Religion is almost always the basis for the greatest deeds performed by men of all civilizations. It is easy to see the importance of religious education and how useful it can be in shaping character. It is very difficult to imagine the average atheist being able to withstand the very harsh trials that we so often find in the lives of great religious men, when what is needed is precisely what they have not been taught to do: lean on something greater. In the face of difficulties, the atheist is always at a disadvantage, and the utilitarianism he most often cultivates is a guarantee that, sooner or later, it will be convenient for him to opt for corruption.
Hypocrisy Is the Substance of Public Morality
It is now commonplace to say that hypocrisy is the substance of public morality, and that social relations are impossible without it. Fair enough, although not because of the consequent impression that it should be tolerated in its entirety. There is a limit, just as there is hypocrisies. Hypocrisy, like lies, is only justified when it prevents us from crossing the border of civility. Otherwise, what it does is differentiate men from scoundrels, and it cannot be admitted without also admitting the complete shipwreck of one’s own value.
Moralism Is Indispensable
Moralists are, in fact, indispensable for any serious student, just as moralism is indispensable for a fair understanding of man. Without it, one falls into countless traps and is always mistaken in one’s assessment of spirits and works. Rousseau cannot be understood through his infamous Du contrat social, or through what, according to himself, is his most important work. Rousseau can only be understood when we compare this Émile with the biographical note that most editions lack: the author who wrote a volume of eight hundred pages teaching how others should educate their children sent the five he had to an orphanage.
Language Is Ingrained in Thought Itself
I have never written a line in English, among the hundreds of thousands that have come out of my head, that was not a translation of a thought conceived in Portuguese. Not even in an email. And to imagine the battle fought by so many writers of the last century, who voluntarily adopted a new language to create literature… A writer for whom language is limited to a vehicle of expression is inconceivable. Language is ingrained in thought itself, which is constructed through it. The logical structure of thought is based only on the syntactic structure of the language in which it is shaped; the two are inseparable, and the former cannot flourish without the latter. Words in different languages follow one another and are organized in different ways; this is evidence not of a formal difference, but of a distinction between the genius of the men who develop them. Changing it, when one is already old, seems like a shock of tremendous proportions.