|
| 00 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
 06
|
Human among other humans
(How to behave in a society?) |
|
06000001
|
What is 'through the prism of the study of golden rule of behavior'?In this chapter are answered the basic questions of ethics, morals, human co-operation through the prism of the study of golden rule of behavior (‘do not do others what you do not wish that they did to you’ and ‘behave towards others as you wish that they behave towards you’).
|
1. Golden rule of behavior.
‘Do not do others what you do not wish that they did to you’ and ‘behave towards others as you wish that they behave towards you’. (06000001) |
|
0601 |
Human in a society |
|
06010001
|
Why is philosopher the most appropriate to speak of man in general?About man speak and write many: writers, scientists of different specialities, religious activists, philosophers… Writers and artists describe man only from subjective side. Scientists research him as object. They are objectivists. Religious activists speak and write about man only in connection with their religious belief in supernatural; for them man is actor and subject to the extent that he incarnates, realizes other world, ultrahuman origin. This all are one-sided points of view. Only philosopher has on him the all-embracing view on man. For him man is both subject and object, and one, and non-one, both ‘I’ and ‘we’, both individual and human race. Such view on man is conditioned by the special character of philosopher being universal thinker.
|
2. Philosopher's position.
Only philosopher has on him the all-embracing view on man. For him man is both subject and object, and one, and non-one, both ‘I’ and ‘we’, both individual and human race. Such view on man is conditioned by the special character of philosopher being universal thinker. (06010001) |
|
06010002
|
What is universalism?Of course, also philosophers may specialize and be limited in their preferences. Nonethesess in comparison with other ‘man-scientists’ they to a great extent are oriented to universalism in their view on man. At least just among them are found thinkers that aspire to this universalism.
|
|
06010003
|
Dividing and collecting meanings of words?Man is subject, together in two senses of the word: in dividing and in collecting meaning. In dividing sense man is an individual, personality, living being. In collective meaning man is humanity, human race, human society.
|
|
06010004
|
Give me examples of dividing and collecting senses!Between them and other ’man’ exists a certain distance, which in practical wording is seen as a contradiction ‘man – society’ (or ‘personality – society’, ‘individual – race’, ‘I – we’ etc.). The word ‘man’ more often than not is used in dividing sense. In collective sense usually the word ‘society’ is applied.
|
|
06010005
|
Which is primary: man or society?Man – society is dual subject, in which the decisive role is played by man. Man is primary subject, society is secondary. Man ‘enlightens’ by its light, the society by its reflection. On the other side, these two subjects, as two Magdeburgian half-spheres, are indivisible. Man for himself is subject in all relationships. Society does not appear as subject for itself and even less in all respects. For man society is partly an objective reality, partly a part of himself. In relationship to nature society is subject, it acts, formats nature, but in relationship to man it is also object and something dependent, existing as I already mentioned, part of man. For instance science is a part of society, cannot exist without separate scientists. The latter make science out of science!
|
|
06010006
|
What is it in reality: man or society?The greatest reality is not in separate man and not in society, but in something that exists between them: in man-society or society-man: man-society is man living in socity, society-man is society that realizes itself in separate man, living thanks to man.
|
|
06010007
|
What is an eternal contradiction of life of man?This way, man in essence is individual, individuality, personality and at the same time representative of the race homo sapiens, the part of society. On one hand, he wants to be as all, but on the other, not be like others, some way deviating. This is an eternal contradiction of life. Man is not collectivist and not individualist, but both of these together. From this arise all problems…
|
|
0602 |
Golden rule of behavior |
|
06020001
|
What is the basis of mutual relationships with other people and society?As the basis of mutual relationships with other people and socity as a whole lies golden rule of behavior: “do not others what you do not wish that they did to your” (negative formulation) and “behave with others as you would like them to behave with you” (positive formulation). Breaking golden rule of behavior cannot be considered as good relationship to oneself. In the best case it will not be observed; in the worst to it will be turned by principle of ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’.
|
|
060201 |
Ancestors on golden rule |
|
06020101
|
If you do not love it to youself,
so do not do it to otherStudent John. Old collection of texts, year 1073. |
|
06020102
|
Which is the oldest written document about the golden rule?Golden rule is known to people from immemorial times. It is mentioned in one of the oldest written documents of ancient Babylon writing about Akikhar. An old visir turns to his nephew with the admonition: “Son, what seems to you bad, you must neither do to your comrade” (F104)
|
3. Golden rule.
Babylon.
“Son, what seems to you bad, you must neither do to your comrade” (06020102) |
|
06020103
|
Who is considered to be the creator of the golden rule?Golden rule is ascribed to two of seven Greek wises, Pittacus and Thales (7th to 6th centuries BC). Pittacus: “What troubles you in the nearest, that shall you not do yourself” (F105). To the question: “What way we can live best and in most impartial way?” Thales answers: “If we ourselves do not do what we think that is adverse to others” (F106). Known is such saying of Thales: “What services you do to parents, such also you can expect of your children in your old age” (F107). (Compare with known biblical commandment: “Honour your father and mother, in order to long live on the earth” – Exodus 20:12):
|
4. Seven Greek wise men.
(06020103) |
|
06020104
|
What says Confucius on the golden rule?In Confucius (6th to 5th centuries BC) the golden rule is the basis of behavior. Explaining to the student the idea of humanity (‘dzen’), he says: “Do not do man what you do not do to yourself” (Lu, 12, 2) (F108).
|
|
06020105
|
How about Buddha?Approximately at this time Buddha said: “Do not cause to other pain in a way, which will be painful for you”.
|
|
06020106
|
And the Indian wise men?Ancient indian ’Mahabharate’ (5th BC) the legendary wise Bhishma gives before death the statement:
|
6. ’Mahabharate’
(06020106) |
|
06020107
|
”Those deeds of others which man for himself does not wish, that are unpleasant for self, he should not do to other people. |
|
06020108
|
Who was meddling with other’s wife, what can he say to other? But what he then did to other, and does not wish to be done to him, who wishes life for self, how can he kill other? For other must be taken care in what one wishes to self”. (F109). |
|
06020109
|
The wise Bhishm has the golden rule as the norm of norms. (The so called biblical command not to kill, not to steal, do not commit adultery etc. are nothing else than partial and truncated expressions of golden rule.) |
|
06020110
|
Do also the Greek and the Roman thinkers state the golden rule?Golden rule may be found in ‘Odyssee’ of Homer, in ‘History’ of Herodotus, in Aristotle, in Seneca, in the Bible…
|
|
06020111
|
On the question, how to behave with friends, Aristotle said: |
|
06020112
|
”So as you want them to behave with ourselves” (F110). |
|
06020113
|
Ancient Roman philosopher and moralist Seneca formulated golden rule in this way: “… this is the general contents of my advice: treat your inferiors as you wish that your superiors treat you” (F111). |
|
06020114
|
And certainly also in Bible?In Bible the golden rule is reminded, at least three times in the book of Tobias (4, 15), in the Evangelium of Luca (6,31) and in the Evangelium of Matthew (7,12: “In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.”).
|
|
06020115
|
Biblical command ”love your nearest as yourself” (Levit 19, 18. Evangelium of (Matthew 22, 39) also operates according to golden rule. In the Evangelium it is recognized as the greatest command of ‘law’ after the command “love thy Lord God”. The moral meaning of this command is clear in the following citation of the Evangelium of Luke: |
8. Evangelium.
(06020115) |
|
06020116
|
”And here, an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus, saying: Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” |
|
06020117
|
He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” |
|
06020118
|
But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man he passed by on the other side. So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.” (Luke 10; 25-37). |
|
06020119
|
And still of Bible: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” (Matthew 7, 1-2). “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be poured into your lap. For the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” (Luke 6, 37-38). These all are partial statements of golden rule. |
9. Partial statements of golden rule.
(06020119) |
|
06020120
|
It is appropriate also to mention that still in Antque era the golden rule was included in the number of winged latin expressions: Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris (Do not do other what you do not wish to yourself). Particularly, it was the most loved expression of Roman imperator Alexander Severus (222-235 AD) (F112). |
|
06020121
|
According to A.A. Huseinov, from Saint Augustine (4th century AD) “begins the tradition of seeing the golden rule as the basic principle of natural law and morality, which during centuries was followed by many theologians and philosophers of Middle Ages and which in a known way was followed by philosophers of New Ages” (F113). |
10. Basic principle of natural law and morality.
(06020121) |
|
060202 |
T. Hobbes and J. Locke about golden rule |
|
06020201
|
Who are the main exponents of the golden rule in the New times?If we speak of the philosophers of the New times, so we must above all refer to T. Hobbes and J. Locke. For Hobbes the golden rule is ‘Law of all people’, ‘Law comprising all other laws’ (F114), rule with the help of which it is possible to understand, contradict or not natural law of some purpose (F115), rule in which natural laws are ‘summarized’ (F116).
|
|
06020202
|
He particularly writes: “Justice, which we denominate as the tenth natural law, in power of which to others are given the same rights as one wants to oneself, law comprising in itself all other laws, appears as just what Moses establishes (Levit 19, 18): You must love your neighbor as yourself. And our Savior says that this is the highest moral law. Matt 22, 36-40 (…) To love the neighbor as oneself is nothing else than allowing to him all that we want to be allowed to us, ourselves” (F116). Or “man must… be content with that level of freedom in relationship to other people, which he allowed to other people in relationship to him. And this is a law for all people: quod tibi non vis, alteri ne feceris (do not do to other what you do not wish to yourself – favorite expression of Roman imperator Alexander Severus (222-235 AD – L.B.)” (F117). Or ”Rule, making easy to aquaint with natural laws. (…) in order to nobody would justify himself with not knowing these laws, they were summarized in one easy rule, available to be understood by the least talented man. And this rule sounds: do not do other what you would not desire others to do in relation to yourself. This rule is speaks even to the least talented man that in relationship to natural laws he must know one thing, and just that if in weighing the deeds of other people and oneself, the former turn out to be too heavy, he must place them in the other scalecup, and own activity to their place, in order that his own fears and self-love could not add to the weight of other’s action. Learning this rule he becomes convinced of the reasonableness of all natural laws" (F119). |
|
06020203
|
Which are the two known moments of Hobbes' concepts?In the conceptions of Hobbes I observe two moments.
|
|
06020204
|
First, Hobbes sees the golden rule not only as the basis of morals, but more widely as the basis of the health of the society, of normal life of people in the society. In a series of cases he gives essentially correct formulations of golden rule. These formulations, no doubt, widen the idea and meaning of the rule. |
|
06020205
|
Secondly, speaking of the weighing of own and other’s actions with same weights, Hobbes observes the measuring character of the golden rule, that it has the quality of measure. (Compare with quotation above with citations of Evangelium of Matthew – 7,1-2 and of (Luke 6; 37-38). |
|
06020206
|
What are the main ideas of Locke about the golden rule?According to Locke the golden rule is “the steadiest moral rule and basis of all social benefice” (F120), “great principle of equality – “to behave with others as you would desire that they behave with respect to you.” (F121). He, as also Hobbes, considers this rule as natural continuation of man’s normal relationship to himself. Breaking this rule, he writes, “were unreasonable and against the interest, with which people sacrifice, when they behave against this (rule)” (F122). Or in another spot: “Everyone of us, as far as he is obliged to save himself and not give up his place voluntarily (on this earth – L.B.), tied to the reason, when his life does not threaten the security, as much as he can, save the rest of humanity and must not, except how to create justice in relation to criminal, or to deprive life, not trespass it, just as all that contributes to conservation of life, freedom, health, body parts, of property of others” (F123).
|
|
06020207
|
What does Locke consider as the precondition of the golden rule?Precondition of golden rule, according to Locke, is natural, original, equality and independence of people: “because all people are equal and independent, because nobody of them must not cause damage to life, health, freedom or property of other” (F124). Or:
|
|
06020208
|
“This natural equality of people the deliberating Gooker considers as obvious and undeniable as far as it does it basis of the obligation of mutual love among people, on which he constructs our duty towards one another an of which he draws great principles of justice and beneficence. This is what he says: “Exactly such natural awakening made people to be conscious of their duty to not in less amount to be available and love neighbours as themselves, because in order to attain things, which seem to be equal, necessarily become equal, necessary for everybody to use same measure, because if they would not wish that all people relate to me to same extent fairly as he wishes this same to himself, so how can I count even to some extent to satisfy similar wishes, which emerge, without doubt, of other people, because nature of all people is similar? If for him there is some contradiction agains this desire, so this, without doubt, in all respects distresses them as well as me, in such a way, if I create evil, so I must prepare to suffer, because there is no grounds for other people showed to me greater love than I am showing them, consequently, my wish to love be stronger from the side of equal to me show to me natural obligation to try in their relationships to equally strong feeling, from this relationship of equality between us and our like natural reason brought to the direction of life to some rules and commands, well-known to each man” (Church policy, book 1)” (F125). |
|
06020209
|
Certainly also the Age of Enlightenment has considered the golden rule?A careful examination exposes golden rule in works of the head of German enlightener C. Thomasius (1655-1728). To him is ascribed the idea of the golden rule only as combination of positive and negative formulation can be considered as the basis of morality. This idea leads to another German enlightener J.G. Herder. He considers that moral man is characterized by “the unique main law: what you want that others do to you, do also to others” (F126). In this law according to Herder is concentrated moral essence of man, and it is printed in the heart of every human being. (F127).
|
|
06020210
|
Also Voltaire...?Also without mentioning must not be left Voltaire. His humanistic appeal sounds: “Approach to others as you would want them to approach to you”.
|
|
060203 |
Golden rule and Immanuel Kant’s categoric imperative |
|
06020301
|
What is the denomination used by Kant of the golden rule?With Kant the golden rule appears under name categoric imperative (F128). He on one hand, adopted it (even if in inverse form) as the main principle of behavior of people, and on the other put it down, by naming it as traditional, generally accepted trivial and limited formulations.
|
|
06020302
|
Is it true that Kant deprived some of the strength of the golden rule in his writings?Speaking of inverted form I ment categoric imperative. Because it is reformulated in the spirit of rigorism and deontologism (ethics of duty) golden rule: “behave so that the maxims of your behavior can be applied as general law” (F129). Kant did not understand the full profoundness of the golden rule. Reformulating the rule in view of categoric imperative he in significant extent deprived its power, that which makes it golden, namely, individually existing, breaking this way the measure, that is dipping the weight cups in favor of overindividual, of society, of universal (F130). N. Hartmann speaks referring to this (‘Ethics’, 1935): “As far as mentioned, that really a criterium of overall ‘maxima’ of behavior is constituted in that whether it can be at the same time a universal law or not, so in it, obviously is included something that man as personality cannot want in principle. He should better desire something that beyond all universal significance in his behavior were something own, which in his place nobody else could or should do. If he denies this, he is simply one of many cases, which can be replaced by anybody else; his personal existence is not necessary, unreasonable” (F131). N. Hartmann said, perhaps, too abruptly. Because categoric imperative leaves for man the right to think as he wants or considers necessary to think and to behave according to this his right. Kant endeavored to get rid of subjective moment, but did not notice the circumstance that every man makes decisions and acts according to his own measures of understanding and thinking. This, truly, is the hardest, most severe form of categoric imperative.
|
|
06020303
|
Aren't there other formulations, where Kant does more justice to the rule?For the sake of fairness must be said that Kant has formulations of categoric imperative that are softer and closer to the idea of golden rule:
|
|
06020304
|
- ”Behave only according to such maxim that you at the same time can wish that it become the general law, so that the maxim of your deliberate action must be made general natural law.” (F132).
- ”Behave so that you always were related to human race and in your person and in the person of any other also, as a goal, and never only would be related to it as means only.”
|
|
06020306
|
Why did Kant not take the golden rule so seriously?Superficiality of understanding by Kant of the golden rule is expressed above all in the fact that he did not see in it the basis of duty, showing that it does not formulate obligations in relation to other obligations. Does not the golden rule does not show, for instance, the duty of children in front of parents? Does not it speak of the case of you wanting your children to relate to you in a suitble way, that you must in a similar way relate to your parents? Or: if you want, in order to parents behaving to you well, that you must relate to them well, etc. Such understanding of golden rule by Kant is given by his orientation to overindividual. In his categoric imperative the basis of duty is in the universal law. This way Kant places society above the individual. Golden rule expresses hints to concrete man as the basis of duty. Also this is justified, because there is no stronger fundament than the man himself. Duty presupposes knowledge of self and others. But whom man kows better: self or others? Of course, self. Duty presupposes respect and caretaking. But whom man respects more of whom takes care better: of himself or others? Of course of himself. This is natural. The basis of duty is situated not in beyond the couds heghts, but in concrete living man with all his merits and dismerits. Cant himself, solidarized, according to biblical command to love neighbor as himself, underlined by this that man who does not love himself cannot love other man, that is, such a man’s irrexpect to other may in a pharisean way justificate his self-sufficiency.
|
|
06020307
|
In one word, with his categoric imperative Kant obviously wanted to improve categoric imperative, but went to opposite direction: something unliving wooden was obtained. |
|
060204 |
Golden rule as ’justification of good’ by V.S. Solovyov |
|
06020401
|
In what sense did Solovyov refer to the golden rule?In the Russian philosophy V.S. Solovyov has written on the problems connected with golden rule. If ignoring the extremes of his doctrine about morality (his peculiar abiotism, antianimalism and morally religious absolutism), contents remains constituting object for golden rule. I will cite some fragments of "Оправдания добра" (Justification of good):
|
11. Justification of good.
(06020401) |
|
06020402
|
”The fact that a separate being may feel as if within the framework of its individuality, painfully reacting to other’s suffering, that is, feeling it as own, is undoubtful and to that extend widely observed that it may seem something enigmatic and mystic. Just as such it is recognized by the philosopher, who assumes compassion as the only basis of all morality. |
|
06020403
|
“How it is possible, he asks, that suffering which is not mine, strikes me, feels however so immediate as in other cases only my own, gives motive to me and awakens me to action?” “This assumes, he says further, that I am to some extent identify with other being and that consequently, the limit between me and non-me this time is taken away: only then the situation of other, his needs, his sufferings immediately(?) become mine, then I already see him such, as he, however, is in empirical imagination, as something other than me, to me undifferent (?), completely of me separate, but here, on the contrary (that is, when feeling compassion), in him (this other being) also me suffering in him, notwithstanding that his skin does not cover my nerves. Only through such identification may his suffering, his need become motive to me, as in addition to this, only my own suffering can be. This phenomenon is to the highest degree mystic, it is a genuine secret for ethics, because this is something of which senses cannot make direct account (?!), and the basis for this phenomenon cannot be found by the way of experience. And besides this is something of everyday. Everyone experienced it and saw it being experienced by others. This secret takes place every day at our eyes in separate occasions, every time, when by immediate healing, without distant reasoning man helps another and defends him, exposing himself to obvious danger his life for a person, whom he saw first time, and did not thinkanything else than just that he sees big need and danger of the other; this secret appears and in wide measures, when the whole nation sacrifices its bravery and blood for the defence or liberation of other repressed nation. And always a necessary precondition for this kind of unconditional moral healing served mystic compassion, or inner identification with other person without any other motives” (Schopenhauer. Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1860. p. 230). |
|
06020404
|
This reasoning of mystic character of compassion differs of more eloquent literary than philosophic correctness. The mysticism here is not included in the fact itself, but emerges from its incredible description, where extreme terms are used in extravacant excessive clarity and strikingness, but the actual occurrences and relationships between them completely vanish as if they did not exist at all. In his area Schopenhauer in a way misuses eloquency of contrast or antithesis, as Victor Hugo in his. The matter is presented as if the present subject, unconditionally separate of other, suddenly immediately becomes with it identical in feeling of compassion. This would, of course, be mystic in the highest degree. But in reality neither the complete separation nor the immediate identification, of which Schopehauer speaks, do not at all exist (…) All existing in general, but particularly all living creatures are tied to each other by compatibility of being and unity of occurrence, all is part and emergence of one general matter, the nature, nowhere and in nothing exist that ‘complete separateness’, of which the philosopher speaks. Natural organic link of all creatures as part of one whole is the given experience, and not only an idea found by reasoning and therefore also psychological expression of this link – inner participation of one subject in suffering of others, compassion, or pity, is something understandable and from empirical point of view, as expressed in natural and obvious solidarity of all existing (…) |
|
06020405
|
But if between subjects there is and cannot be any complete separation (which only is expressed but not materialized by egoism), so from other hand the mutual link between them being expressed psychologically in compassion or pity, is not at alla that ‘immediate identity’, of which the philosopher of ‘Will and imagination’ speaks. When I feel pity for my friend, who has headache, so usually this feeling of compassion does not be transferred to head ache, not only I do not identify immediately with him, but also our conditions stay non-identified, and I distinctly keep separate my healthy head from his sick. Exactly the same way, as far as I know, never yet was there a case that the person feeling compassion throwing himself to water to save the drowning, felt himself the other or the other for him (…) |
|
06020406
|
Taking away limits between me and non-me, or immediate identification, this is only rhetorical expression, but not expression of actual fact. As the only vibration identically tuned strings, so also compassionate link between living beings is not simple identity, but harmony of congenerics… |
|
06020407
|
The feeling of pity, as is due on moral basis, does not have outer limits to its application. Of close circle of maternal love, so strong already at hicher animals, it may (with people) ever more and more spread, from family go over to kin and tribe, to national entity, to the entire nation, to the whole humanity, embracing, at the end, the whole universum. What in separate cases, at the presence of concrete pain or sufferance we may actually pity not only every man, be that he is of different tribe or belief, but all animals, there is no doubt here, and is a usual case. Less usual, but occurs however, is such wideness of compassionate heart, that without any apparent reason at once gets exiting feeling of pity in artificial rhetorics or feigned pathos following a naïve description of universal pity as a real condition, very little akin to so called Weltschmerz: “And it was asked, what is such compassionate heart? And the answer: the sorrow of human heart about all creatures, about human, birds, animals, demons and all creatures. At the memory of these and seeing them human eyes shed tears. Out of great and strong pity embracing the heart, and of great sufferance his heart is compressed and it cannt tolerate, or hear, or see any harm or small grievance, suffered by a creature. But why also about wordless, and about enemies of truth, and about evil-doers, all time with tears is said prayers, to save them and be pitied, but also for creeping reptiles are prayed with great pity, that immeasurably awakens in his heart to appeacing God” ("Иже во святых Отца нашего аввы Исаака Сириянина, подвижника и отшельника, бывшего епископом христолюбивого града Ниневии, Слова Подвижнические". Москва, 1858. p. 299)". (p. 158-162). |
|
06020408
|
True essence of pity, or compassion, there is no immediate identification with other at all, but acceptance of other by own (belonging to him) meaning of right to existence and possible prosperity. When I pity other person or animal, I do not at all interfere with him, do not take him for me and me for him, but only see in him akin of me or a comrade of race with me, a being conform with me, animated in the same way as I am, wishing as I am, to live and enjoy the gifts of life. Accepting to myself the right to fulfil such desire I recognize it also for others; painfully reacting to all breaking of this right as related to me, on all insults reaching me, I in the similar way react to the breaking of other’s right, other’s insult, pitying myself, pity also other person. Seeing suffering creature I do not at all identify with it, do not mix him with myself, but only imagine his position and recognizing his position as similar to mine, compare his situation with my own, as it is said – ‘get into his position’. This comparison (but not identifying) between other and me at once and instinctively performed in the feeling of pity, leads with reasoning to the level of clear and analysed thought. |
|
06020409
|
This way, the reasonable contents (ideas) of pity, or compassion, taken in its totality and independent of subjective spiritual conditions, in which it appears (that is, taken logically, but not psychologically), is true and fair. True that other beings are alike me, and rair that that I related to him as to myself. This situation, clear as it is, becomes still clearer at negative proof. When I relate without pity or indifferently to other people, consider allowable insulting them and not obligatory to help them, when I see them only as means for my purposes, so they appear to me not as they are in reality. Subject appears as a thing only, living – dead, respiring – inanimate, my connatural – alien, alike me – unconditionally different. Such a relationsip, in which a known object is taken not as it is in reality, is direct negation fo truth; conduct emanating from this becomes unjustified, and consequently opposite relationship, which subjectively appears in inner feeling of participation, pity or compassion, objectively speaking, it expresses truth, but the corresponding action will be just. Measuring with different measures is recognized unjustified by all, but when I am pitiless towards others, that is, behave towards them as inanimate things without rights, but towards myself as a person animate and with full rights, so I measuse with different measures and rudely contradict truth and justice (…) From this truth, of which there is an inner feeling of pity for other subjects, as conarural and akin, reason draws a principle or rule for relationship towards all other subjects: behave with others as you want them to behave with yourself. |
|
06020410
|
Which two parts can be distinguished in the priciple of altruism?A general rule or priciple of altruism is naturally divided in two parts. The beginning of this division may be seen already in the basic altruistic feeling of pity. If I really feel pity for somebody, so I, firstly, do not self start to cause him suffering or harm, will not insult him, and, secondly, when he independently of me is exposed to suffering or insult, I will help him. From this two principles of altruism – negative and positive: 1) do not do to other anything what you would not like from others, and 2) do to other all that, what you would like that others do to you. Shorter and simpler: These two rules usually united together, are expressed: do not hurt anybody and help all you can. (Neminem laede, imo omnes, quantum potes, juva).
|
|
06020411
|
Why is important the indivisibility of the two rules?First, negative, rule is called particularly as the rule of righteousness, the second as charity. But such a difference is not quite exact. Also as a basis for the second rule lies also righteousness: if I wish that others helped me when I need it, so it is only right that I help them. On the other hand, if I do not want to insult anybody, it is because I recognize others also living and suffering creatures as I am myself, but in that case I, of course, will try not to save these creatures from suffering: I do not insult them, because I feel pity for them, and if I feel pity for them, then I will also help them. Mercifulness presupposes righteousness, and righteousness presupposes mercifulness, they are only different sides of one and the same… This indivisibility of two altruistic rules (in all their differences) is very important as a fundament for inner connections of right and morality, politics and spiritual life of society.” (p. 165-169) (F133).
|
|
06020412
|
What was the idea of the polemics between Solovyov and Schopehauer?Rather interesting is the polemics of V.S. Solovyov with Schopenhauer on the question of psychological rational of golden rule. V.S. Solovyov is right, of course. He exactly seized the fundament of moral relationship of man to another man: not identification but similarity and comparison, that is also confirmed by the golden rule.
|
|
06020413
|
What did Solovyov show?V.S. Solovyov following Schopenhauer convincingly showed with the example of feeling of compassion the significance of emotions, psyche as individually intime fundament of the golden rule. If people are led by this rule withour deliberation, so this happens to significant extent thanks to feelings of conscience and compassion. Conscience accounts mainly for realization of negative application of golden rule. Compassion for positive. Conscience says: do not do to other what you do not wish to yourself, that is, do not commit evil. Compassion leads to give help to suffering, to behave with him as you wish that you were treated in analogous situation.
|
|
06020414
|
Intime and psychologic ”mechanisms”, that are realized in the golden rule, refer to that it is not an abstract inanimate formal norm, that it is deeply individualized, psychologized, has not only ‘antenna’ in the way traditions do, generally accepted rules of conduct, but are also brought to the ‘earth level’ are rooted to the depths of human nature. |
12. [AJK]: Darwin's principle of the 'survival of the fittest'?
(06020414) |
|
06020415
|
How does the rule work unconsciously?(To a great extent the golden rule of behavior works half-unconsciously. Outright people do not remember of it and do not express it, but behave as the rule assumes. Here an example. Very often children, young people, and even grown-up people speak to each other: is it ok for you, if I do (say) to you so, too? Such a question is another formulation of the golden rule (“do not do other what you do not wish to be done to you”).)
|
|
06020416
|
Two remarks. |
|
06020417
|
First. V.S. Solovyov, as also A. Schopenhauer, only too much ‘enjoy’ of the suffering side of the golden rule. The latter operates not only on the feeling of pity, compassion, but also on the feeling of love, enjoyment and simply on curiosity, interest (of one person to another). |
|
06020418
|
Second. V.S. Solovyov mentions the golden rule as the rule or principle of altruism and this, as it seems to me, is not quite true. The word ‘altruism’ comes from ‘alter’ other and in the principle that is tied to it, the stress is, of course, on other, others. Altruism is self sacrifice, dedication. In the golden rule the accent is on ego, the subject. Because of it, as of stove, ‘dances’ the golden rule (F134). The latter does ‘not open’ from me on the side of other, but tries to be in harmony with the situation of me and other, to find common denominator, common measure between them. The golden rule therefore also is a measure, norm, that it establishes a certain equilibrium of interests. |
|
060205 |
The golden rule is the main principle of human intercourse |
|
06020501
|
So, I conclude, draw consequences. In the positive formulation the rule sounds:
Behave with others so as you would like
others behave with you.In negative formulation: do not do others what you would not like
them to do to you. |
|
06020505
|
In what sense does the golden rule give a holistic notion of moralism?The golden rule gives a holistic and concentrated notion of moralism, comprises in it the most important: relation to other as to oneself (F135). It establishes, fixes, defines the measure of human being against human being, compares people morally and equals them to one another. According to A.A. Huseinov, when we speak of moral equality, it is a question of only one thing, that every human individual is worth to have right to happiness and that “mutual recognition of this right is the condition of moral intercourse”. Golden rule requires “of individual to replace himself every time with other and behave in relation to the other as with oneself”. “The mechanism of the golden rule may be defined as comparison, as a requirement to put in thoughts oneself into the place of the other”. (F136)
|
|
06020506
|
In what sense can the golden rule be considered as a measuring system?Moral equalization is a quantitative procedure, moral comparison is qualitative procedure. Together we have a measuring process: golden rule makes a person commeasure with his measure the behavior of other and vice versa with other person’s measure gauge his own behavior; with one word, it requires to find common measure of own and other person’s behavior and behave according this common measure.
|
|
06020507
|
Why can the golden rule be considered as the minimum requirement of moral?In its negative formulation golden rule establishes the minimum lower mark or limit of moral relation of a person to other people, prohibits to do evil, with other words, establishes minimum of moral requirements for the human behavior.
|
13. Minimum moral requirement.
(06020507) |
|
06020508
|
Why can the golden rule be considered as the maximum requirement of moral?In its positive formulation it establishes maximally high mark of moral relationship of a person to other people, commands to good, well-doing, in other words, defines the maximum of moral requirements for human behavior.
|
14. Maximum moral requirement.
(06020508) |
|
06020509
|
This way, the golden rule comprises the whole range of moral behavior and serves as the basis for separation and definition of moral categories of good and evil. (F137) |
|
06020510
|
What is the relationship of the golden rule to the category of duty?Such a function it fulfills in relationship to the category of duty. For this we will look at the rule from other side, and just how it commeasures own and other behavior. In the fundament of this commeasurement lies the following. People, the society gave to me life, made me a person (fed, dressed, raised, educated, etc.), that is, they behaved with me more or less well, as I would want that others would behave with me. Consequently, I behave or must behave with them (parents, people, society), in private case, must pay them alike, that is, with my behavior I must not deteriorate, diminish quality, quantity of life (that was given me by others), rather, as far as possible, I must take care of improvement, increase of quality, quantity of life (my and others’, society as a whole) (F138). This is a general understanding of duty. It, naturally, is subdivided to different classes depending on whom we mean with ‘others’. If ‘others’ means parents, so the duty is in front of parents. If ‘others’ means nation, my country, so the duty is in front of nation, my country. If ‘others’ means humanity, so the duty is in front of the whole human society.
|
|
06020511
|
What is duty?Duty is a normal deviation of optimal norm of necessity. The latter is deviation from optimal norm that is applied to life and health of separate person. Duty is deviation from optimal norm of the life and health of society. Fulfilment of the duty by concrete people for the health of society has the same meaning as the satisfaction of needs for the health of a person. In the youth a person accumulates duties (debt), because he stills mainly gets from others, but practically not yet gives anything to them. In the mature age a person both gives and receives ‘duties’ (debt).
|
15. Definition of duty.
(06020511) |
|
06020512
|
What are diseases of the society?If moral (morality) regulates the relationships of people, secures health of society in the framework of optimal norms and the small deviations of it (creation of duty (debt) and its fulfilment), so justice regulates the relationships of people, provides health of society in the more wide sense – prohibition, prophylactics or healing of pathological deviations from normal health, called delinquencies of rights and/or criminal acts. What for the life and health of separate persons are diseases, that for the life and health of society are delinquencies of rights and criminality. When there are many delinquencies and criminality in the society, it means that the society is sick in juridical sense. Even less can then be spoken of the health of the society in moral sense.
|
|
06020513
|
How is the life and health of society a continuation of a concrete man?The golden rule establishes link and correspondence between the life and health of separate persons and life and health of the society. It confirms that life and health of society are based on the life and health of people, that morality is not self-value, and has root in life and health of concrete man, is, so to say natural continuation of this life and health. Moral health, on one hand, is a part of the health of society or separate entity of people (nation, collective etc.), but on the other, is included as constituent part of the individual health. Justice is also not a value of its own. It is a natural continuation of morality. It, essentially, as morality, is based on the golden rule. We remember, what Hobbes has written: “man must be content with that amount of freedom towards other people which he would allow to other people in relation to himself” (see text above). Approximatively of this speaks the political and juridical rule: “Everybody is obliged to follow only that law, to which he himself has given consent” (F139). This rule may be somewhat categorical, but true in its essence, becouse it operates on the golden rule. Or such a rule: “Not breaking others’ rights you conserve yours’” (from the movie Jaques Yves Cousteau 1984). This rule is followed by thousands of gold miners of Amazonas. There is practically no theft. The rule, if reasoned, is partial application of the golden rule in its negative formulation.
|
|
06020514
|
What is justice?So, in the deepest sense justice is mutual recognition and mutual limitation of freedom. From mutual concession of freedom follow different rights of man. From mutual concession of freedom follow not lesser multitude of obligations of man.
|
|
06020515
|
How can the golden rule be considered as the formula of freedom?The golden rule has still the property that it self-sufficiently, forged, has the fundament in itself. It, particularly, unites ‘want’ and ‘must’, accindental ‘want’ and necessary ‘must’. This union gives as a result what we call freedom. The golden rule is the formula of freedom. Uniting in the golden rule ‘want’ and ‘must’ mutually allow and limit one another, establish the measure, are measuring one another.
|
|
06020516
|
In what way the golden rule simplifies the relationship of man and society?Uniting ’want’ and ’must’ the golden rule puts aside the dilemma of the ethics of happiness and the ethics of duty. It requires of man only that he himself wants in relation to himself. Not in vain the rule is called golden.
|
|
06020517
|
Why is the ”eye for eye, tooth for tooth” rule destructive of its nature?A particular negative mask of the golden rule is the ’rule’, which is expressed in the famous words ”eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, ”right to revenge for me and I give up” in proverbs of type “as you shout, so the echo answers” etc. The idea of this rule is that if you were baldly treated, so you have the right or must pay with same measure. The given ‘rule’ is outwards similar to the golden rule, but the essence of it is an antipode. It works when the golden rule does not work (is broken). To what extent destructive it is for the human relationships, may be seen in the example of revenge (if you do me evil, so I do evil to you). Particularly destructive is blood revenge, leading sometimes to destruction of entire families.
|
|
| |
———— |
|
06020519
|
Why don't people always follow the golden rule?It can be asked: if the golden rule is so good, why do people break it, why do they commit evil, do not fulfill their duty? The situation is here approximatively the same as in the case of health and sickness. The latter do not at all devaluate the health. On the contrary, the sick person tries to become well again. So also with the golden rule. Breakings of the golden rule do not devaluate it. In the general equilibrium of human behavior the behavior based on the golden rule, unconditionally compensate the breakings of it. Otherwise we would have to do with a sick, destroying itself society.
|
16. A self-destroying society.
(06020519) |
|
06020520
|
Csar Berendey in the vernal tale of A.N. Ostrovsky ‘Snegurochka’ completely just says: |
|
06020521
|
How the world is being kept going?
-By truth and conscience only.
|
|
060206 |
The golden rule is far from being as elementary as it seems to be |
|
06020601
|
as it may seem at first glance. In order that it works the fulfilment of at least two conditions is needed: |
|
06020602
|
1. The person himself must be normal, healthy or, if not healthy and in some way anomal, this anomaly must be considered when defining the relationship to other person (persons). The relationship to other person (persons) is a continuation of the relationship to oneself. If a smoker, alcoholic, narcoman is detrimental to himself, to own health, so it is contrary to him to act according to the golden rule (in general, of course, but in definite relationship: smoking, consuming alcohol, using narcotics). And besides, if for alcoholists and narcomans such contraindication is absolutely necessary, so for smoker there is the possibility to correct the behavior in relationship to others. A smoker may be conscious of the harm caused by smoking and corresponding to this his consciousness he may minimize the harm caused by him to the surroundings (for instance, trying not to smoke at the presence of others, although this is not possible in densely populated cities). |
17. Normal, healthy person.
(06020602) |
|
06020603
|
2. The person must understand to place oneself reasonably into the place of others and in this way correct one’s behavior. This is not a simple procedure. Very often people cause harm to others not of evil intention, but out of their thoughtlessness, particularly, out of lack of mentally putting oneself to the situation of others in the concrete situation. For instance, a smoker knowing that smoking causes harm, notwithstanding smokes not pitying not only oneself but also not the surrounding people. Why does he do so? Because for the smoker the pleasure obtained from smoking exceeds the consciousness of the harm of this smoking. Smoking in the presence of nonsmokers, he does not think (or suppresses this thought) about that the nonsmokers by far do not experience pleasure out of his smoking, but, on the contrary are suffering (F140). The smoker did not replace himself to the situation of the others (nonsmokers). Otherwise he would experience instead of pleasure mere pain. One may say that this situation of smoker speaks sooner not of his thoughtlessness, but of his stubbornness, lack of understanding, his lack of wishing to assume the other’s standpoint. Unconditionally all these moments of thoughtlessness may be present. But because also he has head on shouders in order to think until end the consequences of his stubbornness and lack of consciousness. If the smoker to full extent woud think, that is, thought until end his behavior, so he would see, that the pleasure received by him of smoking is in no way comparable with the harm he is causing to his own health or to himself as personality, as human being. Allowing that he smokes in the presence of his most loved feminine creature. This way he shows his contempt to her, despite all love, and desire to marry her. Usually the girl or woman well feels this contempt and sooner or later denies him her favor. Such a situation emerges in the case of the smoker takes the liberty to smoke in the presence of a friend, neighbour, necessary person etc. Rather less obvious is the harm that the smoker brings to himself in cases when he smokes in a public place, in the presence unknown persons. (How often the author of these lines, self nonsmoker, got irritated when the person walking in front on the street smoked and did not understand that he with his smoking makes the person behind a passive smoker). In such cases the smoker, as a rule, does not get a direct rebuff, that is, immediate bumerang does not work here. Nevertheless he is also here present. When a person shows contempt to interests of unknown people, disrespect towards him occurs, so he has no right to expect respectful behavior towards himself. Loorishness of a smoking person in usually united with loorishness of foulmouthness, bad smell, stitting etc. One kind of loorishness calls for other. Emerges a vicious circle of loorishness. As a result the sum of evil increases, so also the mutual sum of people’s rancor. In this atmosphere the disrespect of each other and our smoker may becom the victim of willing or unwilling boorishness from the part of unknown people. Here a boomerang is possible. The result: if the smoking person thought better about the consequences of his behavior, that is, every time replaced himself to the situation of other nonsmoking persons, so he wold unconditionally stop smoking. Smoking people living in modern city, in one way or other breaks the golden rule. But this means that they behave unmorally, nonorderly. It is not accidental that in the whole civilized world there is a campain for prohibition of smoking. The golden rule cannot bde broken continuously. People feel this and try to solve the problem. |
18. Placing to the position of others.
(06020603) |
|
06020604
|
The golden rule and killing. I would like to mention specially: the golden rule prohibits killing in any form. As a matter of fact, no normal person wants to die, and even less that somebody killed him. If you do not wish to be killed, so this means that you cannot wish or do this to other people. In this way, both killing in evil intention and killing out of carelessness, of negligence, and killing in war, and death sentence – all these are against the golden rule. (More detailedly about killing and killers see Appendix) |
19. Killing prohibited.
(06020604) |
|
06020605
|
As we see, in all outer softness the golden rule of behavior is rather harsh by its essence. In some important questions of human togetherness and coexistence its requirements remain still unrealized, which testifies of its significant potential, particularly, shows the need to improve the relationships between people, moral, justice. |
|
0603 |
Good and evil |
|
06030001
|
In its negative formulation golden rule establishes minimum lower mark or limit of moral relationships of man with other people, forbids to do evil. |
|
06030002
|
In its positive formulation it establishes maximal upper mark or limit of moral relationsihips of man to other people, commands to good, beneficence. |
|
06030003
|
This way, golden rule comprises the whole range of moral behavior and serves as basis for discrimination and definition of moral categories of good and evil. |
|
060301 |
Discriminating moral concepts of good and evil From general concepts of good and evil |
|
06030101
|
Good and evil are the most general concepts used for denomination of positive or negative valuation of objects of surrounding world. Good is positively valued phenomenon, positive value (which brings people utility). Evil is negatively valued phenomenon, negative value (which brings harm to people). |
|
06030102
|
Cannot a natural phenomenon be both good and bad?Man collaborates with other people and nature, therefore positive or negative natural phenomena, things (that is, elements of second nature, formed by work of man). That also happens, that the same natural phenomena in some cases are good for people and in other bad. For instance, rain in the period of aridity is good, but at the time of crop it is bad.
|
|
06030103
|
How can we define 'absolute good' and 'absolute evil'?What is absolutely /relatively the difference between good and evil? Can good be evil and evil be good? One and the same phenomenon, action may be in one respect god and in another bad. However, if we evaluate something as good, so in the quality of good, this something cannot at the same time be evil, and vice versa, if we evaluate something as bad, this something cannot at the same time be good. In this sense the difference between good and evil is absolute. Good is everything that “serves to conserve and develop life” (F141). Evil is all that destroys life and hinders its development. (Life here means above all life of man and mankind, and further, life as such, particularly, life on the earth.)
|
|
06030104
|
What is the limit of moral good and evil?Moral good and evil are the good and evil in connection with people, action of only people, having positive or negative significance for others. If subject, bearer of natural benefit or evil appears as one or other natural phenomenon, so subject, bearer of moral good or bad is always man having reason, consciously acting, making choices.
|
|
| |
———— |
|
06030106
|
In what case can the relationship of man to nature be considered a moral one?Relationship of man and nature, to one or another natural phenomenon can be evaluated as moral or amoral in the case that the relationship in indirect way involves interests of other people, society as a whole.
|
|
060302 |
What is such good? |
|
06030201
|
What is the definition of good?General definition of the moral concept of good arises from ‘outer’ and ‘inner’.- ’Outer’ definition of moral good ansers to the question: what is the function (or meaning) good has in the life of people? Why do people need to do good to each other?
- ’Inner’ definition answers to question: what is such good and what deeds must be considered as good deeds?
- ’Outer’ definition: good is such form of relationship between people that makes real the moral connection, spiritual union between them.
- Evil is the antigood, hindering the emergence of spiritual connection or destroys it, if it already exists.
- Such kind of moral connections, as friendship, comradeship, brotherhood would be impossible, if people would not commit good deeds to each other.
- ’Inner’ definition: good in moral sense is disinterested help, of which the helper does not expect compensation.
|
|
06030208
|
How does the definition of good arise from the golden rule?This definition of good arises from positive formulation of golden rule of behavior. As a matter of fact, the wish to behave so that you want others to behave with you, is related exclusively to the cases where conditions arise for disinterested help. All other kinds of help, support, cooperation, services do not require following og this rule.
|
|
06030209
|
Evil in moral sense is unprovoked commitment of evil, harm to somebody up to killing. |
|
06030210
|
Characteristic of good constitues of two parts:- disinterested and
- help.
|
|
06030211
|
The idea of the first part is clear. We will try to explain what is such help. Human help is rather versatile. In dictionaries of Russian language the meaning of the word ‘help’ (помощь) is explained with different explanatory words: |
|
06030212
|
- Cooperation in something, in some activity.
- Support of something.
- Defence, hand-reaching, saving.
|
|
06030213
|
From these explanations it is seen that help has different degrees of significance to those whom it is given. |
|
06030214
|
What is 'saving help'?The most significant is saving-help. Such help rebuffs a tragic outcome. As a rule, it is completely unavoidable for the person to be helped and without it he could not avoid the tragic outcome. Elementary example of saving-help: help to a drowning person.
|
|
06030215
|
(About saving and saviors see below p. [Humanism is philosophy of mankind, thesis 27]). |
|
060303 |
Good and bad in the mutual correspondency of reality and possibility |
|
06030301
|
Why is it dangerous to study problems in the aspects of reality only?It is rather dangerous at times, to study concrete problems only in the aspect of reality, existence, coexistence. In the quality of example it may lead to what some moralists and researchers handle the eternal problem of good and bad. Constating the unavoidableness of moral evil of the lives of people, society, they argument, in general, according to the scheme: good exists only, because evil exists.”
|
|
06030302
|
I present some characteristic statements: |
|
06030303
|
Saint Augustin: “Of the totality of good and bad consists the amazing beauty of the universum. Even that what is called foul belogs to the known order, stands on its place and helps better deal the good. Good pleases more and is more laudable, if it can be compared with evil” (F142). |
|
06030304
|
J: Böhme: Evil is an unavoidable moment in life and unavoidable necessary… Without evil, everything were as without light, without light would be man, deprived of suffering; suffering, being original, evil, but it is the source of energy, fire engine… goodness, not having in it evil, is of egoistic beginnings, empty, dreamlike goodness. Evil is the enemy of itself, the beginning of anxiety, continuously aspiring to calmness, that is, to take away itself” (F143). |
|
06030305
|
Mandeville: “…that what we call in this world evil, in moral as well as in physical sense, is the great principle which makes us social beings, is a firm basis, life creating power and lever of all professions and occupations without exception; here we must search true origin of all arts and sciences; and that very moment, when evil ceases to exist, the society would have to come to the verge, if not be demolished entirely” (F144). |
|
06030306
|
Goethe: “all that we call evil, is only the opposite side of good, which is also necessary for its existence, as also what Zona torrid must burn, and Lapponia be covered by ice, in order that there were a moderate climate” (F145). |
|
06030307
|
O.G. Drobnitskov: “all that represents for us unconditional good, turns out to have idea only to the extent that there is still evil” (F146). |
|
06030308
|
Ju.M. Lotman: «Good without evil does not exist. If we completely destroy evil, so we will destroy also good (F147)». |
|
06030309
|
E. Jasin: «If you kill evil, then you will at the same time kill good» (F148). |
|
06030310
|
Whatever is said, position of these autors seems convincing and even incontestable. They really have right. As a matter of fact, good and evil can exist as poles of moral reality. But is it possible to consider on this basis that good has sense only if also evil exists (see the statement by O.G. Drobnickov)?! No, no and still once no! Yes, good and evil are corresponding categories. But their correspondence can be understood in different ways actually existing as polar ends to equal extent like north and south poles and as correspondingly health and sickness (a person may be really healthy and on the contrary, if he is really sick, so only potentially healthy). There are, of course, periods in history, and simply situations, when good and evil exist in equal amounts and contradict each other, when it is difficult to assess, which is stronger, good or evil. In those cases one can speak of these categories as polar beginnings of moral reality. But can we on this basis confirm that the existence of evil always, in all cases is necessary for existence of good, that good only then appears as positive moral value, that is, as good, when it contradicts really existing evil. Unconditionally, bad can offset good and ‘enable’ its enlargement, but the absence of disappearance of evil from real relationships between people by fat does not heal automatically the disappearance of good and morality. In similar way as people prevent appearance of illness, hunger, taking different precautions, they learn and will prevent appearance of evil, not allowing it to interfere from the sphere of possibility to the sphere of actuality. One must keep in mind that good is the antipode of evin not only in the sense that it overcomes existing evil or confronts it, but also in the sense that it may appear as prophylactic measure, as caution of possible evil. |
|
06030311
|
A.F. Shishkin justly writes: ”the situation where human nature contains some intrinsic evil, may – in different forms and for different consequences – find also in the Bible, and in political theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes, and in philosophic theories of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, not to speak of already numerous modern philosophic, sociological and ethic theories. If this position would be true, so one should refuse to participate in the education of man and act on it only as means of compulsion.” (F149). |
|
06030312
|
“What would do your good, if there were no evil?..”All who state that good without evil does not exist, are like Voland in the novel ’Master and Margareth by M.A. Bulgakov. According to Bulgakov Voland is the devil in human incarnation. Not accidentally just into his mouth the writer put the sacramental words: “What would do your good, if there were no evil?..”. Essentially all those who think in similar manner are devils in human incarnation, satanisti or, softly speaking, cynic and not completely wise people.
|
20. Master and Margareth.
(06030312) |
|
06030313
|
Is evil needed to enjoy good music?Beethoven composed his genial symphonies. This way he committed great service to mankind. Whether this his good deed has sense only, because there is still evil in addition? What a stupidity! Good has its independent value and does not need that evil would shadow and enlarge it. We are inspired by music of Beethoven independently of whether there is evil or not. It challenges us to fight, but not it must not unavoidably be fight with moral evil. There are many problems and things in the world where human energy is needed, passion, will of victory and where moral evil only disturbs.
|
21. Moral evil only disturbs.
(06030313) |
|
06030314
|
Nazists during the second world war in only one death camp, Ausschwitz, destroyed one and a half million people. Can we to any extent justify this crime against mankind referring to saying that these crimes were necessary for clarifying the idea of good, for its existence and enlargement?! |
|
06030315
|
What is the solution of the problem of the coexistence of good and evil?In the same way it is clear that good and evil must not be seen only in the plane of coexistence; they must be seen on a wider plane, particularly on the plane of possibility and actuality, actual and possible existence. They may coexist and expostulate as poles of moral realnost, but may relate mutually as actual and possible (in individual case, as norm and pathology). F.M. Dostoyevsky has always been very sharp in moral problems, refused to believe that evil never overcomes. “People, he wrote, may be excellent and happy, not having lost their ability to live on the earth. I do not want and cannot believe, that evil would be normal condition of people”.
|
22. Evil not normal condition.
(06030315) |
|
06030316
|
What is the danger of absolutizing the ctegory of actuality?So, in the example of good and evil we see, how important it is on methodologic plane not to absolutize the category of actuality. That absolutization may cause much harm, worse still, to interpret them as completion of moral evil.
|
|
060304 |
Human being is good by his nature.
Good and evil relate to each other as norm and patology |
|
06030401
|
The wiser and better a man is, the more he pays notice on good in people.
Чем человек умнее и добрее, тем больше он замечает добра в людях.B. Pascal |
|
06030402
|
Is human being good or evil by his nature?There are different opinions whether human being is good or evil by his nature. Some consider that man by nature is good, others that he is bad, third that he is not good neither evil.
|
|
06030403
|
F. Nietzsche, for instance, characterized man as evil animal. (F150) |
|
06030404
|
But J.J. Rousseau in ‘Pensées de l’inegalité’ [1754] confirmed that « man of its nature is good and only society makes him evil » - antithesis to the doctrine original sin and saving in church. |
|
06030405
|
What does Kant try to do to level the contradictions of good and evil?A peculiar position in this question assumed I. Kant. This is what A.A. Guliga writes: “Kant begins from reasoning about the moral nature of man. Some wise are convinced that man is hopelessly smeared in evil. Others see him as good of nature, but evil only out of effect of conditions. Both these and the others – rigorists – are categorical in their judgments. Them oppose the indifferent who assume that man of its nature is neutral – neither good nor evil – and syncretists considering him simultaneously good and evil. Kant in matters of moral is rigorist, but simultaneously he is dialectic. He also here tries to replace, or even more, to collide the contradictions.
|
|
06030406
|
According to Kant: Is man good or evil?Man, confirms Kant, is evil by nature. In him is present an inevitable inclination to commit evil, which seems to be an acquired property, but which belongs to him originally. Together with this man has originally the property to do good deeds. Moral education consists of the property to do good things in order that they would compensate in the struggle with human inclination to commit evil.“ (F151)
|
23. Man is evil by nature.
(06030406) |
|
06030407
|
Can there be a compromise between man being good or evil?Still one wide-spread opinion is, quite recently repeated in the journal of Russian Philosophic Association: “Man by his nature is neither good nor evil”. (F152)
|
24. Neither good nor evil.
(06030407) |
|
06030408
|
What is Balashov's view in this question?From my point of view, man by his nature, that is, originally, essentially, is good. Evil man is an anomaly, exception of the rule, morally sick person. Good and evil relate to each other as norm and pathology, health and sickness. A good person is morally healthy. Evil person is morally sick, moral monster, invalid.
|
25. Evil man is an anomaly.
(06030408) |
|
06030409
|
What is the basis of the assumption of innocence until otherwise shown?In the juridical practice the principle is prevailing, that operates in the notion presented; this is the assumption of innocency. According to this assumption a person is considered innocent until his guilty is shown according to legal process. In other words, according to the assumption all citizens are originally considered to be in good order, that is observing certain (good) order in life and consequently not breaking justice, laws. Man can be declared guilty only by the decision of court of justice. If man out of his nature were evil, or not evil and not good, so assumption of innocency would not have any moral justification.
|
26. Assumption of innocency.
(06030409) |
|
06030410
|
What is ment by the concept of 'sincerity' here?Still one indirect confirmation that man by his nature is good, is the concept and behind it the phenomenon of ‘sincerity’. Nobody denies that sincerity is a necessary condition of all professional creative activity and in general of all activity in life, connected with fulfillment of obligations and duties. All that is conceived by people on the Earth and they tehmselves are outcpome of their sincerity. We ask now: good together with sincerity – is that only a pair of words or something essential for understanding of the phenomenon of ‘sincerity’? The answer is simple: without inner orientation to good, no sincerity, honesty, honest fulfillment of obligations and duties could not exist. People are sincere not out of fear of punishment or lawsuit, but of inner consciousness and understanding that of their work is depending life and destiny of other people, society as a whole. Of course, in consciousness of necessity fulfillment of obligations and duties may be present and most often are present also other moments and motives: desire to earn, obtain moral and material remuneration or fear of punishment and lawsuit. This, however, does not alter that people learn, work, raise children because they are more or less sincere. We can imagine ourselves of a student, worker, parent that is not sincere: we will see person with lacking education, a second class worker, unhappy children. Do we often see this kind of unhappy people? No, of course. Imagine, for example, a unsufficiently learned car driver, train conductor, ship captain, flyer. Life would be simply impossible, if in those professions people would be insufficiently educated. Consequenly: the grat part of people are sincere, and consequently good in their essence.
|
27. Innocent until shown guilty.
(06030410) |
|
06030411
|
Why is Henry Ford considered a benefactor of humanity?It can be thought also otherwise. Good is disinterested help. Is there any disinterestedness in the religious activity? I am convinced that elements of disinterestedness always exist in such activity. An overwhelming majority of people are working, fulfilling their obligations not in fear, but of reasons of conscience. They invest as a stake part of their soul, of their heart and this investment cannot be changed and correspondingly cannot be compensated by any honoraries, neither material nor moral. Particularly this relates to creative people. Can the good be measured, which is done by scientists, inventors, engineers, managers, artists? The founder of modern automogile industry Henry Ford became a milliardeur thanks to his activity as inventor and manager. But can it be measured as dollars collected by him? Of course not. He brought to humanity immeasurable good. Thanks to him and those like him the wellfare of humanity increases, it rises above the spiritual and material, the movement becomes more free. The same automobile changed completely the movement, raised it to qualitatively higher level. But what is such freedom of movement, all know it. This is one of the greatest good deeds.
|
28. One of the greatest good deeds.
(06030411) |
|
06030412
|
What is the good feature of capitalists?Some assess the good of capitalists by their good creating activity! Rubbish! Real goodness of capitalists is their fundamental work in economics, commercialism, management. I choose the example of Henry Ford. Such as Ford exist thousands and thousands.
|
|
06030413
|
Why do parents take care of their children?The same I could say of parents, of mothers and fathers. They are good people by definition. In any case the great majority of them. When they take care of children, it is not only because they love them. Love to children and to persons connected to it and positive emotions are not at all covered by the work of children in the parent’s old age and the expectations of parental from the side of children is not at all considered as a balance of help of parental labor. Yes and the hopes of parents of the help of children in their olderdom is in no way as an outcome of the balance: ‘you to me’ – ‘I to you’. (“you to me in future – me to you presently”). Because hope indicates only possibility to compensate parental caretaking in the future. It cannot serve as real equivalent of this compensation.
|
29. Parents - good people by definition.
(06030413) |
|
06030414
|
Are parents to be considered robots or animals?And from the side of motives, parents fully consciously behave as moral, good persons. Confirming that they act only corresponding to their parental instincts, in animal way, automatically, is the same as to confirm that as parents they are absolutely instinctive persons, animals, automates, robots. Of course, it is not this way.
|
|
06030415
|
Are self-sacrifice and heroism the main motives of goodness?Otherwise it is difficult to imagine common, normal people as good. They have idealized conceptions about good, goodness as rather rare occurrences, combined exclusively with self-sacrifice, with heroical behavior, with heroic acts. It is a deep confusion to see good, goodness in this way.
|
|
06030416
|
I completely agree with poet K.N. Batyushkov, who in the monograph ’About the good properties of heart’ convincingly tells about how natural people see good, evil as ‘violent existence’. |
|
06030417
|
Morality emerged together with human being, indivisible of him. But it cannot exist without goodness, without good deeds. Confirming that people from their nature are not good (and not evil) is same as confirming that people from their nature are not moral, do not exist as moral beings. |
|
06030418
|
Cannot suffering people be healthy by their nature?The presence of evil and evil people in the world does in no way destroy the basis of human good moral. If people suffer, so this does not mean that they are not healthy from their nature.
|
|
06030419
|
How did the moral behaviour begin?By the way, moral behavior of men did not appear in empty place. It obligatorily has biological roots. American biolog E. Watson considers that the behavior of all living creatures from bacteria to humans is based on the same principles, as in the life of humans and animals similar rituals, ethical norms… As a matter of fact, higher animals have something that might be called an early state of morality. Because, what is such morality of life? It is order in interhuman relationships, becoming evident, particularly, in the rules of human coexistence, human behavior in the society. A similar order of life exists also in animals.
|
30. Morality has biological roots.
(06030419) |
|
06030420
|
We shall try to reason on the theme: what may follow from each thesis (”people are from their nature good, evil or not good and not evil”)? |
|
06030421
|
What follows, if it is assumed that man is by nature evil?1. If we we stick with the opinion that people are by their nature evil, then of this follows two alternatives of behavior, corresponding to criminal and unhappy consciousness. If I consider that people are evil by threir nature then consequently I am mainly surrounded by evil people, that is, people of whom may be expected all kinds of unpleasant things. How should I correspond to it? Carefully and watchfully, all time expecting of them some nasty things, criminal deeds. On hand conflicting consciousness and conflicting behavior. In this case an exaggerated reaction of dismissal, abruption, agression is developed on the behavior of people (as in case of allergy, that is overdimensioned reaction of immunologic system on this or that external or internal stimulus). This kind of reaction may often be observed in modern movies, above all in thrillers, fighting events etc.
|
31. if evil...
(06030421) |
|
06030422
|
If you are correlated to evil majority, then in you an amoral consciousness is developed as far as to aggressiveness and criminality. |
|
06030423
|
If you relate to nonevil (good) minority, then in you is developed consciousness of sacrifice, unhappy consciousness. Here may be several alternatives of behavior: isolationistic (people avoid people, society, in nature, in desert, in forest, in monastre, in books, in their narrow familiar world etc.), in nagging aggravating, ever scolding life, people, social order etc. |
|
06030424
|
... as ostrich, who hides its head into sand?In this and the other cases people are tuned to the wave of conflict, confrontation, isolationnism, constant dissatisfaction or aggression. This kind of people do not have harmony in their soul (F153) or they artificially, avoidingly turn away from people, society (as ostrich, who hides his head into sand)
|
32. as ostrich, who hides his head...
(06030424) |
|
06030425
|
What determines the quality of life in evil surroundings?”The world of complaints is for complaining people, empty world only for empty people” said L. Feuerbach. All people must have in sight: how he sees the world, so he is himself. If he sees the world full of evil, the he is either himself such or exists near such condition, or exists in constant spiritual disharmony (disquiety, uneasiness, dissatisfaction). (F154)
|
|
06030426
|
What kind of life, if neither good, nor evil?2. If we stick to the opinion that people by their nature are neither good, nor evil, then sooner or later develops a ‘slippery’ to people, society: with them must be in contact, have friendship, cooperate, have business, but at that ‘keep the ear awake’, be watchful etc. (according to the proverb ‘trust, but verify’).
|
|
06030427
|
How do relate to people, if at least half of them may be expected evil?From the approach mentioned follows such statistical reasoning: if you consider that people of their nature are not good and not evil, then, consequently, the people you are meeting on your way equally probably can be good or evil, half and half. How you must relate to people, if you consider that at least of half of them may be expected something evil? Sooner untrustfully than trustfully, sooner distrustfully than placidly.
|
|
06030428
|
What is meant by 'slippery' behaviour?”Slippery” behavior is characteristically unstable, unpredictable, full of slipping to good or to evil, love or aggression. A person with ‘slippery’ consciousness has difficulty in contacts, in everyday business. Today he is good, in good mood, but tomorrow bad, unthrustful, suspicious, aggressive. In other words, this kind of person constantly balances on the fringe of unhappy or unmorally criminal consciousness. He is factually deprived of moral stamina, moral convictions. But without convictions a person is like a weathercock: where wind blows there also he is going.
|
|
06030429
|
What can be expected, if we assume that man is good of the nature?3. If we stick to the opinion that man of his nature is good, then correspondingly we consider that the majority of people are normal, good, ordinary and will be tuned to the wave of conversation, cooperation, love and goodness. Correspondingly we will relate to people (originally, according to the definition) well, favorably and cordially. With this relation to people our soul is fortified and invigorated in harmony, a harmonious well-being flourishes in our life, humanistic convictions are elaborated; they may be expressed with aphorism: we will think better of people and they will really become better.
|
|
06030430
|
What kind of atmosphere follows, if people are expected to be good by nature?If you meet a person somewhere in the street, in an unknown place, you will approach him in one or another matter, then you are expect that in front of you is a normal, ordinary, good person, such as you are. As a result a thrustful relaxed atmosphere of mutual understanding, consenting emerges. Of course there is a probability in this approach that you will bump to evil, bad lotted person and are deceived in your thrustfullness, your good expectations. But this is better, than if you in advance would expect that he is evil person and you relate to him suspiciously. Therefore our life is goes on and matters are arranged as a rule in contact and cooperation with other people and a continuous suspicion only disturbs our normal life and matters. This is why it is better in human relationships to make mistakes in towards the side of thrust than unthrust.
|
|
06030431
|
What do you think of yourself, if you are convinced that man is good by the nature?When you are convinced that a person in his nature is good, then you also unequivocally assess yourself as good person, that is, relate to yourself as good majority of people. Of this also the style of behavior: constant readiness to do good, help people, open and goodmooded character, honesty and honourability, delicacy and tactfulness.
|
|
06030432
|
Why does Balashov not agree with Tolstoy?I cannot agree with L. Tolstoy, who considered that a person must not consider himself as good, if he wants to be better (F155). To consider someone good means to live in consent and harmony with oneself, in peace with one’s conscience, to live a harmonious life. But if you consider yourself evil, then this already is disharmony, spiritual disagreement, uneasiness of consciousness.
|
|
| |
———— |
|
06030434
|
Is it necessary to have evil in order to get some good instead?When it is tried to show the necessity of moral evil, then it is often thought that this evil replaces good, that good without evil is like light without shadow, already not good. These reasonings are completely wrong. Moral good has the value in itself and does not need evil as its shading. People need not create evil, cause evil to each other in order to live interesting bright undull life. There are in the world many interesting and useful matters, that require gathering efforts to support, to express creative individuality and stamina, and which on the contrary disturb bad thoughts of some peoples.
|
|
06030435
|
Is it necessary for a creative person to commit also evil deeds?Comparing good and evil as light and shadow or order and chaos is a wrong comparison. Here there is a certain craftiness. This is the case, when the comparison fails. Yes, thanks to mutuality of light and darkness (light and shadow, black and white) we can see. In the pure light and in the pure darkness nothing can be seen. Same with order and chaos. We are living in the world, where order and chaos, orderliness and unorderliness exist in a complex coexistence. Pure order is an order of hard body, is unloving, dead. And pure chaos, unorder is like unmoving gas, void of life, dead. If we speak of good and evil, then it is difficult to imagine a good person which in order to be full-valued person, must commit also evil deeds. The more difficult it is to imagine a creative person, who in order to reach results in his activity must inevidently do something foolish.
|
|
06030436
|
Is it necessary to shade good with evil?The motive to shade good with evil is a known motive. It sounds still at the confrontation of life and death (see of this above, p. 43), health and sickness (see above p. 45), richness and poverty (see above, p. 46).
|
|
060305 |
How to fight evil and is it necessary to fight it? |
|
06030501
|
How far is correct Tolstoy’s thesis about the nonconfrontation of evil by violence or its antithesis of I.A. Ilyin about confrontation of evil by violence? And is it in general necessary to fight evil? |
33. Nonconfrontation of evil by violence.
(06030501) |
|
06030502
|
Is it normal to fight evil?L.N. Tolstoy is right in general, in the general context of life. Life is in most cases normal, that is, people as a rule do not do any evil to each other with evil intentions. Therefore the engagement of people in the theme of fighting evil is not completely normal. A person using all his powers to fighting the evil is living a negative, privative life, must refrain from simple human joys, from love, creativity, he in general deprives himself a normal life. He lives as with a minus sign. Such a life may be justified in very few cases, for instance, if it is conditioned by profession (criminal research of incrimination in the justice court) or concrete fighting conditions connected with flagrant injustice.
|
|
06030503
|
What is meant by the Tolstoyan ‘nonconfrontation of evil by violence’?The best remedy in the fight agains sickness is not medication but preventing it in acvance, not allowing it, living a healthy life. The best way of fight agains evil is not to allow it in principle, to prevent it in advance. The Tolstoyan ‘nonconfrontation of evil by violence’ is based on the conviction that man in his nature is good and if he commits evil deed it does not in most cases occur with evil intentions.
|
|
06030504
|
If evil exists, what should be done with it?It is clear that if I.A. Ilyin is also right with his antithesis (about confrontation of evil with violence), then only so in limited cases. However, evil exists and with it must be fought.
|
|
| |
———— |
|
06030506
|
To whom does an evildoer cause the most evil?Person doing evil to others, is above all causing harm for himself, more exactly, to himself as a human being, as a social being, participating in the life of human society. All justificating arguments of type ‘others do evil and I must also do the same’ (if others commit evil deeds so why don’t also I?), ‘I have it bad, so they should also suffer’, ‘I don’t care about others’, and so on, at a closer scrutiny do not stand the critics. Because they are based on the fact that the human society, that people are a gang fighting one against other, being in war with each other (according to the well-known ancient Roman saying: man is to a man wolf, or according to Hobbes’ formula: ‘war of all against all’). The whole history of humanity testifies against such view about the relationships of people.
|
34. History of humanity.
(06030506) |
|
06030507
|
In the first place: the increase of human population. People are fertile and proliferate. |
|
06030508
|
According to the scientific data, in the beginning of the paleolite (half a million years ago) there were maximally 100 thousand people, at the beginning of neolite one million people, at the beginning of new era 200 million people, by the year 1200 about 400 million, at the beginning of the 17 century about 500 million people, in 1800 600 million people, at 1890 1,6 bln people, 1999 (nevember) there were 6 bln people. The forecast for the middle of 21st century is 15 bln people (S.P. Kapitsa). |
|
06030509
|
What should happen, if people constantly were enemies to each other?If people constantly were enemies to each other, killed each other, so their number should diminish. (This, by the way, also happens in some particular cases, when battles and wars are prevalent, are a high wave in the human relations between people, nations, countries).
|
|
06030510
|
Of what is testifying the growth of the length of life?In the second place, the growth of the length of life. The original human being did not live more than 30 years. Now the length of life in the most developed countries is over 70-80 years. The growth of the average length of life is testifying of people making effort not to destruct each other, but to support each other.
|
35. Length of life.
(06030510) |
|
06030511
|
What means the continuous progress of material and spiritual culture?In the third place, the progress of material and spiritual culture. The enemity and war always followed by destruction and devastating of cultural values. Destruction may be rather significant and even overcome creative efforts of people. But what do we see in general? – Unconditional majority of creativity above destructivity. People construct, produce farm and industrial products, invent, open new, create art. And they do this in most cases together, collaborating with each other, giving others support and help. Even if they are in concurrence (in economy, sports, elections, etc.) this is not enemity, war, but battle leading to higher results, enabling development and progress in life.
|
|
06030512
|
What means evil?Evil means destruction. It is not by chance that litteral models and symbols of evil as Mefistofeles of Goethe and Demon of Lermontov carried with them death and destruction. Particularly Mefistofeles destroyed Margarithe and Demon Tamara.
|
36. Evil means destruction.
(06030512) |
|
06030513
|
If creation is prevalent of destruction, then accordingly, good is defeating evil, more good, and less evil. |
|
| |
———— |
|
06030515
|
May geniuses be bad?How do relate genius and illdoing, may geniuses be bad? According to A.S. Pushkin I am convinced that genius and illdoing are two ‘inconsistent things’. As a matter of fact, what is such genius? This is creative, and means, creative, constructive property. Illdoing, whatever illdoing is unconditionally destructive, devastating doing. Genius does not destruct, but creates. Evil does not create, but destroys.
|
37. Genius does not destruct, but creates.
(06030515) |
|
06030516
|
If genius and illdoing unite, what is the duality then?If genius and illdoing sometimes unite in one person, then this does not say about their mutuality, but about the duality of man as personality.
|
|
0604 |
Humanism is the philosophy of mankind
(thesises about humanism) |
|
06040001
|
Man is always free; he originally enjoys some minimum of freedom. |
|
060401 |
What is humanism? |
|
06040101
|
1Humanism is a true philosophy of mankind! It shall be the flag of all human endeavour, of all social and political movements. |
|
06040102
|
2Humanistic philosophy is the atmosphere of mind of thinking people, the foundation of humanity without limits. |
|
06040106
|
3Humanity is humanism in its noncalculating, immediate, natural form. |
|
06040113
|
4Humanism presupposes that Man is born by the Nature and the Society, but is a separate being, but not a being oowned by nature and/or society. |
|
060402 |
What is the highest value of humanism? |
|
06040201
|
5From the stand point of human being the human being is the highest value. This value has priority above all other values: material or spiritual, natural or social. |
|
06040205
|
6Anyone who belittles the dignity of others, commits a deed of low dignity. |
|
06040206
|
7For a humanist man is a value in itself, as is, already from the power of being born. A humanist is originally positively related to the man as such, whatever kind he is, law obiding or criminal, man or woman, of his own family or of other nationality, religious or nonreligious. |
|
06040207
|
8We will think better of people and they become better. How we think, thus we live. We think better, we live better. |
|
06040225
|
9In the human intercourse better to mistake to the side of thrust than to suspicion. |
|
06040226
|
10Humanist thinks himself in the scale of humanity as a whole. Humanism is a kind of lift that unites an individual with the whole human society by lifting him from the level of 'me' to the level of 'we' of all people. |
38. How can I be an image of the whole humankind?
(06040226) |
|
06040227
|
11Humanism recognizes versatility and unity as equally valuable dowery. By recognizing versatility of human kind humanism confronts the endeavour to belittle this versatility by violence or compulsion. By recognizing the unity of mankind humanism confronts the endeavour to smash this unity, to separate a part of people from the rest of mankind. |
|
06040230
|
12In the quest of individualism versus collectivism humanism takes the position of arbitrarian judge. It confronts the utmost collectivism that infringes individual liberty of man, and likewise agains utmost individualism which is ignoring or belittling the freedom of others (general freedom). |
|
06040231
|
13One is collectivism as a natural endeavour of people to unite, as their voluntary union to enhanced power. Another is collectivism as a principle of official moral, as a general principle of human behaviour. In this case collectivism looses naturality, voluntarity and gains the character of imperative, of compulsory norm and measure, becomes 'asphyxion by embracing'. Absolution of the collective initiation of the human nature leads in fact to the negation of humanity, to antihumanism. For the human nature is both genetically and behaviourally manysided. It represents in itself a statisdtical dispersion of collectivistic, individualistic and mixed types of people. |
|
06040232
|
14We do not need unity to any price. When the individualism is as widely dispersed as is the collectivism, the general fraudulency becomes impossible. The cult of leader, despotism, massive terror and repression will be impossible. |
|
06040233
|
15The defender of humanism perceives humanity as a fundamental value, independent of his or her hereditary or other group liability. Humanism is oriented towards concrete, this present person, individual, human being as a unique phenomenon. As a matter of fact, as we think of people belonging to somewhere, as representatives of this or that social group, layer, then its individual character constituing the personality, vanishes, he or she looses his uniqueness and becomes a partial, assimilated, unified human being. Humanism abandons that kind of conception. In this is his or her difference of nationalism, communism, religious fundamentalism... |
|
06040234
|
16Communism, after staying lon time in the gown of humanism, is of its very nature antihuman. It can be qualified as ashamed antihumanism. The ideology of class confrontation is criminal, antihuman as is antihuman racism, chavinism, religious fanatism and ideologies, constructions of mind comparable to it valuing people according to their belonging to one or other social group of layer. |
|
06040242
|
17Sociologists are studying human beings as representatives of this or that social group. They abstract him of all wholeness in order to anatomize him better. Politologists are oriented in their preferences to this or that group of people. In this as well as that case the man is considered according to his belonging to somewhere not as a subject but as a predicate object. Also other cases are known (for exmple in medicine), when the human being is considered in similar manner. All these cases of partial consideration and valuation of human being are justified and justified to the extend that they do not oppose humanism. Humanism is the knot, which unites all people as people and not as representatives of one or another social group. Humanism as if would say to sociologists: anatomize, prepare people, but remember: you are treating a partial human being; your investigations have only partial meaning. To the politologist, civil servants, economists, medical people, social workers he is saying the same: your work is important to man, but all of it has only partial significance for him. |
|
06040301
|
18In its natural form humanism is in a complete accordance with liberalism. More than that, humanism and liberalism are in complete conformity with each other. There can be no humanism without liberalism or liberalism without humanism. Liberalism is humanism, considered from the standpoint of freedom, humanism is liberalism from the point of view of the humanity. If a supporter of humanism scolds liberalism, he is either ignorant of the essence of liberalism or he is not a real humanist. If a person maintains to be liberal and takes nonhuman or antihuman position, he is actually not liberal.
As a matter of fact freedom is the highest value of life for a liberal. And he respects it not only in himself but also in others and for others. Suppose that a person recognizes freedom only for himself or for a few, then he in fact denies it, because that kind of freedom carries very limited (private, not general) character. To be free among slaves, surrounded by slaves is nonsense (it has been noted long ago that a prison guard who is guarding a prisoner is to an extent also a prisoner). In reality free can be only in the midst of free. Therefore a real liberal appreciates not only his own freedom but also the freedom of others. Consequently he is according to the definition human. |
|
06040314
|
19Man is always free; he originally enjoys some minimum of freedom simply because he is a living being; at the same time there is inside him a quest of greater freedom, this quest is unlimited. This causes problems. |
|
06040332
|
* * * |
|
06040335
|
20From the point of view of humanism man as a phenomenon of life on the earth is independent. If he is dependent of something, then not of exterrestrial, superhuman forces but of his surroundings. |
|
06040345
|
21A natural extension of humanism appliable to the nature is ecohumanism. On its foundation ecohumanism lies in conserving and loving relation to the environment. This conserving and loving relationship is valid also towards our smaller brothers, animals, and conserving the cultural environment, the second nature, created by human labour. |
|
06040401
|
22Speaking of world as a whole, it compulsorily is not only environment of human being. The worls is immeasurable and as such does not open to people.Humanism has its limits; it does not pretend to be universal, nor antropocentral in the sense that human being would be the center of Universe; it only states that human being is the highest value to human being. |
|
06040402
|
23Confirming the dignity of human being, humanism at the same time confronts against the overvaluation, deifying human being. Humanism and highmindedness are not compatible. |
|
06040406
|
24Humanism cannot be secularized or religious. It is one entity for believers and nonbelievers.
A believer's Humanism is limited to the extent that his humanness is limited to the frame of religious reliance to the surhuman (divinity in an individual case). In the name of this divinity a believer is able to perform inhuman acts.A non-believer's humanism can also be limited, if his humanity leads to sacrifice to the inhuman: to collectivism, to the group (nation, race, communism and so forth). To the extent that man behaves in a human way towards other human beings and considers his humanity without limits, without glances to superhuman things, he is a humanist. |
|
06040407
|
25If a man declares himself a believer, this does non mean that he is the only defender of the religion. There is no human who would not believe in something. He who beleieves decidedly in everything, as a rule, finishes his life with suicide. A believer is a person who absolutizes his religion, poses it above the knowledge, reason, moral and so on. Religious belief is exaggerated, hypertrophical belief. It limits a lot, if not finishes critical and constructive human thinking. |
|
06040410
|
What a joy – to honor people!A.P. Tchehov |
|
06040416
|
26Doubt is a necessary element in all matters where there is some indefiniteness, exists risk. But most matters are of this kind! A doubtless human being is doomed. That kind of human being is inflexible, fragile, very hard. Either he must avoid even a smallest risk, a smallest indefiniteness in things or he runs the risk of breaking his skull. A doubt is an answer to the indefiniteness of a situation, to a constant necessity to select between alternatives, different ways to proceed. A human being must essentially always fight on sideways. In front of him there is always a sea of alternatives, he can behave this or that way. A sound scepsis is always a good tool of of reason. This defends him from hasty decisions, from unfounded action. |
|
06040419
|
27Humanism does not reach for extremes of rationalism and irrationalism.
|
|
06040422
|
28Human love and charity is affinity to human as it is, as living creature. It presupposes also love to oneself, to the nearest, to those far away, to the alike, to the whole mankind.
Human love does not exclude in certain cases unaffected relationships to concrete human beings. But in any case loving human being does not feel hatred, disdain, detest towards people. For him a person with bad behaviour sooner arouses pity than hatred, disdain. |
|
06040423
|
29Main thing in humanism is not caretaking of human being, not love of human being, but respect for human being. Caretaking is something else... Parents take care of their children, healthy people of the sick, strong of the weak. Taking care can be annoying, even harmful. |
|
06040433
|
30Excessively participating to other people's lives may be harmful, as also passionless, indifferent, cynic feeling towards people's pains and unluck. Moderateness is needed in everything, so is in sympahy. A heedless sympathy towards certain people is usually followed by heedless hatred and hate towards other people, living relatively better life. To what this kind of relationships lead - we know.
Except of that there are uneasily minded, suspicious people, overfiery, heedless people, people with manic salvation ideas for themselves and other people, whole mankind.
Magnifying relationship to salvation can nothing bring forth than harm. But on the opposite side of salvation is the conception of extraordinarity, of the idea that people are either living unnormally, defying death or other perilous danger. Of course, special (unnormal) occasions from time to time occur in the life. But they are relatively seldom. Of this witness all experience of mankaind. Centuries and millenniums go, from time to time different kind of saviours appear, but people live, and are living more or less normal life. More than that they are developing, breeding, increasing in numbers, improving theis lives, perfectioning themselves. Thus whom save the saviours?! Normal people, enjoying their time these saviours cannot live in constant tension and all time waiting the miracle of salvation. Only a few of them, the fanatics of salvation, from time to time upset society with their noisy shrieking. The wide way of life is not conform with the idea of salvation.
In my opinion nobody needs salvation. A wise man said well: when we are salved we will die. The saviors of the mankind are the most dangerous people.
If somebody must be saved, the situation is very bad. This means tha the person to be saved got into very special situation and is not able to get rid of it. |
|
060405 |
Can humanism offer happiness? |
|
06040501
|
31A human being must not be rendered happy, if he does not want or understand it. Trying to make other people happy is dangerous utopy. |
|
06040502
|
32Благородство — высокая степень самоуважения, сочетающаяся с такой же высокой степенью уважения других, всех людей, развитое чувство человеческого достоинства, достоинства себя и других. Благородство — это великодушие к поверженным, сочувствие к слабым, униженным и оскорбленным.A noble human being is not only orderly, but also with developed brain, conscience and honor. He is organically not inclined to commit bad action, misbehavior or mean tricks or cynical behavior. The opposite of nobleness is lowness. Low person is inclined to misbehave and commit low tricks. |
52. What are the qualities of a noble person?
(06040502) |
|
060406 |
What is the golden rule of humanistic moral? |
|
06040601
|
33For a humanist as orientation in moral, and correspondingly judicial behaviour, seves the golden rule of behaviour. In negative formulation it sounds:
Do not do others something which you would not like that they do to you.
In positive formulation it sounds:
behave with others in the way you would like that they behave with you.
In its negative formulation the rule establishes the minimum bottom of moral relations between people, prevents to bad deeds, in other words, establishes minimum moral requirements for the behaviour of man.
In its positive formulation the rule establishes the maximum level of moral behaviour towards other people, rules goodness, beneficiency, in other words: defines maximum level of moral requirements for behaviour of man.
The golden rule of behaviour is the main principle of human coexistence, foundation of humanness, ground for moral and justice. |
53. Nobility as a property of humanism.
(06040601) |
|
06040602
|
34From the standpoint of humanism the justice is the mutual allowance and mutual limitation of freedom. Of the mutual allowance of freedom come out the various human rights. From the mutual limitation of freedom come out not less versatile obligations of man. |
54. What is justice from the standpoint of humanism?
(06040602) |
|
06040618
|
Representatives of the first point of view are cynics-pragmatists who consider an inequality of people as a natural condition of their joint life, justify it, protect and even consecrate. |
|
06040619
|
Representatives of the second point of view are dreamers-romanticisms-utopians who consider an inequality of people as a unconditional harm and put forward, support, consecrate the slogan of equality. |
|
06040620
|
Actually neither first, nor second in an absolute variant does not exist and unrealizable. In a human society elements of that and other type of interhuman relationships are equally presented: both friendship and enmity, both love and hatred, both equality and an inequality. |
|
06040621
|
Universal equality even if it is possible than only as equality in poverty. |
|
06040603
|
35There are two extremes in understanding of the nature of human attitudes.
Some philosophers see in absolute terms initially hostile character of interhuman relationships. This point of view is presented in known ancient Roman expression «one man is wolf for another man» and in T.Gobbs's not less known expression «war of all against all».
Other philosophers absolutize mutual love attachment of people. This absolutization is shown first of all in the sermon of universal love. Most brightly the similar point of view is reflected in a bible precept «to love one's neighbor». Further, it is shown in idea of universal brotherhood (we shall recall the slogan of the French revolution: «freedom, equality, a brotherhood!»). German philosopher L.Fejerbah and Russian writer L.Tolstoj preached universal love.
Representatives of the first point of view are cynics-pragmatists who consider an inequality of people as a natural condition of their joint life, justify it, protect and even consecrate.
Representatives of the second point of view are dreamers-romanticisms-utopians who consider an inequality of people as a unconditional harm and put forward, support, consecrate the slogan of equality.
Actually neither first, nor second in an absolute variant does not exist and нереализуемо. In a human society elements of that and other type of interhuman relationships are equally presented: both friendship and enmity, both love and hatred, both equality and an inequality.
Universal equality even if it is possible than only as equality in poverty. |
|
06040623
|
36Any one understanding of validity is unacceptable for the humanist. There is a validity generated by distinction of people (by origin, to conditions of a life and abilities-affairs). Also there is a validity generated by similarity of people (natural equality, equality as representatives of sort Homo sapiens, as citizens of the state, as sons of fatherland, etc.). Absolutization of one of these kinds of validity leads to the general injustice. |
|
06040619
|
37We shall be frank: the humanism is contradictory in its basis. On the one hand, it supports equality of everything, i.e. from its point of view all people — the persons. On the other hand, it gives to everyone the right to be to the best, to be the Person from the capital letter. |
|
06040621
|
38Law of life: if you want to live better, you should also be better. |
|
06040623
|
39The ideal expresses aspiration of the person to perfection. Because of the fact that perfection is endless, the ideal seems unachievable. Nevertheless the person, who does not stop on the object he secured, always aspires to an ideal. |
|
06040632
|
40The person achieves something only when he finds himself more strong than circumstances. |
|
06040634
|
41Human life is sacred. Everyone who wants to attempt to it should know, that the person, killing other people, — kills himself. |
|
06040636
|
42Going on murder does not realize all consequences of his step. He acts silly; short-sighted as dooms himself to constant psychological-moral discomfort up to the end of his life. He should understand that he is not only an individual, but also the representative of the human race. Killing other person, he kills the Person inside himself. Each person is the whole world. Depriving someone of his life the murderer impoverishes the human world, including him. He should think that when he kills the man, he, probably, kills the father of his future son-in-law, the grandfather of his grandsons, etc., etc. If he kills woman he kills children who have not been born yet... |
|
06040638
|
43Solving the problems with the help of murder the person acts not simply silly, but primitive, not as a reasonable essence, but as callous destructive element! Which does not know, what it does. Let's compare all life path of killed person (from a womb of mother through a birth, feeding, education, training, formation to rather complex adult, professional, creative life) and instant destruction together with its abilities, talents, skills, love of relatives, etc. It is incommensurable. On one bowl: a long ascent to tops of a life. On another: almost instant disappearance. How it is difficult to grow up the person and how easy is to kill it! Potential customers of murders and murderers should remember it. Not we have given the person a life and we can’t take it away! |
|
06040640
|
44The death penalty is incompatible with the principles of humanism. It must be cancelled once and for all! Execution on a verdict of court is a murder except any words about justice that execution is covered. |
|
06040657
|
45In relay race of a patrimonial life the person should aspire to that the torch of its life has not died away before it will transfer fire to other people, other generations. |
|
06040661
|
46The Sense of humans' life is in love and creativity. The love makes our harmonious. Creativity provides progress of a life. |
59. Where is the mindfulness of human life?
(06040661) |
|
060407 |
Why does not humanist call himself humanist? |
|
06040701
|
47The adherent of humanistic philosophy does not call himself the humanist. He is philohumanist, i.e. the person who aspires to be the humanist, for whom humanism is a vital position, instead of dignity or moral quality. |
|
0605 |
About love to oneself and others.
Egoism, altruism and normal behavior |
|
060501 |
Possible correction of moral conceptions |
|
06050101
|
What is the common fault of egoism and altruism?Moralists are, as a rule, against egoism and favor altruism. To what extent this is a rule, and whether it is a general rule? Everything depends on what we understand with egoism and altruism. It seems to me that in this question there are many errors. Under egoism often is understood much concern about oneself and much love to oneself and compared with concern and love to other people. And under altruism simply taking care (“thinking”) of other people. In both cases there is a confusion of accents, which distorts the moral assessment of egoism and altruism.
|
60. Moral assessment of egoism and altruism.
(06050101) |
|
06050102
|
Are all people egoists?Let us take egoism. As it seems to me, it cannot be understood as much concern and love to oneself compared to concern and love to other people. Otherwise we will declare as egoists all people without exception. Because it is completely naturally the most concern and love to oneself compared to concern and love to others. Let us calculate the amount of time we are using to oneself and how much to others. And we will get it clear that we in all cases use more for ourselves than others. This is sleep, food, and toilet and taking care of body, and dressing and undressing, and planning one’s apartment and study, and rest, and hobby. Let us not speak against our best conviction and honestly admit: we are thinking more of ourselves than others; love more ourselves than others. And it is enough to reproach in egoism oneself and others only that you or somebody else was concerned of only oneself, used time to oneself.
|
|
06050103
|
As a confirmation of what was said I remember the profound words of the well-known psychologist V.L. Levi about love to oneself and the diffenence of it from self-love and self-contency. |
|
06050104
|
”Love yourself as you love your neighbor. Poetrian reminded of this ironically, philosopher seriously, but love to oneself is really the first necessity of man. Nobody, of course, does not love self-content people, but many excellent people are suffering from dissatisfaction to oneself. But a person who does not at all love himself is terrible. Only who is convinced, continuously loves oneself, is able to love other people – look at the most charming, best and open people and you will be convinced that it is so: they love themselves peacefully, that it is not necessary for them to maintain this love by any kind of self-conviction, it is not necessary exaggeratedly even to cover their insufficiency and to fear mockery or criticism. This love is natural, and therefore invisible, in it is nothing obligatory. Such people are always favorites, and show that love to oneself has nothing in common with selfsufficiency and particularly not with what is called selflove, egocentrism. |
|
06050105
|
What is the art of being oneself?This is closest to how you relate to yourself as a small child: this wise and fearless dignity of a living creature, instinctive assessment of one’s value without any infringement of other’s value. You then still unconsciously loved in yourself the whole world and unique originality, which you in reality exist. This is the pattern of genes, that library of memory, this living, feeling, strange, well-known, changing – such, precisely such creature never existed earlier and never will be – and it is you. All your properties and qualities may be and may be found separately in somebody, or something nearly same, but the combination of them – only on among thinkable life’ (‘The art of being oneself’)
|
62. ‘The art of being oneself’.
(06050105) |
|
06050106
|
What is the recipe of peace for all world?No less significant words said Luisa Hey: ’An thus you want to hear of me?’ I know that I repeat these words endlessly, but I am not afraid to bother: ‘Love to oneself is the most important thing, that you can do, because if you love yourself, you do not cause evil to youself neither to other people.’ This is the recipe of peace to all world.
|
63. The recipe of peace to all world.
(06050106) |
|
06050107
|
If I cannot cause evil neither for me nor for other, how can a war begin? The more people come to this thought, the better becomes life on our planet.’
(Полная энциклопедия здоровья Луизы Хей [Full encyclopedy on the health of Luisa Hey]. M., 2001. p. 72.) |
|
06050108
|
What is egoism?Egoism is something where one takes care of oneself causing harm to others, on the account of others, when in the conflict situation ’either – or’ (collision of personal interests and interests of others: one to another (third party is not needed) man does choose in his own favor and to the detriment of others.
|
|
06050109
|
Unfortunately rather widely spread is another conception of egoism – as larger care of oneself than of others. Aristotle, for instance has written: |
|
06050110
|
What did Aristotle say about the true egoism?’Otherwise it is difficult to say in words, how much joy being conscious that nothing belongs to you, because it is characteristic to every feeling of love to oneself not by chance, but applying to the nature itself. True, egoism correctly is denied, but it is included in the love to oneself, but greater than it should be, the degrees of this love belonging also to the greediness; to both of these feelings are inclined, so to say, all people.’ (“Политика” [Politika] (1263 ?-b))
|
|
06050111
|
What is Aristotle's advice to egoism?Look, what he said: egoism ’is included, not in love to oneself, but in greater than it should be in degrees of this love.’ This is a too broad and indefinite formulation, allowing to treat egoism as any love to oneself. As a matter of fact, what is such expression ‘in greater love to oneself than is needed’? Everybody may treat it as he likes. Because with obligatory some people may understand also life for others, self-sacrifice. Aristotle does not give here criteria to definition of duties (F158). On the contrary, advice to egoism as to greater love to oneself’ seems to be understood and convincing.
|
|
06050112
|
In fact negative assessment of ’greater love to oneself’ (as egoism) means, according to the law of counterpositioning, a moral prohibition of love to oneself in general, as far as it is not defined as obligatory measure of love to oneself and any, among others, dishonest, feeling as greater love to oneself may be interpreted as egoism, that is, as nothing else. |
|
06050113
|
What is moral prohibition of greater love to oneself?By and large moral prohibition of greater love to oneself is unnatural. It means that man cannot develop this feeling in himself, refine it, fortify it etc. To him remains only always to suppress this feeling or to be hypocritic. Love, loving love is such a ‘thing’ that has in it a spring to widen out, get fortified, developed, refined and a continuous suppressing can lead to self-destruction or explosion in behavior, to unforeseen chaotic action.
|
|
06050114
|
Lack of understanding of Philosophers in question of so called reasonable egoism. Philsophers sometimes are mistaken and confused in human reason. So, for instance, they have invented a theory of reasonable egoism. |
|
06050115
|
What is 'reasonable egoism'?According to all canons of natural language and thinking egoism is a negative moral characteristic of behavior of some people. Yes and philosophers in most cases do not question this kind of understanding of egoism. So, already Aristotle speaks of egoism in negative sense (“egoism is justly detested”), see Politika 1263 b). Theory of reasonable egoism admits the existence of egoism with the sign of plus, so called reasonable egoism, that is, egoism in accordance with reason, operating reasonably. In addition to that, there are such philosophers that confirm that reasonable egoism not only rules out self-sacrifice and self-dedication, but even expects them. N.G. Chernyshevsky, supporter of reasonable egoism, presents in the novel ‘What to do?’ the character of Lopuhov. This hero, a complete victim because of others, speaks: ‘I am not that kind of man, who would bring forth a sacrifice. Yes there are not such cases that nobody brings, this is a false concept: victim – soft shoes. As it is more convenient, so also you present. See how: the victim turns out not to be victim, but something pleasant. Really ‘soft shoes’! When man sacrifices himself (in the extreme case – his life) for others, then it is always a show and a tragedy. Self-sacrificing for others means action against one-self, agains ‘me’, ‘ego’ in Latin. Yes, of course, he may be morally satisfied with his self-sacrifice. But moral satisfaction is not equally powerfully satisfaction in life as a whole.
|
64. Reasonable egoism.
(06050115) |
|
06050116
|
What is the idea of 'I' and 'we'?Theory of reasonable egoism is unclearly operating on the idea of ’I’ and ‘we’, more accurately, dissolution of ‘I’ into ‘we’, ‘I’ into ‘other’ (‘others’)’. This is never a suitable idea. In it egoism, individualism is factually appearing as altruism, self-sacrifice – soft shoes! As a matter of fact, ‘I’ is in no cicumstances transferred to ‘we’ or between ‘I’ and ‘we’, ‘I’ and ‘others’ cannot be complete identity. Unity is yes, possible and in great part also exists. But not identity. Unity always assumes difference or even contrary positions. For instance, the unity of man and woman, is expressed in love, marriage, family, is based on the contrary positions of sexes and different social roles.
|
65. The idea of ’I’ and ‘we’.
(06050116) |
|
06050117
|
Can altruism be harmful?Altruism, self-sacrificing, self-dedication. I confirm that altruism is as bad as egoism. The word ‘altruism’ comes from the latin word ‘alter’ – other. In the soft variant altruism means greater caretaking of others than oneself. In the hard variant it may mean taking care of others at the damage of oneself, even self-destruction. In this hard variant it is called in Russian self-negation, self-destruction. both in the soft and in the hard cases altruism as norm of behavior is unbearable and harmful so to the altruist as to others.
|
|
06050118
|
How tight is the connection between egoism and altruism?Reasonable people already long ago paid notice to the harmfulness of altruism for them to whom it is directed. Oscar Wilde in ‘An Ideal Husband’ with the mouth of the hero of the play says: ‘Self-sacrifice should be prohibited by law, so that it medicates those to whom it brings the sacrifice’. Of this has also written Russian A.S. Makarenko in the ‘Book for parents‘. He has told about a concrete case of maternal self-sacrifice and negative consequences of self-sacrifice. To him it was visually shown, that altruism of some almost unavoidably leads to egoism of others.
|
67. Altruism and egoism.
(06050118) |
|
06050119
|
Can altruism have catastrophal consequences?Furthermore, altruism may have destructive, catastrophal consequences for him to whom it is directed. Overmeasured concern of others usually leads to the situation that these others almost literally cease taking care of themselves, remain dependent, parasites, spiritual and even physical invalids.
|
68. Catastrophal consequences.
(06050119) |
|
06050120
|
Can self-sacrificing lead to sacrificing of others, too?Speaking of ideology of self-sacrifice, about sacrifice, so here may be also other harmful consequences. Any sacrificing leads usually to that not only oneself, but also others are sacrificed. If there are no ways for the man in own life and no happiness, how then can there be ways of life and happiness to others?!
|
|
| |
———— |
|
| |
———— |
|
06050124
|
What has Dostoyevsky written on self-sacrifice?Completely corresponding to this arrangement of christianity F.M. Dostoyevsky has written: ‘Whether the salvation is in the impersonality? On the contrary, on the contrary, say I, not only is it necessary not to be impersonal, but exactly become personality, even on a highest level, higher than that was defined in the West. Remember me, self-powered, completely conscious and self-sacrificing, everything of me to use of all, obliged by nobody, is in my opinion, a sign of the highest development of personality, its highest power, the highest self-rule of freedom of own will. Voluntarily placing one’s own life for all, go to cross for all, to bonfire for all, can only be done with a strong developed personality. Strongly developed personality, completely convinced of the right to be personality, no more having any fear, cannot do anything else from one’s personality than give it completely to all, in order that also others were exactly the same kind of self-righted and happy personalities’ (cited according to А.А. Гулыга. Kant [A.A. Guliga: Kant], p. 288-289. A.A. Guliga ascribes to Kant this view: ’Kant ’s standpoints are known: freedom is following of duty, and the formula of duty is the happiness of others.’ (The same, p. 288).
|
69. Dostoyevsky: 'The highest self-rule of freedom of own will.'
(06050124) |
|
| |
———— |
|
06050126
|
Is Dostoyevsky a collectivist?F.M. Dostoyevsky criticized socialists, revolutionaries, supporters of Nechaevshina, wrote novel "Бесы" (The Possessed), in which he condemned their behavior. And what? In many aspects he spoke so, too. Both he and they are collectivists. For him and for them personality is only personality, when he sacrifices himself for others.
|
70. Personality is only personality.
(06050126) |
|
06050127
|
How about Solovyov?A similar reproach can be presented to Solovyov V.S.. He wrote, for instance: «Personal self-sacrifice, a victory over egoism is not destruction of own ego, the personality itself, but on the contrary, bringing this ego to a highest level of being». (F159)
|
71. Reproach to V.S. Solovyov.
(06050127) |
|
06050128
|
What is heroism?Heroism. Turning away of altruism as everyday, usual, normal behavior of man, I at the same time turn away from positive meaning of some acts of self-sacrifice, self-dedication, when man appears in exceptional situations, that is in situations ‘either or’ (either he takes care of himself sacrificing others, causing harm to others, or he takes care of others sacrificing himself). In these circumstances, choosing in favor of others, man presents himself as hero. Heroism in exceptional situations, if fire, war etc. is completely justified and normal, if of it is spoken positively as normal phenomenon. Yes, heroism is normal behavior in unnormal (exceptional) circumstances! And it… is unnormal behavior in normal circumstances, in normal life.
|
|
06050129
|
What is normal behaviour?Normal behavior. In most cases man is no egoist, no altruist, no hero, moderately takes care of himself and others. Because majority of cases is this situation, when taking care of oneself and taking care of others, love to others are inseparable, one whole. We take love of man and woman. It is the more love, the more in it is mutuality. Loving woman man loves himself, own feelings, own soul and body. And woman loves man in significant degree because of loving herself and loves, when she is loved.
|
73. Normal behavior.
(06050129) |
|
06050130
|
Do we have many social contacts?Any social contact – we are bathing in social contacts – is a two-way street. It necessarily presupposes mutual interest, affection, caretaking. Where there are unilateral social contact, it soon dies out…
|
74. Unilateral social contact dies out.
(06050130) |
|
06050131
|
What does creativity mean?We will take creativity. Aside with love it is one of the most important elements of life. Creativity is both education and cultivation, consciousness and art, and philosophy, and management, and invention, technical creativity. And wat else? Practically any act of creativity is at the same time an act for oneself and for others. In other words as also love, creativity is not divisible to ‘for oneself’ – ‘for others’. Creating, man experiences highest degree of joy of life and at the same time works on all people, serves the process of life.
|
|
06050132
|
Is normal enough?If I were a poet, I would write an ode, poem, hymn to normal behavior, normal life of man. In normal is everything that is needed in order to keep, to love life and to enjoy of it!
|
|
06050133
|
Of abnormal and of how normal in life is much more common than abnormal, see p. 306. |
|
0606 |
Collectivism and /or individualism |
|
06060001
|
Wilfulness and law, person and society and their endless struggle with countless complications and variations constitute all epopee, all drama of history. A person, who only can reasonably liberate himself in the society, is in mutiny against it. The society does not exist without persons, pacifies a personality in mutiny.
A person places a goal in front of himself.
The society does the same.
This kind of antinomy (we come often to speak of them) constitutes poles of all living, they are unsolvable because, as a matter of fact, their solution is the indifference of death, the equilibrium of rest, but life is only movement. With a full victory of a person or a society history would end up to predatory people or to peacefully ruminating cattle.A.I. Hertzen (F160) |
|
060601 |
Collectivism pro and contra |
|
06060101
|
What said
75. General standardization.
(06060101) |
|
06060102
|
Is human moral collectivistic?As we can see from what was said, I am not against collectivism in general, but agains its rising to a all-comprising norm of moral, against one-sided interpretation of human moral as collectivistic.
|
|
06060103
|
What is hypercollectivism?In connection with this I propose that we make a difference between simple collectivism and hypercollectivism. The mere collectivism is that natural endeavor of people to unite, voluntary combination of powers to increase them. Hypercollectivism is an effort of some people to bind their will to others, using here the natural aim of people to unite, to unity, when voluntary union in fact is transformed to obligatory. Hypercollectivism is an effort to make collectivism to a general norm of behavior, an effort of people with collectivistic consciousness and behavior to bind their will to all the remainig people.
Example of normal collectivism: patriotism.
Example of hypercollectivism: nationalism, (chauvinism).
|
76. Simple collectivism and hypercollectivism.
(06060103) |
|
060602 |
Positive power of collectivism |
|
06060201
|
What can be said pro collectivism?If we speak of collectivism as one of the forms of behavior, then unconditionally it may have positive meaning. Already Seneca has given a good picture of collectivism. He has written: ‘I remind: we are born to live together. And our community is like an arch, which only keeps its form, because stones do not allow other stones to collapse’ (F161). An ancient Indian wisdom says: ‘Hay, bound into rope may bind an elephant.’ Still one wisdom, coming from the deepness of ages: ‘A broom ylou cannot break, but branches one by one yes.’ Still in our time Bulat Okudzhava wrote a song beginning with words: ‘We fetch a hand of a friend, in order not to fall in loneliness’. This song became famous and the beginning words of it the flag of resistance movement against totalitarian regime. It cannot be denied that collectivism may multiply the powers of people and help in solution of tasks, which separate people not combined with each others cannot solve.
|
|
06060202
|
Why did Newton see so far?Goethe one month before he died, said in discussion with Friedrich Jacob Soré: ‘- Look, in essence, we are all collective creatures, whatever we ever imagine of ourselves. As a matter of fact: how insignificant that we in the genuine sense of the word could call our own property! We must occupy ourselves and learn of those who lived before us, as well as of those who live with us. Even the greatest genius would not go far, if he wanted to produce everything self. But this this is not understood by very many good people and half of lifetime are wandering gropingly in obscurity, dreaming of originality.’ (И.-П. Эккерман. Разговоры с Гёте [J.-P. Eckermann. Discussions with Goethe]. M.-L., 1934. p. 844-845). As an illustration of these words Goethe resound the words of Newton, which he said, turning to Gook: What Descartes does, was a step forward. You added to it new possibilities… If I saw further, that is because I stood on the shoulderes of Giants.” (F162)
|
|
06060203
|
Is hockey an individualistic play?Example of the positive power of collectivism: collective play in hockey. The players themselves speak that individualism in hockey is harmful, but a victory may only be reached by common efforts of players or, As they say, collective play.
|
|
06060204
|
Would exit into outer space have been possible without collective input?Still one example of collective power: Exit of people into the cosmos succeeded thanks to such big countries as USSR and USA. Small countries had not power to do it. Only uniting powers of hundreds of millions of people plus the newest achievements of science and technique allowed Russians and Americans to effectuate such expensive and bold projects. I pay notice on ‘and bold projects’. The more people are participating in the realization of this bravery the more convinced they feel in this bravery and the more probable it is that these plans will be realized.
|
|
06060205
|
Does collectivism imply heroism?Collectivism feeds heroism. Not by chance is said: ’for peace also death is beautiful’. Self-sacrifice is sensible and reasonable, if it serves life as such, goals of preserving human collective.
|
|
06060206
|
In addition, often collective efforts are simply necessary. Many human matters are impossible without united powers. On this occasion there is a proverb: ‘one on the field is not war’. |
|
06060207
|
But the slogan of Schiller and Beethoven: ‘Embrace millions’ in the Ninth symphony of Beethoven?! This is uncommon inspiration of musical picture of the human union. |
|
060603 |
Minuses of the collective principle of ‘one for all and all for one’ |
|
06060301
|
Is collectivism always, in all cases good?Let us see the question: is the collectivism always, in all cases good? Carefully and impartially seen this question it turns out that collectivism is not always good, but in a number of cases harmful and even disastrous.
|
|
06060302
|
Does 'one for all, all for one' always serve moral purposes?Are the goals of one or another group of people always in accordance with interests of separate people and /or the whole human community? No, not always. We will mention as example such negative phenomena as sectionalism, lack of regularity in social relationships, nepotism, localism, regionalism, nationalism, chauvinism, racism, terrorism. And circular guarantee? In olde times it was the whip of rural communities. Circular guarantee is essentially another name, so to say, negative mask of collective principle of ‘one for all, all for one’. Yes, we will be open: so much honored and trusted collective principle not nearly always serves moral purposes. And not only as a whole, but also partially.
|
|
06060303
|
We will take the first part of the principle. There are many cases, when better not ‘one for all’, but ‘one against all’ (see below about positive meaning of individualism). |
|
06060304
|
If we take the second part of collective principle: ‘all for one’, then this is softly spoken, nonubiquitousness seen with unarmed eye. Negative examples? Please: blood or family vengeance, leader and boss cult. |
|
06060305
|
Collectivism may be also destructive, as the constructive step of soldier, going to the weak bridge. |
|
06060306
|
Do we need unity to any purpose at any price?We do not need unity to any purpose, to any price. When it is spoken about positive meaning of unity, then often it is remembered the parable of old father and broom or principle of rulers ‘divide et impera’. At this point it is forgotten that unity to any price is as bad as the lack of unity. Not without reason has become popular such an expression: ‘strangling by embracing’.
|
|
060604 |
Destructive or deformed collectivism (hypercollectivism) |
|
06060401
|
Collectivism may be as destructive as constructive step of soldier on weak bridge. |
|
06060402
|
Forms of destructive or deformed collectivism:- Terrorism
- Taking hostage
- Kamikadze
- Gansterism
- Mafia
- Organized criminality
- Blood or family revenge
|
77. Forms of destructive or deformed collectivism.
(06060402) |
|
06060403
|
What is the purpose of terrorism?Terrorism is the endeavor to punish, give lesson, show something to others by the way of destruction or bringing damage to third. Third party is considered terrorists, essentially, as faceless creatures, as things, as false money in political and other game. Terrorists consider the victim of terror not as personalities, individuals, particulars, but people as property, as representatives that community, to which are related others, enemies of terrorism.
|
|
06060404
|
Taking hostage. Some take somebody other as hostage for solving his problem. Hostage is seen and used by this other as belonging, as connected to other (others) by some linkage (relationship, group, agreement, class, etnic…) |
|
06060405
|
To forms of hypercollectivism are related also etatism, governementalism, totalitarianism. |
|
060605 |
Positive meaning of individualism |
|
06060501
|
Better will be alone
Than with one who was ruined.Omar Khaiam |
|
06060502
|
I am not against collectivism in general, but against it being taken as a all-comprising norm of behavior, against simple interpretation of human moral as collectivism. |
|
06060503
|
When individualism is spread like collectivism, comprehensive fraudulent practices are not possible. Impossible is the cult of boss, despotism, massive terror and repression. |
|
06060504
|
What is the advantage of polydirecional action of individualists?Individualists may be compared with grafit corebars in a nuclear reactor. The presence of certain amount and quality of graphit corebars in the nuclear material does not give the possibility of chain reaction of disintegration to be transferred to unmanageable phase of nuclear explosion. If there are few individualists, then collectivistically tuned people may ruin themselves and the society, in which they are living. Collectivists are inclined to unity of action to the extent that they are ready (as a flock of sheep) to follow some political lunatic to the abysm of self-destruction or go to a road of dead end. Individualists do not in any political situation let be lead by one or the other political leader. Their attitude and interests are manifold and therefore the society, in which they have as strong positions as also collectivists, evolutionize not as rapidly, but instead with care and caution. Polydirectional action of individualists does not allow the society to become a monolit, which could bread like a stone to an abyss.
|
78. Individuals as graphit corebars.
(06060504) |
|
06060505
|
Still one positive example of individualism, expressed in a word of Heraclitus: “One to me is ten thousand if it is the best”… At the tomb of Newton is the writing: "Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit" (He surpassed the race of man in understanding). |
|
06060506
|
Can an individual be right and all other wrong?When collectivism is worse than individualism. Let us take the first part of the collectivist slogan of ‘one for all and all for one’. There are enough situations, when ‘one for all’ is not better, but ‘one against all’. For instance, if a scientist has made a discovery, established a truth, then he has the right to defend his discovery, truth, even if it is necessary to stand agains ‘all’, the majority of many… We remember Copernicus and Galilei, standing against the all-comprising error. Famous is the Galilean ‘"Eppur si muove" means And yet it moves (Nonetheless, it moves), an excellent proof of man defending bravely his truth in front of pression of false collective will, incarnated in catholic church.’ It is not by chance that it is said that the truth is not reached by voting. In general, the question about voting, of minority being subjected to majority is a very complicated one. We know, for instance, that in some cases when the right of veto is applied, when one may block the decision of many. But the interests of national minorities? Not nearly always they correspond to those of the majority.
|
|
06060507
|
Can part of human moral be outside the competence of collectivism?Half of the human moral, at least, is outside the competence of collectivism. I have in mind the conscience. In questions of conscience, said Mohandas Gandhi – the law of majority does not work’. The conscience is a deep individual category.
|
|
060606 |
Suffocating by embracing
(communistic collectivism) |
|
06060601
|
One thing is collectivism as a natural effort of people to unity, as a voluntary coalition for multiplying forces. Another thing is collectivism as the principle of official moral, as comprehensive principle of behavior of people. In this case collectivism looses its naturality, volutarity and gets the character of imperative, obligatory normmeasure, ‘suffocation by embracing’. |
|
06060602
|
In complete accordance with its doctrine of abolition of private property communists absolutize the collective begin-ning of human nature. This absolution leads in fact to the re-nunciation of humanity, to antihumanism. Because human na-ture is both genetically and behaviorally manifold. It represents in itself statistical distribution of collectivistic, in-dividualistic and middleway types. Supporting collectivism communists in this way voluntarily of involuntarily are relying on fraudulent ostrachism. big part of human community (individualistic and middleway types). The practice of com-munist construction in 20th century showed this clearly. |
|
060607 |
Distortions of collectivism and individualism |
|
06060702
|
As also in collectivism, individualism may be ’moderate’., and may be hyperidividualism, extreme individualism, individualism without limits |
|
060608 |
Mutual enabling of collectivism and individualism |
|
06060801
|
Normal collectivism and individualism equip each other according to the formula
(C – I – C) and (I – C – I) |
|
06060802
|
Can individualism exist in the conditions of hypercollecivism?The formula (C – I – C). Also in the flock there is obligatorily a leader, and in a human collective there is a leader: an individual needs a collective.
|
|
06060803
|
Even in the situations of hypercollectivism the individuality of some people not only not disappears, but on the contrary, is emphasized, is showed as a model, etalon. In the era of Stalin communism, when hypercollectivism was in power, different bosses and leaders did not be afraid to take to themselves the responsibility, they acted as the most genuine individualists. Two examples: Stalin and G.M. Zhukov. This were, obligatorily, clear cut personalities and individuals. In addition to them there were a plurality of smaller stalins and zhukovs. In general, the human individualism is inconsumable. It may sometimes take distance and even be abolished in separate cases, but completely disappear completely as such it cannot in principle. |
80. Most genuine individualists.
(06060803) |
|
06060804
|
Is science an example of a collective conscience?Formula [I – C – I]. In situations of normal individualism man does not act in absolute aloneness, not in isolation from the society, but taking into account that results of his activity in one or the other way get acceptance of other people, of the society as a whole. A. Einstein dreamed of a lonely work at a lighthouse for maximal concentration. Scientists sometimes utilize the figurative expression of ‘Ivory tower’ in order to explain the importance of the scientific reclusion. But on the other side, the scientists, in general people, aim to results not for themselves, but for the society as a whole. Man is connected with thousands of fibres with other people, with the society as a whole. And this connection is either open, immediate, or implied, indirect. Scientists, whatever individualists they even are, work in the framework of science community, in the atmosphere and in the auspices of the science as a whole. And science is collective conscience.
|
|
060609 |
Friendship is a compromise
(a symbiose of individualism and collectivism) |
|
06060901
|
Friendship is a deeply individual connection of people as people (not as relatives, neighbours, lovers, acquaintances, members of a clan…). In it individual beginning is united with need in constant companionship relation, in some common cause with somebody. |
|
06060902
|
Can extreme individualism and friendship be combined?An extreme individualism excludes friendship. Extreme individualist behaves like a lone wolf (we remember the story of ‘The Sea Wolf’ by J. London. In this story the captain of a schooner is presented as an extreme idealist, completely without the property of becoming friends with anybody).
|
|
06060903
|
How about extreme collectivism and friendship?Also the extreme collectivism excludes friendship. In a rigid collective the friendshiop of separate members is not allowed, is turned aside or dilutes to comradeship.
|
|
06060904
|
Friendship in many respects is like love. This is in fact nonsexual love between people. In exceptional circumstances the friendship tolerates any hardships. Such an example of friendship is known: |
81. Friendship as nonsexual love.
(06060904) |
|
06060905
|
‘Damon and Finti! writes G. Serebrjakova, This is an impeccable model of friendship between equals. Two natives of Syracusa, not tolerating violence, proud, respectable pythagorians. Fintij was grasped by the despote Dionisio II, being suspected for an attempt to his life, and sentenced to death. Damon, knowing that his friend desires ardently to take leave to his family and arrange things, offered to be hostage. Fintij was released home on strictly defined time. He, however, escaped and did not return at the time prescribed. Damon was brought to the square, and the executioner already raiset his axe, when, out of breath for running the sentenced appeared to the platform. People gathered to the place of execution required that the sentenced to death be forgiven and Dionisio II not only forgave him, but also asked so true to each other friends to become also his friends. Fintij and Damon refused. ‘Friendship is the present of gods’ considered the ancient.’ |
82. (G. Serebrjakova ’Predecessors’)
(06060905) |
|
060610 |
Comradeship |
|
06061001
|
Comradeship is a union of people in the framework of one or other collective community. In the comradeship the individually attuned is less expressed than in the friendship. If friendship is individual, then comradeship is collective. Comradeship is a form of collectivism. In the comradeship the collective intiative is in forefront, that which is called ‘elbow-feeling’. |
83. Comradeship is collectivism with 'elbow-feeling'.
(06061001) |
|
06061002
|
Comradeship may be provided with the sign of plus, but may also be with the sign of minus. In the second case this comradeship of people is of these of other amoral or criminal communities (criminals, bandits, gangsters, Mafiosi etc.) |
|
06061003
|
Comradeship is something in the middle of friendship and brotherhood. For instance, ‘comradeship of arms’ as a rule is called brothers in arms, but ‘brothers of arms’ is far from being obligatorily on the same side of the front. ‘Brothers in arms’ may be called even representatives of both war going sides, of the opposite war going sides. ‘Military brotherhood’ in principle does not know frontiers (in the framework, of course, of the armies as such). All ‘comrades of arms’ are ‘brothers in arms’, but all ‘brothers in arms’ are not ‘comrades in arms’. |
84. Friendship and brotherhood.
(06061003) |
|
060611 |
Brotherhood |
|
06061101
|
’Brotherhood’ means almost the same as comradeship. Brotherhood is union of people in the framework of big human collectives and communities. For instance ‘brotherhood in arms’, ‘brotherhood in belief’, ‘brotherhood in reason’, (‘brotherhood in brains’) etc. |
85. ... almost comradeship.
(06061101) |
|
06061102
|
About animals, our smaller brothers. Here we have an example of brotherhood union of living creatures. |
|
06061103
|
The slogan ’all people are brothers’ is utopistic. It may have real meaning only in one case: if suddenly the population of earth undergoes an attack from the side of a civilization outside the earth. |
86. ’all people are brothers’ is utopistic.
(06061103) |
|
06061104
|
Utopistic is also the motto of the French revolution ’Freedom, eauality, brotherhood’ in its part of brotherhood. |
|
060612 |
Humanity |
|
06061201
|
Brotherhood allows some people, some human communities to be counterpositioned to each other. Humanity does not allow that kind of counterpositioning. It has absolute all-comprehensive character, it does not know exceptions. It is not by chance that it is spoken about ‘crimes against the humanity’ and ‘crimes against mankind’ as synonymous expressions. |
87. All-comprehensive character.
(06061201) |
|
06061202
|
Is humanity only a collectivist concept?The separation of humanity and brotherhood is not only in this all-comprehensiveness. Brotherhood is a form of collectivism (collectiveness), but humanity relates to individualism and collectivism and even moderates them, that is, does not allow individualism rule over collectivism or collecitivism rule over individualism.
|
|
060613 |
Patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism |
|
06061301
|
Patriotism is love of Fatherland, normal, natural relationship to one’s homeland (as to oneself).- Patriotism is one form of brotherhood.
- There are different forms of patriotism: love to small and to large homeland.
|
|
06061304
|
Nationalism is hypertrophic patriotism, patriotism, to which xenofobia follows, feeling of unacceptance of even hatred towards other nations and ethoses. |
|
06061305
|
Chauvinism is extreme nationalism, expressed in conception about own nation being prevalent over all others. |
|
06061306
|
In our country again and again the words of the poet Tyutchev are repeated:Russia with wit is incomprehensible
With common stick immeasurable
It is special and stays
In Russia may only be believed
Умом Россию не понять
Аршином общим не измерить
У ней особенная стать
В Россию можно только верить |
|
06061307
|
These words of Totshev are genuine poetical chauvinism. In them is confirmed the idea of Russian exclusiveness. See what write T.A. Kulakov and Ju.N. Solonin in this context: |
88. Genuine poetical chauvinism.
(06061307) |
|
06061310
|
‘We will pay attention to two complexes of national selfconsciousness, in which there are shades of our national prejudices, of enthusiastically brought to life, instead of letting them die in peace. One of them is called ‘Chaadaevism’, far from being connected with the significance of the great cultural activist P.Y. Chaadaev…
|
|
06061311
|
The second complex we will ascibe to not less enlighted name of ‘tyuchevism’ Out of despair of the hopelessness we throw ourselves to convulsive division of the world and with enthusiasm confirm like incantation of the words of F.I. Tyutchev: ‘With wit Russia is not understood…’ And why not? And did they give themselves pains to work who lived with this formula, to think about its offensive character to us and to others. All are subjected to common measurement, but we not. On what reason? Nowhere and never we will find a clear answer to this question. Our exceptionality is understood, but this is self love, national narcism, as if elevating us. In the West they agree with this, but in contrary sense, belittling us. For our megalomany there is no motive, for its humiliating assessment – all reasons. |
|
06061312
|
And what is in us incomprehensible? Probably, understandable in us not less but perhaps even more than with other nations.’ (F163) |
|
06061314
|
About the so called ’Russian idea’. In recent times in our country much is spoken about the Russian idea, about the necessity of having such an idea. I am personally against the idea of ‘Russian idea’ |
89. ’Russian idea’.
(06061314) |
|
06061315
|
In the first place. The idea of the Russian idea is all the same inacceptable effort to monopolizise the conscience of the Russian society to bind it some one concept of national spirit, one version of national selfconsiousness. |
|
06061316
|
What is the contents of the 'Russian idea'?We remember, the author of the ’Russian idea’ V.S. Solovyov, proposed that it comprised the consciousness of the trinity of church, government and society. ‘To rebuild on the earth this true model of divine Trinity, he wrote, look, here is the Russian idea’ (F164). How much pretension is there in this statement! So simply he speaks for all Russians, convinced of his truthness. Even more, he wants, that all the world lived in accordance with this consciousness. There you have messianism that is no worse than Catholicism and imperialism of the pure British type.
|
90. The 'Russian idea'.
(06061316) |
|
06061317
|
Secondly. This is not only an effort to monopolizise some one concept of national selfconsciousness, but in general a futile effort to reduce all the endless manifold of expressions of the Russian spirit into one idea of thought. Because the idea of thought, as a rule, is expressed in a few words, in one or some few sentences. Imagine the giant spiritual richness of such a great nation reduced to some one idea, some few words! |
91. Effort to monopolizise the concept of national selfconsciousness.
(06061317) |
|
06061318
|
What is a nation?The nation is not an entity comparable to organism. It is a continuity, statistical collection of people, living in one state, speaking one language, having one culture. Uniteness of a nation is kept not on some clever thought, not on some words expressed by one of the national auctorities, but on complex cooperation and correspondence of people living in one country and speaking in one language.
|
|
06061319
|
Thirdly, the concept of nation in context of an idea is an effort to put people to follow this concept (if there is an idea, this means that it must be realized, put into effect, incarnate, for it can be died or killed). The Russian idea, once accepted, in one formulation, stays, as the idea of communism or the idea of fascism, as an imperative and regulator of behavior, conquering all people speaking the Russian language. This is the most genuine Russian Nazism. |
92. Most genuine Russian Nazism.
(06061319) |
|
0607 |
Duty |
|
06070001
|
Moral, and more broadly, human justification of duty emanates from the golden rule of behavior. See about this above p. 194. |
|
06070002
|
What is duty?Negative form of duty (people must not do this or that) is nothing else than negative formulation of the golden rule (‘do not do others what you do not wish that they did to you’).
|
|
06070003
|
The positive form of duty (man must do this and that) is a truncated formulation of the golden rule (‘behave with others as you would like them to behave with you’). |
|
06070004
|
This is a general concept of duty. It is, naturally, divided to partial aspects depending on whom we mean with ‘others’:- Duty in front of those who at the side (the nearest, parents, children, spouses, relatives, friends, comrades, colleagues, known persons).
- Duty in front of aliens (neighbors, on the street, in common places, in the nature).
- Duty, emanating of obligations in educational or professional activity (learning, serving, military etc.).
- Duty in front of that or other generality: collective, clan, tribe, folk, fatherland, land of residence, cultural community, extending over limits of one country, civilization, race.
- Duty in front of mankind.
- Duty in front of living nature, life as such.
|
93. Partial aspects of duty.
(06070004) |
|
06070005
|
Any duty is placed not only in the space (in front of nearest or far-away), but also in time (in front of the past and the future). If, for instance, we take duty in front of living parents, but also in front of dead (save their memory, take care of their burial places etc.). If we take duty in front of children, then we speak not only of born children, but also of unborn. Young person must be conscious of his sacred obligation to the Earth and leave after him the next generation. Therefore he must follow his health, strengthen it and not come into situations, which risk of diseases and loss of fertility. Girls must be prepared to the role of mother in all respects (and in the sense of strengthening her health and getting the corresponding knowledge and information, and in the sense of carefulness in acquaintances and contacts). The same concerns also boys and young men. |
94. Place and time coordinates of duty.
(06070005) |
|
06070006
|
What are the limits of duty?It is also clear that all the mentioned kinds of duty must not be in conflict mutually, but accordng to possibilities in conformity and harmony. For instance, the duty of parents (in front of children) must not come into conflict with the duty in front of other people, in front of humanity, at the end. And on the contrary, duty in front of humanity must not exclude duty in front of separate people and communities of people.
|
|
06070007
|
When such collision of obligations occurs, however, it is always a tragedy. |
|
06070008
|
Duty and habit according to Kant |
|
06070009
|
Was duty a too big word for Kant?Kant sharply counterpositioned love, habit, desire of man to his duty. ‘Duty! he exclaims. You enhanced, great word, as in you there is nothing adulatory that would flatter people… only from it come the necessary conditions for dignity, which also people can give to themselves. This precisely is the great that enhances man above himself (as part of sensed world)…’ From the theory of Kant follows that man behaves morally, when he acts according to duty and immorally, when according to habits. Love, from the point of view of Kant , is immoral. This point of view was laughed at by Schiller in his poem:
|
|
06070010
|
Doubt of conscience.The nearest with pleasure I serve, but alas!
– precisely to him it is a habit.
So also is there a question: Am I really acting morally?
The solution.
There is no other way: trying to show him disrespect
And disgust in soul, do what the duty requires! |
|
06070011
|
Duty is a moral necessity, but only as a moment of freedom. In the contrary case he turns to spiritual chains of serfdom, existence of a castrate. Duty outside good will of fulfilling duty in its essence excludes the indirect effect of randomness, but consequently cannot be a moment of freedom. The idea of duty in this sense often has been used and is bein used as a power of rule by owners as a means of getting people willing to serve, with resignation carry heavy burdens and hardship, not arise in mutiny against the existing order of things (be it a dictatorship as political regime or tax discipline on enterprises, in army). Duty as an unconditional devotion, as unbreaking submission under the power of father, ruler, feudal boss, imperator, as the rule of tradition was one of the greatest foundations of the Eastern despotism. ‘Duty in general’ or as we said ‘duty out of duty’ is in significant extent formal concept, a moral abstraction. Only in connection to the opposite concept, particularly with habit, duty can be considered as moral necessity, as a moment of freedom. As we will see, it is very important not to detach duty from freedom, not to counterposition it to habit. In the opposite case duty gains the character of clean necessity or necessity existing in nonorganic systems. But this necessity of alienation of man as living creature. In any case man as living, freely acting creature tries to get rid of this necessity. That is why along all the history people have always been against those, who declared duty out of duty and counterpositioned duty to habits. |
95. Duty is a moral necessity.
(06070011) |
|
0608 |
Conscience |
|
06080001
|
If judgement is given to oneself, then always you will decide with liking either more to the side of guilty, or to the side of justification. And this unavoidable oscillation to this or that side is called conscience.M.M. Prishvin |
|
06080002
|
What are the consequences of acting against conscience?Conscience is a fundamentally moral category, defining behavior of man practically in all situations of life. It is not possible to imaginen normal life without conscience. Man behaving against conscience, puts himself, as a rule, outside the society, both in moral and in physical and in juridical sense (the range of this ‘outside the society’ is large: from loss of normal human relationships with surroundings to boycott and, further, to prison isolation and even to physical destruction). If the number of people acting against conscience, exceeds some critical number, then big trouble and misfortune is to be expected in form of war, genocide, terrorism, epidemy of narcompany, decrease of birth rate and increase of mortality…
|
96. Conscience is a fundamental moral category.
(06080002) |
|
06080003
|
What is the regulative role of conscience?Above it was mentioned that conscience plays a regulative role in relationships between people. This regulation is of double kind. Conscience may correct actions of man, but may also not correct. In some cases it is spoken of ‘clean and calm conscience’. In others of ‘bad conscience’, of ‘torture or remorses of conscience’.
|
|
06080004
|
What is clear conscience according to Feuerbach?’Clean conscience – wrote L. Feuerbach, is nothing else than joy of joy, caused to other people, bad conscience is nothing else than pain and suffering for having caused pain to other people.’
|
|
06080005
|
Does everybody have a conscience?There are no people, who would not have conscience. Facts about separate immoral acts indicate only to that conscience undergoes trial and test and that man can be morally sick, as this sometimes is with him on physical and psychical level.
|
|
06080006
|
How heavy can the pains of conscience be?The pains of conscience may be so heavy that they surpass the powers of the person and lead to self-destruction. Our great poet A.S. Pushkin genially expressed this in the picture of Boris Godunov:Ah, I feel: nothing can us
In the middle of worldly griefs soothe
Nothing, nothing… maybe only conscience!
So, healthy, it triumphs
Over anger, over dark slander;
But if in it one only stain,
Only accidentally appeared,
Then misery: as a sore wound
Soul burns, heart fills with poison,
As with a hammer, blows reproach in ears
And all feels sich, and head spins,
And boys with bloody eyes…
And willing to run, yes somewhere… terrible!
Yes, pity him, whose conscience is not clean!
|
|
06080007
|
What is conscience according to Nietzsche?During the last one and a half centry ‘activists’ have appeared who started relate contemptuously to moral and conscience. The ideologist of this conscienceless movement became German philosopher F. Nietzsche. His philosophy is overfilled with nihilism. He called to revaluation of all values, tried to destroy everything, that was done by human culture. Moral goodness is rubbish, conscience is nonsense.
|
|
06080008
|
What is Nietzsche's attitude towards moral?This is how, for instance, he characterized moral (I remark: completely one-sidedly!): ‘Look from this point of view on any moral, and you will see that its ‘character’ is to teach to hate laisser aller, to hate too big freedom and to implant in us the need to have limited horizons, in the closest tasks; it teaches us to contraction of perspectives, and started in known sense, stupidities as conditions of life and growth’ (F165)
|
|
06080009
|
What was the relationship between Hitler and Nietzsche?Hitler truly was inspired by Nietzsche, when he pompously declared, addressing to soldiers: ‘I release you from chimers called conscience’ (F166) (alternative: ‘I release you of dirt and decomposing chimery, called conscience and moral’). Compare Nietzsche: ‘Did I ever feel guilty conscience? My memory saves in this respect silence.’ (Part 1. p. 722, "Злая мудрость" (Bad wisdom), 10). Or: Guilty conscience is same kind of stupidity as trial of dog to crack stone’ (Same. p. 817(Wanderer and his shadow), 38).
|
|
06080010
|
What was the price of the amoralism of Hitler?The amoralism of Hitlerism (German Nazism) mixed with Nietzschean attitude to conscience and moral, is known to everybody. The price of this amoralism: connected to World War II over 55 million people perished. Soviet Union paid for this amoralism 27 million lives.
|
|
06080011
|
Is the Nietzschean attitude towards conscience still live?Hitlerism was dropped from flying. But efforts to finish with the conscience have not stopped. Enrico Fermi, the Italian physicist, having participated in the USA atom project, discussion going in flames about the justification of the coming nuclear bombardment of Japanese cities (in August 1945) uttered a sentence completely in the Nietzschean spirit: ‘Do not bore me with the pains of conscience’ (F167). The price of this ‘do not bore me’ was more than 150 thousand perished and injured in Hiroshima and 75 thousand perished and injured in Nagasaki) (F168).
|
|
06080012
|
Can there be still worse than Hitlerism?The Nietzschean spirit started even intrude into mass consciousness. Clear illustration: in famous American film ‘Godzilla’ a young journalist deceived the thrust to her old friend, by stealing and publishing secret videomaterial belonging to her; as a result she lost her job. The wife of the young man, colleagues of this journalist, reprimanded him: ‘You convinced her (the journalist – L.B.), that conscience is not fashionable’. If already in movie this kind of sentence appeared, then this means that actually in young population, in some circles actively is propagated this wonderful and absurd idea of ‘having conscience is not fashionable’. If this idea rules the consciousness of big number of people, then expect misery: either Hitlerism is in new rise or something still worse.
|
|
06080013
|
What is conscientiousness?(Совестливость - Conscientiousness) neat Russian word, which nowadays, unfortunately rarely is heard. Pity. Conscientiousness is a rather valuable human property, pointing out intensified feeling of conscience. This is not shyness and not bashfulness, but feeling and desire of harmony with other, all people, in normal human relationships.- Conscientious person, as a rule, takes consciously into account the interests and feelings of other, all people.
- Conscientious person, whatever he does, always thinks about other people, about life, about how far his behavior is connected to the tissue of life in general and in human life in particular.
- Conscientious person as a doctor is lead by the principle ‘do not harm’. He does not leave garbage behind him, wherever he is, does not use bad language, say spiteful things etc.
- Conscientious person also being alone tries to fulfil his human duty.
|
|
0609 |
Nobility |
|
06090001
|
What is nobility?Nobility is a high degree of self-respect, being created from an equally high degree of respect to other, all people, developed feeling of human dignity, dignity of self and others. Nobility is tat generosity toward distressed, sympathy towards weaks, humiliated and offended.
|
|
06090002
|
What are the qualities of a noble person?Noble person is not only orderly, but highly orderly, highly moral person, with developed reason, conscience and honor. He is organically not able to fulfil bad deeds, gloat, be cynical.
|
|
06090003
|
The opposite of nobility is meanness. Mean person is able to any filth and baseness. |
|
0610 |
Unhappy and criminal conscience |
|
06100001
|
What kind of world faces a person with unhappy and criminal coscience?People with that kind of consciousness have as point of departure that ‘world is full of evil’, that all or the majority of people are smeared with sin, vicious, egoists, rabbles etc. Unhappy consciousness is a consciousness of victims, and criminal consciousness consciousness of malefactor.
|
|
06100002
|
A person with unhappy consciousness behaves passively towards the evil, as a victim, intimidated, complains, cries, screams, but does nothing himself. |
|
06100003
|
How is a person with criminal consciousness reasoning?A person with criminal consciousness, considering all or majority of people malefactors, and himself alike. Such a person reasons: as the people are evil, there is no reason to be sensitive with them, but one may and must approach them as they deserve, that is, harshly, pitilessly.
|
|
06100004
|
Some philosophers, willing not willing follow the people with criminal consciousness, particularly declaring people as evil animals (F. Nietzsche) with foul, bad character, the most disgusting creature on the surface of the Earth etc. |
|
06100005
|
Appearance of unhappy and /or criminal consciousness: |
|
06100006
|
Some women consider that men are egoists, animals etc. (The heroine of the teleserial: "Марш Турецкого" [Turkish march], directed according to the book with same title by Friedrich Neznanski, says: ‘Yes, normal men do not exist, Sacha’). |
|
06100007
|
Some men consider women trollops, stupid creatures. They even invented saying: ‘cherchez la femme’, ‘find the woman’. The main hero of the Polish movie ‘Medicine man’ of Antonij Kasiba directly announces: ‘All bad in the world comes from women’. |
|
06100008
|
Representatives of one nationality (clan, tribe, race) consider sometimes others lower creatures, filthy, foul, wild. |
|
06100009
|
Representatives of one religious confession consider sometimes representatives of other religious confessions or nonreligious wrong, that is, outcasts, inferior or even enemies. |
|
06100010
|
Prosecutor Wilford of ‘Count Monte Christo’ by A. Dumas says: ‘All people are blackmailers, my dear’. These words he says to his exmistress, wife of baron Danglar in justification of of his hardheadedness in relation to his adult son, whom he does not want to know. Very often such or similar words can be heard from the mouths of people having committed one or another crime. See discussion proceedings with criminals or interviews with them. Here an example: ex-director of KRAZ (Красноярского алюминиевого завода [Krasnoyar aluminium factory]), accused for organizing a series of murders, said in discussions, recorded on video: ‘I knew him (his former ‘friend’) as a normal person, but ‘Moscow spoils and destroys all’. So, no more, no less. This ex-director without shadow of doubt, categorically accused the whole Moscow (read all inhabitants of Moscow) of spoiling and destroying all. He did not think that he with ease cried down 10 million Moscovites. Of course, with that kind of consciousness it is easy to come to road of crimes. |
|
06100011
|
Criminals in justifications of their criminal acts, as a rule, refer to common perversity, viciousness or stupidity of people. |
|
06100012
|
What kind of consciousness is a criminal consciousness?Criminal consciousness is that kind of consciousness of man that justifies his criminal deeds (fraud, theft, violence, killing) referring to that all or majority of people are alike (fraudulents, thiefs, swindlers, violents, with one word drags and swindlers).
|
|
06100013
|
Still one particularity of unhappy and criminal conscience: absolutization of conflict relations between people, dividing all people to winners and loosers, to masters and slaves etc. |
|
06100014
|
How are the persons with criminal conscience reasoning?See how sometimes people with criminal conscience are reasoning: Rodion Raskolnikov in ‘Crime and punishment’ by F.M. Dostoyevsky: ‘Can I commit a crime or can I not? Am I a shivering creature or do I have the right?’; ‘either gnaw to all or I lie in dirt’ (so teaches young Thomas his uncle, gaining his living in criminal ways. See ‘Thomas Gordeev’ by M. Gorky); ‘you do not want to be a sheep, which is cut, so cut you yourself’ (so cynically speaks criminal Rastegaev in «Дело пестрых»); ‘either you eat or you are eaten’, ‘people are divided into two categories: those who rule, and those who are ruled’ (these ‘either – or’ are called ‘secret law’ in the motion picture ‘Masters of taigas’ the brigadier of timbermen, committing crime); gangsters in the film ‘Boomer’ speak their justification: ‘we are not such, the life is’, that is, life is evil, that of gangsters.
|
|
06100015
|
Having committed crime, essentially, the person is unhappy. In a film such a dialog was presented between prosecutor and criminal. The criminal in powerless rage hurled: ‘I hate you, hate!’ Prosecutor answers: ‘You hate? But I feel pity for you. Because people like you have no future’ (‘Consequences follow’, in main roles Vija Artman and Gunnar Tsilinskij). |
|
| |
———— |
|
06100017
|
How are terrorists thinking?Special type of anomal conscience is found with terrorist. It represents a roaring mixture of criminal and unhappy consciousness. Terrorist relates to good minority or good, good part of society and in this consciousness is similar to that of unhappy conscience. But in difference ot people with unhappy conscience terrorist is tuned to an irreconciliable struggle against the evil majority (evil part of society). He is ready to kill absolutely anybody (among others, children, women, old people), whom he treats as evil majority.
|
|
06100018
|
How are terrorists justifying their acts?A characteristic example. One of the members of the group, who seized children and adults as captives in the school of Beslana (Northern Ossetia, Russia, 20040901-03 [1-3 september 2004]), announced in discussion with captives, in answer to her reproach of brutal relationship to captivated children that it there is nothing to pity these children, because they as their parents become ‘narcomans and prostitutes’. That is how. Terrorists justify their inhuman acts referring to how they are fighting against monsters, those who, in their opinion, are morally decadent, inhuman (‘narcomans and prostitutes’) and to whom there is no reason to feel pity, but only to destroy, to destroy, to destroy… (As a result, through the hands of terrorists in Beslan 335 people lost their lives, among them 156 children, injured over 700 people).
|
|
06100019
|
Almost such roaming mixture of unhappy and criminal consciousness is presented by consciousness of so the called noble robber. |
|
0611 |
About the culture of behavior |
|
06110001
|
The human culture consists of two parts: internal and external. |
|
06110002
|
What is internal culture?Internal culture is knowledge, feeling and understanding, which are lying on the bottom of the human life (being educated, development of intelligence, beneficiency and morality, professional preparation).
|
|
06110003
|
What is external culture?External culture is the culture of behavior, culture of immediate contact with people, surrounding environment. External culture is born on the junction of internal human culture with the surrounding environment.
|
|
06110004
|
External culture in separate cases may not be connected with internal culture or even may be contrary with it. Cultural and working man may be empty, immoral, without deep internal culture. |
|
06110005
|
Why is external culture independent of internal?External culture is relatively independent of internal. Voltaire has said: ‘Etiquet is reason for those who do not have it’. And he is in many respects right. You may well know the rules of etiquette and follow them, but at that not follow the corresponding internal culture, including a developed intelligence.
|
|
06110006
|
What else can be external culture?External culture is called in different ways: culture of behavior, etiquette, good manners, rules of finess, noble education, cultural refinedness… This means that depending on concrete tasks people accent attention to some one side of external culture: most often either on knowledge of rules of behavior and their following either on the level of taste, tactfulness, art of mastering the external culture.
|
|
06110007
|
Which two parts are distinguished in external culture?External culture consists of two ‘parts’: of what follows of social opinion (different generally accepted rules, etiquette) and of what follows from the conscience of man (delicateness, tactfulness, good taste, manners).
|
|
06110008
|
Different level behavioral rules exist:- level of common human rules, accepted in present society;
- level of national rules or rules accepted in a given country;
- level of rules accepted in a given locality (village, city, Moscow);
- level of rules accepted in one or other social layer (among workers, intelligence, higher society etc.).
- level of rules accepted in one or other professional community or social organization (medical workers, jurists, police force, military, government officials, members of one or other political party…)
- level of rules accepted in one or other institution (educational, medical, governmental, commercial…)
|
|
06110009
|
If we speak of what comes from the conscience of people then here also may be observed great variety of types of behavior: as well delicateness as hypocricy, and good and bad manners, both good and bad taste. |
|
06110010
|
Can you compensate the lack of knowledge of the rules of behaviour?A person may know these or other rules of behavior, accepted in the given community. But if he has a developed intelligency and a developed conscience then he may to some extent compensate this ignorance with the essence, intuition that are based on genetic or acquired delicateness, tactfulness, good taste.
|
|
| |
———— |
|
06110012
|
Among rules and internal regulators of behavior complicated relationships exist. They are contrary as external and internal, typical and individual and at the same time ‘working’ to some direction. |
|
061101 |
Normal mutual relationships of people are a refined material |
|
06110101
|
It is easily observed, if people rudely address each other. |
|
06110102
|
1). Must try to avoid rude words. We speak, for instance, often to other person: ‘do not yell’, ‘do not shout’, but he, however, loudly speaks (for disorder, for excitation) or even did not raise voice, but it seems to us that he ‘shouts’. Or if a person from our standpoint said something foolish, we at once answer with rude words ‘do not speak stupidities, be quiet’, ‘do not chatter’. |
|
06110103
|
2). We love to use bad words. To woman, if something does not please us, we say ‘gab’, ‘stupid’, ‘bitch’, and to man it is ‘bock’, ‘lout’,’softhead’. |
|
06110104
|
3). To a person, with whom we do not agree in something, we say ‘you are lying,are not speaking truth’, ‘you are wrong’, ‘you do not understand at all’. |
|
06110105
|
4). We love strong expressions, rude word-parasites (‘flapjack’, ‘f…’ etc.), we say. Some people think that bad words, strong expression are ‘decorating’ them. Yes, and in abnormal situations it may be so. We remember, however, that already Aristotle said: ‘from the habits of using rude words develops an inclination to completely other deeds’ (Politica, 1336 b). |
|
06110106
|
I announce /remind to everybody, who continuously uses the expression ‘damned’ or belittles the use of this expression on people, in motion pictures, in television, press etc. This expression is an euphemism (a weak, soft version) of a rude original word insulting the dignity of a person, particularly women. All use of it or listening without dooming it reduces the level of relationship with people to a low, base, foul level. |
|
06110107
|
Do you desire rude, overfree, cynical, foul relationships with people? – so go on. But then do not expect of people polite respectful relationships towards yourself. |
|
06110108
|
5). We love to generalize, easily make of flies elephants. Person allowed negligence, said something not quite correct, did something, but we at once hang an edict: ‘stupid’, ‘egoist’, ‘boor’, ‘scoundrel’ etc. |
|
06110109
|
6). ’This is your problem’ is an impolite and irrespective removal of the problems of another person. The same could be said in another way: ‘I, unfortunately, cannot help you here’. |
|
06110110
|
’This is your problem’ may be simply rude, insulting, if the speaker has partly a responsibility of the emergence of these problems. |
|
06110111
|
It is not necessary to show or demonstrate to other person that he stays alone with his problems, that he is the only one, that he is not very clever, not very canny, informed. If you cannot help another person, then you should not at least deprive him of the hope of help and not deprive his self-respect. |
|
06110112
|
You want to develop, be better, be worth of love, good, want that you are respected? So follow with you, with your words, deeds, be clean, do not give yourself rest! |
|
061102 |
About good and noble education |
|
06110201
|
A person may be educated differently, bad or good. Good uprising is called noble education or just simply education. |
|
06110202
|
According to A.P. Chekhov, educated people… |
|
06110203
|
1) respect human personality, and therefore always behave in a humble, soft, polite, compliant way… They do not revolt for small things or missing rubber band; living with somebody they do not make a fuss of it, they do not do of it a favor, going away they do not say: with you one cannot live! |
|
06110204
|
2) They are compassionate not only with beggars and cats. They suffer spiritually, of things that you cannot see with one glance… |
|
06110205
|
3) They are cleanhearted and avoid lies as fire. They do not eve lie on small things… They do not draw, keep themselves on the street as well as home, do not allow dust into the eyes of smaller brothers… They are not indiscreet and do not talk openly, when they are not asked… |
|
06110206
|
4) They do not belittle themselves in order to get compassion of others… |
|
06110207
|
5) They are not vain, they do not occupy themselves with such false brilliants as acquaintance with celebrities… |
|
06110208
|
6) If they have some talent, they respect it. They sacrifice to it peace, women, wine, vanity… They are proud of their talent. |
|
06110209
|
7) They flourish in themselves esthetics. They cannot sleep clothed, see on walls fissures with bugs, breathe dull air, walk on filthy floors… |
|
06110210
|
In order to educate and not stay on middle level, where they accidentally came, it is not enough to read only Pickwick Faust and learn by heart monologue from Faust… There are needed a continuous work day and night, endless reading, study, will…’ |
|
061103 |
About politeness |
|
06110301
|
Politeness is an external expression of respectful relationship to a person. The opposite of politeness is rudeness and boorishness. They are external expressions of irrespectful, that is, disdainful or pejorative relationship to a person. |
|
06110302
|
Politeness does not obligatorily mean really respective relationship to a person. A person may be rude because he has lived in rude environment, does not see other models of behavior. |
|
06110303
|
Boorishness is either a covered expression of irrespective relationship to people. Open boorishness is behaving in form of rude addressing of a person. Covered boorishness is an externally respective relationship, but essentially irrespective relationship to a person. |
|
061104 |
Magic words |
|
06110401
|
There are three magic words: please, thanks, excuse (pardon). |
|
06110402
|
Every asking of favor should be followed by the word ‘please’. |
|
06110403
|
For every service or help needs to be thanked, said the word ‘thank you’. |
|
06110404
|
For every inconvenience caused to others must be said pardon or asked forgiven. |
|
06110405
|
These magic words must be taught to be spoken inadvertedly, automatically. The absence of these words in corresponding situations or their being not expressed automatically means either impoliteness, rudeness, or presence or expression of hate. |
|
061105 |
Ethics of telephone discussion |
|
06110501
|
1). You must always present yourself, when you call, if you are not acquainted or you seldom call this person. You must also pay attention to that the telephone contact is bad, that is, your voice may be barely heard and therefore also good acquaintance may not at once figure out with whom he is speaking. |
|
06110502
|
2). Almost always must be asked, whether the person is occupied or not, and how much he has time for telephonen call. Impolite is the behavior of the calling person, who at once without asking the limits of the discussion starts to speak. |
|
06110503
|
3). If somebody is calling you and you are very occupied and cannot speak, then, as a rule, the time of calling back is not on him who called, but on you. Here there may be two exceptions: 1) if the calling person has no telephone; 2) if it is for any reason difficult to call the person who called you. |
|
06110504
|
It is impolite to cause the calling person to call again to you, because of your occupatedness. If you are, necessarily you let him know, that you appreciate him less than yourself. |
|
06110505
|
4). When somebody is calling in the telephone and not asking you, but somebody else, then it is impolite to ask ‘who is it?’ or ‘who speaks?’. For the first, it is indecent to answer with question to question. Secondly, with your question you may put the person asking into inconvenient situation. The asking person is not always in the position to present himself to a strange person, who has taken the telephone tube. It is his privilege to stay incognito to strange people. He who asks ‘who speaks?’ may willing unwilling ‘hurt the soul’ of the calling and immediately calling, as far as the addressee might also save the secrecy of his or her relationships with the calling person. (So parents sometimes behave in their efforts to control every step of their grown up children, limiting their right to private life. A too extensive control and too extensive guardianship from the part of the parents leads to a situation, where grown-up children either stay childish or dependent or alienate fro their parents.) |
|
06110506
|
In the case if the adressee not being present, it is necessary not to ask ‘who speaks?’ but ‘what to tell to the addressee?’ |
|
06110507
|
5). In the telephone call with rare exceptions must be followed business-like or telegraph style. Side steps in other matters are almost inallowable. As far as possible, at once ask questions, for which you are calling and not be ashamed to ask the same of the other party calling, if he ‘enjoys’ side themes. Ask the interlocutor to go back to the subject matter of the call with tactfulness, without rude interruption of his speech. |
|
06110508
|
As a matter of principle also other than business discussions are allowed on the phone, but only after the declaration of willingness of both sides to continue with that kind of talks. |
|
06110509
|
6). It must be remembered that telephone calls are not such full discussions as those face to face. Therefor the requirements of on the discussion are harder, that is, one must behave more carefully, looking out. A word expressed at telephone, and a word face to face may be assessed differently and even to opposite directions. |
|
06110510
|
In the telephone call one must speak less emotionally, joke with more careful words, try to avoid abrupt words and expressions. |
|
061106 |
Complaisance, punctuality |
|
06110601
|
A non-complacent person is very inconvenient to his environment, although he may be nice, well-mannered etc. On such a person one must not count. If only he does not get hurt, when he is no more respected and communication with him is avoided. ‘Punctuality is the politeness of kings’ confirms a proverb. He is not king who is not grateful, who behaves nonchalantly in relation to his own obligation. |
|
|
|
Message to authors
|
|
|
|
| 00 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
|