Arquivo de Notes | Page 258 of 269

Candide, or Optimism, by Voltaire

Just as George Orwell’s Animal Farm is the best vaccine against communism, Voltaire’s Candide, or Optimism is the best vaccine against the risible contemporary notion of man’s self-reliance. “You can get what you want,” “The world is a projection of your interior,” “Thinking positive is the key to success,” and many other contemporary jargons are easily overthrown by Voltaire’s derision. And if we have today caveats as to the judgment of Leibniz’s philosophy made in Candide, due to the rediscovery of this philosopher already in the 19th century, Voltaire’s immortal work never loses its instructive value. In short, Voltaire places Candide in the front of human impotence when facing the environment, of the relentless human wickedness in all lands and the vile desire that commands our actions. And Candide, even finding earthly paradise after a scandalous succession of troubles, decides to leave it after judging that in this country he would be “like everyone else” and that he would not be in the company of his beloved — who, according to his judgment, should already have a lover; — showing us how man is a hostage to his own nature and his own ambition. We can draw from Candide, therefore, a list of lessons, among them, three very valuable in our time: humility before our possibilities, shame in the face of the ambition that dominates us, and reverence before the fate that plagues us.

____________

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.

____________