The latter, monopolized by his office as leader of the Jewish people, would have left his wife, which led the criticism of Miriam. What is surprising is that not only do not blame God like Moses, but it also punishes Miriam for this gesture. Moses, the greatest prophet of the Jewish people, who abandons his wife and that the midrash tells us that her children were not very well shot ...
Some fates can they do without a wife and children? Should systematic and find an answer or leave the question open?
