El blog pretende publicar, principalmente, traducciones al español de textos y poemas de Henry David Thoreau y referencias a trabajos sobre dicho autor.
Es la estancia principal situada en el eje central de la planta baja, justo debajo del antiguo dormitorio de los reyes y alineada con la monumental fuente de La Cascada de los jardines)
Voici que le silence a les seules paroles Qu’on puisse, près de vous, dire sans vous blesser ; Laissons pleuvoir sur vous les larmes des corolles ; Il ne faut que sourire à ce qui doit passer. À l’heure où fatigués nous déposons nos rôles, Au même lit secret les dormeurs vont glisser ; Par chaque doigt tremblant des herbes qui nous frôlent, Vous pouvez me bénir et moi vous caresser. C’est à votre douceur que mon sentier m’amène. De ce sol lentement imprégné d’âme humaine, L’oubli, lent jardinier, extirpe les remords. L’impérissable amour erre de veine en veine ; Je ne veux pas troubler par une plainte vaine L’éternel rendez-vous de la terre et des morts.
Marguerite Yourcenar
"Aquí, el silencio guarda las únicas palabras
que pueden pronunciarse cerca de ti sin herirte;
Deja que las lágrimas de las flores caigan sobre ti;
Solo necesitamos sonreír ante lo que debe pasar.
A la hora en que, cansados, dejamos nuestros papeles,
A la misma cama secreta se deslizarán los durmientes;
Con cada dedo tembloroso de la hierba que nos roza,
Puedes bendecirme y yo acariciarte.
Es a tu dulzura a la que me lleva mi camino.
De esta tierra lentamente impregnada de alma humana,
El olvido, el jardinero lento, arranca el remordimiento.
Dr. Stockmann. It is a petty thing to catch me up on a word,
Mr. Aslaksen. What I mean is only that I got scent of the unbelievable
piggishness our leading men had been responsible for down at the Baths. I can't
stand leading men at any price!—I have had enough of such people in my time.
They are like billy-goats on a young plantation; they do mischief everywhere.
They stand in a free man's way, whichever way he turns, and what I should like
best would be to see them exterminated like any other vermin—. (Uproar.)
Peter Stockmann. Mr. Chairman, can we allow such expressions to
pass?
Aslaksen (with his hand on his bell). Doctor—!
(...)
Dr. Stockmann. Very well, gentlemen, I will say no more about
our leading men. And if anyone imagines, from what I have just said, that my
object is to attack these people this evening, he is wrong—absolutely wide of
the mark. For I cherish the comforting conviction that these parasites—all
these venerable relics of a dying school of thought—are most admirably paving
the way for their own extinction; they need no doctor's help to hasten their
end. Nor is it folk of that kind who constitute the most pressing danger to the
community. It is not they who are most instrumental in poisoning the sources of
our moral life and infecting the ground on which we stand. It is not they who
are the most dangerous enemies of truth and freedom amongst us.
Shouts from all sides. Who then? Who is it? Name! Name!
Dr. Stockmann. You may depend upon it—I shall name them! That
is precisely the great discovery I made yesterday. (Raises his voice.) The most
dangerous enemy of truth and freedom amongst us is the compact majority—yes,
the damned compact Liberal majority—that is it! Now you know! (Tremendous
uproar. Most of the crowd are shouting, stamping and hissing. Some of the older
men among them exchange stolen glances and seem to be enjoying themselves. MRS.
STOCKMANN gets up, looking anxious. EJLIF and MORTEN advance threateningly upon
some schoolboys who are playing pranks. ASLAKSEN rings his bell and begs for
silence. HOVSTAD and BILLING both talk at once, but are inaudible. At last quiet
is restored.)
Aslaksen. As Chairman, I call upon the speaker to withdraw the
ill-considered expressions he has just used.
Dr. Stockmann. Never, Mr. Aslaksen! It is the majority in our
community that denies me my freedom and seeks to prevent my speaking the truth.
Hovstad. The majority always has right on its side.
Billing. And truth too, by God!
Dr. Stockmann. The majority never has right on its side. Never,
I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent,
intelligent man must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the
population in a country? Is it the clever folk, or the stupid? I don't imagine
you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an
absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!—you can
never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should govern the clever
ones! (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes—you can shout me down, I know! But you cannot
answer me. The majority has might on its side—unfortunately; but right it has
not. I am in the right—I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is
always in the right. (Renewed uproar.)
Hovstad. Aha!—so Dr. Stockmann has become an aristocrat since
the day before yesterday!
(...)
Morten. And what are we going to do, when you have made liberal-minded
and high-minded men of us?
Dr. Stockmann. Then you shall drive all the wolves out of the country,
my boys!
(EJLIF looks rather doubtful about it; MORTEN jumps about crying
"Hurrah!")
Mrs. Stockmann. Let us hope it won't be the wolves that will drive you
out of the country, Thomas.
Dr. Stockmann. Are you out of your mind, Katherine? Drive me out!
Now—when I am the strongest man in the town!
Mrs. Stockmann. The strongest—now?
Dr. Stockmann. Yes, and I will go so far as to say that now I am the
strongest man in the whole world.
Morten. I say!
Dr. Stockmann (lowering his voice). Hush! You mustn't say anything
about it yet; but I have made a great discovery.
Mrs. Stockmann. Another one?
Dr. Stockmann. Yes. (Gathers them round him, and says confidentially:)
It is this, let me tell you—that the strongest man in the world is he
who stands most alone.
Mrs. Stockmann (smiling and shaking her head). Oh, Thomas, Thomas!
Petra (encouragingly, as she grasps her father's hands). Father!
Title: An Enemy of the People
Author: Henrik Ibsen
Translator: R. Farquharson Sharp
Release Date: December, 2000 [EBook #2446]
Last updated: May 1, 2019
Language: English
CUANDO LA NATURALEZA DOMINA SOBRE LA HISTORIA, LO QUE SE RIDICULIZA ES LA DISIDENCIA
EL SATÍRICO AFIRMA LA VIDA CONTRA LA NATURALEZA
CONTRA EL SACRIFICIO DEL HOMBRE AL MITO, SEA ÉSTE LA SOCIEDAD SIN CLASES O EL MERCADO LIBRE
Even if we had all the music (it is a fragment of one of the rare early Bach autograph works), it would still be difficult for us to make sense of it. Bach wrote the crazy little piece in 1707, maybe for his own wedding to his first wife Maria Barbara Bach.
EX IDENTITATE QUODLIBET: Para Leibniz, en efecto, todo se calcula o puede calcularse, salvo el individuo, salvo, precisamente, el personaje, innumerable e infinito...
Para Leibniz, en efecto, todo se calcula
o puede calcularse, salvo el individuo, salvo, precisamente, el personaje,
innumerable e infinito.
Aquí está el secreto real, profundo,
decisivo, del pensamiento humano, incluso de su invención: nos pusimos a pensar
porque somos débiles por naturaleza, por nuestra especie, de origen, de
génesis. Tal es el agujero en nuestros órganos que deja a nuestro cuerpo en
falta, es nuestra falla, nuestro vacío, la espina en nuestra carne, las
lagunas, los harapos, las faltas primeras, nuestra debilidad congénita, nuestra
fragilidad, la esencia de nuestra herencia. Su nobleza.
Nosotros los seres humanos somos la asimetría
del mundo, su animal anomalía. Las cosas son; los seres vivos son; nosotros
ex-istimos: esta palabra designa nuestras distancias respecto del equilibrio. Cojeamos;
luego, para sobrevivir, debemos pensar. Esperamos constantemente que pensar
compense nuestra claudicación.
Michel Serres (Figuras del pensamiento)
"Le dur ne dure pas, seul dure le doux" (La Guerre
mondiale).
“And what is love?” said
Pilate,
And washed his hands.
(fragmento, El Dragón y el Unicornio, traducción Guillermo Ruiz)
"La virtud es incalculable porque
es inestimable. El buen destino del hombre no es sino la virtud-o humanidad-es
completamente moral- que solo puede ser aprendida por la propia vida del alma.
Dios no puede calcularla-no tiene filosofía moral- ni ética. Antes de que la
razón pueda aplicarse en esta materia tendrá que limitarse y restringirse-¿cómo
podría hacer este largo viaje paso a paso quien no ha tenido en cuenta adónde
está dirigido. Cómo podría esperar hacer este arduo viaje sin interrupción
quien no tiene un billete hasta su destino?"
(HDT, Diario 3 de Abril de 1842)
Axioma A1: oposición
"Los males y los bienes son opuestos entre sí"
Si un bien o un mal se expresan lingüísticamente, siempre es posible encontrar algún mal (o bien) opuesto.
Teorema T1: "No hay males sin bienes, ni bienes sin males"
También los personajes literarios gozan y padecen, aunque no sea físicamente
Teorema T7: "Los males y los bienes cambian según el tiempo y el lugar
Teorema T8: "Los males y los bienes varían según los agentes valorativos y sus estimaciones"
Teorema T9: (de contextualidad): "La satisfacción de los valores depende de los contextos de valoración y, por ende, también los bienes y los males"
Lema 2: "Sólo desaparecerán los males (y los bienes) si desaparece la vida". Es consecuencia directa del teorema T9.
Axioma A4: componibilidad
"Los bienes y los males son componibles"
Teorema T11: "Para un ser vivo, los bienes y males siempre son compuestos"
Postulado P3: transmisibilidad
"Los bienes y males son transmisibles de unos sujetos a otros"
Hipótesis teórica HT8: limitación
"En un sistema axiológico que se aplica a situaciones concretas, el logro de un bien o un mal está acotado por una función de limitación, que depende del sistema FS, de las capacidades del sujeto S y de la circunstancia concreta en la que S está ubicado"
Hipótesis teórica HT9: mutabilidad
"Los funcionales o sistemas axiológicos FS cambian a lo largo del tiempo, tanto en el caso de agentes individuales como colectivos"
(Javier Echeverría, Ciencia del bien y el mal, págs. 501 y ss)
"Some people pretend to be very friendly with finely phrase words, and yet at the same time they think/feel in their hearts: the same way that the goldsmith’s boy does."
"La humildad, cierto es, pierde su propia sustancia, su esencia más fragante, al conocerla; pero no tiene nombre y vaga por los espacios huérfanos, al ignorarla.
(...)
Y el oficiante (...) se guarda bajo siete llaves su dolor y su misterio, y sonríe con la sonrisa humilde del mártir que duda de la fecundidad de su martirologio.
Quizás nada más bello puede haber que el dar la razón al que la tiene. Por ser una la razón no es patrimonio de nadie, como el color del cielo, o mirando las cosas desde el otro lado, es patrimonio de todos, igual que el agua fresca de la fuente.
(...)
De muy poco vale, quizá de nada, incluso, creerse dueño de la razón o propietario de la verdad, cuando la razón, en una finta, en un esguince airoso, con un gracioso y desorientador mohín, nos enseña a cada instante, una verdad tan nueva como ignorada, tan delicada y bella como incierta y misteriosa.
Ha de acumularse mucho dolor (...) para que la sonrisa vuelva a cobrar la honestidad que perdió (....).
Y habrá de hacerse con sencilla humildad, como el caballero que entrega de rodillas al romero leproso que quiere lavar su lepra en el último monasterio de todos los confines, para que no se rompa ese último y delgado hilo por el que la razón, todavía y como por elegante caridad, nos nutre."
CJC
( La Vanguardia, 4 junio 1950)
"Una interpretación no puramente anecdótica de la figura de Salamanca- el hombre que tuvo la obsesión de hacer, como Godoy tuvo la de mandar y don Amadeo no tuvo la de reinar- echaría mucha luz sobre ese tiempo oscuro y arrebatador en el que todo se empezó y nada, que no fueran las propias vidas, se llegó a consumar.
(...)
Es curioso observar que la historia de España- que es una historia a saltos, con hallazgos insospechados y simas de un negror inexplicable- ha sido escrita por gentes que prefirieron siempre, ante las proporciones de la empresa, obrar a pensar, tirar para adelante: olvidándose, con un olímpico desprecio, organizar la retaguardia. Diríase que el hacer por el puro deleite de hacer-el hacer porque sí, sin más ni más- fuera una de las determinantes de lo español: como el amor, no a algo ni a alguien, sino al amor mismo, o el morir, no por nada ni por nadie, sino, precisamente, por morir.
(...)
César González-Ruano, que conoce a fondo la silueta romántica de Salamanca, sabe hasta qué punto aquel loco genial intuyó hace un siglo lo que hoy ya todos entendemos: el secreto de saber que la única forma de perpetuarse es saber arder"
Gray, J. Thomson, J. (2026, August 04). The idea of progress is a dangerous lie, with John Gray [Video]. IAI Player https://iai.tv/video/the-idea-of-progress-is-a-dangerous-lie-with-john-gray
There
are what I would call the logic of situation, the logic of events. And
they're complex because they can involve many of them are the results of
previous human decisions or non decisions. There are conflicts over.
Well, let me give an example. Francis Fukuyama is, with whom I've had
many conversations and debates, argued that history had ended and which,
by which he meant there wouldn't be any deep ideological conflicts like
there were in the Cold War about the best society. There'd be some kind
of democratic capitalism. It's rather comical now because democratic
capitalism of the sort he thought would go right throughout the world
has disappeared in America. So it didn't happen.But I think behind it
was a sort of deeper illusion than the end of issues, the end of
geography.Because what we're actually witnessing now in the world is
the return of geography. What, what conflicts are about now are
resources and control of resources and access and the transit of
resources as through the straight of Hormuz or whatever happened to the
day. There are lots of counter rumors and rumors about some kind of
peace deal being of some kind having been called up. Other big straits
like the straight of Malacca, where more of world trade goes through.
Because one of the things that was assumed by the liberal or neoliberal
theory of progress or myth of progress was maritime freedom. The world
would become a single trading bloc and which it did was for a long time.And these traits like Hormuz and Malacca and others, Panama Canal and
Suez Canal, they would all remain under international law, free maritime
time transit zones. Well, what's happened now is that Trump, through a
kind of perverse and paradoxical logic of events, by triggering this war
in Iran which he did, has enabled the Iranian regime to secure control
of this, of the straight of Hormuz, which whatever happens, they're not
going to give up whatever they say, because it's an immensely powerful
weapon which they can have used and can use in future. It's like a kind
of geopolitical nuclear weapon. Thing about nuclear weapons is you can't
easily use them twice.You get wiped out. In the meantime, you. They
can keep on using this at any time in the future when they want or
believe they. They need to need to use it.
So that's a geography people.
You see people throw words, oh, determinism, fatalism, blah, blah, blah.
It's all nonsense. Geography is a set of unalterable facts which don't
change. You can get around them. You can have land transit, though it's
more expensive. You can, you can have agreements over particular
straits. The Iranians are saying that people will be able to use it if
they pay a toll, but not in dollars, have to be in yuan or crypto or
whatever there are ways of dealing with. But it's permanent. And a lot
of the conflicts in history are about geography or constrained, heavily
constrained by geography. So there is human agency. Trump exercised it.
Unfortunately, Trump exercised a high degree. He didn't have to launch
this war. It was his whim. He didn't think about it. By the way, just as
a factor here which might be relevant. The, the former head, the then
head of the Chinese Communist Party in 2003 gave a speech in which he
said, we are carefully studying this Strait of Malacca and other straits
in the world over 20 years ago. So they've been thinking about that for
20 years. I think I can say confidently that Trump hasn't thought about
any of these straits for more than 20 consecutive minutes or possibly
even seconds, but that he had agency, all right, Plenty of agency.
If he hadn't launched this,
none of this would have happened. We'd be in a situation which, though
imperfect as all human situations are, would be much better than the one
we're in, and there wouldn't be the war that in fact occurred with all
the devastation around it. That was his human issue. So. Yes, but that's
a good illustration of my earlier point. What he did has closed the
options to the future. One option which people is getting back to what
was there before. It's gone forever. Now that they've got sovereign
control of, they're never going to give it up. So there are instances or
spikes of personalities, agency, agency in history and of course, Trump
example. But if you look person in this case it was. Or someone like
Jesus Christ, for example, the presence of Jesus Christ or Winston
Churchill changing the course of history. Yes, yes. So you wouldn't
therefore be inclined to some kind of apathy, quietism, withdrawal,
choice. It's a choice. I mean, if you. I see my role as simply
illuminating the truth or as close as I can get to it, of, of our human
situation, both in general and in particular times.
Now, you can then, as I say,
make a choice. You can. You can choose to launch or take part in a
political project in which ameliorates or mitigates the human situation,
at least for a while, which I think is very noble, many people do. Or
you can take a choice to become a monk or a nun or join a monastery or
devote yourself to beauty or. Or even to pleasure. Oscar Wilde said
somewhere, life of pleasure is not for. For everyone. The heroic life of
pleasure, he said, is much harder than the mediocre life of happiness
or contentment. If you want to do that, that's within your capacity. I
want to leave people free to make these choices themselves, both
individually and and collectively. There isn't just one response. So I'm
not. What I'm absolutely not is a missionary or a gospel for some idea
of salvation, either for individuals or for society. I just want to
illuminate where we are. And I get the reputation of being a pessimist
because I go against this modern mythology of that progress is always
possible, that civilization could be better than it's ever been, and
that once you get into that circumstance, it can be made permanent. But
look, if you go back to Greek drama or Shakespeare or Hinduism or
Buddhism, none of these assumptions are made about.
About the future of mankind
being. Being potentially better than it's ever been in the past. It's a
Western. It's a Western, a modern Western myth. And I would say it's a
kind of neochristian myth because it comes about by secularizing certain
Christian assumptions about old beliefs, sacred time, about human
history being meaningful. But Christianity has an advantage here. I'm an
atheist, so I'm not a Christian, but has the advantage. It's not the
meaning of history, though there is one, is mysterious except a God, so
it can't be falsified. And that implies a certain humility in human
action. That's to say, I think. I mean, a real Christian, I think, would
have to regard Trump's claim, or the claim of some Trump supporters
that they're acting under God's instructions as blasphemous. We don't
know what God wants out of them. We don't know what. What the underlying
meaning of history. And we can't know actually, in at least the
Christianity of Augustine.
Think of us now and in the recent, in the last hundred years. Evil is
error. You make a mistake. But I think that's a shallow view because
there's something. Schopenhauer recognized this by the way. There's
something in human life which is worse than error, which is what he
called disinterested malevolence. Cruelty. Is cruelty an error as
someone who's chronically or demically cruel. Cruel because they just
don't understand something.That's what Socrates would say. If they
really understood that what true they would. I don't accept that. My
view is that in that respect, closer to Christianity, there can be just
sheer.
The will to domination, the will to harm. Other people can exist in
human beings by itself. So we're all mixed or all human beings. I think
this is a, a true feature of Christianity. Human beings are inherently
self divided. They can do things knowing they're wrong sometimes if they
can even according to the Christian, do things because they know
they're wrong. They like to, like to transgress. They like to assert
that was the ancient understanding of Lucifer or the devil. Now don't
believe in Lucifer or the devil, but I think that's a, an interesting
metaphor for the way human beings live. But your question was can is the
idea of progress dependent on an idea of the good? I think it is, yeah.
I think it is or at least of depends on an idea that some goods are
universally human or nearly universally human. So in Thomas Hobbes,
who's a thinker, I'm much influenced by the new Leviathans. He wrote the
great book Leviathan in the middle of the 17th century. He argues that
all human beings, if unless they have a need not have a supreme good or
someone problem, but they have a summer malum which means a supreme
evil. He thinks that all human beings have as their greatest impulse,
their strongest impulse, fear of violent death at the hands of other
human beings. Now I think that's a very strong impulse, but I think he
was wrong about that because that isn't the strongest impulse of human
beings in all circumstances. Some, indeed many in some even in his time,
in the religious wars of his time, were willing to risk or even risk
violent death at the hands or even go to Certain violent death at the
hands of other human beings for the sake of some kind of meaning in
their life. And that's where Hobbes, though I admire Hobbes very much as
a writer and a thinker, he's the one that's perhaps political thinker
that's influenced me the most. He was just wrong about this. He. Beings
are not satisfied with bare existence. They want some kind of meaning in
their life. And if that meaning is challenged or risked or attacked by
others, they'll resist even at the cost of their lives. If you don't
understand that, you don't. Which I think Hobbes didn't actually. He
says somewhere he said, well, people can lose their lives through
trifles. He's thinking of things like jewels or a sense of honor. But
when he writes about religious fanaticism, which actually threatened his
life, he had to fleet and go and live in Europe for a while.
But
does the contract only work if you view it as inviolable? Well, none of
them are really inviolable because all of these institutions are. All
forms of authority are mortal. But term, they have to be attached. I
mean, I see what you're getting at. They have to be attached to some
script. The contract isn't between the subject and the sovereign. It's
the sovereign's authority emerges from a kind of covenant within the
subject.
They've got to be agreed on or
share something. So they need. There has to be, I think some kind of
range of stories or range of. There has to be some sort of common idea,
however vague about what their, what they constitute as a collectivity.
And this is why thinking that there could be a world Leviathan, a global
Leviathan or even a. I don't think all the virus are national. Some are
local, some are regional, some are imperial, some are. There can be
many city states. I've recently been in Singapore, they have. That's a
state that was invented, it's a startup state and they have a clear
conception of themselves that they worked out they invented. It did
depend a lot on the issue of one man, Lee Kuan Yew but it was invented.
The idea is we are multicultural. It's in this definition that we are
multicultural but we share an idea of or a covenant in which we all get
protected and we subscribe to common laws and so on. Now I don't think
that's necessarily achievable everywhere, maybe nowhere else actually. I
mean maybe you need a Lee, Kanye or de Gaulle or whoever to achieve
something like that. But I, I think you're right. It can't just be a
legal agreement because legal agreements, they don't have this
overriding authority. But remember Hobbes doesn't say it's inviolable.
He said if the sovereign threatens the life of the subject. Is that at
the point of the guillotine though? Is that at the point of the
guillotine?
(...)
He (Hobbes) says the. He says the. The sovereign shouldn't listen too much to the
richest people of the realm. He says listen to it shouldn't be advised
by the richest people in the realm because if he is, he'll. He'll
forget. He'll forget the claims of the rest. It's good advice
These figures mirror the effects of chemical abortion drugs such as RU-486.
Artículo 607 bis.
1. Son reos de delitos de lesa humanidad quienes
cometan los hechos previstos en el apartado siguiente como parte de un
ataque generalizado o sistemático contra la población civil o contra una
parte de ella.
(...)
2. Los reos de delitos de lesa humanidad serán castigados:
1.º Con la pena de prisión permanente revisable si causaran la muerte de alguna persona.
2.º Con la pena de prisión de 12 a 15 años si
cometieran una violación, y de cuatro a seis años de prisión si el hecho
consistiera en cualquier otra agresión sexual.
3.º Con la pena de prisión de 12 a 15 años si
produjeran alguna de las lesiones del artículo 149, y con la de ocho a
12 años de prisión si sometieran a las personas a condiciones de
existencia que pongan en peligro su vida o perturben gravemente su salud
o cuando les produjeran alguna de las lesiones previstas en el artículo
150. Se aplicará la pena de prisión de cuatro a ocho años si cometieran
alguna de las lesiones del artículo 147.
Artículo 147.
1. El que, por cualquier medio o procedimiento,
causare a otro una lesión que menoscabe su integridad corporal o su
salud física o mental, será castigado, como reo del delito de lesiones
con la pena de prisión de tres meses a tres años o multa de seis a doce
meses, siempre que la lesión requiera objetivamente para su sanidad,
además de una primera asistencia facultativa, tratamiento médico o
quirúrgico. La simple vigilancia o seguimiento facultativo del curso de
la lesión no se considerará tratamiento médico.
