Misanthropy is one of the most salutary traits to reasoning that has been reported. Being a misanthrope involves a continuous and challenging effort. When one is misanthrope, one becomes a strategist by necessity. One learns psychology to understand the minds of others, to then predict their behavior and be able to avoid them. One has to be an expert in emotional stimuli to know never to arouse any in anyone. The misanthrope knows that his sagacity will be inversely proportional to the discomfort that comes from social relationships; therefore, the more sagacious he is, the more fully he will achieve the goal of seclusion. The interesting thing is that the stimulus never ceases, the misanthrope’s brain is instigated all the time and never rests, since there is always the possibility that someone will interrupt his solitude and ask him for something. It is like an endless game, extremely salutary to the intelligence and which, more than any other game, stimulates the will to win.
Tag: behavior
Gaining People’s Sympathy
Opinions are, above all, unpleasant. On an individual level, it goes without saying: they are the chains, the fetters of thought. On a collective level, who can stand them? An opinion is never as timely as it would be to fail to say it. People like to be listened to, not to listen. That is why it is so easy to win their sympathy: one just has to relate to them in silence, that is, listen to them without saying anything. Whether this is possible, or even bearable, is another matter…
The Guy Reads the Newspaper and Wants to Tell the World His Opinions
I am impressed by the individual’s interest—and I do not know if I should say attrition—in that which is totally outside his field of action. The guy reads the newspaper and wants to tell the world his opinions. He argues with his neighbor, rebels at disagreement, clashes with whoever contests him. Then he buys more newspapers, tries to become more informed so that, on the next occasion, he can annihilate his opponents in a debate that will never lead anywhere. He spends time and nerves on the useless. For every page of the newspaper, he reads one less page of Shakespeare. He does not understand his insignificance, he ignores the harmful character of his posture. But he goes on, of course, in the name of his greatest virtue: vanity.
The Modern Trend of Producing “Experts”
There is, worldwide, a blatant tendency to produce “experts”. In principle, it is natural that all areas should be deepened and that more and more detailed studies should be made available to the average student. However, the question remains: What about the whole? What about the connection between different areas of knowledge? I say and think about two things. First, in Carpeaux’s monumental História da literatura ocidental, a work that the more I analyze it, the more I find it valuable: in it, which could never be classified as “superficial,” more than twenty centuries of culture are magnificently concatenated. The student sees the impossible link shining before him and conquers, in relatively few pages, a vision that allows him to move through the most diverse currents of thought. A work of this kind is the opposite of the current intellectual trend. Secondly, I think about the students. Multiple interests, diversified study does not usually make careers: he who becomes an “expert” grows. By becoming an “expert”, the student flirts with the possibility of knowing one area and ignoring all the others, ignoring, as well, the real applicability of the knowledge itself. Well done! Which is worth more, or what is the point of studying? It seems to me that the main distinction between modern intellectuals lies in the answers.