Em louvor à hipocrisia
Scott Locklin: Taki's Magazine
“Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu.”
La Rochefoucauld tinha razão. A hipocrisia é o tributo que o vício paga à virtude. Mais exatamente, a virtude merece um tributo. Estou cansado de patetas levantado um dedo trêmulo para pessoas cuja moralidade pode não ser 100% consistente. Estou farto dos que pensam que a simples observação da hipocrisia significa algo. Eu bocejo e reviro os olhos diante dos estraga-prazeres que parecem pensar que a simples existência da hipocrisia de algum modo lança no descrédito a idéia de que uma pessoa deve ao menos tentar agir eticamente.
O argumento parece ser que se alguém for revelado de algum modo como um hipócrita, não importa o quão levemente, ele se dissolverá em uma poça melada, como a Bruxa Perversa do Oeste, ao jogarem um balde de água nela. Que tipo de raciocínio é este? Me parece o tipo de contestação presunçosa usada por adolescentes mimados, autoritários e tolos contra seus pais. É um exemplo perfeito de falácia ad hominem. Destacar a hipocrisia de alguém é analiticamente equivalente a chamá-lo de escroto ou dizer que ele é gordo e cheira a massas. Com a exceção de que ser um hipócrita na verdade é uma coisa boa.
Eu admiro a hipocrisia: quanto mais descarada, melhor. Ela faz as pessoas lutarem para se tornarem algo melhor do que elas são. A hipocrisia é simplesmente fingir até virar verdade. Os anti-hipócritas prefeririam que todo mundo chafurdasse em seus próprios vícios ao invés de tentarem se tornar pessoas melhores. Mas a virtude, de qualquer espécie, é impossível sem alguma hipocrisia. Ser conta a hipocrisia é um nihilismo moral.
Pelo modo como o jogo retórico funciona para os caçadores de hipócritas, pode-se ser uma pessoa extremamente má, desde que se seja coerente: mais ou menos ao modo de Barney Frank. Não se permite que se encorajem as pessoas a serem boas ou mesmo vagamente razoáveis sem ser santimonioso em sua perfeição.
Na verdade, quando se é um grande hipócrita, suas opiniões não importam minimamente. Os hipócritas são considerados não-pessoas, mais ou menos como os racistas, os crentes no dimorfismo sexual e outros criminosos mentais modernos.
Há poucos anos, uns cabeças de bagre na mídia tiveram paroxismos de êxtase de espumar a boca quando se soube que o ex-"czar das drogas" americano William Bennett gostava de jogar. Ou que, como muitos ricos, Al Gore é um cara gordo que, apesar de pregar as virtudes de se levar uma vida modesta, possui casas grandes, um jato particular e barcos com banheiras de água quente neles. Ou que Rush Limbaugh foi viciado em drogas.
Que interesse há nestas coisas? As drogas ainda são ruins e devemos evitá-las se não quisermos terminar gaguejando sozinhos como Charlie Sheen ou algum vereador de Berkeley. Jogo... e daí? Benett pode ser um chato de um neoconservador falastrão, mas ele tem razão em dizer que as pessoas devem ter mais virtudes, como auto-disciplina. Aparentemente, ele tinha auto-controle pessoal o bastate para que o jogo nunca fosse um problema em sua vida pessoal. Claro: Al Gore tem casas gigantes e um jato; isto não quer dizer que as pessoas não devam ser frugais e modestas, mesmo que este gordo retardado não consiga se arrumar bem o bastante nem para impressionar os jecas.
Pessoalmente, acho Al Gore desprezível porque o sujeito não conseguiu nem que uma massagista paga de meia-idade lhe batesse uma punheta, mas não me importo que ele tenha barcos com banheiras de água quente e no entanto queira que os outros esquerdistas comam mingau. O fato de que Rush Limbaugh não tem auto-controle com suas pílulas não quer dizer que você deva começar a injetar heroína ou defender quem faz isto, nem que nenhuma de suas opiniões tenha mérito. Ria de Rush por sua arenga melodramática ou sua figura portentosa, mas ele obviamente sabe alguma coisa sobre problemas com drogas.
A idéia de denunciar os hipócritas parece ser a de que somos todos uns escrotos desprezíveis e deveríamos continuar de molho na imundície sem nunca nos sentirmos culpados por isto. Este é o número do trapézio mental que as pessoas modernas usam para se sentirem superiores a, digamos, os vitorianos ou os mórmons. Mas a cultura vitoriana era moral, e intelectualmente superior a nossa própria civilização decadente (eles também se vestiam melhor).
Os modernos se confortam com o fato de que os vitorianos eram indiscutivelmente hipócritas. Eu preferiria que as pessoas tentassem hipocritamente se comportar como não-escrotos desprezíveis, como faziam os vitorianos. Sim, isto implica em cometer outros pecados adolescentes, como "ser crítico", "não ser legal" e a hipocrisia. Vale a pena tentar realizar o feito impossível de viver uma vida livre de hipocrisia por medo de alguém mentalmente adolescente chamar sua atenção por causa disto?
Sentir-se bem com a hipocrisia é um sinal de que se é adulto, mais do que de um mau caráter. O mundo adulto é complicado. As ações são contextuais. As pessoas cometem erros e diferem em sua capacidade de lidarem com as situações, do mesmo modo que elas diferem em sua capacidade de lidarem com uma bebida forte.
Eu tinha o hábito de andar por aí com strippers tatuadas e com silicone nos peitos, entre várias outras coisas desaconselháveis das quais eu me orgulho consideravelmente menos. Os únicos efeitos duradouros e desagradáveis que eu sofri foram algumas cicatrizes e algum leve trauma psicológico. Será que sou um hipócrita se eu disser a meus amigos mais jovens e inocentes para ficarem longe de mullheres assim ou sou um homem que sabe por que esta pode ser uma má idéia?
Os adultos sabem que todos têm os piolhos da hipocrisia e que usar um spray repelente anti-hipocrisia não ajuda muito. O que ajuda é passar adiante conselhos de especialistas aos inexperientes. Pode confiar em mim no que diz respeito à história das strippers tatuadas. Não vale a pena o trabalho. Na maior parte dos casos.
A moralidade e a coesão social que vai junto com ela estão apodrecendo mensuravelmente nos Estados Unidos e no resto do Ocidente, mas que se dane, agora somos menos hipócritas em relação a nossas falhas! Como é que isto pode ser uma melhora em relação a ser hipócrita? Podem me chamar de um idealista da hipocrisia, mas me parece que se as pessoas estivessem mais preocupadas em serem denunciadas como vagabundos vilões e com maus hábitos ao invés de hipócritas, elas poderiam se comportar um pouco melhor.
Eu sou um hipócrita sob um número incontável de aspectos. O mesmo vale para a maioia das pessoas que estão lendo isto aqui. Qualquer um que não seja um hipócrita é ou um santo ou um degenerado; de qualquer modo, os não-hipócritas provavelmente deveriam ser imediatamente fuzilados. Os odiadores de hipócritas precisam de um novo argumento vazio para acalmar seus sentimentos infantis de inadequação. Eu sugeriria que pegassem o gerador de insultos Shakespeareanos e um dicionário de sinônimos de Roget, mas o esforço necessário provavelmente apenas os confundiria.
29 de abril de 2011
The argument seems to be that if you reveal someone is a hypocrite in any way, no matter how tenuous, they’ll dissolve into an embarrassed puddle of goo like the Wicked Witch of the West when splashed with a bucket of water. What kind of reasoning is that? Looks to me like the kind of highfalutin disputation used by spoiled, foot-stomping, semi-sentient adolescents on their parents. It’s a textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Pointing out that someone is a hypocrite is analytically equivalent to calling them a pooty-head or mentioning they are fat and smell like paste. Except being a hypocrite is actually a good thing.
I admire hypocrisy: the more brazen, the better. It makes people strive toward something better than what they are. Hypocrisy is just faking it until you make it. The anti-hypocrites would prefer that everyone wallow in their vices rather than attempting to become better people. But virtue of any kind is impossible without some hypocrisy. Being against hypocrisy is moral nihilism.
The way the rhetorical game works for the hypocrite-hunters, you can be an extremely bad person as long as you’re consistent about it: sort of like Barney Frank. You’re not allowed to encourage people to be good or even vaguely sensible without being saintlike in your perfection. In fact, if you’re a big enough hypocrite, your opinions don’t count at all. Hypocrites are often considered nonpersons, much like racists, believers in sexual dimorphism, and other modern thought criminals.
A few years ago, media ding-dongs went into foaming paroxysms of ecstasy when it turned out that former American “Drug Czar” William Bennett likes to gamble. Or that like many rich people, Al Gore is a fat guy who, despite preaching the virtues of living small, owns large houses, a private jet, and boats with hot tubs in them. Or that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to drugs. Why is any of that interesting? Drugs are still bad and you should avoid them, lest you end up muttering to yourself like Charlie Sheen or a Berkeley City Council member. Gambling…so what? Bennett may be an annoying neocon gasbag, but he is right that people should have more virtues such as self-discipline.
Apparently he had enough personal restraint that gambling was never a problem in his personal life. Sure, Al Gore has giant houses and a jet; that doesn’t mean folks shouldn’t be frugal and modest, even if the fat moron can’t manage a halfway decent hair-shirt routine to impress the rubes. Personally, I find Al Gore contemptible because the man can’t even cadge a handjob from a paid middle-aged masseuse, but I don’t mind that he has boats with hot tubs yet wants other liberals to eat gruel. The inventor of the Internet can apparently use all the help he can get with the ladies. The fact that Rush Limbaugh has no self-control with his pill stash doesn’t mean you should start shooting heroin or cut any slack for people who do, or that none of his other opinions have merit. Laugh at Rush for his melodramatic rants or his portly figure, but he obviously knows something about drug problems.
The idea of denouncing hypocrites seems to be that we are all scumbags and should get on with the business of marinating in squalor without ever feeling guilty about it. This is the mental trapeze act modern people use to feel superior to, say, Victorians or Mormons. But Victorian culture was morally, intellectually, and sartorially superior to our own decadent civilization. Moderns comfort themselves with the fact that the Victorians were unarguably hypocrites. I’d rather people hypocritically try to behave like non-scumbags like the Victorians did. Yes, this involves committing other adolescent sins such as “being judgmental,” “not being cool,” and hypocrisy. Is it worth attempting the impossible feat of living a hypocrisy-free life for fear that some superannuated teenager will call you on it?
Being comfortable with hypocrisy is a sign of adulthood rather than bad character. The grownup world is complicated. Actions are contextual. People make mistakes and differ in their ability to handle difficult situations just as they differ in their ability to handle strong drink. I used to make it a habit to run around with tattooed strippers with plastic boobs, among numerous other inadvisable things of which I’m considerably less proud. The only lasting ill effects I suffered were a few scars and some mild psychological trauma. Am I a hypocrite if I tell my younger, more innocent friends to stay away from women like that, or am I a man who knows why it might be a bad idea? Grownups know that everyone has the hypocrisy cooties and that spraying yourself with hypocrisy repellent doesn’t help matters. What helps is passing on expert advice to the inexperienced. Trust me on the tattooed-stripper thing: It isn’t worth the trouble. Mostly.
Morality and the social cohesion that goes along with it are measurably rotting in America and the rest of the West, but hot damn, we’re less hypocritical about our failings now! How is this an improvement on being a hypocrite? Call me a hypocritical idealist, but it seems to me if people were more worried about being denounced as villainous wastrels with bad habits rather than hypocrites, they might behave a little better.
I’m a hypocrite in countless obvious ways. So are most people reading this. Anyone who isn’t a hypocrite is either a saint or a degenerate; either way, non-hypocrites should probably be shot on sight. Hypocrite-haters need a new vacuous argument to ease their juvenile feelings of inadequacy. I’d suggest taking up the Shakespearean insult generator and a Roget’s Thesaurus, but the effort required would likely only confuse them. The whole Holden Caulfield act was weak sauce when it got started, and it’s even more watery soup now.
Original: In Praise of Hypocrisy
Tradução: DEXTRA
In Praise of Hypocrisy
La Rochefoucauld was right. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. More to the point, virtue deserves tribute. I tire of nincompoops raising a quivering finger at folks whose morality may not be 100% consistent. I grow weary of those who think the mere observation of hypocrisy means something. I yawn and roll my eyes at the killjoys who seem to think that the mere existence of hypocrisy somehow discredits the idea that one should at least attempt to act ethically.“Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu.”
The argument seems to be that if you reveal someone is a hypocrite in any way, no matter how tenuous, they’ll dissolve into an embarrassed puddle of goo like the Wicked Witch of the West when splashed with a bucket of water. What kind of reasoning is that? Looks to me like the kind of highfalutin disputation used by spoiled, foot-stomping, semi-sentient adolescents on their parents. It’s a textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Pointing out that someone is a hypocrite is analytically equivalent to calling them a pooty-head or mentioning they are fat and smell like paste. Except being a hypocrite is actually a good thing.
“Pointing out that someone is a hypocrite is analytically equivalent to calling them a pooty-head or mentioning they are fat and smell like paste.”
The way the rhetorical game works for the hypocrite-hunters, you can be an extremely bad person as long as you’re consistent about it: sort of like Barney Frank. You’re not allowed to encourage people to be good or even vaguely sensible without being saintlike in your perfection. In fact, if you’re a big enough hypocrite, your opinions don’t count at all. Hypocrites are often considered nonpersons, much like racists, believers in sexual dimorphism, and other modern thought criminals.
A few years ago, media ding-dongs went into foaming paroxysms of ecstasy when it turned out that former American “Drug Czar” William Bennett likes to gamble. Or that like many rich people, Al Gore is a fat guy who, despite preaching the virtues of living small, owns large houses, a private jet, and boats with hot tubs in them. Or that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to drugs. Why is any of that interesting? Drugs are still bad and you should avoid them, lest you end up muttering to yourself like Charlie Sheen or a Berkeley City Council member. Gambling…so what? Bennett may be an annoying neocon gasbag, but he is right that people should have more virtues such as self-discipline.
Apparently he had enough personal restraint that gambling was never a problem in his personal life. Sure, Al Gore has giant houses and a jet; that doesn’t mean folks shouldn’t be frugal and modest, even if the fat moron can’t manage a halfway decent hair-shirt routine to impress the rubes. Personally, I find Al Gore contemptible because the man can’t even cadge a handjob from a paid middle-aged masseuse, but I don’t mind that he has boats with hot tubs yet wants other liberals to eat gruel. The inventor of the Internet can apparently use all the help he can get with the ladies. The fact that Rush Limbaugh has no self-control with his pill stash doesn’t mean you should start shooting heroin or cut any slack for people who do, or that none of his other opinions have merit. Laugh at Rush for his melodramatic rants or his portly figure, but he obviously knows something about drug problems.
The idea of denouncing hypocrites seems to be that we are all scumbags and should get on with the business of marinating in squalor without ever feeling guilty about it. This is the mental trapeze act modern people use to feel superior to, say, Victorians or Mormons. But Victorian culture was morally, intellectually, and sartorially superior to our own decadent civilization. Moderns comfort themselves with the fact that the Victorians were unarguably hypocrites. I’d rather people hypocritically try to behave like non-scumbags like the Victorians did. Yes, this involves committing other adolescent sins such as “being judgmental,” “not being cool,” and hypocrisy. Is it worth attempting the impossible feat of living a hypocrisy-free life for fear that some superannuated teenager will call you on it?
Being comfortable with hypocrisy is a sign of adulthood rather than bad character. The grownup world is complicated. Actions are contextual. People make mistakes and differ in their ability to handle difficult situations just as they differ in their ability to handle strong drink. I used to make it a habit to run around with tattooed strippers with plastic boobs, among numerous other inadvisable things of which I’m considerably less proud. The only lasting ill effects I suffered were a few scars and some mild psychological trauma. Am I a hypocrite if I tell my younger, more innocent friends to stay away from women like that, or am I a man who knows why it might be a bad idea? Grownups know that everyone has the hypocrisy cooties and that spraying yourself with hypocrisy repellent doesn’t help matters. What helps is passing on expert advice to the inexperienced. Trust me on the tattooed-stripper thing: It isn’t worth the trouble. Mostly.
Morality and the social cohesion that goes along with it are measurably rotting in America and the rest of the West, but hot damn, we’re less hypocritical about our failings now! How is this an improvement on being a hypocrite? Call me a hypocritical idealist, but it seems to me if people were more worried about being denounced as villainous wastrels with bad habits rather than hypocrites, they might behave a little better.
I’m a hypocrite in countless obvious ways. So are most people reading this. Anyone who isn’t a hypocrite is either a saint or a degenerate; either way, non-hypocrites should probably be shot on sight. Hypocrite-haters need a new vacuous argument to ease their juvenile feelings of inadequacy. I’d suggest taking up the Shakespearean insult generator and a Roget’s Thesaurus, but the effort required would likely only confuse them. The whole Holden Caulfield act was weak sauce when it got started, and it’s even more watery soup now.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário