Deliliğe Övgü olur mu? Tabii ki olmaz dediğinizi duyar gibi oluyorum. Zaten Erasmus'un da amacı bu değil. O insanların övünç duyarak yaptığı nice delilikleri överek yererken, diğer yandan da lazım olan "deliliği" eleştirerek aslında övüyor. Kısacası kitapta Erasmus çağının dini, siyasal ve toplumsal çarpıklıklarını över gibi görünerek eleştiriyor. Bunu da Delilik'in kendisini yaptırıyor. Yani kitapta okurla konuşan Delilik'in kendisidir. Kitap neredeyse 500 yıl önce yazılmasına rağmen güncelliğini koruyan bir eserdir.
Kitapla ilgili daha fazla bilgi ve özet için: http://kitapokurum.blogspot.com/2018/...

La Follia, resa da Erasmo come una dea, parla intessendo il suo elogio e rivolgendosi come in un’arringa alla folla che invita a constatare l’evidenza delle sue tesi, prima su tutte che essa, la Follia appunto, è componente costitutiva dell’uomo e dell’esistenza. Il saggio, datato 1511 e dedicato all’amico Tommaso Moro, è però un encomio in forma satirica che prendendo la follia come pretesto goliardico cela la sua vera identità di saggio dotto arricchito di fini allusioni classiche e di una sicura conoscenza della realtà del suo tempo che è qui oggetto di denuncia. Erasmo parla infatti dei governi mal gestiti del suo tempo e della corruzione della Chiesa, lui monaco schivo all’offerta del titolo di cardinale, lui fine umanista che anticipò riflessioni filosofiche dell’epoca contemporanea, lui certo intenditore e studioso della Patristica che non si schierò nemmeno col movimento riformatorio dello stesso Lutero. È un attacco sistematico a tutto il suo tempo con insito un intento pedagogico rivolto ad un ipotetico uomo politico, un re che sappia essere esempio di condotta morale e non mero detentore di un potere. Tutto lo scritto è infine teso a confermare un’estrema fiducia nella ragione umana affinché si realizzi un mondo migliore.
E dunque poiché parlare in modo razionale della follia non è possibile, non è conoscibile, perché ciò che lo è necessita di strutture concettuali che possano ingabbiare e spiegare, allora è meglio farla parlare. Follia è libertà dagli affanni, Follia è modesta, sincera, trasparente, ha una genealogia da far invidia, è presente in tutte le età della vita, è tra gli dei e sulla Terra, è nell’ amore e nell’amicizia. La vita stessa è dono della Follia, la società è Follia e la si può ritrovare tra grammatici, poeti, oratori, letterati, giuristi, filosofi, teologi (“i più matti di tutti”), monaci e religiosi, principi, sovrani, cardinali, papi, vescovi tedeschi, presso i classici e nelle Sacre Scritture. Anche la religione è una forma di follia, nondimeno l’aspirazione alla vita eterna. Ma alla fine cos’è la follia? È istinto, passione necessaria che integra la condizione umana la quale non può né essere compresa né vissuta senza la componente emotiva in una vita che non contempla la perfetta felicità.
Da leggere perché le tesi del filosofo godono di un’efficacia e di una brillantezza che le rende ancora oggi estremamente attuali.

Ljudski život je neka vrsta komedije u kojoj ljudi igraju svaki pod svojom maskom i svaki svoju ulogu, dok ih reditelj ne odvede sa pozornice.

Molim Boga da me ludilom spase, jer se prokletim razumom ne umjedoh spasiti.
Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar

Ludaci i dijeca uvijek govore istinu.
Umberto Eko

O, vi nebesnici, podarite mi ludilo! Ludilo da najzad u samoga sebe vjerujem.
Fridrih Niče

Samo ti znaš moju ludost.
Isus Hrist - u mističnim psalmima kada se obraća ocu.

Ono što je ludo u boga, vrijedi nego sva pamet u ljudi.
Apostol Pavle

Srce je mudrih ljudi u kući gdje je žalost, a srce bezumnih u kući gdje je veselje.
Solomon

I evo odmah na početku da vam kažem da ne miješate ludost i glupost. Bog je bio previše milostiv kada nam je podario nebeska dobra, a u ta dobra leži i Ludost. Ona je podarena, a glupost nije. Dakle, ludost je svojstvena svim ljudima dok glupost mi docnije hvatamo i u tome nastaju sve nedaće ljudske. Roterdamski nam je u ovom dijelu predočio koliko je važna ludost po jedinku.

Zar ne kažu neki kako je mudar čovjek onaj koji ima velikog iskustva; a evo da vas pitam, zar ludak nema najviše tog iskustva? Ludak hrli kroz život samo njemu znanom intezitetu, ne zazire od smrti, ne haje za brige i nevolje koje ga prate i ne zavarava se nadom u buduću sreću. Njega ne odvraća od bilo kakve namjere ni stid (jer ga nema) ni opasnost (jer ne razmišlja). Dok pametan vodi život vita contemplativa dotle je ludak skloniji životu vita activa i tako je kadar da stiče mudrost tj. uči se u nevolji. Pogledajte kako samo lijepo i mladoliko izgledaju ti ludaci jer ludost ih drži u mladosti koja zaista brzo prolazi, a s druge strane zaustavlja starost koja stiže neumorivo. Shodno tome, može se reći da su ludaci daleko srećniji; ne znači li to da se sreća krije u ludosti? Roterdamski je najviše kritikovao Stoike, naročito Seneku. On je smatrao da Seneka mudracu uskraćuje strast i time mu uskraćuje da bude čovjek, nego tako od njega stvara nekog novog boga koji nikada nije bio niti će ikada postojati. Kao da mumificira čovjeka u kome nema ništa ljudskog. Isto je tako i Niče isticao da treba i strasti da dođu do izražaja, taj Dionizijevski, iracionalni momenat. Eto to je dobročistvo, ili pak ne dobročinstvo ludosti?

Sve je začinjeno ludošću, ona nas održava u životu, štaviše, ona čini da je život podnošljiv. Treba da budemo slavni poklonici Ludosti. Zapljeskajmo za Ludost!

Erasmus Aydınlanma çağının çekirdeğini oluşturan hümanizma ruhunun tohumlarını atan, aydınlanmanın öncül figürlerinden biri. Deliliğe Övgü ise kendisinin tabiriyle pek ciddi olmayan, dostu Thomas Morus'u keyiflendirmek için kaleme aldığı bir metin. Bir anlayış kırılıp yerine bir başka anlayış ikame olurken yazılmış ve döneme sinmiş değişim rüzgarlarının bütünüyle hissedilebileceği bir klasik Deliliğe Övgü. Tarihin en büyük zihin kırılmasının izdüşümlerinden biri olan bu eseri okumak bana göre okuyucuya "bir kitap okudum hayatım değişti" dedirtecek kitaplardan. Erasmus bu eserde başta Hıristiyanlığın köklerini aldığı Stoa düşüncesi olmak üzere, "bilgeliğe", çileciliğe, hazzı yok sayan birçok muhafazakar değere saldırıyor. Ama buna karşın Hıristiyanlığı bir öz olarak kabul ediyor ve kendisi açısından bir "gerçek dindarlık" tarifi yapıyor. Hiciv, güldürü ve felsefenin bir arada kullanıldığı eskimemiş, eskimeyecek bir yapıt.

A través de quinientos años nos llega la voz certera e irónica de una figura del Renacimiento: Erasmo de Rotterdam (1466-1536), quien sin él quererlo contribuyó con sus observaciones vertidas en esta obra a la Reforma Protestante emprendida por Lutero (1483-1546) algunos años después, ya que este último tomó algunas ideas de la obra del sabio holandés.

Erasmo crea una especie de ensayo en forma de monólogo y quien habla es un personaje muy singular: la locura. Pero la locura entendida, o al menos así lo entendí yo, como la necedad, la candidez, la estulticia, la insensatez; quien habla es un personaje sin pretensiones, ni ínfulas de grandeza, al contrario es alguien humilde, despreocupado, sin malicia e inspirado por la naturaleza.

Desde esa postura, Erasmo crítica acremente a la sociedad de su tiempo que en esencia sigue siendo la misma que quinientos años después. En especial se ensaña con los gobernantes, los eruditos y el clero. Pero también nos pone en su perspectiva particular la condición humana, dejándonos ver que es mejor vivir “engañado” o en la ilusión que en la amarga realidad.

En la parte final el autor hace su particular interpretación de las Sagradas Escrituras y él encuentra una afinidad natural de la religión cristiana con la “locura” y nos dice que esta religión parece relacionarse mucho menos claramente con la sabiduría. Para muestra basta un botón:

“Padre, perdónalos porque no saben lo que hacen.”

“Even the wise man must play the fool if he wishes to beget a child.”

A little background, if you please. This was written in the same century as Shakespeare and Cervantes, check. He lived in the Netherlands, check. His father was a Catholic Priest, check. He was an ordained Roman Catholic priest, check. He is considered the point man for the early ‘humanist movement,’ check. He wrote this in a week while hanging with his friend Thomas More, the ‘Utopia’ guy, check. He never visited the Czech Republic, check. Waiter, check?

This encomium, a word that he uses frequently, will take you a couple of hours to read. It is probably a hundred or so dense pages, although it is a skip in the park when compared to More’s “Utopia,” which has been read.

There are references to everything and everyone. These include the ancient Greeks, the Philosophers, the mythological Gods, Homer, Virgil, and a whole lot of ranting about Christ and the Church.

It is absolutely a satirical examination of society in general, at times it is wickedly funny, but he was not an Apologist. And no one can hide under his words; from Euripides to Seneca and the Stoics to the Pope.

His story is told through a doppelganger, Folly, a female who has little patience for pretense or hypocrisy, as her name would suggest. And since all is folly, nothing serious can stand in its way. This has significant merit. He is pugnacious and he vilifies all professions; lawyers, kings, artists, priests, scientists, soldiers, scholars, writers, all who would claim that their work has importance and weight.

He makes the plausible argument that all is folly, and that the serious folk waste away their health and their lives stuck in the miasma of their over inflated occupation's value and its worth.

He shows no mercy. It is quite impressive to ponder the quiddities and the zeitgeist of the time through one set of eyes.

If you have a few hours and want to hear another side of the story of life, this is inexpensive and short. It has been translated into many languages, so if that lends credence to this philippic, well, there you are.

To this reader, it holds no more weight than any other treatise. It is one man’s opinion.

You may, permission unnecessary, become a disciple of the god of Folly, without shame. And, in fact, with Praise.

Grappig boek waarin Erasmus elke groep in de samenleving uitmaakt voor idioot. Het wordt al snel duidelijk dat hij 'dwaasheid' juist als positief ziet; we doen allemaal veel te wijs! Terloops maakt hij ook nog even de aflaatverkoop belachelijk, en de tientallen feestdagen van de katholieke kerk.

This has got to be the oldest book I’ve yet to read, 1509. And, appropriately enough, it strives to be the wisest, but cleverly (ironically?) disguising itself as a praise of folly. Erasmus makes oodles of valid points and doesn’t lack in eloquence either, but it’s something of an obstacle course to get through. In all fairness, Erasmus is a splendid sophist, limber linguist and a sophisticated syllogist, one seemingly as partial to hearing himself pontificate as I am to alliterations…and yet the man does go on, and on, and on. Sure, there’s plenty to say in praise of folly, after all there are entirely too many happy fools, and Erasmus isn’t alone in noting this either, in fact Ecclesiastes had done this extensively…increasing knowledge increases sorrow and all that, both are correct, but then again here were are reading them, therefore increasing knowledge, therefore drifting further away from sunny shores of ignorance. Erasmus has some interesting and downright heretical (or at the very least rebellious) views for the time and some oh so clever ways of turning phrases, most of which consist of paragraph long sentences, but as far as reading for pleasure goes this one leaves much to be desired. Despite a low page count it’s something of a slog and definitely a challenge. Conceptually and historically fascinating and might delight fans of ancient and antiquated thinkers, but far from a casual pleasure, more along the lines of an experimental and/or endurance exercise.

Again I admit that I'm impressed with a classical author. From his obviously sympathetic view of women at a time when that wasn't exactly common, to his deep understanding of human nature, Erasmus really isn't what I expected from a Catholic clergyman. As with  Baldassare Castiglione I found his description of aging to be both poignant and incredibly accurate. When I read Folly's claim that old people enter a kind of second childhood in which they regain some of their lost innocence and wonder, I remembered the exact same thing happened with my grandpa. Somehow I didn't quite make the connection myself, but Erasmus summed it up and described it beautifully.

This was another book that I know I would have enjoyed more if it hadn't been required reading, but if it hadn't, I don't know if I ever would have gotten around to reading it. Since I had to take notes and analyze the subject matter for bias and such, I didn't get to read the book straight through, which is how I prefer to read things I enjoy. Overall I think that this is an incredibly insightful book, and neither is it too dry despite it's age.

Ik ben altijd verrast als een werk uit een tijd die zo ver van ons afstaat nog zoveel zeggingskracht heeft. Een les in nederigheid.

Let Stupidity Reign
7 August 2016 - Amsterdam

tWell, what better book to read when you are in the Netherlands than Erasmus' tributed to stupidity. Okay, I'm sure he is not being serious, though it is difficult to tell at times, particularly when he suggests that by being an idiot one does become healthy, wealthy (but not necessarily wise – actually, that would be quite the opposite). Actually, healthy is probably not necessarily something that comes either, but certainly wealth seems to come to a lot of people who simply don't seem to have all that many brains, and that a lot of people are running around with pieces of paper that seem to claim that they are actually really intelligent, but in reality are complete idiots. Actually, that is not at all surprising because my Dad, who was an academic, has actually confirmed that one thing that academics seem to lack is common sense – they may have a university degree, but they haven't made their way in the school of life where they learn that doing stupid things doesn't necessarily pay off.

tActually, what Erasmus was getting at was that in the Europe of his time it seemed to benefit one a lot more to be stupid than to actually be wise. For instance, there are a lot of philosophers out there that don't seem to have all that much to rub together – actually being an artist doesn't seem to do all that much for you, at least while you are alive: as people seem to suggest, the only famous poet is a dead poet (and I suspect that is also the case when it comes to other artists, unless of course you happen to be Justin Beiber, but then again I guess he goes to prove that Erasmus actually has a point).

tLook, everybody could rile against bankers, lawyers, and the like, but the problem is that as long as there is money and trade they are going to be with us – which is probably why Lenin, rather unsuccessfully mind you, tried to do away with commerce. Actually, we need to also consider the world in which Erasmus was running around – it wasn't like today where the bankers, lawyers, and such, would actually be the rulers of the country – that was the job of the aristocrats (the Netherlands was still a couple of hundred years away from becoming a republic) – however they still managed to dig their fingers into anything and everything that they could (and if you wanted to see a prime example of stupidity then you need look no further than the aristocracy). It reminds me of a quote by Kurt Vonnegut – the job of a lawyer is to move money from one point to another and take some for themselves, though the reality is not a bit but as much as they can get away with (they'll take all of it if they can generate enough billing hours).

tYet this is the foolishness that Erasmus is poking fun at – the fact that people are so caught up with the acquisition of wealth that they don't actually see the beauty of the world around them. In fact as long as they can surround themselves in a bubble of niceness (such as the Gardens by the Bay in Singapore – and that is a classic example – the city itself is beautiful, but jump across the straights of Malacca you will see an industrial hell hole – externalising to the extreme), it doesn't matter what goes on outside of their circle of comfort as long as it doesn't disturb that circle. However this is foolishness to the extreme – they want their comfort but comfort doesn't necessarily equate with happiness. I have lived in a big house with a swimming pool, but as soon as all my friends left after a three day party I was all alone again, and it all fell apart as well (and it wasn't as if I had money either – I didn't – it was just that I managed to score a room in a really cool sharehouse, and when I everybody moved out I was left with the entire house to myself).

tThey say that there is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people, and I am sure this was going through Erasmus' mind at the time. The thing that makes a person stupid is because they don't ask questions, and the reason that they don't ask questions is because they don't want to seem to be stupid, but by not wanting to appear stupid they make themselves stupid by not asking any questions. At other times the reason they don't ask questions is because they believe that they already know the answer, or if the answer is wrong that is irrelevant because as far as they are concerned if that is their answer then that is the correct answer. Have you ever tried to argue with a stupid person? If you have then you'll know what I mean (though, of course, because we don't accept their answer, and their answer is actually right, then it makes us the stupid person).

tThe conclusion of the book comes down to a criticism of the church. Like Martin Luther, Erasmus went to Rome and was horrified at what he saw. In fact he completely ruined his career by writing books such as Praise of Folly, however I will leave it at that because I am reading the next section of the book, and I will deal with criticism of then church therein. t

Tamam klasik, kült, âlim zeka filan ama bu 15. y.y. veya mitolojiden manyamış abilerin de kendinden sonraki nesillere bu kadar gerizekalı muamelesi yapması bir tuhaf gelmeye başladı.( Haklı olsalar bile !)