By “crisis”, we understand with the philosopher Michel Foucault, that it is a thought which has lost not only its capacity to register in its time by being aware of the position which it occupies there as a practice and cultural form, to interpret it judiciously, to identify trends in current developments, but above all to perceive what is happening in the news, however chaotic it may be.
It is the negative test of a crisis experienced in social reality that can lead to developing the means to overcome in practice this crisis and this split.
In this way, the crisis can then reveal itself as the time of speech, that of historicity and genesis. But skepticism is a thought for troubled times, the daughter of worry and the loss of daily bearings. This observation is valid both for the skepticism surrounding these days.
Indeed, the time of crisis cannot really become the time of a new beginning, that is to say, of overcoming the crisis in the advent of a specific type adapted to the needs of the State, that if we have first brought to light what is at the source of the crisis or, more precisely, in what has been our way of thinking, what is in crisis to the point of rendering thought incapable of grasping the event of its own crisis and to open the avenues of recovery contained in this very event.
The “crisis” is not to be sought only in theoretical formulations, but it can and must be analyzed in all the ways of saying, of doing, of behaving where the individual manifests himself as a subject of knowledge, as an ethical subject. or legal, but also as a subject conscious of oneself and of others.