0/0
Photo
Against Wisdom
I would argue that the Socratic dialogues were interpreted upside down: we read them as an argument between a very wise man (Socrates) and various other characters who are generally "idiots." Yet in most of these dialogues, Socrates insists on admitting that he is a simple man who wants to learn “wisdom” from his interlocutor. So why don't we take his words at their face value?
In these dialogues, the wise man is not Socrates, but the man arguing with him. And in every one of these dialogues we see wisdom (Socrates' opponent) losing its ground under Socrates' scrupulous examination and failing to qualify as true knowledge. Then we, along with Socrates, come to the eerie conclusion that most of what we call wisdom is merely a conviction and an unexamined opinion.
This is what makes Socrates special: when the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest man alive, he was so baffled by this (because he knew how ignorant and unwise he was) that he went seeking every man regarded as wise or knowledgeable. He probably truly sought their wisdom in matters like Love, Justice, and Politics, but their wisdom crumbled and collapsed under his “Socratic Method” so much so that he was forced to admit that he was the wisest man alive (but only because he knew how ignorant he was).
In other words: what we generally regard as wisdom, is merely conviction and opinion (and bad opinion for that matter). It is ignorance disguised in the clothes of rhetoric and catchphrases, just like the wolf pretending to be the grandmother of Little Red Riding Hood.
I would argue that the Socratic dialogues were interpreted upside down: we read them as an argument between a very wise man (Socrates) and various other characters who are generally "idiots." Yet in most of these dialogues, Socrates insists on admitting that he is a simple man who wants to learn “wisdom” from his interlocutor. So why don't we take his words at their face value?
In these dialogues, the wise man is not Socrates, but the man arguing with him. And in every one of these dialogues we see wisdom (Socrates' opponent) losing its ground under Socrates' scrupulous examination and failing to qualify as true knowledge. Then we, along with Socrates, come to the eerie conclusion that most of what we call wisdom is merely a conviction and an unexamined opinion.
This is what makes Socrates special: when the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest man alive, he was so baffled by this (because he knew how ignorant and unwise he was) that he went seeking every man regarded as wise or knowledgeable. He probably truly sought their wisdom in matters like Love, Justice, and Politics, but their wisdom crumbled and collapsed under his “Socratic Method” so much so that he was forced to admit that he was the wisest man alive (but only because he knew how ignorant he was).
In other words: what we generally regard as wisdom, is merely conviction and opinion (and bad opinion for that matter). It is ignorance disguised in the clothes of rhetoric and catchphrases, just like the wolf pretending to be the grandmother of Little Red Riding Hood.
0/0
Photo
في مُعاداة الحكمة
ما يجعل سقراط مميزًا—ومُساءَ الفَهم أيضًا—هو أنّه لم يكن حكيمًا ولَم يَدفع حياته ثمنًا بسبب حبّه للحكمة. إذ تَروي القصّة أنّ عرّافة دِلفي في يومٍ من الأيام أوحَت بأنّ سقراط هو أكثرُ الرجال حكمةً في مدينةِ أثينا. حيّرَ هذا الخَبَر سقراط جدًا لأنّه كان عارِفًا بمدى جهله وقِلّة حكمته، فَقامَ يبحث بين الناس مِمّن كانوا يصفون أنفسَهم ويوصَفون بالحكمة. فتراهُ يستفسر منهم عن الحب والعدل والسياسة حتى يكتشف—ويكشف لنا—عبر محاورته لهم أنّ ما نظنّه في البدءِ حِكمةً ومعرفةً حقيقية، هو في جوهره ليس إلا رأيًا وقناعةً فردية صادرةً من أشخاصٍ يظنّهم المجتمع حكماءَ وعلماء غير أنّهم في حقيقتهم ذوو رأيٍ غير سديد وفِكرٍ غيرِ مُثمِر.
بمعنىً آخر: هو يستخدم منهجه The Socratic Method مِعولًا يَحفِر به تحت صَرحِ الحِكمة ليُظهر لنا أنّ هذه الحِكمة الشائعة بين الناس متصدّعةٌ ومليئةٌ بالتناقضات وهي بلا أساس. بَحَثَ سقراط عن حكيمٍ حتى لم يجد أحدًا، ما اضطرّه لقبولِ وَحي العرّافة بأنّه أكثرُ رجالِ أثينا حِكمةً (لكن فقط لأنّه يعرِف مدى جهلِه).
لَم يتسبب حبّ الحِكمة بإدانة سقراط والحكم عليه بالموت، بل العكس: ما جعله مغضوبًا عليه هو إفسادُه بالفعل عقول الشباب من خلال أنّه بيّن لَهم مدى سذاجة الحِكمة الشعبية الشائعة في مجتمعه وجرَّدَها مِن ثيابِ الوقار والتقديس. أوضحَ لنا سقراط أنّ ما يعمينا عن إدراك هذا هو أنّ الحِكمةَ "المغشوشة" هذه مغطاةٌ بطبقاتٍ من البلاغة والعبارات الرّنّانة. لهذا، لا يُعلّمُنا سقراط البحث عن الحكمة، بل هدمَها، لأنّ أكثرَ ما يُوصَف بالحكمة هو في حقيقته جهلٌ متدثّر برداء المعرفة (مثل الذئب يتدثّر برداء الجدة).
ما يجعل سقراط مميزًا—ومُساءَ الفَهم أيضًا—هو أنّه لم يكن حكيمًا ولَم يَدفع حياته ثمنًا بسبب حبّه للحكمة. إذ تَروي القصّة أنّ عرّافة دِلفي في يومٍ من الأيام أوحَت بأنّ سقراط هو أكثرُ الرجال حكمةً في مدينةِ أثينا. حيّرَ هذا الخَبَر سقراط جدًا لأنّه كان عارِفًا بمدى جهله وقِلّة حكمته، فَقامَ يبحث بين الناس مِمّن كانوا يصفون أنفسَهم ويوصَفون بالحكمة. فتراهُ يستفسر منهم عن الحب والعدل والسياسة حتى يكتشف—ويكشف لنا—عبر محاورته لهم أنّ ما نظنّه في البدءِ حِكمةً ومعرفةً حقيقية، هو في جوهره ليس إلا رأيًا وقناعةً فردية صادرةً من أشخاصٍ يظنّهم المجتمع حكماءَ وعلماء غير أنّهم في حقيقتهم ذوو رأيٍ غير سديد وفِكرٍ غيرِ مُثمِر.
بمعنىً آخر: هو يستخدم منهجه The Socratic Method مِعولًا يَحفِر به تحت صَرحِ الحِكمة ليُظهر لنا أنّ هذه الحِكمة الشائعة بين الناس متصدّعةٌ ومليئةٌ بالتناقضات وهي بلا أساس. بَحَثَ سقراط عن حكيمٍ حتى لم يجد أحدًا، ما اضطرّه لقبولِ وَحي العرّافة بأنّه أكثرُ رجالِ أثينا حِكمةً (لكن فقط لأنّه يعرِف مدى جهلِه).
لَم يتسبب حبّ الحِكمة بإدانة سقراط والحكم عليه بالموت، بل العكس: ما جعله مغضوبًا عليه هو إفسادُه بالفعل عقول الشباب من خلال أنّه بيّن لَهم مدى سذاجة الحِكمة الشعبية الشائعة في مجتمعه وجرَّدَها مِن ثيابِ الوقار والتقديس. أوضحَ لنا سقراط أنّ ما يعمينا عن إدراك هذا هو أنّ الحِكمةَ "المغشوشة" هذه مغطاةٌ بطبقاتٍ من البلاغة والعبارات الرّنّانة. لهذا، لا يُعلّمُنا سقراط البحث عن الحكمة، بل هدمَها، لأنّ أكثرَ ما يُوصَف بالحكمة هو في حقيقته جهلٌ متدثّر برداء المعرفة (مثل الذئب يتدثّر برداء الجدة).
When the unfaithful artist heard his wife coming up the stairs, he said to his lover, “Quick! Take off your clothes!”
What is important for comedy, thus, is not so much subject matter, but a manner of presentation. What the comic author writes about is not so important as how the material is presented. Kaufman claims that “the same material can be made into a tragedy and into a comedy”
A comedy is not just a funny story. It is a demonstration of how the world would appear if we could approach everything with a sense of humor.
— Laughing at Nothing
A comedy is not just a funny story. It is a demonstration of how the world would appear if we could approach everything with a sense of humor.
— Laughing at Nothing
The feeling of emotion can be overwhelming and it may at times threaten to destroy us unless we are able to gain some sort of distance from it and ourselves. The humorous attitude allows for this sort of distance. While the realities and incongruities of the world may never change, humor allows us the opportunity to shift our way of viewing them, and in so doing to transform all of our experiences, be they good or evil, into constructive opportunities for affirmative enjoyment.
— Laughing at Nothing
— Laughing at Nothing
It is not simply that people nowadays care about appearances more than before, it is that beyond appearances there is nothing. They are nothing more than the sum of their masks: remove the mask and you'll see another one, like layers of onion that you keep peeling until you reach the core. Then you'll be caught by surprise, because the core is not even rotten, it's empty. Perfect bodies and empty spirits.
Freud and Humor:
Freud thinks of the humorous attitude as a kind of defensive mechanism, and in fact as “the highest of the defensive processes.” In displacing the psychic energy naturally summoned for one affect into the service of another, humor allows us to guard against depression and despair in the face of the necessities of nature. Humor empowers us to resist what reality tells us it is hopeless to resist against.
In the humorist, Freud claims that we find an Ego that forsakes the “reality principle” in favor of the “pleasure principle,” and in so doing approximates the processes involved in psychopathology. Humor understands reality, but refuses to be constrained by it. Instead, it strives for pleasure, even in the face of overwhelming circumstances. In refusing to suffer in the face of adversity and demanding pleasure from the world, humor rebels against the natural order of things, liberating one from the chains of nature. In these ways, Freud considers humor a form of neurosis.
— Laughing at Nothing
Freud thinks of the humorous attitude as a kind of defensive mechanism, and in fact as “the highest of the defensive processes.” In displacing the psychic energy naturally summoned for one affect into the service of another, humor allows us to guard against depression and despair in the face of the necessities of nature. Humor empowers us to resist what reality tells us it is hopeless to resist against.
In the humorist, Freud claims that we find an Ego that forsakes the “reality principle” in favor of the “pleasure principle,” and in so doing approximates the processes involved in psychopathology. Humor understands reality, but refuses to be constrained by it. Instead, it strives for pleasure, even in the face of overwhelming circumstances. In refusing to suffer in the face of adversity and demanding pleasure from the world, humor rebels against the natural order of things, liberating one from the chains of nature. In these ways, Freud considers humor a form of neurosis.
— Laughing at Nothing