The Idiot, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Idiot, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, is certainly a book I will approach at other opportunities. The work, as well as Don Quijote de la Mancha, by Cervantes, is brilliant and can confuse the unwary. As I said on another occasion, I thank so much for not rating this book as hilarious, and I did it just for having read it with some intellectual preparation. Dostoevsky manages, more in this than in other books, to give focus to his obsession with personalities touched by the divine. Prince Myshkin, the protagonist of the book, is the embodiment of the noblest that can be achieved as a human being. Endowed with infinite kindness and complacency, the prince generates empathy wherever he passes; however, he is misunderstood: his fellow men associate his candidness with innocence, lack of sense, taxing him as an idiot. Among all the themes in Dostoevsky, it is this in The Idiot which fascinates me most: human elevation necessarily requires the annihilation of vanity. Myshkin knows himself a misunderstood, or rather: he knows that others judge him an idiot; and yet it does not alter his complacent stance towards anyone. What does it matter what other people think? Myshkin seems immune to lust and can stare evil in the eyes, being light by contrasting with the shadows that evidence around him. His candor assails, molests, and coexistence only exposes his moral superiority before others. Idiot? Like Alyosha of The Brothers Karamazov, it seems that Myshkin walks among men to prove the asymmetry between the human and the divine, the misery and the grace, the earth and the celestial. And he proves to us, undoubtedly, all the mediocrity of small desires, small vanities and pride, which annihilates what would perhaps be the only human virtue worthy of this name.

____________

Read more:

The Contingency in Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a mathematician well known in Brazil, now that marketers have learned to use his name to sell consultancies, is certainly much more than a trader. If most idiots who sell buying recommendations in the stock market had read Taleb, they would learn the following: man cannot predict the future. Taleb, whose work invalidates almost everything that has been produced in modern finance, teaches that risk calculation is problematic because it seeks to establish future behaviors based on past behaviors. And that, as usual, whenever we try to predict the future, we will be held hostage by uncertainty. It is funny, because the human brain seems induced by an uncontrollable temptation to systematize the unknown; we simply do not accept the uncertainty, the absence of logical response, and then we put ourselves to elaborate theories, to risk explanations for the phenomena that surround us, seeking an objective pattern of events’ sequence and considering that patterns necessarily repeat themselves, since the universe is governed by static laws. According to Taleb, whenever we risk forecasts and leave no margins for an unexpected event, or when we project the future based on the past, we will be fragile. Mathematically speaking, this means that we cannot consider that something will not happen just because it has not happened before. That is: the estimated probability of nothing, and absolutely nothing, can be zero, because estimates require a margin of error. Every time I read Taleb I get the feeling that betting on the unlikely can be more coherent (besides having higher payoff), and that contingency, issue already addressed philosophically with several names (uncertainty, randomness, fate, fortune…), seems to be the true driving force of the determining events of history. That is why I disdain smiling of the meteorologist and his tare for quantifying future events, while I learn to respect the Indian, who, looking impassively at the sky, knows himself hostage to his own luck.

____________

Read more:

Nietzsche and the Impotence of Language

Nietzsche was a critic of language. Wisely realized that it is only able to generalize, simplify the world and falsify the real. Pascal said something similar following the same logic: the essence, or the knowledge, is not liable to be put into words — or seized. For Nietzsche, language is a translation, and our cognitive apparatus gives us nothing but a perspective of reality, that is: we are not able to define the thing itself, and knowledge is a question of interpreting and seeking for master the chaos of appearance. Very well! Then I look around and only see convictions, truths, sensible opinions, grounded interpretations, empirical conclusions, all wrapped in an absolute maniqueism. Caution and doubt today are signs of weakness and lack of erudition. So I recognize my absolute incompatibility with my time and my deep contempt for the people around me.

____________

Read more:

Hope: the Holy Hootch

If, by one side, hope is supreme stupidity, “the policy of the poor,” the “weed that eats all the other better plants” — paraphrasing Machado de Assis, — by the other side, hope is virtuous, indispensable, so that, abstaining from it, life easily appears unbearable to us. So, and then? What to decide? What to make of this holy hootch? Drink it or not? Of course, each of us should sip the amount one want most — treating abstinence and gluttony, as always, to point out who the imbeciles are.

____________

Read more: