Principles and Virtue

About this:

Alexandru Macedonski: Noaptea de Decemvrie – Érettségi 2024:

„Meka şi Meka conţine o parabolă dictată de inspiraţia “cu limbă de foc” într-o noapte de decembrie, cu ger şi zăpadă, a unui poet sărac şi în dezacord cu lumea guvernată de vanitate şi aur. Scrierea în proză valorifică o legendă orientată în care Mahomet Ben Hassan – Ben Ali lasă cu limbă de moarte fiului său Ali recomandarea de a nu se abate niciodată în viaţă de la calea cea dreaptă. Îl sfătuieşte, totodată, să se ducă, aşa cum trebuie să facă orice credincios musulman, la cetatea sfântă Meka, pentru a putea obţine astfel iertarea păcatelor. Ascultând de îndemnul părintelui său Ali porneşte în pelerinaj la Meka, însoţit de un mare convoi de cămile şi servitori, cu multe provizii de drum, hotărât să străbată pustiul arab pe drumul cel drept. În acelaşi timp, spre aceeaşi ţintă porneşte şi Pocitan-Ben-Pehlivan, un cerşetor respingător la înfăţişare. Deşi este invitat de Ali să meargă în fastnosul său convoi, Pocitan refuză, alegând, spre a ajunge la Meka, nişte căi ocolite dar mai uşor de străbătut. Ali îşi continuă însă drumul prin pustiu; dar marile dificultăţi ale călătoriei nu pot fi învinse şi convoiul piere, oamenii şi cămilele murind rând pe rând, până când emirul, sleit de puteri şi rămas singur, moare şi el, înainte de a-şi fi putut vedea visul cu ochii, căci imaginea Mekăi rămâne o iluzie înşelătoare ca fata morgana. În schimb, hidosul Pocitan-Ben-Pehlivan ajunge la cetatea sfântă.”

/

„Meka and Meka” contains a parable inspired by a „tongue of fire” revelation during a snowy, freezing December night, dictated to a poor poet at odds with a world governed by vanity and gold. This prose work draws on an Eastern legend in which Mahomet Ben Hassan – Ben Ali, on his deathbed, urges his son Ali never to stray from the path of righteousness. He also advises him to go—just as any faithful Muslim should—to the holy city of Mecca, in order to obtain forgiveness for his sins.

Obeying his father’s advice, Ali sets out on a pilgrimage to Mecca, accompanied by a large convoy of camels and servants, with plenty of provisions, determined to cross the Arabian desert on the straight path. At the same time, heading toward the same goal is Pocitan-Ben-Pehlivan, a beggar repulsive in appearance. Although invited by Ali to join his luxurious convoy, Pocitan declines, choosing instead to reach Mecca via winding but easier routes.

Ali continues his journey through the desert, but the great hardships of the journey prove insurmountable. The convoy perishes—camels and people dying one by one—until finally, the exhausted emir, left alone, also dies before ever seeing his dream fulfilled, for the image of Mecca remains an illusory mirage like a fata morgana. By contrast, the hideous Pocitan-Ben-Pehlivan reaches the holy city.

It makes me think – who has better values? The one that succeeds with small concessions, or the one who dies for his principles (even though they might not be the right ones?).

This is more unclear than it appears.

In the Old Testament, there is a story that can be summarized like this:

As Isaac grows old and blind, he prepares to give his blessing to his eldest son, Esau. He asks Esau to hunt game and cook a meal, after which he will bestow the blessing. Rebekah, overhearing this, devises a plan to help her favored son, Jacob, receive the blessing instead.

She instructs Jacob to bring her two goats so she can prepare Isaac’s favorite dish. To deceive Isaac, Jacob dresses in Esau’s clothes and covers his smooth skin with goat hair to imitate his hairy brother. Despite Isaac’s suspicion due to Jacob’s voice, he is ultimately convinced by the smell and feel of Esau’s clothing and hands. Isaac blesses Jacob, granting him prosperity, dominance over nations and siblings, and divine favor.

Soon after Jacob leaves, Esau returns and discovers the deception. Devastated, he begs for a blessing, but Isaac tells him the main blessing has already been given. Esau receives a lesser blessing, foretelling hardship and eventual freedom from Jacob’s dominance. Enraged, Esau vows to kill Jacob once Isaac dies.

Who did the right thing in this story? It’s a bit unclear.

Prisoner’s dilemma – Wikipedia:

This „typical contemporary version” of the game is described in William Poundstone‘s 1993 book Prisoner’s Dilemma:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don’t have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch … If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail. The prisoners are given a little time to think this over, but in no case may either learn what the other has decided until he has irrevocably made his decision. Each is informed that the other prisoner is being offered the very same deal. Each prisoner is concerned only with his own welfare—with minimizing his own prison sentence.^[3]

This leads to three different possible outcomes for prisoners A and B:

1. If A and B both remain silent, they will each serve one year in prison.
2. If one testifies against the other but the other doesn’t, the one testifying will be set free while the other serves three years in prison.
3. If A and B testify against each other, they will each serve two years.

Two prisoners are separated into individual rooms and cannot communicate with each other. It is assumed that both prisoners understand the nature of the game, have no loyalty to each other, and will have no opportunity for retribution or reward outside of the game. The normal game is shown below:

Prisoner B Prisoner A	Prisoner B stays silent (cooperates)	Prisoner B testifies (defects)
Prisoner A stays silent (cooperates)	Each serves 1 year	Prisoner A: 3 years Prisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A testifies (defects)	Prisoner A: goes free Prisoner B: 3 years	Each serves 2 years

Regardless of what the other decides, each prisoner gets a higher reward by betraying the other („defecting”). The reasoning involves analyzing both players’ best responses: B will either cooperate or defect. If B cooperates, A should defect, because going free is better than serving 1 year. If B defects, A should also defect, because serving 2 years is better than serving 3. So, either way, A should defect since defecting is A’s best response regardless of B’s strategy. Parallel reasoning will show that B should defect.

Defection always results in a better payoff than cooperation, so it is a strictly dominant strategy for both players. Mutual defection is the only strong Nash equilibrium in the game. Since the collectively ideal result of mutual cooperation is irrational from a self-interested standpoint, this Nash equilibrium is not Pareto efficient.

Generally, I try to be cooperative, but sometimes the best strategy is to go tit-for-tat (equivalent retaliation).

Poezioară a lui Ienăchiță Văcărescu :

I’m thinking on the topic. Should you be principled, or should you not care at all about the things around you and follow your self-interest?

For society as a whole, it’s better to have principles. Not in all occasions (see the first quote in this blog post).

Generally, I strive to have at least some principles.

Yet, I do wonder from time to time if the things that I do are fine.

I wouldn’t collect the flower, even if I knew for sure that someone else would.

I will try to put emphasis on having a small impact from an ecological point of view, even if others don’t have that preoccupation.

I will vote, even if my specific vote doesn’t change the end result.

It’s not always that easy, though, to make the „right” choice. Sometimes, you die like the emir, without a real gain, other than having principles.

Citat din Nicolae Steinhardt:

Iată cum descrie Nicolae Steinhardt un Gentleman în Jurnalul fericirii:

“Mai întâi stă la ușă și bate; e discret.

Apoi are încredere în oameni, nu-i bănuitor. Și încrederea e prima calitate a boierului și cavalerului, bănuiala fiind, dimpotrivă, trăsătura fundamentală a șmecherului. Gentlemanul e cel care – până la dirimanta probă contrară – are încredere în oricine și nu se grăbește , avid să dea crezare defăimărilor strecurate pe seama unui prieten al său.

E gata să vină în ajutor, atâta așteaptă. Îi e milă. Știe să-și gradeze aprecierea, dă fiecăruia ce-i al său.

Niciodată o insultă ori o vorbă disprețuitoare. Nu se vede din niciun text vreun moralism înțepat, vreo pudoare de comandă.

Încredere în oameni, curaj, detașare, bunăvoință către cei năpăstuiți de pe urma cărora nu te poți alege cu niciun folos (bolnavi, străini, întemnițați), un simț sigur al măreției, predispoziția pentru iertare, disprețul față de prudenți și agonisitori: toate sunt trăsături ale Gentlemanului și cavalerului.”

/

„Here is how Nicolae Steinhardt describes a Gentleman in The Diary of Happiness:

“First, he knocks at the door; he is discreet.

Then, he trusts people, he is not suspicious. And trust is the first quality of a nobleman and a knight, while suspicion, on the contrary, is the fundamental trait of the schemer. The Gentleman is the one who — until irrefutable contrary evidence arises — trusts everyone and does not rush, eager to believe the slanders whispered about one of his friends.

He is ready to help, he is just waiting for the chance. He feels compassion. He knows how to measure his appreciation, giving each person what they are due.

Never an insult or a contemptuous word. No text of his reveals any biting moralism or commanding modesty.

Trust in people, courage, detachment, goodwill toward the afflicted — from whom no benefit can be expected (the sick, foreigners, prisoners) — a sure sense of greatness, a predisposition toward forgiveness, disdain for the cautious and the hoarders: all these are traits of the Gentleman and the knight.”

Un gentleman descris de Nicolae Steinhardt – Catchy.

Sau:

Paris, decembrie 1938

Montherlant (în Echinocțiul din Septembrie): „Oricine crede în orice o fi trece drept un fraier, un tont.” Toată cartea e scrisă împotrivă „deștepților” care au convingerea că „nu pot fi duși”.

Groaza de fraiereală — obsesia șmecherilor, onoarea lor, singura — este impulsul josniciei. Balzac (Modeste Mignon): „A nu fi niciodată fraier, maximă ticăloasă care este dizolvantul tuturor simțămintelor nobile ale omului.”

A nu uita că fraier în românește vine de la germanul Freiherr, adică om liber. Omului liber (în cavalerism se confundă cu nobilul) îi pasă prea puțin dacă a fost șmecherit de un mișel.

/

Montherlant (in The Equinox of September): “Anyone who believes in anything at all is taken for a sucker, a fool.” The entire book is written against the so-called “clever ones” who are convinced they “can’t be fooled.”

The fear of being duped — the obsession of the cunning, their only sense of honor — is the driving force behind their baseness. Balzac (Modeste Mignon): “To never be a sucker — a despicable maxim that dissolves all the noble feelings of man.”

Let us not forget that fraier (Romanian for “sucker” or “fool”) comes from the German Freiherr, meaning a free man. A free man (who, in chivalric terms, is synonymous with a nobleman) cares very little if he has been tricked by a scoundrel.

Nicolae Steinhardt – Jurnalul fericirii.

I have a friend who likes this term „a prosti”. „Să nu lași pe cineva să te prostească”. „Te-a prostit cutare”. (I have a friend who likes this term „a prosti” („to fool someone”). „Don’t let anyone fool you.” „So-and-so fooled you.”)

The problem with not leeting anyone fool you is that on the long run:

• The society as a whole suffers;
• You will suffer.

You can fool the system once or twice. You can’t do this repeatedly.

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” ― Beverly Sills

A saying:

Don’t bring a gun to a knife fight. (via »)