Forum

Such a strange interpretation – why not just use the word "coward" then? After all, the word "fool," in all its possible interpretations, is related to a person's intellectual abilities in one way or another.

It's some kind of "naively realistic" approach. The word "fool" in Russian, and in other languages, has many meanings, sometimes even opposite in meaning, and is often only tangentially related to intellectual abilities (and what exactly are intellectual abilities anyway? IQ?). Let's remember folklore – Ivan the Fool, Emelya, in reality, achieved success. While the "smart king" could be boiled alive in a cauldron. Pushkin – a tale about a priest and his servant, Balda. "Balda" is a synonym for fool, but it's clear that the fool in the tale is not him, although no intellectual achievements are depicted there. Shakespeare's "King Lear" – the court jester was often addressed as "fool," although a person with weak intelligence might not have lasted long as a jester. However, Lear ends up in a foolish situation (if we express it simply). Can we say that Lear is a fool because he lacks intelligence – hardly. In general, the word "fool" often denotes a certain limitation of sensory perception, and not intellectual ability at all. Lear could intuitively feel that he was surrounded by traitors, while intellect could find all sorts of explanations for everything that was happening.

Cowardice, by the way, is a property of the intellect. It's naive to think that people who have shown themselves to be fearless are incapable of fear or experiencing horror. Nervousness is inherent in humans by nature. A strong person overcomes nervousness at the level of thoughts, will, and intellect; I myself get lost in these terms.

So, what's the conclusion? In what sense should this be understood in the text? In the end, Dmitry clearly says that "fool" is a synonym for "crap." The time of the fool = the time of "crap," presumably, was simply replaced with a more euphonious term for censorship reasons.