NOTA DO EDITOR

“Hume’s essays on the suicide and the immortality of the soul were completed around 1755 and printed as part of a book of essays titled Five Dissertations. When pre-release copies of Five Dissertations provoked controversy among influential readers, Hume and his printer Andrew Millar agreed to have the 2 essays physically removed from the printed copies. (…) Rumours about the 2 withdrawn essays circulated for years, and clandestine copies appeared anonymously in French (1770) and later in English (1777). In 1783 the 2 essays were published more openly, and this time with Hume’s name attached. Like the 1770 and 1777 publications, the 1783 publication was not authorized by Hume. [e quem disse que precisava?] Along with Hume’s 2 essays, the anonymous editor of the 1783 edition included his own critical notes to Hume’s 2 pieces, and excerpts from Rousseau’s La Nouvelle Heloise on the subject of suicide.” “A copy of the original 2 essays as they were printed in Five Dissertations is in the possession of the National Library of Scotland. That copy contains 19 corrections in Hume’s hand and is Hume’s final surviving revision of the essays. None of these corrections appear in the 1783 edition.” Mau trabalho, editor! Aliás, veremos quão ruim é esse editor que sabia quão pouco “valia” ao ocultar seu nome no devido tempo!

ON SUICIDE

“IF Suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbour, or ourselves. — To prove that suicide is no transgression of our duty to God, the following considerations may perhaps suffice.”

“Every event is alike important in the eyes of that infinite being, who takes in at one

glance the most distant regions of space, and remotest periods of time.” Tudo importa. Até Hume viu isso. Schopenhauer, que elogiou este artigo, não o viu! Não importa que um cristão ou um fenomenólogo o diga.

“judgement” “judgment”

“burden” “burthen”

Formas americana e britânica da ortografia, respectivamente. Realmente faltou uma revisão minimamente competente do material!

“What is the meaning then of that principle, that a man who tired of life, and hunted by pain and misery, bravely overcomes all the natural terrors of death, and makes his escape from this cruel scene: that such a man I say, has incurred the indignation of his Creator by encroaching on the office of divine providence, and disturbing the order of the universe? Shall we assert that the Almighty has reserved to himself in any peculiar manner the disposal of the lives of men, and has not submitted that event, in common with others, to the general laws by which the universe is governed? This is plainly false; the lives of men depend upon the same laws as the lives of all other animals; and these are subjected to the general laws of matter and motion. The fall of a tower, or the infusion of a poison, will destroy a man equally with the meanest creature; an inundation sweeps away every thing without distinction that comes within the reach of its fury.”

“In order to destroy the evidence of this conclusion, we must shew a reason why this particular case is excepted; is it because human life is of such great importance, that ‘tis a presumption for human prudence to dispose of it? But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.” “If I turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the period which by the general laws of matter and motion he had assigned it.” “It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel? — Do you imagine that I repine at Providence or curse my creation, because I go out of life, and put a period to a being, which, were it to continue, would render me miserable? Far be such sentiments from me; I am only convinced of a matter of fact, which you yourself acknowledge possible, that human life may be unhappy, and that my existence, if further prolonged, would become ineligible; but I thank Providence, both for the good which I have already enjoyed, and for the power with which I am endowed of escaping the ill that threatens me.”

“When I fall upon my own sword, therefore, I receive my death equally from the hands of the Deity as if it had proceeded from a lion, a precipice, or a fever.” Suponho que tal ‘panteísmo’ fosse inaceitável em sua época, daí a censura!

JESUS CRISTO ESCOLHEU O SUICÍDIO, i.e., previu sua morte e não resistiu a ela (seria blasfemo que imitássemos o ato de Deus-enquanto-homem?): “If my life be not my own, it were criminal for me to put it in danger, as well as to dispose of it; nor could one man deserve the appellation of hero, whom glory or friendship transports into the greatest dangers, and another merit the reproach of wretch or miscreant¹ who puts a period to his life, from the same or like motives.”

¹ A edição traz “misereant”. Misery ant!

“‘Tis impious, says the old Roman superstition, to divert rivers from their course, or

invade the prerogatives of nature.¹ ‘Tis impious, says the French superstition, to inoculate for the small-pox,² or usurp the business of providence by voluntarily producing distempers and maladies. ‘Tis impious, says the modern European superstition, to put a period to our own life, and thereby rebel against our Creator; and why not impious, say I, to build houses, cultivate the ground, or fail upon the ocean?”

¹ Verdade seja dita, isso hoje seria um crime ecológico hediondo, a menos que estudos mostrassem de forma incondicional que isso beneficiaria a natureza e as populações em torno do curso original e do novo curso do rio!

² Resta-nos saber o que seria inocular a varíola…

“But you are placed by providence, like a sentinel,¹ in a particular station, and when you desert it without being recalled, you are equally guilty of rebellion against your almighty sovereign, and have incurred his displeasure.”

¹ “Centinal” no original.

“I ask, why do you conclude that providence has placed me in this station?” “But providence guided all these causes, and nothing happens in the universe without its consent and co-operation. If so, then neither does my death, however voluntary, happen without its consent; and whenever pain or sorrow so far overcome my patience, as to make me tired of life, I may conclude that I am recalled from my station in the clearest and most express terms.” De fato, o suicida seria especial nesse sentido: estaria em maior comunhão com deus no momento de seu ato supremo: poderia até se comunicar com ele, como uma sibila.

“The difference to the whole will be no greater than betwixt my being in a chamber and in the open air. The one change is of more importance to me than the other; but not more so to the universe.” Lição de humildade, verdadeiramente.

“A man may disturb society[,] no doubt, and thereby incur the displeasure of the Almighty: But the government of the world is placed far beyond his reach and violence.”

“A MAN who retires from life does no harm to society: He only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. — All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal. I receive the benefits of society, and therefore ought to promote its interests; but when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I be bound any longer? But allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds; I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense¹ of a great harm to myself; why then should I prolong a miserable existence, because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me? If upon account of age and infirmities, I may lawfully resign any office, and employ my time altogether in fencing against these calamities, and alleviating, as much as possible, the miseries of my future life: why may I not cut short these miseries at once by an action which is no more prejudicial to society?”

¹ “Expence” no original.

“A MAN is engaged in a conspiracy for the public interest; is seized upon suspicion; is threatened with the rack; and knows from his own weakness that the secret will be extorted from him: Could such a one consult the public interest better than by putting a quick period to a miserable life? This was the case of the famous and brave Strozi of Florence.”¹

¹ Strozzi, família itálica, rival dos Médici ou Medici. Banqueiros e posteriormente financistas e políticos. Tendo perdido na luta civil pelo controle de Florença, foram banidos e arruinados em 1434. Os Strozzi se recompuseram e posteriormente governaram Siena; houve então uma guerra entre Florença e Siena. Depois as famílias tiveram casamentos entre si – a família Médici, considera-se, teve mais benefícios dessa união que a primeira família. O evento a que alude David Hume é provavelmente este: “After the republic was overthrown in 1530 Alessandro de’ Medici attempted to win Filippo Strozzi’s support, but Strozzi declined and instead, retired to Venice. After the murder of Alessandro in 1537, Strozzi assumed leadership of a group of republican exiles with the object of re-entering the city but having been captured and subsequently tortured he committed suicide.”

“He invades the business of providence no more than the magistrate did, who ordered his execution; and his voluntary death is equally advantageous to society, by ridding it of a pernicious member.”

“I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping. For such is our natural horror of death, that small motives will never be able to reconcile us to it; and though perhaps the situation of a man’s health or fortune did not seem to require this remedy, we may at least be assured that any one who, without apparent reason, has had recourse to it, was curst with such an incurable depravity or gloominess of temper as must poison all enjoyment, and render him equally miserable as if he had been loaded with the most grievous misfortunes.” Um problema congênito no cérebro, diria Sakyo, O Apostador.

Um ensaio muito mais morno do que o esperado, mas pelo menos mantém Hume no esquadrão dos filósofos ocidentais que realmente merecem ser lidos, nem que uma só vez!

ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

“Matter and spirit are at bottom equally unknown, and we cannot determine what qualities inhere in the one or in the other.” “Abstract reasonings cannot decide any question of fact or existence.”

“As the same material substance may successively compose the bodies of all animals, the same spiritual substance may compose their minds” “The most positive asserters of the mortality of the soul never denied the immortality of its substance. And that an immaterial substance, as well as a material, may lose its memory or consciousness, appears in part from experience, if the soul be immaterial.”

“what is incorruptible must also be ingenerable. The Soul therefore[,] if immortal, existed before our birth; and if the former existence no ways concerned us, neither will the latter.”

“But if any purpose of nature be clear, we may affirm, the whole scope and intention of man’s creation, so far as we can judge by natural reason, is limited to the present life.” Se intenção houvesse, seria esse o caso. Acontece que não há nenhuma finalidade preconcebida (assada no forno para nosso consumo) na existência humana – o que não nos impede de viver o presente como finalidade.

“WHAT cruelty, what iniquity, what injustice in nature, to confine all our concern, as well as all our knowledge, to the present life, if there be another scene still waiting us, of infinitely greater consequence?” Hume quer dizer, em poucas palavras: não haver céu e inferno não é objeção à imortalidade d’alma, se os padrecos insistem tanto em que a alma TEM de ser imortal; logo, não estou sendo um herege ao dizê-lo.

“A pair of shoes perhaps was never yet wrought to the highest degree of perfection which that commodity is capable of attaining. Yet it is necessary, at least very useful, that there should be some politicians and moralists, even some geometers, poets, and philosophers among mankind.” Sócrates se sentiria orgulhoso da analogia!

“ON the theory of the Soul’s mortality, the inferiority of women’s capacity is easily accounted for. Their domestic life requires no higher faculties, either of mind or body. This circumstance vanishes and becomes absolutely insignificant, on the religious theory: the one sex has an equal task to perform as the other; their powers of reason and resolution ought also to have been equal, and both of them infinitely greater than at present.”

“Shall we therefore erect an elysium for poets and heroes like that of the ancient¹ mythology?”

¹ “Antient”

“Punishment, according to our conception, should bear some proportion to the offence. Why then eternal punishment for the temporary offences of so frail a creature as man? Can any one approve of Alexander’s rage, who intended to exterminate¹ a whole nation because they had seized his favorite horse Bucephalus?”

¹ “Extirminate”

CILA OU CARIBDE: “HEAVEN and Hell suppose 2 distinct species of men, the good and the bad; but the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. — Were one to go round the world with an intention of giving a good supper to the righteous, and a sound drubbing to the wicked, he would frequently be embarrassed in his choice, and would find that the merits and the demerits of most men and women scarcely amount to the value of either.”

“By the Roman law those who had been guilty of parricide and confessed their crime, were put into a sack alone with an ape, a dog, and a serpent, and thrown into the river. Death alone was the punishment of those who denied their guilt, however fully proved. A criminal was tried before Augustus, and condemned after a full conviction, but the humane emperor, when he put the last interrogatory, gave it such a turn as to lead the wretch into a denial of his guilt. ‘You surely (said the prince) did not kill your father.’ This lenity suits our natural ideas of right even towards the greatest of all criminals, and even though it prevents so inconsiderable a sufferance.¹ Nay[,] even the most bigotted priest would naturally without reflection approve of it, provided the crime was not heresy or infidelity; for as these crimes hurt himself in his temporal² interest and advantages, perhaps he may not be altogether so indulgent to them.”

¹ “Sufference”.

² O grifo em “temporal” é do próprio Hume.

“The damnation of one man is an infinitely greater evil in the universe, than the subversion of a thousand millions of kingdoms. Nature has rendered human infancy

peculiarly frail and mortal, as it were on purpose to refute the notion of a probationary state; the half of mankind die before they are rational creatures.” Muito bom – e lamentável sabermos sobre a alta taxa de mortandade infantil à época (ou queria Hume dizer que maioria dos adultos não passava de crianças grandes?)!

“THE Physical arguments from the analogy of nature are strong for the mortality of the soul, and are really the only philosophical arguments which ought to be admitted with regard to this question, or indeed any question of fact.” Porque se uma “alma” reencarna ou transmigra, não faz sentido falar que é uma alma, se a memória lhe é extirpada.

“The last symptoms which the mind discovers are disorder, weakness, insensibility, and stupidity, the forerunners of its annihilation.”

“Trees perish in the water, fishes in the air, animals in the earth. Even so small a difference as that of climate is often fatal. What reason then to imagine that an immense alteration, such as is made on the soul by the dissolution of its body and all its organs of thought and sensation, can be effected without the dissolution of the whole?” “yet no one rejects the argument drawn from comparative anatomy. The Metempsychosis is therefore the only system of this kind that philosophy can harken to.”

“NOTHING in this world is perpetual, every thing however seemingly firm is in continual flux and change, the world itself gives symptoms of frailty and dissolution. How contrary to analogy, therefore, to imagine that one single form, seemingly the frailest of any, and subject to the greatest disorders, is immortal and indissoluble?”

“How to dispose of the infinite number of posthumous existences ought also to embarrass the religious theory. Every planet in every solar system we are at liberty to imagine peopled with intelligent mortal beings, at least we can fix on no other supposition. For these then a new universe must every generation be created beyond the bounds of the present universe, or one must have been created at first so prodigiously wise as to admit of this continual influx of beings.” E quanto gasto energético – um universo não é coisa barata! Mas é o religioso que estiola até o zero o valor deste único universo conhecível…

“When it is asked whether Agamemnon, Thersites, Hannibal, Varro, and every stupid clown that ever existed in Italy, Scythia, Bactria or Guinea, are now alive; can any man think, that a scrutiny of nature will furnish arguments strong enough to answer so strange a question in the affirmative? The want of argument without revelation sufficiently establishes the negative.” Ri demais do trecho, pois Hume enfia no mesmo saco romanos e bárbaros, como que para despeitar os eclesiásticos de seu tempo, e junta numa fila só Agamêmnon, herói mitológico (embora seja uma figura homérica cinza, trágica, num sentido bem inferior a Aquiles…), com Térsites, o “palhaço” do mito – embora não respaldado por Homero ele mesmo, mas por modificações futuras, como a de Shakespeare –, quase “térmites”, aliás, e conquistadores da historiografia, como Aníbal, e, por fim, intelectuais inofensivos, legíveis até (estou estudando latim por ele): Varro, o “maníaco da etimologia” (conquanto todo homem das artes daquele tempo participasse também da política)!

“Were our horrors of annihilation an original passion, not the effect of our general love of happiness, it would rather prove the mortality of the soul. For as nature does nothing in vain, she would never give us a horror against an impossible event.” Só o que protege a imortalidade da alma é a convicção na imortalidade da alma. Essa sim será imortal, quanto dure o homem! Wishful thinking arquetípico.

“‘TIS an infinite advantage in every controversy to defend the negative. If the question be out of the common experienced course of nature, this circumstance is almost, if not altogether, decisive.”

“Some new species of logic is requisite for that purpose, and some new faculties of the mind, that may enable us to comprehend that logic.”

Como seria de esperar, essa “edição crua” não viria à luz, mesmo em tempos pós-censura (brincadeira, esses tempos são uma fábula!) sem os obrigatórios comentários morais e “atenuadores”, objetando o autor original… E aqui vamos nós a esses anexos, para um tico de diversão!…

ANTI SUICIDE

Organizado em notas, entre parênteses, ao artigo ON SUICIDE…

(1) “THIS elaborate eulogium on philosophy points obliquely at religion, which we Christians consider as the only sovereign antidote to every disease incident to the mind of man.”

“Neither priestcraft, nor magisterial powers, however, cramped the progress of improving reason, or baffled the genius of enquiring man.” Hahaha! A ousadia…

“In truth, the superior advantage and necessity of the Christian religion seems manifest from this particular circumstance, that it has taken away every possible restraint from natural religion, allowing it to exert itself to the utmost in finding out the fundamental truths of virtue,¹ and in acquiescing in them, in openly avowing and acknowledging them when revealed, in extending the views and expectations of men, in giving them more just and liberal sentiments,² and in publickly and uniformly disclaiming any intention of establishing a kingdom for its votaries or believers in this world.” O argumento mais estúpido que já li: o cristianismo é uma forma superior de moral porque veio depois dos antigos, i.e., os antigos eram o cume da filosofia – que razão Deus teria para suprimi-los senão para colocar em seu lugar o que vem a ser melhor na seqüência – a fé cristã?! Argumento “histórico” e uma imbecil faca de dois gumes: tudo o que acontece, deve acontecer!… inclusive a MORTE DE DEUS, no futuro de Hume e desse editor…

¹ Como se por séculos não matassem na fogueira qualquer um que se desviasse 1mm das poderosas e absurdas constrições do monoteísmo mais tirânico! Como o helenismo foi livre, talvez unicamente livre acima de qualquer outro modo de vida possível, só podemos tentar entender por contraste com nossa própria servidão voluntária…

² Justamente com o enfraquecimento da religião… Que grande coincidência! Mas, ó!, era tudo parte do plano divino!

“They tally exactly with the present circumstances of mankind, and are admirably adapted to cure every disease, every disorder of the human mind, to beget, to cherish, and confirm every pure, every virtuous, every pious disposition.” Não creio que agüentarei mais muito tempo lendo essas groselhas velhas!

“MANKIND are certainly at present in a state of the deepest corruption and depravity, and at the same time apt to continue strangely insensible of the misery and danger to which, under the government of infinite wisdom, it necessarily renders them.” Sou obrigado a concordar que essa insensibilidade estranha não é só muito estranha como um tanto mórbida! Que ratos religiosos como esse ainda vivam entre nós após a força civilizacional, em 300 anos, ter finalmente descrido da autenticidade transcendental dessas velhas escrituras, no entanto, é algo que me tira do sério a cada dia!… Porque que quisessem ser idiotas no século XVIII inglês não me afeta no mais mínimo… mas outro papo é continuar com esse discurso, num mundo igualmente corrupto e depravado (porque ainda e persistentemente cristão)!

(2) “CLEOMENES, king of Sparta, when suffering under misfortune, was advised to kill himself by Tharyceon. ‘Thinkest thou, wicked man, to shew thy fortitude by rushing upon death, an expedient always at hand, the dastardly resource of the basest minds? Better than we, by the fortune of arms, or overpowered by numbers, have left the field of battle to their enemies; but he who, to avoid pain, or calamity, or censures of men, gives up the contest, we are to seek death, that death ought to be in action. It is base to live or die only for ourselves. All we gain by suicide is to get our own reputation, or doing the least service to our country. In hopes, then, we may yet be of some use to others, both methinks are bound to preserve life as long as we can. Whenever these hopes shall have altogether abandoned us, death, if sought for, will readily be found.’” Quanta cretinice argumentar pró-cristianismo pelas aspas de um espartano (provavelmente forjadas) – QUANTO DESPEITO A TUDO QUE É NOBRE! Além disso, curioso como os religiosos, antes de Durkheim, nunca tenham percebido um só exemplo de suicídio altruísta!

(3) “Is it possible to conceive the author of nature capable of authenticating a deed, which ultimately terminates in the total annihilation of the system?” Não, e por isso me pergunto todo santo dia: como foi o cristianismo possível?

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL [comments]

Uma pergunta, antes de tudo: nós filósofos não nos queremos meter em escolástica – por que então os escolásticos insistem em meter o pé na filosofia? Exigem dos filósofos uma lógica sobre-humana, eu diria in-umana! Por que os comentam e criticam, então, em vez de relegá-los ao ostracismo? Deve se explicar por um sentimento cruel de inveja irreprimível…

(1) “How many live and die in this salutary conviction, to whom these refined speculations must forever remain as unintelligible as if they had never been formed!” E ainda assim temos aqui um refinado crítico de tais opiniões refinadas!

(2) “The substance of the soul we do not know, but are certain her ideas must be immaterial.” Idéias materiais?! Coisa nova!

(3) “Whoever, yet, of all the assertors of the soul’s immortality, presumed to make a monopoly of this great privilege to the human race? Who can tell what another state of existence may be, or whether every other species of animals may not possess principles an immortal as the mind of man?” Olha, muitos e muitos eclesiásticos já excluíram os animais do paraíso (ou do inferno)! Aposto que a maioria veio até antes de seus comentários, senhor apócrifo!

(4) “There is not a single word in all this elaborate and tedious deduction, which has not been urged and refuted five hundred times.” Cuidado com a postura de atacar não prestando atenção aos próprios flancos – pode ser um ataque suicida (no Brittish pun intended)! Se um curto artigo de um mero cético é tão tedioso, vá ler a bíblia, ora pois!

(5) “The truth is, that form which all mankind have deemed immortal, is so far from being the frailest, that it seems in fact the most indissoluble and permanent of any other we know. All the rational and inventive powers of the mind happily conspire to proclaim her infinitely different in nature, and superior in dignity to every possible modification of pure matter.” “Que a vida não tenha se extinguido no planeta – este é meu divino argumento de por que a alma é indubitavelmente imortal!”, diz esse paspalho.

“What judgement should we form of that principle which informed and enlightened a Galileo, a Copernicus, or a Newton?” Que ele era natural, pagão, conseqüente, imanente (não insipirado!). E não vamos esquecer que todos eles foram perseguidos pela Igreja – porque deus quis, na sua opinião! Strange ways… até mesmo para Jeová! Fora que os artistas mais inspirados também o foram…

Antes de abandonar esse mar de merda aos 70% da extensão do documento (anexos que, confesso, não li por inteiro), chequemos, ao menos, algo literariamente elogiável, i.e., as visões antitéticas de Rousseau (que não é nenhum santo, acrescentemos, o que aumenta a hipocrisia do editor que resolveu utilizar um filósofo mundano para atacar outro, só porque aquele concordava consigo!).

The following Letters on SUICIDE are extracted from Rousseau’s ELOISA. LETTER CXIV. To Lord B——-.

“I will never dispose of it, till I am certain that I may do it without a crime, and till I have not the least hope of employing it for your service.” Como é tolo(a) – pare de hamletianizar sobre isso e faça-o de uma vez!

“I adore the supreme Being — I owe every thing to you; I have an affection for you; you are the only person on earth to whom I am attached.” O(a) autor(a) da carta se dirige com efeito a um humano (o que é óbvio – mas poderia ser uma “carta de suicídio endereçada a Deus”, numa hipótese excepcional).

“Roebeck¹ [sic] wrote an apology for suicide before he put an end to his life. I will not, after his example, write a book on the subject, neither am I well satisfied with that which he has penned, but I hope in this discussion at least to imitate his moderation.”

¹ “Johan Robeck (1672–1739) was a Swedish-German theologian and philosopher who justified and committed suicide.” O mais interessante do verbete na wikipedia: “He wrote a book permitting suicide from a theological point of view, entitled Exercitatio philosophica de morte voluntaria (A philosophical exercise about voluntary death, 1736). His book started a debate among Europeans of his time, which included Rousseau and Voltaire, especially after he himself committed suicide by drowning in the river Weser near Bremen, Germany. Robeck’s argument is based upon the idea of life as a gift, given by God, who therefore gave up for his rights in the gift. Anyone can destroy a gift, according to Robeck’s argument; therefore, suicide is legitimate. (…) (…) Robeck’s suicide is referenced in the old woman’s story at the end of chapter XII in Voltaire’s 1759 novel Candide, ‘…but I have met only 12 who have voluntarily put an end to their misery—3 negroes, 4 Englishmen, 4 Swiss, and a German professor called Robeck.’ [Cândido ou O Otimismo: leitura muito melhor que A Nova Heloísa, pelo visto…]”

“if I sacrifice my arm to the preservation of something more precious, which is my body, I have the same right to sacrifice my body to the preservation of something more valuable, which is the happiness of my existence.”

“They consider a man living upon earth as a soldier placed on duty. God, say they, has fixed you in this world, why do you quit your station without his leave? But you, who argue thus, has he not stationed you in the town where you was born, why therefore do you quit it without his leave? is not misery, of itself, a sufficient permission? Whatever station Providence has assigned me, whether it be in a regiment, or on the earth at large, he intended me to stay there while I found my situation agreeable, and to leave it when it became intolerable.”

“I agree that we must wait for an order; but when I die a natural death, God does not order me to quit life, he takes it from me; it is by rendering life insupportable, that he orders me to quit it. In the first case, I resist with all my force; in the second, I have the merit of obedience.”

“This is one of the quibbles of the Phaedo, which, in other respects, abounds with sublime truths. If your slave destroys himself, says Socrates to Cebes, would you not punish him, for having unjustly deprived you of your property. § Prithee, good Socrates, do we not belong to God after we are dead? The case you put is not applicable; you ought to argue thus: if you encumber¹ your slave with a habit which confines him from discharging his duty properly, will you punish him for quitting it, in order to render you better service? the grand error lies in making life of too great importance; as if our existence depended upon it, and that death was a total annihilation. Our life is of no consequence in the sight of God; it is of no importance in the eyes of reason, neither ought it to be of any in our sight; when we quit our body, we only lay aside an inconvenient habit.”

¹ “incumber”.

“Socrates being condemned, by an unjust judgment, to lose his life in a few hours, had no occasion to enter into an accurate enquiry whether he was at liberty to dispose of it himself. Supposing him really to have been the author of those discourses which Plato ascribes to him, yet believe me, my lord, he would have meditated with more attention on the subject, had he been in circumstances which required him to reduce his speculations to practice; and a strong proof that no valid objection can be drawn from that immortal work against the right of disposing of our own lives, is, that Cato read it twice through the very night that he destroyed himself.”

“What is the fate of those sons of sensuality, who indiscreetly multiply their torments by their pleasures? they in fact destroy their existence by extending their connections in this life; they increase the weight of their crimes by their numerous attachments; they relish no enjoyments, but what are succeeded by a thousand bitter wants; the more lively their sensibility, the more acute their sufferings; the stronger they are attached to life, the more wretched they become.”

“It would be as ridiculous to suppose that life can be a blessing to such men, as it was absurd in the sophister Possidonius to deny that is was an evil, at the same time that he endured all the torments of the gout.”

“We drag a painful and melancholy life, for a long time before we can resolve to quit it; but when once life becomes so insupportable as to overcome the horror of death, then existence is evidently a great evil, and we cannot disengage ourselves from it too soon.”

“This is not all. After they have denied that life can be an evil, in order to bar our right of making away with ourselves; they confess immediately afterwards that it is an evil, by reproaching us with want of courage to support it.”

“O Rome, thou victrix of the world, what a race of cowards did thy empire produce! Let Arria,¹ Eponina,² Lucretia,³ be off the number; they were women. But Brutus, Cassius, and thou great and divine Cato, who didst share with the gods the adoration of an astonished world, thou whose sacred and august presence animated the Romans with holy zeal, and made tyrants tremble, little did thy proud admirers imagine that paltry rhetoricians, immured in the dusty corner of a college, would ever attempt to prove that thou wert a coward, for having preferred death to a shameful existence.”

¹ “Árria era casada com o cônsul romano Aulo Cecina Peto. Quando o marido e o filho ficaram gravemente doentes ao mesmo tempo e a criança morreu, ela fez todos os preparativos para o funeral e compareceu pessoalmente, sem que o marido soubesse de nada. Toda vez que visitava o marido, Árria dizia-lhe que o menino estava melhorando. Quando a emoção ameaçava denunciá-la, ela se desculpava, saía do quarto e, nas palavras de Plínio, o Jovem, ‘entregava-se à dor’, em seguida, retornava para o marido com um comportamento mais calmo. (…) Escriboniano foi morto e Peto foi levado para Roma de navio. Árria queria embarcar no navio como escrava, o que não lhe foi permitido fazer. Então ela alugou um barco de pesca e nessa pequena embarcação seguiu o grande navio. (…) Na presença do imperador Cláudio, Árria atacou abertamente a esposa do líder da rebelião, Escriboniano, por fornecer voluntariamente provas à acusação, gritando: ‘Ouço-a dizer que poderia continuar vivendo após Escriboniano ter morrido em seus próprios braços?’ Foi esta a frase que alertou a todos sobre sua intenção de morrer ao lado de Peto. § Seu genro, Trásea, tentou convencê-la a viver, perguntando se ela iria querer que sua própria filha se matasse caso ele fosse condenado à morte. Árria insistiu que ela não se oporia, contanto que sua filha (também chamada Árria) tivesse pelo menos vivido muitos anos felizes com Trásea antes do eventual suicídio, assim como ela mesma tinha vivido com Peto. (…) Essa resposta aumentou a ansiedade dos parentes e ela foi observada com mais atenção. Percebendo isso, Árria disse que eles não poderiam impedi-la de se matar. Enquanto falava, pulou da cadeira e bateu a cabeça com grande força contra a parede, caindo inconsciente. Quando voltou a si, disse: ‘Eu disse a vocês que encontraria uma maneira difícil de morrer se vocês me negassem uma maneira fácil.’ § Quando o marido hesitou em se suicidar, Árria pegou a adaga, enfiou-a no peito e devolveu-a ao marido com as palavras ‘Paete, non dolet’ (‘Peto, não dói.’).” Grande mulher! Cf. John Nicholson, Paetus and Arria. A tragedy, in five acts. Lackington, Allen, and Co., Londres, 1809.

² Esta é figura mais obscura e não consegui apanhar detalhes diretos de seu êxito: “Júlio Sabino escondeu-se com sua esposa Eponina ou Peponila por 9 anos, mas seria posteriormente capturado e levado à capital imperial, onde foi executado em 78 sob ordens do imperador Vespasiano (r. 69–79). A história do casal, e principalmente a figura de Eponina, tornar-se-ia popular na França durante os séculos XVIII e XIX.”

³ Lucrécia é o exemplo mais famoso de mulher suicida da Roma antiga, por isso não deslindei o verbete.

“but tell me, thou great and valiant hero, who dost so courageously decline the battle, in order to endure the pain of living somewhat longer; when spark of fire lights upon your hand, why do you withdraw it in such haste? how? are you such a coward that you dare not bear the scorching of fire? nothing, you say, can oblige you to endure the burning spark; and what obliges me to endure life? was the creation of a man of more difficulty to Providence, than that of a straw? and is not both one and the other equally the work of his hands?”

“none but a fool will voluntarily endure evils which he can avoid without a crime; and it is very often a great crime to suffer pain unnecessarily.” Maldito seja o dogma do “arrependimento”, manhoso dispositivo milenar de tortura psicológica de povos inteiros!

“cut off this leg, which endangers my life. I will see it done without shrinking, and will give that hero leave to call me coward, who suffers his leg to mortify, because he dares not undergo the same operation.”

“let a magistrate on whom the welfare of a nation depends, let a father of a family who is bound to procure subsistence for his children, let a debtor who might ruin his creditors, let these at all events discharge their duty; admitting a thousand other civil and domestic relations to oblige an honest and unfortunate man to support the misery of life, to avoid the greater evil of doing injustice; is it, therefore, under circumstances totally different, incumbent on us to preserve a life oppressed with a swarm of miseries, when it can be of no service but to him who has not courage to die?” Considerando o sexo de Eloísa/Heloísa, em tempos tão machistas, de “mulheres serem menos que homens” (e, o que é mais, considerando o Cristianismo como inerentemente machista), me admira que ainda quisessem condená-la ao inferno eterno só por se matar!

“Though hunger, sickness, and poverty, those domestic plagues, more dreadful than savage enemies, may allow a wretched cripple to consume, in a sick bed, the provisions of a family which can scarce subsist itself, yet he who has no connections, whom heaven has reduced to the necessity of living alone, whose wretched existence can produce no good, why should not he, at least, have the right of quitting a station, where his complaints are troublesome, and his sufferings of no benefit?”

“In fact, why should we be allowed to cure ourselves of the gout, and not to get rid of the misery of life? do not both evils proceed from the same hand?” A gota e a vida. A água. Poético.

“let them shew how it can be less criminal to use the bark for a fever, than to take opium for the stone. (…) if we regard the means, both one and the other are equally natural”

“are we then to make no alteration in the condition of things, because every thing is in the state he appointed? must we do nothing in this life, for fear of infringing his laws, or is it in our power to break them if we would? no, my lord, the occupation of man is more great and noble.” = It is not against law to kill yourself.

THE CRUX: “My lord, I appeal to your wisdom and candour; what more infallible maxims can reason deduce from religion, with respect to suicide? If Christians have adopted contrary tenets, they are neither drawn from the principles of religion, nor from the only sure guide, the Scriptures, but borrowed from the Pagan philosophers. Lactantius and Augustine, the first who propagated this new doctrine, of which Jesus Christ and his apostles take no notice, ground their arguments entirely on the reasoning of Phaedo, which I have already controverted” “In truth, where do we find, throughout the whole bible, any law against suicide, or so much as a bare disapprobation of it; and is it not very unaccountable, that among the instances produced of persons who devoted themselves to death, we do not find the least word of improbation against examples of this kind? nay, what is more, the instance of Samson’s voluntary death is authorized by a miracle” “would this man, who lost his strength by suffering himself to be seduced by the allurements of a woman, have recovered it to commit an authorised crime, as if God himself would practice deceit on men?” Parece que o europeu-médio da época odiava Sansão pela sua “fraqueza feminil”, outro indício de misoginia neste livro.

“Thou shalt do no murder, says the decalogue; what are we to infer from this? if this commandment is to be taken literally, we must not destroy malefactors, nor our enemies: and Moses, who put so many people to death, was a bad interpreter of his own precept. If there are any exceptions, certainly the first must be in favour of suicide, because it is exempt from any degree of violence and injustice, the two only circumstances which can make homicide criminal; and because nature, moreover, has, in this respect, thrown sufficient obstacles in the way.”

“True repentance is derived from nature; if man endures whatever he is obliged to suffer, he does, in this respect, all that God requires of him; and if any one is so inflated with pride, as to attempt more, he is a madman, who ought to be confined, or an impostor, who ought to be punished.”

“If we would offer a sacrifice to the supreme Being, is it nothing to undergo death?” “Such are the liberal precepts which good sense dictates to every man, and which religion authorises.”

“you do not endure less than myself; and your troubles, like mine, are incurable; and they are the more remediless, as the laws of honour are more immutable than those of fortune. You bear them, I must confess, with fortitude. Virtue supports you; advance but one step farther, and she disengages you. You entreat¹ me to suffer; my lord, I dare importune you to put an end to your sufferings;² and I leave you to judge which of us is most dear to the other. Why should we delay doing that which we must do at last? shall we wait till old age and decrepit baseness attach us to life, after they have robbed it of its charms, and till we are doomed to drag an infirm and decrepit body with labour, and ignominy, and pain? We are at an age when the soul has vigour to disengage itself with ease from its shackles, and when a man knows how to die as he ought; when farther advanced in years, he suffers himself to be torn from life, which he quits with reluctance. Let us take advantage of this time, when the tedium of life makes death desirable; and let us tremble for fear it should come in all its horrors, at the moment when we could wish to avoid it. I remember the time, when I prayed to heaven only for a single hour of life, and when I should have died in despair if it had not been granted. Ah! what a pain it is to burst asunder the ties which attach our hearts to this world, and how advisable it is to quit life the moment the connection is broken!” Não pense que você é um deus ou um Átlas que pode carregar tudo nas costas! A mente doentia de Rousseau fazia com que ele cancelasse todas as suas conclusões perfeitas, mas não importa a antítese, com tamanha tese que se auto-sustenta! Ou seja: dane-se o que diz a carta de resposta mais abaixo, esta primeira é a melhor e mais ética delas, com toda certeza.

¹ “intreat”

² Esse trecho me fazia pensar, à primeira leitura, que a autora era a própria Heloísa, e que essa fosse a correspondência de um casal apaixonado. Como veremos abaixo esta não é a interpretação correta! Ainda mantenho, no entanto, meu elogio aos “casais suicidas perfeitos”, da ficção ou da História, como Árria e Peto mais acima, em outra nota deste artigo.

“May the friendship which invites us preserve our union to the latest hour! O what a pleasure for 2 sincere friends voluntary to end their days in each others arms, to intermingle their latest breath, and at the same instant to give up the soul which they shared in common! What pain, what regret can infect their last moments?” Romeu e Julieta, Meruem & Komugi. E todos os casais perfeitos. Belo e moral.

LETTER CXV. ANSWER.

“I am an Englishman, and not afraid to die” Then die already! E se parece infantil de minha parte dizê-lo, saibam que assim R. terminará essa carta fictiva de resposta a alguém meditando o suicídio: “If it has no power to restrain you, die! you are below my care.”

“Thou art no man; thou art nothing; and if I did not consider what thou mightest be, I cannot conceive any thing more abject.” #misoginia

“It is certainly most probable that the life of man is not without some design, some end, some moral object.” E se você não criar os seus próprios objetos morais, passará toda a vida ensinando aos outros aquilo que nem sequer sabe ou tem (predicadores religiosos, os “virtuosos” da modernidade!).

“Is it lawful for you therefore to quit life? I should be glad to know whether you have yet begun to live?” Cuidado, você acabará incitando seu interlocutor ao suicídio falando dessa forma, caro “cavalheiro”!

“Thou unhappy wretch! point out to me that just man who can boast that he has lived long enough”

“You are not ashamed to exhaust common-place topics, which have been hackneyed over a hundred times” Todos nós só fazemos isso, porque nunca houve nada de novo sob o sol da eternidade, idiota! Ei, o que é que há com esses europeus centuplicadores que sequer entendem o Um (a inexistência do indivíduo, ou seja, a inaplicabilidade da moral cristã)? Todos censuram seus antípodas com “isso já foi dito 100, 500 vezes”, mas isso também já foi dito infinitas vezes!!

“Life is an evil to a wicked man in prosperity, and a blessing to an honest man in distress: for it is not its casual modification, but its relation to some final object which makes it either good or bad.” Essa sentença só admite algum grau de aceitabilidade após o marxismo: temos pelo que lutar quando somos uns miseráveis!

“I have lost all hope of seducing a modest woman, I am obliged therefore to be a man of virtue; I had much rather die.” Ou essa é uma novela moral lésbica da época do Iluminismo (impossível!) ou eu errei: o autor da primeira carta não era Eloísa/Heloísa; talvez da segunda? Mas não, o escritor foi identificado no cabeçalho da 1ª carta como Lord B. Portanto, não se trata de um ataque misoginista repentino entre um “casal de amigos-amantes”, pelo menos – é uma carta misoginista, com certeza, mas falando da categoria mulher em geral, não a uma mulher em específico, o que não ajuda muito Rousseau quando consideramos sua obra como um todo (cria-se um educador sem preconceitos)! Agora vejo cem por cento justificado o juízo nietzschiano de que Rousseau era uma tarântula moral. Moral da história, enfim: deixa teu amigo sofrer pela mulher que ele quiser, não o menoscabes!

“correct your irregular appetites” Uau, que profundas palavras! Se apenas todos as sorvessem! A panacéia universal!

“Grief, disquietude, regret, and despair, are evils of short duration, which never take root in the mind”

“Reflect thoroughly, young man; [cry baby na linguagem hodierna] what are ten, 20, 30 years, in competition with immortality? Pain and pleasure pass like a shadow; life slides away in an instant; it is nothing of itself; its value depends on the use we make of it.” Muito bem-dito, mas isso não é em nada um argumento anti-suicídio!

“The good that we have done is all that remains, and it is that alone which marks its importance.” O final do parágrafo é que é hediondo: quem disse que o bem que fazemos remanesce? Falta-lhe niilismo!, diria um irmão mais velho de Rousseau ou Senhor B., se ele tivesse nascido na Vila da Folha! Os amigos são o bem que fazemos pelo caminho!… ops, espera aí…

“Your death does injury to no one? I understand you! You think the loss I shall sustain by your death of no importance; you deem my affliction of no consequence.” Não, imbecil – teu amigo até te convidou para te matares junto com ele; não sejas tão presunçoso!

“Are not you apprehensive left your death should be attended with a loss more fatal, which would deprive the world and virtue itself of its brightest ornament?” Tudo isso de uma pessoa que você acaba de chamar de wretched?! O que é um fodido para o mundo, se talvez nem Platão tivesse sido nada de mais? Deixe que os outros trabalhem e superem cristianamente sua perda – ou não seriam ovelhinhas dignas de seu bom pastor!

“And if she should survive you, are not you afraid to rouse up remorse in her bosom, which is more grievous to support than life itself?” Mais uma vez subestimando a força mental feminina, Rousseau, apenhei-o no pulo! Ou era só um tique de um de seus personagens?! Mas cuidado quando, ao redigir uma ficção, não acabe recheando a trama apenas de elementos do mundo real – como essa podre religião milenarista que é o alvo de toda a discussão pelo correio! Ou vai acabar estragando a própria “coisa real”, os resquícios de dignidade que ainda pudessem haver em ser cristão!

“do you owe nothing to your native country, and to those unhappy people who may need your existence!” Ah sim, sempre somos mais úteis como potenciais soldadinhos que levarão canhonadas no bucho à próxima briguinha de príncipes que surgir no “jardim Europa”!

“The laws, the laws, young man! did any wise man ever despise them? Socrates, though innocent, out of regard to them refused to quit his prison.” Errado: Sócrates seria muito mais obediente à lei se aceitasse o exílio. Ele foi egoísta e anti-ateniense. Não só isso, mas seu ato de fato derrubou Atenas, iniciou sua lenta decadência… Poder-se-ia inverter a sentença rousseuana com total certeza de não incorrer em erro algum: algum homem sábio já deixou de desprezar as leis de seu país? E é Rousseau quem fala aqui, um revolucionário, ou pelo menos um dos antepassados dos revolucionários europeus que conhecemos e enaltecemos… que ironia repulsiva!

“Thou weak and abject man! what resemblance is there between Cato and thee?” Agora o cristão está fazendo acepção de pessoas? Quando antes não fazia nem entre humanos e pulgas!

“Ah vain wretch! hold thy peace: I am afraid to profane his name by a vindication of his conduct. At that august and sacred name every friend to virtue should bow to the ground, and honour the memory of the greatest hero in silence.” Parece que CATO, O SUICIDA era inexoravelmente adorado pelos moralistas de Pla(n)tão do século de Rousseau! Sendo assim, não é o suicídio que irá macular a imagem de ninguém para as gerações futuras, estou correto?!

“When Rome was no more, it was lawful for the Romans to give up their lives” Cada um tem seu conceito privado de Roma – interessante, pois eu tenho também o meu!

“But thou, what art thou? what hast thou done?” Ainda bem que isso é ficção. Mas estou com medo – extemporâneo, embora – da possibilidade de Rousseau ter induzido mais de um de seus “amigos” à auto-supressão após a leitura de suas delicadas cartinhas, em sua vida pessoal! “Você é um verme, você não tem a grandeza necessária para recorrer ao suicídio” – é como pedir a prova, chamar ao desafio! Imagine o estado de espírito de alguém já muito aflito lendo tais “exortações”!

“Know, that a death, such as you meditate, is shameful and surreptitious. It is a theft committed on mankind in general.” Foda-se! A humanidade nada tem a ver com a droga do suicida, ESSE É TODO O DEBATE, e isso não devia escapar à pena do mais sensaborão dos romancistas! Ajuste a perspectiva, pare de falar da grandeza do mundo, reduza-a até os olhos de uma mosca – ou de um depressivo – se preciso!

“distribute my fortune; make me rich.” Melhor frase de Rousseau em todos esses fragmentos! Enfim, na escala “evolucionária” R. é o elo perdido entre os padrecos metafísicos que escreviam para o público em vez de apenas meditar de si para si mesmos (sem importunar ninguém) e “os filósofos”, no sentido clássico. Rousseau era uma aranha que não suportava tecer teias, e odiava os filósofos mais do que qualquer filósofo médio já os odeia, por necessidade da vocação… Com um ódio não-justificável, isto é! Porque a postura de Hume, Kant ou Schopenhauer contra a filosofia é bem diferente, bem mais digna…

NOTAS ACERCA DAS “CARTAS”

Surpreendentemente os autores das notas a Rousseau parecem não ter relação com os autores das notas a Hume (autênticos padrecos de paróquia), ou então eram os mesmos sujeitos em dias muito mais bem-humorados ou ensolarados de suas vidas, porque não grifei nenhuma passagem em verde, nada li de absurdo nessas linhas finais!

“Is the letter a forgery, or does the author reason only with an intent to be refuted? [toda ficção é forjada, ora] What makes our opinion in this particular dubious, is the example of Robeck, which he cites, and which seems to warrant his own. Robeck deliberated so gravely that he had patience to write a book, a large, voluminous, weighty, and dispassionate book; and when he had concluded, according to his principles, that it was lawful to put an end to our being, he destroyed himself with the same composure that he wrote.” O que dizer desse tal Robeck ou Roebeck ou Röbeck? Nem o conheço e já o estimo tanto, muito mais que Tertuliano (autor de uma homília chamada Sobre a virtude da paciência)!

“how many instances are there, well attested, of men, in every other respect perfectly discreet, who, without remorse, rage, or despair, have quitted life for no other reason than because it was a burden to them, and have died with more composure than they lived?”

“The power of committing suicide is regarded by Pliny as an advantage which men possess even above the Deity himself.

‘Deus non sibi potest mortem consciscere si velit quod homini dedit optimum in tantis vitae paenis.’

Lib. II. Cap. 7”