💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › george-mathias-paraf-javal-free-inquiry.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:36:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Free Inquiry
Author: George Mathias Paraf-Javal
Date: 1907
Language: en
Topics: individualist
Source: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/javal/free-enquiry.htm
Notes: Source: Libre Examen. Paris, Edition du groupe d’études scientifiques, 1907;  Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor;  CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org.

George Mathias Paraf-Javal

Free Inquiry

EVOLUTION

Following a series of successive and continuous transformations, our

planet has arrived at its current state. Man appeared when his life was

possible; he will disappear when his life will be impossible. After the

human period the earth, an aggregate of molecules, will continue to

transform itself as long as its molecules and their composing parts

don’t separate and disperse in space.

This is an evolution. It is fated. These are ineluctable facts which our

will and activity cannot modify.

What is a historic fact?

An historic fact is the result of the activity of humans who inhabit the

globe at the same moment. If this activity is driven in a certain

direction these humans make a certain history. They would make another

one if it went in another direction.

The evolution of societies, though dependent on universal transformism,

is thus not of the same nature as cosmic evolution. It doesn’t escape

our influence. It results from it.

If humans never carry out the movements indispensable for the

establishment of a reasonable society, human life could cease on our

globe without humanity having known the age of reason.

These movements indispensable for the establishment of a reasonable

society must be determined and not waited for, since the evolution of

societies depends upon HUMAN ACTIVITY

GOD

Is the affirming of the reality of an imaginative fiction the act of

serious men?

God, according to Laplace, is an unnecessary hypothesis. We would add,

“bizarre.”

In fact, the idea of divinity comes from the wish to explain our origin.

“The world,” it was said, “could not have created itself; it was created

by a Supreme Being.” The reply is easy: “Who created the Supreme Being?”

The concept of a creator is thus bizarre, since it pushes back the

question without resolving it.

What is more, it is metaphysical and foreign to physics, since it is the

equivalent of energy that exercises itself where there is no matter, a

fact in contradiction with all experiments.

If we feel the need to go back to “primary causes” we could imagine a

physical hypothesis more in accord with the current state of science.

Everything is transformed, but we have never seen anyone create anything

from nothing, or turn something to nothing. It is thus not illogical to

suppose that the substance (matter-energy) was not created, always

existed, and is indestructible.

Nevertheless, it is important not to give the substance the name of

“God,” this name that stirs up the idea, not of a physical hypothesis,

but of an omnipotent metaphysical bogeyman.

Once the scientific hypothesis (the eternity of substances) is made, it

is only wise to then concern oneself with reality alone, that is, of the

world and of MAN

THE FATHERLAND

The groupings of men inhabiting certain portions of territories subject

to the same laws are called fatherlands, nations.

Two nations believe or don’t that they have the same interests. In the

first case there is peace, but feelings less favorable to humans of

other nations, towards strangers (nationals feeling solidarity for each

other). In the second case there is antipathy towards foreigners,

protectionism, armed peace, war. All of this hinders individual

development.

We see that the idea of the fatherland inevitably implies a sentiment

less favorable towards the humans of other fatherlands, and possible,

probable, or certain hatred.

To hate a mass of beings who you don’t personally know, to hate those

unknown, to risk finding oneself obliged to kill them or to have oneself

killed by them is absurd. Nationalists and patriots are thus dangerous

madmen.

Those who desire universal peace should radically rid themselves of

nationalism and patriotism, should suppress nations, fatherlands.

The common interests of all humans being the favoring of the complete

satisfaction of all an individual’s natural needs, only one grouping has

a chance of realizing this ideal, the grouping of all humans: HUMANITY

THE LAW

Acts useful or harmful to society are judged so, not in keeping with

evidence that are the result of logical, indisputable deductions, but

according to the whims of a portion of legislators. Nothing prevents the

latter from establishing absurd and vexing rules, as long as these rules

are voted and promulgated in keeping with usage.

The law being nothing but the acceptance by certain men (the majority)

of an judgment contested by other men (the minority), this judgment

might or might not be correct. It is not necessarily so because it has

become the law. The truth could be on the side of the minority, or it

could be elsewhere.

Imposing judgments by force means tyrannizing. Law is the supreme

oppression, legal oppression, rule by force.

A man’s rights cannot depend on the more or less intelligent judgment of

other men. Either these rights exist, or they don’t

If they exist there is no reason to prevent a man from exercising them,

even despite the law.

But in order to exercise these rights they must necessarily be known. In

order to know them they must be determined by LOGIC.

POLITICS

In order for a proposition to enter the scientific realm it must 1- be

put forth with supporting proofs; 2- the proofs, always verified, must

always be recognized as correct. If at a given moment they are contested

and recognized to be false, the proposition is immediately ejected from

the realm of science.

In order for a proposition to enter the legal realm it must 1- be voted

for by representatives elected through universal suffrage; 2- be

promulgated and imposed by force. Reasonable or not, under these

conditions it becomes law.

Such proceedings, foreign to reason, cannot give reasonable results.

Politics, an illogical method, cannot serve to establish rules of

logical conduct.

Only madmen want, if these rules exist, to determine and impose them on

sensible beings otherwise than by a RATIONAL METHOD.

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE

The law, an arbitrary, anti-scientific, empirical formula: is it at

least the sincere expression of the opinion of the greatest number?

No. Those who participate in its formation are the privileged (rich or

intriguers) who are imposed by leaders on the imbecilic crowd.

If we consider the exercise of the right of suffrage as the official

influence of a “citizen” on his time, in France this influence is 1/1460

or 1/1461 of what it should be.

In fact, from the age of 21, every four years (i.e., once every 1460 or

1461 days), the voter votes (i.e., attempts to oppress those who think

differently from him); authority, for its part, functions every day, at

every instant.

Universal suffrage thus means: 1 day of the right to intrigue, and 1459

or 1460 of abdication.

We see then that universal suffrage is a powerful method for lulling

human activity to sleep. It has nothing in common with popular

sovereignty, with the right to being as sovereign as anyone else at

every moment. It has nothing in common with EQUALITY.

THE LAW

By law we mean either the faculty to carry out an act or the whole of

laws, or the science of laws.

By natural law that which results from the nature of men and their

necessary relations.

By positive law we mean that which results from laws and accords.

There is thus a natural law that can be determined by logic and imposed

by reason, and which is the true one, and another law which depends on

the whims of men and is imposed by force, and is not identical to the

“natural,” not identical to the true one, which is thus not true law and

which is called “positive.”

So if positive law is not the true law I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, and

I say that recognizing such a law is the act of false spirits, for if

admitting that reason is sensible, admitting that which differs from

reason and which consequently is not reason cannot be sensible.

It follows from this that men will become sensible at the precise moment

when they will cease to occupy themselves with “positive” law, and they

will remain mad as long as long as they occupy themselves with any other

right than the “natural.”

In fact, limiting my faculty to act upon things permitted by my reason

means using my faculty to act with discernment, while limiting my

faculty to act to those not defended by whims means alienating my

faculty to act, means abdicating MY FREEDOM

INTOLERANCE

The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 says:

Article X: No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even religious,

as long as their manifestation doesn’t trouble the public order

established by the law.

Article XI: The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of man’s

most precious rights. Every citizen can thus freely speak, write and

publish, under penalty of answering for abuses of this freedom in cases

determined by the law.

These restrictions reduce the text of the two articles to this:

We can think, say, write, publish certain things; we cannot think, say,

write, or publish certain other things.

Thinking, speaking, writing, publishing freely what is not prohibited by

man’s whims is not thinking, speaking, writing and publishing freely.

Freedom cannot depend on the whims of men. It must BE.

A law on the press, on opinions, is legal intolerance, is the negation

of THE FREEDOM OF OPINION.

AUTHORITY

Until the present day all societies have been established on the

principle of authority. Even what is wrongly called socialism is a form

of this principle. Delegating one’s powers to individuals charged with

sharing everything out for the good of the collective (collectivism) is

equivalent to abandoning one’s rights. The comrades who do the sharing

will be the privileged ones, the rulers, the oppressors; the others will

be the exploited, the governed, the oppressed.

Since no one can accept that he be oppressed, he can’t authorize himself

to oppress others. The logical individual necessarily arrives at the

concept of libertarian communism.

Let no one say to me: “The danger of the absence of governments lies in

the struggle with unreasonable individuals.” We can respond: “The danger

of government is the struggle by the reasonable governed with

unreasonable governors and governed.”

If we affirm that in order for government to be absent we need

reasonable individuals we can also affirm that we would accept to be

governed if it were proved that those who govern will always be

perfectly reasonable.

We thus see that a good government implies, as well as the absence of

government, reason in individuals.

Either one or the other:

Either men will be unreasonable and we will then have an unreasonable

society with or without a government, or

Humans will be reasonable, and there is no need for government.

Reason leads to ANARCHY

PROPERTY

The Declaration of the Rights of Man tells us that property is one of

the natural and inalienable rights of man.

So why then are all men not property owners?

Why say to men: “Property is one of your rights,” when the majority is

in no position to become landowners, when most landowners are so by the

right of birth and the others are non-landowners by birth.

The men of 1789, in affirming that property is a natural and inalienable

right, wanted to say that man has the right to own what he is “legally”

authorized to own, even if he owns it to his neighbor’s detriment, even

if he owns nothing.

This is not how an egalitarian should understand the right to property.

If property is a natural and inalienable right every man should, at all

times, own in the same measure as every other.

Conclusion: Either no one a property owner or all property held in

common. COMMUNISM

MARRIAGE

After having taken note that certain words were exchanged in a certain

place (in France, the town hall) society recognizes in a couple the

right to unite and found a family.

The law protects the spouses, and the world respects them as long as, if

it applies, bigamy, lovers, or mistresses are not legally noted. The

children born of married people or those attributed by the code to

married people are legitimate and enjoy certain rights.

On the contrary, a couple that unites without having first had noted the

exchange of certain words in a certain place is considered criminal and

society condemns them, for mutual consent is not judged a sufficient

tie. Society goes so far as to punish the children for the wrong of

having been born outside marriage. Bastards are detested, insulted.

Natural children, that is, brought into the world by non-authorized

parents, they don’t have the same rights as legitimate children.

Marriage thus means the enchaining of two beings under threat of penal

sanction, which implies the idea that lacking this sanction affection

wouldn’t suffice to sustain the official family.

The cohesion of a family by force is the legal consecration of the right

to reciprocal oppression.

The reasonable family, founded and sustained if it should be, but

sustained without hypocrisy, without constraint and solely based on the

intelligent will of the interested parties, will have its departure

point in FREE UNIONS.

PREJUDICES

A prejudice is an opinion formed before having judged.

Parents, educators, and politicians suggest certain exclusive opinions

to children and the naive. It follows from this that an adult will have

beliefs (religion, law, fatherland, etc.) because these beliefs will

have been imposed on him by people lacking in critical sense. These

latter transmit their prejudices to others in the same way they were

transmitted to them.

The so-called freedom of a father, as well as authoritarian education,

in other words, the right to choose a certain cerebral state for

defenseless beings, is equivalent to the licit oppression of children

and the weak. This oppression will persist as long as every individual

is not given the sum of knowledge he is capable of receiving as well as

the faculty of controlling this knowledge.

The authoritarian method of education does not allow for the controlling

of received ideas, the distinguishing of the truth of prejudices.

A libertarian educational method would consist in:

In those matters in which everyone is in agreement teaching them

outside of any preoccupations, solely so as to give the individual

physical notions and not to inculcate certain considerations in him.

On matters or opinions on which everyone is not in agreement, teaching

them by placing the individual in the presence of different opinions

after having been assured that he is capable of reasoning logically.

In this way we will have the possibility of accelerating the discovery

of the truth, on which human progress depends. In order to arrive at

this discovery it is important, in fact, not that individuals have this

or that opinion, but that they have an opinion after having impartially

judged, after having engaged in FREE EXAMINATION.

COMPETITION

Is competition socially necessary? Must the human beast always be a

ferocious beast defending his skin and his happiness against his

contemporaries? Current society regulates competition. Must a rational

society do the same?

For those who don’t admit that we can sacrifice reality to the

anti-scientific hypotheses of the “immortality of the soul” and the

“divinity, “ the individual’s ideal is the satisfaction of all his needs

in conformity with his nature.

The individual cannot reach this ideal by living in isolation. Alone he

could not find his food, make his clothing, protect himself against

other animal species and bad weather, profit by old and new inventions.

The human being who denies human solidarity is, if he wills it or not,

in solidarity with his like. He was brought into the world, raised,

protected by them; he received his language and knowledge from them. In

these conditions, unable to do without others, should he not say to

himself:

“Every other human, like me, wants to satisfy his natural needs. If I

pursue my ideal disregarding all others, there will be struggle,

competition, and consequently, I risk being the weakest, being hindered,

not being able to satisfy my natural needs. If on the contrary I pursue

my ideal without disturbing my neighbor, or even by helping him, the

struggle will be quashed and I could expect of him that he respect my

egoism and freedom as I recognize his.”

If this reasoning is correct, a rational society must not only abolish

competition and the struggle between individuals, it must organize and

see to it that there functions CAMARADERIE.

UTOPIAS

‘Utopia’ comes from the Greek words U (non) and TOPOS (PLACE): a country

that doesn’t exist. We mean by utopia the plan of an ideal organization

and, by extension, a theory considered unrealizable.

It is with the word “utopia” that people try to ridicule and to

discourage those who envisage the possibility of a rational society and

strive to determine its conditions.

We forget that no one has the right to a priori qualify a theory as

unrealizable. Every theory implies practice, every practice implies

theory. In certain cases the theory precedes practice, in others

practice precedes theory. The one always calls for the other.

Scientifically, affirmations not accompanied by proofs don’t count.

Affirming without proof that a theory is unrealizable, that a theory is

“utopian” has no importance. The long distance transport of words, the

reproduction of sounds and images, vision through opaque bodies,

wireless telegraphy, color photography, yesterday’s “utopias” are

today’s “practice.”

A rational society is a beautiful dream, it is said. True. But the

theoreticians of this society should not allow themselves to be bothered

by narrow arguments, since progress consists in make utopia A REALITY