The New Normal with which we have been aquainted for years

Nowadays, you can find a lot of coronavirus articles that try to figure out how the pandemic will affect our lives and our businesses. Many people are trying to guess what is the "new normal."  

In this article I won't be writing about business, but about our lives.

I want to share with you an interview with one of the best polish philosophers, Leszek Ko?akowski, whose ideas are close to my heart and my attitude for life.

 I know that Linkedin is a place of success, not introspection, but as the pandemic made us stop, so I think it is worth reflecting on the roads we have been driving and ideas we were following. So if you have a spare 20 minutes, I invite you to this article.

Leszek Ko?akowski about what is essential in life - The Commandments of Leszek Ko?akowski

• First, friends.

 And besides:

• Wanting not too much.
• Free yourself from the cult of youth.
• Enjoy the beauty.
• Don't care about fame.
• Get rid of lust.
• Not to blame the world.
• Measure yourself with your own measure.
• Understand your world.
• Don't instruct.
• Compromise with yourself and the world.
• Accept the mediocrity of life.
• Don't look for happiness.
• Do not believe in world justice.
• In principle, trust people.
• Don't complain about life.
• Avoid rigor and fundamentalism.

Jacek ?akowski: - A forty-year-old man comes to the Sage…

Leszek Ko?akowski: - You mean yourself?

...or a twenty-year-old blonde with legs up to the neck...

That suits you less.

 ...so this person sits next to the Sage and asks: "What is important in life?". What would the wise man tell him?

And how should a wise man know?

 He has read thousands of books, and he has lived in this world for almost 77 years, he became famous as a sage. Who should know if not him?

Almost 77 years? Does this mean that I am supposed to be this Sage?

That's why I came here.

But if I took this role, it would be as if I would consider myself a master of life. That wouldn't be good. Muhammad Ali can jump around the ring, shouting that he is the best in the world. It is not appropriate for others.

Let's assume that a man in real need stands before you and asks for help. Maybe he doesn't know what to do with life. Or perhaps he had a bad experience. Maybe he feels that this is the last moment he can change something and focus on what is really important. You must help him.

By pretending to know a universal formula?

Don't you know?

Difficult case... Apparently, such a formula can be being useful to others. There are people - though very few of them - who treat their lives as service. They can perform this service in various fields. In medicine, politics, science, social assistance, international organizations. Apparently, they fulfill their life, because they have a sense of a broader meaning of their existence.

Is this close to you?

Of course. But I don't know if this can be learned or how to come to such an attitude. On the other hand, we have a Buddhist perspective which is close to me, that life is a great deal of misery anyway. We can't help it. And anticipation of nirvana will open to us only when we manage to abandon all of our desires, minimizing expectations. There are those who, by self-limitation, achieve spiritual liberation. But I don't know if you can recommend it to everyone.

And you are drawn to happiness achieved through self-limitation?

I am not talking about happiness because I do not know what it is. And I never knew. But there is something good about the Buddhist or Stoic tendency to limit your desires in such a way that you can accept misfortunes with peace. Not being attached to needs, not falling into hysteria when we fail what we would like. Wanting not too much. Do not reach too far. It is better to want less and be less disappointed. For example: I am a beautiful, charming, talented blonde. I'm going to Hollywood to be a star, and I play only marginal roles. I am disappointed. I have a feeling of a wasted life, unhappiness, should I hang myself through it? It is better to aim lower.

If you, as a beautiful blonde, become this star, then you can also be disappointed and have a feeling of wasted life.

Because whether life is wasted or not, it is a subjective matter. It cannot be objectively assessed. Suppose I am a gardener. I do nothing more. I don't strive for fame or any outstanding position. I want to have enough food and essential goods, but I am not interested in chasing goods that people recognize as desirable. I don't want to be Einstein. Is there anything wrong with the fact that I don't want to be Einstein?

Especially when it may end differently than anticipated.

Most often, not good. I remember the outstanding physicist who said: "Either you are Einstein or it is not worth living." And yet he was no Einstein. Does it mean that he wasted his life?

Maybe it wasn't really about becoming Einstein, but about trying to become Einstein?

That, of course, is better. The pursuit of greater goods is mostly okay. But if I assume in advance that I will not achieve these goods, I will not meet them for sure. Because greater goods do not come by chance. They require effort. So it's essential to have some hope. But not much. So much to avoid a catastrophe when I realize that I will not be Einstein. Otherwise, I would have a feeling of wasted life.

...or you would lose the meaning of life if you became Einstein...

...or still, I would continuously make ineffective efforts. It could also be a wasting of life.

I think I already have the first advice of the Sage. It is important not to want too much.

Agree, "wanting not too much" is probably the right formula for a successful life.

But not much of what? Because there are various goods. A dozen immediately comes to my mind. Youth, nation, money, work, friendship, pleasure, joy, family, sex, fame, happiness, knowledge, power, freedom...

Let's leave happiness because I don't know what it is. Everyone puts there something else. You have to accept that happiness, as such, does not exist.

For happiness, you can find empirical evidence. Everyone can tell you if the person is as happy today as he was yesterday. The fact that something is difficult to grasp and describe does not yet mean that it doesn't exist.

That would be a proof that there is a lack of happiness. But if I would like to agree with you that happiness exists, I would say that it is a child's life somewhere up to the fifth year in a loving family free at that time from some great misfortunes.

And then you think there is unhappiness?

It may not be a misfortune, but our attitude towards the world is changing. Cynicism is already creeping into our lives, knowing that the world is not good. A small child does not yet ask the question of happiness and does not understand the concept of happiness. If someone has that concept in his head and asks himself how to be happy, how to arrange life, what is essential in life, it means that he is not and will never be truly happy again. No one will ever achieve the happiness that would be known as such.

But you can approach it more or less. That is why we are looking for the answer to the question: What is important in life? And do you think youth is essential?

We can also put off youth, because it is a good that most people lose. But not everyone. There are people in a way young to the very end.

How to part with it to separate from happiness as little as possible?

The easiest way in the world. Get rid of the feeling that there is some exceptional value in being young. If we don't have the belief that youth is good, then we don't feel that we are losing anything as we age.

It's easy to say... You must have thought to yourself: "Unfortunately, it's not right at my age."

And what is not right? Is it inappropriate to seduce women at my age? Since when it isn't? If I am sure it is ineffective, I will not try. But can we know that for sure? I do not think that youth as a good is somehow particularly crucial in life and that we should greet it with particular importance. However, a man needs to free himself from the cult of youth. Because this cult can waste a lot of our lives.

So we put youth off. What else would a wise man choose from this list as important in life?

And according to what criteria?

According to what is worth betting on in life?

An average person who does not have a Buddhist attitude and does not despise the world's goods, but knows how to enjoy small, ad hoc goods, needs a bit of everything. There is nothing wrong when someone is happy that he has some money or an exciting job. But a universal hierarchy cannot be built. Most of us don't feel like renouncing anything. We know that these goods conflict, they limit themselves, "it is difficult to have a cake and eat it too," we cannot have everything in full, those who are supposed to have everything do not have the feeling that they are generously endowed with fate. Maybe it would be easier to say what lack worries us most. Schopenhauer thought that good is lack of torments. Now, for example, I am sitting here, and I do not feel any particular physical pain. It's good. But I don't feel it as something important. And when it starts to hurt, if it is an intense pain, I think it as the most important thing.

Maybe to find out more from you, I should ask what the worst thing in life is? Not whether money is essential, but whether the lack of money is terrible.

But there is no universal hierarchy here either. Torture is the worst for a tortured person. For hungry hunger. People commit suicide because they can't pay their bills or because their love has been rejected. So maybe the most important thing is to free yourself from suffering. But on the other hand (because everything in life has a flip side), the stoics claim that the real Sage is free from suffering and even pain of torture.

If this were true, wisdom would be the most crucial thing in life. But it is not known whether stoic at torture would not change their minds.

There are legends about the wise men, who, thanks to wisdom, persevered.

But is that true?

That is another snag. We know little about others. And with that also about ourself. But surely wisdom, knowledge, and the ability to enjoy even a little beauties can, to some extent, compensate for the various deficiencies or pains that everyone experiences. I can be lonely, poor, sick, hungry, but enjoy poetry. But it is not easy. You need to develop this ability. You can learn to enjoy this valuable part of the world that is available. This is important because it gives us the feeling that the world is not built only from evil, suffering, misery, and struggle.

Culture as Opium?

As you say opium, you assume that this is an illusion. I take drugs to delude myself. And when I enjoy the goods of the spirit, I don't experience that illusion. This is a real part of the world, which is worth participating, because it gives me the feeling that, despite all the horrors of life, despite misery, suffering, pain, deprivation, there is something outstanding and beautiful in this world. Even when I study maths and understand the evidence that there is a good that gives me a share in the better side of this world's order, I can enjoy it without wealth, power, fame. All the things that people are fighting for.

So the culture would be essential in life.

Enjoying the goods of the spirit created by people. For this, I do not have to conflict with others. And these can be quite small things - so that I can genuinely enjoy them. I can walk down the street and enjoy the view of an architectural work, a beautiful garden, an elegantly dressed woman, a fantastic car. These are small goods, but very real. I can even sit in an unheated room and enjoy the beauty of poetry or music. It's worth to learn it a little bit to be able to appreciate them truly. To admire music or painting, you need to know something about them. But the most important thing is to cultivate such readiness to enjoy easily available beauty.

That sounds nice but quite idealistic. Most of us would prefer to create those goods admired by others, because admiration for the work is followed by respect for the creator.

Applause and fame are things that desiring usually leads to misery. Because these are goods that people generally apply unsuccessfully for. Not only because they are difficult to achieve. First of all, because one can gain fame by becoming a master in some fields. If you think about fame and not mastery, you will usually reach popularity at most. To be genuinely famous, you must be Einstein or Greta Garbo.

Or Leszek Ko?akowski.

Oh no, I'm not famous. The people we still see on television are famous now.

You seem embarrassed by this fame.

Why? There is nothing wrong with fame. What's wrong with that someone wants to be a pope or Muhammad Ali. The only bad thing is that dreaming of glory usually lead nowhere.

Most dreams usually lead nowhere. And when it leads somewhere, it turns out that it was not that thing. "It wasn't supposed to be like that, honey."

Probably this is usually the case with fame.

But should we dream of fame - which probably half of ordinary people experience - get rid of, or is it a natural expression of the atavistic need for appreciation?

The need for affirmation is inherent and almost permanent, unless it is stifled by Buddhist consciousness. Because Buddhism - truly lived - best frees us from all lust. That applies not only to objects, but also to various status factors: fame, power, wealth. That is why Buddhism is one of the most beautiful and wise faiths that humanity has created.

It is interesting that the philosopher, who wrote almost all his life about Christianity and communism, tends to Buddhism at a late age.

Why in late age? I have always had great respect for Buddhism and Vedic culture.

But you did not write about Buddhism or Hinduism.

Because I don't know enough about them, I don't speak oriental languages, but I remember how impressed the Vedic books made as a teenager. I have always been strongly impressed by the thoughts and faiths of the East.

And you weren't attracted to study Buddhism instead of Christianity and communism?

I was. Only if you live in a world of Christianity and communism, it's natural for a person to understand these thoughts. And Buddhism is not our world, although it is a vital world. But you seem to want to talk about what is generally essential in people's lives, not what is important to me in Buddhism.

I have now added the intellectual or religious context with which connects us all to these matters.

It's undoubtedly important. For example, fame does not matter to a real Buddhist as much as otherworldly goods.

But is that good? If you were not famous, then we would not have benefited you, from your wisdom. You would sit in Oxford, read books, write your lectures or essays and hardly anyone would buy them, people would not watch you on Polish television, they would not wait for your articles... In a sense, if not for fame, we would probably wasted you. If your wisdom did not become famous, it would be less useful.

You can say that, but I'm not famous.

Here we will write the divergence because it's not worth arguing.

Okay. But striving for fame, it's easy to delude yourself. "I don't strive for fame. I just want to give people something useful." And to tell you the truth, I don't know what good it is for people in a person who, for example, jumps three meters up.

Emotions, a sense of participation in his fantastic feat.

I think this is an illusion. He has the dream of doing it for others, but he does it only for himself - to win and be admired. And others have the illusion of participation you are talking about, although they are only spectators - they don't have any contribution or share in this jump.

What's wrong with this illusion?

Nothing. Let there be an illusion. It is only about not blaming the world when it does not appreciate us. Don't chase fame, because generally nothing good will come of it and we will have a sense of a wasted life. And it makes no sense to have such a thought just because I'm not Muhammad Ali or Albert Einstein.

But is it wrong to aim high? You had to go through a lot of suffering, and you had to make various sacrifices to achieve the intellectual quality that you reached.

I don't think about myself like that. But aiming high is probably a good thing. Only it is better to have your own measure.

Measure yourself according to your criteria, not according to the applause of others?

I think something like that. Because praise is usually not fairly shared. Yes, measuring yourself with your own measure is essential in life.

Well, we have some general tips. AND...

Don't ask me for sex. Not because it is not essential, but I do not want to emerge in this matter.

So sex is essential, but we don't talk about it. And work?

Work, it's trivial, is very important in life. But don't make me formulate a general rule, which is better to do with your time - spend it at work or devote to your family or drink beer with colleagues. Everyone has a problem looking for a balance between goods. And no objective prescription exists. You probably can't even claim the right to lecture others: "Don't go for a beer if you can still work." There is usually something suspicious in that kind of instructions.

But you respect the Buddha for his instructions...

Yes.

...and many people owe him a lot due to the courage to teach and instruct...

Yes.

...so?

I am not saying that there is something wrong when someone is trying to explain to others that something is bad or good. We have the right to do this even if we are aware that others make different choices. But for this, you need to feel that you are a good teacher of life. And I don't have that feeling.

I'm not looking for a teacher. I am looking for an authority. I don't want easy or accessible answers. I want to hear what Leszek Kolakowski learned about life from all-wise books, from his own experience and his thoughts. I ask you: How to live, Professor?

I don't know... I really don't know. I understand that we need teachers of life... I know that we are still asking ourselves how to live?... I understand that we would like to have reliable masters... But it is not sure if there are such masters, it is not certain if they must be right and it is not confident that we should listen to them. Even the excellent advice of an outstanding master does not have to suit me and my life. Because everyone arranges their lives differently. And we don't have to explain it to anyone. Even when we consciously do things that we should not do. Those that harm us or others. The master will tell us that it's terrible. But we know it anyway. He will say: "Don't drink vodka." But we'll still drink.

Because vodka soothes the pain of the soul?

It somehow helps us. The master knows it. But neither will he say: "Drink vodka!" Because he doesn't want to take responsibility for the evil of our lives. The evil that we do must take on ourselves. Especially that there is also a matter of proportion. Everyone understands that there is a different evil when I will get drunk once and the other when I fall into alcoholism. And everyone crosses this line elsewhere. Who, when – that no master knows. We don't know ourselves either. So we risk it having a drink... And yet I allow myself to enjoy alcohol. Not in extreme forms, but I like to drink wine for dinner, and after that, a glass of cognac or whiskey. If even a great master told me: "Don't drink," I wouldn't listen to it. Because I like wine or cognac, and I don't drink enough to get drunk.

You never got drunk?

It happened in my early years. There is nothing to brag about.

Is there anything to be ashamed of?

There probably is. Because that means I'm losing my reflexes. It bothers me, though. But the fact that I'm drinking - no. As you can see, it turns out that even in such a trivial matter, our life is an uninterrupted string of rotten compromises. Compromises between what I theoretically consider good and what I like, although it is not good. Here we seem to be coming back to the most trivial statement that nobody is perfect.

And is not supposed to be perfect?

If one wants to be perfect, one cannot forbid it, although such a desire usually makes us unbearable. Who dreams of perfection, often instructs, corrects, gives lessons to others, so everyone runs away from him. It is not good to be a constant corrector and instructor. It is a horrible way of life. So you have to compromise with yourself and the world. Of course, I do and tolerate various things that I don't like, maybe I try to limit them, but I understand that essential goods in life often argue with each other. This argument is the trouble of our life. Therefore, there is no reliable hierarchy of values. If I believed that there was such a hierarchy, I would strive to recognize some value as an absolute and would make others, and also myself, miserable, although I might even not notice it.

Do I understand correctly that if I asked you again now: What is essential in life, I would hear that the most important thing probably is a reasonable compromise?

You can say that, but we don't have to make a doctrine of it. It's a value that we practice, but we do not need to call a compromise. It is enough to understand that we reduce the risk of unhappiness if we accept the mediocrity of life.

Accept what?

Mediocrity. If I agree that I will be neither a pope nor Greta Garbo, if I know that I'm not perfect nor supposed to be. If I do not demand too much from myself, I enjoy the little things. I forgive my small sins, and if my agreement to such life doesn't make me miserable, that's better for everyone.

Through mediocrity to a good life? Is that your advice?

Maybe something like that. But I don't want to advise anyone. I'm just saying what seems useful to me.

Probably, if this awareness should make us not unhappy, then first you need to know that it is better this way. So maybe by making a case that for some people you can open the way to a good life.

When this shouldn't flow from the doctrine, but from the way we feel the world. The world is not obliged to feed us with happiness and intoxication. The world is not something we can use to achieve happiness. There is no such thing as happiness. Let's give up this kind of research. Let's enjoy mediocrity as much as possible, avoiding suffering, although you can't avoid it altogether.

Would you like the world of such "flies without wings"?

Do you know any better? Maybe this is not a dazzling program. Not particularly appealing theoretically. Nor highly aimed. No! This is a modest but workable program... And it's probably better this way... To have a feeling that it's better when you are unhappy, you need a unique character or particular concern with some doctrines. Hardly anyone is capable of it... It is so... We can, and it may even be useful, to believe - like Leibniz - that we live in the best of all possible worlds. We can feel it. But Leibniz knew that we had to accept this faith a priori, because God had to create the best of all possible worlds. He could not create a world where there was no suffering or evil at all because it is not logically possible. Or - we would have to be mindless robots, without feelings, without artistic sense, unable to enjoy freedom. So evil, pain, and suffering are the price for being ourselves. But this does not mean that when a tooth hurts, we can refer to Leibniz's calculation and say to ourselves: "It is good that it hurts, because in the divine general plan, thanks to this pain, the world can be better." Theoretically, it can convince us, but such a belief cannot remove pain. 

And Professor, money? You have recently experienced something that happens to a few people in the real world. What does a million dollars falling on his head do with a philosopher?

Nothing special. It's not a breakthrough in life. It does not mean that I am a Stoic to whom everything material is entirely foreign. Nothing is alien to me. It's not bad to get a million. But it's too late for me to change my life, I won't buy a Rolls-Royce (that would be half of my prize), I won't become a playboy.

And didn't you think that there is some hidden, perverse power of justice in this world? Because a lot of people have been chasing for money all their lives and hardly anyone has come to such a fortune, and you, not chasing yourself, living a bit like a Stoic, suddenly became a rich man. Maybe there is justice in the world?

There is not! The world, Mr. Jacek, is not fair. There is no justice. Justice, according to Aristotle, means giving everyone what is due to him. And we don't know what belongs to them. Nobody deserves to win a million. There is no justice in fate. And if it is, this is a divine arrangement that has nothing to do with justice in our understanding. Because God's calculation is entirely different. If any divine plan exists, it is inaccessible to us. And you have to accept it.

And if you had to choose one good that is most important in your life, what would you say?

I'd love to be silent. But if you started to pull out my nails or if you were toasting me, then I would probably say - without making any rigid doctrine - that among the most important things in life is friendship. Because in every life, there is so much misery, pain, suffering, breakdowns, failures that it is challenging to struggle with them alone. Nobody can avoid failures in life! Disappointed ambitions, aspirations, dreams, suffering culpable or not guilty. Suffering accompanies us all the time. There is the famous phrase of Epicurus about suffering: "The unbearable torment is short, the long torment is bearable." So the suffering that still accompanies us is bearable. But it is. And we have to endure it. That comes more accessible when we have friends.

Because they can help us?

Because when we know that they are with us, we are more resistant to the evil of this world. We can see that there are people for whom our failures and suffering are also their failures and their pain, so we feel better. We have more strength and courage. It comforts and strengthens us also because when we do something wrong - and it happens to everyone - friends will not lose their trust in us, and we will still have support in them. We also do not lose faith in them, and we do not suspend friendship, knowing that they are imperfect. Because unlike love, friendship does not idealize. If there is such a thing as a good life, it is probably life among friends who support each other. To live we need people on whom we can count on and trust no matter what, whom we know that they will not cheat, betray us, whom will help us in need, and that we should help them, serve them in poverty that after all meets us all and which without friends it is tough to survive.

What's more - friendship is a good that depends very much on us. We can weave them ourselves. Because friendship is a bond of trust that every one of us can build around thyself. And trust helps. Not only the special trust that connects friends. Of course, we can't have full confidence in everyone. It's clear. But it's worth having a positive presumption when we see someone for the first time.

So trust a stranger in advance?

Rather trust in principle. Because it is awful to live in the constant belief that everyone can cheat, trick me, exploit me, so I have to be on guard always. It is sad to spend my life still looking distrustfully around. It is more pleasant to be trusting.

That sounds somewhat naive and maybe dangerously.

Maybe. But it's better this way. Sure, we will be disappointed more than once, but it is better to be cheated sometimes than to spend our lives in constant distrust. And besides, our trust makes others better. And also makes us better.

But friendship is not only made of trust. Do you believe in friendship beyond personal interests?

Of course. The easiest way is to make real friends with people with whom we have no interests.

Everyone would like to have friends on whom they can count in the darkest hour, but hardly anyone is sure that they have them. Where to get such friends?

It's probably a matter of chance. All life is a continuous series of unpredictable cases. It has to be this way, and it is perhaps okay. You don't even have to try to understand many things. There is probably some kind of spiritual connection, which makes that we make friends with someone, and with many others, it will never be possible no matter how often we will meet them. It is difficult to say why this is happening, but everyone can roughly say who they cannot make friends with. For example, I could not be friends with people who are hungry for power. Not because I judge them poorly. I do not judge. I may even like them, meet them, talk to them. But I will not make friends. Because I don't feel closeness. It's probably quite trivial.

Yes and no. However, I feel something extraordinary when I hear from you - from the perspective of your whole life - that friends are the most important thing. Have you tested this principle of priority friendship in your life?

Probably not once. But I can't give a specific example.

You've had ups and downs in your life. Even when you left Poland, it wasn't easy. Did your friendship worked then? They helped you?

Sure they were helping. But now that I start talking about it, I will have to talk about how difficult it was. I don't want to complain. Let's try not to complain about life. If we can, let us stay strong. Let's not scream how the world is terrible for us. Because by insulting on the wickedness of the world, we more often expose ourselves to ridicule than we get help.

And your friends don't show up then?

They show up if you are ready for friendship yourself. After all, some people are afraid of intimacy, who think that having friends means to expose themselves to living expenses, efforts, and discomfort, without which one can't do without. Such people make themselves miserable. It's a pity. You probably can't help them. And saving on friends is not worth it. Hardly any expense pays off so much.

Are friends the most important thing because friendship is a zone excluded from the general principles of interpersonal relations? Without rivalry, without rationality, without evaluation, ranking, and self-interest.

I don't know if it's easy to say why. It is merely the mutual attitude of people who trust each other completely. They don't think the latter is supposed to be sinless and perfect, but they trust each other. You can confine to a friend, if you need it, pass observations, consult them without fear of ridicule. You feel completely safe with friends. There is nothing more important in life. A friend is a human being, which you can count on no matter what. A friend doesn't even have to forgive us. There are sins or transgressions so terrible that they will also spoil a friendship. But healthy guilt doesn't destroy it. They would ruin acquaintance but would not spoil a friendship.

And love?

Love between a woman and a man is a bigger problem. You can find there a feeling that there is no need to forgive. We also forgive, but in a natural, spontaneous way. We translate, defend, not accuse just as we forgive ourselves.

The difference is that we are inevitably doomed to ourselves. We can part with others if we do not accept them. It means that friendship is a zone excluded from most general principles. The principle of justice does not work here. For example, when they ask you to recommend someone for an important prize or a good job, would you first report a friend?

There is no general rule.

But are there points for friendship in such a situation?

Of course, they are. I will think of my friend with exceptional kindness. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Isn't this nepotism? Does this not violate the principles of equality and coexistence?

We're not - Mr. Jacek - and let's not pretend that we can be completely impartial... We're not. We will not be. And it's probably okay. In any case, it is better to acknowledge this than to lie to yourself. We want our friends to prosper, and we want to support them if it is in our power. We are biased in their favor. Let it be this way.

But you are praising nepotism now.

It is a matter of measure. Friendship, (which is good), and nepotism, (which is evil), are divided by the limit of ratio. But this is not a sharp boundary. And this is what probably our life is all about. There are no sharp borders. It is not worth falling into fundamentalism in any of the most just cases. Avoid rigor and fundamentalism, and it is again essential in life. The rules which are firm, hard, not subject to correction that cannot be softened - these are usually not very wise. Smart ones are never absolute. Because in life, there are seldom situations in which nothing counts except one thing. And so be it. There is no explicitness in the world. So it has to be. It must be so. I think it's good this way.

Leszek Ko?akowski (1927–2009). Initially a Marxist dogmatist, he eventually became a leading representative of revisionism - in 1966, he was removed from the Polish Communist Party for criticizing the political and social realities of the PRL. Deprived of the cathedra at the university in March 1968, he went abroad, lectured in the USA (including universities at Yale and Berkeley), and since 1970 has been a member of All Souls College at Oxford University. […] In 2003, he became the first winner of the $1 million John Klugis Prize, awarded by the Library of Congress of the United States for outstanding achievements in those fields of science that are not covered by the Nobel Prize.

  Original interview in Polish: https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/spoleczenstwo/11583,1,prof-leszek-kolakowski-o-tym-co-jest-wazne-w-zyciu.read