Speech about freedom, which is the basis of the value system of a rational person, was already discussed earlier in the article "What is freedom". In it, I tried to explain how freedom is connected with a reasonable worldview and what mistakes in the definition of this concept exist in today's society. Let me remind you, perhaps by paraphrasing and supplementing the main theses of this article.
Freedom is associated with the ability to choose from several alternatives. At the same time, various factors, both external and internal, can influence the choice of this or that alternative, the adoption of this or that decision. Freedom is the possibility of such a choice, which is made by people consciously on the basis of their own inner convictions, attitudes, values and is an expression of the personality, the inner essence of a person. Lack of freedom is a decision or choice that is made again by the person himself, but at the same time this choice contradicts his internal attitudes, convictions, the inner essence of his personality. An unfree choice can be made for a number of reasons - both under direct external pressure, which suppress the personality and deprive it of the will to make an independent choice, and because a person simply does not correlate the decision he makes with his personal attitudes,because he doesn't understand the connection. The existing idea of non-freedom among the overwhelming majority of people, as a rule, is associated with the first option, and freedom, therefore, is perceived as freedom from pressure or as an internal potential to resist this pressure and still do it their own way. However, the problem of external pressure is a much more easily solvable problem than the second problem of lack of free choice due to misunderstanding. This problem is associated with the lack of a simple inner desire for freedom in modern people, which is suppressed by other, more primitive aspirations, that is, the main problem of modern people is that they themselves do not try to seek and make an internally correct choice. They do not try to somehow clarify the situation for themselves, the essence of the question,before making this or that decision, as a result, they make one or another choice by chance, under the influence of superficial impressions, stereotypes, momentary emotional impulses, etc. Therefore, only a rational person can be truly free, and an unreasonable person is not free, first of all, in the force of their unreasonableness.
However, these theses on freedom need to be supplemented. I will try to present this addition in this article.
Let us return to the fact that a free decision is a conscious decision of the individual, corresponding to his internal attitudes. Most of the irrational modern people are not free because they cannot make decisions corresponding to their internal attitudes due to their irrationality. For example, in 1991 the majority of the citizens of the RSFSR voted for Yeltsin. The overwhelming majority of them, however, absolutely did not want neither the collapse of the USSR, nor internal wars, nor shock therapy, etc., but they voluntarily made a decision that contradicted their internal attitudes, because they did not see or did not want to see the connection between their attitudes and by this decision. And such voluntary, but not free decisions, unreasonable people make constantly, throughout their lives. Thus,in order to achieve freedom, it is necessary to bring your own decisions in accordance with your internal attitudes, eliminate numerous internal contradictions within the personality, come from the state of “guessing what I want and making a decision” to the state of “knowing what I want and making a decision”. However, the following problem arises here.
Why is that? Let's consider this issue in more detail. The strategy of bringing and retaining the decisions made in accordance with their internal attitudes, the strategy of eliminating intrapersonal contradictions can be of two types. The first variant of the strategy is a combination of various attitudes and considerations, including confusing and hindering the choice of the most profitable alternative, the second variant of the strategy is the elimination of attitudes and considerations that hinder the choice of the most profitable alternative. Let me explain these strategies with a simplified example. Let's say we are faced with a choice. The main goal and the most profitable alternative are obvious to us. We have clearly decided what we want to achieve. However, there are some additional considerations and circumstances that confuse us. The fact that they confuse us is bad, it means that we cannot make a truly free decision. After all, a truly free solution is a solution that is in full accordance with our internal guidelines. Therefore, we can act in two ways - 1) study the issue in more detail and find a solution that, on the one hand, would ensure the fulfillment of the main goal, but on the other hand, would also satisfy additional considerations; and 2) we by a willful decision tell ourselves that additional circumstances are garbage and delirium and we erase doubts from our personality.would also satisfy additional considerations; and 2) we by a willful decision tell ourselves that additional circumstances are garbage and delirium and we erase doubts from our personality.would also satisfy additional considerations; and 2) we by a willful decision tell ourselves that additional circumstances are garbage and delirium and we erase doubts from our personality.
Let's consider these strategies in more detail. If we choose the first strategy, it may mean some delay in making a decision for us, and perhaps even an indefinite delay. This can be a disadvantage in a certain situation. In addition, choosing the first strategy means additional effort is required. In the eyes of some people striving for freedom, but not sensible enough, this circumstance can even be perceived as a hindrance to freedom, which they see as their right to make an independent decision in a constant mode, here and now. However, if we choose the first strategy, we get decisive advantages. Why? Because in the case of using it, we do not sacrifice our understanding of things and do not retreat from reason. As I mentioned earlier, the mind is primarily a systems approach,connection of all ideas about things into a single, clear, consistent system. All people are potentially intelligent, and the voice of reason always gives people a signal about abnormality, contradiction, incorrectness of their ideas and decisions. Unfortunately, many people habitually ignore and ignore these signals, and some, just those who have chosen the false second strategy of achieving freedom, often deliberately discard. However, for a reasonable person it is clear as daylight that such signals cannot be discarded, for by discarding them, you discard the truth along with them and prepare yourself a trap. Therefore, having received signals of doubt from the voice of reason, a reasonable person will strive to understand, come to a clear and holistic consistent picture, in order to then make a decision with 100% confidence in its correctness. A person who rejects the signals of the voice of reason makes a deliberately wrong decision. The second strategy of choosing the most profitable solution with the rejection of doubts seems at first glance easy and "effective", but it invariably leads to disastrous consequences. Instantly, a person can really choose the most profitable solution and not incur any big costs because of its not-quite-correctness. However, there is not a single isolated solution that would be absolutely correct, there are always situations in which it will be incorrect, and another solution will be correct. The person following the first strategy considers all possible alternatives and therefore is ready for different scenarios. The one who follows the second strategy makes the most profitable decision at a certain moment,but in changed circumstances this decision will work against him. The one who adheres to the first strategy and works on the synthesis of his ideas, constantly strengthens and builds up his potential, going towards being able to make quick and adequate, correct decisions in a variety of circumstances. Anyone who adheres to the second strategy gets a momentary gain, but invariably loses in the long run.
Promotional video:
There is one more circumstance in favor of choosing the first strategy, in addition to the fact that the second strategy leads to a loss in the future, and this circumstance is even more important. As already mentioned, the second strategy is associated not only with refusing to consider additional circumstances when choosing a solution, but also with removing doubts from his personality (if these doubts remain, a person cannot feel free). Therefore, it is quite obvious that the second strategy leads to personality degradation. And the more such people who are falsely striving for freedom discard "excess", the more they become dull, degrade, the more primitive their ideas, values and motives become. In the end, a person living according to the second strategy turns into a limited being, guided only by primitive animal aspirations,incapable of responsible behavior and having no idea of moral standards. This strategy inflicts a heavy blow on the mind and mental abilities, almost completely destroying them and turning a person into a mentally disabled person. Moreover, such a transformation can occur latently and relatively imperceptibly for the person himself - at first he can act deliberately and responsibly, but does not want to, then attempts to reflect and come to the right decision are given to him with difficulty, finally, he completely becomes unable to think, even with everything desire to try to do it. Thus, if freedom achieved with the help of the first strategy should be the main value of a reasonable person, a reasonable society, then freedom achieved with the help of the second one is an expression and manifestation of non-rationality, and not even unreasonableness.but in general - anti-intelligence. People who adhere to the second strategy for achieving freedom are even worse than simply unreasonable people who do not at all strive for freedom.
Using the concept of two strategies for achieving freedom, we can now clarify what freedom is for some and for others, which means in the first and second sense. For the adherent of the first strategy, freedom is, first of all, the presence of opportunities, and the more opportunities, the more freedom, the more options in order to make this or that choice, to prove oneself in one quality or another, to realize this or that intention, idea, personality tendency. Freedom in a constructive sense, therefore, is the ability to do exactly what you want (but for this you may have to do something else). For the adherent of the second strategy, who achieves his "freedom" by rejecting, denying, ignoring and avoiding everything that strains him, freedom is freedom from restrictions,the less responsibility, conditions, prohibitions, etc., etc., the more freedom. Thus, freedom in a destructive sense is the ability to do only what you want and to be minimally dependent on others in your decisions (even if for this you have to sacrifice something that you would like).
It is easy to see that if the first freedom leads society and people along the path of progress and self-improvement, then the second - along the path of decline and degradation. But unfortunately, it is precisely the second understanding of freedom - in a destructive, hostile sense to reason - that has spread widely in modern society of the Western persuasion, including, to a large extent, this understanding, together with the decadent and harmful Western culture, has penetrated into modern Russian society. … Moreover, this understanding has become an integral part of the dangerous Western ideology of liberalism and globalism, the adherents of which claim to spread it globally in all countries of the world. There is no doubt that this circumstance is one of the circumstances leading Western civilization to its inevitable collapse. That,how the introduction of false "freedom" as the attitudes of a significant (or even the bulk) mass of society leads to its degradation, we can see well today. An ordinary emotionally thinking person is unreasonable and does not strive for freedom. In his behavior, an ordinary emotionally thinking person is not guided by clear goals (which have a conscious, rationally formulated statement), but is guided by various stereotypes, labels, vague intuitive impulses, etc. and latently influence the thoughts he is aware of. At the same time, making decisions that contradict some ideas, he does not destroy them, but blocks them, while continuing, however, to have doubts about the correctness of his actions, and, under certain circumstances,may, under the influence of these doubts, change his point of view or make a compromise, which makes him more sane than a person striving for destructive freedom. A person striving for destructive freedom is aggressively selfish and at the last stage of his degradation is practically insane. As I already wrote in the article "Classification of people according to the degree of unreasonableness", the current tendency is that an increasing part of people in modern Western society is degrading, turning, in particular, from ordinary emotionally minded, moderately adequate and following traditions and moral norms, into commoners and degraded. At the same time, the interpretations of freedom as the right of the individual not to answer to anyone and to do whatever comes into their heads, given by the liberals, just encourage them to do this. The most active spirit of false freedom began to be implanted in the West starting from the second half of the 20th century. Under the slogans of "liberation" from complexes and prejudices, the oblivion and destruction of traditions and moral norms, the cultivation of vices, the setting of deviations and norms on the same level were started. Limited, with a narrow outlook and interests, but aggressively defending their "rights" and degraded absolutely devoid of moral norms began to rule the ball in modern society. The atomization of society, the degradation of the masses threaten the existence of Russia today, and therefore everything must be done to eliminate the dangerous liberal infection as soon as possible.setting deviations and norms on the same board. Limited, with a narrow outlook and interests, but aggressively defending their "rights" and degraded absolutely devoid of moral norms began to rule the show in modern society. The atomization of society, the degradation of the masses threaten the existence of Russia today, and therefore everything must be done to eliminate the dangerous liberal infection as soon as possible.setting deviations and norms on the same board. Limited, with a narrow outlook and interests, but aggressively defending their "rights" and degraded absolutely devoid of moral norms began to rule the show in modern society. The atomization of society, the degradation of the masses threaten the existence of Russia today, and therefore everything must be done to eliminate the dangerous liberal infection as soon as possible.
In conclusion, consider one more point. Does it mean that any reasonable person should choose the first strategy, that you never need to drop anything from your ideas and that you never need to make any decisions until 100% clarity is achieved? No, it doesn't mean that it can be done, but under certain conditions. Consider the drop issue first. It is obvious, for example, that if we started building a house, but it skewed and turned out to be crooked, it must be demolished in order to rebuild it correctly. In the same way, if we started thinking about a certain issue, building a certain theory, but due to the insufficient power of our mind, we went somewhere wrong and created something artificial, as a result of which we do not have a clear and clear picture and there is no feeling of correctness, it is worth abandoning the chosen path,dismantle artificial representations and start over. It is possible and necessary to discard artificial mental constructions, illusions, false obsessions, etc., but discard not for the sake of calmness and refusal to search for truth, once and for all, but in order to then think over this question again and come to the right one. and a clear understanding of things. Now with regard to making decisions with the exception of additional circumstances. If nothing rushes us, nothing forces us to make such decisions, this does not need to be done, we need to achieve inner clarity, or at least act carefully, leaving the opportunity to turn in one direction or another if something happens. However, in some cases, some decisions need to be made urgently, and there is not enough time to wait. In this case, you need to make the most obvious decision,let it be contradictory, leaving no feeling of inner correctness and neglecting additional circumstances, however, such that this neglect could subsequently be terminated, and the decision itself is corrected and, if possible, corrected. If we cannot fulfill the reconciliation of contradictions, we need to choose a more fundamental, not less fundamental, sacrifice a part, not a whole, fight against the root cause of the problem, and not try to pay attention to the consequences. In this case, we will be able to maintain a constructive course, and after the temporary deviation from it is completed, analyze the mistakes, find the best solution, and, on the basis of all this, try to avoid negative consequences in the future. For example, in 1939, a few days before the start of the Second World War,The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany - it was a controversial decision, but a forced and temporary one, which helped to gain time to prepare for war.
