“Science works because it is limited to a small group of subjects. There is no capitalized science. Some of the scientists who deal with the big questions are accused by colleagues of practicing philosophy. I respect them and my original training is in chemistry, not in the humanities. I am much more happy to talk about a test tube and laboratory tests than philosophical subjects, but science is part of the insanity. It is part of the insanity when you assume that the issues are much bigger than they really are. When you talk to a scientist, you ask yourself questions, which if you are sincere you will answer: how can I know by God? Do you ask me about the fate of humanity? I wouldn’t know how to answer. If you ask me what’s going to happen in two days, how will I know? I can answer about the few things I know now. I don’t try to make science a kind of pagan god. And in doing this, I’m doing science well because that’s what it is. When the sun is a god, it is a dangerous god, when the sun is just a star in the sky it is much easier to deal with. ”

Adin Steinsaltz , Chemist, Philosopher, Social Critic and Rabbi (in an interview with Globo News in 2016)

Adin was one of the most impactful people I had the honor to meet, eclectic and vivacious, whose amazing mastery of many simultaneous knowledge earned him the right definition of “authentic man of the Renaissance”. For he said that the book that most impressed him was the Talmud . A collection written 1,500 years ago whose work in translation into modern Hebrew took him 4 decades. Steinsaltz emphasizes the dialectical aspect and the style of the book: according to him the Talmud does not teach sanity, he creates it.


Inducing the reader to take part in the book and ask new questions, curiosity, the desire to understand everything from a new perspective. Each time the same text is read, the subject is moved: it is a unique book. A generator of doubts. An anti- dogmatic book that does not have the answers, nor does it limit itself to making narratives, but induces you to ask. And to ask yourself.

Isn’t this exactly the gap in contemporary civilization ?

In the face of the world’s affliction, articles appear here and there calling for national and international unity and reconciliation. Commendable, it is still an appeal to sanity. But reconciliation without self-criticism is unconditional surrender. How to unify society when a retrospective look shows increasingly crystallized positions? As if we lived at the gates of paradise and had been expelled from there by new governments, pandemics and an acute lack of guidelines from world leaders. Now, it is not new, we all complained about everything for a long time. Or not?

How the seventh seal messengers witnessed by hovering al ? They announced global conspiracies to extinction asteroids, mega pandemics (one much bigger than the current one) to the rupture of social pacts, the unviable Earth to the collapse of capitalism. And isn’t it that part of the media and intellectuals, whose “what to do” should be the ultimate example of mental autonomy and emancipation, line up on either side to exercise dominance of ideology-based information?

This is the main ingredient of contemporary insanity.

The degree of certification of communications is compromised from end to end by solidified positions. What about consensus? Consensuses were being established in spite of public opinion under the following slogans that have now been disseminated without modesty or shame: “Voters are ignorant”, “The uneducated and ignorant masses cannot decide what is good for them, but get to work. , we will undertake this noble and painful task “,” The people, unfortunately, still do not have the power of interpretation, nor the necessary information, but we, the thinking elites will be able to fill these gaps, and, with luck, we will free them from ignorance. and oppression “. The objection to this stance was called anti- intellectualism, when, at most, it would be critical of the instrumentalization of ideology carried out by a significant number of people who believe they are capable of thinking for others.

It is not possible to find the culprits, but the diagnosis is evident: the institutions have been failing. The sooner we admit it, the better it will be. If we did not have the constant annual figures for one civil war per year (58,000 homicides / year) the pressure and support for gun ownership would fall by the wayside. If the extreme currents had not destroyed the center, we would not be hostage to extremes and extremists. If the judiciary were fulfilling its role and did not intend to usurp powers and legislate, the constitution would still be respected. If the legislature were to be effective, perhaps the State could stop protecting society. If the government instructed and explained better in massive campaigns about the importance of preventive measures, it might not need to handcuff people. If those who destroyed the country in the last decade were politically neutralized, we might have a chance of complete renewal and this time we will not be condemned to useful votes and critical support in the next elections. If each discipline understood its own limitations, we would not have systematic misinformation.

It is evident that it was against the consensuses artificially sewn between four walls that the empire of false news was built. The post-truth is just a response to the cabinet truth. In other words, the false, is itself the equivalent of a kind of counterintelligence. The title to correct misinformation or selective information responds with more misinformation. Therefore, the diffusion of obscure news can not be fought with “fact checking” for this feature also is dominated by a disguised hegemony of pluralism and using the rhetoric of multilateralism false.

It is necessary to understand that the triggering of untruths is nothing more than a reactive symptom, not the origin of the problem. It is as if the monopoly of the truth was kept under lock and key in some unknown recess – protected by politically dull language – that only a few journalists and well thought-out people have, and to which the entire population needs to submit. Everything to prescribe the univocal meaning of justice and truth. Now, it was social networks, these bastard children of peripheral journalism, who ended up stripping the white trusts that control information. It was they, with all their defects and perversions, who exposed the fragility of what was dictated by corporate boards and by scientific and political offices. Censoring them is an autocratic method of control that does not usually end well.

The world may have stopped, people may have been locked up, but there is something very alive within us that refuses paralysis, and it goes by the names : freedom and creativity. Nobody would imagine that the division in society would reach the maximum insanity: today we even have medicines from the right and from the left, a phenomenon, let’s say, well beyond the inconceivable.

Certainly it is much easier to define madness than sanity, but there is a clue to understanding the concept of sanity: how is our ability to ask questions and establish dialogues?

Madness, well, you don’t even have to leave the house to capture it.

Just pay attention to the silence.