Yes, I didn’t make a riddle out of the title question. The main question is in the last paragraph. Even more likely in the last two paragraphs. And even more accurately, in the unsaid. But who will notice it? It seems to me that Lena noticed.
Or: that’s the point: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marxists have different views on society - with the same program of struggle. And even here there is a difference: this is the last struggle. Next, the survivors are subjected to re-education, often violent, and as a result we get universal (minus the dead and deceased) happiness
(For liberalists, the goal is not universal happiness, but the maximum good. And even here there are two tricks hidden. Read this: not “the good of the maximum of inhabitants,” but simply “maximum” - that is, the maximum achievable - that is, such that everyone has as much as how much he “deserved” - in fact, it’s only “how much he managed to take away” - and even not very politely at every step - and so that this disgusting is eternal, and not interrupted by war or general obesity. And the second trick: not "happiness" and "good". What is the difference - think for yourself)
It is precisely by these two parameters - the number of happy people in the end and the number of happy people along the way - that ideologies and their part - programs should be assessed
We get that there are only 4 types of ideologies:
Non-universal happiness in the end with non-universal happiness along the way (liberalism)
Universal happiness in the end with non-universal happiness along the way (revolutionism)
General happiness in the end with general happiness along the way (I won’t say yet; look for it)
Non-universal happiness in the end with universal happiness on the way (it seems not created)
In this case, one should distinguish between ideology and political doctrine. That is: there is political liberalism (liberal parties) and there is ideological liberalism (liberalists, including liberals, conservatives, and forty others - the main thing that unites them is the main features of ideology outlined above). There is political revolutionism (Bolshevism, for example) - and there is ideological (hereinafter stop)
“Universal happiness in the end with universal happiness along the way (I won’t say yet; look for it)”
I remember someone called it "UTOPIA"
"Not universal happiness in the end with universal happiness on the way (it seems not created)."
We are trying to create, but SET’s henchmen don’t allow it, BYE ....
Well, the direction vectors of ideology are clear.
Where are the vectors of the methodology?
“Someone called it “UTOPIA”” - let’s think for ourselves. To begin with - why, exactly? Then - who and why?
“We are trying to create” - In principle, plague-ridden humanity can go to its own misfortune. But here I’m not on the same path with you
There are 5 fingers on the hand, you know their names (by the way, they are also deep).
Big = methodology, index = ideology, Middle = administrative-legislative branch, ring = executive, little finger = court.. So I’m talking about methodology? In which direction should this finger point, so that all the others are directed to the “right”, palm forward? After all, our cause is RIGHT, victory will be OURS?
And if you clench your hand into a fist, you can give a “kind” rebuff.
And before I thought something completely different about my fingers - something like this
In Georgia, a son asks his father:
- Dad, why do people have fingers on their hands?
- Son, you need a thumb to show that everything is very
Fine. You point with your index finger. and on the nameless one they wear a wedding ring. It’s convenient to pick your ear with your little finger. And you will learn about the middle one when you grow up and become a man.
The son has grown up, is about to get married and asks his father:
- Dad, you promised to tell me what the middle finger is for.
- Listen, son. So you get married, and your young wife wants to spend the whole day in bed with you. After this, she will want to play around with you in bed the next day. and on the third day she wants it again, but you can’t do it anymore. This is where your middle finger comes in handy: you clench your hand into a fist, stick out your middle finger, and... hit yourself on the forehead: “Are you crazy?”
Leo, tell me why there are no punctuation marks in the 4 types of ideology?
Not universal happiness, in the end, with universal happiness on the way.
Not universal happiness in the end, but universal happiness along the way. Etc.
It follows from this that there are not 4 types, but more.
I answered the first option.
They are not needed there. “Something in the end” is not needed. “Something with something else” - too. Look for rules for sentences with homogeneous members
"Etc." I have no
You described the first option as “utopia”. I answered
Thomas More.
It seems that everything is correct, but still the presence of Slaves (the ochlos layer) can be traced, and therefore, the reputation of the righteous direction of ideology is again tarnished. And I again rethought the basis taken from Plato in my own way, which is pleasing to some.
Not only does no one at all claim that the described society is unattainable (“Utopia” - “Non-existent”, but not at all “Unattainable”) - it is also described so that others smart people searched for "methodology vectors"
Scientists have given the meaning “unattainable” to the term “utopia”. Only those projects whose impracticability has been proven can be characterized in this way.
The enemies of humanity - your enemies - characterize ANY social project this way except their own - the Golden Billion and previous ones
In addition, a critical analysis of social projects reveals their shortcomings - that's right. For completeness, for consistency, for availability of funds - there are about a dozen such parameters. And slaves in such a project, of course, bring everything to naught
But who said that a normal project cannot be created and then implemented?
Here you go. All that remains is to search on the net to see what program someone offered, and go ahead
At least in the matter of editing it
Although it’s even better to predict it yourself - in principle, it’s not so mysterious
“In addition, it is necessary that this power be in the hands of the Supreme Ruler, who desires the good of his subjects and has conquered his own selfishness.”
That says it all. This is his whole philosophy: the introduction of the “New World Order” into life.
Another "ORTHODOX", servant of SETH.
The power of the “Golden Billionaires” is not the power of those who have conquered their egoism. That's just what they think. Although theoretically it can be assumed that some people realize this - and there are two camps: some do not want to admit it to themselves, others are honestly looking for a way out
Some are looking for benefits, others are looking for a way out...
Alexey.n.pop***@u*****.ua Teacher 08.11.2011
Autocrat! This is when you still support yourself, and not someone supports you
By the way, in Ukrainian, wife is DRUZHINA
Wonderful toast!
In ancient times, autocrats were also called Magi, from Russian = the will to fight, that is, to keep oneself within the framework of righteousness, for the prosperity of the Fatherland. These were Highly Spiritual people, cat. did not violate the laws of the Universe; They served THEIR PEOPLE with Faith and Truth.
Alexey.n.pop***@u*****.ua Teacher 08.11.2011
Thank you for the “magi” - before I didn’t have the opportunity to partake of the meaning of this word hidden by the pile of centuries
Live forever, learn forever, otherwise you will die a fool.
I know one person - smart, wise, able to do a lot of things, but constantly trying to hide it and even make him look like a fool.
When I asked him directly why he was doing this, he replied, “otherwise they will sit on my neck.”
“I never thought” - Hello... Soon it will be considered that expressions like “rule of law” or “civil society”, not to mention phrases with “market” =) are folk expressions. And you still don't understand what's happening
(When, in an hour-long conversation, a person unloads on me 11 common objections to the possibility of universal happiness:
“Play the harp in the middle of the garden - boredom!”, “Muscles atrophy”, “Adam ate an apple - and we are doomed”, “The Mafia is immortal”, “The rat pressed the lever”, etc. -
I hear them all my life from the most different people in various places in the country -
and suddenly declares that the thoughts are his own, -
I am not surprised: simple people- simple beliefs
But it’s really strange to hear this from a teacher, and even from the history of the teachings.
Please exclaim "Wow!" and take on the revision of a number of ideas - both ontological =)))) [like “science and the people are not one”] to ideological [these same “Man to man” and “Adam ate an apple”]
Pomet***@m*****.ru 08.11.2011
Well, to accumulate power and concentrate it, and also to consider oneself more important than others - this is observed in all primates and higher beings. Without a strong leader, the pride will fall apart.
“It is necessary that strong, centralized, coercively imposed power be in the hands of the Supreme Ruler, who desires the good of his subjects and has conquered his own selfishness.” In Rus' for a long time it wasn't like that. The prince acted on behalf of the Veche, which had strong power and included elders, but there were never any conflicts.
Hobbes is one of the founders of something even more important: ideological liberalism. It is he who now rules in 170 countries out of 176 (figures are approximate)
Declaring the imminent departure of man from nature, they do not believe that it is possible to depart concretely and see a way out in nothing more than a social contract. This is precisely what their pedagogy is aimed at: to instill in a person the desire to obey society. “Man is a wolf to man, but he must become a polite wolf” - that’s the essence
While in reality it is still necessary to become a person - that is, a friend, comrade and brother (although there may be clarifications here)
The power should be such that in the event of violence, society will say: well, since these people can’t live without it, that means they really can’t live without it
That is, she has truly conquered her egoism, but on this basis she does not rape with good intentions (with an iron hand to happiness), but is simply honest and skillful in working with mass consciousness
Comrades Marx, Engels and Lenin were already there. What is characteristic is that they did not reject the ideas of Locke and Hobbes, they built their own on their foundation. Hobbes and Locke looked not to the future, but to the past; they put forward theories of the origin of the state, and did not look for ways of its further development. I’m not saying that “becoming a man” is also a form of social contract.
Uh...Where were they?
Lenin is not a Marxist, but a liberalist?
Why then are they considered the founders of liberalism? Maybe because the paths were suggested based on their worldview? But giving a worldview is quite enough to be considered the founder of the paradigm as a whole
Human (not animal-human) society does not need a contract
What I mean is that the ideas you expressed have already been formulated - and not only formulated, but also implemented, alas, unsuccessfully.
I certainly do not pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the works of Hobbes and Locke, but they are rather theorists and philosophers of civil society and the rule of law. I think that is why they are considered theorists of liberalism by people who do not understand the difference between these concepts, I apologize for the tautology.
Human society does not exist without a contract that binds individuals into this society.
Liberalism - “Man is incorrigible, and therefore universal happiness is impossible.” Revolutionism - “We will correct man through violence.” And there is also “We can correct a person by working with consciousness”
I'm for the latter. But this is not Lenin or Marx
Equally liberal expressions, although with different meanings
Doesn't exist yet. And there - we'll wait and see
>Man is incorrigible, and therefore universal happiness is impossible
From the point of view of formal logic - nonsense. The second does not follow from the first. The fact that the incorrigibility of man still needs to be proven, and for this, at least the concept of “man” itself must be unambiguously defined. Otherwise, you encourage everyone to become a man, but he is incorrigible :)
In general, I don’t like all sorts of “isms” - precisely because of the unsubstantiated sloganeering of the appologists. The ideologists of these very “isms” described volumes of philosophical, economic, political and psychosocial teachings, but the followers only had slogans, preferably if they were correct, that lingered in their heads. That’s why no “isms” have been created and there won’t be any in the foreseeable future.
>"Civil society" and "rule of law"
Firstly, they are not expressions, but concepts, and secondly, they have a very indirect relationship to liberalism. Or, let’s say, “democracy” - is that also a “liberalist expression” for you? What to do with socialist democracy then? Trouble. :)
>Do not confuse ideological and political liberalism
So it’s not I who confuse, it’s you who confuse. Ideologically, liberalism puts individual freedom and the priority of its rights in the first place, nothing more. But at the level government structure This is no longer ideological liberalism, but political. The second one relies to a large extent on Hobbes and Locke, the first one - on Rousseau, but these are different things, and you lump them together...
No, I basically understand what you originally wanted to say, but you are confused about the terms. And the problem is not even that because of this it is difficult to get to the bottom of it - the problem is that you are discarding the same “expression” “civil society” as a liberalist one that you hate, although in essence you are going to build exactly that.
>"Man is incorrigible, and therefore universal happiness is impossible"
The second does not follow from the first - Why? Should
the incorrigibility of man still needs to be proven - for sure
and for this, at least the very concept of “person” should be unambiguously defined - perhaps
Otherwise, you encourage everyone to become a man, but if he is incorrigible, he can be corrected
The ideologists described the volumes, but the followers have only slogans - here is a polemic with the ideologists
no “isms” have been created and there won’t be any in the foreseeable future - we’ll wait and see
>"Civil society" and "rule of law"
firstly, not expressions, but concepts - concepts are indicated in writing by words, terms, expressions
Is “democracy” also a “liberalist expression”? - No
What to do with socialist democracy then? - ask when I say “yes”
>Do not confuse ideological and political liberalism
Ideologically, liberalism puts personal freedom and the priority of its rights in the first place, nothing more - it’s not true, it’s primarily a postulate about incorrigibility
political liberalism - at the level of government - is also not so: at the level of social activity
I understand what you wanted to say - what?
but you are confused in terms - I don’t agree yet
you are discarding “civil society”, although you are going to build exactly that - no. our goal is a co-evolutionary society
>The second does not follow from the first - Why?
Um... Yes, because no one has yet proven that it should, and it’s strange for me personally to take this as an axiom.
>I don’t like “isms” for their unsubstantiated sloganeering - hello... almost all isms have attempts to substantiate them
That’s not what I’m talking about - I’m saying that ardent adherents of all sorts of “isms” can usually quote their ideologists and justifications inappropriately at best, nothing more. What is characteristic is that the ideologists, for the most part, were not ardent adherents of their own teachings - they are not idiots to lay claim to the absolute truth.
>having a very indirect relationship to liberalism - what does this mean?
From the fact that civil society is possible without liberalism, just as liberalism is possible without civil society. The same applies to the rule of law, which is essentially nothing more than general pre-approved rules of the game. At the same time, you can play not at liberalism, but, for example, at communism. It’s difficult to play liberalism without the rule of law, yes.
>not true, this is primarily a postulate of incorrigibility
Hm... Please justify this point of view. However, looking ahead a little, I will say that radical liberalism - libertarianism - requires approximately the same level of change in human consciousness as communism, for example. So where did you get the idea that the basis is precisely incorrigibility, I’m very curious.
If we simplify it - that it is necessary to raise a new person - Homo sapiens conscius, a rational, conscious person, and then communism will automatically appear by itself. Here I even agree with you 100%, it’s just a small matter - to bring this the new kind Homo sapiens conscius.
>- co-evolutionary society
Explain.
PS Big request - could you separate the quoted text from your own commentary on it? Very hard to read.
> No one has proven that from “Man is incorrigible” follows “Universal happiness is impossible”, and it’s strange for me personally to take this as an axiom
- Any vicious person will cause misfortune to others, or - isolated - he will be unhappy himself
> civil society and the rule of law are possible without liberalism
- Without political liberalism (standing on the same level with conservatism, Christian socialism, etc.) it can. But without ideological liberalism - that is, in the case when it is wrong and the person can be corrected - civil society is not needed: instead there will be a society of conscience (what should we call it scientifically?)
> Justify the phrase “liberalism is, first of all, a postulate about incorrigibility”
- "Libera" - "freedom". In the political sphere - freedom to act despite sinfulness. (And to avoid trouble, society begins to regulate behavior). In the ideological sphere - freedom to sin in general. (“Resolutionism”, as it were. Against “Vykorchevism” = revolutionism). Such freedom can be given only if human nature is incorrigible. Are there other options? I'll be glad to know. In theory, there should be a term like “Doomism” - or at least “Noncorruptism”
> LZ wants to say that you need to raise a new person, and communism will appear automatically. It's a small matter - to bring out this new species
- Well, yes... If something needs to be done, then the point is always to do it...
> Explain the concept of “co-evolutionary society”
- Co-evolution of three systems: man (within society), society and nature
> Could you separate the quoted text from your own commentary on it?
- "Tirem" separated
>Any vicious person will cause unhappiness to others, or - isolated - he himself will be unhappy
This is only half the proof. All that remains is to prove that any person is vicious - and this is where the dog rummaged :)
>civil society is not needed: instead there will be a society of conscience
So what's the difference?
Civil society is one of the phenomena modern society, a set of non-political relations and social formations (groups, collectives), united by specific interests (economic, ethnic, cultural, and so on), implemented outside the sphere of activity of government structures and allowing control over the actions of the state machine.
I apologize for the long definition. So, from the point of view of liberalism, as you understand it, people create this phenomenon out of purely selfish motives; in a society of conscience there will be ethical motives at the core, but outwardly it will look exactly the same.
>In the ideological sphere - freedom to sin in general
Not this way. Freedom to do whatever you want, including sin, yes, but without limiting the freedom of others.
>Such freedom can only be given if human nature is incorrigible.
Not like that again. It seems to me that in the context of freedom the question of the correctability of human nature is not raised at all. What is given is not freedom to sin. and freedom to think, speak and act in accordance with one’s inner convictions - but yes, ideological restrictions are not imposed on these beliefs, they can also be sinful.
>If something needs to be done, then it’s always a matter of getting it done...
The question is whether this can be done. I'm not talking about "incorrigibility" now - human society changed more than once. Human consciousness also changed. The ideas of humanism, as well as the ideas of social Darwinism or individualism, would not fit into the head of, say, ancient Egyptian. But would it be possible, say, to change the consciousness of the ancient Egyptians, making them similar to modern people? Or does it take several thousand years for such a change in consciousness? What raises my doubts is not the possibility of changing people’s consciousness in principle, but the possibility of artificial and purposeful changes in a sufficiently short time, which is required in this case.
>Co-evolution of three systems: man (within society), society and nature
Co-evolution of this kind is inevitable. But do you require a very specific direction for this evolution - or do you think that this is the only possible direction?
>- "Tirem" separated
This is how it appears in the text itself, which is why it’s hard to read. So thank you, it's much more convenient now.
> “Any vicious person will cause misfortune to others” is half the proof. It remains to prove that any person is vicious
Actually, I forgot to point out: in the 18th century liberalism was created by Christians. For them, the depravity of everyone is an axiom. The idea of the immutability of human nature existed before - but even then it was postulated accordingly by believers
> What is the difference between civil society and a society of conscience?
- The fact is that in civilian life it is not obligatory - or, to put it simply, it is not there. From the definition you provided, this follows quite clearly.
> outwardly in a society of conscience it will look the same
- What exactly? There are no regulatory mechanisms like parliament. There are no punitive authorities. There are no armies. There is no blunt snout. There are no laws. That's why there are no citizens. There is joy all around, beautiful faces residents, kindness, mutual assistance... In my opinion, there is nothing in common at all
> Not “freedom to sin in general”, but “Freedom to sin without limiting the freedom of others”
- 1. The necessity of the second postulate is born only by the presence of the first. Therefore - no
In principle, it’s all the same “Non-universal happiness in the end with non-universal happiness along the way (liberalism)”...
To tell the truth, I'm tired
> Freedom to sin can only be given if human nature is incorrigible
> in the context of freedom, the question of the correctability of human nature is not raised at all
- Vice versa. Only in the context of incorrigibility is the question of freedom possible. After all, if a person is correctable, then we cannot allow him to sin. Distinguish between legal freedom and ontological freedom. If theologians had forbidden sinning, then there would be no liberalism. But they decided this: since God gave us freedom, we should not deny it. But then people will kill each other. Conclusion: relationships need to be regulated
Or so. “God gave man ontological freedom - but He also gave society the opportunity to limit it legally.” This is restrictive or negative liberalism. As I just called it, correct me if there is anything wrong. “God gave the ont. Holy ch-ku - which means that society has no right to limit it legally” - liberal or positive liberalism. Not yet created
Kick. But I think it's logical
> Is it possible to create a new person in a fairly short time, which is required in this case?
- Here I would propose to accept the principle of the presumption of good: “If a certain program is good, those who challenge its feasibility must prove its impossibility.”
Can. And I have something to say. But then =)
> The joint evolution of three systems: man (within society), society and nature is inevitable
- Alas, practice refutes this statement: we are on the verge of death or at least a catastrophe. However, catastrophism (periodically interrupted evolution) is not evolution. If we consider it development, and not existence
> do you require a very specific direction for this evolution - or do you think that this is the only possible direction?
- I, like you, simply need evolution. I don't see her options. Either one of the systems inhibits the evolution of the other (competing evolution, competitive evolution, or something - suggest a term) - or they help each other (co-evolve)
> The dash appears on its own in the text
- Yes, I wrote and understood
>- The thesis “The incorrigibility of man does not allow one to achieve universal happiness” is proven. Part of humanity is enough for this
No, here you are replacing the thesis about the incorrigibility of man with the thesis about the incorrigibility of humanity.
>in the 18th century liberalism was created by Christians
If you are talking about ideologists, then many of them were rather atheists and agnostics - and certainly not orthodox. And then, Protestants, for example, look at the question of the original depravity of man somewhat differently than Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
>The fact is that in civilian life it is not obligatory - or, to put it simply, it is not there. From the definition you provided, this follows quite clearly.
Firstly, there is an abyss between “not necessarily” and “no”, and you are completely unsubstantiated in deducing one from the other. Secondly, civil society is, simply put, a society in which every citizen feels responsible for what is happening in society and, accordingly, tries to change society in the way he considers right. Where is the talk about conscience here? This is not a question of civil society, it is a question of the motivation of the citizen himself.
>After all, if a person is correctable, then we cannot allow him to sin.
This is where you lose logical coherence. To acknowledge human correctability and force correcting him are two different things. However, you interpret the concept of “freedom” as you please. Freedom is not only the choice to sin or not to sin - it is any choice at all, including sinning this way or that, and also not sinning this way or not sinning that way. I’m not saying that people are not robots, everyone has their own conscience and shows its own, so even if people act according to their conscience, it will still be necessary to regulate the relationship between the conscience of some and the conscience of others. Or do you imagine a society of conscience as a society of androids operating in strict accordance with a common program for all? Then yes, the concept of freedom loses its meaning, because the distinction between freedom and unfreedom is erased.
>Here I would propose to accept the principle of the presumption of good: “If a certain program is good, those who challenge its feasibility must prove its impossibility”
We already have empirical evidence - the USSR. However, I am not challenging the impracticability, but the feasibility in a short time. Nobody has canceled the theory of games - if everyone is “good”, sometimes being “bad” is the most tactically advantageous approach. Strategically - no longer, to force millions of people who cannot own life No one has yet been able to plan two steps ahead or think about the strategic development of society, although the USSR came closest to this than anyone else.
>Either one of the systems inhibits the evolution of the other (competing evolution, competitive evolution, or something - suggest a term) - or they help each other (co-evolve)
That's not what I mean - do you think co-evolution is guaranteed to lead to, say, a society of conscience rather than libertarianism?
> The thesis “Human incorrigibility does not allow one to achieve universal happiness” is proven. A part of humanity is enough for this = No, here you are replacing the thesis about the incorrigibility of man with the thesis about the incorrigibility of humanity
- Ufff... I’m slowing down, apparently. If a person is correctable, then humanity is automatically correctable - ?
> in the 18th century, liberalism was created by Christians = many of them were rather atheists and agnostics. Protestants look at the question of the original depravity of man somewhat differently than Catholics and Orthodox Christians
- Many, but Christians led everything. How do Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians look at the question of correctability?
> The fact is that in civilian life it is not obligatory - or, to put it simply, it is not there. From the definition you provided, this follows quite clearly = Firstly, there is an abyss between “not necessarily” and “no”, and you deduce one from the other completely without evidence
- No abyss. If conscience is not obligatory, then how muted it is, it doesn’t matter: part of the population will still be obviously unethical
Secondly, citizenship is an option for motivating the citizen himself. Where is the question of conscience here?
- Did I shorten the text correctly? Did you understand him correctly? If so, then motivation not based on conscience is harmful to society. If not, then rephrase
> After all, if a person is correctable, then he cannot be allowed to sin = Recognizing the correctability of a person and forcing him to correct himself are two different things
-
Freedom is any choice
- Ontological. And the legal one is permission or prohibition
Everyone has their own conscience and shows its own
- Really?
Is the Society of Conscience a society of androids?
- I never said that before
Operating in strict accordance with a single program for all?
- Yes. What's bad about it?
Then yes, the concept of freedom loses its meaning, because the difference between freedom and unfreedom is erased
-
> “If a certain program is good, those who challenge its feasibility must prove its impossibility” = We already have empirical proof - USSR
- Even if we assume that everything was done there in accordance with the plan. program, then this is not our program
I dispute the feasibility in a short time. No one has yet been able to force millions of people who cannot plan their own lives two steps ahead to think about the strategic development of society
- And they never flew into space
> do you think co-evolution is guaranteed to lead to, say, a society of conscience rather than libertarianism?
- I think
>If a person is correctable, then humanity is automatically correctable -?
No. However, I also have not only an inaccuracy - a missing logical link. Humanity is fixable if we fix it every Human. So the substitution here is at the level of the authors of existence-community.
>Many, but Christians were in charge.
Rousseau was persecuted by Christians, Montesquieu was a consistent materialist... Liberalism in general developed strictly as the church lost ground - and not by chance: liberalism as a value system is much more contrary to any religious worldview than any other "isms".
>How do Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians look at the question of correctability?
Exactly the opposite of what you think. Human nature was sinful from birth from the time of Adam and Eve until Christ, who freed it from original sin. So, from a Christian point of view, a person is initially not only fixable, but sinless, and then everything depends on him.
You have a logical error again: a society without the obligation of conscience will not be a society of conscience, but it can be civil. The opposite is not true: society will not cease to be civil if conscience is mandatory for each of its members.
>If so, then motivation not based on conscience is harmful to society.
Why? Is motivation based on, say, science harmful? Moreover, motivation is always based on conscience - purely technically. It’s just that conscience is different, and you are trying to present it as some kind of universe.
>We are talking about permission/prohibition to sin, and not forcing one to correct oneself
>And the legal one is permission or prohibition
The absence of a prohibition is not permission.
How about it :)
>I never said that before
And I’m not saying that they did. Simply logically the same conscience + strict adherence to its dictates = the same behavior. A society of androids with the same program called conscience.
>What's wrong with that?
Nothing bad, but it still contradicts human nature. If you call this correction of a person, then forgive me, I am against it. I don’t want to somehow turn into an android.
>If everyone freely accepts this program, then freedom will not go away
Not really. That's the point: the robot does not "receive" or "do not accept" the program - it is the program + a piece of tin. If you leave the freedom not to accept the program, then on what basis should you not accept it? This is a moral and ethical decision. If a negative answer is possible, then these are already “different consciences”; if it is impossible, there is no “free” acceptance here.
This is practically the only program known to me - just a program, and not a set of ideas, opinions and misconceptions - setting the goal of a society in which everyone, of their own free will, will do the right thing and according to their conscience, that is, that same “society of conscience.” Do you have another program? Tell me.
>They never flew into space
Centuries passed between the advent of the scientific method and space flight. Similar scientific method instructions for studying and changing human soul They haven’t even come up with it yet; in this regard, we are still in the Stone Age.
>I think
Prove it.
> Humanity can be corrected if we correct everyone
- We must distinguish between the individual and man as a species. If there is at least one incorrigible component of the personality, then everything is lost. However, there is no evidence. Finally, the presumption of good
> liberalism as a value system is much more contrary to any religious worldview than any other “isms”
- Okay, let's stop. The matter is more important. Can we do something together? Okay, not to correct humanity - but what?
> Christians look at the question of correctability this way: a person is initially sinless, corrupt, correction depends on himself
- Well, yes. Will everything just get better? No. Where does the idea that hell will never be empty come from? And the persecution of Origen, who stated the opposite? So, man can be corrected, but as an individual, not a species, not humanity
> If conscience is not required, then how muted it is does not matter: part of the population will still be obviously unethical.
= a society without the obligation of conscience will not be a society of conscience, but can be civil
- That's what I said
= The opposite is not true: society will not cease to be civil if conscience is mandatory for each of its members
- It will stop. After all, then there will be no work left for citizens. There is nothing to correct - create, invent, try. These are not civic duties.
>motivation not based on conscience is harmful to society
= Is motivation based on science harmful?
- Yes, because science doesn’t know everything. And conscience is everything
= motivation is always based on conscience
- That is, they steal based on the voice of conscience? Father, have mercy! “There were boots there that could have been stolen - but I didn’t steal them. And then my conscience tormented me so much!..” (Ardov)
= It’s just that conscience is different, and you are trying to present it as some kind of universe
- But that’s how it is - the universe...
> We are talking about permission/prohibition to sin, and not forcing one to correct oneself
What do you mean by the prohibition to sin, which, by the way, exists in any religion that uses the concept of “sin”?
- Legal prohibition of sinful actions. "God allows, but we - priests and lawyers - forbid!"
>I don’t want to somehow turn into an android
- Yes, we all wish we could become human!.. Is it bad?
> If everyone freely accepts this program, then freedom will not go away
= no. If you leave the freedom not to accept the program, then on what basis should you not accept it?
- Based on conscience
= This is a moral and ethical decision. If a negative answer is possible, then these are already “different consciences”; if it is impossible, there is no “free” acceptance here
- Well... I'm already confused... Now I know that I can sin. But I don’t want to - this is my upbringing, my conscience is developed. Badly? Not that?
> com. the program is the only one that sets the goal of a society of conscience. Do you have another program? Tell me
- 1. I have a condition: You are ready to do something. That is, consider that if you need something, you need to look for ways, and not give up after reading the first smart books and getting the first bummers. Ready? Then 2. Test: do we think together or do everything ready-made? 3. Questions: How do we define the goal? “Changing the psychological climate on the planet”, “Achieving a righteous state of humanity”, “Building a sinless society”? Any other way? However, that comes later, I agree. But second: what issues need to be resolved on the way to building a program?
> Centuries passed from the advent of the method to the flight into space. No tool has been invented to change the soul
- We came up with it. Communication
>Prove it
- Cephalization, God
>If there is at least one incorrigible component of the personality, then everything is lost.
If we call the innate component a component of personality, then yes, you are right, but believe Christians: a person is pure from birth, but not everything that he acquires during his life is correctable?
>Can we do something together? Okay, not to correct humanity - but what?
IMHO, the only thing that can and should be done is to educate the new humanity in such a way that it does not need to be corrected - I adhere to the belief that children do not need to be corrected - it is enough not to spoil them.
>So, man can be corrected, but as an individual, not a species, not humanity
This is precisely the problem that there is no answer to the question of what prevents the correctability of all humanity, given the correctability of each individual. My version is higher, but this is just an opinion.
>After all, then there will be no work left for citizens. There is nothing to correct - create, invent, try.
Not this way. You can create, invent and try for different purposes. Constructive activities aimed at the benefit of society as a whole will remain a civic duty. You can not only correct it, you can preserve it and you can improve it.
>Yes, because science doesn’t know everything. And conscience is everything
The conscience of a nobleman of past years, for example, prompted him to challenge an offender, say, his wife, to a duel - and kill or be killed. My conscience does not welcome this option. What I mean is that conscience, as an ethical category, is not universal, and therefore cannot claim to know everything. If you like science fiction - Harrison, series "World of Death". Somehow I couldn’t read everything, but at least the first three books in the series very interestingly develop the idea of heteronomy of ethical values.
More likely out of silence of conscience on this matter. You don’t think that a thief admits to himself that he is a scoundrel? No, his conscience is structured this way, his moral criteria are different from yours. You can call this a lack of conscience, but then we need to define the very concept of “conscience” to continue the conversation.
>But it is so - the universe...
Returning to the example above - why did Pushkin and his duel have a problem with his conscience?
>"God allows, but we - priests and lawyers - forbid!"
>Now I know that I can sin. But I don’t want to - this is my upbringing, my conscience is developed. Badly? Not that?
God does not allow - he gave commandments in which he forbade. Another thing is that it does not interfere, leaving free will - the possibility of choice. To give an analogy, I can hide my wallet in a safe in your presence, and then you cannot steal it purely technically, I can rely on your decency and leave the wallet on the table. In the first case, you have no choice, no opportunity, no freedom. And it is not your merit that you did not steal. In the second - there is. In the first case, the fact that you did not steal is neither good nor bad: there is no moral choice here, conscience is not involved. And can it be said that in the second case I I authorize should you steal?
>1. I have a condition:...
>2. Test: do we think together or do everything ready?
Yes, we seem to be already thinking together.
>3. Assignments-questions...
Given the state of modern society, it seems to me useless to insist on “sinlessness.” So it seems to me that the right goal is to convey to people the idea that living according to conscience is the most winning strategy in the long term :)
True, first it is necessary to root out the idiotic “after us there will be a flood,” but this idea can also be rationalized quite simply: “who told you that there will be a flood?” after?".
>They came up with it. Communication
In itself, without reflection, it is definitely useless, since in my deep conviction it is impossible to change the soul from the outside.
>Cephalicization, God
In my opinion, the first does not prove your hypothesis in any way, while the second - a universal proof of everything and everyone, which has one significant flaw - is fundamentally unprovable in itself.
I am here again. For two weeks. Maybe we can switch to email? This is where it finally got awkward
I'll start with the secondary one:
> Pushkin and his duel, what about his conscience?
- His conscience was distorted or drowned out by the demands of the morality of that time (in their competition, the latter won)
> God is a universal proof of everything and everyone, with one significant flaw - it is fundamentally not provable in itself
- So I’m not for myself, I’m for you... =)))
> Cephalization does not prove your hypothesis
- What does she prove? There is evolution. There are a number of interrupted branches (the evolution of legs, stomachs, body sizes) - and there is one steady one. It's enough. After all, if the goals of evolution in nature and in our country differ, then it would not be the brain that developed. Somehow, I can’t say it more accurately and convincingly. But since we decided to work together, then we must search together
I’m omitting the rest due to its tertiary significance.
> it is possible and necessary to educate a new humanity in such a way that it does not need to be corrected
- That's the main thing. Let's get busy. One acquaintance began to write about working with consciousness - goals, methods, about forty other points - but he disappeared somewhere. And you? And we?
> So it seems to me that the right goal is to convey to people the idea that living according to conscience is the most winning strategy in the long term :)
True, first it is necessary to root out the idiotic “after us there will be a flood,” but this idea can also be rationalized quite simply: “who told you that there will be a flood after?”
Gut. To start. Required full list ideas-infovitamins. Here are the materials: http://evdemosfera.narod.ru/issl/issl/psi_vit.html
(Original at http://evdemosfera.by.ru/issl/issl/psi_vit.html, but bairu has a way of lying down sometimes)
Undoubtedly, everyone has heard stories and legends about a creature that, in the light of the sun, looks like a common person, and when the moon is full it turns into a monster. lycan, changeling - he has many names. But no matter what the wolf man is called, the question is different: does he really exist or is it all a figment of someone’s sick imagination?
The animal inside us
Each nation has its own traditions, beliefs, as well as wolf people, coyotes, hyenas and even bear people. Some worshiped the snake man, others revered the lion man, and some were afraid of the leopard men. Even at the dawn of civilization, warriors dressed in the skins of killed animals to gain their strength. However, it seems that it was the werewolf (wolf man) who became the ideal synthesis of the human transformation into an animal. Why wolf?
This wild beast was considered a mysterious and unknown creature for a very long time. The wolf is dangerous, voracious and unusually strong. Man has always been frightened by the ability of the beast to sneak up quietly and unnoticed. In addition, the wolf has the incredible ability to turn around at the sound with its entire body at once, which adds to its intimidation.
When the wolf people first appeared, history is silent. Experts come to the conclusion that here we're talking about about the primitive magic of shamans and totem rituals. Herodotus mentioned that the Scythians and Greeks considered the inhabitants of the shores of the Black Sea to be magicians capable of turning into wolves in certain days of the year. But is this really so?
Wolves and sorcerers
Lycanthropy (the so-called ability to turn into a wolf) began to gain popularity in the 15th century. People believed that village shamans made deals with the devil and evil spirits during full moon and in exchange for the sold soul they received “wolf essence.”
One of the most famous demonologists in the world, Lancre, argued that “a man who has turned into a wolf is none other than the devil himself, who in the guise of a ferocious beast roams the earth to cause pain and suffering.” In addition, the wolf is the archenemy of the lamb, which symbolized and represented Jesus.
The Church declared the same hunt for werewolves as for witches. And even the rulers largest countries Europe believed that there was a so-called “wolf disease”. For example, the Hungarian king Sigismund made considerable efforts to ensure that the church recognized in 1414 that wolf people really exist. This confession marked the beginning of a real persecution of werewolves throughout Europe. In France alone, between 1520 and 1630, more than 30 thousand cases of encounters with lycanthropes were recorded. It is worth remembering the most terrible incidents of that time.
Garnier the Devourer
In 1573, Gilles Garnier was arrested for numerous murders of children, and he confessed that he was a lone wolf-man. According to him, one night while hunting, a spirit appeared to him and offered his help. The ghost gave Gilles a miraculous balm with which he could turn into a wolf. But it was worth doing this only on the full moon and at night. Only at this time all the fury and power of the beast was felt. Garnier told the court that he committed the murders of four children under the age of 14. In the skin of a wolf, he not only killed, but also ate the flesh of his victims. The killer's story was full of the most terrible and vile details.
Gilles Garnier was found guilty of "criminal acts that he committed after turning into a wolf, as well as witchcraft." The murderer was burned at the stake in January 1573.
Gandillon - a family of werewolves
In 1584, in a small mountain village near the city of Saint-Claude, a werewolf attacked a little girl. Her sixteen-year-old brother, who rushed to her aid, was torn to pieces. The villagers came running to the screams of the children and threw stones at the beast to death. Imagine everyone's amazement when the dead monster turned into a naked young girl. It was Perenette Gandillon.
As a result, the entire Gandillon family was arrested. Probably, with the help of some kind they introduced themselves into a state of werewolf psychosis. City Judge Boge, who heard the case, personally observed the family in prison and conducted an inquiry. In his work entitled “Witches' Tales,” he wrote that the Gandillon family are the real wolf people. They crawled on their hands and feet, howled at the moon and generally lost their human appearance: their eyes were bloodshot, their bodies were covered with thick hair, and instead of nails there were rough claws. By the way, lawyer Bogue was not one of the gullible. And his observations are confirmed by other official reports of lycanthropes infesting France.
Rolle - a man who turned into a wolf
This incident occurred in 1598. Peasants found a corpse in a sown field young man, near which a wolf wandered. People chased the animal, which was trying to escape into the thicket of the forest. They chased him to huge thickets of juniper. The hunters decided that the animal was trapped. But instead of a wolf, a completely naked man sat in the bushes, covered in fresh blood, with a piece in his hands. It was Jacques Rollet.
During interrogation, he stated that he could turn into a wolf with the help of a witch's balm. Rolle also confessed to numerous murders that he committed along with his brother and sister in the guise of wolves. The only thing that saved him from execution was that the court declared him insane.
Man with a wolf's head
Thirteen-year-old Jean Grenier was mentally retarded. But that's not the point. And in his face. He had distinctly canine features: strongly defined cheekbones, pointed fangs and bloodshot eyes. Jean believed that he was a real wolf man.
One day he confessed to the girls that he wanted to eat them more than anything in the world, and when the sun went down, he would do it. Of course, they didn’t believe Jean and even laughed at him. But when the sun set, the boy fulfilled his promise. He attacked the girl and bit her very badly, but she managed to escape. Grenier was arrested. During his trial, the boy stated that there was a wolf inside him and he could release it when the sun went down. According to the young lycanthrope, he received his abilities from the devil himself.
Pathology
All these cases are undoubtedly terrible. Bloodthirsty murders, torn children to pieces... But if you take a closer look, it becomes clear that all the crimes were committed by people, to put it mildly, emotionally unstable.
Thus, in psychology there is the concept of “zootropy”. And this is not at all the ability of a person to turn into an animal with the help of magic, but a real pathology. And it lies in the fact that people consider themselves animals and think that if they behave in the same way, they will receive their abilities.
There is even a separate type of this pathology - werewolf psychosis (lycanthropy or lupinomania). When a person suffering from a mental disorder can actually believe that during the full moon he turns into a werewolf. The patient actually feels how fur grows on him, sees how his nails become sharper and longer, how his jaws increase and fangs grow. Such a “wolf man”, eager to shed blood, wanders the streets in search of his victim and can actually seriously bite, scratch, maim and even kill.
The power of thought
Some psychologists believe that werewolf psychosis can cause dramatic changes in the appearance of patients. Of course, there will be no loss of human qualities: the tail will not grow, the hands, although with claws, will not turn into paws, and the face will become more like the face of a monkey or a Neanderthal, but not like a wolf.
Scientists are simply amazed at the metamorphoses that can occur as a result of self-hypnosis and willpower. Wounds are healed, burns are blown away. So why is it impossible to become like a wolf through intense self-hypnosis?
In addition, if you listen to people who turned themselves into wolves, you can learn about certain rituals - a prelude to metamorphosis. For example, drink water from a wolf's footprint, eat the animal's brain, or spend the night in its hole.
1
Ancient Roman culture produced many excellent works and poems that have survived to this day. Moreover, some of them were simply divided into quotes, allowing people to look more educated in the eyes of others. Unfortunately, not everyone knows the origin and meaning of ancient sayings. Therefore, we have opened a separate section on the website in which we decipher popular expressions. Add our resource to your bookmarks, we have useful information every day. Today we will talk about one beautiful and harsh proverb, “Man is a wolf to man,” which means you can read it a little later.
However, before you continue, I would like to show you some of my new publications on the topic of phraseological units. For example, what does it mean: He who does not work is not; meaning Hunting is worse than bondage; which means The devil is in the details; who said about the dead either good or nothing, etc.
So, let's continue, what does Man mean to man? This expression was borrowed from the Latin language " homō hominī lupus est", and accordingly translated as " man to man wolf". Comes from the play "Donkey Comedy" ("Asinaria"), which was written by the now almost unknown playwright and writer Titus Maccius Plautus from Ancient Rome in the 3rd century BC.
Man is a wolf to man- means that in modern world each person sees the other as a potential rival
"Homō hominī lupus", or in its unrestricted form" Homō hominī lupus est", is a Latin proverb meaning "a man is a wolf to another man", or more briefly, "a man is a wolf to a man". This has a meaning in relation to situations where people behave like wolves in nature. This example indicates that the wolf, as a predator, is cruel and inhumane.The proverb seems to hint that people, deep down in their souls, are more like wild animals than civilized and reasonable individuals.
This play revealed such human feelings as antagonism, hostility, extreme selfishness. This catchphrase usually describes an extremely greedy and selfish individual. In everyday speech, this saying is used when discussing disgusting and bad actions that one person commits towards another.
First, this phrase could be found in the work of the comedian Plautus " Donkeys"or whatever they call it" Donkey comedy"However, such an intelligent person as the Roman Stoic philosopher, poet and statesman Lucius Seneca, on the contrary, believed that “a person is something sacred for another person.”
Subsequently, I used these bright phrases in my work " De Cive"English materialist philosopher, one of the founders of the social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes.
Quote:
"If we look at these expressions, it turns out that they are both correct..."
Although, these conclusions of Hobbes are still more consistent with Plath than with Seneca, since he did not dispute the assertion that people are by nature selfish.
Centuries passed, and in the “young” Soviet Union at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party it was decided that “ man to man brother, comrade and friend". This principle became fundamental for many years, in contrast to the still dominant capitalist “man is a wolf to man.”
After reading this article you learned What does Man mean to man a wolf?, and what does Homo homini lupus est mean?
Man is the bearer of evil. This is his nature. I would even say that evil is the human essence. Unlike good, there is no need to learn evil. Evil manifests itself. Good is the spiritual essence of a person or spirit. Good cannot hate.
You can’t even imagine how much energy is unconsciously spent on restraining evil in one form or another as it manifests itself in our nature. As a result, a lot of energy is spent on creating and maintaining the image of a “good person.” But there are impulses of evil and there is no escape from it. Repeatedly suppressed impulses lead to the closure of the human-spirit system. Manifesting initially as tics, frequent blinking, neuroses, anxiety, uncontrolled aggression etc. On the mental plane, such people like to talk about goodness, positivity, awareness, and God.
Not recognizing evil in themselves, but intuitively tracking their second nature (I would say, first. Let us remember: not even a year after creation, Cain kills Abel. By the way, Cain is a vegetarian, if anyone is interested), they intensively begin to develop the opposite force and , forcing (there is no other word) others to follow their example. For some reason they feel bad if no one follows their example (words, knowledge, etc.). And evil still comes out, as they themselves think - this is just a reaction to evil outside.
By denying his evil, a person deliberately makes himself schizophrenic. To split yourself in two and inflate one half, to build a façade of virtue. Become a façade yourself and not realize it. Continuing to deny...
There is evil in man. Initially. In everyone. Even in Jesus.
Only by dying to the old can one be resurrected to the new. In order to die, it must manifest itself. So a person got - choice.
One wonderful technique. Dealing with the evil within us
In a moment of confusion, start writing everything down negative thoughts: n negative intentions, feelings and towards whom, desires for harm and destruction.
Write out and live every line in your imagination with all the emotions and sensations in your body. Having been in a state of realization for about 1 minute. As we inhale, we fill ourselves up as much as possible, and as we exhale, we holographically enlarge our image to the size of a house. Then more and more until the size of the universe (subjective, of course).
Having reached the end of the list, I promise a magical result. Of course, provided that everything that is on the this moment, and the inflation work was done in good faith.