Table of contents:

Reasonable perception of the world as reality
Reasonable perception of the world as reality

Video: Reasonable perception of the world as reality

Video: Reasonable perception of the world as reality
Video: Why Russians are fleeing Crimea across the Kerch Bridge 2023, December
Anonim

As I have already noted repeatedly, in particular, in the article about what reason is, those concepts that are key to my concept and the conclusions that I set out on this site, unfortunately, are used by everyone in the meanings that they want. ascribe, and this meaning can be completely far from real. Moreover, people are already accustomed to these meanings, they are accustomed to the fact that if someone talks about reason, freedom, etc., then this should be perceived as some kind of abstraction, as some kind of regular high-flown appeals and statements, behind which there is nothing real. Are you calling to act reasonably, BSN? Well, one more good wishes, one more idealistic declarations, etc.…. But no, dear ones, that rational perception of the world, which I am talking about, is a very real thing, which has absolutely clear criteria, which is a completely tangible phenomenon. The rational perception of the world, which I am talking about, is a concrete, real-life thing. People who perceive reason and a reasonable approach as an abstraction, behind which there is no definite meaning, (not seeing in this approach something different from the widespread, philistine, based on an emotional outlook on the approach), are mired in this very emotional thinking and common dogmas, hampering their heads and preventing them from understanding the most elementary things.

The strange attitude of the unreasonable majority to the reasonable approach as a non-existent abstraction will have to be dispelled in stages.

1) Let's start with the simplest. Consider the students who study at school, students at the university, etc. Among them, we can single out a category that is able to easily understand the meaning of the material being studied, retelling it no worse than a teacher, solving the most difficult problems, etc., and a category that, even if she strives to get good grades, she is poorly able to navigate the essence of what she is studying, trying to compensate for this with ordinary memorization. Thus, already at this level, we can say that there are differences between people, between students or schoolchildren, which are not just a quantitative difference in knowledge caused by the fact that some teach less and others learn more, and the difference is that some turn out to be capable of independent understanding of complex disciplines, while others turn out to be incapable of this. This difference in the possibility of using mental abilities turns out to be qualitative. We can see exactly the same in other areas, for example, in the field of science, in various types of professional activity, etc., when there are a certain number of people versed in the topic who are able to cope with tasks and the overwhelming number of people, who are not capable, but are engaged only in assimilating the ready-made results, memorizing the ready-made conclusions made by those who are able to figure it out. But are these differences a consequence of some kind of degenerate differences in ability, as some believe? Of course not. These differences are only a consequence of the difference in attitudes, the approach of people to the tasks that arise before them. Some get used to the fact that their mind is able to solve non-standard and complex problems, to the fact that they can figure out something on their own, to the fact that they need to rely on their own thoughts and beliefs and try to come to an understanding of things, while others, on the contrary, they get used to the fact that the mind is something that does not need to be used, that it becomes for them some kind of forgotten thing, thrown into a distant room, and if they sometimes try to think chaotically about something and to something to think it over, failure in this matter convinces them even more that thinking and looking for the right solution is a completely useless, time-consuming activity that cannot lead to anything.

2) However, this difference, although it is visible, is still secondary, because in the minds of both those who are unable to think independently and those who are capable, this ability remains something, in general, optional - and how could it be otherwise, after all, even if you are a super genius, if you are an unsurpassed specialist in science, if you are a monster in programming, etc., all the same, all this remains somewhere within the walls of institutions, etc., outside the framework of everyday life, and everyday life obeys other laws, in order to live by which, you do not have to be smart. This idea, shared by almost everyone, both smart and stupid, about the mind as something that remains outside the framework of everyday life, is a delusion. And the realization of the fact that this is a delusion is much more important than the overwhelming part of the nonsense that occupies people's thoughts, is discussed in the media, fills the programs of political parties, etc., because this fact will lead in the near future to the most revolutionary changes in society, to its reorganization on completely different principles. In everyday life, a reasonable person pursues completely different goals and adheres to completely different principles than modern ordinary people with an emotional outlook, which form the basis of society that we still have today.

Unfortunately, people gravitating towards a rational perception of the world do not yet try to put their principles into practice consistently, do not realize them as some kind of alternative program, a value code, and therefore their reaction to the phenomena of reality in the part where they contradict their principles, is, as a rule, limited and passive (the relationship of people who gravitate towards a reasonable perception of the world with modern society will be discussed in more detail below). Nevertheless, it is not at all difficult to single out the distinctive features in the values and principles of people who gravitate towards a rational perception of the world. Individual distinctive features, behavioral features, etc. of people, the manifestation of which is associated with adherence to an emotional or reasonable perception of the world, have already been discussed on the pages of this site, in articles, for example, Criticism of the value system of modern society or the Principles of a reasonable person. The characteristic features of people with a rational (gravitating towards rational) worldview can be found in biographies, descriptions of what they were like in life, outstanding personalities, especially those who worked in the field of science. During the years of incredible tension in scientific and technical competition between the USSR and the USA, in both countries, whole teams were formed in which extraordinary, talented individuals worked, people who were not afraid and knew how to use reason, and in these teams, communities, not only their traditions of scientific, professional activity, but also the traditions of a different approach to the world, a different atmosphere developed within them, which clearly distinguished these communities from the traditions that reigned in the ordinary world. Excellent illustrations of the character traits of such people will be, for example, memories of S. P. Korolev, or the book by the American author "Hackers, Heroes of the Computer Revolution" about people who stood at the origins of the entire giant modern computer industry. So, the main feature of a person with a reasonable perception of the world is that he uses reason not only in professional and other activities, but is also guided by it in everyday life (in fact, the idea of the practice of limited use of reason as only a tool for solving certain practical tasks, completely stupid and invented by emotionally minded, who themselves are not able to use the mind at all). In what features of behavior will this manifest itself in practice? As I already noted, the main value for a person who thinks emotionally is the desire for emotional comfort, in life position this is expressed in the fact that the main criterion by which he measures the success of his life is the achievement of some kind of happiness.

Happiness is the final point in his imaginations, having reached which he will be quite satisfied and satisfied. Happiness can be wealth, a favorite job, a family in which you can always get moral support, enough time for rest and hobbies, etc. Having achieved happiness, from the point of view of an emotionally thinking person, you just need to live and be happy, well, maybe sometimes help a little (exclusively voluntarily and to the best of his ability) those who have not yet achieved their happiness. For a person with a reasonable outlook, everything is much more complicated. He cannot be satisfied with happiness, like an emotionally thinking one. The main value in the framework of a rational worldview is, as I have already mentioned, freedom. This value can be an unconscious value and goal, but it is always, necessarily present (and there is a desire for freedom in everyone, even emotionally thinking, in the happiest person it can suddenly declare itself and deprive peace of mind and sleep). As I already wrote in the article What is freedom, freedom assumes that a person constantly makes a choice during his life, and this choice must be necessarily conscious, have a basis in the form of personal beliefs, etc., that is why a person with a reasonable worldview, reluctantly, he always faces a prospect, from which he cannot easily get rid of - to deal with these elections, and to solve problems for himself in order to determine which of these choices will be correct. Unlike problems in mathematics, when solving these problems, a person makes personal decisions, he chooses a position, bearing in mind that this position will be included in the solution and will then determine his behavior, his actions, his attitude to things.

In the process of making such decisions, a person is always looking for meaning, because this meaning is needed to justify his choice, his decision to act one way or another. In other words, if an emotionally thinking person lives in his pursuit of happiness, a rational person lives driven by meaning, and he is constantly looking for this meaning, faced with new choices, expanding his understanding of meaning. At the same time, a person cannot simply refuse to seek meaning, because this will undermine the power of his mind and deprive him of the ability to make correct decisions. Meaning is that thing that is absolutely necessary for a rational person. Farther. In practice, a rational person, in contrast to an emotionally thinking person who is completely incomprehensible to such behavior, always tries to do the right thing. That's right - this means how people should, in theory, act in an ideal society, where all their functions are performed honestly, where the principles are declared, say that one cannot take bribes, that one cannot publicly declare one thing to everyone, knowing that this is never will not be done, and done differently, etc., correspond to the real, factual principles. Emotionally thinking, ordinary emotionally thinking, not criminals, nor regenerates, etc., adhere to different principles - there are some agreements, some limited moral obligations to society, if these moral obligations are not violated too much, then you can do whatever you want in your own benefit, and it is justified because everyone does it. For those who think emotionally, there is no such category as the need to do the right thing, thinking not only about their own benefit, but also about some higher categories, such as the good of society, duty, patriotism, etc., to the horror of ordinary people, a reasonable person sincerely believes that people should not only do the right thing, but also be fair and honest. Often, an emotionally minded person does not see anything out of the ordinary in deceiving another, say, taking the bike for 5 minutes and returning it a few days later. He will not understand if a person with a reasonable outlook on this is very offended and begins to make claims, indicating that he acted dishonestly.

Even without cheating solely in selfish interests, almost any emotionally minded will be completely sure that he did well if the deception was dictated by good intentions, which, again, completely contradicts the principles of a person with a reasonable worldview. A reasonable person's commitment to justice means that he thinks about others' interests as well as about his own, when making a decision. This is incomprehensible to those who think emotionally - after all, for them, the goal is for everyone to achieve their own happiness. Emotionally thinkers perceive reasoning about justice in this context, for example, if we raise the issue that our society is organized unfairly, for emotionally thinking it will mean that those who talk about justice, under the guise of these conversations, think only about how to snatch others have pieces of their happiness in order to achieve their own happiness.

Driven by beliefs that are an empty phrase for an emotionally thinking person, a person with a reasonable outlook respects other people's beliefs and assumes that influencing the position of another person means influencing his beliefs. Therefore, in a dialogue with someone, he will find out what he thinks on this issue, what opinion he has, after which he will honestly express arguments in favor of his position, hoping that these arguments will affect the opinion of the other. A person with an emotional outlook will think differently - he will turn to the desires of another person, hoping to influence them, he will not ask and find out what you think, he will instead ask something like "Well, wouldn't you like, so that … "and so on. Reasoned refusal for the emotionally minded is not a refusal, he may believe that the refusal is filling the price, or misunderstood his benefit in the proposed, therefore the emotionally minded may offer the same thing over and over again, focusing on emotional reaction, the attitude of the interlocutor, but not to his beliefs.

In relations with other people, a person who gravitates towards a reasonable worldview believes that the main thing in them is mutual understanding, for a person who thinks emotionally, sympathy, some limited moral support is enough, the desire to find mutual understanding on the part of a person with a reasonable worldview, who will be interested his opinion on certain issues, etc., striving to find out what he thinks, etc., will be tiresome for him, because he himself does not take his thoughts and beliefs seriously. A distinctive feature of a person with a reasonable worldview is his little tolerance or even intolerance towards the so-called. human weakness. Unlike emotionally thinking, who believe that a person can never be ideal, and therefore it is useless to achieve this ideality, reasonable people believe that a person can be ideal, which is why, unlike an emotionally thinking person, a reasonable person is inclined to influence another until he realizes his wrong.

If an emotionally thinking person is inclined to act according to a simple scheme - there is a misconduct - there is a censure, then a reasonable person approaches differently - if he sees that the person who made a mistake realized it himself, then he does not see any need for censure, if he sees that he did not realize it, then no he will not be limited to one censure, but will be inclined to get this person who made a mistake until he realizes it and begins to do the right thing. In everyday life, as I have already noted many times, an emotionally thinking society constantly tends to embellish reality, to form an exhibition reality that spares the emotional calmness of citizens, and emotionally thinking citizens themselves pay the greatest possible attention to their image, image, that is, how they look and how they seem to be around. In contrast to them, a person with a reasonable outlook, as a rule, does not perceive the rules of this double game at all, he prefers to talk about things as they really are, and not in such a way as to spare the feelings of others, try to keep it in an advantageous for them light. He himself also pays little attention to conventions, to maintaining his image and is absolutely sure that those around him are obliged to judge him not by his image and image, etc., but by his real qualities and actions.

This description is, of course, completely incomplete, but a sufficiently complete description is beyond the scope of this article, and I hope that the characteristics I have listed will be enough so that you can correlate them with the traits and habits of yourself and other people you know and perceive a reasonable perception of the world not as an empty abstraction, but as a reality existing in real life.

2. Intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals

Reasonable and thinking people must be distinguished from those who pretend to be them, they consider themselves to be them and impudently pass themselves off as them. And the second, unfortunately, much more than the first. A huge number of people who are neither smart, nor reasonable, nor thinking, but believe, and not only believe, but also often beat themselves in the chest, grab the banner in their hands and loudly proclaim that they are the first for reason, for freedom, for an ideal and just society, for science and technology, for the triumph of intellect (well, etc.) create a completely wrong impression of reason and a reasonable worldview. What gives them reason to consider themselves as such? Alas, the same widespread misconception about the mind as an instrument and truth as something completely separate, existing objectively and in no way affecting the personal aspirations, interests, needs of a person. "Reason is an instrument" - pseudo-intellectuals shout, "and we are smart, yes, because we know, we know a lot of things, which is correct, is an objective truth, and now we will teach you the same." Pseudo-smart people consider themselves smart not because they know how to think and use the mind (they just do not know how), but because they stuffed their brains with information, information gleaned somewhere, perhaps within the walls of a school and university, in the process of professional training, etc. They consider themselves smart because they know about other people's thoughts, other people's conclusions, other people's explanations of what is true and why. Unfortunately, this situation is pushed and provoked, among other things, by the methods adopted in many schools, when teachers, with a feeling that they are doing their job well, are engaged in coaching and driving ready-made knowledge into students, instead of trying to get them to understand, and in part, a similar situation continues in universities. As a result, we have a very large number of such pseudo-intellectuals who, at a superficial level, have grasped and memorized the main provisions of the school and university curriculum. I do not want to repeat myself, describing the peculiarities of the thinking of pseudo-intellectuals, to stress on the stupid situation of worship of reason and science on the part of those who do not know how to use it, the problem of dogmatic thinking, this has already been discussed in the following articles - fear of thinking, utopian versions of the future (in that parts where the technological version is mentioned), the problem of dogmatism. In this part, we will focus on how pseudo-intellectuals actually relate to reason and its manifestations.

Pseudo-intellectuals are as emotionally minded as everyone else. The only difference. which distinguishes them from ordinary emotionally minded, is that for them the mind is part of the image, the image, and therefore they react extremely painfully when someone directly or indirectly encroaches on this element of the image, and thus on their self-esteem. This characteristic feature of pseudo-intellectuals manifests itself in almost any dialogue or dispute. For a reasonable person, it is interesting to clarify the truth, clarify the essence of things, he is interested in dialogue, as what leads to clarifying the essence, as what leads to a result, finding an answer to the questions posed, etc. But for a pseudo-intellectual is it interesting to clarify the truth ? Not at all! For him, the truth is something completely different from his daily practice. How the truth turns out, the pseudo-intellectual has absolutely no idea, in his brain, with a hint of this process, pictures of large synchrophasotrons, laboratories in which thousands of people tirelessly conduct experiments, specialists, sifting through huge piles of papers speckled with formulas, etc., appear in his brain. - this is something that is determined somewhere far away, requires huge costs and is carried out by people who know their job well and work with proven methods. In ordinary life, for a pseudo-intellectual, there can be no question of defining what is true; for him, it is only a question of determining who is better aware of an already discovered truth. Therefore, for a pseudo-intellectual, any dialogue or dispute is only a means to be smart, show off, boast of his "intelligence" in front of others, and the pseudo-intellectual begins to boil immediately and very strongly when someone directly or indirectly shows that he knows a certain truth better than him. If a reasonable person reacts to this completely calmly (moreover, he notes with satisfaction that a person has his own opinion and his own thoughts - this is a plus), offering to understand this in more detail, discuss, consider arguments, etc., then for a pseudo-intellectual, who is not capable of thinking independently and judging the truth of anything without referring to volumes of thick encyclopedias, this situation is just a blatant theft from another "legal" right to consider himself smart. And therefore, from the point of view of a pseudo-intellectual, the only correct solution to this situation, God forbid, is not a transition to the actual clarification of the truth, but the termination of claims on the part of the interlocutor for exclusive possession of the truth.

But in fact - are pseudo-intellectuals smarter than ordinary people? Hardly ever. Their actual intelligence and intelligence may be even below average. The acquired knowledge does not add intelligence to pseudo-intellectuals, the ability to adequately assess things and make the right decisions, since this knowledge is not accompanied by their understanding. Moreover, very often a situation arises when misunderstood conclusions contained in this knowledge, which were memorized by a pseudo-intellectual, but not understood, push him to erroneous, and not correct, decisions and actions, which does not happen with reasonable people who do not take on faith ready-made dogmas and never using in their decisions other people's inferences and conclusions that they do not understand.

3. A person with a reasonable outlook and modern society

When considering this issue, one cannot ignore such a topic as the relationship of a person who tends to a reasonable worldview with modern society. Why do I write "gravitating"? Unfortunately, there are practically no people to whom a reasonable worldview could be attributed, who would adhere to it consistently. The problem is that modern society is a society of emotionally minded people, it is a society built on principles similar to those who think emotionally, it is a society that functions according to rules suitable for emotionally minded people, a society in which the postulates that determine the emotional outlook are generally accepted stereotypes. Any person living in modern society is under the pressure of these incorrect norms and stereotypes, constantly he is faced with widespread generally accepted misconceptions that correspond to the philosophy of emotional perception of the world, it is not so easy to understand the falsity of which, and it is even more difficult to figure out which ideas, which principles and etc. should be put in place of these false and generally accepted ones. The elements of a rational worldview, which many thinking people adhere to, do not represent an integral system, do not have a sufficiently strong foundation that would represent a person who gravitates towards a rational worldview, a strong enough support to feel confident and, relying on reason, find the right decisions in different situations, applied to different issues.

As a result, people who gravitate towards a rational perception of the world often have doubts about the correctness of their own values and principles, about the correctness of movement along the path of reason, face various difficulties in various everyday situations, the occurrence of which is associated with the peculiarities of their character and are not always able to give adequate rebuff to the emotionally minded. Before each person gravitating towards a reasonable worldview, there is a problem - how to determine their attitude to the surrounding society, and, often unfortunately, on this path he chooses a non-constructive solution. I will not consider in detail here such a decision as the rejection of a rational perception of the world and the transition to a completely emotional perception of the world. Such steps are dictated, as a rule, by pressure from others who perceive a person with a reasonable outlook as a certain person with oddities, deviations from the norm, invariably advising him to think less, etc. (Moreover, the attitude to a person's inclination to use reason in everyday life as to some kind of abnormal deviation exists not only among ordinary people, the same philosophy is professed, for example, by the so-called "psychologist" N. Kozlov). Nevertheless, the decision associated with the choice of voluntary dullness and refusal of a reasonable worldview is rarely chosen by people who have gone beyond school age, although at the same time they usually from time to time experience a tendency, within certain limits, to try to follow the stereotypes of behavior of emotionally minded, who often mistakenly seem to them to be more knowledgeable and adapted to life. So, the options for a non-constructive choice in determining the essence of relations with society for a person who gravitates towards a rational perception of the world can be:

1) insulation

2) confrontation

3) compromise

The choice in favor of the isolation of a person can be prompted by constant discomfort, the feeling of a "black sheep", etc., which he will constantly experience in relationships with emotionally thinking. The difference in the behavior of a person who deliberately makes a choice in favor of isolation from the natural reaction of a normal person to avoid participating in stupid and dubious collective activities, such as drinking moonshine under a fence or smoking cannabis in the basement, is the belief that others will not understand him anyway. misjudge his motives, etc. As a result, a person who is prone to isolation is mistakenly inclined to avoid clarifying his relations with others, to achieve a proper attitude towards himself, etc., which can further strengthen those around him in a condescending attitude towards him. And although the tradition of choosing in favor of isolation from society has a long history - for many centuries, various people left worldly life alone or in groups, creating secluded settlements, monasteries, etc., believing that isolation from society, detachment from worldly vanity is the only way in which you can clear your mind of garbage, come to wisdom and enlightenment, etc.etc., people gravitating towards a reasonable worldview in the modern world should understand that the choice in favor of isolation is the wrong, non-constructive choice.

Another choice might be confrontation. The motive that pushes a person with a worldview tending towards a rational, to such a choice, may be, on the one hand, rejection of the motives, actions, habits of others, on the other hand, unwillingness to admit oneself as something worse than others, to retreat, etc., unwillingness recognizing that he cannot self-actualize in a sufficiently acceptable role for him, a status. The behavior of a person who chooses this second option is in some ways more constructive than a person who chooses isolation, and, accordingly, refusal to solve problems, however, correctly believing that it is useless to retreat in front of some problems, he actually chooses the method punching the wall with his forehead, going straight ahead from the principle, instead of looking for a more balanced solution, and this method does not always lead to luck and generally a constructive result. Like an isolationist, a person who chooses confrontation may come to a false conclusion about the lawfulness of the chosen path and become entrenched in the idea that the path of confrontation, struggle and confrontation with the majority is an inalienable lot of any person who represents something (see also my more See the earlier article on The Crowd Phenomenon on this topic.)

The last ambush awaiting a thinking person on the way to finding the right decision about interaction with society is the temptation to find some kind of compromise, some kind of integration into the existing society, so that, on the one hand, fit into society and settle in it acceptably, on the other - not to sacrifice principles, to remain with your value preferences, etc. In other words, as in the song "Time Machine" - "so that everything is like everyone else, but so that, at the same time, not like them." An additional circumstance that pushes a person with a worldview tending towards a reasonable, just such a choice, may be a relatively low tension in relations between him and society, which may take place, for example, in a scientific or university environment. Being under the influence of this factor, a person may underestimate the degree of problems in society and exaggerate his (society's) inclination and susceptibility to meaningful and reasonable decisions. A person is inclined to retouch the differences between his worldview and generally accepted norms, stereotypes and believe in the illusion that the manifestations of the unreasonableness of others are private and not fundamental, and that the problems associated with this can be eliminated by applying separate efforts directed to the right place.

4. The position of a thinking person in relation to the transformation of society

The last part that I would like to include in this article is the part on transforming society. The overwhelming majority of people do not understand the need for transformation and have never understood it. The overwhelming majority always live in the present day and experience the illusion that the existing order in society will always remain unchanged. However, this never happens. And now we are on the verge of very big changes, big transformations that will change modern civilization, sending an emotionally-minded society to the dustbin of history. A special role in this transformation belongs to those who, now, in spite of the stereotypes prevailing in society, have chosen a reasonable worldview for themselves. You see the absurdity of the rules existing in society, you see the moral decline and degradation of people under the influence of false values, you see the dead end of the path of consumption and the pursuit of profit.

For now, however, you don't only need to look. You need to act. The society that we have now will not be helped by any local and limited influences, declarations and appeals that will not be accepted by the majority will not help. All the problems that beset modern society are in the nature of a deep systemic crisis and can be corrected only in one way - by modernizing the motives and values of people and introducing a reasonable worldview, which will be followed by the reorganization of society itself on other principles. One of the main goals that I am pursuing here is to show the reality and tangibility of the perspective that I am talking about, the reality of the changes that I predict. I will repeat once again - the transition to a reasonable society is close, inevitable, there is no alternative, and the reasonable principles that will underlie the reconstruction of society are not an empty abstraction, but what coincides with your specific and real today's principles, motives, goals, coincides with the aspirations and hopes of those people who live now. Therefore, you must change your attitude towards the realities around you, from adapting to the rules of an emotionally-minded society, to starting to develop different rules and create the basis for a new society. The situation that we have now is very, very serious, and only unification and the will to joint action on the part of reasonable and thinking people can prevent the onset of catastrophic, shock consequences in the very near future, similar to those that shook civilization in the 5th century. n. e., and perhaps only such a union is capable of preserving our country and nation and not letting it be swept away from the historical stage (as happened, for example, with the civilization of Ancient Rome). I hope that those who read this article will make the right choice - not hiding their heads in the sand, but embarking on the only true path of spreading and leading to victory in the principles of the structure of our civilization and our society of a rational worldview.

Recommended: