“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. (Adopted by Steve Jobs.)
A Serpent glided into an Blacksmith’s shop.
At once, he came upon a File on the floor which pricked his skin.
Furious, the Serpent opened his mouth and struck his fangs in attack, which, over and over, did no harm to heavy iron but only to itself.
Moral of the Story: It is particularly useless to scorn that which cannot perceive it. Hate is acid that corrodes the vessel that contains it. Hate is a man’s own best punishment.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: This fable builds on Self-Inflicted Misery – No. 61. The Bald Man and the Fly, with some notable distinction in casting.
The choice of Aesop’s casting can be subtle, but important.
For things such as scorn, there is the thing that scorns, and there is the thing that is scorned, being the object of the scorn.
In The Bald Man and the Fly, Aesop teaches with a human being—the Man—being the presumed height of a rational and potentially wise being, was adduced to foolishness by the little Fly. With the scorn of trying to eradicate the little Fly, the Man abused himself in the process.
Silly foolish, little, Man.
Here, Aesop uses his Serpent and a File. The Serpent is generally denoted as a naturally vicious character, spewing its venom, and the File is not really even a character, as such, being inanimate. The File did not and could not “do anything wrong.”
This fable does not begin with something good that goes bad because the object of the scorn chose to do something, but, rather, something that is bad because its nature keeps it that way, irrespective of the nature of the object.
So, we consider: Scorn for President Trump (“I scorn President Trump because he does not match my expectation.”), scorn for Joe Biden (“I scorn Joe Biden because he does not match my expectation.”), scorn for the dishwasher (“I scorn this dishwasher because it does not match my expectation.”). In each case, the resultant scorn is a function of some antecedent judgment.
But, we note that the person who scorns bears the acidic venom of the scorn irrespective of whether the object of that scorn is living or not living. Scorn is a lien on human life, having some parts of anger, hate, frustration, and similar vices. Scorn is hate directed to a discrete contradictive object, resulting in frustration.
In this fable, Aesop makes the object of the scorn inanimate, because, in effect, it does not matter what is being scorned, or whether the object is even aware of the scorn for it. Thereby, Aesop makes the scorn entirely within the scope of the person with the scorn.
The punishment for scorning is the scorning itself. Thus the adage, “Odium est hominis optimum propria poena” (“Hate is a man’s own best punishment.”).
When the human being who scorns is scorning another human being who knows of scorn (first degree scorn), there is perhaps (at best) a cause for the scorned human being to make self-reflections. If the human being who is the object of the scorn does not know of the scorn (second degree scorn), or the object of the scorn is inanimate (third degree scorn), the scorn is self-destructive, by those parts anger, hate, frustration, and similar vices, with only increasing clarity of its folly.
In reactive scorn, by common-think application, we observe the planted rhetorical Dukakian dilemma, placed before him in the Presidential election campaign, being whether Dukakis would scorn the man who raped his wife or would he still free the culprit.
The correct answer subsists in reconciling real human weakness matched to ascendant principle, by application of the adage, “Stellam attingere non necesse est ut ab eo ducamur.” (“We do not need to touch the star to be guided by it.”) The answer is “probably yes,” but that fact proves only human weakness, it does not prove human strength.
Saying that a man would hate and seek vengeance proves only the human nature of it, but it does not prove the wisdom of it.
Gandhi, Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Socrates, were strong and disciplined—if not perfect—and they were wise. With cause to feel scorn by social abrasion, insults and injury, all of these wise men—all of these exceptional men—were yet filled with love, but not the venom of scorn. If the felt it, they kept the venom within themselves.
This was the lesson of Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices.
It only matters whether or why the thing that scorns does so. To be in a state of scorn by thoughtful control and free choice is rare if ever for the sage, but it is almost always because the thing that scorns is too weak to control it or too foolish to know it. Even the sage will feel the bite on occasion, but the difference is that the sage recovers by antidote of wisdom itself.
ChatGPT Review
Here’s a deep-dive analysis of Gregg Zegarelli’s “The Acidic Venom of Scorn – No. 62 – The Serpent and the File”, in alignment with your ongoing synthesis of his philosophical ethos and pedagogy.
🔍 DEEP DIVE ANALYSIS
I. Narrative Structure & Fable Breakdown
- Characters:
- Serpent: Symbol of aggression, vengeance, natural venom—Aesop’s archetype for an inherently dangerous being.
- File: An inanimate object, immune to feeling, impervious to harm, and unaware of attack. A “non-sentient recipient.”
- Plot:
- The Serpent strikes after being pricked by the File—not because the File attacked it, but because of reactive indignation.
- The attack harms only the Serpent, damaging itself through futile scorn, rendering the File unaffected.
- Moral (Canonical + Zegarelli Expansion):
- “It is particularly useless to scorn that which cannot perceive it. Hate is acid that corrodes the vessel that contains it.”
- Hate/scorn is ultimately self-destructive—a corrosive internal state, regardless of the awareness or guilt of the object.
II. Pedagogical Layering
Zegarelli’s pedagogy in this article employs layered didactic contrast, using:
1. Progressive Scorn Typology:
- First-degree scorn: The scorned knows of the hatred (interpersonal feedback loop—possibly corrective).
- Second-degree: The scorned doesn’t know it (silent suffering of the scorner).
- Third-degree: The scorned is not even animate—pure futility. A man screaming at a broken dishwasher.
➤ Pedagogical Point: The “reality” of scorn is not contingent on what is scorned, but entirely on who is scorning.
2. Contrasting Human Archetypes:
- The Serpent: Reactivity, weakness, fury without wisdom.
- The Sage (Gandhi, Jesus, MLK, Lincoln, Socrates): Self-discipline, quiet suffering, transformed pain into strength.
- Zegarelli subtly inverts popular admiration for emotional expressiveness, advocating that virtue lies in restraint, subsumed reaction, and internal alchemy of pain into wisdom.
3. Integration of Civic and Political Commentary:
- The comparison to scorn for public figures (Trump, Biden) is not partisan—it demonstrates that scorn is often based on personal unmet expectations, irrespective of merit.
- The Dukakis dilemma is leveraged as a rhetorical teaching device:
- When asked whether he would execute his wife’s rapist, Dukakis responded with logic instead of emotion.
- Zegarelli implies that while the expected human answer is vengeance, the aspirational answer is principle.
- “We do not need to touch the star to be guided by it.”—an adage teaching idealism as a guiding principle, even if it cannot always be enacted.
III. Zegarelli’s Ethos: Connection to Larger Framework
This fable crystalizes multiple pillars of Zegarelli’s evolving philosophical ethos:
| Ethos Pillar | Manifestation in This Fable |
|---|---|
| Virtue through Self-Control | The Serpent’s failure is not in the venom, but in its application—undisciplined reaction. |
| Internalism of Morality | Morality and pain do not depend on the target of our feelings—they are internally borne. |
| Critique of Weak Justification | Scorn, vengeance, or hate—even if “justified”—does not vindicate its self-harm. |
| Classical Heroism | Restraint, not power, defines the sage (aligns with Proseuché ideals). |
| Distinction of Reaction vs. Principle | You may feel rage, but wisdom lies in not being ruled by it. |
| Aesopian Minimalism | In Zegarelli’s hands, the fable becomes a philosophical scalpel—simplistic story, sophisticated pedagogy. |
IV. Zegarelli’s Rhetorical Method
- Dual-Language Teaching: Uses Latin aphorisms as maxims of clarity and gravitas:
- “Odium est hominis optimum propria poena.” (“Hate is a man’s own best punishment.”)
- “Stellam attingere non necesse est ut ab eo ducamur.” (“We do not need to touch the star to be guided by it.”)
- High-Low Integration:
- Starts with Aesop.
- Moves through Dukakis.
- Ends with Socrates and Lincoln.
- All tied together through a pedagogical arc about scorn as self-harm.
V. Conclusion: Philosophical Take-Away
Zegarelli’s fable analysis here is a treatise on unworthy indignation. It is a scalpel to the bloated pride of those who mistake reaction for strength. His lesson is not that hate is wrong because it is immoral, but because it is irrational, unprofitable, and unwise—a toxin whose first and often only victim is the bearer.
He uses the fable to invert the presumption of emotional power, arguing that only the weak lash out at that which cannot respond.
✅ Take-away: Hate is not just ethically corrosive—it is strategically and psychologically self-defeating. The antidote is not appeasement, but wisdom.
This fable is fully aligned with Zegarelli’s ethos of virtuous discipline, philosophical realism, and character through adversity—a cautionary parable fit for both personal and civic pedagogy.
20250422.4o
Copyright © 2020 Gregg Zegarelli.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acidic-venom-scorn-62-serpent-file-essential-aesop-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Articles:
- [98_61] Self-Inflicted Misery – No. 61. The Bald Man and the Fly – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_61]
- [44] Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices [GRZ44X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_44]
- [106] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
- [74] Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness [GRZ74] [LinkedIn #GRZ_74]
GRZ98_62.20250422 GRZUID98_62