Marcel Fournier

Do you, sometimes, choose a book the views of which, are diametrically opposed to your own? I do. I hope to stretch the narrowness of my perspective; remembering the one quote of Marcus Aurelius that I know, and trying to live up to it: " Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Perhaps I do not have a divine right to believe that my views are the definitive ones.

Sometimes this works and I become, if not a wiser, then a less foolish man. Sometimes, however, a book simply reinforces my prejudices: this is one such. Durkheim is responsible for the creation of 'Sociology' as a science (why must I fight so hard to rebuff the urge to put science in quotation marks?) When I come across phrases such as "analyze how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era", I hear a BS alert siren screaming in my head. My belief is that these people who think that they are shaping a Utopia are sadly misguided. Science has a vital role in society explaining how electricity works, how the Universe began, etc.. It should not stick its oar into emotive areas. Religion, love and human relationships cannot, and should not, be guided by rules in the way that the sides of a right angle triangle must conform to the Law of Pythagoras.

The book is a combination of a biography and a study of Durkheim's beliefs and I constantly found myself shouting at the page, "WHY????!!!!" (I didn't say that I was a rational person, did I?) I suppose the fight through this book was worthwhile; these views have shaped our World and, if one does not understand how they were born, can one produce a cogent counter argument? I would, therefore, recommend this work to everyone but, with the warning, that it will be a trial for those not wedded to the all encompassing nature of science in the twenty-first century.… (lisätietoja)