Make no mistake about it, European construction is not the result of deep philosophical or epistemological reflection.

If we consider the thought of Jean Monnet, international banker, one of the « founding » fathers of Europe, we can realise that European construction is not the culmination of intense intellectual efforts resulting in a powerful thought.

No, it is rather the result of a conviction without philosophical and even less epistemological anchoring, the result of an emotion, an affect, a love for the United States, an obsession with a banker for free trade and an unwavering allegiance to an American government bent on dissolving European nations.

What we will attempt in this article is a philosophical, epistemological approach through, on the one hand, the study of a text by John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, logician and economist born May 20, 1806 in London who died on May 8, 1873 in Avignon, and on the other hand, our own reflection.

Here is what John Stuart Mill said:

« What has made the family of European nations a growing rather than a stagnant part of humanity?

Not a superior excellence which, when it exists, only exists as an effect rather than a cause, but rather the remarkable diversity of their styles and their cultures.

People, classes, nations have been entirely different from each other: They have taken a wide variety of paths, each leading to something interesting; and though in each age those who had chosen different paths were intolerant of one another, and though each might have thought it would have been excellent if all the rest had been obliged to follow the same way, their attempts to thwart the development of each other have seldom succeeded permanently, and each, when necessary, has accepted the good that the others have offered.

Europe, in my view, owes everything to this plurality of paths in its progressive and versatile development. »

Today, the European entity does not want this plurality of paths. She is fiercely opposed to this societal plurality.

On the contrary, those who claim to lead it, and in particular the European Commission, are trying to impose a system of values ​​and a single societal model and to prohibit each of the nations, that it intends to gradually dissolve, from exercising sovereign power in societal matters and to choose their own path.

The European entity is not giving up, determined as it is to impose at all costs its own dehumanized way and its « globalized reason » glorified by Oscar Milosz in the most stupid poeme entitled « Incantation ».

« Plurality of conceptions » tells us the philosopher-logician who was knew how to think.

Paul Feyerabend thus summarized the need for a plurality of conceptions defended by John Stuart Mill, also in the sciences. He considered four main reasons:

1°) A conception that it may be legitimate to reject may nevertheless be true and « to deny it would be to believe in our infallibility »

2°) A « problematic » conception can « contain, and very often does contain a part of truth »; and since the general and prevailing opinion on any subject is seldom, or never, the whole truth, it is only through clash with contrary opinions that what remains of truth can have any chance of to afford. »

3°) An entirely true but uncontested conception « will be defended as if it were a prejudice, with little understanding or feeling of its rational foundations ».

4°) To subscribe to it will become « a mere formal profession of faith », unless by contrast with other opinions, its meaning cannot be revealed. »

Paul Feyerabend finally stated a fifth technical reason:

« The evidence that can be advanced against one opinion can often only be stated or discovered through a different opinion. »

« To prohibit the use of alternatives until contrary facts can appear, while asking the theories to confront the facts, therefore amounts to wanting to put the cart before the horse ».

Thus, each nation should be able to follow its own path, its own societal choices, and not have them imposed on it by an artificial layer of authority claiming its superiority and imposing a certain use of reason.

Point 3 is reminiscent of the parable of the wheat and the chaff.

« The master’s servants came and said to him, ‘Lord, have you not sown good seed in your field? Where does it come from, then, that there are weeds?’

He said to them, “An enemy has done this.” The servants said to him, « Do you want us to take him away? »

He answers: “No, by removing the tares, you risk uprooting the wheat at the same time.

Let them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will say to the reapers, First gather up the chaffs, bind them in bundles to burn them; as for the wheat, gather it up and bring it into my barn.” »

So let the nations follow their own paths.

As for Ernest Renan, here is what he said :

« the existence of nations is the guarantee of freedom, which would be lost if the world had only one law and one master »

[…]

“By their diverse, often conflicting faculties, nations serve the common work of civilization; all bring a note to this great concert of humanity. »

Finally, to end this philosophical tour, let’s refer to the myth of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11,1-9) which in my opinion means what follows :

The dispersion of peoples across the earth and the concomitant multiplication of languages ​​and cultures, allowed each people to develop its own thought.

This is how each people engraved its vision of the world in its language and in its culture. And as languages ​​and cultures multiplied, more and more threads were woven between thought and reality. Thus, for millennia, Man multiplied the paths linking his thought to reality.

The multiplication of languages ​​was a necessary step, because the more people invented words, the more human thought covered reality. Thus, each civilization, by choosing a word to name an idea, a piece of reality, cut out the real and the imaginary according to the most varied patterns. And when grammars appeared, they were the result of a choice which, in turn, shaped the perception of reality.

Thus the separation of peoples and the multiplication of languages ​​and cultures gave rise to a prodigious increase in the information contained in the universe.

In our opinion, the borders, the differences in choice of societies within Europe are still necessary to prevent languages ​​and cultures from mixing.

At this stage of advancement of humanity, the fusion of languages, cultures, societal models, value systems, could not be achieved without an immense loss of information and an overall cognitive impairment.

In any case, from an epistemological point of view, the kidnapping of the societal domain by the European entity constitutes a real obstacle to the improvement of the human spirit which requires a plurality of nations, societal models and civilizational paths.

This is why each nation must be able to continue to choose its own path, the way in which it cut out reality, its goals, as well as the model of society specific to enabling it to achieve its goals.

In practice and by necessity, societal choices must belong to the nations and not to confederations which would artificially superimpose themselves on them.

This is why Anglo-Saxon societal imperialism, which is exercised in particular through the organs of the European entity, and in particular through the action of the European Commission, must be the subject of a real counteroffensive.

Today, the principle of subsidiarity has been reduced to a bare minimum, due to the activism of the European Commission and the one of Ursula Von Der Leyen.

In conclusion, far from the purely political angle, it seems to us to be justified to affirm that for philosophical and epistemological reasons, and taking into account the ideal of perfecting the human spirit (not to be confused with the aim of improvement of the human condition) that our politicians have purely and simply abandoned, each nation must be able to choose its path and in particular its societal path.