Olavo de Carvalho was a better public intellectual than a civil servant – India press release

A losing. Anglicism is useful when, in the midst of chatter post mortem social media, I see a professor with a federal public exam saying that she finds her husband charming because he was sued by Olavo de Carvalho. Who is Olavo de Carvalho? A writer without a degree recognized as a philosopher spontaneously by a mountain of people. Who was the husband in question? A philosophy professor with a federal exam. An anonymous among so many doctors of philosophy who take the exam, and who is not known for any idea of ​​his own.

If Olavo de Carvalho had enough clout to stop someone, it could provide a charm. But who has the prerogative to take pictures making a face of Jesus Christ looking upwards and saying “I am a brave persecuted politician ready to lay down his life for my ideals!” are the olavetes and the bolsonarists. They are people like Oswaldo Eustáquio, who entered prison and left in wheelchairs. Prison, by the way, which he arrived at without due process. Gone are the days when being on the left could lead to prison or death. The cost of being a left-wing intellectual in a federal government is nil. The social cost of being a publicist and tweeting slogans to your class is zero. On the contrary: anyone who wants to live a relaxed existence and play for the fans, let them be left wing and run to adhere to the slogans.

The individual face of defeat

In this scenario of massification, which makes people anonymous, getting noticed by Olavo de Carvalho is a feat. In the meantime, the academic has come to acquire a new charm for women not for an act of bravery (there is no bravery in playing for the crowd), but for having established herself as a melting pot in the amidst the crowd of Olavo’s enemies. It is the tacit recognition of a colossal asymmetry, because the academic could do nothing against Olavo to make Roxane proud.

It is impressive that these people do not see this type of statement as an admission of defeat in life. Who are you? A footer in the life of a guy you hate and at the same time you use to be someone in life. Use it in a way that even counts in the spouse’s appreciation.

It’s a sad sight. These are people I have lived with, whom I loved, and with whom I have spent hours talking about a multitude of subjects unrelated to the politics of the moment. Is it still possible to do this stuff on the outskirts of a federal university? Not anytime soon, especially since they’re all closed and everyone’s home, tweeting. Without looking at someone’s face other than your own bubble, it’s easy to imagine the other as a demon, a sub-human. When the “demons” showed their numerical strength, they went into a tailspin.

The impression this gives is that these people have become one-dimensional over the past few years. They are what shows up on social media, and they can’t imagine anyone being more than what shows up on social media. It seems that before dehumanizing others, they dehumanized themselves. They have become walking caricatures, incapable of a deep appreciation of human beings.

But also, if they dared to see in Olavo someone who is sometimes right and sometimes not, who was nice to some and mean to others – in short, if they saw him as a human being and not as Satan incarnate – what would be the meaning of their life? They have revolved their identity around the idea that they fight evil. To deny that all of this effort was directed at a human being comes at a huge emotional cost. It means admitting that you are a malevolent couch activist, unrelated to public debate. For this psychological reason, the dehumanization of the “extremist” thrives.

Internet takes the place of the university

Olavo de Carvalho does not fail to represent the triumph of the Internet over the university as the domain par excellence of the clash of ideas. Between the university and the streets full of illiterates, there is an abyss. If the illiterate are reluctant to discuss political ideas that are more removed from ordinary life (discussing the battles of city councilors is much more feasible for them than discussing the ideological orientation of the agents of the federal plan), the middle class, on the other hand, , is the area of ​​controversy. On weekends and in the hallways of the workplace, he enjoys discussing politics and ideology. So that everything is not a flash in the pan, the middle class has used the newspapers to amplify its words, to make them known outside their immediate entourage. For this, the individual had to write his thought in a few strokes and submit it to the appreciation of the editor – who might even appreciate it, but who had other things to publish in this space limited by the quantity of paper. .

If your article had come out and people had decided to read it, your feeling would have been more that of a castaway putting a letter in a bottle than that of a tweeter. After all, the paper doesn’t react and you wouldn’t have any idea what strangers are thinking unless they bothered to send a letter to the editor and the editor delivered it to you.

On the Internet, we can all write whatever we want; and, please our writings, the only barrier will be that of language. The advent of the comment box took the writer out of his loneliness and allowed him to get an idea of ​​his readership. The lack of readers must be the greatest obstacle to writing. With the internet, it has become easy for the reader to leave their comments and put the idea that no one is reading them out of the writer’s mind. The Internet therefore ends up being an incentive to write and reflect.

Once there is a busy comment box, it eventually builds up a community of people interested in a certain topic. All of this happens without the supervision of anyone outside the community.

And so, the Olavo de Carvalho phenomenon emerged. Banned from newspapers and magazines, he hosted himself on the internet. He started a blog (the one with the words “Sapientiam autem non vincit malitia” top), created a profile on Orkut, invented a telephone course (spread by networks). He went to fight and won. Certainly, in terms of reach, he did better as a public intellectual than any academic paid by the Treasury to do political propaganda. As for the departments of philosophy, then, there is no mention. No one calls Marilena Chauí Lula’s guru, nor Giannotti an FHC guru. It is tacitly recognized that both have no relevance in the formulation of the ideas of the parties they defend. Giannotti himself was, against Merquior (who did not use the Internet and worked a lot in the newspapers), a militant against the exercise of philosophical activity in politics; he preferred to confine it to the examination of texts by deceased authors. Olavo de Carvalho is accused of being the intellectual mentor of a Brazilian political movement that has come to the head of the executive. The latest Brazilian thinker to receive this accusation is Oliveira Vianna, a varguismo ideologue.

I don’t think that public reach and influence on governments are the best parameters for evaluating an intellectual. The government may have affinities with totalitarianism; the public may like to hear bullshit. I’m more Gilberto Freyre (udenista) than Oliveira Vianna, even though the UDN hasn’t gone anywhere. I think I’m a better intellectual than Márcia Tiburi, although she has a lot more reach than me.

If I was obsessed with bashing Márcia Tiburi and a husband found me charming to take action, that would mean that Márcia Tiburi has something that I consider very important, and I don’t have it myself. .

The academy’s obsession with Olavo de Carvalho reveals the university’s defeat as a producer of ideas. The person of Olavo de Carvalho, taken from the internet, has much more relevance in the public debate than the person of any USP professor.

The institutional face of defeat

After Olavo’s death, news and other news came out from scholars who pontificated about the danger of his intellectual legacy. What stands out is the saucer-like depth, the same one-dimensionality of the academic with which we began this text. I read an article by an FGV teacher in Estadão and I can’t find any legitimate reason why Olavo has attracted followers. I only read that their ideas are dangerous and their supporters are far right.

In an article by Veja, we see a political scientist from the UERJ and one without a diploma warning of the Machiavellian plans of the extreme right. naughty. In addition: the sem diploma book is considered “the best book on the current Brazilian extreme right”. Everything they said against Olavo’s lack of formal studies has been forgotten. To make matters worse, she is a follower of Ayan, an ex-Olavete who broke up with Olavo and handed everyone over to the STF.

Meanwhile, the academy has adhered to the thesis of another intellectual without internet diplomas. It is the dehumanizing thesis that “extremists” are like robots who believe everything they read on the Internet that must soon be censored. Bolsonaro was allegedly elected by the Zap-Zap coup, which brainwashed people with the dick bottle. This is the level of public debate. With or without a diploma, a crowd of anonymous people on social networks feel very important to fight human beings whom they consider to be demons.

Comments are closed.