Who is Escobar? Pablo Escobar's choice of opposites: an axiom or requires proof? Choice in modern realities

In the censored version, this axiom sounds like this: "With an uncontested choice of two opposite entities, both will be exceptional garbage."

In obscene language, it sounds even more truthful and fits perfectly with the situation with the 2019 elections: about the authorities and the opposition.

However, in a sense, this lack of alternatives can make life easier for us. At least on a metaphysical level. I'll try to explain.

I have written more than once that the happiness of Svidomo is that they are stupid.
And we have the classic "woe from wit."

We critically comprehend reality, trying to read smart books, remember the lessons of history, establish cause-and-effect relationships, look for a logical justification, analyze different points of view, try to anticipate the consequences ... And we are all doing great at the level of “fucking on Facebook”.

And in real life, every Svidomo has every right to ask us the question “Well, what did it give to Toby?” And we don't have an answer to it.

And now, during the election race, the entire news feed is full of information that there is no one to vote for, the opposition is fake, Muraev is too muddy, Vilkul is too transparent, Dobkin is somehow frivolous, Novinsky is too serious, Medvedchuk is too dark a horse, and Boyko - too light. And tagdalia.

And yet we analyze, and all that we remember about them, and all that we understand about them. We are smart and you can't fool us!

And everything is simple for Svidomo - a candidate for vyshyvantsy? Whoa, vote!

Nothing else matters.

Promises already tomorrow life as in Switzerland? Everything, running, only bloomers flicker. And even a paralyzed grandmother is dragged to the polling station.

Because their stupidity is their happiness.

And their strength.

But we are trying to play chess with a dove, carefully considering moves and castling.

They don't bother reading political biographies candidates, their economic programs, they don’t analyze what was fulfilled from previous election promises, they don’t link the current government and the current total impoverishment into one logical chain, they don’t see any minuses if the candidate is a “patriot” and promises beautifully. Sometimes it seems to me that if someone pisses Svidomo in the face, but at the same time is Ukrainian-speaking and in an embroidered shirt, then in this case he will also find an excuse for pissing. This explains that after so many years of empty hopes, Svidomo still continue to vote for the "patriot". But this is so, by the way.

In fact, what over the past 5 years helped us maintain common sense, now, oddly enough, is working against us. We see all the minuses, all the weak points, all the jambs of the opposition, but the main problem that there is no alternative to them. It's just not there, that's all. Escobar's axiom.

So guys, hey! There is no Che Guevara on the horizon. And not in the foreseeable future.

And none of the current politicians is going to fight for the happiness of the working people and office intelligentsia. This is capitalism, baby.

The choice in Ukraine today is only between "live very badly" and "live just badly." But even this choice would be good not to pass ... not to click through. And now, and in the parliamentary elections.

During the jumps on the Maidan, we jumped so far from civilization that neither the next government nor the next one will be able to overcome this abyss.

Maximum, I repeat - maximum! is to slightly slow down the decline, if not in the economic, then at least in the ideological sphere. And for this, any conditional muraevovilkulomedvedchuk will do. This is on the one hand.

On the other hand, even a colony of mushrooms or fruit flies will be able to govern Ukraine better than the politicians who are now in power. At least that's why it is necessary to give the opposition a chance.

Yes, there is a risk that the politicians we have chosen will not justify the trust placed in them. Here, as in a joke about a blonde and a dinosaur - 50 to 50. Either they will justify it or not. But the current government will 100% continue this policy of legalized economic genocide and the escalation of civil confrontation, which is murderous for the country and the people.

Therefore, for me personally, the lack of alternative choice means only one thing: you have to go and vote for the opposition. For the one that is. For the one that is the only possible in a situation of total cleansing of dissidents. For the one that gives at least some ghostly chance.

against the current government.

And the upcoming elections are not so much elections as a census of normal people. And I really want to know how many of us there really are.

Bella Rosenfeld (Marina Solovieva)

Have you heard the saying of Pablo Escobar, which is often called "Escobar's axiom"? It is not so important who he is, but his words very clearly reflect the problem of choosing between two alternatives that are objectionable to us.

Who is Pablo Escobar?

Most often, theorems or axioms belong to the mind and activity of mathematicians or physicists, while the situation with Escobar's theorem is somewhat different. Pablo Emilio Escobar is a Colombian drug lord who was shot dead in 1993. During his lifetime, by virtue of his profession, he spoke mostly obscenely and did not make discoveries in mathematics or physics. Meanwhile, his authorship belongs to a fairly well-known phrase that illustrates a non-alternative choice. Translated into Russian and censored, it sounds like this: "If you choose from two opposites in a situation with no alternative, both options will be nonsense." This axiom became known quite by accident, after being published on the Lurkmore portal. Now this resource is buried, but the "theorem" has scattered over the Web and has become quite famous.

Is it a theorem or an axiom? A theorem needs confirmation, while an axiom is a postulate, a truth that does not require proof. Pablo Escobar's statement does not really need arguments "for", therefore it is more correct to call it an "axiom".

Synonyms for Escobar's statement

The axiom of the drug lord is not the first in history to clearly enough reflect the situation when we face two uncomfortable options as a choice. Remember the saying "choose the lesser of two evils", the meaning of which is close to the words of Escobar. The axiom in this case is this: if you don’t like both options, and there is no alternative, calculate which one you will lose less by choosing.

Between Scylla and Charybdis

Another synonymous statement refers to the winged expressions of Greek mythology and sounds like "between When Odysseus was on the voyage, he had to pass a dangerous place on the ship, located between two rocks. In one rock, called Charybdis, there was a cave, the abode of a terrible monster. And an evil sea goddess lived on Mount Scylla. It was impossible to bypass the rocks, it was simply impossible to bypass them, and therefore Odysseus decided to sail past Scylla. As Odysseus calculated, the monster would have killed a maximum of half the team, while the sea goddess would have killed the entire team and Odysseus himself. And by doing so, the famous navigator saved most of the team.

Also in Russian there are sayings “from the fire to the frying pan”, “between the hammer and the anvil”, which mean all the same - in the case of two uncontested possibilities, you still have to choose something, but this choice will not please us.

Choice in modern realities

What does Escobar's theorem look like in real life? We are constantly faced with situations where we have to choose between alternatives that are completely bleak. Imagine that you need your job because of the salary you support your family. At the same time, your boss tells you that you have to stay late for a month or he will fire you. You understand that if you are fired, then finding a suitable job will be very difficult. And what to choose? You work for your loved ones, but you will have to give them up for a while in order to earn a living. If you choose relatives, then it is not a fact that you will find money to support them in the near future. You do not like either option, but you will choose the lesser of evils.

There is always a choice

Escobar's theorem suggests that there are only two options, both of which we don't like. But meanwhile, reality implies, as a rule, much more possibilities. Faced with a non-alternative situation? Look at it from a different angle, maybe you haven't considered all the possibilities. Very often we "curtain" and close ourselves from the choice that lies in a different plane. In order not to become a victim of Pablo Escobar's theorem, the axiom is the following - allow yourself to look at the problem with different eyes. Give yourself time, become an indifferent indifferent observer, ask for advice from relatives or relatives. Along with the "two evils" there is another saying - "there is always a choice." And believe me, it's not just about Scylla and Charybdis, there's an opportunity to turn back or choose a completely different path. Escobar's axiom is a controversial statement. Very rarely life gives us only two options for the development of events.

Each earthworm chooses for himself: either get wet in the rain on a busy sidewalk, or hide near a pond with frogs. ~ Charles Darwin about the effect of Escobar's axiom on earthworms during rain.

Cheerful and glamorous sign of the Esco bar - always painted either black or white

A special case of set theory, which can be described by the following phrase:

History » class="alignleft" />

The original version of the axiom.

The history of the phrase goes back to the regulars at the Esco university bar in Edinburgh, where only two were served to choose from. alcoholic drink- beer diluted with water and purified industrial alcohol. Unable to order anything else. For example, when trying to order red wine or mulled wine, mathematicians were consistently rejected. The situation was translated into strict scientific language. Subsequently, it turned out that this is not just an empirical observation, but a real axiom, successfully suitable for describing life situations in the conditions of an individual's geometric lack of freedom.

Escobar's theorem - what is it?

Someone calls this concept the Escobar theorem, someone an axiom, but there is no particular significant difference in it. And in no mathematics or other science such a theory is studied, so that there are a lot of obscene words in it, and indeed some kind of muddyquot ;.

Here's what it sounds like, censored:

With no alternative choice of two opposite entities, both will be exceptional nonsense

And here is the Escobar theorem itself:

As for me, I consider this theorem to be complete nonsense.

Pablo Escobar is a Colombian who in his country has received the dubious fame of a criminal authority.

The following thought of Pablo Escobar, which is considered an axiom, has received particular distribution:

This expression is very difficult to understand.

There are many theorems and axioms in mathematics and geometry. Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria is one of Colombia's drug lords. And more often they call not a theorem, but Escobar's axiom. It sounds like this in a loyal translation: With an uncontested choice of two opposite entities, both will be exceptional nonsensequot ;, in the original it is obscene. Unfortunately, I can not give the true translation.

Oh, this axiom is more like philosophy and in fact is something incomprehensible. Everyone understands this axiom in their own way, or, on the contrary, does not understand .... In fact, of two evils, you should not choose the lesser or no way out of the situation ... Probably drug addict nonsense in general

Escobar's axiom contains profanity and does not sound very decent, even if you remove the obscenity, but try to translate very close to the original text. The most acceptable translation, in which the essence of what was said is not lost, looks like this:

And another translation:

Here it is not entirely clear how exactly opposite entities (keyword opposite) both can be evil. If both entities do not suit the chooser (since he considers them evil and nonsense), then if he tries to oppose them, in any case there must be some alternative, a third essencequot ;, which suits him. That is, either there is an alternative, or the entities are not opposite, or the chooser has no idea what he needs.

This phrase of the drug lord Pablo Escabaro sounds like this With no alternative choice from two opposite entities, both will be exceptional nonsensequot ;. (Original swearing). He died in 1993, when he was shot 3 times.

The axiom of Escobar, whose life name was Pablo, does not reveal anything so significant and new to us. There is no need to prove it, because, in my opinion, this is just a set of words from one of the richest drug lords in Colombia. Having become famous in drug dealers, he decided to do something else to be remembered for a long time. So I wrote this nonsense.

Although, there is some truth in the statement. If you need a saw, and there are only two things in front of you - a hammer and a nail, then choosing one or the other will not bring you desired result. This is how I understand this Escobar theorem :)

Escobar's theorem or Escobar's axiom is a kind of statement of the crime boss in Colombia - Pablo Escobar. In fact, this is not a particularly coherent set of words, which is difficult to translate, since in the original it is almost a set of swear words. If it is brought into a more or less cultural and normal form, then this theorem looks like this:

Escobar is known for expressing profanity, he is a Colombian drug lord. His theorem is quite contradictory and incomprehensible. It turns out that, for example, good and bad as 2 alternative opposites are nonsense, and the choice does not imply a third, that is, there is no golden mean. That is, it is not worth making a choice, because anyway this is an empty business, nonsense. In a word, nothing is clear from this statement, some kind of absurdity.

For a while, in the comments above, she wrote that the meaning of this theoremquot ; could not reach me. But here, no later than yesterday, my husband explained it to me quite clearly. Here you ask

The actual quote:

It turns out that the theorem really exists in life, and it is more illustrative than it might seem at first glance. Everything is very simple. My husband explained this to me. What is an uncontested choice of two mutual opposites? Look, I work, I feed my family. But I constantly have no alternative choice of two mutual opposites - to feed my family, or pay taxes? What do you think I'll choose? That's right - to feed the family, because it has no alternative. But no matter what choice I make, I will be wrong anyway. If I pay taxes, my family will be malnourished. I will feed my family - I will not pay taxes. In both cases, I am essentially a criminal. In both cases, I do evil. And I can't do anything about it. This is the essence of Escobar's theorem. This is how she looks in real life. It is a pity that I did not immediately understand this, although the answer lay on the surface.

In this case, we can say that we are not talking about a theorem at all, but about Escobar's axiom, which does not require proof. After all, we all know that the theorem needs proof, but the axiom does not. It sounds like this:

The meaning of this axiom is that choosing from two opposite things, from bad and good, you should not choose either one or the other, because it does not make sense. Perhaps this axiom will be suitable for someone in life. But for me it's all nonsense.

Curiously, Escobar's theorem has nothing to do with the exact sciences. Looking at Wikipedia, we can find out that Pablo Emilio Escobar is the most famous Colombian drug lord who died in a shootout at the very beginning of the 90s of the last century. Already from the profession of the character it is clear that he had nothing to do with high science, he did not make any discoveries. So where did the concept come from - Escobar's theorem or axiom?

Escobar's theorem or axiom began to be called a phrase that was once uttered by a criminal Colombian and which reflects an uncontested choice. The saying of the drug lord can be translated into Russian as follows: "if you have to choose one of the opposite options in a situation with no alternative, then both of these options will be meaningless and useless." It is more accurate to translate a saying in which a lot of obscene words will not work. The general public learned about Escobar's axiom thanks to a popular resource called Lurkmore or Lurk for short.

Escobar's axiom and reality

There are plenty of examples of the drug lord theorem in real life. A modern person has to constantly face situations in which the exit options turn out to be not very joyful and choose the “lesser evil” from them.

For example, I work and get a good salary, which allows me to feed and support my family. But the management suddenly sets a condition to work until late, otherwise they will look for a more accommodating candidate in my place. Whatever I choose, everything will be bad. If I leave work, there will be no money to feed my relatives; if I stay, I will rarely see them. Here is a simple example of Escobar's axiom in real life.

In my article, I tried to tell you everything that I know about Escobar's theorem, but completing the presentation of the material, I would like to say that it is not necessary to take the drug lord's statement as a guide to life. The axiom speaks of two options, but in any situation there are many more solutions and exits. One has only to abstract from the problem and look at it with different eyes.

Let's start with two theses.

Thesis 1 - The West has declared a cold war on the Russian Federation.

Thesis 2 - the Russian Federation, in its current state, cannot win in it.

Why can not - you can explain for a long time. Yes, the USSR lived in a state of permanent cold war with the West for years. But the Russian Federation is not the USSR. We are not an autonomous state that would fully provide for itself. By full support, we mean not only material things, but also our own ideology, a picture of the world. At least patriotic-minded and independent of the West elites.

The Russian Federation has none of this. We are almost completely dependent on the West. Food, technology, finance. Our ruble is, in fact, a derivative of the dollar and nothing more. We are fully integrated into its financial and ideological systems. Our elites think only in the West and keep their honestly stolen capital there. Our economy is shamefully dependent on the export of raw materials, which, moreover, is now rapidly becoming cheaper.

In fact, this means the following. As the sanctions tighten and the economic crisis grows in the country, Putin, as a man already sentenced by the West to the slaughter for "imperial ambitions", will receive a variety of forces in the country who will very much want him to "leave".

The so-called "fifth column" of the pro-Western forces in the country - the creative class, angry citizens, in general, visitors to Bolotnaya Square. This is external pressure. The so-called “sixth column” is, in fact, part of the elites and government officials who will face the strong temptation of a “palace coup”.

Separately - nationalists and patriots, dissatisfied with the position of the Russian Federation in Ukraine.

When so many forces want you to “leave” it is very bad. If the elites are for you, but against the “people”, you can rely on the security forces to disperse any street opposition. This would have happened even with Yanukovych if he had not chewed snot and acted decisively. If the elites are against you, you can rely on a part of the people and, having cleaned out the elites, put new people in their place. Stalin did this more than once, so the method is effective.

If everything is against you, then this is a pitchfork. There is nothing to catch here. Namely, in such a situation, Putin may soon find himself.

Because no matter how many “Rothenberg laws” are adopted, the elite still looks to the West. As they say - how many wolves do not feed. Yes, and the example of Ukraine shows that all these opportunists, even if they do not weave cunning conspiracies, will still scatter at the “first nix”.

From all this, exactly two options emerge in which Putin can save the country and remain, so to speak, “with his own people”:

Select from the people a certain support group and, using it, clean up unreliable elites. Create a new elite from this support group and, relying on it, build new country- to carry out reindustrialization, import substitution and further down the list. This option was rolled at one time by Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, Stalin.

Designate yourself a receiver. And now this receiver will be engaged in the restoration of the country and purges. And that, in fact, this is how Putin himself came to power. And Yeltsin, who appointed him, deftly jumped off. Instead of a jail or a firing squad, for all your deeds, having the opportunity to live your life in peace. As a candidate - Shoigu, for example. Although, it may be a completely new figure. Who ever heard of Putin before his recommendations to Yeltsin?

This is the notorious “Escobar theorem” for Putin, since both of these options, it seems to me, categorically do not suit him. Yes, according to the first option, some timid and inconsistent steps are being taken. The so-called "People's Front" was created. Previously - the movement "Nashi" and a bunch of other "youth movements". What's the point of them all? Where were “Ours” during Bolotnaya? Who sits in the "People's Front", not the same people as in the "United Russia"?

Escobar's theorem - what is it?

Here's what it sounds like, censored:

With no alternative choice of two opposite entities, both will be exceptional nonsense

And here is the Escobar theorem itself:

As for me, I consider this theorem to be complete nonsense.

Pablo Escobar is a Colombian who in his country has received the dubious fame of a criminal authority.

The following thought of Pablo Escobar, which is considered an axiom, has received particular distribution:

This expression is very difficult to understand.

And another translation:

Although, there is some truth in the statement. If you need a saw, and there are only two things in front of you - a hammer and a nail, then choosing one or the other will not bring you the desired result. This is how I understand this Escobar theorem :)

Escobar is known for his profanity, he is a Colombian drug lord. His theorem is quite contradictory and incomprehensible. It turns out that, for example, good and bad as 2 alternative opposites are nonsense, and the choice does not imply a third, that is, there is no golden mean. That is, it is not worth making a choice, because anyway this is an empty business, nonsense. In a word, nothing is clear from this statement, some kind of absurdity.

For a while, in the comments above, she wrote that the meaning of this theoremquot ; could not reach me. But here, no later than yesterday, my husband explained it to me quite clearly. Here you ask

The actual quote:

Liked the article? Share it

Print article