Maddenation
Self-love, La Rochefoucauld, and -isms
From La Rochefoucauld’s introduction to his Maxims, from Theodore Dalrymple’s essay “Dicovering La Rochefoucauld,” from New Criterion, April 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 8:
Self-love is love of oneself and of all things with regard to oneself; it makes men worshippers of themselves and would render them tyrants over others if fortune gave them the means; it never regards anything outside itself and never settles on anything else except as bees settle on flowers, to extract from them what is needed. Nothing is so impetuous as its desires, nothing so hidden as its designs, nothing so cunning as its methods; its versatility cannot be encompassed, its transformations exceed those of metamorphosis, its complexities those of chemistry. One can neither sound its depths nor penetrate the darkness of its abyss. It is composed of every contrary: it is imperious and obsequious, sincere and dissimulating, compassionate and cruel, timid and audacious; it has different inclinations according to temperament, in some being devoted to glory, in others to wealth, in yet others to pleasures; it changes according to our age, our fortune and our experiences; it matters not whether it has one desire at a time or several, because it can divide its attention or concentrate on one object when necessary, as it pleases. It is inconstant, and … subject to an infinitude of changes from within; … it is capricious, and one sometimes sees it striving with the utmost urgency and with incredible laboriousness to obtain things which are not at all advantageous, or are even harmful, but which it pursues simply because it wishes to. It is peculiar, and often devotes itself entirely to the most frivolous activities; it finds all its pleasure in doing the most vapid, and conserves its pride in doing the most despicable, things. Such is the portrait of amour-propre, whose whole life is one great long agitation: it may be likened unto the sea, the continual ebb and flow of whose waves is a faithful image of its turbulent succession of thoughts and restless movements.
When I found this quote near the end of the Dalrymple essay (previously mentioned), I was ecstatic. It was, as I noted in my recent entry on Neil Peart, and as Dalrymple himself notes, a revelation that only reinforces what one already knows. I’ve been thinking a lot about politics and the world’s economic and social problems, and I’ve talked with Dad and Karina and anyone who will listen about my theory that we can “stand on the shoulders of giants” (Isaac Newton’s phrase, but borrowed from others before him) when it comes to science and technology and industry, but we sure don’t learn morality that way. And that no matter what governmental plan you put in place, it won’t eliminate the problems because you’ve still got human beings running things. And I don’t think I’m more enlightened than the next guy, but it surprises me that people still believe in, for instance, Marxism, given all the failed governmental experiments the ideology has produced, all the dead, all the regression. This idea will certainly make its way into my book, but to give a preview here: it’s what I want to call the Behind the Music theorem. I got the idea from watching Behind the Music where every single band (except Weird Al, Barenaked Ladies, and Donny and Marie) has the same exact plot line: struggle, break through, take a lot of drugs, mess around with women, kill somebody (can be kill self, either by suicide or overdose). Every single time! Why? Because “fortune gives them the means” to partake of all this ilicit behavior.
Governments aren’t any different. Give men power, and they will use it to serve themselves. In 1959 you might have thought Fidel Castro was pretty righteous for overthrowing a government beholden to the United States in which over 50% of the gross domestic product went to bribes. But in 2003, when he’s still in power spouting off the same rhetorical b.s.? No way. And you might sympathize with the poor souls the world over who are exploited because the capitalist machine truly believes that the global market governs itself (as opposed to some morality or conscience governing). But can you support any of the results of revolutions in the name of the proletariat? I don’t know if you can, but I don’t think so. At least not long term. Because we’re all a bunch of selfish, nasty brutes. Because even “the revolution” wins support only by appealing to the same base emotions that drive capitalism: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth: that guy has more than I do; I want more. It’s not fairness people really want. They just want more. And where do we end up? With the seven cardinal sins. Not surprising, really. I guess I don’t think like this all the time, but when it comes to governments I do. Go Thomas Hobbes!
Patrick • Quotes • 05/13/03 • 2 comments
Comments
Dad • 05/13/03 • 10:32 PM:Hence my definition of politics, which I’m liking more and more. Politics is the process by which people endeaver to get more than their fair share.
Patrick • 05/14/03 • 1:30 AM:Another La Rochefoucauld maxim (whose translation I don’t like too much, but, not knowing French, I must go with it):
“There is no misfofrtune so terrible that clever people cannot profit from, nor fortune so good that foolish people cannot harm themselves.”
Actually, Google translates the original French to: “There are so unhappy accidents whose skillful people do not draw some advantage, nor of so happy that the imprudent ones cannot turn to their damage.”
Too much politicking takes away personal accountability. One refreshing moment in an interview with a Tupamaro was when he spoke of some prisoners as being incorrigible, unfit for life within society. Not that I like the thought, but at least we’re realizing that not everybody would be super great happy friendly if given the chance. Some people are just plain stupid. Bruce Chatwin’s In Patagonia mentions a couple of times the Chilean land reforms under Salvador Allende, who bought tracts of land and houses from rich owners and gave them to peasants. A lot of times the peasants just ruined the places, pissing on the drapes, selling off the finer things to buy drink. Maybe they needed education. Maybe the finer things in life are unnecessary. Maybe we should all simplify simplify simplify. Fine. But also maybe some people are just stupid.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
Please capitalize your name properly and use the same information each time you comment. We will not send you spam, and your email address will not be posted.