As we await new measures to alleviate the difficulties associated with the current health situation, a sense of consternation is growing. We wonder how long this situation will last, and above all, how long we'll be able to bear the social distances, the need to wear a mask, the distance from our loved ones, or even the renunciation of certain usual activities. From this perspective, a paradox grips us - and me first: to what extent can we preserve the health of the body while renouncing our own body? Behind this paradox lies the question: what is a human life?

LONG FORMAT ARTICLE, Eugène Praz | In his essay Action et réaction. Vie et aventures d'un couple (1999), originally composed but of firm intellectual rigor, Swiss literary critic Jean Starobinski revisited the concepts of action and reaction, and showed how they have served in the history of ideas, whether scientific, medical, psychological, literary, philosophical or political. The final chapter was devoted to their political aspect. It's worth coming back to it today, because in addition to serving as an illustration for Alain Badiou's Abrégé de métapolitique, published a year before Starobinski's essay, it demonstrates the easy handling, especially in politics, of the terms action, or progress, and reaction, and that nothing is more misleading than words of such generality. What's more, they encourage a tendency to split any political subject in two, always with a few nuances.

At the end of May, the European elections brought together citizens from all the countries of the European Union. Their task was to re-elect the European Parliament for a five-year term. What is it that binds these nations together? Here's a look at the European spirit.

What would a Union of Destiny be? It would be a union defined by values, before being defined by economic principles and technical and legal standards.