Arquivo de Notes | Page 254 of 265

Humor As a Purpose

If I were to sum it up to a maxim, I would say that humor supports and precedes the other virtues. And I think it would be infinitely more useful, rather than “social awareness,” to teach humor to young students. I mean: instead of stimulating very boring debates about global warming, gender issues, whales or hunger in Africa, the teacher would do more, once a week, teaching comedy — and preferably dressed as a clown. Thus young students could capture the essence of humor, that is nothing but the conscience of the ridiculous itself; and they would learn to laugh at reality and not take themselves so seriously. In a few years, we would have a less aggressive generation, and adults who develop their good mood would see it fighting against vanity and pride daily, making their lives lighter and happier, driving them away from hatred and providing them with a social conviviality significantly more enjoyable.

____________

Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims, by La Rochefoucauld

François de La Rochefoucauld, a french moralist and clever psychologist, is a little-known author among Brazilians. It is too bad, too bad! Because what La Rochefoucauld learned about human nature and confirmed in literary salons in 17th-century France can be perfectly seized in our time and confirmed at parties or social gatherings of any kind. More than that: reading Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims with sincerity can be a very valuable examination of self-awareness; I mean: read it no longer to judge others, but to learn about ourselves. It takes courage, I do not deny it, but if we take the first step, then we will see naked in aphorisms all our ambition, our misery, our motivations and our vile narrowness of spirit.

____________

Nietzsche and Cioran: Philosophy for Teenagers?

It has become commonplace to say that Nietzsche and Cioran are not authors for adults, that the whole philosophy of both does not cause strong impressions but in adolescents. I say for my part: I read Nietzsche and Cioran, above all, for aesthetic pleasure. I consider both, before philosophers, skilled artists; I see in them an expression power that I cannot find in other places; and the validity or not of their philosophies, for me, is secondary matter. If I were to analyze only by logic, I would say Nietzsche’s philosophy, if taken by block, is absurd; Cioran’s I would say leads us to apathy. But, for me, none of this constitutes demerit. Those who seek in philosophy a foolproof manual to guide their thinking and their actions do better by reading self-help. I am not obliged to box Nietzsche and Cioran in the “I do not agree” group, I do not feel uncomfortable facing their ambiguities or delusions; on the contrary, I consider them as masters of style. As I said, I read both for aesthetic pleasure, to find beauty and acuity in expressions and to see them give rise to discomfort in me. And I still notice the poverty in the words of those who tax Nietzsche and Cioran’s entire work as “philosophy for teenagers.” Nothing shallower than summarizing everything as “right” or “wrong”, this only demonstrates narrowness of vision and inability to deal with the ambiguous, the complex. Finishing a work full of nuances, impeccably written and saying only “I do not agree” seems to me the most adolescent of generalizations.

____________

The Artist and the Coherence

I will say here what is an obviousness to me: an artist owes nothing for coherence.. If he thinks it is necessary, he has the freedom to throw it into space. And why do I say that? Because bores me seeing critics say about how incoherent an author is. For me it is very clear: when a philosopher or essayist sits and puts himself to write the goal is one: logic; the author will organize his arguments to expose his reasoning in the most clear and accurate way he can achieve. Not the artist. When an artist sits at the table the goal is another: it is to express the feeling with the greatest power possible, or to make the strongest impression on the reader. Different things. That’s why it is impossible to compare Aristotle and Fernando Pessoa. One does one thing, another does another. And the artist who sacrifices expression for coherence simply diminishes his art: defending ideas does not concern his work. On the verses of a giant:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

____________