First Chirac is talking about the fact Mitterrand was a great reader. The fact he book his love of books at the center of his life, which is not only made of politics, shows a person with a lot of general culture, which can be quite useful, contrary to many stereotypes told today, if you want to engage for a cause. Mitterrand valued a lot books and cultures, built a huge library in the XIIIth arrondissement of Paris, and was often walking a book in his hand. He made him a great debator, able to talk in an excellent level of French and was also very spirited. He was also living compliant to classical standards, and was also able to be greatly original and to think out of the box to a very high level.
Second Chirac talks about his engagements. Actually the legacy of Mitterrand was very doubtful to this extend, as he was engaged in the extreme right in his youth, and turned progressively towards the right then the left after the Second World war. However the idea to “serve” engagements is very inspiring. Other great figures like Marx, even if I personally don’t agree with his ideas, devoted a lot to serve his ideals. This approach looks very interesting in our time with lack of repairs and decadence. People like de Gaulle or Mendès France who were able to fight compliant to values were able to achieve a lot of things.
The successor of Mitterrand talked about the politician he was. To this extend he told the sentence “he defended human rights everywhere they were oppressed”. He talks rightly to this extend of the role France should have in the world, a representant of the values inherited from the French Revolution that can be inspiring for many places in the world and supportive for many political opponents or migrants. Personally it is an important reason I am proud to be French, even if our story has somber sides that should not be occulted.
Last he talked about the life of Mitterrand. The way he had a very diverse network, from many different backgrounds, and was promoting to a great extend the value of friendship, can be inspiring ; even if it has to raise questions if friends turn badly and it created a lot of scandal for Mitterrand, from the scandals of Pelat to his complaisance with Bousquet. He talked about his perseverance as well, for instance to fight the cancer he had. Mitterrand had a lot of difficult periods in his life but was greatly tenacious, for this reason he believed in the power of the will. This approach is really inspiring and it for me a realization of the Hegelian dialectics : reality really makes sense in the long run, and tenacity is for me a bet in the middle and long run. The path Mitterrand created, which was greatly personal and original, is also a realization of the Hegelian ideas : there is no limit in reality if you have a long term project and you walk and work constantly to achieve it. This message is also very inspiring for our generation.
The speech of Chirac, even if it doesn’t talk about many criticizable sides of Mitterrand, is stressing real positive aspects people can inspire from the former president. Personally, from what I read and watched, I have extreme feelings to the extend I admire and despise him at the same time. In my opinion he was the most cynical and corrupted French politician of the XXth century, and his role for instance in the genocide in Rwanda in 1993 is maybe more important than it is told today. I admire him as well to the extend the was extremely brilliant and a great leader in his way. At the end of the course he was the greatest French political deception of the XXth century, to the extend, brilliant as he was, he would have been able to achieve a lot of great things. But, as Calvin wrote, men of power often need to be nasty, and “good” people shouldn’t do politics ; I disagree with that to the extend I think for instance de Gaulle was quite a good man, even if he was able to be a cold hearted chess player. But Mitterrand is misfortunately showing a somber side of men of power that could have made him an example of a great sophist in the books of Plato.
Jacques Chirac made a great homage to François Mitterrand when he died. This speech is talking about all the aspects of the personality of the former President, which includes his engagements and also he was as a person. If this speech is occulting a lot many doubtful sides of Mitterrand, it also give inspiring sides of the life of one the most brilliant French politicians of the XXth century.
First Chirac is talking about the fact Mitterrand was a great reader. The fact he book his love of books at the center of his life, which is not only made of politics, shows a person with a lot of general culture, which can be quite useful, contrary to many stereotypes told today, if you want to engage for a cause. Mitterrand valued a lot books and cultures, built a huge library in the XIIIth arrondissement of Paris, and was often walking a book in his hand. He made him a great debator, able to talk in an excellent level of French and was also very spirited. He was also living compliant to classical standards, and was also able to be greatly original and to think out of the box to a very high level.
Second Chirac talks about his engagements. Actually the legacy of Mitterrand was very doubtful to this extend, as he was engaged in the extreme right in his youth, and turned progressively towards the right then the left after the Second World war. However the idea to “serve” engagements is very inspiring. Other great figures like Marx, even if I personally don’t agree with his ideas, devoted a lot to serve his ideals. This approach looks very interesting in our time with lack of repairs and decadence. People like de Gaulle or Mendès France who were able to fight compliant to values were able to achieve a lot of things.
The successor of Mitterrand talked about the politician he was. To this extend he told the sentence “he defended human rights everywhere they were oppressed”. He talks rightly to this extend of the role France should have in the world, a representant of the values inherited from the French Revolution that can be inspiring for many places in the world and supportive for many political opponents or migrants. Personally it is an important reason I am proud to be French, even if our story has somber sides that should not be occulted.
Last he talked about the life of Mitterrand. The way he had a very diverse network, from many different backgrounds, and was promoting to a great extend the value of friendship, can be inspiring ; even if it has to raise questions if friends turn badly and it created a lot of scandal for Mitterrand, from the scandals of Pelat to his complaisance with Bousquet. He talked about his perseverance as well, for instance to fight the cancer he had. Mitterrand had a lot of difficult periods in his life but was greatly tenacious, for this reason he believed in the power of the will. This approach is really inspiring and it for me a realization of the Hegelian dialectics : reality really makes sense in the long run, and tenacity is for me a bet in the middle and long run. The path Mitterrand created, which was greatly personal and original, is also a realization of the Hegelian ideas : there is no limit in reality if you have a long term project and you walk and work constantly to achieve it. This message is also very inspiring for our generation.
The speech of Chirac, even if it doesn’t talk about many criticizable sides of Mitterrand, is stressing real positive aspects people can inspire from the former president. Personally, from what I read and watched, I have extreme feelings to the extend I admire and despise him at the same time. In my opinion he was the most cynical and corrupted French politician of the XXth century, and his role for instance in the genocide in Rwanda in 1993 is maybe more important than it is told today. I admire him as well to the extend the was extremely brilliant and a great leader in his way. At the end of the course he was the greatest French political deception of the XXth century, to the extend, brilliant as he was, he would have been able to achieve a lot of great things. But, as Calvin wrote, men of power often need to be nasty, and “good” people shouldn’t do politics ; I disagree with that to the extend I think for instance de Gaulle was quite a good man, even if he was able to be a cold hearted chess player. But Mitterrand is misfortunately showing a somber side of men of power that could have made him an example of a great sophist in the books of Plato.
The observer 