What do you think?
Rate this book
Le hasard et la nécessité
Cet ouvrage, un grand classique désormais, son auteur l'a écrit pour répondre au « devoir qui s'impose, aujourd'hui plus que jamais, aux hommes de science de penser leur discipline dans l'ensemble de la culture moderne pour l'enrichir non seulement de connaissances techniquement importantes, mais aussi des idées venues de leur science qu'ils peuvent croire humainement signifiantes. L'ingénuité même d'un regard neuf (celui de la science l'est toujours) peut parfois éclairer d'un jour nouveau d'anciens problèmes... »
244 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
125 people are currently reading
3563 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Monod
35 books43 followersJacques Lucien Monod (9 February 1910 – 31 May 1976) was a French biologist who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, sharing it with François Jacob and Andre Lwoff "for their discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis".
Monod (along with François Jacob) is famous for his work on the E. coli lac operon, which encodes proteins necessary for the transport and breakdown of the sugar lactose (lac). From their own work and the work of others, he and Jacob came up with a model for how the levels of some proteins in a cell are controlled. In their model, the manufacture of proteins, such as the ones encoded within the lac (lactose) operon, is prevented when a repressor, encoded by a regulatory gene, binds to its operator, a specific site on the DNA next to the genes encoding the proteins. It is now known that repressor bound to the operator physically blocks RNA polymerase from binding to the promoter, the site where transcription of the adjacent genes begins.
Study of the control of expression of genes in the lac operon provided the first example of a transcriptional regulation system. He also suggested the existence of mRNA molecules that link the information encoded in DNA and proteins. Monod is widely regarded as one of the founders of molecular biology. Monod's interest in the lac operon originated from his doctoral dissertation, for which he studied the growth of bacteria in culture media containing two sugars.
Monod was also awarded several other honours and distinctions, among them the Légion d'honneur.
Monod (along with François Jacob) is famous for his work on the E. coli lac operon, which encodes proteins necessary for the transport and breakdown of the sugar lactose (lac). From their own work and the work of others, he and Jacob came up with a model for how the levels of some proteins in a cell are controlled. In their model, the manufacture of proteins, such as the ones encoded within the lac (lactose) operon, is prevented when a repressor, encoded by a regulatory gene, binds to its operator, a specific site on the DNA next to the genes encoding the proteins. It is now known that repressor bound to the operator physically blocks RNA polymerase from binding to the promoter, the site where transcription of the adjacent genes begins.
Study of the control of expression of genes in the lac operon provided the first example of a transcriptional regulation system. He also suggested the existence of mRNA molecules that link the information encoded in DNA and proteins. Monod is widely regarded as one of the founders of molecular biology. Monod's interest in the lac operon originated from his doctoral dissertation, for which he studied the growth of bacteria in culture media containing two sugars.
Monod was also awarded several other honours and distinctions, among them the Légion d'honneur.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
May 6, 2014
As far as I can make out from a little background reading, the origin of this book came in 1948. Jacques Monod, a highly distinguished molecular biologist who would later win the 1965 Nobel Prize, was asked by his friend Albert Camus to write a critique of Lysenkoism; at the time this was officially declared by Stalin as holy writ to which all right-thinking Marxists had to subscribe on pain of excommunication. Monod, appalled at Lysenko's mendacious pseudo-scientific nonsense, tore it to pieces. But I get the impression that he then thought a great deal about how things had got to this point, and discussed the ideas with Camus and other people. The eventual result was Le hasard et la nécessité, which came out nearly 20 years later.
Monod was evidently a very deep thinker. If you want to pin Lysenkoism on someone, the obvious culprit is Lysenko himself, and the next most obvious is his protector Stalin. Monod wasn't satisfied with blaming Stalin, or even Marx. He looks at the philosophical basis of Marxism, which, he persuasively argues, is really just another example of what he refers to as "animism": the belief that the world is somehow infused with a purpose. For a Christian, that purpose comes from God, and for a Marxist it comes from the dialectical interpretation of history.
Monod thinks that Christianity, Marxism and all other "animist" philosophies are equally off-target. In the main body of the text, he presents a brilliantly condensed account of how his work in molecular biology led him to this position; although the book was written in the late 60s, his line of reasoning still comes across as extremely convincing. Monod starts by considering the similarities and differences between three general kinds of things: living creatures, artifacts, and "natural objects". He shows how difficult it is to frame clear rules to distinguish them, and concludes that there is in fact no hard-and-fast difference separating a living creature from a crystal. In both cases, the patterns and symmetries we see come from the mathematical nature of the underlying molecular structures; crystal lattices in one case, DNA in the other. The real difference is that living creatures are vastly more complicated.
Monod goes on to elaborate this correspondance, and shows how the processes by which living creatures reproduce are fundamentally similar, at a molecular level, to those that make a crystal grow. He spends a good deal of time explaining the fascinating details of how enzymes, the complex proteins involved in the process of DNA replication, are both created by the DNA and also used by it to perform this task. He shows how these enzymes are to all intents and purposes wonderfully ingenious machines, which give every appearance of having been designed to serve highly specific purposes; but, just when you think he's contradicted himself, he goes on to demonstrate that their structure reveals they can only be the product of blind chance. There is no one running the show: not God, History, the Life Force or anything else. As Lucretius said a couple of thousand years earlier, there is just atoms and void.
After the long segue into molecular biology, Monod concludes by looping back to his starting point. Nothing in the universe, he says, gives it external purpose. We are the ones who give it purpose, based on our billions of years of inherited molecular experience; we must keep our objectivity, and be careful not to confuse facts and values. As an Existentialist sermon, I have never seen it done better. Chapeau, Monsieur.
Monod was evidently a very deep thinker. If you want to pin Lysenkoism on someone, the obvious culprit is Lysenko himself, and the next most obvious is his protector Stalin. Monod wasn't satisfied with blaming Stalin, or even Marx. He looks at the philosophical basis of Marxism, which, he persuasively argues, is really just another example of what he refers to as "animism": the belief that the world is somehow infused with a purpose. For a Christian, that purpose comes from God, and for a Marxist it comes from the dialectical interpretation of history.
Monod thinks that Christianity, Marxism and all other "animist" philosophies are equally off-target. In the main body of the text, he presents a brilliantly condensed account of how his work in molecular biology led him to this position; although the book was written in the late 60s, his line of reasoning still comes across as extremely convincing. Monod starts by considering the similarities and differences between three general kinds of things: living creatures, artifacts, and "natural objects". He shows how difficult it is to frame clear rules to distinguish them, and concludes that there is in fact no hard-and-fast difference separating a living creature from a crystal. In both cases, the patterns and symmetries we see come from the mathematical nature of the underlying molecular structures; crystal lattices in one case, DNA in the other. The real difference is that living creatures are vastly more complicated.
Monod goes on to elaborate this correspondance, and shows how the processes by which living creatures reproduce are fundamentally similar, at a molecular level, to those that make a crystal grow. He spends a good deal of time explaining the fascinating details of how enzymes, the complex proteins involved in the process of DNA replication, are both created by the DNA and also used by it to perform this task. He shows how these enzymes are to all intents and purposes wonderfully ingenious machines, which give every appearance of having been designed to serve highly specific purposes; but, just when you think he's contradicted himself, he goes on to demonstrate that their structure reveals they can only be the product of blind chance. There is no one running the show: not God, History, the Life Force or anything else. As Lucretius said a couple of thousand years earlier, there is just atoms and void.
After the long segue into molecular biology, Monod concludes by looping back to his starting point. Nothing in the universe, he says, gives it external purpose. We are the ones who give it purpose, based on our billions of years of inherited molecular experience; we must keep our objectivity, and be careful not to confuse facts and values. As an Existentialist sermon, I have never seen it done better. Chapeau, Monsieur.
June 14, 2025
Jacques Monod a fost un biolog și filosof, Laureat al Premiului Nobel pentru fiziologie și medicină în 1965.
Cartea de față prezintă legătura dintre filosofie și științele biologice, scriitorul susținând că viața este rezultatul hazardului (mutațiile aleatorii) și a necesității (legile fizicei).
Conferințele au fost susținute în 1969 la Colegiul Pomona din California.
Jacques Monad oferă un sens negativ al singurătății umane.
Non-sensul uman este înscris în codul genetic al omului.
Omul contemporan a devenit un "pudor humanus" care semnifică proasta judecată asupra propriei sale așezări în lume.
Demonia tehnicii îl bulversează și îl corupe astăzi pe omul modern.
Produce mai mult decât folosește și se îneacă în propriul mâl tehnologic.
În sânul societății, omul contemporan aduce prea mult control, prea multă luciditate.
Iar în natură creează dezechilibre tot mai mari, o pustieste și o infectează cu activitatea sa unilaterală.
Tânărul occidental, însă, trece azi prin perioade critice, face prea puțin sau refuză să mai facă ceva.
Toate aceste lucruri conducând la anarhia tinerilor care evoluează spre un nihilism pasiv, dar fără revoluție.
Starea de disperare continuă asupra celor care nu mai știu "ce să facă cu viața lor".
Dezinteresul de a instala o " lume nouă" îi face pe tinerii de azi doar anarhiști, dar nu și revoluționari ca în secolul al XIX-a în Rusia când tineretul era dominat de un nihilism activ, de o voința de a instaura o lume nouă.
"Hazard și necesitate" este o carte practică, științifică, filosofică și captivitanta în măsura de noi cunoștințe pe care le aduce în acest domeniu.
Cartea de față prezintă legătura dintre filosofie și științele biologice, scriitorul susținând că viața este rezultatul hazardului (mutațiile aleatorii) și a necesității (legile fizicei).
Conferințele au fost susținute în 1969 la Colegiul Pomona din California.
Jacques Monad oferă un sens negativ al singurătății umane.
Non-sensul uman este înscris în codul genetic al omului.
Omul contemporan a devenit un "pudor humanus" care semnifică proasta judecată asupra propriei sale așezări în lume.
Demonia tehnicii îl bulversează și îl corupe astăzi pe omul modern.
Produce mai mult decât folosește și se îneacă în propriul mâl tehnologic.
În sânul societății, omul contemporan aduce prea mult control, prea multă luciditate.
Iar în natură creează dezechilibre tot mai mari, o pustieste și o infectează cu activitatea sa unilaterală.
Tânărul occidental, însă, trece azi prin perioade critice, face prea puțin sau refuză să mai facă ceva.
Toate aceste lucruri conducând la anarhia tinerilor care evoluează spre un nihilism pasiv, dar fără revoluție.
Starea de disperare continuă asupra celor care nu mai știu "ce să facă cu viața lor".
Dezinteresul de a instala o " lume nouă" îi face pe tinerii de azi doar anarhiști, dar nu și revoluționari ca în secolul al XIX-a în Rusia când tineretul era dominat de un nihilism activ, de o voința de a instaura o lume nouă.
"Hazard și necesitate" este o carte practică, științifică, filosofică și captivitanta în măsura de noi cunoștințe pe care le aduce în acest domeniu.
March 2, 2017
đọc đuợc phần đầu với phần cuối, phần giữa kiến thức hóa-sinh học cũng sâu(hơn mức cấp 3 nhiều) nên tạm lướt. vấn đề được đặt ra và kết lại cũng hay, cũng là vấn đề mình đang quan tâm nhất.
là từ ngàn xưa mối quan hệ giữa chân lý khách quan và các diễn ngôn về giá trị, làm cơ sở cho luật pháp, , đạo đức, các trật tự và các thực hành xã hội được người xưa "gói gém" trong các giao ước hữu linh dựa trên cơ sở tôn giáo. nhưng từ sự nổi lên của khoa học hiện đại, quá chú trọng khía cạnh chân lý khách quan và bỏ rơi khía cạnh giá trị đã phá vỡ giao ước đó và làm cho những sợ hãi, âu lo vốn đã được giải quyết ổn thỏa bằng các giao ước tâm linh quay lại ám ảnh đời sống con người. nhìn nhận như thế thì có thể gọi đó là sự tha hóa, suy đồi, vô đạo của con người/xã hội hiện đại.
Tới đây thì ắt hẳn tham vọng là phải để xuất một giải pháp để nối liền 2 khía cạnh đều cực kì quan trọng của đời con người kia lại, tác giả đề xuất cái gọi là đạo lý của sự hiểu biết.
rất tiết nhưng thật sự chỉ có thể cho 3* thôi :3
là từ ngàn xưa mối quan hệ giữa chân lý khách quan và các diễn ngôn về giá trị, làm cơ sở cho luật pháp, , đạo đức, các trật tự và các thực hành xã hội được người xưa "gói gém" trong các giao ước hữu linh dựa trên cơ sở tôn giáo. nhưng từ sự nổi lên của khoa học hiện đại, quá chú trọng khía cạnh chân lý khách quan và bỏ rơi khía cạnh giá trị đã phá vỡ giao ước đó và làm cho những sợ hãi, âu lo vốn đã được giải quyết ổn thỏa bằng các giao ước tâm linh quay lại ám ảnh đời sống con người. nhìn nhận như thế thì có thể gọi đó là sự tha hóa, suy đồi, vô đạo của con người/xã hội hiện đại.
Tới đây thì ắt hẳn tham vọng là phải để xuất một giải pháp để nối liền 2 khía cạnh đều cực kì quan trọng của đời con người kia lại, tác giả đề xuất cái gọi là đạo lý của sự hiểu biết.
rất tiết nhưng thật sự chỉ có thể cho 3* thôi :3
June 18, 2014
Monod argues that all of the Earth’s biosphere (which he believes is a unique event in the cosmos via a random coming together of the right molecules and milieu), comes down to DNA that directs protein formation and the building blocks of life. Except for mutations, which are "chance" occurrences that go through the screen of natural selection, DNA is replicated invariantly, and this constitutes the “necessity” part of Monod’s argument.
DNA’s information for the proteins is directed. As opposed to a teleological pulling toward some end product, Monod calls this directional vector teleonomic. Direction is built into the chemicals so that body structure and behavior operate in a highly defined way (they are “endowed with a purpose or project”). The end products of this are all the various life forms in our biosphere.
This teleonomic principle stands in contrast, Monod argues, with vitalism and animism. Vitalism (Bergson) has life infused with a mysterious impulse that is void of any predetermined purpose. Animist philosophy (Leibniz, Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin, Marx) sees a progressive unfolding of purpose in evolution, leading to its highest expression in man. Animism in this sense, Monod states, is a “projection into inanimate nature of man’s awareness of the intensely teleonomic functioning of his own central nervous system.” In Monod’s perspective, these philosophic approaches stand in contrast with his teleonomic view of the biosphere that rests on the objective foundation of science. Objective knowledge is, he argues, value free except for the epistemological value of objective knowledge itself.
In addition to his teleonomic principle, Monod makes some interesting observations when he applies his objective knowledge to human affairs. He believes that language was the key selective adaptation that led to the evolution of mind. Bipedalism freed the hands to hunt. Hunting gave our ancestral line a survival advantage that began our cognitive trajectory. Hunting required cooperation and group cohesion and these required language and cognition structures that supported sophisticated communication-based interaction. Language was the key for the development of our cognition, including most importantly the capacity for simulation. We could act out the strategy for a hunt in our minds, which made us very effective hunters. Monod believes this cognitive development created universal language structures (a la Chomsky) and mental categories (the innate ideas of Descartes; the a priori categories of Kant) and probably created other innate capacities as well (emotions?). This innateness, he argues, stands in direct contrast to all empiricist philosophy.
Applying his objective knowledge approach to contemporary issues, Monod believes his so-called ethic of knowledge leads to socialism and a concern that human breeding practices lead to genetically-based upper and lower class divisions as well as to the reproduction of “genetic cripples.” He supports some sort of genetic engineering that improves the species by increasing the reliance on logic and science as the basis for decision-making within a meme-like environment where ideas are freely and openly debated.
Monod is particularly impressive in the way he boils all life down to DNA’s invariant nature and its direction to proteins. In a summary statement, he writes that “once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident…will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated….Even today a good many distinguished minds seem unable to accept or even to understand that from a source of noise natural selection alone and unaided could have drawn all the music of the biosphere. In effect natural selection operates upon the products of chance and can feed nowhere else; but it operates in a domain of very demanding conditions, and from this domain chance is barred.”
A good part of Monod’s philosophical discussion is critical of Marxian dialectics that have the progressive unfolding of history being driven by external, environmental conditions. In contrast, Monod describes the permanent, invariant nature of the organism, at its life core. This view does not negate the dialectic. Rather, it places the thesis part of the dialectic squarely within the organism. The dialectical process begins with life, seeking to live and to live well. We are the initiators of action in the environment that the environment in turn acts upon and both result in our transformation as a species and as individuals.
Where Monod goes astray, and considerably so, is his belief in a value-free ethic of knowledge. This leads him into some very value-laden pronouncements about how society ought to be organized. The foremost problem with that approach is his belief that cognitive sophistication alone is sufficient to solve our survival and life problems. It is interesting that nowhere in this book does Monod talk about human motivation and our emotional make up. Yet we have ample examples of intelligent people whose intelligence is driven by self-serving ends. Monod seems to presume that intelligence, alone, leads to the promotion of the good of the whole (socialism), but such promotion does not happen unless there’s an underlying motivation to make it so. Interestingly, Monod’s notes our long history of killing each other based on our tribal nature. Unfortunately, this tribal tendency might be deeply embedded in our species as one of those innate structures that Monod elsewhere indicates might be present, making it fairly immune to cognitive regulation. If true, a system of checks and balances for the organization of society might better reflect the realities of human nature than, say, relying on rational argument and pleas for reason. Peace does not come from good will and rationality alone.
DNA’s information for the proteins is directed. As opposed to a teleological pulling toward some end product, Monod calls this directional vector teleonomic. Direction is built into the chemicals so that body structure and behavior operate in a highly defined way (they are “endowed with a purpose or project”). The end products of this are all the various life forms in our biosphere.
This teleonomic principle stands in contrast, Monod argues, with vitalism and animism. Vitalism (Bergson) has life infused with a mysterious impulse that is void of any predetermined purpose. Animist philosophy (Leibniz, Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin, Marx) sees a progressive unfolding of purpose in evolution, leading to its highest expression in man. Animism in this sense, Monod states, is a “projection into inanimate nature of man’s awareness of the intensely teleonomic functioning of his own central nervous system.” In Monod’s perspective, these philosophic approaches stand in contrast with his teleonomic view of the biosphere that rests on the objective foundation of science. Objective knowledge is, he argues, value free except for the epistemological value of objective knowledge itself.
In addition to his teleonomic principle, Monod makes some interesting observations when he applies his objective knowledge to human affairs. He believes that language was the key selective adaptation that led to the evolution of mind. Bipedalism freed the hands to hunt. Hunting gave our ancestral line a survival advantage that began our cognitive trajectory. Hunting required cooperation and group cohesion and these required language and cognition structures that supported sophisticated communication-based interaction. Language was the key for the development of our cognition, including most importantly the capacity for simulation. We could act out the strategy for a hunt in our minds, which made us very effective hunters. Monod believes this cognitive development created universal language structures (a la Chomsky) and mental categories (the innate ideas of Descartes; the a priori categories of Kant) and probably created other innate capacities as well (emotions?). This innateness, he argues, stands in direct contrast to all empiricist philosophy.
Applying his objective knowledge approach to contemporary issues, Monod believes his so-called ethic of knowledge leads to socialism and a concern that human breeding practices lead to genetically-based upper and lower class divisions as well as to the reproduction of “genetic cripples.” He supports some sort of genetic engineering that improves the species by increasing the reliance on logic and science as the basis for decision-making within a meme-like environment where ideas are freely and openly debated.
Monod is particularly impressive in the way he boils all life down to DNA’s invariant nature and its direction to proteins. In a summary statement, he writes that “once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident…will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated….Even today a good many distinguished minds seem unable to accept or even to understand that from a source of noise natural selection alone and unaided could have drawn all the music of the biosphere. In effect natural selection operates upon the products of chance and can feed nowhere else; but it operates in a domain of very demanding conditions, and from this domain chance is barred.”
A good part of Monod’s philosophical discussion is critical of Marxian dialectics that have the progressive unfolding of history being driven by external, environmental conditions. In contrast, Monod describes the permanent, invariant nature of the organism, at its life core. This view does not negate the dialectic. Rather, it places the thesis part of the dialectic squarely within the organism. The dialectical process begins with life, seeking to live and to live well. We are the initiators of action in the environment that the environment in turn acts upon and both result in our transformation as a species and as individuals.
Where Monod goes astray, and considerably so, is his belief in a value-free ethic of knowledge. This leads him into some very value-laden pronouncements about how society ought to be organized. The foremost problem with that approach is his belief that cognitive sophistication alone is sufficient to solve our survival and life problems. It is interesting that nowhere in this book does Monod talk about human motivation and our emotional make up. Yet we have ample examples of intelligent people whose intelligence is driven by self-serving ends. Monod seems to presume that intelligence, alone, leads to the promotion of the good of the whole (socialism), but such promotion does not happen unless there’s an underlying motivation to make it so. Interestingly, Monod’s notes our long history of killing each other based on our tribal nature. Unfortunately, this tribal tendency might be deeply embedded in our species as one of those innate structures that Monod elsewhere indicates might be present, making it fairly immune to cognitive regulation. If true, a system of checks and balances for the organization of society might better reflect the realities of human nature than, say, relying on rational argument and pleas for reason. Peace does not come from good will and rationality alone.
March 15, 2018
Chi afferma che il contenuto di questo saggio sia una ripetizione delle nozioni contenute nei manuali di biologia molecolare, non mi trova d'accordo. E' vero: Monod abbozza alcune nozioni fondamentali della biologia, tracciando una breve descrizione dei processi di replicazione e traduzione, ma lo fa in una maniera essenziale e funzionale agli obiettivi della sua opera, volendo dare un supporto chimico alle argomentazioni che introduce sin dal primo capitolo, centrali nella sua trattazione: la replicazione per l''invarianza riproduttiva'' e la traduzione per la ''teleonomia'', che assieme alla ''morfogenesi autonoma'', rappresentano le tre caratteristiche che tracciano una linea di separazione tra il vivente e il non vivente.
E' da qui che parte l'argomentazione di Monod, che illustra alcuni paradossi della Biologia, come il fatto di contraddire il principio di oggettività della Natura (ossia il rifiuto di pervenire ad una conoscenza vera mediante qualsiasi interpretazione di fenomeni in termine di cause finali, di progetto), essendo l'esistenza del vivente guidata proprio dalla realizzazione di un progetto.
Monod offre uno sguardo nuovo e fresco su alcune questioni basilari della biologia, riuscendo insegnare qualcosa anche agli esperti del settore e svelando, quindi, una profonda conoscenza e passione per la materia.
Offre, infine, una visione cruda del rapporto della società moderna con la scienza, ribadendo come l'antico vincolo animistico con la Natura è da tempo spezzato: bisogna, oggi, mettere al centro dell'esistenza umana la consapevolezza della solitudine siderale dell'uomo nell'Universo e la necessità di una nuova etica che non rimanga indietro, alla luce della folle corsa del progresso scientifico.
Sebbene il livello della trattazione non sia omogeneo e la brevità del saggio riveli, a mio parere, il bisogno di un approfondimento più sostanzioso di ogni capitolo, la profondità del pensiero dell'uomo e scienziato Monod e l'acutezza di alcune sue considerazioni, indubbiamente geniali, giustifica la valutazione a 5 stelle di questo libro.
E' da qui che parte l'argomentazione di Monod, che illustra alcuni paradossi della Biologia, come il fatto di contraddire il principio di oggettività della Natura (ossia il rifiuto di pervenire ad una conoscenza vera mediante qualsiasi interpretazione di fenomeni in termine di cause finali, di progetto), essendo l'esistenza del vivente guidata proprio dalla realizzazione di un progetto.
Monod offre uno sguardo nuovo e fresco su alcune questioni basilari della biologia, riuscendo insegnare qualcosa anche agli esperti del settore e svelando, quindi, una profonda conoscenza e passione per la materia.
Offre, infine, una visione cruda del rapporto della società moderna con la scienza, ribadendo come l'antico vincolo animistico con la Natura è da tempo spezzato: bisogna, oggi, mettere al centro dell'esistenza umana la consapevolezza della solitudine siderale dell'uomo nell'Universo e la necessità di una nuova etica che non rimanga indietro, alla luce della folle corsa del progresso scientifico.
Sebbene il livello della trattazione non sia omogeneo e la brevità del saggio riveli, a mio parere, il bisogno di un approfondimento più sostanzioso di ogni capitolo, la profondità del pensiero dell'uomo e scienziato Monod e l'acutezza di alcune sue considerazioni, indubbiamente geniali, giustifica la valutazione a 5 stelle di questo libro.
March 4, 2016
Un ouvrage très pointu, ardu, et peu abordable, j'ai eu beaucoup de mal à le lire, j'ai carrément zappé quelques pages, et je ne pense pas que je suis prête à le relire prochainement, très complexe à suivre et nécessite des bases solides en biologie moléculaire, sinon l'auteur est un peu trop extrémiste, avec une vision du monde et de l'humain purement matérialiste !
Je passe !
Je passe !
January 26, 2025
FRANÇAIS: Diffusion d'un très haut niveau, puisque Monod utilise ses connaissances ultra-spécialisées sur les enzymes et leur manière d'agir pour donner ses explications. Au chapitres 4-5, il tente de les utiliser pour justifier sa foi philosophique dans le réductionnisme et contre l’émergencenisme. Pour justifier sa foi réductionniste, il soutient que les quelques phénomènes enzymatiques que nous connaissons en profondeur au niveau microscopique et sont donc réductionnistes automatiquement. Bien sûr, il reconnaît que nous ignorons des millions de cas supplémentaires, à différents niveaux, depuis les êtres vivants les plus petits jusqu’aux plus complexes, en terminand dans le cerveau humain. Mais s'il vous plaît, tous ces millions de cas dont nous ne connaissons pas en profondeur, comment pourraient-ils ne pas être réductionnistes ? C’est plus ou moins la direction de son raisonnement décevant.
Dès le début, il a correctement distingué la philosophie et la science, même si parfois la différence est floue, comme lorsqu'il discrédite les partisans de l'émergence (il l'appelle holisme) en affirmant qu'ils ont une « profonde ignorance de la méthode scientifique et du rôle essentiel que l’analyse y joue ». Autrement dit, il méprise l'idée contraire en recourant aux erreurs « ad hominen » et « petitio principii ».
Et alors, dans le dernier chapitre, il tombe dans le piège : pour justifier que l'éthique humaniste traditionnelle, fondée sur les droits de l'homme et les religions, est obsolète, il part de cette affirmation: la seule connaissance valable est la connaissance scientifique. Considérons cette affirmation : est-ce de la science ? Évidemment pas; c'est philosophique. Si c’est vrai, cela nous conduit à une contradiction. Cette affirmation est donc fausse. Par conséquent, toutes ses discussions dans le dernier chapitre tombent de son fondement, parce qu'elles sont basées sur cette affirmation fausse.
La meilleure réponse à ce livre de Monod a été donnée par Joseph Ratzinger dans la troisième homélie de son livre In the Beginning, lorsqu'il a écrit ceci : Mais maintenant Monod conclut de manière surprenante : « C'est ainsi que la biosphère entière a émergé ; c'est ainsi que l'homme a également émergé, comme le produit d'erreurs aléatoires ».
Que dire de cette réponse ?... Les grands projets de la vie ne sont pas le produit du hasard ou d'une erreur. Ils ne sont pas non plus le produit d’une sélection à laquelle sont conférés des prédicats divins, qui ne sont à ce stade qu’un mythe moderne, illogique et non scientifique. Les grands projets de la vie nous renvoient à une raison créatrice, nous montrant aujourd'hui l'esprit créateur avec plus de clarté et d'éclat que jamais. C'est pourquoi nous pouvons dire aujourd'hui avec une joie et une certitude renouvelées : Oui, l'homme est un projet de Dieu... L'homme n'est pas une erreur, mais il a été voulu comme fruit de l'amour... Il peut découvrir en lui-même... le langage de l'esprit de la création, qui l'interpelle et lui donne la force de dire : Oui, Père, tu m'as aimé.
ENGLISH: Very high-level scientific popularization, as Monod uses his super-specialized knowledge about enzymes and their way of acting to give his explanations. In chapters 4-5 he tries to use them to justify his philosophical faith in reductionism, against emergentism. To justify his reductionist faith, he argues that the few enzymatic phenomena that we know in depth take place at the microscopic level and are therefore automatically reductionist. Of course, he recognizes that we are unaware of the workings of millions more cases, at various levels, from the smallest living beings to the most complex, ending in the human brain. But, please! All those millions of cases that we do not know in depth, how can they not be reductionist? That, more or less, is the way of his disappointing reasoning.
At the beginning he distinguished correctly between philosophy and science, although sometimes the difference is blurred, as when he discredits the supporters of emergentism (which he calls holism) stating that they have a "deep ignorance of the scientific method and the essential role that analysis plays in it". In other words, he despises the contrary idea by resorting to the "ad hominen" and "petitio principii" fallacies.
And to make matters worse, in the last chapter he falls into the trap: to justify that traditional humanistic ethics, based on human rights and religions, are obsolete, he starts from this assertion: the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. Let's consider this statement: Is it science? Obviously not; it is philosophical. If it is true, it leads to a contradiction. Therefore it is false. Consequently, all the disquisitions by Monod in the last chapter are incorrect, because they are based on a false assertion.
The best answer to this book by Monod was given by Joseph Ratzinger in the third homily of his book In the Beginning, when he wrote this: But now Monod concludes in a surprising way: "Thus has the entire biosphere emerged; this is how man has also emerged, as a product of random errors."
What can we say to this answer?... The great projects of life are not the product of chance or error. Nor are they the product of a selection, to which divine predicates are conferred, which at this point are nothing more than a modern illogical and unscientific myth. The great projects of life refer us to a creative reason, showing us today the creative spirit with more clarity and brilliance than ever. That is why we can say today with renewed joy and certainty: Yes, man is a project of God... Man is not an error, but has been willed as a fruit of love... He can discover in himself... .the language of the spirit of creation, which challenges him and gives him strength to say: Yes, Father, you have loved me.
ESPAÑOL: Divulgación de muy alto nivel, pues Monod utiliza sus conocimientos superespecializados sobre las enzimas y su modo de actuar para dar sus explicaciones. En los capítulos 4-5 trata de utilizarlos para justificar su fe filosófica en el reduccionismo, y en contra del emergentismo. Para justificar su fe reduccionista, aduce que los pocos fenómenos enzimáticos que conocemos a fondo tienen lugar al nivel microscópico y por tanto son automáticamente reduccionistas. Eso sí, reconoce que desconocemos millones de casos más, en varios niveles, desde los seres vivos más diminutos a los más complejos, terminando en el cerebro humano. Pero, ¡por favor!, todos esos millones de casos que no conocemos a fondo, ¿cómo no van a ser reduccionistas? Ese, más o menos, es el tenor de su decepcionante razonamiento.
Al principio, Monod distingue bien entre filosofía y ciencia, aunque a veces la diferencia se difumina, como cuando desacredita a los partidarios del emergentismo (lo llama holismo) afirmando que tienen un "profundo desconocimiento del método científico y del papel esencial que en él juega el análisis". O sea, desprecia la idea contraria recurriendo a las falacias "ad hominen" y "petitio principii".
Y para colmo, en el último capítulo, cae en la trampa: para justificar que la ética humanística tradicional, basada en los derechos humanos y las religiones, están periclitadas, parte de la afirmación de que el único conocimiento válido es el conocimiento científico. Consideremos esta afirmación: ¿Es ciencia? Evidentemente no; es filosófica. si es verdadera, nos lleva a una contradicción. Luego es falsa. En consecuencia, todas sus disquisiciones del último capítulo caen por su base, porque se basan en una afirmación falsa.
La mejor respuesta a este libro de Monod la dio Joseph Ratzinger en la tercera homilía de su libro Creación y pecado, cuando escribió esto: Pero ahora concluye Monod de manera sorprendente: "De esta manera es como ha surgido toda la biosfera; así es como ha surgido también el hombre, como producto de fallos azarosos."
¿Qué podemos decir a esta respuesta?... Los grandes proyectos de la vida no son producto ni del azar ni del error. Tampoco son producto de una selección, a la que se le confieren predicados divinos, que en este punto no son más que un moderno mito ilógico y acientífico. Los grandes proyectos de la vida nos remiten a una razón creadora, mostrándonos hoy el espíritu creador con más claridad y brillantez que nunca. Por eso podemos decir hoy con renovada alegría y certeza: Sí, el hombre es un proyecto de Dios... El hombre no es un error, sino que ha sido querido como fruto del amor... Él puede descubrir en sí mismo... el lenguaje del espíritu de la creación, que le interpela y que le da fuerzas para decir: Sí, Padre, tú me has querido.
Dès le début, il a correctement distingué la philosophie et la science, même si parfois la différence est floue, comme lorsqu'il discrédite les partisans de l'émergence (il l'appelle holisme) en affirmant qu'ils ont une « profonde ignorance de la méthode scientifique et du rôle essentiel que l’analyse y joue ». Autrement dit, il méprise l'idée contraire en recourant aux erreurs « ad hominen » et « petitio principii ».
Et alors, dans le dernier chapitre, il tombe dans le piège : pour justifier que l'éthique humaniste traditionnelle, fondée sur les droits de l'homme et les religions, est obsolète, il part de cette affirmation: la seule connaissance valable est la connaissance scientifique. Considérons cette affirmation : est-ce de la science ? Évidemment pas; c'est philosophique. Si c’est vrai, cela nous conduit à une contradiction. Cette affirmation est donc fausse. Par conséquent, toutes ses discussions dans le dernier chapitre tombent de son fondement, parce qu'elles sont basées sur cette affirmation fausse.
La meilleure réponse à ce livre de Monod a été donnée par Joseph Ratzinger dans la troisième homélie de son livre In the Beginning, lorsqu'il a écrit ceci : Mais maintenant Monod conclut de manière surprenante : « C'est ainsi que la biosphère entière a émergé ; c'est ainsi que l'homme a également émergé, comme le produit d'erreurs aléatoires ».
Que dire de cette réponse ?... Les grands projets de la vie ne sont pas le produit du hasard ou d'une erreur. Ils ne sont pas non plus le produit d’une sélection à laquelle sont conférés des prédicats divins, qui ne sont à ce stade qu’un mythe moderne, illogique et non scientifique. Les grands projets de la vie nous renvoient à une raison créatrice, nous montrant aujourd'hui l'esprit créateur avec plus de clarté et d'éclat que jamais. C'est pourquoi nous pouvons dire aujourd'hui avec une joie et une certitude renouvelées : Oui, l'homme est un projet de Dieu... L'homme n'est pas une erreur, mais il a été voulu comme fruit de l'amour... Il peut découvrir en lui-même... le langage de l'esprit de la création, qui l'interpelle et lui donne la force de dire : Oui, Père, tu m'as aimé.
ENGLISH: Very high-level scientific popularization, as Monod uses his super-specialized knowledge about enzymes and their way of acting to give his explanations. In chapters 4-5 he tries to use them to justify his philosophical faith in reductionism, against emergentism. To justify his reductionist faith, he argues that the few enzymatic phenomena that we know in depth take place at the microscopic level and are therefore automatically reductionist. Of course, he recognizes that we are unaware of the workings of millions more cases, at various levels, from the smallest living beings to the most complex, ending in the human brain. But, please! All those millions of cases that we do not know in depth, how can they not be reductionist? That, more or less, is the way of his disappointing reasoning.
At the beginning he distinguished correctly between philosophy and science, although sometimes the difference is blurred, as when he discredits the supporters of emergentism (which he calls holism) stating that they have a "deep ignorance of the scientific method and the essential role that analysis plays in it". In other words, he despises the contrary idea by resorting to the "ad hominen" and "petitio principii" fallacies.
And to make matters worse, in the last chapter he falls into the trap: to justify that traditional humanistic ethics, based on human rights and religions, are obsolete, he starts from this assertion: the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. Let's consider this statement: Is it science? Obviously not; it is philosophical. If it is true, it leads to a contradiction. Therefore it is false. Consequently, all the disquisitions by Monod in the last chapter are incorrect, because they are based on a false assertion.
The best answer to this book by Monod was given by Joseph Ratzinger in the third homily of his book In the Beginning, when he wrote this: But now Monod concludes in a surprising way: "Thus has the entire biosphere emerged; this is how man has also emerged, as a product of random errors."
What can we say to this answer?... The great projects of life are not the product of chance or error. Nor are they the product of a selection, to which divine predicates are conferred, which at this point are nothing more than a modern illogical and unscientific myth. The great projects of life refer us to a creative reason, showing us today the creative spirit with more clarity and brilliance than ever. That is why we can say today with renewed joy and certainty: Yes, man is a project of God... Man is not an error, but has been willed as a fruit of love... He can discover in himself... .the language of the spirit of creation, which challenges him and gives him strength to say: Yes, Father, you have loved me.
ESPAÑOL: Divulgación de muy alto nivel, pues Monod utiliza sus conocimientos superespecializados sobre las enzimas y su modo de actuar para dar sus explicaciones. En los capítulos 4-5 trata de utilizarlos para justificar su fe filosófica en el reduccionismo, y en contra del emergentismo. Para justificar su fe reduccionista, aduce que los pocos fenómenos enzimáticos que conocemos a fondo tienen lugar al nivel microscópico y por tanto son automáticamente reduccionistas. Eso sí, reconoce que desconocemos millones de casos más, en varios niveles, desde los seres vivos más diminutos a los más complejos, terminando en el cerebro humano. Pero, ¡por favor!, todos esos millones de casos que no conocemos a fondo, ¿cómo no van a ser reduccionistas? Ese, más o menos, es el tenor de su decepcionante razonamiento.
Al principio, Monod distingue bien entre filosofía y ciencia, aunque a veces la diferencia se difumina, como cuando desacredita a los partidarios del emergentismo (lo llama holismo) afirmando que tienen un "profundo desconocimiento del método científico y del papel esencial que en él juega el análisis". O sea, desprecia la idea contraria recurriendo a las falacias "ad hominen" y "petitio principii".
Y para colmo, en el último capítulo, cae en la trampa: para justificar que la ética humanística tradicional, basada en los derechos humanos y las religiones, están periclitadas, parte de la afirmación de que el único conocimiento válido es el conocimiento científico. Consideremos esta afirmación: ¿Es ciencia? Evidentemente no; es filosófica. si es verdadera, nos lleva a una contradicción. Luego es falsa. En consecuencia, todas sus disquisiciones del último capítulo caen por su base, porque se basan en una afirmación falsa.
La mejor respuesta a este libro de Monod la dio Joseph Ratzinger en la tercera homilía de su libro Creación y pecado, cuando escribió esto: Pero ahora concluye Monod de manera sorprendente: "De esta manera es como ha surgido toda la biosfera; así es como ha surgido también el hombre, como producto de fallos azarosos."
¿Qué podemos decir a esta respuesta?... Los grandes proyectos de la vida no son producto ni del azar ni del error. Tampoco son producto de una selección, a la que se le confieren predicados divinos, que en este punto no son más que un moderno mito ilógico y acientífico. Los grandes proyectos de la vida nos remiten a una razón creadora, mostrándonos hoy el espíritu creador con más claridad y brillantez que nunca. Por eso podemos decir hoy con renovada alegría y certeza: Sí, el hombre es un proyecto de Dios... El hombre no es un error, sino que ha sido querido como fruto del amor... Él puede descubrir en sí mismo... el lenguaje del espíritu de la creación, que le interpela y que le da fuerzas para decir: Sí, Padre, tú me has querido.
September 13, 2022
3.5. Muy buena investigación biológica sobre las peculiaridades de los seres vivos, pierde un poco para mí en la parte más especulativa, aunque me ha sorprendido para bien su sensibilidad sobre la relación entre ética y conocimiento.
May 8, 2008
Molecular biologist and Nobel-winner Monod takes a look at the philosophical significance of evolution and the genetic code. At the core of the book is a resolution of the contradiction between the seemingly goal-oriented nature of evolution (and definitely goal-oriented nature of organisms) and the essential randomness and chance underlying evolution's mechanics. In other words, he makes an strong argument against what is today called 'intelligent design.' Along the way he covers tricky aspects of the distinction between artificial and natural and covers the workings of proteins and the transmission of the genetic code. He also, while discussing major gaffes made by assuming the universe is goal-driven, amusingly dismantles dialectical materialism.
In the last portion of the book Monod gives some highly speculative musing on the birth of human culture and language, and then gives a hard look at the harsh tension between objective knowledge and religious-humanistic ethics and values. He proposes an intriguing 'ethic of knowledge' as a solution, but unfortunately his sketch of this ethic is all too brief, given the profound weight it would have to carry. Still, overall the book is a fascinating and passionate essay by a scientist looking deeply into the implications of his field of study.
In the last portion of the book Monod gives some highly speculative musing on the birth of human culture and language, and then gives a hard look at the harsh tension between objective knowledge and religious-humanistic ethics and values. He proposes an intriguing 'ethic of knowledge' as a solution, but unfortunately his sketch of this ethic is all too brief, given the profound weight it would have to carry. Still, overall the book is a fascinating and passionate essay by a scientist looking deeply into the implications of his field of study.
September 17, 2012
È un saggio importante per l'epoca in cui è stato scritto. Risente dell'esistenzialismo sartriano. È molto prolisso sulla parte biologica e salta alle conclusioni filosofiche quando il lettore è ormai stremato e annoiato.
Il ruolo del caso è descritto in modo fuorviante, il "caso" ha importanza decisamente marginale nei saggi sull'evoluzione di Dawkins, Gould e Pievani.
Vecchiotto e si sente.
Il ruolo del caso è descritto in modo fuorviante, il "caso" ha importanza decisamente marginale nei saggi sull'evoluzione di Dawkins, Gould e Pievani.
Vecchiotto e si sente.
October 13, 2018
Hasn't aged well.
June 3, 2023
Monod donne l'élan de son essai au premier chapitre en montrant que les problèmes les plus généraux et les plus importants peuvent être précisés ou peuvent être "découverts" à partir de considérations très simples et à la portée des non-spécialistes par l'examen de caractéristiques de ce que l'on peut appeler "objets du vivant". Si on se demande la différence entre ce que nous appelons les objets vivants et les objets naturels, alors on arrive facilement à des définitions. Pour nous, par exemple, un caillou est façonné par des forces aveugles quelconques alors que l'être vivant se distinguera entre autre par le fait qu'il a des structures régulières ou des structures présentant des vertus géométriques. Structures répétitives que nous utilisons lorsque nous façonnons un objet. Un enfant arrivera à savoir qu'un crayon a été façonné avec une intention et donc est "artificiel" alors que la roche est naturelle et cela parce qu'il sait reconnaître la répétition présente dans le patron du crayon. C'est cette propriété de répétition qu'on retrouve dans les objets vivants et qui les distingue justement de tout le reste de la nature qui nous fait croire que ces objets proviennent d'une certaine intention, d'une certaine nécessité, alors que le reste viendrait plutôt du hasard. Ce sont ces considérations que nous avons par rapport à la nécessité et la tendance que nous avons à voir un projet et une finalité aux êtres vivants que Monod analyse et cherche à déconstruire. En effet, si on ne sait pas reconnaître une symétrie dans un objet, ce n'est pas parce que cet objet provient uniquement de forces du hasard. Le hasard et la nécessité c'est l'interprétation moderne de l'origine et de l'apparition des êtres vivants qui fait intervenir de manière essentielle le hasard à la source de l'évolution et fait intervenir également les nécessités au niveau de la sélection des espèces.
Le hasard et la nécessité, c'est aussi le ralliement entre deux disciplines qu'on a vu se se séparer avec le progrès scientifique et l'hyperspécialisation, mais qui auparavant (dans un monde meilleur ahah!) travaillaient de pair. C'est un incontournable pour les amoureux de biologie et de philosophie. J'ai personnellement adoré et je vanterai longtemps le génie de Jacques Monod. À lire!!!
Le hasard et la nécessité, c'est aussi le ralliement entre deux disciplines qu'on a vu se se séparer avec le progrès scientifique et l'hyperspécialisation, mais qui auparavant (dans un monde meilleur ahah!) travaillaient de pair. C'est un incontournable pour les amoureux de biologie et de philosophie. J'ai personnellement adoré et je vanterai longtemps le génie de Jacques Monod. À lire!!!
August 9, 2021
I enjoyed the experience of reading this book though it may be going to too far to say that I really understood it. It got on my radar when James Lovelock badmouthed it in one of his books, but I thought it sounded interesting.
Monad's goal is to grapple with how our burgeoning understanding of DNA should impact our ideas of evolution and how we understand ourselves in the world. Chance and Necessity was written in the late 1960s when all of this was still quite new and unexplored, though I would say that the text still feels pretty relevant.
There are chapters that are very much concerned with chemical specifics that were completely over my head. If you, like me, haven't looked at a diagram of molecular bonds since high school, you're gong to have a hard time following some of this. But the larger point of Monod's, that the entire experience of life can be discussed without resorting to any "animist" ideas, comes through clearly in the less technical chapters. DNA, in his view, lets us excise completely the need for any teleological explanations for any part of our evolution, development, and lived experience.
His enemies as far as he sees it are both Christianity and Marxism, which he sees as putting unnecessary explanatory layers in front of us, instead of his more direct and true explanation.
The book is brief and thought-provoking if you're the kind of person to which this rather abstract discussion appeals.
Monad's goal is to grapple with how our burgeoning understanding of DNA should impact our ideas of evolution and how we understand ourselves in the world. Chance and Necessity was written in the late 1960s when all of this was still quite new and unexplored, though I would say that the text still feels pretty relevant.
There are chapters that are very much concerned with chemical specifics that were completely over my head. If you, like me, haven't looked at a diagram of molecular bonds since high school, you're gong to have a hard time following some of this. But the larger point of Monod's, that the entire experience of life can be discussed without resorting to any "animist" ideas, comes through clearly in the less technical chapters. DNA, in his view, lets us excise completely the need for any teleological explanations for any part of our evolution, development, and lived experience.
His enemies as far as he sees it are both Christianity and Marxism, which he sees as putting unnecessary explanatory layers in front of us, instead of his more direct and true explanation.
The book is brief and thought-provoking if you're the kind of person to which this rather abstract discussion appeals.
April 13, 2020
È un saggio chiaro, essenziale e diretto. Le idee sono illustrate con ricercata chiarezza e non c'è mai dubbio su cosa l'autore intendesse con un'affermazione. Monod dimostra una fiducia ammirevole e esemplare nel metodo scientifico e anzi conclude il saggio chiarendo la relazione tra etica e conoscenza in maniera lucida.
February 10, 2021
Fondamentale
September 9, 2024
Monod veut lutter contre ce qu'il appelle "l'animisme", c'est à dire contre la croyance d'une continuité entre le monde physique et biologique, et la psyché humaine. Ses critiques se dirigent contre ses amis, les communistes. Pur Monod, le matérialisme dialectique est une fable animiste et dogmatique.
Contre l'animisme donc, Monod propose un résumé de l'état de la biologie contemporaine, du microscopique au macroscopique, de la manière dont s'assemblent les protéines à la théorie de l'évolution. Certains chapitres sont très techniques (il m'a perdu aux chapitres 3, 4 et 5) et présupposent des notions avancées en biologie pour pouvoir être compris. Les trois derniers chapitres sont heureusement plus philosophiques, et donc plus compréhensibles.
La thèse de Monod est que le hasard est au fondement de la vie : les protéines s'assemblent par hasard pour former l'ADN, mais une fois l'ADN constitué, celui-ci va être reproduit mécaniquement. On passe ainsi du hasard à la nécessité (par un processus que Monod se refuse à appeler "dialectique"). Selon lui, cette présence du hasard est difficilement acceptée : nous préférons la nécessité du destin au hasard de l'existence.
Mais il faut se rendre à l'évidence et voir la vérité en face : la vie est contingente, elle aurait pu ne pas être. Monod pousse, dans son dernier chapitre, pour une "éthique de la connaissance" qui pourrait, selon lui, remplacer les idéaux religieux et communistes. L'éthique de la connaissance est l'éthique des scientifiques qui, en ascètes, se vouent la connaissance vraie, et refusent tout mensonge.
Il faut accepter la vérité, et fonder la société sur cette attitude scientifique. Là où l'animisme voit une continuité entre la nature et l'Homme, l'éthique de la connaissance assume que c'est l'Homme qui connaît la nature. Elle pose la connaissance vraie comme valeur transcendantale, et propose à l'Homme de la servir. Pour Monod, une société fondée sur une telle éthique pourrait renouveler l'idéal socialiste. Il faudrait alors abandonner le matérialisme dialectique pour refonder le socialisme sur l'idée de la connaissance vraie, et juger les institutions à la hauteur de cet idéal de vérité.
Il y a mille objections à faire à ce dernier chapitre où Monod fait du Nietzsche à l'envers (presque du Platon en somme). Mais il faut reconnaître à Monod (grand scientifique de son temps) d'avoir eu le courage d'essayer de réunir la science et la politique en passant par dessus les échecs du communisme. Quel scientifique ferait cela aujourd'hui ?
Contre l'animisme donc, Monod propose un résumé de l'état de la biologie contemporaine, du microscopique au macroscopique, de la manière dont s'assemblent les protéines à la théorie de l'évolution. Certains chapitres sont très techniques (il m'a perdu aux chapitres 3, 4 et 5) et présupposent des notions avancées en biologie pour pouvoir être compris. Les trois derniers chapitres sont heureusement plus philosophiques, et donc plus compréhensibles.
La thèse de Monod est que le hasard est au fondement de la vie : les protéines s'assemblent par hasard pour former l'ADN, mais une fois l'ADN constitué, celui-ci va être reproduit mécaniquement. On passe ainsi du hasard à la nécessité (par un processus que Monod se refuse à appeler "dialectique"). Selon lui, cette présence du hasard est difficilement acceptée : nous préférons la nécessité du destin au hasard de l'existence.
Mais il faut se rendre à l'évidence et voir la vérité en face : la vie est contingente, elle aurait pu ne pas être. Monod pousse, dans son dernier chapitre, pour une "éthique de la connaissance" qui pourrait, selon lui, remplacer les idéaux religieux et communistes. L'éthique de la connaissance est l'éthique des scientifiques qui, en ascètes, se vouent la connaissance vraie, et refusent tout mensonge.
Il faut accepter la vérité, et fonder la société sur cette attitude scientifique. Là où l'animisme voit une continuité entre la nature et l'Homme, l'éthique de la connaissance assume que c'est l'Homme qui connaît la nature. Elle pose la connaissance vraie comme valeur transcendantale, et propose à l'Homme de la servir. Pour Monod, une société fondée sur une telle éthique pourrait renouveler l'idéal socialiste. Il faudrait alors abandonner le matérialisme dialectique pour refonder le socialisme sur l'idée de la connaissance vraie, et juger les institutions à la hauteur de cet idéal de vérité.
Il y a mille objections à faire à ce dernier chapitre où Monod fait du Nietzsche à l'envers (presque du Platon en somme). Mais il faut reconnaître à Monod (grand scientifique de son temps) d'avoir eu le courage d'essayer de réunir la science et la politique en passant par dessus les échecs du communisme. Quel scientifique ferait cela aujourd'hui ?
December 27, 2020
Me encanta la forma en que está escrito el libro, me parece muy interesante como refleja su pasión y su filosofía acerca de la ciencia. Solo a veces difiero con su punto de vista de la teleonomía o teleología (para quien no haga diferencia). Como el mismo Monod dice en el libro: "La Naturaleza es objetiva y no proyectiva" o como lo expone Ernst Mayr, la adaptabilidad es un resultado a posterirori y no a priori.
Tal vez sea que es más fácil explicar la "programación" a través de propósitos aparentes. Pero no hay propósitos en la naturaleza, recordar que son solo apariencias. A veces el autor parece olvidarlo...
Por otro lado me encantó el ejemplo que da de un modelo Laplaciano con la parábola del albañil y el doctor. Pero de alguna manera sigo pensando como Laplace, no cabe la palabra azar en la naturaleza. Creo que al igual que la teleonomía, el azar y probabilidades es una forma más sencillo de explicar porque no tenemos todo el conocimiento.
Pero son mis creencias, mis sesgos, sin fundamento alguno...
Tal vez sea que es más fácil explicar la "programación" a través de propósitos aparentes. Pero no hay propósitos en la naturaleza, recordar que son solo apariencias. A veces el autor parece olvidarlo...
Por otro lado me encantó el ejemplo que da de un modelo Laplaciano con la parábola del albañil y el doctor. Pero de alguna manera sigo pensando como Laplace, no cabe la palabra azar en la naturaleza. Creo que al igual que la teleonomía, el azar y probabilidades es una forma más sencillo de explicar porque no tenemos todo el conocimiento.
Pero son mis creencias, mis sesgos, sin fundamento alguno...
December 13, 2013
"No dia em que, dissemos nós, o Australantropo ou qualquer um dos seus congêneres chegou a comunicar não mais uma experiência concreta e atual, mas um conteúdo de uma experiência subjetiva, de uma "simulação" pessoal, nascia um bom reino: o das ideias. Uma evolução nova, a da cultura, tornava-se possível. A evolução física do Homem devia prosseguir por muito tempo ainda, só que doravante estreitamente associada à da linguagem, sofrendo profundamente a sua influência, que subvertia as condições da seleção.
O homem moderno é o produto dessa simbiose evolutiva. Em qualquer outra hipótese ele é incompreensível, indecifrável. Todo ser vivo é também um fóssil. Traz em si, e até na estrutura microscópica de suas proteínas, os traços, senão os estigmas, de sua ascendência. Isso é muito mais verdadeiro para o Homem do que para qualquer outra espécie anima, em virtude da dualidade, física e "ideal", da evolução de que é o herdeiro". (página 155)
O homem moderno é o produto dessa simbiose evolutiva. Em qualquer outra hipótese ele é incompreensível, indecifrável. Todo ser vivo é também um fóssil. Traz em si, e até na estrutura microscópica de suas proteínas, os traços, senão os estigmas, de sua ascendência. Isso é muito mais verdadeiro para o Homem do que para qualquer outra espécie anima, em virtude da dualidade, física e "ideal", da evolução de que é o herdeiro". (página 155)
August 9, 2018
Écrit par le récipiendaire du prix Nobel de médecine de 1965, cet essai explique au lecteur les principes de base de la biologie moléculaire et à quel point notre métabolisme et notre nature sont nécessairement issus du hasard. Bref, n'en déplaise à certains, nous ne sommes définitivement pas issus de l'esprit inventif et créateur d'une intelligence supérieure.
February 16, 2018
Cet essai constitue une excellente introduction à la biologie moléculaire et à ses enjeux philosophiques. Ma seule réserve porte sur un passage passablement eugéniste, vers la toute fin de l'ouvrage. Mais c'est d'époque.
October 22, 2010
A classic meditation on evolution and the idea of randomness in natural selection. Thoughtful and beautifully-written. Very much the slim volume that made me fascinated with evolutionary biology.
June 28, 2019
The ethic of knowledge - to subjectively take an objective stance in the search for knowledge as the foundation of your ethical system.
July 24, 2024
Many have heard of Jacques Monod in their undergraduate biology courses, as "Jacob & Monod Experiment" that discovered the lac operons, and opened up the field of gene regulation, but few get to know anything more about him. Picking up this book, I certainly did not expect to find the fore-sighted mind that is Monod's, full of discussions of scientifically significant topics in the modern scientific discourse, it stands witness to the promiscuity of Jacques Monod's mind.
In this book is discussed the philosophy of science, and concepts regarding the apparent purpose-driven nature of living organisms, the nature of the genetic code, protein structure, evolution, and various others.
The discussion of teleonomy and the second law of thermodynamics in relation to living organisms was a concept I was first introduced to in Addy Pross's book What is life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology and discussions of the human mind and mentions of the selfish nature of genes both reminded me of Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene which I highly recommend reading especially the first and the last, both significant books in the "philosophy" of modern biology.
Although the compiled nature of the essays comes off as random at times, not paying attention to the flow but the topics discussed therein will yield its fruits.
In this book is discussed the philosophy of science, and concepts regarding the apparent purpose-driven nature of living organisms, the nature of the genetic code, protein structure, evolution, and various others.
The discussion of teleonomy and the second law of thermodynamics in relation to living organisms was a concept I was first introduced to in Addy Pross's book What is life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology and discussions of the human mind and mentions of the selfish nature of genes both reminded me of Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene which I highly recommend reading especially the first and the last, both significant books in the "philosophy" of modern biology.
Although the compiled nature of the essays comes off as random at times, not paying attention to the flow but the topics discussed therein will yield its fruits.
September 29, 2019
Imprescindible en muchos sentidos: didáctico y filosófico.
Tras leer varios libros donde se describen los mecanismos de la replicación genética, la génesis de las proteínas y la acción de las enzimas, por fin he encontrado el lugar donde los conceptos se muestran de manera clara y sencilla encajando a la perfección.
Por otro lado, el análisis de la confrontación entre las corrientes filosófico-éticas y la Ciencia, es brillante. Es impresionante la forma de desmontar la aproximación de las religiones a la Ciencia y, de manera particular, el destrozo que hace del materialismo dialéctico, base pseudocientífica del marxismo.
Cuesta entender cómo este libro no es preponderante en cuanto a referencias frente a "El gen egoísta", libro 6 años posterior y que bebe de manera descarada de Monod. Incluso el concepto de meme es claramente apuntado, aunque no bautizado.
Animo sin duda a la lectura de este clásico.
Tras leer varios libros donde se describen los mecanismos de la replicación genética, la génesis de las proteínas y la acción de las enzimas, por fin he encontrado el lugar donde los conceptos se muestran de manera clara y sencilla encajando a la perfección.
Por otro lado, el análisis de la confrontación entre las corrientes filosófico-éticas y la Ciencia, es brillante. Es impresionante la forma de desmontar la aproximación de las religiones a la Ciencia y, de manera particular, el destrozo que hace del materialismo dialéctico, base pseudocientífica del marxismo.
Cuesta entender cómo este libro no es preponderante en cuanto a referencias frente a "El gen egoísta", libro 6 años posterior y que bebe de manera descarada de Monod. Incluso el concepto de meme es claramente apuntado, aunque no bautizado.
Animo sin duda a la lectura de este clásico.
January 18, 2025
Todo intento de ensayo divulgativo en ciencia debería vascular entre lo que sería un árido texto expositivo y una emotiva proclama. No puede alcanzar su valor divulgador si expone datos sin conmover al individuo, pero tampoco si conmueve al individuo sin aportarle un conocimiento real.
Este libro consigue balancearse en ese equilibrio, y partiendo de una (en mi opinión) sesuda explicación científica de los procedimientos que sustentan la base de los organismos vivos, alcanza su cenit en la parte final usando toda esa explicación previa para exponer un mensaje más humanista y profundo.
Un libro que, leído con mente libre, te cambia la forma de ver la existencia.
Este libro consigue balancearse en ese equilibrio, y partiendo de una (en mi opinión) sesuda explicación científica de los procedimientos que sustentan la base de los organismos vivos, alcanza su cenit en la parte final usando toda esa explicación previa para exponer un mensaje más humanista y profundo.
Un libro que, leído con mente libre, te cambia la forma de ver la existencia.
Read
February 10, 2025Dnf
Les chapitres biologiques sont extrêmement ennuyeux pour quelqu'un qui n'y connait rien, d'autant plus que j'ai l'impression qu'elle ne servent pas tant que ça a approfondir le propos philosophique...
Les chapitres biologiques sont extrêmement ennuyeux pour quelqu'un qui n'y connait rien, d'autant plus que j'ai l'impression qu'elle ne servent pas tant que ça a approfondir le propos philosophique...
August 20, 2024
The content is very interesting. The language is needlessly made hard to follow. I don't know if it is like that in the original French version, or it is just the translation.
February 6, 2019
A powerful account of a universe without teleology. Essential reading for anybody interested in exploring a novel philosophy for our civilisation, in light of the incredible insights garnered by science.
April 5, 2016
Jacques Monod kitabına yapay ve doğal arasındaki ayrımı sorgulamakla başlar. Burdan canlı cansız ayrımına geçer. Amacı, evrende önceden tasarlanmış bir düzen olup olmadığını sorgulamaktır. Monod’ya göre canlıları cansızlardan ayıran temel özelliklerin başında teleonomi gelir. Genetik olayların anlamlı oluşu ve amaca uygunluğu, bir organizmada bulunan bir yapı ya da işlevin evrimsel bir avantaj olması gereğine bağlılığı düşüncesi olarak özetleyebileceğimiz teleonomi, canlıların sanki bir amaca hizmet eder gibi görünmelerine neden olur. Ancak Monod bir kavrama daha dikkat çeker: değişmezlik! Değişmezlik zorunlu olarak teleonomiden önce gelir. Darwin’in ortaya koymuş olduğu üzere, git gide daha da teleonomik olan yapıların ortaya çıkışlarının, gelişimlerinin ve zamanla incelik kazanmalarının bir nedeni vardır. Bu neden, bir yapının önceden zaten değişmezlik özelliğini barındırması sonucu “rastlantı oyununu muhafaza edebilmesinden” kaynaklanan bir düzen bozukluğuna bağlıdır; çünkü bu yapı, bunların etkilerini doğal seçilim oyununa tâbi kılar.
Modern bilimin dayandığı nesnellik olgusunu görmezden gelen düşünürlerin animizm batağına saplandığını söyler Monod. Doğada içkin bir ereksellik arama çabalarının da animizmden kurtulamadığını vurgulayan Monod, Rastlantı ve Zorunluluk'ta daha çok “[Diyalektik materyalizmde] insan düşüncesi tarafından yansıtılan dış dünyanın değişim yasalarını bulan” Marksizmin animist yönü ile hesaplaşır. Kendisini de sosyalist olarak tanımlayan Monod, sosyalizmi diyalektik materyalizm ve tarihsel materyalizm gibi yanlış öncüllerden kurtarmaya çalışır. Ancak animizm Marksizme özgü bir hastalık değildir Monod'ya göre; ilk insanlardan bu yana binlerce yıldır animist düşünceler hakimdir.
Günümüzde artık Marksizm oldukça dönüşüm geçirdi, Engelsci diyalektik materyalizm artık çok sınırlı çevreler dışında büyük bir etkiye sahip değil. Ama buradaki boşluğu başka animist düşünceler doldurdu; kapımızda artık daha büyük bir tehlike var. Monod'un işaret ettiği bilim düşmanlığı 1970'lere göre daha da yaygınlaşmış durumda. Ülkemizde evrim gerçeği eğitim programlarından çıkartılıyor. Bütün toplumlarda mistik ve bilim dışı düşünceye olan ilgi arttı. Oysa modern toplumlar bilimin keşfettiği zenginlikleri ve güçleri çoktan kabul ettiler; fakat bilimin en derin mesajını dinlemediler: ''[Modern toplumlar] Bilim’e borçlu olduğu tüm zenginliklerin keyfini sürerken, toplumlarımız bilimin kendisi tarafından kökten çürütülmüş değer sistemlerini yaşamaya ve öğretmeye devam etmekteler.''. Modern toplumlardaki bu ikiyüzlülüğe dikkat çeken Monod'ya göre insanlar bir yandan bilimin sağladığı bütün olanakları kullanırken, öte yandan bilimden çıkan mantıksal sonucu, maddenin kendiliğinden rastlantısal macerasının getirdiği sonucu, özetle bu evrenin bizim için tasarlanmadığı sonucunu kabul etmek istemiyorlar. Bilimin bu soğuk katılığı onları rahatsız ediyor. İnsanlar ''inanmak'' istiyorlar, hayatlarının bir anlamı olması gereğine olan inanç insanları rahatlatıyor.
Eski animist bağlardan tamamen kurtulmak için yeni bir etiğe, ‘bilgi etiğine” ihtiyaç duyulduğunu söyler Monod: “Bu belki bir ütopyadır fakat tutarsız bir rüya değildir. Bu kendini yalnızca mantıksal tutarlığından kaynaklanan bir güçten ötürü dayatan bir fikirdir. Gerçeklik arayışının zorunlu olarak götürdüğü sonuçtur. Eski anlaşma feshedilmiştir; insan içinde rastlantısal olarak bulunduğu Evren’in devasa umursamazlığında yalnız olduğunu en sonunda biliyor.”
Kerem Cankoçak
Modern bilimin dayandığı nesnellik olgusunu görmezden gelen düşünürlerin animizm batağına saplandığını söyler Monod. Doğada içkin bir ereksellik arama çabalarının da animizmden kurtulamadığını vurgulayan Monod, Rastlantı ve Zorunluluk'ta daha çok “[Diyalektik materyalizmde] insan düşüncesi tarafından yansıtılan dış dünyanın değişim yasalarını bulan” Marksizmin animist yönü ile hesaplaşır. Kendisini de sosyalist olarak tanımlayan Monod, sosyalizmi diyalektik materyalizm ve tarihsel materyalizm gibi yanlış öncüllerden kurtarmaya çalışır. Ancak animizm Marksizme özgü bir hastalık değildir Monod'ya göre; ilk insanlardan bu yana binlerce yıldır animist düşünceler hakimdir.
Günümüzde artık Marksizm oldukça dönüşüm geçirdi, Engelsci diyalektik materyalizm artık çok sınırlı çevreler dışında büyük bir etkiye sahip değil. Ama buradaki boşluğu başka animist düşünceler doldurdu; kapımızda artık daha büyük bir tehlike var. Monod'un işaret ettiği bilim düşmanlığı 1970'lere göre daha da yaygınlaşmış durumda. Ülkemizde evrim gerçeği eğitim programlarından çıkartılıyor. Bütün toplumlarda mistik ve bilim dışı düşünceye olan ilgi arttı. Oysa modern toplumlar bilimin keşfettiği zenginlikleri ve güçleri çoktan kabul ettiler; fakat bilimin en derin mesajını dinlemediler: ''[Modern toplumlar] Bilim’e borçlu olduğu tüm zenginliklerin keyfini sürerken, toplumlarımız bilimin kendisi tarafından kökten çürütülmüş değer sistemlerini yaşamaya ve öğretmeye devam etmekteler.''. Modern toplumlardaki bu ikiyüzlülüğe dikkat çeken Monod'ya göre insanlar bir yandan bilimin sağladığı bütün olanakları kullanırken, öte yandan bilimden çıkan mantıksal sonucu, maddenin kendiliğinden rastlantısal macerasının getirdiği sonucu, özetle bu evrenin bizim için tasarlanmadığı sonucunu kabul etmek istemiyorlar. Bilimin bu soğuk katılığı onları rahatsız ediyor. İnsanlar ''inanmak'' istiyorlar, hayatlarının bir anlamı olması gereğine olan inanç insanları rahatlatıyor.
Eski animist bağlardan tamamen kurtulmak için yeni bir etiğe, ‘bilgi etiğine” ihtiyaç duyulduğunu söyler Monod: “Bu belki bir ütopyadır fakat tutarsız bir rüya değildir. Bu kendini yalnızca mantıksal tutarlığından kaynaklanan bir güçten ötürü dayatan bir fikirdir. Gerçeklik arayışının zorunlu olarak götürdüğü sonuçtur. Eski anlaşma feshedilmiştir; insan içinde rastlantısal olarak bulunduğu Evren’in devasa umursamazlığında yalnız olduğunu en sonunda biliyor.”
Kerem Cankoçak
October 12, 2011
Muito interessante, tanto para os leigos no assunto, tendo aqui uma fonte simples e clara para compreender os mecanismos básicos da vida, a base da biologia molecular; seja numa maneira de alguem já com conhecimentos em biologia rever os mecanismos, ganhar novos conceitos como a tríade apresentada para definir um ser vivo (teleonomia, morfogénese autónoma e reprodução invariante - distinguindo-o de um ser artificial), e contactar com várias temáticas filosóficas abordadas ao longo do livro.
Sendo um livro de 1970, e apesar de escrito por um biólogo que revolucionou a biologia nessa década (Jacques Monod, Prémio Nobel da Fisiologia/Medicina em 1965) o que está nele demonstrado é apenas a pequena parte, ou o início, do que hoje temos conhecimento, fruto de 40 anos de sucessivas descobertas e actividade científica contínua e prolífica.
O livro consiste, então, na demonstração das descobertas cruciais e centrais que deram um novo rumo à biologia, revolucionando a sua vertente molecular. Com grande claridade e simplicidade Monod descreve o papel essencial das proteínas, as suas propriedades químicas e as suas acções a vários níveis micro e macromoleculares, demonstrando assim o seu papel central na distinção entre seres artificiais e seres vivos (apresentando-nos uma interessante definição dos últimos, com base nos conceitos de teleonomia, morfogénese autónoma e reprodução invariante, que define e demonstra nos papéis das proteínas e do ADN), o código genético e a forma de transmissão da informação nele contida, e a teoria da evolução.
Além desta vertente mais científica e lúdica, Monod aborda também questões filosóficas, desmistificando antigas teorias que tentaram responder à questão do segredo da vida, as teorias vitalistas e as teorias animistas (que têm em comum defenderem a hipótese de que uma força superior imaterial governa e anima o Universo - o Destino, um ou vários Deuses, o Karma, ou até a Dialética).
Com base nas descobertas feitas naquela década Monod conclui que a vida é regrada por um par, que parecendo paradoxal, coexiste nos seres vivos, desde os organismo mais simples até aos mais complexos: Necessidade, ou seja, a existência de uma natureza teleonómica (i.e., com uma finalidade) dos seres vivos e da sua evolução, fim esse o de assegurar a transmissão da sua informação genética para os seus descendentes; e a Chance, ou seja, o carácter aleatório e ditado pela sorte, dos mecanismos subjacentes a essa transmissão e evolução.
E finalmente, encarando esta natureza aleatória da vida aborda algumas das suas consequências filosóficas e metafísicas e as questões éticas que se levantam ao nível do comportamento humano: "All the traditional systems placed ethics and values beyond man's reach. Values did not belong to him; they were imposed on him, and he belonged to them. Today he knows they are his and his alone, but now he is master of them they seem to be dissolving in the uncaring emptiness of the universe". A resposta (ou a proposta) de Jacques Monod é o que chamou de Ética do conhecimento, um sistema ético em que o homem escolhe o valor da autencidade, do verdadeiro conhecimento científico, para regrar a sua acção, uma ética que ele se impõe a ele próprio, e não aquelas (as animistas, e até aqui preponderantes) que lhe são impostas.
Sendo um livro de 1970, e apesar de escrito por um biólogo que revolucionou a biologia nessa década (Jacques Monod, Prémio Nobel da Fisiologia/Medicina em 1965) o que está nele demonstrado é apenas a pequena parte, ou o início, do que hoje temos conhecimento, fruto de 40 anos de sucessivas descobertas e actividade científica contínua e prolífica.
O livro consiste, então, na demonstração das descobertas cruciais e centrais que deram um novo rumo à biologia, revolucionando a sua vertente molecular. Com grande claridade e simplicidade Monod descreve o papel essencial das proteínas, as suas propriedades químicas e as suas acções a vários níveis micro e macromoleculares, demonstrando assim o seu papel central na distinção entre seres artificiais e seres vivos (apresentando-nos uma interessante definição dos últimos, com base nos conceitos de teleonomia, morfogénese autónoma e reprodução invariante, que define e demonstra nos papéis das proteínas e do ADN), o código genético e a forma de transmissão da informação nele contida, e a teoria da evolução.
Além desta vertente mais científica e lúdica, Monod aborda também questões filosóficas, desmistificando antigas teorias que tentaram responder à questão do segredo da vida, as teorias vitalistas e as teorias animistas (que têm em comum defenderem a hipótese de que uma força superior imaterial governa e anima o Universo - o Destino, um ou vários Deuses, o Karma, ou até a Dialética).
Com base nas descobertas feitas naquela década Monod conclui que a vida é regrada por um par, que parecendo paradoxal, coexiste nos seres vivos, desde os organismo mais simples até aos mais complexos: Necessidade, ou seja, a existência de uma natureza teleonómica (i.e., com uma finalidade) dos seres vivos e da sua evolução, fim esse o de assegurar a transmissão da sua informação genética para os seus descendentes; e a Chance, ou seja, o carácter aleatório e ditado pela sorte, dos mecanismos subjacentes a essa transmissão e evolução.
E finalmente, encarando esta natureza aleatória da vida aborda algumas das suas consequências filosóficas e metafísicas e as questões éticas que se levantam ao nível do comportamento humano: "All the traditional systems placed ethics and values beyond man's reach. Values did not belong to him; they were imposed on him, and he belonged to them. Today he knows they are his and his alone, but now he is master of them they seem to be dissolving in the uncaring emptiness of the universe". A resposta (ou a proposta) de Jacques Monod é o que chamou de Ética do conhecimento, um sistema ético em que o homem escolhe o valor da autencidade, do verdadeiro conhecimento científico, para regrar a sua acção, uma ética que ele se impõe a ele próprio, e não aquelas (as animistas, e até aqui preponderantes) que lhe são impostas.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews