About the townsfolk

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The threads of the philistine revolution were entangled.

The philistine life is more terrible than Wrangel.

Rather, roll the canaries' heads -

so that communism is not beaten by canaries!

V. Mayakovsky "About rubbish"

I decided to write this article to illustrate one of the most pernicious properties common among the representatives of humanity, which interferes in everything possible, and represents one of the most annoying obstacles on the way of people to reason and a sane society. I mean this problem, I presented different options for how one could approach its description. What should be emphasized in order to most surely make a hole in the armor that reliably covers the sleeping mind of modern people? Maybe write to them about their passivity and lack of initiative, fear of acting (by analogy with fear of thinking), tendency to endless useless trampling on the spot? Maybe focus on the deadness of the soul, the same inner emptiness with external diversity and the absence of a real meaning of existence, exchanged for useless vanity, which Gogol wrote about in his "Dead Souls"? Or maybe focus on those most noticeable patterns, the consequences of internal vices that exist in abundance in modern society and among modern people, so that people, after reading about these clearly disgusting examples, can compare the reasons underlying them with their own habits, qualities and traits? But now I think I have found the most accurate direction to strike. In part, I was prompted to do this by the reaction to the last article "On unreasonableness and inner values - explanations", which, in general terms, boiled down to the fact that those who looked at it said "I have not read, but I will say …", after which, in addition to their traditional stereotypes not in the subject and personal assessments addressed to me, rushed to give me all kinds of advice and recommendations on how and in what form I should explain everything to them, so that they deign to pay attention.

The problem and detrimental property that will be discussed in this article is what they mean when they talk about the qualities inherent in the man in the street. Who is the philistine? In an outdated sense, an inhabitant was understood as a permanent resident of a locality. But another, more widespread meaning of the term “philistine” is different today. One of the definitions, for example, in the modern dictionary of the Russian language, describes the layman as one who has no public outlook, is distinguished by inert bourgeois views, lives with petty, personal interests. There are other similar definitions that have the same meaning in mind. This is the second meaning I will mean, using the concept of a man in the street.

In the aforementioned article "on unreasonableness and internal values", in general, it was just about two main problems that exist in modern society and prevail in modern people. The first of these problems, actually unreasonableness, the second is the absence of any values, goals, active position, a tendency to passive adaptive reactions, the absence of what is meant by the word "passionarity". All this, of course, is inherent in the man in the street, however, in addition to this, he also has a number of specific qualities that must be added to the unreasonableness and passivity in order to turn out exactly the man in the street.

If we talk about simply unreasonableness, it can be due to a number of different things. Modern people are unreasonable because they are surrounded by many wrong stereotypes that they learn from birth, because they have a wrong style of thinking, replete with logical errors at every step, again, widespread around them and therefore seeming "normal" because their thinking constantly distorted by emotions and evaluative labels, etc. The problem of lack of passionarity can also be explained by a number of different reasons - the dominance of the materialistic mentality and the corresponding attitudes in the ideas about the world and man, deeply rooted and seeming, again, "normal" practice of adaptation and orientation to external conditions in their life plans, etc. One way or another, with these reasons in mind, you can try to neutralize their effect, you can try to explain to people the main factors underlying them, correct the false attitudes and style of thinking they have learned … A normal, relatively speaking, person, even being unreasonable, passive and subject to false attitudes, will, in general, consider his position and these attitudes justified, he can bring in their defense some, albeit false, argumentation, he will imagine how justified that strategy and those ideas that are inherent in it. However, even such people are not so many. A significant part of society, which just can be designated as ordinary people, is not committed to stereotypes, either false or true, does not perceive ideas, either right or wrong, and does not have any intelligible position and grounds for its actions at all.

What are the characteristics of the townsfolk? The main feature of the townsfolk, which unites them all, is an approach that is fundamentally chosen for oneself in life, expressed in the unwillingness to bother with anything, to take any position for oneself, to decide the correctness or incorrectness of some things that fall out of the circle of its extremely narrow and direct personal interests. However, with all this, the townsfolk assign themselves the right to judge and speak out about everything. Moreover, they see their right to do so as even more priority in relation to those who are really trying to understand these things.

Such a position is completely absurd for a normal person, but for ordinary people it seems natural and this position is the only one that they can consistently adhere to. From the point of view of psychology, the position of the man in the street is freedom from responsibility, and, above all, from the inner one, which would appear if he really undertook to resolve certain significant issues. Instead, the layman finds satisfaction in the fact that arbitrarily and momentarily chooses what is most beneficial and simple for him. Often the layman makes the most primitive choice and at the same time never tries to weigh for himself its validity, expediency, etc. For the sake of refusal of responsibility, and, therefore, from any doubts and troubles, the layman limits the zone of his perception of things and surrounding realities, as a result, at least some complex and significant issues, issues not directly related to his personal interests, drop out of this zone. The layman rejects, in particular, issues of social significance, in general, issues related to public affairs, since he does not see them personally useful for himself. However, in parallel with the transformation of people into ordinary people, there is not only the removal of the philistine from the affairs of society, his enthusiasm for his small private interests, but also the transformation of society, the transformation of social ideas, the transformation of everyday life practice in such a way that he does not completely fall out of society, without generally denying his a public role, the townsfolk replace a responsible position regarding different things, a responsible public role with a surrogate one, which is arbitrary and empty, but takes the place of weighty and significant in their eyes. All this leads to the formation of such a man in the street, which was discussed above - a subject who does not give a damn about everything, but who is sure that his voice will be decisive in judging anything.

Being in society, the layman believes that his interests should be taken into account as a matter of priority, but for the most part, completely without his participation. His job, the average man thinks, is, as a last resort, to express abstract wishes or to control the execution. The layman believes that the solution of his small personal problems is the main task of society, that the satisfaction of his small needs is the main mover of all processes. The layman, however, is completely alien to the idea of coordinating the tasks of personal and the tasks of society. The main goal of the layman is just existence, and he is absolutely sure that his personal petty interests are the measure of all things, therefore he is looking for a profitable and convenient option for himself, regardless of public interests. The purpose and meaning of the layman is personal comfort, while the specific way of combining the interests of personal and public interests does not bother him and is assigned to them by others. The layman is sure that there is such an ideal option, when it is convenient and correct, but it is not he who should take care of this, but the state, scientists and anyone else, he, the layman, must only control so that, you understand, they do not shy away from realization of such an ideal option. As a result, the layman will throw garbage on the street, being sure that the street must be clean, he will scold the teachers at school for the fact that they teach poorly, but defend the right of his child to be a poor student and a bully, he will give bribes and steal money from the state budget, arguing that corruption is dominant and plundered and taken away, bastards, our country.

It is convenient for the average person to think that he decides everything and everything depends on him. Power and politics in most countries, including Western ones, the so-called. "developed" countries, and our country, moreover, since the times of the USSR, have adapted to support this myth in every possible way and focus on the inhabitants. Election campaigns have long been conducted with an eye on the townsfolk, in order to get the desired result in advance. They target the media, corporations and businesses. For them, this is the surest way to get the best (in terms of profit, rating) result at the lowest cost. It is convenient for ordinary people to control and manipulate them, inflating even more pleasant for ordinary people the myth that the world revolves around them and that everything is done for their benefit, to satisfy their philistine needs, to protect their "rights" and interests. This myth has already taken root in the minds of many, and personally I often come across it as an argument in discussions. But does the average man really define anything, is his opinion really valid? Of course, not in any way. The same people, in whose hands the power is concentrated and who inflate the myth of the omnipotence of the inhabitants, know this very well. The townsfolk do not decide anything, they cannot decide anything at all, both because of their incompetence, misunderstanding of something, and because of their inability to take purposeful actions. Everything is determined only by decisive and active people, who are a minority in modern society, while the townsfolk only take what has happened for granted and try to adapt again, to settle in new conditions. The average man would rather change his empty and meaningless "opinion" than defend it.

There is no doubt that the townsfolk are empty and worthless people who should not be in society. The spread of the inhabitants and the decrease in the number of passionate personalities is a harbinger of the collapse of any civilization. With the rooting of the layer of the inhabitants as the main mass of society, its development stops, because the inhabitants are unable to perceive any ideas, and the degradation of all social institutions begins. You cannot teach the townsfolk anything, you cannot rely on them for anything. To stop the degradation, to reverse the virus of everyday life is the most urgent task at the moment. The breakdown of philistine attitudes is a condition, without the fulfillment of which no task of improving society can be solved. Everyone should kill the man in the street today!