The content critically analyzes a fable by Tomás de Iriarte, "The Bear, the Monkey, and the Pig," arguing that its simplistic, moralizing form exemplifies the literary decline during the Enlightenment, and uses this as a springboard to discuss the complex relationship between creators, their audience (especially "fools"), and the economic realities of content creation.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
In this session we are going to talk about a very elementary, very basic, very basic issue. But not
because it is elementary and basic and unnecessary, but rather on the contrary, it is a
very necessary and very useful issue, it is an issue that we encounter daily, every hour, every hour.
moment that we enter the internet every time we enter or leave the house every time we go to
work every time we do anything we find ourselves in this situation I am referring to the cute bear
And the pig of course and you will say well and when we meet with a pig when we go
to work don't let them I'm going to ask, I don't want you to answer me and when we meet a bear
and a monkey When we do anything I'm not going to ask you what you do but what
I'm going to read to you immediately below and what I'm going to comment on With the purpose of what
they are going to flee, they will obviously encounter a monkey, a pig and a monkey, and in short, a bear or
a bear. Depending on how they want to see it, and they are going to see themselves identified in numerous situations, contexts and
circumstances, I don't mean that they identify with These allegorical figures animal figures but
they are allegorical understand it in an allegorical sense because they are going to tell me well I have never seen a
bear speak can someone tell me no Or I have never seen a monkey speak well look carefully maybe you
haven't looked closely enough It is not yet saying that we already know that there are people who, when someone
points their finger at the moon, stare at the finger because they do not go beyond the
literal meaning of the words, so of course the first thing someone can say when they encounter
a fable whose protagonists are animals that star I insist that's why they are protagonists
because they are subjects of certain actions uh actions and their consequences when they are
animals those who do this will say Well but the thing is that animals don't speak No we have known that
for a long time but there is a something called the metaphorical use of
human behavior, the allegorical use of human facts, which is what I'm talking about here. I'm going to read to you
a fable by Tomás. Illustrated literature in vein, eh, illustrated literature
in I have a fable by Tomás de Iriarte that has been provided to me by a colleague
whom I hold in high esteem and who has been kind enough to share with me this
fable of Iriarte as well as some comments and also transmit to me a gloss. by the scientist
Santiago Ramón y Cajal regarding this fable of Iriarte and I find it very interesting and
I thank this estimable colleague from here for providing me with these materials, for
reminding me of them, for providing them to me We have all read Iriarte's fables at some point
in that subject that we had in our career, which was 17th century illustration or something similar
where the literature of the world was decreasing in a galloping way, no, and it was about removing
literature even from under the stones because it did not exist it did not exist if there is any moment in
the history of the contemporary age and of history, let's say after Christ, in which
literature has practically disappeared. That is the 17th century, really, not only of Spanish literature
but of the rest of literatures the 17th century is a century Exterminator of
literary creation I have already said many times that the rationalism of the Enlightenment is incompatible
with the rationalism of literature and to such an extent that where
enlightened rationalism develops, enlightened rationalism vanishes, that is, the rationalism of
Illustration is the spermicide of literature, not in vain today in the 21st century we still live under the
consequences of that enlightened rationalism that is something more fearsome and even much worse
than the worst of the possible inquisitions regarding what literature refers to.
Here I am going to read to you, I am going to present to you this fable by Tomás de Iriarte that is titled The Bear, the Monkey
and the Pig, which you can find on the Internet in numerous places on the Internet on numerous
Internet pages and what you have in this fable is simply a protagonism of three
animals that are going to make a series of comments from which a love is extracted, that is, it is a
prototype of fundamentally illustrated literature, an essentially illustrated literature from which
They propose a series of examples with a moralizing didactic intention in order to intervene and
interact in the way of life of the listeners, that is, it is an essentially catechetical literature,
it is a literature that is oriented above all to determine the way of life of the listeners
assuming that HM Whoever complies with the imperatives with the moral with the dictates of this
fable or this literature then lives better or has a more valuable or more intelligent life than
those who do not make it clear the literary tradition that places in animals The protagonism of
certain facts or certain actions is very ancient It is very ancient It refers to public fables
and undoubtedly also those cultures that identified in the behavior of animals
or in the anthropomorphization of animals certain actions that could be taken as
exemplary examples. definitive as paren esis or as parenetic literature of
human behavior this is as old as life itself, that is, the origin of paresis the origin of
even a philosophical interpretation of life philosophy in its in its first meaning as
an organization of the knowledge of life that tries to explain the meaning of
human action the meaning of human life as an action that in some way has a
foundation an orientation is very visible here I am going to read you the H the fable the fable written
in verse in a terribly prosaic verse in a verse typical of the Enlightenment is almost,
we would say, anti-poetic. What you are going to see here is almost like a gravel, it is like that thing about my
heart that beats like a French fry, but in illustrated format. the redundancy is worth it,
that is, if Tomás de Iriarte had written something like this in the golden age that you are going to hear
now that I am going to quote or recite to you right now, he would have been banned immediately, that is,
if Quevedo read this, Quevedo would make a Absolutely enormous satire or I wouldn't even
pay attention to it. I mean when a piece of literature written by Don Quixote gives
rise decades later to something like this, it is because we have truly lost sight of what
literature is. and the possibilities of what the human being can do with literature, this is
an impressive degradation of literature to such a point that I consider that what
I am going to present to you below is not even literature. It is simply an
articulated form or metrify of H exposing a series of words after another but this is not
literature, that is, this is simply a simulacrum of literature, a simulacrum of quatrains. Here we
will find a language articulated in quatrains, that is, octosyllabic verses that rhyme
in arrangement. abab verses of minor art that have the configuration of quatrains, we could
say, but of a truly absolute literary poverty, that is, it is as if we played the
piano with the little finger of one hand and what comes out of there we say is musical, that
is, this It is a rip-roaring and frightening thing. I do not consider this literature for me.
This is not literature. These are simply poorly made couplets, but it is what in the Enlightenment was
considered literature. Now if we go to the content, swallowing a lot of the form. because
the form is unpalatable we find the following Leo the bear the monkey and the pig a bear with
which a Piedmontese earned his living the not very well learned dance he rehearsed on two feet wanting
to become a person he told a monkey what Perita the girl was like cute and answered him very badly, I think, replied the
bear, that you are doing me little favor because my air is not graceful, I do not make the step with care, look, this
is embarrassing for others to read, but I have to continue, there was the The pig was present and said Bravo, well, he's going,
a more excellent dancer has not been seen nor will he ever see the bear, when he heard this, tell his stories to each other and with
a gesture Modesto had to exclaim. So when the monkey disapproved of me, I came to doubt more than the
pig. He praises me very much. bad I must dance save this sentence for your gift to the author if the wise man does not
approve bad if the fool applauds worse good eh the moral that is cited in prose as if the one
who had read it had not understood says never a work is credited so much of bad as when
fools applaud it, well look how illustrated rationalism works in literary format, that is,
I really believe that any popular couplet has more literary and vigorous quality than what
is presented here. This codification of a moral of a sentence of a paresis so horrendously
exposed in quatrains is something that sincerely produces shame in others when reading it, that is,
this causes shame in others or It really is a real parody to take this Seriously but this
was the literature of the Enlightenment now if we published this on a social network, especially
on a professional social network, surely this would have the applause of a lot of I'm not
saying anything that Identify the protagonists, the bear lamons at the pig, I mean that it would have
the applause and the H the approval, the consent of a lot of Followers, it would have a lot of
recommendations. Why, Well, because people would feel very identified with that sentence, that
kind of moral supremacism. by virtue of which a work is never credited as bad
as when it is applauded by fools, that is, the applause of fools is not a merit but rather
a demerit. Well, but this impression is this conception of the applause of fools as a
demerit ceases to be one when the applause of fools is accompanied by money. This is something that
the enlightened authors seem to have greatly ignored, that is, the applause of fools
is paid, charged, and charged very high. in such a way that this whole declaration
of moral supremacism of saying I despise The applause of fools that I don't know if I would have
written it thinking of López de Vega No, well, how do the common people pay for it eh? It is fair to talk to him in foolish ways to
please him, etc. etc. But in reality, thanks to the applause of fools,
books are sold on the Internet in bookstores and in shopping centers. Thanks to the applause of fools,
subjects such as literature, philosophy and many others are taught because if he withdraws to the fools
of the world The fuel that moves it would be nothing and immobility would be guaranteed, therefore
it seems very funny to me how the supposedly intelligent people or who dress on
Sundays in the attire of intelligence takes excellent liberties to despise
fools when they are precisely their greatest source of wealth, that is to say, thanks to fools,
the elite that disguises itself as intelligent without being intelligent survives. This, of course, does not say anything good
in favor of fools, obviously, but It is that the fools are essential because without them
the Internet would not work. It is that without the fools there would be no way to disseminate content on the Internet
because 99% of the content that circulates on the Internet on television and everywhere
can only be interest a fool basically and you will tell me Well and then who are you speaking for I
do not speak for anyone in particular I speak for I speak for literature and in any case for
literature but for no one other than you listen to me or it is not your responsibility yours but I do not
speak for you I speak for literature I speak because I consider it necessary
to present a series of ideas that make possible scientific knowledge of literature and
objective knowledge of literary materials I speak neither to agree nor to
absolutely disagree I don't talk to anyone, not even to communicate with anyone or to
interact with anyone. That is to say, I don't seek applause from anyone, neither from the intelligent
nor from the stupid. It's something that completely eludes me. I present a series of ideas
so that in a free way Open and free, you can access knowledge about literature.
Hey, that is the fundamental reason. That is the fundamental reason why I publicly
and openly expose a series of knowledge about literature. What you do with
it is up to you from the thesis. PhDs to jokes That's other people's problem, it's something
that doesn't affect me at all. What I want to say is that there are many people who build
their work by despising fools, thanks to whom fools they sell their books
and their work is promoted. and fools are known and despised by making believe that The reader who
reads them that he is a sovereign fool identifies with the intelligent part of those recipients to whom
that supposedly intelligent author directs his work. Of course, this is a task very typical of
sophists is what happens to all those who spend their lives speaking badly about the
educational system and have not taught a decent class in their entire lives. They spend their lives writing books
saying in those books how bad the system is but never They have given a master class in their
life and much less for free. That is a very curious question, that is, turning the poor quality of
public education into a topic of conversation without ever having contributed to giving a good class on
any subject and exposing it and to offer it openly to all types of public on all
thinking about that public that does not have the means or does not have the resources to pay for a
quality education, that is, instead of criticizing things so much, it would sometimes be worth giving a
good example HM offering quality content instead of saying nonsense but in in the case
of this fable where the animal protagonism is an allegory of human behavior from which
a cumen or a kind of final epiphoneme is extracted if the wise man does not approve bad if the fool
applauds worse good This now ignores that the The fool's applause is obviously remunerated,
that is why it is tolerated, that is why it is agreed with the fool, that is, in exchange for the fool's applause, which
can obviously only satisfy another fool or an intelligent person who is paid in exchange for receiving
the fool's applause. I insist that the applause of the fool comes with a subsidy, it comes with money,
it comes with an enormously attractive economic endowment, it is enormously seductive. And that is what
induces many people to write for the market, to write for necessity. Starting with Lópe de
Vega and ending with all those who today write books for a massive
and idealess market to consume. Therefore, this thing of considering that if the wise man does not approve, bad and if the fool applauds,
it is worse, it is a very idealistic conception that does not It takes into account many realities that are at stake and
that work operationally and with a series of enormously important consequences
in the first place. No one can expect the wise man to approve what one says because that would imply that
there is a wise man above what one says. one says or that what one says is exposed to the approval
or vilification of others but since when since when what one says has to be subject to the
judgment of others but since when can it be subject to whatever one wants but what one A person
thinks that people do not change because of the opinion of others, which is why any
type of interactive relationship with others is completely absurd, that is, a triangle has three sides, regardless of
what bears, monkeys, and pigs think, obviously, that is, the formula of water. It's H2O Regardless of
what bears, monkeys and pigs think, therefore, of course, when objective knowledge is submitted
to the judgment of monkeys and pigs, anything can come out but nothing that has to do with
the validity of that objective knowledge, therefore there is this type of fables and this type of
statements result like aphorisms, they are totally decontextualized statements
totally out of context and whose meaning depends on the context in which that
statement is updated, hence each saying has a specific meaning depending on how we use it in a context. or
in another context because of course it can be stated that whoever has a neighbor has an enemy or it can be
stated that there is no better brother than the closest neighbor. Of course, the number of
existing proverbs and Proverbs that have existed and will have maintained relationships with each other. antagonistic in
such a way that there are terms that are antonyms or opposites to each other, there are proverbs that are
antonyms and opposites to each other because paresis moves those contexts and therefore it is necessary
to recognize these contradictions as one and the same. word can come to mean
different concepts and meanings depending on the context in which it is used, of course, whoever does not
distinguish homonymy from polysemy will not distinguish a satellite from a spot on the nail,
the satellite moon, the moon from a crystal or the moon of the configuration that the nails have
in their origin or birth that is to say of course the homonymy of the terms implies for those who
ignore it that the moon can only be a satellite eh of course then of course this is enormously
curious because the linguistic poverty in which many people live who are incapable of seeing the
semantic versatility of a word, well, refers precisely to their incompetence to interpret
literature because in literature words have practically all the possible meanings
that have been and may have been contextually relevant And this is very difficult, hence
literature is always the denial of a literal meaning in such a way that those people who
only know how to interpret words in their literal sense are incapable of analyzing any
literary statement because it is as if If we were to play the key of the piano, we were to touch any of the 88
keys. Well, if the listener hears the buzz of a fly, that is, it is the same thing, or it is really the same, and
there are many people for whom literary words are equivalent to the buzz of a
fly, that is, no. No, they don't understand absolutely anything, so having the approval of the wise man
is a vain hope in the first place because the wise people are not going to approve you. An intelligent person
is for another intelligent person, he is someone who competes and whoever competes gets in the way, as I would say. s
Juana Inés de la Cruz, he who does not compete does not get in the way, she stated, therefore, of the wise men. That is to say,
of the colleagues, a wise man can have nothing, one can expect because the first thing a wise man is going to do
is going to silence the other. That of all life absolutely So if the wise person does not approve
bad, but who is the wise person to approve or not approve, that is, there will have to be a certain
context where an authority recognized by a State or academic or institutional power
has the power to say or not say such and such what else but no one tells us is going to try something unless
it satisfies his strategy for some kind of reason And if the fool applauds worse The fool applauds
And what else is the fool going to do but applaud for the fool clapping is a way of
joining a group The fool basically always seeks to integrate into a broader community
where that fool finds some recognition and naturally praising or vilifying always implies
integrating into a group of those who praise or those who vilify. And in that way,
he feels Let's say emotionally more satisfied, that is basically the function of praise and
vilification to integrate into a group where people who suffer emotionally Well, they are supplied with certain
psychic energies like an electric car is charged in an electric car charger
or a car eh with fuel, well it fills the tank at a gas station, that is, there are people
who need an emotional supply and the best way to acquire that emotional supply
is by joining a group and the groups What do they do? They praise those who are part of the
group and He reviles those who are not part of the group because they are in the opposite group.
And in this way, people emotionally revitalize their activities and basically go through life like
life. In short, it is a hemorrhage of emotions that people need to channel
and a One of the most common ways to do it is to join a group and
emotionally satisfy oneself within that gregarious group M or alone That depends on each one and eh or on each
one and eh In short, act against the opposite group then of course this fable which is
totally idealistic from the very fact that its protagonists are animals because obviously
semanticization
matters to people making fools of themselves when they are paid for it or when they are paid through
emotional supplies because there are people who get paid in money and there are people who get paid in emotional supply
, that is, there are people who in some way see their ego emotionally satisfied because they have
a pig or a monkey that laughs their thanks simply and of course the greater the number
of pigs or monkeys that laugh their thanks to the bear, the more the bear will dance. bear comes out however it comes out that
dance yes with a beard San Antón and if not the purísima but that's how the world works and that's how it has always worked
so it doesn't matter if there are many people who say no well this couplet is very good or these
quartets are very good or this morality is very good never A work is credited with being as bad as
when fools applaud it, but I insist that the applause of fools is accompanied by some
stupendous fees So what else? What does it matter to many people if the fools applaud them or the
wise men revile them? In the event that the wise men are really wise, that is another question that
will have to be demonstrated if in exchange for that they are very well paid. That is to say, foolishness is very
well paid, foolishness is much more profitable than genius,
if you write a brilliant work, no one is going to read it because no one is going to understand it, people
basically have an intellectual capacity that It is programmed, I will not say very limited, it is
simply programmed to understand the basics, the elemental and what is easier to digest,
what is completely identifiable, what is difficult to identify, what is
out of the ordinary, what is out of the box. It is something that goes completely unnoticed and there are
many intelligent people whose quality of ideas goes completely unnoticed, that is
, a person is truly intelligent. He is intelligent when he is able to identify the
originality of a critical thought and most people Even moderately intelligent or highly intelligent people
know how to do intelligence tests
in a superlative and extraordinary way. This intelligence is like passing a test in a
television contest, just reading correctly a logical reading that becomes more
and more complex until it reaches a moment in which this complexity already exceeds, let's say, the terabit or
terabytes of an individual's head, but it is nothing more than a reading of logical sequences.
What is really difficult is polishing a work or carving a work like Michelangelo's David, writing
a work like He Don Quixote or composing a work like the song of the earth, that is what is
truly complex, what is truly difficult, taking an intelligence test requires nothing more than
intelligence, writing Don Quixote, composing the song of the earth or carving David
requires brilliant intelligence and that That is only achieved by 1% of the population and if and if
1% achieves it, it is already a lot, that is, the world is designed, it is made, it is manufactured
to satisfy 99% of the population, among which there are some intelligent sectors.
and basically a totality of fools who are the ones who move absolutely everything, that is to say,
the world is designed at the level of fools, therefore, that is to say, either one makes a pact with foolishness or
one dies of hunger, that is, there is no more story, there is no more story than that this and this, most
people know it, even no matter how stupid they are, no, so there is a gloss that
this colleague also provides me, together with this colleague that I mention and to whom I thank him, this transfer from Mater,
this recommendation of materials, a gloss from Ramón and cahal in his coffee talks and says Ramón
yahal, note that the prose of a scientist has a literary quality, the prose of Ramón I cahal that
is singular, that is, really singular, says Ramón I Cajal, the wise man greedy for fame
often reaps painful disappointments Because those whose commendation desires remain silent and on the contrary those whose
silence desires to salza, that is to say that of course Ramón y Cajal is already situated in reality Santiago
Ramón y Cajal is situated in reality and says the wise people who should recognize the merit of my
work are silent. Obviously they are silent because otherwise they would be evident, that is, there are works
that our colleagues cannot allow themselves to praise or even recognize. Why? Well, because they are
evident, they obviously cannot recognize that because they say. but let's see how this guy who in
the office next door has written This is going to be better than me no it can't be me silence his work
well but with that we already have obviously Maller himself when he composes his symphonies he has
to become the same as orchestra director because no one is willing to direct that thing
that even then they did not consider music, that is, Maller's music, when Maller
initially composed it, it is not even considered music, it is not even considered something completely horrendous
and Santiago Ramón y Cajal continues, but if this was expressed by me already insurmountable in one of
his exquisite fables and appeals to the fable that I just mentioned if the wise man does not prove evil if
the fool applauds worse and concludes Cajal's gloss in his coffee talks. What iriarte does not express,
perhaps due to excess of good naturedness, is that not all wise men applaud the nascent genius. Of course, but
iriarte does not live in the world, iriarte lives in literature. in the fabulation in the allegory that is
to say in the idealism of the Enlightenment Because the idealism of the Enlightenment is so much greater than
romantic idealism, there are also those comparable to the queen, Cajal continues. fertile species of the
queen bee swarm whose first care consists of inexorably destroying all the
royal nymphs in order to avoid annoying competitions. Obviously, the world of the wise is
a heterotrophic world, eh, just like that of miserable people, people also kill themselves. one among the other
sometimes they say well, hey, one has to face so-and-so, why if so-and-so
is going to get killed by his friends, there's no need to do anything to him, hey, he's already leaving on his own. to sink or
be so young and with so many enemies and where he is going he cannot survive in that scenario it is
absolutely impossible no then people destroy themselves there is no need to do absolutely anything to
get along with someone just enough to simply let them loose our vanity is incorrigible,
Cajal warns, you are in the presence of a fool who stuns us with his insubstantial talk and pedants
suddenly address us, showing that he has read us, lavishing us with blushes, praise
on the act changes the scene and somewhat blushing from the instant rectification we tell ourselves that
this idiot will have talent, we are not going to see, that is, you have to be really very weak from an
emotional point of view to allow yourself to be seduced by one of these sheep, that is, you won't be able to do it.
believe it is that you do not even believe the praise of the wise in many cases I once again give the
example of a good teacher every good teacher every Good teacher when he corrects his student
when he corrects his disciple the first sentence is he has done it You are very good and I think above all of
musical interpretations that are those that bring into play the skills that
a human being has, that is, one plays a piece on the piano and a good music teacher
will always tell you very well what You have done very well, you have improved a lot and you have greatly expanded your
knowledge and your abilities when interpreting this piece. However, you can take
into account the following aspects in the compass as you play a false note, it is advisable that you correct it
in the compassal, accelerate or loses speed etcetera etcetera then of course the list
of errors to correct of errors to correct do not say errors to correct eh those French
eh no one says I have things to do it is said I have things to do the list of errors to correct
the list of effects to correct is always enormous And if we work those aspects and we return
to make a new interpretation Well, the good teacher will tell us that you have improved, well, if
not, he doesn't pay attention to us obviously because a good teacher is a good teacher of good students,
there are no good teachers of bad students because that is not a relationship. teacher That means that
You have no interest in studying and therefore it's a walk in the park, but if you take
the teachings of a teacher seriously, the teacher will tell you that you have improved a lot, you have overcome
these defects, now you must improve this other thing, I mean the process. of learning is endless
it is absolutely endless it is completely endless so of course if you believe that you have
improved a lot you do it very well because you already believe that you are Daniel baren Bo and obviously you are
a three-to-a-quarter student So let's see first of all you don't believe it or either the
praise of the wise can even be poisoned praise or when they praise you, distrust the
praise is the traitor's safe conduct basically it is the traitor's safe conduct but completely
that is, the seduction is much more intense than the danger and makes it impossible to see the risk that
is taken by assuming and AC communing the praise that all praise is poisoned is always like
when they say well, you think I can run for elections to dean to rector to
director at all then people say yes yes introduce yourself I support you and of course I support you
because it is the way to avoid that I get a position of that type, so you present yourself and
I support you and everyone is happy. That also works in many aspects, so be very
careful not to believe the praise because it is a completely ridiculous thing and Also be very careful with
assuming that the theses that are presented moralin m in a fable like this are real because hey, those who
wait for the approval of the wise man wait because the wise man can lie approving or disapproving
And if the fool applauds it is worse but it is The fact that the fool will always applaud is that there will always be
fools who applaud because it is impossible that there are no fools who do not applaud. Furthermore, the world is
made precisely so that fools applaud. They have never turned on the television, so they will tell me
how many applauses there are. That's why there is no television without applause and you think there are so many
intelligent people applauding, well you'll tell me what literature says, apart from all
this, you will also have observed that if literature illustrated only for couplings
of this nature, for that we better go to a town festival where folklore is much more
intelligent than any of these couplets that the Enlightenment has ever given birth to popular knowledge and
popular wisdom that the Enlightenment By the way condemned, downgraded and disavowed to an extreme degree
that had never before occurred, that is to say, there is no greater enemy of so-called popular culture or
of the Popular expression of culture than the Enlightenment really And in exchange for suppressing
popular culture and devaluing what then yes, romanticism recovered it in a sometimes very pathological way,
the Enlightenment, in exchange for suppressing popular culture, does this and calls it an
academic culture or superior culture or culture of the elites. This is something completely ridiculous and
also does not advise us at all. Any poetry, any verse by Quevedo or an author of the golden age, much more parenetic and much more moralizing
than anything that has been done,
at least in these terms, in the Enlightenment, well, all of this is about the bear, the monkey and the
pig.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
