This article will talk not so much about the principles of society as about the principles of a reasonable perception of the world, the principles that should exist at the level of the individual.
However, since this is the first article in this section, a few words about the principles in general. In the general case, the question of principles is not so simple, since principles do not exist by themselves, principles are developed on the basis of a person's value aspirations, on the one hand, as a means for solving the problems that arise before him, overcoming difficulties, on the other. Many principles are not easily given to an individual and humanity, their awareness (and, in general, the awareness of the need for principles) comes after long periods of chaos and difficulties, revolutions and wars, economic crises and the collapse of civilizations.
Some people who look at the world objectively tend to explain all negative phenomena in society by external factors, material ones, while other people who preach the solution of all problems through religion and self-improvement tend to explain them by the fact that people are bad and insufficiently developed spiritually, but this way or otherwise, any person is brought up in such a way that he gets used to solving any problems by certain methods and to believe in the power of certain patterns of behavior, often absorbing those examples that he sees in society and patterns of behavior that he sees in others. It would be naive, for example, to believe that if the self-proclaimed "elite" is mired in plundering the country and debauchery and daily demonstrates to everyone its immoral and impudent behavior, violating the laws and principles of justice,the bulk of the people can be brought up on the principles of patriotism, love of neighbor and respect for the law.
Therefore, in this situation, in order to prevent the destruction of the country, we must first of all take care of changing the principles by which our society lives, and with which all its citizens will check their actions, including making them observe their authority and business representatives, mired in debauchery, without which no spirituality and no increase in living standards will bring an effect. People who believe in principles and are guided by them are often considered idealists, ordinary people see them as an obstacle to their egoistic serene existence, they are disliked by the authorities and religious leaders, but it is idealists who always save people in times of crises, carry out great reforms and arrange revolutionary changes in society … They, unlike everyone else, understand that society cannot exist without ideals and principles,and fight for these principles, often sacrificing personal gain and safety.
| intelligent society principle | replaceable principle |
| justice | mercy |
| true | good |
| honesty | tact |
| confidence | nobility |
| freedom | welfare |
Only a few principles are listed here, and I will talk about them briefly, a more complete description of the principles requires a much deeper consideration of all the things described.
1. The principle of freedom
Freedom has already been discussed in the article "What is freedom", published earlier on this site. It talked about the connection between freedom and reason and the goal was to show the dependence of freedom, that is, the possibility of a person realizing this attribute on the amount of knowledge he possesses, to define freedom as an opportunity for a person to make a conscious choice, and make these conscious choices constantly, throughout his life, being aware of the consequences for him of choosing this or that option, understanding what he loses and what he achieves with this choice.
Promotional video:
Freedom is an internal quality, on the one hand, freedom is a principle, on the other, when a person not only makes an internal choice and appreciates its opportunity, but is also confident in his right to choose, to defend and implement some alternative based on his own ideas and convictions, in addition, this person is sure that freedom is everyone's inalienable right. What is the principle of freedom and why is it not fulfilled in modern society? For a reasonable person, freedom, we repeat once again, is the ability to act in accordance with one's convictions. Let's say that we live in the freest and most democratic country in the United States, which guarantees us the observance of all personal freedoms, etc. (more precisely, it pretends, but it doesn't matter). Let's say a decision is made to send troops to Iraq, which I consider absurd. I can go outside and take part in the ritual procession with the burning of a stuffed Bush, etc., but it will not work. If I take any more proactive steps, or refuse to pay taxes so that they do not finance the war, I will be declared a criminal and sent to prison. In the same way, I will be imprisoned in Russia if I actively begin to oppose the policy of the authorities.
At the same time, it is quite obvious that with the allegedly declared democracy, both here and there, the real decision is made by a handful of influential people in their own interests, that is, the US society, deciding to send troops to Iraq, financing the war, participating in the war, etc. etc., fulfills the will of the owners of some oil companies who want to profit from the seizure of Iraqi fields, and US citizens are involuntarily forced to take part in this decision, implementation. Can this be defined as freedom? It is highly doubtful.
At one time, after the Great French Revolution, which proclaimed freedom, equality and fraternity with its slogans, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was adopted, which, in fact, to this day, is the basis of all documents and discussions about democracy, freedom, human rights. and so on. The declaration was based on the theory of "natural law" and "social contract". The idea of society that follows from these theories is extremely naive.
Society, the state, with all its institutions, laws, etc., is here understood only as a secondary superstructure, the creation of which people agreed to better exercise their "natural rights", well known to them in advance and arising from human nature. In fact, in any nature, those aspirations by which a person is guided, naturally, are not laid down, and before the creation of society did not exist and could not exist in principle. A person, his aspirations and requirements for the conditions for the realization of these aspirations develop in parallel with the development of society, with the improvement of its institutions, with the development of its culture. Outside of society or separately from society, a person cannot exist as a person, only his assimilation of the culture created in the process of development of society, only participation in the life of society makes him a person, incl.making him want those very rights and freedoms, etc. The development of the principles laid down in the declaration actually led to the following. Were divided personal freedoms and rights, those that relate to a specific individual, without affecting the interests of the whole society, and freedoms and rights that relate to the activities of a person as a citizen, as a participant in processes affecting society. If personal freedoms are supposedly guaranteed at the very least, then the freedom of a person as a citizen, his freedom to influence social processes is not guaranteed in any way, moreover, it is limited by force.which relate to the activities of a person as a citizen, as a participant in processes affecting society. If personal freedoms are supposedly guaranteed at the very least, then the freedom of a person as a citizen, his freedom to influence social processes is not guaranteed in any way, moreover, it is limited by force.which relate to the activities of a person as a citizen, as a participant in processes affecting society. If personal freedoms are supposedly guaranteed at the very least, then the freedom of a person as a citizen, his freedom to influence social processes is not guaranteed in any way, moreover, it is limited by force.
That is, we can decide what to eat for breakfast, which model of cell phone to buy, which movie to watch, but the freedom associated with the implementation of any ideas, at least some essential, since they all affect abstract, not purely personal and everyday moments, we do not have. Moreover, as already mentioned in the 4-level concept, the growth of selfishness and the rooting of ideas that a normal situation is only when a person is driven by his personal interests led to the fact that people, firstly, ceased to feel their personal responsibility to society., responsibility for the fate of society, believing that it is normal when society is the sum of egoists, as a result, society began to self-destruct from within, and secondly, in fact, all decisions in society began to be made, again, in the personal interests of a small group of people,confident that all the laws of the development of society can be ignored and do whatever they want without fear of consequences.
This situation is leading to the collapse of Western civilization, mired in selfishness and collective irresponsibility. To eliminate this problem, it is necessary to provide each person with FULL freedom, eliminating the restrictions imposed on him by society artificially and against his will. That is, if you do not want to comply with the law, do not. If you do not like the generally accepted norms of decency, etc. - ignore it. If you doubt the fairness of the theories that are taught to you in school - send the authors of the textbooks nafig. Is it absurd? Only from the point of view of an emotionally thinking person, but not from the point of view of a rational person. "Everyone will do what they want and chaos will reign!" - say the emotionally minded. "Such a society cannot exist, this is absurd!" - add emotionally minded. In fact, this is not absurd. An emotionally minded person is driven by desires and benefits, but not by reason. He has no convictions, but there are dogmas and prejudices. He sees no value in figuring out which decision is right and which is not, which is reasonable and which is absurd. He does not see the value in freedom and the possibility of a conscious choice, for him to think about how to act correctly here or here is a burden, but not an advantage.
In society, decisions are constantly being made, completely absurd, which are costly for the whole society and its citizens. Why are they accepted? Yes, because the majority, which is unreasonable, simply does not think, does not delve into, does not try to understand the correctness of those decisions, political programs, interpretation of events in the media that are slipped into it. It does not need freedom and does not see value in choice, it does not have its own convictions and is incapable of thinking. It lives by other values - values of benefit, values of comfort and well-being. If we propose to pass a law on reducing wages and pensions, millions will take to the streets and will be ready to tear us to pieces, but if we decide to liquidate reserves, to destroy forests, to reform fundamental science, etc.the minority will oppose and will not be able to do anything without risking becoming “extremists”. By accepting the principle of complete freedom, we destroy the possibility of applying absurd decisions. In a society where there are no mechanisms for suppressing freedom, society will inevitably follow the decisions of more reasonable people who will promote their ideas more consistently and persistently, seeing value in them, in contrast to today's society, where the majority implements absurd ideas - not because, that he sees value in them, and therefore only that they are executors of someone else's will.who will promote their ideas more consistently and persistently, seeing value in them, in contrast to today's society, where the majority implements absurd ideas - not because they see value in them, but only because they are executors of someone else's will.who will promote their ideas more consistently and persistently, seeing value in them, in contrast to today's society, where the majority implements absurd ideas - not because they see value in them, but only because they are executors of someone else's will.
Bottom line: if generally accepted norms and conditions imposed by society are at odds with your convictions, and you are sure that you are right, act according to your convictions and go to the generally accepted norms and their defenders nafig.
2. The principle of justice
In ancient Indian philosophy, the law of karma is mentioned. According to him, all deeds committed by a person will certainly affect his subsequent fate, and not a single filthy thing will go unpunished. In Christianity, there is a similar formulation "do not judge, lest you be judged, for with what judgment you judge, by that you will be judged, and with what measure you measure, the same will be measured to you." Christianity is the religion of an emotionally thinking society, therefore it does not call people to judge with a fair court or measure by the right measure, but calls on not to judge at all, because emotionally thinking justly are not able to judge. Rather, on the contrary, they are capable of judging only subjectively and unfairly. Why?
An emotionally minded person is incapable of objective consideration. Emotions, against his will, distort his perception, forcing him to make not correct, but beneficial, decisions more consistent with his inclinations, prejudices, etc., than the truth. An emotionally minded person is not able to use any criteria universally, all his assessments and judgments turn into a manifestation of double standards. One can fairly judge only by reason, but not by emotions. That is why the emotionally minded, mired in Christianity and the ideological moods close to it, call for mercy, but not for justice. "Let's forgive the offender and not judge him - God will punish him!" God, of course, will punish, but since man is created in God's image and likeness, he must also strive to reduce evil and suffering in the world.
Does the position of the so-called. mercy? Of course not. This passive position, when a person withdraws himself from decisions and hides his head in the sand, like an ostrich, shifting everything at the same time to God, of course, only contributes to an increase in evil and suffering in the world. Not only an act can be criminal, but also, vice versa, non-action. The offender killed someone, we let him go and did not judge him, he, convinced of his impunity thanks to your mercy, killed someone else, etc., so on. in what happened, along with a share of the evil he committed, there is also a share of your evil. In addition, with your mercy, you harm the one you most forgive. Let's say a criminal committed a petty crime, and you did not judge him, and did not give him a hand. The offender continued his actions and killed someone, as a result of which he received a life sentence,or maybe he was caught by the crowd and thrown into a well. Had he received what he deserved in due time - perhaps he would have avoided such a sad fate. Thus, mercy does not lead to a decrease in evil - only justice leads to a decrease in evil.
In a reasonable society, the principle of justice will be one of the most important regulatory factors. In a society where all people are free, and there are no a priori artificial restrictions and prohibitions, any infringement of the freedom of others, if such happens, will be interpreted precisely as a violation of the principle of justice. That is, if a person, developing a certain activity, interferes with others and touches important and valuable things for them, strikes at their dreams, aspirations, plans, etc., then, according to the principle of justice, the freedom of this person should be limited minimizing the interference it creates.
Modern society is hypocritical through and through. Instead of solving problems, it creates a screen on which the appearance of their solution, or even their absence, is drawn. Emotionally minded people tend to make every effort to hide any conflicts, any factors that irritate them, to hide them from their eyes, to cover them with a veil and to justify their non-interference in their solution. The hypocrisy of the emotionally minded allows you to do monstrous things that terrify the mind, but cannot penetrate the foggy veil of emotions lulled by lies. An emotionally thinking person creates, helps to create, and endures evil not because (first of all) because he is afraid, not because he is indifferent, but because he is not curious. He does not want to know the truth and he is too lazy to get to the bottom of the facts that are hidden from his gaze. He is satisfied with the rubbish mixed with emotion and prejudice. The success of the information policy of the Third Reich, in the middle of the 20th century, which made it possible to commit horrific crimes and involve an entire people (and by no means wild, but civilized) in this process, is an excellent illustration of this defect of an emotional society.
Bottom line: none other than you must bring justice to the world. Help all emotionally minded people realize the reality of the law of karma.
3. The principle of truth
This should be discussed separately and for a long time. In modern society, science, etc., there is generally no clear idea of what truth is. The postulate “everything needs to be done correctly” is perceived by many inadequately, like “what's the point here, isn't it clear anyway?”. Yes, that's not clear. The imperative of an emotional society is the thesis "you need to do good." What is good? Good is an emotional category - it is something that is emotionally positively perceived. However, this emotionally understood good often leads to a dead end. The categories of good and evil have constantly been used in the modern era to fool the population. The policy of "appeasing the aggressor" before the Second World War was presented as good. But what about - after all, we (surrendering Austria, Czechoslovakia to Hitler and inflating his military ambitions) prevent war!This desire for "good" led to the death of more than 50 million. In the late 1980s, the USSR also did the West "good". Now NATO is at our borders, billions exported from the country, in Western banks, and the population is dying out catastrophically. In the early 90s, some people also did the Chechens "good" by giving independence, after which they staged a massacre of the Russian population, and banditry and terror spread from there throughout the region. As a result of this "good" Russia had to wage a war on its territory for 10 years. In 1996, during the presidential elections, the famous slogan of posters campaigning for Yeltsin was the proposal "Vote with your heart!" No, citizens, you need to vote and make decisions not with your heart, but with your brain. If he is, of course.and the population is dying out catastrophically. In the early 90s, some people also did the Chechens "good" by giving independence, after which they staged a massacre of the Russian population, and banditry and terror spread from there throughout the region. As a result of this "good" Russia had to wage a war on its territory for 10 years. In 1996, during the presidential elections, the famous slogan of posters campaigning for Yeltsin was the proposal "Vote with your heart!" No, citizens, you need to vote and make decisions not with your heart, but with your brain. If he is, of course.and the population is dying out catastrophically. In the early 90s, too, some did the Chechens "good" by giving independence, after which they staged a massacre of the Russian population, and banditry and terror spread from there throughout the region. As a result of this "good" Russia had to wage a war on its territory for 10 years. In 1996, during the presidential elections, the famous slogan of posters campaigning for Yeltsin was the proposal "Vote with your heart!" No, citizens, you need to vote and make decisions not with your heart, but with your brain. If he is, of course.the famous slogan of posters campaigning for Yeltsin was the proposal "Vote with your heart!" No, citizens, you need to vote and make decisions not with your heart, but with your brain. If he is, of course.the famous slogan of posters campaigning for Yeltsin was the proposal "Vote with your heart!" No, citizens, you need to vote and make decisions not with your heart, but with your brain. If he is, of course.
Bottom line: do not do well, do right.
4. The principle of honesty
Honesty in our society is synonymous with stupidity. If you are in a leadership position and have not stolen anything yet, you are a fool. If you follow the laws, you will be treated with suspicion. If you tell others the truth about them, incriminate them in lies, fraud and mistakes, poorly disguised hostility on their part (at least) is guaranteed to you. Modern society is such that there are two parallel planes in it - one is exhibition reality, the other is real reality. In the exhibition reality, democracy is being established, in reality - the seizure of control over oil fields. In the exhibition, it is the fight against extremism, in the real one, intimidation of political opponents. In the exhibition hall - reforming in order to increase market efficiency, in real - the seizure and redistribution of property. There is a dual plan at all levels - at school, in the family, at work, in media coverage, etc.
People are accustomed to the fact that for success one needs to create a role for the exhibition reality and operate with it, while keeping the real in mind and keeping silent. The emotionally minded person values emotional comfort over truth and does not like the truth. Moreover, if this truth irritates him, causes anxiety or signals the need for any (burdensome) action. No, I won't be a fool to do something - the emotionally thinking person decides. I will pretend that nothing is happening, that everything is fine, that everything is fine - it will be better for me and for those around me. Even for his own needs, an emotionally thinking person always creates illusions where everything does not look the way it really is, but the way he wants. Society as a whole creates a collective illusion, preserving the emotional peace of citizens and lulling their brains.
So, in modern society, a person thinks one thing, but says what is beneficial to him, or what corresponds to the image he has taken for himself. In a reasonable society, such behavior would be absurd. Reasonable people do not need illusions, they are perfectly capable of perceiving reality without rose-colored glasses, and, accordingly, do not feel the desire to embellish it. Reasonable people are well aware that deviating from the truth and replacing it with seductive inventions is dangerous and cannot lead to anything good. Therefore, if emotionally minded people negatively perceive the direct and open expression of a person's opinion, without embellishment, by rational people, on the contrary, deliberate distortion of the truth will be perceived negatively.
Bottom line: always tell people what you think of them - let them rage.
5. The principle of trust
In 1993-94. privatization took place in our country. Tell me, how many of you received at least some share on your voucher that still pays dividends? Is it funny? Nevertheless, the organizers of the privatization calmly threw more than a hundred million people, and so far none of them has been punished. "Ha! Ha! We were joking,”Chubais and other organizers of privatization will say,“when we offered you two Volgas for a voucher. It was clear to all sane people that if you carry money to MMM, Hoper-Invest, Albee-Diplomat, etc., you will be thrown. Therefore, you yourself are to blame. Eh, you fuckers! Thank us for teaching you. " In modern society, cheating is the norm. Everyone throws each other and the one who is more cunning crawls out to the top. However, for a reasonable person, distortion of the truth is an extremely harmful business. Therefore, reasonable people believethat it is nevertheless necessary to teach not suckers, but swindlers, that is, people who consciously resort to deception.
Why does deception flourish and even deceived people often do not seek to prevent it? Well, a person who thinks emotionally is himself glad to be deceived. He himself builds illusions in which he wants to believe more than in reality, and scammers play well on this. Moreover, emotionally minded people to a large extent do not need the present, they are quite enough with a surrogate or replacement, whether it concerns a fake jacket made in a shed near Moscow with the inscription "adidas", or fake human relationships - fake love, fake friendship, fake sympathy and t. p. At Art. Lema in his story "Futurological Congress" describes a future in which an illusory reality is created by chemicals instead of the real one. In fact, in modern society, the habit of people to live in an illusory reality is not caused by chemicals,but an emotional outlook.
Emotionally minded people are used to treating each other without trust. They always suspect any new person in everything and prepare themselves internally to immediately repulse him. An emotionally thinking person will certainly try to present himself immediately as much as possible in a favorable light, in comparison with another, as important as possible, as competent as possible, as cool as possible, etc., in other words, starts communication with "show-off". An emotionally-minded person is panicky afraid to suddenly make a mistake and undeservedly recognize that the interlocutor has some advantage that will not actually turn out to be. He carefully looks for the smallest flaws in you, in order to either immediately pounce on you with reproaches and sarcasm, or remember and save in case of a conflict, and when you quarrel with him in the store for a place in the queue,you will certainly, in addition to all the evidence that you are wrong in this particular dispute, you will find out that your son is a poor student, that the windows in your house are not painted, that people from the next street spoke badly about your manners, etc. This imperative is certainly wary and suspicious. hostile attitude towards others is completely meaningless from the point of view of a reasonable person.
A reasonable person will not experience complexes about his mistakes, or about criticism of others. If this criticism is constructive, he will thank the one who pointed out his mistakes, if not, then he will simply send the critics nafig. For a reasonable person, intrigues and tricks are tiresome, and building relationships on trust is much more natural. In a clash with reasonable people, fraudsters will have an extremely difficult time. Once the fraud is exposed, no one can convince a reasonable person of the legality of the results obtained through the fraud. For example, in the legality of privatization. The organizers of the privatization should be sent to the Kolyma, where they will live in barracks and mine gold in order to somehow compensate for the damage they caused. In a reasonable society, a swindler, having committed a deception, will be able to receive only momentary profit,the damage received from losing confidence in him will far exceed the ephemeral benefits.
Should you be suspicious and be afraid of deception, setup, pranking, etc.? Of course not. The more suspicious a person is and the more confident he is that the result can only be achieved by cunning workarounds, the more vulnerable he is to fraudsters. On the contrary, the best tactic for exposing fraudsters is to accept all their words as truth and consider all the nonsense that will be uttered as the result of sincere delusion. An unreasonable swindler, unwittingly, will immediately expose his true motives himself.
Bottom line: treat people without prejudice and suspicion.