Chamfort telling it like it is !

[Mango IngawayParticipant 2264]

Was reading some stuff writtend by Chamfort, the dude was born around 1740 and already had it all figured out.

Here’s the piece:

“An intelligent man was claiming, in front of millionaires, that one could be happy with making 2,000 écus a year. They bitterly and even passionately maintained the contrary. When he left where they had been, he looked for the cause of this bitterness on the part of people who were his friends. Finally, he found it. It’s because with a proposition like his, a person makes rich people see that he is not dependant on them. Every man who has few needs seems to menace the wealthy with the constant threat of escaping from them. Tyrants see in such a proposition the loss of a slave. One can apply this reflection to all passions in general. A man who has conquered his inclination to fall in love shows an indifference to women that is always odious to them. They immediately stop being interested in him. It’s perhaps for this reason that no one is interested in the good or bad fortune of a philosopher: he does not have the passions that move society. One sees that he can do nearly nothing for ones happiness, and one leaves him where he is.”

Rings a bell anyone?

How little things actually change is pretty funny.

It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.

[RoyDalParticipant]

Thanks for posting this! Chamfort is new to me. I’ll have to look him up.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[AttonParticipant]

A man who has conquered his inclination to fall in love shows an indifference to women that is always odious to them.

Tyrants fear their power bring striped of them, when the subordinate shows resistance or defiance the Tyrant is challenged and if they don’t rise to it then it all over.
Chamfort is a smart man.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[TiredofbsParticipant 485]

I find that the “old, dead guys” are some of the best to read. I enjoy reading books from the 16 and 1700’s. Thanks for posting. I will have to look him up.

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Mango Ingaway wrote:

It’s perhaps for this reason that no one is interested in the good or bad fortune of a philosopher: he does not have the passions that move society. One sees that he can do nearly nothing for ones happiness, and one leaves him where he is.”

Great stuff. As a philosopher I see that Chamfort was a very wise man. Sadly he died as a result of a gruesome suicide. Society is never kind to it’s philosophers who seek the truth and point out it’s nonsense.

[sidecarParticipant 35844]

Chamfort may have been right about tyrants, but he was wrong about women.

A man who has conquered his inclination to fall in love shows an indifference to women that is always odious to them. They immediately stop being interested in him.

On the contrary women become much more interested in him. Why? Because they know the many who refuses to grant wealth to women accumulates that wealth to himself. And it is that wealth they are attracted to, not the man himself.

[Author]

Posts