wisdom of life
Chapter 8 The Appearances Man Shows
Chapter 8 The Appearances Man Shows (2)
your nature,
It is an eternal accusation against them.Shameless people should be grateful for this chivalry!Because he brings them to the same level as the good ones.If not, they will not be able to match those excellent people in any respect.Once someone slanders these superior people, that is, imposes inferior qualities on them, then this person's slander is at the moment an objectively true and well-founded judgment, a decree with definite force.In fact, it will always be true and valid hereafter, unless the slander and insult are promptly blotted out with blood.That is to say, if the insulted person tolerates the insult being pinned on his own head, then the insulted person (a "man of honor" in the eyes of everyone) is the insulter (which is perhaps the worst human being). ) as it was said.In doing so, he would be thoroughly scorned by "men of honour."People shunned him like the plague.For example, people will openly refuse to participate in all social occasions where he is present, etc.I believe I can sort out exactly where this idea came from.From the Middle Ages to the 15th century (according to CG von West's "German Criminal Law, German Historical Anthology"), in the criminal procedure, it is not the plaintiff to prove the guilt of the defendant, but the defendant to prove own innocence.The procedure of fulfillment is to take an oath under the guarantee of others.For this purpose he needs guarantors.These persons must swear under oath that the accused will not commit perjury.If the defendant does not have these persons to help, or the plaintiff does not recognize these sureties, then the matter is left to God to judge.Under normal circumstances, this is done in a duel.Because now the defendant is "a person with a disgrace", he must clear himself of the disgrace.From here we can see the origin of the concept of shame, of the whole procedure of the duel.Even to this day such things (except for the oath being dispensed with) are done among "Men of Honor".This explains why "men of honor" are so outraged at accusations of lying that they seek bloody revenge.Considering the fact that lying is an everyday occurrence, this response is rather surprising.But the reaction is deeply entrenched, especially in England.In fact, to threaten with death those who accuse you of lying, you must have never lied in your life.Therefore, in the criminal proceedings in the Middle Ages, the form became more brief. The defendant only needs to respond to the plaintiff: "You are lying", and the matter can be left to God for judgment.It is recorded that there is a rule in the honor of chivalry: accusations of lying must be settled by force.I will stop here with regard to verbal insults.But there are more serious things than verbal insults, to such a degree that even when I mention it, I must ask the forgiveness of all those who believe in the honor of chivalry, because I know that the mere thought of it is enough to make these people The hair stood on end, for it was the most vile thing on earth, worse than death and the damned.That is, one person throws another person in the mouth or beats him with his hands.This terrible hand attack can completely destroy the honor of the victim.Other damages to honor can be healed by bleeding, but responding to this blow can only fully restore honor by killing the opponent.
3. Knightly honor has nothing to do with pedantic questions of what a man really is, or whether his moral nature changes or not.When a man temporarily loses his honor, or when it is damaged, he can quickly and completely restore it, if he acts swiftly, by the panacea of the duel.But if the offender comes from a class that does not believe in knightly honour, or if it is only the first time he has offended another's honour, there is a safe and secure way.One can knock him down the moment he offends himself—and, if necessary, in any later situation, if the weapon is at hand, especially if the other party destroys another's honor by blowing his hand.But it would have been the same if his offense to us had been merely verbal.Only through such retaliation can honor be redeemed.But if one does not want to take this step, in order to avoid the adverse consequences of this action; or if one is not sure whether the offender is bound by the code of chivalrous honor, then one has a better way.That is, if the offender behaves rudely, we should meet it in an even more rude way; if verbal insults are no longer helpful, then we should fight with fists, which is the most extreme means of saving honor.Therefore, if you get a slap in the face, you can only respond with a stick; and to deal with an attack from a stick, you can only use a whip to beat a dog as a remedy; one move.It is only when these are of no avail that we are compelled to resort to bloody action.This solution is based on the following maxim of knightly honor.
4. Just as it is a disgrace to be insulted, so it is an honor to insult.If truth, justice, and reason are on my adversary's side, but if I insult him, then truth, justice, and reason pack up and go, and reason and honor are on my side.At the same time, the other loses his honor, until he regains it by shooting and sword, instead of justice and reason.In this matter of honour, therefore, rude incompetence supersedes and is superior to all qualities of character, and reason takes the side of the most rude behavior.Why do you need a variety of other things?A man may be foolish, mean, and ill-bred, but insolence erases and legitimizes it all.When we talk or discuss matters, if any one shows us that he has a more accurate knowledge of the subject in question than we do, he loves truth more than we do; his judgment and understanding are sounder and superior; The superior mental intelligence he exhibits dwarfs our own—we can then, at one blow, eliminate all his strengths, as well as the weaknesses and inadequacies that we expose because of his strengths.We can even become superior to this person in reverse—as long as we play wild and rough.Brutality is better than a confrontation of minds, it kills the spiritual intelligence of men, so if our opponents do not count with us, respond in a more rude way, and thus engage in a noble duel, then we Can be the victors, the honor is ours.Truth, knowledge, thought, understanding, and wit shunned and were driven from the field of battle in the face of that majestic brutality.So these "Men of Honor" are ready to mount their horses as soon as someone expresses a different opinion, or shows superior intellect; It also helps them win, and it's easier to find rough words.In this way, they will triumph in victory.From this it can be seen how right people are in praising this principle of honour, which ennobles the style of society.This one maxim is based on the following - it is the root and soul of the whole code of honor.
5. From the point of view of those who believe in knightly honour, the highest tribunal we can turn to in judging what is right in disputes among men is our bodily strength, that is to say, our animality.Every act of rudeness is indeed the result of an appeal to animality, for to do it is to declare that the confrontation of spiritual power and moral justice is powerless;Franklin [10] defined man as an "animal that can make tools", so the confrontation of human physical strength is carried out by man with weapons that only man can make; this is a duel.By dueling, people received an irrevocable sentence. The basic maxim of the "Men of Honor" is known to be expressed by the term Faustrecht (fist axiom); this expression is similar to the term Aberwitz and is equally ironic [11].Therefore, knightly honor should be called "fist honor".
6. If we find that civil honor is cautious, obligated, and fulfilling promises in dealing with the relationship between people and me; then, in contrast, the rules of knightly honor we are discussing now show that when dealing with the above-mentioned interpersonal relationships, The noblest loose.There is only one thing that cannot be broken, and that is the words spoken in the name of honor, that is, the promises that people make after they say "on honor."This leads to such an assumption: other commitments do not need to be fulfilled.In extreme cases, we can even break promises made in the name of honor.Our honor can only be redeemed through the panacea of a duel—against those who insist that we made our promises in the name of honor.Also, there is only one kind of debt that we have to pay - and that is gambling debts, hence the name "honor debts".As for other debts, one can cheat one another as Jews and Christians do, without injuring one iota of our knightly honor.[12]The unbiased reader can see at a glance that this strange, barbaric, ridiculous code of honor has nothing to do with human nature or a healthy understanding of human relationships.This is evidenced by the fact that honor of chivalry only operates within a very narrow field.That is, it was only popular in Europe, and that only started in the Middle Ages.In Europe, too, knightly honors were valid only among nobles, armies, and those who imitated them.The Greeks, the Romans, and even the highly developed nations of Asia, ancient and modern, were ignorant of this honor and its rules.They all know only the honors I first analyzed.Thus, what these peoples think of a man is determined entirely by what he does, and not at the mercy of any random talker.They all affirm the fact that a man can only speak or act in derogation of his own honor, and not that of another.A slap to them is but a slap to them, and a horse or a donkey can kick even more dangerously.Depending on the circumstances, an attack by another person will provoke the victim's anger, and it is likely that this will lead to a counterattack on the spot.But these have nothing to do with honor.People will certainly not prepare an account to record a certain attack or some insulting words from others, and the revenge "satisfaction" that has been or has not been obtained for this.The heroism and integrity of these peoples are not inferior to European Christians.The Greeks and Romans were real heroes; but they knew nothing about "honor of chivalry".For them duels were not the work of noble men, but of gladiators, slaves for sale, and condemned criminals—they fought alternately with wild beasts for the amusement of the multitude. .With the introduction of Christianity, the performance of gladiators was banned. In this Christian era, it was replaced by duels between people, and the result of the duel became the judgment of God.If the gladiatorial combat is a cruel sacrifice for public entertainment, this duel is a cruel sacrifice for popular ignorance; but here it is not criminals, slaves and prisoners who sacrifice Free men and nobles.
A great deal of evidence has survived to show that the fallacy of knightly honor was wholly foreign to the ancients.For example, a Teutonic chief sent a letter to Marius [13], demanding a duel with him, but the hero sent a message to the chief: "If he (this chief) is tired of life, he can hang himself for this life." ’” Of course, Marius offered to provide the chieftain with a retired gladiator so that he could have a fight with him.In Plutarch [14] we read that Eurybiades, the admiral of the fleet, raised his stick to beat Demostocles while he was arguing with him.But Demostocles didn't draw his sword, he just said, "Hit me, but hear me out".The corps of non-commissioned officers in Athens did not immediately announce that they no longer wanted to serve under Demostocles.How indignant the reader of chivalry must read such a thing!Thus a contemporary French writer quite rightly says, "If it should be said that Demosphenes was a man of chivalry, one could only give a sympathetic smile; likewise Cicero was not man" (C. Durand, Literary Nights 1828, Vol. 25).In addition, a passage in Plato's writings discussing abuse is clear enough to show that the ancients had no concept of chivalrous honor when dealing with similar things.Socrates was often treated roughly by others because of his frequent debates, but he did not take it lightly.Once he was kicked, and he endured it in silence, saying to the astonished man, "If a donkey kicks me, shall I be angry and take revenge?" (Diogenes) Another time , someone asked him: "Isn't that person humiliating you?" "No," he replied, "because he's not talking about me." A large paragraph of text, from this text we can see how the ancients viewed being insulted by others.They do not know of any other solution than resorting to the law, and sensible people do not even bother to adopt this solution.The ancients were slapped in the face by others, and they would only resort to legal means to find justice—this can be seen in Plato's "Gorgias".In this chapter, you can also read Socrates' opinions on this.A similar fact is found in the Report of Gilis: a certain Lucius Veratus, without being provoked, had the audacity to beat all the Roman citizens he met on the road slap.In order to avoid complicating things afterwards, he asked a slave to lead the way with a bag of coins, and immediately paid the corresponding 10 as compensation to those who were surprised and inexplicable.The well-known cynic master Crates was slapped heavily by the musician Nick DeLomus.His whole face was swollen with bloodstains.Crates put a note on his forehead reading "This is the work of Nicode Lomus" in order to humiliate the flute player who had treated the man who was worshiped by the whole of Athens with savagery.In a letter to Merisbos from Diogenes of Xenopi, he says that he was whipped by a gang of drunken Athenian youths, but this was no serious matter to him.From Chapter 14 to the end of his book "Eternal Wisdom", Seneca discusses at length how to deal with insults from others.He came to the conclusion that a wise man need not bother with such things.He wrote in Chapter [-], "What should a wise man do when he is attacked? When Kathu was slapped, he did not grieve, did not retaliate, did not offer forgiveness. He simply declared that no beating had happened. .”
"Yes," say you, "but these men are wise!"—and you are fools then?
indeed so.It can be seen from this that the ancients did not know what the principle of knightly honor was.This is because the ancients were faithful to nature in every respect and looked at things without prejudice.They will not believe in these ominous, hopeless and ugly things.They see a slap in the face as nothing but a slap from someone else, which causes minor bodily harm, and they don't see it as anything else.But for contemporary people, being slapped in the face by others will be a huge disaster, enough to constitute the theme of a tragedy, such as Corneille [15]'s "Cid".There is also a recent German tragedy about bourgeois life called The Power of Circumstances, but it should be called The Power of Myth.If a man is slapped in the chamber of the National Assembly in Paris, the sound of that slap is heard from one end of Europe to the other.Those who are obsessed with chivalry's honor will be angry and uncomfortable when they see the old classic examples I cite.In order to prescribe the right medicine, I suggest that they read the story of M. de Grand in Diderot's famous work "Jacques the Destiny".This is an outstanding masterpiece describing the persistence of modern chivalry honor.They will love this book and be inspired by it. 【16】
From the above discussion, we can clearly see that the principle of knightly honor has no unique insights, nor is it built on the basis of human nature. It is only a man-made product, and its origin is not difficult to find.It was born in a certain era.In that era, people used their fists more than their brains; people's rationality was imprisoned by priests with iron chains.So, it is a child of the celebrated Middle Ages and its chivalry.At that time, people not only need God to care about them, but also God to judge things for them.Thus, difficult legal cases are decided by arbitration courts, or God's judgments.Almost without exception, this turned into a duel between the two sides.Duels were not only fought between knights, but also between townspeople.An excellent example is found in Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part II, Act II, Scene II).After obtaining the legal judgment, there is also an appeal, that is, recourse to the duel-it is a higher court, and the judgment is made by God.Thus bodily agility and strength, that is, animal nature, takes the place of reason in the place of judge.It was a judgment of right or wrong not according to what a man did, but as a result of his last encounter with luck—a situation consistent with the principles of chivalry honor that are still in effect today.Whoever still has doubts about this origin of the duel should read JG Mellingen's excellent History of the Duel (1849).In fact, today, among those who live by this principle of honour—who are generally uneducated and do not give much thought to matters—there are still some who actually see the outcome of a duel as a dispute between God and them. judgment on the issue.Of course, this view is formed according to the views handed down by tradition.
This is the root of knightly honor.In addition, it tends to coerce superficial respect from others through the threat of physical strength; the real effort to win respect is considered both difficult and superfluous.A man of knightly honor is like holding the mercury bulb of a thermometer in his hand, hoping that as the mercury rises, his room will warm up.A closer look reveals that the point of the matter is that the purpose of civil honor is friendly intercourse with other people; it consists in the perception of us that we are worthy of complete confidence because we have absolute respect for the rights of others.But chivalry rests on the perception that we are formidable because we protect our rights absolutely and unconditionally.Originally, there was nothing terribly wrong with this principle—that it is more important to be intimidated than to be trusted by others, because if we live in a state of nature, each of us must protect our own safety and directly defend our own rights. Right, so we cannot rely on human justice.But in civilized times, the state has assumed the task of defending our person and property, so the above-mentioned principles have no place to apply.It's like castles and watchtowers nestled between fancy farmlands, bustling highways, and even railroads—all discarded relics from the days when fists were justice.The honor of chivalry, which obstinately adheres to this principle, deals only with minor transgressions committed by the people--for which the state imposes only slight penalties, or, according to the principle "the law ignores trivial things", ignores them at all.Because these are just sesame mung bean insults, sometimes just pure teasing.But in dealing with these things chivalry honor exaggerates the value of man to a degree which is wholly out of proportion to his nature, constitution, and destiny.The value of human beings has been raised to the point of sacrosanct.In this way, it will be considered that the punishment of the state for small offenses is not enough at all; the offended person will perform the task of punishment himself, and the goal is directed at the offender's physical life.It's clear that the root of the matter is man's extreme arrogance and that repulsive arrogance - people have completely forgotten what it is to be human.The honor of chivalry demands that people make no mistakes and never accept any harm from others.Whoever is going to enforce this opinion by force, and proclaims the maxim: "Anyone who has insulted me or struck me with his hand must die," should indeed be expelled from his country.[18]Everything is used as an excuse to beautify this daringly conceited attitude.If two people who are not afraid of death meet and refuse to make way for each other, then the slight push will turn into harsh words, and then fists, and finally the matter will end with one party receiving a fatal blow .In fact, simply skip the middle link and use weapons immediately, so as to save face.The development of meticulous and specific procedures into a set of rigid and rigid systems with their own laws and rules is indeed a farce staged with the most serious and serious attitude in this world. It is the respect and worship of ignorance. .It's just that the fundamental principle of knightly honor is wrong.In dealing with other insignificant matters (for the important matters are dealt with by the courts), one of them, the wiser one, will make concessions, and will agree to retain their respective disagreement.Evidence of this can be provided by the practices of the general public who do not subscribe to the principles of chivalry's honor, or by the practice of countless persons of all classes.They let disputes and frictions resolve themselves.Mortal assaults were a hundred times rarer among these, and fights were less frequent, than among the knightly honorable class, which constituted perhaps only a quarter of the population of the whole society.It will be said, however, that good manners and customs are at last founded on the principles of knightly honor, and duels from it, for these are the most powerful defenses against bad manners and roughness of men.But in Athens, in Corinth, in Rome we do see good and even first-rate society, and refined manners and habits, without the backing of the specter of chivalry.In ancient times, of course, women did not occupy a prominent position in social situations, as we do now.Circumstances now arise which impart a frivolity and childishness to the discourse of men, and which drive away weighty and serious subjects; and indeed it has done a great deal to cause our high society to prefer personal courage to other qualities. .But personal courage is fundamentally secondary, it is only a merit of the rank and file.Even animals surpass us in personal courage, for example, it is said, "Brave as a lion."Contrary to what has been said above, the principles of chivalry's honor generally afford a safe haven for dishonesty and baseness in great matters, and for barbarism, thoughtlessness, and impoliteness in small ones.Because people will silently endure a lot of rudeness, just because no one wants to risk their life to criticize others.The fact that agrees with what I have said here is that in a country where there is no real credit in political and financial affairs of property, we can see duels developed to their culmination and bloodiest proportions.As for the private communication among the people of this country, you can ask those who have experience in it.As for the lack of manners and social refinement in this country, that is unmistakable.
All pretexts of chivalry honor do not stand the test.But if someone says: Just as a dog barks when another dog barks, but is affectionate when caressed, so it is human nature to respond hostility with hostility, He would feel uncomfortable and angry when others showed contempt or hatred-then, there would be some truth in his statement.Hence, says Cicero, "even the humble and well-meaning cannot bear the pain of insult and ill-treatment." Insults and fists go unchallenged.Nevertheless, it is human nature to drive us no farther than to retaliate in proportion to the offense we have received; much less to kill someone for accusing us of lying, stupidity, and cowardice .The old German maxim "a slap is repaid with a dagger" expresses a distasteful view of chivalry.Revenge or punishment for an insult is not a matter of anger, as knightly honor tells us, it is a matter of our honor and morality.On the contrary, it is clear that words that accuse us do as much harm as they hit their target.This can be seen from the fact that a slight insinuation does more harm than a severe but unsubstantiated accusation, so long as we are rightly told.Therefore, once a person knows that the accusation against him is wrong, he can and should confidently dismiss it.But the principles of chivalry require us to accept a reproach we do not deserve, and to take bloody vengeance for an insult which has done us no harm.But a person who is in such a hurry to suppress every offensive utterance for fear that it will be heard by others must not think highly of his own worth.Therefore, a truly self-respecting person will face insults and slanders indifferently; if he cannot treat insults and slanders indifferently, then tact and self-cultivation will help him take care of face and hide his anger.If we first get rid of the stereotype of chivalry, and no longer mistakenly think that by insulting others, we can take other people's honor or redeem our own; Injustice, brutality of all sorts—for the response would at once legitimize all of it—if so, the notion would soon be universally accepted that if When there is a situation where bad words are directed at each other, the party that has the upper hand is the winner.As Vincento Monti [19] said: foul language is like a queue in a church, always returning to their starting point.In this way, people no longer have to respond to insults with fire for fire in order to keep themselves right, as they do now.In this way, understanding and thought can enter our conversation, instead of first worrying whether our words will offend narrow and ignorant minds, as they do now.In fact, the existence of deep understanding itself makes narrow and ignorant people panic and uncomfortable, and thus triggers a war between people with thoughts and brains and people whose skin is filled with superficial, narrow and ignorant people. A fight of luck.Thus, in the gathering of men, the predominance of thought will have the priority it deserves.But now, though this fact is not known, this priority is given to those who have nothing but brute strength and courage.In this way, outstanding people have at least one less reason to avoid social interaction.This change clears the way for a real good vibe and excellent social gatherings.Undoubtedly there were similar gatherings in Athens, Corinth, and Rome.Whoever wants to get proof of this, I recommend that he read Xenophon's [20] Symposium.
Still, the final defense of chivalry's honor is undoubtedly this: "But, God, if that were the case, wouldn't everyone be free to be rough on everyone else?"--to which I can give a brief answer: such This happens to people who account for 90.00% of the population and do not practice knightly honor, but no one will die due to violence.But among those who abide by the principle of chivalry, generally speaking, a violent move will lead to fatal results.I would also like to talk about this issue in depth.In order to account for the ingrained belief held by a section of human society that being slapped in the face by someone else is a terrible thing to do, I have tried hard to find some solid, standing ground in our animality or rationality. Reasons that hold up, or at least make sense, that are not purely beautiful and fancy words, but reasons that can be distilled into clear concepts.But I didn't succeed.A slap with the hand is only, and always will be, an act of bodily harm done by one person to another, indicating that the person who slapped was stronger or quicker, or that the person receiving the slap was not paying attention at the time, etc.; except Besides, it doesn't say anything else.An analysis of the act of slapping someone with a hand cannot tell much more.The knight who counts a slap in the face as one of the most miserable things can happen to be kicked ten times as hard by his horse.But as he was limping, he would endure the pain and comfort others that it was nothing.In this way, I think the reason lies in the hands.However, I saw our knight being stabbed and cut by the same hand in battle, and he assured us that these were trivial things and not worth mentioning.Then we heard people say that even being beaten with the flat surface of a saber is far less serious than being beaten with a stick.Therefore, not so long ago, military students would rather accept the former punishment than the latter.Today, being knighted by the tap of the saber blade is a supreme honor.Now that I have completed my considerations of the psychological and moral grounds of chivalry, all that remains is the conclusion that the principle of chivalry is nothing but an old and deep-seated fallacy, another example of the gullible nature of human beings.In addition, a well-known fact can confirm my point: in China, beating with bamboo sticks is a common method of punishing citizens, even for officials at all levels.This tells us that in China, human nature—that is, highly civilized human nature—does not approve of things like knightly honor [21].It is as natural as an unbiased look at human nature to see that man fights with man, as the bite of beasts and the clash of horns with horned animals; man knows nothing but the whip Beating animals.So we are shocked when we occasionally hear one person bite another with his mouth, whereas fighting with hands and feet is a perfectly natural occurrence.Obviously, through people's self-cultivation and self-restraint, we'd be happy to get rid of fighting.However, if people in a country or just a class are convinced that it is a great misfortune to be slapped by others, then the inevitable result is death and mutual murder.This is a brutal thing.There are already too many real evils in this world, and one should not add those false evils, because they will bring real evils.But this is exactly what that stupid and insidious superstition [22] is doing.For this reason, we protest against the sounding of the gong by the Government and the Legislature, eager to introduce regulations prohibiting corporal punishment in civilian and military settings.They believe that doing so will benefit all beings, but in reality the opposite is true.This practice only aggravates the inhuman and incurable ignorance.Too many sacrifices have been made for this.The first thing that comes to mind with regard to general offenses except the most serious crimes is to give the prisoner a good beating.Therefore, such punishment is natural.Whoever does not accept reason must accept the club.If a man has neither property to pay a fine, nor deprivation of his liberty will benefit the people—because they need his services—then it is a good idea to inflict a moderate amount of corporal punishment on that man. A sensible and natural thing to do.We have no reason to object to this, other than rhetoric such as "human dignity and worth".But it is not clear concepts that underpin these claims, but just the pernicious fallacy discussed above—which is the root of the problem.This is confirmed by an almost ridiculous example: Recently, in the armies of many countries, whippings have been replaced by sleeping on slatted beds, which are as painful to the body as the former, but the latter punishment However, it is not considered to be detrimental to the reputation and personality of the person punished.
Such blindness is so encouraged that it only serves the honor of chivalry, and thus the practice of dueling.At the same time, people tried to pass laws to ban dueling, or seemed to do so [23].The result of this is that the remnants of the understanding that fists are axioms handed down from the most barbaric Middle Ages are still wandering in the nineteenth century.This is really a disgrace to the public.Now is the time to humiliate it and throw it away.Dog fighting is not allowed these days (at least similar entertainment is penalized in the UK), yet people fight each other against their will and kill each other.This is all the result of the absurd chivalry principle and the bigotry and narrow defenders who advocate the chivalry principle to promote and clear the way for the principle.They force people to fight like gladiators for trivial things.Therefore, I propose to German linguists: the word duel [19] should be replaced by the word baiting [24].The word probably does not come from the Latin duelam, but from the Spanish duelo, which means pain, difficulty.The folly of a duel is done in a serious manner, and it does more than provide a laughing stock.The absurd principle of knightly honor establishes an independent kingdom within a country, and does not recognize anything but fist is justice; it sets up a holy inquisition to torture people of all classes who submit to the authority of knightly honor; Everyone may be provoked by others for some trivial excuses, and thus be forced to accept the sentence of life or death.All of this is outrageous.Of course, it provides refuge and hiding place for villains - so long as they believe in chivalry; they can threaten and even eliminate the noble and eminent.Those people are hated by these villains because of their nobility and excellence.Today, the police and the law have made it impossible for thugs to shout at us in the street: "Money or death?" : "Honor or life?" People of the upper class should be relieved of the burden, not to let others do what they want at any time, and pay the price for their barbarism, stupidity or viciousness, at the expense of their own bodies and lives.Two young people who are young and inexperienced, once they speak ill of each other, they will get hot-headed and will not hesitate to sacrifice blood, health, or life.This is appalling and humbling.Very often the insulted are unable to restore the injured honor, because of their disparity with the offender, or because of some peculiarity of the offender, and so, in despair, they end their own lives, in a sad and sad state. Funny ending.This shows the tyranny of the kingdom and the power of the fallacy of chivalry.If the development of things reaches the culmination of contradictions, then its falsity and absurdity will be exposed.This example is a glaring antinomy: an official is forbidden to fight a duel, but if he is offered a duel and he refuses, he is punished by dismissal.
When it comes to this topic, I will speak honestly and bluntly.As soon as we look at the matter clearly and without prejudice, we can see that whether we wield the same weapons as our opponents, kill them in fair combat, or steal them from the back—between the two The reason why there is an important difference, and why it is so highly valued, lies in the fact that in this country within a country, as I have already said, it is recognized that the right of the strong is the right of the fist , enshrining the fist as the axiom as the judgment of God, and taking it as the basis of the rules of knightly honor.To kill our enemies in fair combat proves nothing but that we are stronger, or better at fighting.To engage in a public duel to justify killing an opponent assumes the premise that strong is the true axiom.But in fact, if my opponent does not know how to defend himself, it only provides me with the possibility of killing him, but never provides a valid reason for killing him.On the contrary, my moral justification for killing my opponent depends only on my motives for killing him.Assuming that I am morally justified enough to kill my opponent, there is no reason at all to make killing him depend on whether I am better at marksmanship or fencing.On the contrary, it made no difference which way I took his life, whether I struck him from behind or from the front.That subterfuge should come in handy when it comes to committing a dastardly murder on someone.From a moral point of view, force is right is no more convincing than trick is right.So far as we are concerned, Might is right and Trick is right.It should be noted that in a duel both strength and cunning are at play, as in fencing gimmicks are cunning.If I think it's morally justifiable to kill a man, it's foolish to decide whether he or I are better at shooting or fencing; It will hurt me in turn, and even take my life.To retaliate against someone's insult should not be duel, but assassination - this is the view of Rousseau [26].He hints at this idea carefully in a note to the rather cryptic No. 20 of Part IV of Emile.But he was deeply influenced by the knight's honor, and he even thought that if he was accused of lying, he would have a valid reason to assassinate this person.But Rousseau should know that everyone, not least Rousseau himself, has lied countless times and deserves the blame.A man is justified in killing his opponent as long as he fights his opponent openly and with the same weapons--this fallacy obviously takes force as a true axiom, and dueling is regarded as the judgment of God up.In contrast, a furious Italian, seeing his enemy, would pounce on him and attack him with a dagger without saying a word.The conduct was at least consistent and natural; he was wiser, but no worse than the duelists.But someone will say: in a duel, when I kill my opponent, he is also trying to kill me, and this is enough to absolve me.But the refutation of this is: when I challenge him, I also place him in a position where he has to defend himself justly.This intentional practice of putting the other party in such a situation is in fact the duelist looking for a plausible excuse for murdering the other party.If both parties agree to stake their lives on a duel, the principle that a voluntary act is one's own fault is more plausible as an excuse.Of this we may say that the injured party is not voluntary, since the executioner of the murder is the tyrannical honor of knighthood and its absurd rules.It brought two duelists, or at least one of them, to the front of this bloody torture chamber.
My discussion of knightly honor is too long, but I do so with good intentions, for philosophy is the only Hercules in the world capable of dealing with the behemoths of the moral and intellectual categories.Two main things distinguish and compare New Age society from Old society, because they imbue New Age society with a certain somber, serious, and foreboding air.In the old days, when people did not have this evil, that period was like the morning in life, happy and uninhibited.These two things are knighthood and venereal disease, the "noble couple" (Horace).Together, they poison "debate and love" in life.STDs play a more far-reaching role than might appear at first glance, because their effects are not purely physical but also moral.Since there are also poisoned arrows in Cupid's quiver, there is something strange, hostile, even diabolical about the relationship between man and woman.In this way, a dark, terrible mistrust enters the relationship between the sexes.Such changes, which now form the basis of all human societies, affect other social relations more or less indirectly.But to delve deeper into this issue would be to diverge from our topic.Similar to the effect of venereal disease is the effect of knightly honor, though of a different nature.Society is made stiff, tense, and serious by it, because every word has to be thought out.But that's not all there is to it!The principle of knightly honor is the Minotaur [27] with the head of a bull and the body of a man enshrined by the public, and the annual sacrifices to him are many noble men from famous families.This situation does not only happen in a certain European country as in the past, it has spread throughout Europe.So, now is the time to bravely take down this monster, as I have done here.Let these two monsters die in the new era of the 19th century!Physicians will at last succeed in curing venereal diseases through preventive medicines, and we will not give up hope; but it is the task of philosophers to dispel the monster of chivalry; failed.And it is only through philosophy that this scourge can be fundamentally combated.If the government works in good faith to put an end to the evil of dueling, and does little because it is really incapable, then I will propose a law to the government, and I guarantee it will succeed.We do not have to resort to bloody methods, nor do we have to resort to the guillotine, the gallows, and life imprisonment.On the contrary, it is simple and easy, a kind of "homeopathy".If anyone challenges another to a duel, or accepts a challenge, let him receive, as the Chinese do, the twelve rods of the punisher, in broad daylight, before the captain of the soldiers.The person who passed the challenge letter to the duelist and the notary were punished with 12 rods each, and the consequences of the duel were investigated according to the customary criminal procedure law.Perhaps a chivalrous mind would retort that many "men of honor" would have shot themselves after such corporal punishment.To this I answer: it is better for such a fool to kill himself than to kill someone else.Basically, I know very well that the government is not sincerely trying to put an end to dueling.Civilian officials, especially officials in general (except those in the highest positions) were paid far less than what they deserved for their services.So the other half of their income is paid in honour.Honor is represented firstly by titles and decorations, and secondly, in a wider sense, by the honor of social class.The honor that dueling represents to social class is a good side-horse for pulling a carriage.Therefore, in the university people already receive a preliminary training in honor.So, the victims of the duel actually made up for the lack of wages with their own blood.
To complete my discussion, I need to mention briefly national honor.It concerns whole peoples -- that form part of human society.In matters of national honor strength is the sole arbiter, and nothing else.Therefore, every member of the nation must consciously defend the rights of his nation.Therefore, national honor does not just need to be recognized by others: this nation is trustworthy.Besides, it wants people to know: this nation is formidable.Therefore, national honor does not allow foreigners to violate the rights of their own nation and ignore it.In this way, national honor combines civil honor and knightly honor.
I mentioned fame last in the section on the appearance people give—that is, how they appear to others.Here we must continue to examine it.Fame and fame are twins, but like the twins born to Diosco: the one (Porus) is immortal, the other (Castu) is mortal.Fame is immortal, and fame is the brother of fame.Of course, the reputation I'm talking about here refers to the highest-level, genuine one; because too many reputations are just fleeting.Reputation consists only of those qualities which men, under equal circumstances, must possess, and which every individual should openly regard as his own.But fame involves qualities that we cannot expect people to have.Fame follows what is known about us without going beyond it; but fame, on the contrary, precedes what is known about us, and carries it where it comes.Everyone can have a reputation, but only a few exceptions can gain fame, because fame can only be obtained by deeds or works of thought.These are two paths to fame.It takes a great heart to make a difference, but it takes a great mind to write a great book.Both paths to fame have their pros and cons, but the main difference between the two is that the work dies, but the work lasts forever.Even the noblest deeds have but a temporary effect.But the works of genius can be passed on for a long time, giving people instruction and pleasure.Deeds leave people with memories, and unless history records deeds and achievements and passes them on to future generations like fossils, this memory will continue to weaken, deform, and eventually become blurred and annihilated.In contrast, the work itself is immortal, and literary works in particular can be passed on from generation to generation.Of Alexander the Great[28] all that remains now is his name and his memory.But Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and Horace still exist alive and are still directly exerting influence. The Vedas [29] and their Upanishads still exist.But we know nothing about the performance of actions produced by past epochs [30].Another inconvenience of operational performance is that they depend on chance.Because the opportunity first provides the possibility for the performance of the action; thus, the reputation obtained through the performance of the action is not determined by the value of the performance of the action itself, but according to the situation at the time.For it is the circumstances of the moment that give importance and honor to the deeds of action.Moreover, if the performance of the action is purely individual, as in war, it depends entirely on the description of a few eyewitnesses; but eyewitnesses do not always exist, nor are they disinterested, unbiased.However, operational performance also has its advantages, that is, as a practical matter, the general public is still able to judge it.Thus, as soon as precise information about the performance of actions is available, people will immediately give them fair recognition-unless the motives behind the performance of the actions are only realized and understood correctly later, because only after an action The performance of this action will not be understood until the motivation for performance is known.For creative works, the opposite is true.The formation of works does not depend on chance, they only depend on the creator of the work himself.As long as works exist, they exist as they are.However, there are certain difficulties in judging works.The higher the level of work, the more difficult it is to judge those works.We often lack judges who are talented, unbiased, and honest.The reputation of a work will not be finalized by a judgment or an incident.Works have an appeal process.As I have already said, deeds of action are communicated to posterity through memory, and the means of transmission are provided by the generation in which those deeds of action occurred.However, unless certain parts of the work are missing, it will be handed down in its original form.In this way, we do not distort the face of the work.Moreover, the unfavorable situation and environment encountered at the time of creation and publication of the work will disappear in the future.Plus, time has brought with it a handful of truly capable judges.They are extraordinary characters in their own right, and now they judge works that are even more extraordinary and brilliant than themselves.They each give considerable weight to their opinions.Of course, sometimes after several lifetimes, a completely fair judgment will be produced, and this certainty will not be overturned by the future.The reputation established by the work is solid and inevitable.However, whether the author of the work can witness the recognition of his work depends on external circumstances and a certain amount of luck.The nobler and deeper the work, the less this happens.Seneca once talked about this very well.Fame, he said, follows achievement like a shadow, but of course, like a shadow, it comes first and comes back.Having made this point clear, he added: "While envy silences your contemporaries, there will always be someone who will judge without malice or flattery." By the way, from here We can see scoundrels already practicing this art of suppressing achievement in Seneca's day, that is: keeping malicious silence and turning a blind eye to the achievements of others.In this way they keep the good things from the public's eyes, and this favors the low and bad things more.They practiced this art no less than our contemporaries.Envy shuts the mouths of both them and the scoundrels of our time.Generally speaking, the later the fame comes, the longer it lasts, because anything good can only mature slowly.A reputation that lasts forever is like an oak tree that grows slowly.Fame, which comes easily but is fleeting, is a quick-growing plant that lasts but a year; false fame is a weed that grows quickly but is quickly uprooted.This is all determined by the fact that the more a man belongs to his posterity, that is, to the mass of humanity as a whole, the less he is understood by his own time, because it is not only his time that he contributes to; It is the entire human race that is consecrated.Therefore, his works will not be stained with the color of his own era.For this reason, it could easily have been the case: he passed his time in obscurity.And those who serve only the affairs of a short life, only a moment—and thus belong to their time, and live and die with it—will be appreciated by their contemporaries.Therefore, the history of art and literature tells us that the highest products of human spiritual thought are generally unpopular, and this situation is maintained until the emergence of good thinkers who feel the calling of these works, And make these works gain prestige.By virtue of the authority thus acquired, these works can continue to retain their prestige.The fundamental reason for this situation is that everyone can only understand and appreciate what corresponds to his own nature.A dull man understands only dull things, a vulgar man appreciates mediocrity and clichés, a confused man loves the vague, and a thoughtless man likes nonsense.The works that connect with the reader himself are the most likely to win the reader's favor.Thus the ancient, allegorical Epichamus sings (my translation):
It is no surprise that I speak my own opinion;
And they are complacent, thinking
They are worthy of praise.dog for dog
Of course it is a beautiful creature.The same goes for cows to cows,
Pigs are to pigs, and donkeys are to donkeys.
Even the strongest arm, if it throws a very light object, cannot give the light object enough power to fly far and hit the target with power.This light object will soon fall to the ground, because the light object itself has no physical body to receive external forces.The same will happen to beautiful and great thoughts, to great works of genius, if only weak, absurd minds accept them.Wise men of all ages have lamented this in unison.For example, Jesus said, "Telling a story to a fool is like talking to a man who is asleep. When the story is over, he will ask, What did you say?" Sleep in your ears." Goethe said:
The best words, heard by fools,
It also invites sarcasm.
or
Nothing comes of your words,
Everyone was speechless,
Keep a good mood!
stones thrown into the swamp,
It's not going to make a ripple.
Lichtenberg said, "When a head and a book collide with each other and there is only a hollow sound, is this empty sound always coming from the book?" He also said, "The book itself is a mirror, a monkey When you look in a mirror, there are no evangelical saints in it." Indeed, Father Gilat's beautiful and moving lament on this is worth recalling:
best gift usually
least admired;
most of the world,
See the worst as the best.
This dire situation is commonplace,
But how do people avoid this misfortune?
I doubt that this misfortune can be eradicated from our world,
There is only one remedy in the world, and it is infinitely more difficult:
Fools must gain wisdom - but this they can never do,
Nor will they understand the value of things.
It is their eyes, not their heads, that judge,
They praise the trivial,
Just because they never know what is good.
Due to the low level of people's thinking, as Goethe said, outstanding people are rarely discovered, and it is even more rare for them to be recognized and appreciated by people.In addition to the lack of intelligence, people also have a moral inferiority: that is jealousy.Once a man acquires fame, it puts him above others, and others are relatively degraded by it.Therefore, everyone who has made extraordinary achievements and contributions has gained fame at the expense of those who did not.
While we give honor to others,
It also lowers ourselves.
- Goethe
(End of this chapter)
your nature,
It is an eternal accusation against them.Shameless people should be grateful for this chivalry!Because he brings them to the same level as the good ones.If not, they will not be able to match those excellent people in any respect.Once someone slanders these superior people, that is, imposes inferior qualities on them, then this person's slander is at the moment an objectively true and well-founded judgment, a decree with definite force.In fact, it will always be true and valid hereafter, unless the slander and insult are promptly blotted out with blood.That is to say, if the insulted person tolerates the insult being pinned on his own head, then the insulted person (a "man of honor" in the eyes of everyone) is the insulter (which is perhaps the worst human being). ) as it was said.In doing so, he would be thoroughly scorned by "men of honour."People shunned him like the plague.For example, people will openly refuse to participate in all social occasions where he is present, etc.I believe I can sort out exactly where this idea came from.From the Middle Ages to the 15th century (according to CG von West's "German Criminal Law, German Historical Anthology"), in the criminal procedure, it is not the plaintiff to prove the guilt of the defendant, but the defendant to prove own innocence.The procedure of fulfillment is to take an oath under the guarantee of others.For this purpose he needs guarantors.These persons must swear under oath that the accused will not commit perjury.If the defendant does not have these persons to help, or the plaintiff does not recognize these sureties, then the matter is left to God to judge.Under normal circumstances, this is done in a duel.Because now the defendant is "a person with a disgrace", he must clear himself of the disgrace.From here we can see the origin of the concept of shame, of the whole procedure of the duel.Even to this day such things (except for the oath being dispensed with) are done among "Men of Honor".This explains why "men of honor" are so outraged at accusations of lying that they seek bloody revenge.Considering the fact that lying is an everyday occurrence, this response is rather surprising.But the reaction is deeply entrenched, especially in England.In fact, to threaten with death those who accuse you of lying, you must have never lied in your life.Therefore, in the criminal proceedings in the Middle Ages, the form became more brief. The defendant only needs to respond to the plaintiff: "You are lying", and the matter can be left to God for judgment.It is recorded that there is a rule in the honor of chivalry: accusations of lying must be settled by force.I will stop here with regard to verbal insults.But there are more serious things than verbal insults, to such a degree that even when I mention it, I must ask the forgiveness of all those who believe in the honor of chivalry, because I know that the mere thought of it is enough to make these people The hair stood on end, for it was the most vile thing on earth, worse than death and the damned.That is, one person throws another person in the mouth or beats him with his hands.This terrible hand attack can completely destroy the honor of the victim.Other damages to honor can be healed by bleeding, but responding to this blow can only fully restore honor by killing the opponent.
3. Knightly honor has nothing to do with pedantic questions of what a man really is, or whether his moral nature changes or not.When a man temporarily loses his honor, or when it is damaged, he can quickly and completely restore it, if he acts swiftly, by the panacea of the duel.But if the offender comes from a class that does not believe in knightly honour, or if it is only the first time he has offended another's honour, there is a safe and secure way.One can knock him down the moment he offends himself—and, if necessary, in any later situation, if the weapon is at hand, especially if the other party destroys another's honor by blowing his hand.But it would have been the same if his offense to us had been merely verbal.Only through such retaliation can honor be redeemed.But if one does not want to take this step, in order to avoid the adverse consequences of this action; or if one is not sure whether the offender is bound by the code of chivalrous honor, then one has a better way.That is, if the offender behaves rudely, we should meet it in an even more rude way; if verbal insults are no longer helpful, then we should fight with fists, which is the most extreme means of saving honor.Therefore, if you get a slap in the face, you can only respond with a stick; and to deal with an attack from a stick, you can only use a whip to beat a dog as a remedy; one move.It is only when these are of no avail that we are compelled to resort to bloody action.This solution is based on the following maxim of knightly honor.
4. Just as it is a disgrace to be insulted, so it is an honor to insult.If truth, justice, and reason are on my adversary's side, but if I insult him, then truth, justice, and reason pack up and go, and reason and honor are on my side.At the same time, the other loses his honor, until he regains it by shooting and sword, instead of justice and reason.In this matter of honour, therefore, rude incompetence supersedes and is superior to all qualities of character, and reason takes the side of the most rude behavior.Why do you need a variety of other things?A man may be foolish, mean, and ill-bred, but insolence erases and legitimizes it all.When we talk or discuss matters, if any one shows us that he has a more accurate knowledge of the subject in question than we do, he loves truth more than we do; his judgment and understanding are sounder and superior; The superior mental intelligence he exhibits dwarfs our own—we can then, at one blow, eliminate all his strengths, as well as the weaknesses and inadequacies that we expose because of his strengths.We can even become superior to this person in reverse—as long as we play wild and rough.Brutality is better than a confrontation of minds, it kills the spiritual intelligence of men, so if our opponents do not count with us, respond in a more rude way, and thus engage in a noble duel, then we Can be the victors, the honor is ours.Truth, knowledge, thought, understanding, and wit shunned and were driven from the field of battle in the face of that majestic brutality.So these "Men of Honor" are ready to mount their horses as soon as someone expresses a different opinion, or shows superior intellect; It also helps them win, and it's easier to find rough words.In this way, they will triumph in victory.From this it can be seen how right people are in praising this principle of honour, which ennobles the style of society.This one maxim is based on the following - it is the root and soul of the whole code of honor.
5. From the point of view of those who believe in knightly honour, the highest tribunal we can turn to in judging what is right in disputes among men is our bodily strength, that is to say, our animality.Every act of rudeness is indeed the result of an appeal to animality, for to do it is to declare that the confrontation of spiritual power and moral justice is powerless;Franklin [10] defined man as an "animal that can make tools", so the confrontation of human physical strength is carried out by man with weapons that only man can make; this is a duel.By dueling, people received an irrevocable sentence. The basic maxim of the "Men of Honor" is known to be expressed by the term Faustrecht (fist axiom); this expression is similar to the term Aberwitz and is equally ironic [11].Therefore, knightly honor should be called "fist honor".
6. If we find that civil honor is cautious, obligated, and fulfilling promises in dealing with the relationship between people and me; then, in contrast, the rules of knightly honor we are discussing now show that when dealing with the above-mentioned interpersonal relationships, The noblest loose.There is only one thing that cannot be broken, and that is the words spoken in the name of honor, that is, the promises that people make after they say "on honor."This leads to such an assumption: other commitments do not need to be fulfilled.In extreme cases, we can even break promises made in the name of honor.Our honor can only be redeemed through the panacea of a duel—against those who insist that we made our promises in the name of honor.Also, there is only one kind of debt that we have to pay - and that is gambling debts, hence the name "honor debts".As for other debts, one can cheat one another as Jews and Christians do, without injuring one iota of our knightly honor.[12]The unbiased reader can see at a glance that this strange, barbaric, ridiculous code of honor has nothing to do with human nature or a healthy understanding of human relationships.This is evidenced by the fact that honor of chivalry only operates within a very narrow field.That is, it was only popular in Europe, and that only started in the Middle Ages.In Europe, too, knightly honors were valid only among nobles, armies, and those who imitated them.The Greeks, the Romans, and even the highly developed nations of Asia, ancient and modern, were ignorant of this honor and its rules.They all know only the honors I first analyzed.Thus, what these peoples think of a man is determined entirely by what he does, and not at the mercy of any random talker.They all affirm the fact that a man can only speak or act in derogation of his own honor, and not that of another.A slap to them is but a slap to them, and a horse or a donkey can kick even more dangerously.Depending on the circumstances, an attack by another person will provoke the victim's anger, and it is likely that this will lead to a counterattack on the spot.But these have nothing to do with honor.People will certainly not prepare an account to record a certain attack or some insulting words from others, and the revenge "satisfaction" that has been or has not been obtained for this.The heroism and integrity of these peoples are not inferior to European Christians.The Greeks and Romans were real heroes; but they knew nothing about "honor of chivalry".For them duels were not the work of noble men, but of gladiators, slaves for sale, and condemned criminals—they fought alternately with wild beasts for the amusement of the multitude. .With the introduction of Christianity, the performance of gladiators was banned. In this Christian era, it was replaced by duels between people, and the result of the duel became the judgment of God.If the gladiatorial combat is a cruel sacrifice for public entertainment, this duel is a cruel sacrifice for popular ignorance; but here it is not criminals, slaves and prisoners who sacrifice Free men and nobles.
A great deal of evidence has survived to show that the fallacy of knightly honor was wholly foreign to the ancients.For example, a Teutonic chief sent a letter to Marius [13], demanding a duel with him, but the hero sent a message to the chief: "If he (this chief) is tired of life, he can hang himself for this life." ’” Of course, Marius offered to provide the chieftain with a retired gladiator so that he could have a fight with him.In Plutarch [14] we read that Eurybiades, the admiral of the fleet, raised his stick to beat Demostocles while he was arguing with him.But Demostocles didn't draw his sword, he just said, "Hit me, but hear me out".The corps of non-commissioned officers in Athens did not immediately announce that they no longer wanted to serve under Demostocles.How indignant the reader of chivalry must read such a thing!Thus a contemporary French writer quite rightly says, "If it should be said that Demosphenes was a man of chivalry, one could only give a sympathetic smile; likewise Cicero was not man" (C. Durand, Literary Nights 1828, Vol. 25).In addition, a passage in Plato's writings discussing abuse is clear enough to show that the ancients had no concept of chivalrous honor when dealing with similar things.Socrates was often treated roughly by others because of his frequent debates, but he did not take it lightly.Once he was kicked, and he endured it in silence, saying to the astonished man, "If a donkey kicks me, shall I be angry and take revenge?" (Diogenes) Another time , someone asked him: "Isn't that person humiliating you?" "No," he replied, "because he's not talking about me." A large paragraph of text, from this text we can see how the ancients viewed being insulted by others.They do not know of any other solution than resorting to the law, and sensible people do not even bother to adopt this solution.The ancients were slapped in the face by others, and they would only resort to legal means to find justice—this can be seen in Plato's "Gorgias".In this chapter, you can also read Socrates' opinions on this.A similar fact is found in the Report of Gilis: a certain Lucius Veratus, without being provoked, had the audacity to beat all the Roman citizens he met on the road slap.In order to avoid complicating things afterwards, he asked a slave to lead the way with a bag of coins, and immediately paid the corresponding 10 as compensation to those who were surprised and inexplicable.The well-known cynic master Crates was slapped heavily by the musician Nick DeLomus.His whole face was swollen with bloodstains.Crates put a note on his forehead reading "This is the work of Nicode Lomus" in order to humiliate the flute player who had treated the man who was worshiped by the whole of Athens with savagery.In a letter to Merisbos from Diogenes of Xenopi, he says that he was whipped by a gang of drunken Athenian youths, but this was no serious matter to him.From Chapter 14 to the end of his book "Eternal Wisdom", Seneca discusses at length how to deal with insults from others.He came to the conclusion that a wise man need not bother with such things.He wrote in Chapter [-], "What should a wise man do when he is attacked? When Kathu was slapped, he did not grieve, did not retaliate, did not offer forgiveness. He simply declared that no beating had happened. .”
"Yes," say you, "but these men are wise!"—and you are fools then?
indeed so.It can be seen from this that the ancients did not know what the principle of knightly honor was.This is because the ancients were faithful to nature in every respect and looked at things without prejudice.They will not believe in these ominous, hopeless and ugly things.They see a slap in the face as nothing but a slap from someone else, which causes minor bodily harm, and they don't see it as anything else.But for contemporary people, being slapped in the face by others will be a huge disaster, enough to constitute the theme of a tragedy, such as Corneille [15]'s "Cid".There is also a recent German tragedy about bourgeois life called The Power of Circumstances, but it should be called The Power of Myth.If a man is slapped in the chamber of the National Assembly in Paris, the sound of that slap is heard from one end of Europe to the other.Those who are obsessed with chivalry's honor will be angry and uncomfortable when they see the old classic examples I cite.In order to prescribe the right medicine, I suggest that they read the story of M. de Grand in Diderot's famous work "Jacques the Destiny".This is an outstanding masterpiece describing the persistence of modern chivalry honor.They will love this book and be inspired by it. 【16】
From the above discussion, we can clearly see that the principle of knightly honor has no unique insights, nor is it built on the basis of human nature. It is only a man-made product, and its origin is not difficult to find.It was born in a certain era.In that era, people used their fists more than their brains; people's rationality was imprisoned by priests with iron chains.So, it is a child of the celebrated Middle Ages and its chivalry.At that time, people not only need God to care about them, but also God to judge things for them.Thus, difficult legal cases are decided by arbitration courts, or God's judgments.Almost without exception, this turned into a duel between the two sides.Duels were not only fought between knights, but also between townspeople.An excellent example is found in Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part II, Act II, Scene II).After obtaining the legal judgment, there is also an appeal, that is, recourse to the duel-it is a higher court, and the judgment is made by God.Thus bodily agility and strength, that is, animal nature, takes the place of reason in the place of judge.It was a judgment of right or wrong not according to what a man did, but as a result of his last encounter with luck—a situation consistent with the principles of chivalry honor that are still in effect today.Whoever still has doubts about this origin of the duel should read JG Mellingen's excellent History of the Duel (1849).In fact, today, among those who live by this principle of honour—who are generally uneducated and do not give much thought to matters—there are still some who actually see the outcome of a duel as a dispute between God and them. judgment on the issue.Of course, this view is formed according to the views handed down by tradition.
This is the root of knightly honor.In addition, it tends to coerce superficial respect from others through the threat of physical strength; the real effort to win respect is considered both difficult and superfluous.A man of knightly honor is like holding the mercury bulb of a thermometer in his hand, hoping that as the mercury rises, his room will warm up.A closer look reveals that the point of the matter is that the purpose of civil honor is friendly intercourse with other people; it consists in the perception of us that we are worthy of complete confidence because we have absolute respect for the rights of others.But chivalry rests on the perception that we are formidable because we protect our rights absolutely and unconditionally.Originally, there was nothing terribly wrong with this principle—that it is more important to be intimidated than to be trusted by others, because if we live in a state of nature, each of us must protect our own safety and directly defend our own rights. Right, so we cannot rely on human justice.But in civilized times, the state has assumed the task of defending our person and property, so the above-mentioned principles have no place to apply.It's like castles and watchtowers nestled between fancy farmlands, bustling highways, and even railroads—all discarded relics from the days when fists were justice.The honor of chivalry, which obstinately adheres to this principle, deals only with minor transgressions committed by the people--for which the state imposes only slight penalties, or, according to the principle "the law ignores trivial things", ignores them at all.Because these are just sesame mung bean insults, sometimes just pure teasing.But in dealing with these things chivalry honor exaggerates the value of man to a degree which is wholly out of proportion to his nature, constitution, and destiny.The value of human beings has been raised to the point of sacrosanct.In this way, it will be considered that the punishment of the state for small offenses is not enough at all; the offended person will perform the task of punishment himself, and the goal is directed at the offender's physical life.It's clear that the root of the matter is man's extreme arrogance and that repulsive arrogance - people have completely forgotten what it is to be human.The honor of chivalry demands that people make no mistakes and never accept any harm from others.Whoever is going to enforce this opinion by force, and proclaims the maxim: "Anyone who has insulted me or struck me with his hand must die," should indeed be expelled from his country.[18]Everything is used as an excuse to beautify this daringly conceited attitude.If two people who are not afraid of death meet and refuse to make way for each other, then the slight push will turn into harsh words, and then fists, and finally the matter will end with one party receiving a fatal blow .In fact, simply skip the middle link and use weapons immediately, so as to save face.The development of meticulous and specific procedures into a set of rigid and rigid systems with their own laws and rules is indeed a farce staged with the most serious and serious attitude in this world. It is the respect and worship of ignorance. .It's just that the fundamental principle of knightly honor is wrong.In dealing with other insignificant matters (for the important matters are dealt with by the courts), one of them, the wiser one, will make concessions, and will agree to retain their respective disagreement.Evidence of this can be provided by the practices of the general public who do not subscribe to the principles of chivalry's honor, or by the practice of countless persons of all classes.They let disputes and frictions resolve themselves.Mortal assaults were a hundred times rarer among these, and fights were less frequent, than among the knightly honorable class, which constituted perhaps only a quarter of the population of the whole society.It will be said, however, that good manners and customs are at last founded on the principles of knightly honor, and duels from it, for these are the most powerful defenses against bad manners and roughness of men.But in Athens, in Corinth, in Rome we do see good and even first-rate society, and refined manners and habits, without the backing of the specter of chivalry.In ancient times, of course, women did not occupy a prominent position in social situations, as we do now.Circumstances now arise which impart a frivolity and childishness to the discourse of men, and which drive away weighty and serious subjects; and indeed it has done a great deal to cause our high society to prefer personal courage to other qualities. .But personal courage is fundamentally secondary, it is only a merit of the rank and file.Even animals surpass us in personal courage, for example, it is said, "Brave as a lion."Contrary to what has been said above, the principles of chivalry's honor generally afford a safe haven for dishonesty and baseness in great matters, and for barbarism, thoughtlessness, and impoliteness in small ones.Because people will silently endure a lot of rudeness, just because no one wants to risk their life to criticize others.The fact that agrees with what I have said here is that in a country where there is no real credit in political and financial affairs of property, we can see duels developed to their culmination and bloodiest proportions.As for the private communication among the people of this country, you can ask those who have experience in it.As for the lack of manners and social refinement in this country, that is unmistakable.
All pretexts of chivalry honor do not stand the test.But if someone says: Just as a dog barks when another dog barks, but is affectionate when caressed, so it is human nature to respond hostility with hostility, He would feel uncomfortable and angry when others showed contempt or hatred-then, there would be some truth in his statement.Hence, says Cicero, "even the humble and well-meaning cannot bear the pain of insult and ill-treatment." Insults and fists go unchallenged.Nevertheless, it is human nature to drive us no farther than to retaliate in proportion to the offense we have received; much less to kill someone for accusing us of lying, stupidity, and cowardice .The old German maxim "a slap is repaid with a dagger" expresses a distasteful view of chivalry.Revenge or punishment for an insult is not a matter of anger, as knightly honor tells us, it is a matter of our honor and morality.On the contrary, it is clear that words that accuse us do as much harm as they hit their target.This can be seen from the fact that a slight insinuation does more harm than a severe but unsubstantiated accusation, so long as we are rightly told.Therefore, once a person knows that the accusation against him is wrong, he can and should confidently dismiss it.But the principles of chivalry require us to accept a reproach we do not deserve, and to take bloody vengeance for an insult which has done us no harm.But a person who is in such a hurry to suppress every offensive utterance for fear that it will be heard by others must not think highly of his own worth.Therefore, a truly self-respecting person will face insults and slanders indifferently; if he cannot treat insults and slanders indifferently, then tact and self-cultivation will help him take care of face and hide his anger.If we first get rid of the stereotype of chivalry, and no longer mistakenly think that by insulting others, we can take other people's honor or redeem our own; Injustice, brutality of all sorts—for the response would at once legitimize all of it—if so, the notion would soon be universally accepted that if When there is a situation where bad words are directed at each other, the party that has the upper hand is the winner.As Vincento Monti [19] said: foul language is like a queue in a church, always returning to their starting point.In this way, people no longer have to respond to insults with fire for fire in order to keep themselves right, as they do now.In this way, understanding and thought can enter our conversation, instead of first worrying whether our words will offend narrow and ignorant minds, as they do now.In fact, the existence of deep understanding itself makes narrow and ignorant people panic and uncomfortable, and thus triggers a war between people with thoughts and brains and people whose skin is filled with superficial, narrow and ignorant people. A fight of luck.Thus, in the gathering of men, the predominance of thought will have the priority it deserves.But now, though this fact is not known, this priority is given to those who have nothing but brute strength and courage.In this way, outstanding people have at least one less reason to avoid social interaction.This change clears the way for a real good vibe and excellent social gatherings.Undoubtedly there were similar gatherings in Athens, Corinth, and Rome.Whoever wants to get proof of this, I recommend that he read Xenophon's [20] Symposium.
Still, the final defense of chivalry's honor is undoubtedly this: "But, God, if that were the case, wouldn't everyone be free to be rough on everyone else?"--to which I can give a brief answer: such This happens to people who account for 90.00% of the population and do not practice knightly honor, but no one will die due to violence.But among those who abide by the principle of chivalry, generally speaking, a violent move will lead to fatal results.I would also like to talk about this issue in depth.In order to account for the ingrained belief held by a section of human society that being slapped in the face by someone else is a terrible thing to do, I have tried hard to find some solid, standing ground in our animality or rationality. Reasons that hold up, or at least make sense, that are not purely beautiful and fancy words, but reasons that can be distilled into clear concepts.But I didn't succeed.A slap with the hand is only, and always will be, an act of bodily harm done by one person to another, indicating that the person who slapped was stronger or quicker, or that the person receiving the slap was not paying attention at the time, etc.; except Besides, it doesn't say anything else.An analysis of the act of slapping someone with a hand cannot tell much more.The knight who counts a slap in the face as one of the most miserable things can happen to be kicked ten times as hard by his horse.But as he was limping, he would endure the pain and comfort others that it was nothing.In this way, I think the reason lies in the hands.However, I saw our knight being stabbed and cut by the same hand in battle, and he assured us that these were trivial things and not worth mentioning.Then we heard people say that even being beaten with the flat surface of a saber is far less serious than being beaten with a stick.Therefore, not so long ago, military students would rather accept the former punishment than the latter.Today, being knighted by the tap of the saber blade is a supreme honor.Now that I have completed my considerations of the psychological and moral grounds of chivalry, all that remains is the conclusion that the principle of chivalry is nothing but an old and deep-seated fallacy, another example of the gullible nature of human beings.In addition, a well-known fact can confirm my point: in China, beating with bamboo sticks is a common method of punishing citizens, even for officials at all levels.This tells us that in China, human nature—that is, highly civilized human nature—does not approve of things like knightly honor [21].It is as natural as an unbiased look at human nature to see that man fights with man, as the bite of beasts and the clash of horns with horned animals; man knows nothing but the whip Beating animals.So we are shocked when we occasionally hear one person bite another with his mouth, whereas fighting with hands and feet is a perfectly natural occurrence.Obviously, through people's self-cultivation and self-restraint, we'd be happy to get rid of fighting.However, if people in a country or just a class are convinced that it is a great misfortune to be slapped by others, then the inevitable result is death and mutual murder.This is a brutal thing.There are already too many real evils in this world, and one should not add those false evils, because they will bring real evils.But this is exactly what that stupid and insidious superstition [22] is doing.For this reason, we protest against the sounding of the gong by the Government and the Legislature, eager to introduce regulations prohibiting corporal punishment in civilian and military settings.They believe that doing so will benefit all beings, but in reality the opposite is true.This practice only aggravates the inhuman and incurable ignorance.Too many sacrifices have been made for this.The first thing that comes to mind with regard to general offenses except the most serious crimes is to give the prisoner a good beating.Therefore, such punishment is natural.Whoever does not accept reason must accept the club.If a man has neither property to pay a fine, nor deprivation of his liberty will benefit the people—because they need his services—then it is a good idea to inflict a moderate amount of corporal punishment on that man. A sensible and natural thing to do.We have no reason to object to this, other than rhetoric such as "human dignity and worth".But it is not clear concepts that underpin these claims, but just the pernicious fallacy discussed above—which is the root of the problem.This is confirmed by an almost ridiculous example: Recently, in the armies of many countries, whippings have been replaced by sleeping on slatted beds, which are as painful to the body as the former, but the latter punishment However, it is not considered to be detrimental to the reputation and personality of the person punished.
Such blindness is so encouraged that it only serves the honor of chivalry, and thus the practice of dueling.At the same time, people tried to pass laws to ban dueling, or seemed to do so [23].The result of this is that the remnants of the understanding that fists are axioms handed down from the most barbaric Middle Ages are still wandering in the nineteenth century.This is really a disgrace to the public.Now is the time to humiliate it and throw it away.Dog fighting is not allowed these days (at least similar entertainment is penalized in the UK), yet people fight each other against their will and kill each other.This is all the result of the absurd chivalry principle and the bigotry and narrow defenders who advocate the chivalry principle to promote and clear the way for the principle.They force people to fight like gladiators for trivial things.Therefore, I propose to German linguists: the word duel [19] should be replaced by the word baiting [24].The word probably does not come from the Latin duelam, but from the Spanish duelo, which means pain, difficulty.The folly of a duel is done in a serious manner, and it does more than provide a laughing stock.The absurd principle of knightly honor establishes an independent kingdom within a country, and does not recognize anything but fist is justice; it sets up a holy inquisition to torture people of all classes who submit to the authority of knightly honor; Everyone may be provoked by others for some trivial excuses, and thus be forced to accept the sentence of life or death.All of this is outrageous.Of course, it provides refuge and hiding place for villains - so long as they believe in chivalry; they can threaten and even eliminate the noble and eminent.Those people are hated by these villains because of their nobility and excellence.Today, the police and the law have made it impossible for thugs to shout at us in the street: "Money or death?" : "Honor or life?" People of the upper class should be relieved of the burden, not to let others do what they want at any time, and pay the price for their barbarism, stupidity or viciousness, at the expense of their own bodies and lives.Two young people who are young and inexperienced, once they speak ill of each other, they will get hot-headed and will not hesitate to sacrifice blood, health, or life.This is appalling and humbling.Very often the insulted are unable to restore the injured honor, because of their disparity with the offender, or because of some peculiarity of the offender, and so, in despair, they end their own lives, in a sad and sad state. Funny ending.This shows the tyranny of the kingdom and the power of the fallacy of chivalry.If the development of things reaches the culmination of contradictions, then its falsity and absurdity will be exposed.This example is a glaring antinomy: an official is forbidden to fight a duel, but if he is offered a duel and he refuses, he is punished by dismissal.
When it comes to this topic, I will speak honestly and bluntly.As soon as we look at the matter clearly and without prejudice, we can see that whether we wield the same weapons as our opponents, kill them in fair combat, or steal them from the back—between the two The reason why there is an important difference, and why it is so highly valued, lies in the fact that in this country within a country, as I have already said, it is recognized that the right of the strong is the right of the fist , enshrining the fist as the axiom as the judgment of God, and taking it as the basis of the rules of knightly honor.To kill our enemies in fair combat proves nothing but that we are stronger, or better at fighting.To engage in a public duel to justify killing an opponent assumes the premise that strong is the true axiom.But in fact, if my opponent does not know how to defend himself, it only provides me with the possibility of killing him, but never provides a valid reason for killing him.On the contrary, my moral justification for killing my opponent depends only on my motives for killing him.Assuming that I am morally justified enough to kill my opponent, there is no reason at all to make killing him depend on whether I am better at marksmanship or fencing.On the contrary, it made no difference which way I took his life, whether I struck him from behind or from the front.That subterfuge should come in handy when it comes to committing a dastardly murder on someone.From a moral point of view, force is right is no more convincing than trick is right.So far as we are concerned, Might is right and Trick is right.It should be noted that in a duel both strength and cunning are at play, as in fencing gimmicks are cunning.If I think it's morally justifiable to kill a man, it's foolish to decide whether he or I are better at shooting or fencing; It will hurt me in turn, and even take my life.To retaliate against someone's insult should not be duel, but assassination - this is the view of Rousseau [26].He hints at this idea carefully in a note to the rather cryptic No. 20 of Part IV of Emile.But he was deeply influenced by the knight's honor, and he even thought that if he was accused of lying, he would have a valid reason to assassinate this person.But Rousseau should know that everyone, not least Rousseau himself, has lied countless times and deserves the blame.A man is justified in killing his opponent as long as he fights his opponent openly and with the same weapons--this fallacy obviously takes force as a true axiom, and dueling is regarded as the judgment of God up.In contrast, a furious Italian, seeing his enemy, would pounce on him and attack him with a dagger without saying a word.The conduct was at least consistent and natural; he was wiser, but no worse than the duelists.But someone will say: in a duel, when I kill my opponent, he is also trying to kill me, and this is enough to absolve me.But the refutation of this is: when I challenge him, I also place him in a position where he has to defend himself justly.This intentional practice of putting the other party in such a situation is in fact the duelist looking for a plausible excuse for murdering the other party.If both parties agree to stake their lives on a duel, the principle that a voluntary act is one's own fault is more plausible as an excuse.Of this we may say that the injured party is not voluntary, since the executioner of the murder is the tyrannical honor of knighthood and its absurd rules.It brought two duelists, or at least one of them, to the front of this bloody torture chamber.
My discussion of knightly honor is too long, but I do so with good intentions, for philosophy is the only Hercules in the world capable of dealing with the behemoths of the moral and intellectual categories.Two main things distinguish and compare New Age society from Old society, because they imbue New Age society with a certain somber, serious, and foreboding air.In the old days, when people did not have this evil, that period was like the morning in life, happy and uninhibited.These two things are knighthood and venereal disease, the "noble couple" (Horace).Together, they poison "debate and love" in life.STDs play a more far-reaching role than might appear at first glance, because their effects are not purely physical but also moral.Since there are also poisoned arrows in Cupid's quiver, there is something strange, hostile, even diabolical about the relationship between man and woman.In this way, a dark, terrible mistrust enters the relationship between the sexes.Such changes, which now form the basis of all human societies, affect other social relations more or less indirectly.But to delve deeper into this issue would be to diverge from our topic.Similar to the effect of venereal disease is the effect of knightly honor, though of a different nature.Society is made stiff, tense, and serious by it, because every word has to be thought out.But that's not all there is to it!The principle of knightly honor is the Minotaur [27] with the head of a bull and the body of a man enshrined by the public, and the annual sacrifices to him are many noble men from famous families.This situation does not only happen in a certain European country as in the past, it has spread throughout Europe.So, now is the time to bravely take down this monster, as I have done here.Let these two monsters die in the new era of the 19th century!Physicians will at last succeed in curing venereal diseases through preventive medicines, and we will not give up hope; but it is the task of philosophers to dispel the monster of chivalry; failed.And it is only through philosophy that this scourge can be fundamentally combated.If the government works in good faith to put an end to the evil of dueling, and does little because it is really incapable, then I will propose a law to the government, and I guarantee it will succeed.We do not have to resort to bloody methods, nor do we have to resort to the guillotine, the gallows, and life imprisonment.On the contrary, it is simple and easy, a kind of "homeopathy".If anyone challenges another to a duel, or accepts a challenge, let him receive, as the Chinese do, the twelve rods of the punisher, in broad daylight, before the captain of the soldiers.The person who passed the challenge letter to the duelist and the notary were punished with 12 rods each, and the consequences of the duel were investigated according to the customary criminal procedure law.Perhaps a chivalrous mind would retort that many "men of honor" would have shot themselves after such corporal punishment.To this I answer: it is better for such a fool to kill himself than to kill someone else.Basically, I know very well that the government is not sincerely trying to put an end to dueling.Civilian officials, especially officials in general (except those in the highest positions) were paid far less than what they deserved for their services.So the other half of their income is paid in honour.Honor is represented firstly by titles and decorations, and secondly, in a wider sense, by the honor of social class.The honor that dueling represents to social class is a good side-horse for pulling a carriage.Therefore, in the university people already receive a preliminary training in honor.So, the victims of the duel actually made up for the lack of wages with their own blood.
To complete my discussion, I need to mention briefly national honor.It concerns whole peoples -- that form part of human society.In matters of national honor strength is the sole arbiter, and nothing else.Therefore, every member of the nation must consciously defend the rights of his nation.Therefore, national honor does not just need to be recognized by others: this nation is trustworthy.Besides, it wants people to know: this nation is formidable.Therefore, national honor does not allow foreigners to violate the rights of their own nation and ignore it.In this way, national honor combines civil honor and knightly honor.
I mentioned fame last in the section on the appearance people give—that is, how they appear to others.Here we must continue to examine it.Fame and fame are twins, but like the twins born to Diosco: the one (Porus) is immortal, the other (Castu) is mortal.Fame is immortal, and fame is the brother of fame.Of course, the reputation I'm talking about here refers to the highest-level, genuine one; because too many reputations are just fleeting.Reputation consists only of those qualities which men, under equal circumstances, must possess, and which every individual should openly regard as his own.But fame involves qualities that we cannot expect people to have.Fame follows what is known about us without going beyond it; but fame, on the contrary, precedes what is known about us, and carries it where it comes.Everyone can have a reputation, but only a few exceptions can gain fame, because fame can only be obtained by deeds or works of thought.These are two paths to fame.It takes a great heart to make a difference, but it takes a great mind to write a great book.Both paths to fame have their pros and cons, but the main difference between the two is that the work dies, but the work lasts forever.Even the noblest deeds have but a temporary effect.But the works of genius can be passed on for a long time, giving people instruction and pleasure.Deeds leave people with memories, and unless history records deeds and achievements and passes them on to future generations like fossils, this memory will continue to weaken, deform, and eventually become blurred and annihilated.In contrast, the work itself is immortal, and literary works in particular can be passed on from generation to generation.Of Alexander the Great[28] all that remains now is his name and his memory.But Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and Horace still exist alive and are still directly exerting influence. The Vedas [29] and their Upanishads still exist.But we know nothing about the performance of actions produced by past epochs [30].Another inconvenience of operational performance is that they depend on chance.Because the opportunity first provides the possibility for the performance of the action; thus, the reputation obtained through the performance of the action is not determined by the value of the performance of the action itself, but according to the situation at the time.For it is the circumstances of the moment that give importance and honor to the deeds of action.Moreover, if the performance of the action is purely individual, as in war, it depends entirely on the description of a few eyewitnesses; but eyewitnesses do not always exist, nor are they disinterested, unbiased.However, operational performance also has its advantages, that is, as a practical matter, the general public is still able to judge it.Thus, as soon as precise information about the performance of actions is available, people will immediately give them fair recognition-unless the motives behind the performance of the actions are only realized and understood correctly later, because only after an action The performance of this action will not be understood until the motivation for performance is known.For creative works, the opposite is true.The formation of works does not depend on chance, they only depend on the creator of the work himself.As long as works exist, they exist as they are.However, there are certain difficulties in judging works.The higher the level of work, the more difficult it is to judge those works.We often lack judges who are talented, unbiased, and honest.The reputation of a work will not be finalized by a judgment or an incident.Works have an appeal process.As I have already said, deeds of action are communicated to posterity through memory, and the means of transmission are provided by the generation in which those deeds of action occurred.However, unless certain parts of the work are missing, it will be handed down in its original form.In this way, we do not distort the face of the work.Moreover, the unfavorable situation and environment encountered at the time of creation and publication of the work will disappear in the future.Plus, time has brought with it a handful of truly capable judges.They are extraordinary characters in their own right, and now they judge works that are even more extraordinary and brilliant than themselves.They each give considerable weight to their opinions.Of course, sometimes after several lifetimes, a completely fair judgment will be produced, and this certainty will not be overturned by the future.The reputation established by the work is solid and inevitable.However, whether the author of the work can witness the recognition of his work depends on external circumstances and a certain amount of luck.The nobler and deeper the work, the less this happens.Seneca once talked about this very well.Fame, he said, follows achievement like a shadow, but of course, like a shadow, it comes first and comes back.Having made this point clear, he added: "While envy silences your contemporaries, there will always be someone who will judge without malice or flattery." By the way, from here We can see scoundrels already practicing this art of suppressing achievement in Seneca's day, that is: keeping malicious silence and turning a blind eye to the achievements of others.In this way they keep the good things from the public's eyes, and this favors the low and bad things more.They practiced this art no less than our contemporaries.Envy shuts the mouths of both them and the scoundrels of our time.Generally speaking, the later the fame comes, the longer it lasts, because anything good can only mature slowly.A reputation that lasts forever is like an oak tree that grows slowly.Fame, which comes easily but is fleeting, is a quick-growing plant that lasts but a year; false fame is a weed that grows quickly but is quickly uprooted.This is all determined by the fact that the more a man belongs to his posterity, that is, to the mass of humanity as a whole, the less he is understood by his own time, because it is not only his time that he contributes to; It is the entire human race that is consecrated.Therefore, his works will not be stained with the color of his own era.For this reason, it could easily have been the case: he passed his time in obscurity.And those who serve only the affairs of a short life, only a moment—and thus belong to their time, and live and die with it—will be appreciated by their contemporaries.Therefore, the history of art and literature tells us that the highest products of human spiritual thought are generally unpopular, and this situation is maintained until the emergence of good thinkers who feel the calling of these works, And make these works gain prestige.By virtue of the authority thus acquired, these works can continue to retain their prestige.The fundamental reason for this situation is that everyone can only understand and appreciate what corresponds to his own nature.A dull man understands only dull things, a vulgar man appreciates mediocrity and clichés, a confused man loves the vague, and a thoughtless man likes nonsense.The works that connect with the reader himself are the most likely to win the reader's favor.Thus the ancient, allegorical Epichamus sings (my translation):
It is no surprise that I speak my own opinion;
And they are complacent, thinking
They are worthy of praise.dog for dog
Of course it is a beautiful creature.The same goes for cows to cows,
Pigs are to pigs, and donkeys are to donkeys.
Even the strongest arm, if it throws a very light object, cannot give the light object enough power to fly far and hit the target with power.This light object will soon fall to the ground, because the light object itself has no physical body to receive external forces.The same will happen to beautiful and great thoughts, to great works of genius, if only weak, absurd minds accept them.Wise men of all ages have lamented this in unison.For example, Jesus said, "Telling a story to a fool is like talking to a man who is asleep. When the story is over, he will ask, What did you say?" Sleep in your ears." Goethe said:
The best words, heard by fools,
It also invites sarcasm.
or
Nothing comes of your words,
Everyone was speechless,
Keep a good mood!
stones thrown into the swamp,
It's not going to make a ripple.
Lichtenberg said, "When a head and a book collide with each other and there is only a hollow sound, is this empty sound always coming from the book?" He also said, "The book itself is a mirror, a monkey When you look in a mirror, there are no evangelical saints in it." Indeed, Father Gilat's beautiful and moving lament on this is worth recalling:
best gift usually
least admired;
most of the world,
See the worst as the best.
This dire situation is commonplace,
But how do people avoid this misfortune?
I doubt that this misfortune can be eradicated from our world,
There is only one remedy in the world, and it is infinitely more difficult:
Fools must gain wisdom - but this they can never do,
Nor will they understand the value of things.
It is their eyes, not their heads, that judge,
They praise the trivial,
Just because they never know what is good.
Due to the low level of people's thinking, as Goethe said, outstanding people are rarely discovered, and it is even more rare for them to be recognized and appreciated by people.In addition to the lack of intelligence, people also have a moral inferiority: that is jealousy.Once a man acquires fame, it puts him above others, and others are relatively degraded by it.Therefore, everyone who has made extraordinary achievements and contributions has gained fame at the expense of those who did not.
While we give honor to others,
It also lowers ourselves.
- Goethe
(End of this chapter)
Tap the screen to use advanced tools
Tip: You can use left and right keyboard keys to browse between chapters.
You'll Also Like
-
Going To The Beach: A Sand Shovel Is Enough To Take Over The Whole Beach
Chapter 687 2 hours ago -
I Watched Short Videos Of Beautiful Women, And The Ancients Were All Stunned
Chapter 356 2 hours ago -
I’m Already An Emperor, And The System Asks Me To Lick The Heroine?
Chapter 167 2 hours ago -
Fantasy: I, Who Listen To Music In A Brothel, Simulate Becoming A God
Chapter 107 2 hours ago -
Undercover pirate, you can become stronger by killing enemies
Chapter 164 12 hours ago -
One Piece: Start in the Valley of Gods, and steal the Dark-Dark Fruit
Chapter 195 12 hours ago -
Naruto: I only know taijutsu, but I am very strong
Chapter 104 12 hours ago -
Naruto, the time-traveling Naruto has an incredible understanding!
Chapter 151 12 hours ago -
One Piece: A wild man can also become a swordsman
Chapter 82 12 hours ago -
Pirate: It's reasonable for me, an intern, to beat up Red Hair.
Chapter 276 14 hours ago
