Each man would like to be happy. But if you try to make it so that all men can be happy, each will grab you by the hands like one whose aching tooth is being pulled.
I’m guessing that the intent is that each person would like to be happy, but no one wants everyone to be happy.
This seems better supported by the text than my first thought, which was that people want to be happy, but are unwilling to do what is necessary to be be happy.
That’s interesting, because I read it as saying that people will object to anyone imposing on them their own idea of what will make them happy. Or to clear up the pronouns, X will object to Y imposing a grand scheme of what Y thinks will make everyone including X happy.
The Pharaoh is trying to reform the half-ruined country, and is running into entrenched opinions, vested interests and pervese incentives.
Yeah, I probably could have translated more carefully and with more context.
There’s also an interesting passage where he speaks of himself as an Uncentivised Incentiviser:
“Lord, six million Egyptians, and me and my friends before others, will agree that you draw from that treasure… But delude yourself not, your holiness! The hundred highest dignitaries of the state will vote against it, and then the Labirynth will give out nothing [...] they will suspect your most faithful servants of defrauding the gains from this source, and jealousy will make them wonder if you too are profiting… not dislike towards you, but mutual distrust and greed will push them to resist...”
“If that’s how it is, dear Pentuer, then be at peace. In this moment I understood exactly: why Amon established the rule of a pharaoh, and gave him superhuman power. It is, you see, so that even a hundred of even the most dignified scoundrels couldn’t ruin the state.”
(No, I don’t necessarily equate rationality with pro-monarchy sentiment. :) Still, a bunch of things in that book have new interest for me after exposure to Less Wrong and its environs).
Bolesław Prus, “The Pharaoh” (translation mine)
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean.
I’m guessing that the intent is that each person would like to be happy, but no one wants everyone to be happy.
This seems better supported by the text than my first thought, which was that people want to be happy, but are unwilling to do what is necessary to be be happy.
That’s interesting, because I read it as saying that people will object to anyone imposing on them their own idea of what will make them happy. Or to clear up the pronouns, X will object to Y imposing a grand scheme of what Y thinks will make everyone including X happy.
What did the author intend, in context?
The Pharaoh is trying to reform the half-ruined country, and is running into entrenched opinions, vested interests and pervese incentives.
Yeah, I probably could have translated more carefully and with more context.
There’s also an interesting passage where he speaks of himself as an Uncentivised Incentiviser:
(No, I don’t necessarily equate rationality with pro-monarchy sentiment. :) Still, a bunch of things in that book have new interest for me after exposure to Less Wrong and its environs).