Gloating

This talk show is gratifying to watch. Stephen and I fondly recalled it last night, while we were observing the futility of Argentina and Brazil.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The team that gained on everyone was Bolivia, due to their two-goal victory over Venezuela. But the team that leapt into first place was Ecuador.

Stephen was irked because the Uruguayans “were not dominated completely.”

Indeed, they blemished our defensive record. Edinson Cavani, slightly offside, headed in a goal.

I had to remind Stephen that the Uruguayans are always difficult to play against, because of their garra, and because of their counterattacking prowess.

Also, I noted, many of our best players were absent.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

But I preferred to focus on our achievements.

Our first goal was exquisite. It was crafted by three different players: el Zar, la Hormiga, and Felipao.

Later, even Fidel Martínez acquitted himself. He scored a tap-in.

See for yourselves.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Except for Martínez’s goal, I didn’t view these events when they occurred. I was busy tutoring (alas). My final pupil, a middle-aged Moroccan, noticed that I was streaming a soccer game on my computer; and so her assignment took on a less urgent feel for her. We watched until the game ended. Then we finished going over her assignment, after I’d clocked out.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Perhaps my tone in writing about Ecuador has sounded more and more cocky since October 8, the day of the Argentina game. I’m sure it’s painful to listen to. I don’t mean to give offense.

But I understand now how the Argentinians and the Brazilians *used to* feel, during their periods of overwhelming excellence.

Larissa MacFarquhar

I made a Twitter account. I don’t care if anyone follows me. I don’t intend to follow anyone except for Kelly Oxford. I just wanna practice saying things in 140 characters or less.

For example: “When the moon is full, the tide is high.”

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

From Boston Review, an interview with Larissa MacFarquhar, who writes about people who give to the needy as much as they’re able. They give effort … money … kidneys … etc.

[Boston Review:] How did you become interested in extreme cases of moral virtue?

[LM:] I’ve been interested in them for a long time, but one of the things I read that got me thinking in a more systematic way was the philosopher Susan Wolf’s essay “Moral Saints” [PDF]. She argues that our conceptions of perfect moral virtue (what she calls saintliness) and of a well-lived life are irreconcilable, so one of them has to go. She is basically anti-saint — she concludes that it’s our view of morality that has to go. I tend towards the other conclusion, but her essay was very useful in framing the question. It seemed to me, though, that you couldn’t think about the problem only in the abstract. If you want to consider the cost of making certain ethical decisions, you have to see how they play out in actual lives. So that’s why I decided to write about people who have a very demanding sense of moral duty and live their lives accordingly.

LM is trying to write about real-life “moral saints” who aren’t “kooks.” This fascinates me, because most moral saints I can think of are, in fact, a little kooky. But even if LM’s subjects were, too, I’m not sure how damning that’d be.

I think that if you’re doing something that’s hard to do and good to do, and that makes you feel proud, I just don’t see why that’s so terrible. One kidney donor told me that his donation made him feel better about himself — that it was one really good thing he’d done in his life, which he had otherwise made a pretty complete mess of. Some psychologists think you shouldn’t donate in order to feel better about yourself, but it strikes me as an excellent reason!

Feeling proud isn’t the same as feeling less awful about yourself. But whichever motive the guy had, I think LM is right to view it with some admiration, and with compassion.