Freedom in a constructive and destructive sense

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

Why is that? Let's consider this issue in more detail. The strategy of bringing and retaining the decisions made in accordance with their internal attitudes, the strategy of eliminating intrapersonal contradictions can be of two types. The first version of the strategy is a combination of various attitudes and considerations, including confusing and interfering with the choice of the most profitable alternative, the second version of the strategy is the elimination of attitudes and considerations that hinder the choice of the most profitable alternative. Let me explain these strategies with a simplified example. Let's say we are faced with a choice. The main goal and the most profitable alternative are obvious to us. We have clearly decided what we want to achieve. However, there are some additional considerations and circumstances that confuse us. The fact that they confuse us is bad, it means that we cannot make a truly free decision. After all, a truly free solution is a solution that is in full accordance with our internal guidelines. Therefore, we can act in two ways - 1) study the issue in more detail and find a solution that, on the one hand, would ensure the fulfillment of the main goal, but on the other hand, would also satisfy additional considerations; and 2) we by a willful decision tell ourselves that additional circumstances are bullshit and delirium and we erase doubts from our personality.

Let's consider these strategies in more detail. If we opt for the first strategy, it may mean some delay in making a decision for us, and perhaps even an indefinite delay. This can be a disadvantage in a certain situation. In addition, choosing the first strategy means the need for additional effort. In the eyes of some people striving for freedom, but not sufficiently intelligent people, this circumstance can even be perceived as an obstacle to freedom, which they see as their right to make an independent decision in a constant mode, here and now. However, if we choose the first strategy, we get decisive advantages. Why? Because in the case of using it, we do not sacrifice our understanding of things and do not retreat from reason. As I mentioned earlier, the mind is, first of all, a systematic approach, the combination of all ideas about things into a single, clear, consistent system. All people are potentially intelligent, and the voice of reason always gives people a signal about abnormality, inconsistency, incorrectness of their ideas and decisions. Unfortunately, many people habitually ignore and ignore these signals, and some, just those who have chosen the false second strategy of achieving freedom, often deliberately discard. However, for a reasonable person it is clear as daylight that such signals cannot be discarded, for by discarding them, you discard the truth along with them, and you yourself prepare a trap for yourself. Therefore, having received signals of doubt from the voice of reason, a reasonable person will strive to understand, come to a clear and holistic consistent picture, in order to then make a decision with 100% confidence in its correctness. A person who rejects the signals of the voice of reason makes a deliberately wrong decision. The second strategy of choosing the most profitable solution with discarding doubts seems at first glance easy and "effective", but it invariably leads to disastrous consequences. Instantly, a person can really choose the most profitable solution and not incur any big costs because of its not-quite-correctness. However, there is not a single isolated solution that would be correct in the absolute sense, there are always situations in which it will be incorrect, and another solution will be correct. The person following the first strategy considers all possible alternatives and is therefore ready for different scenarios. The one who follows the second strategy makes the most profitable decision at some point, but in the changed circumstances, this decision will work against him. The one who adheres to the first strategy and works on the synthesis of his ideas, constantly strengthens and builds up his potential, going towards being able to make quick and adequate, correct decisions in a variety of circumstances. The one who adheres to the second strategy gets a momentary gain, but invariably loses in the long run.

There is one more circumstance in favor of choosing the first strategy, in addition to the fact that the second strategy leads to a loss in the future, and this circumstance is even more important. As already mentioned, the second strategy is associated not only with refusal to consider additional circumstances when choosing a solution, but also with the removal of doubts from his personality (if these doubts remain, a person cannot feel free). Therefore, it is quite obvious that the second strategy leads to personality degradation. And the more such people who are falsely striving for freedom discard the "superfluous", the more they become dull, degrade, the more primitive their ideas, values and motives become. In the end, a person living according to the second strategy turns into a limited being, guided only by primitive animal aspirations, incapable of responsible behavior and having no idea of moral norms. This strategy inflicts a heavy blow on reason and mental abilities, almost completely destroying them and turning a person into a mentally disabled person. Moreover, such a transformation can occur latently and relatively imperceptibly for the person himself - at first he can act deliberately and responsibly, but does not want to, then attempts to reflect and come to the right decision are given to him with difficulty, finally, he completely becomes unable to think, even with everything desire to try to do it. Thus, if freedom achieved with the help of the first strategy should be the main value of a reasonable person, a reasonable society, then freedom achieved with the help of the second is an expression and manifestation of not rationality, and not even unreasonableness, but in general - anti-rationality. People who adhere to the second strategy of achieving freedom are even worse than simply unreasonable people who do not at all strive for freedom.

Using the notion of two strategies for achieving freedom, we can now clarify what freedom is for some and for others, which means in the first and in the second sense. For the adherent of the first strategy, freedom is, first of all, the presence of opportunities, and the more opportunities, the more freedom, the more options in order to make this or that choice, to prove oneself in one quality or another, to realize this or that intention, idea, personality tendency. Freedom in a constructive sense, therefore, is the ability to do exactly what you want (but for this, you may have to do something else additionally). For the adherent of the second strategy, who achieves his "freedom" by rejecting, denying, ignoring and avoiding everything that strains him, freedom is freedom from restrictions, the less responsibility, conditions, prohibitions, etc., etc.., the more freedom. Thus, freedom in a destructive sense is the ability to do only what you want and to be minimally dependent on others in your decisions (even if for this you have to sacrifice some of what you would like).

It is easy to see that if the first freedom leads society and people along the path of progress and self-improvement, then the second - along the path of decline and degradation. But unfortunately, it is the second understanding of freedom - in a destructive, hostile sense to reason - that has become widespread in modern Western society, including, to a large extent, this understanding, together with the decadent and harmful Western culture, has penetrated into modern Russian society. … Moreover, this understanding has become an integral part of the dangerous Western ideology of liberalism and globalism, the adherents of which claim to impose it globally in all countries of the world. There is no doubt that this circumstance is one of the circumstances leading Western civilization to its inevitable collapse. Today we can clearly see how the introduction of false "freedom" as the attitudes of a significant (or even the bulk) mass of society leads to its degradation. An ordinary emotionally minded person is unreasonable and does not strive for freedom. In his behavior, an ordinary emotionally thinking person is not guided by clear goals (having a conscious, rationally formulated statement), but is guided by various stereotypes, labels, vague intuitive impulses, etc. and latently influence the thoughts he is aware of. At the same time, making decisions that contradict some ideas, he does not destroy them, but blocks them, while continuing, however, to have doubts about the correctness of his actions, and, under certain circumstances, under the influence of these doubts, he may change his point of view or make a compromise. which makes him more sane in comparison with a person striving for destructive freedom. A person striving for destructive freedom is aggressively selfish and at the last stage of his degradation is practically insane. As I already wrote in the article "Classification of people according to the degree of unreasonableness", the current tendency is that an increasing part of people in modern Western society is degrading, turning, in particular, from ordinary emotionally minded, moderately adequate and following traditions and moral norms, into commoners and degraded. At the same time, the liberals' interpretations of freedom as an individual's right not to answer to anyone and to do whatever comes into their heads are encouraged to do just that. The most active spirit of false freedom began to be implanted in the West starting from the second half of the 20th century. Under the slogans of "liberation" from complexes and prejudices, oblivion and destruction of traditions and moral norms, the cultivation of vices, the setting of deviations and norms on the same level were started. Limited, with a narrow outlook and interests, but aggressively defending their "rights" and degraded absolutely devoid of moral norms began to rule the show in modern society. The atomization of society, the degradation of the masses threaten the existence of Russia today, and therefore everything must be done to eliminate the dangerous liberal infection as soon as possible.

In conclusion, let's consider one more point. Does it mean that any reasonable person should choose the first strategy, that you never need to drop anything from your ideas and that you never need to make any decisions until 100% clarity is achieved? No, it doesn’t mean it can be done, but under certain conditions. Consider the drop issue first. It is obvious, for example, that if we started to build a house, but it skewed and turned out crooked, it must be demolished in order to rebuild it correctly again. In the same way, if we started thinking about a certain issue, building a certain theory, but due to the insufficient power of our mind, we went somewhere wrong, and created something artificial, as a result of which we do not have a clear and clear picture and there is no feeling of correctness, it is worth abandoning the chosen path, dismantling artificial representations and starting all over again. Discard artificial mental constructs, illusions, false obsessions, etc.etc., it is possible and necessary, but to be discarded not for the sake of calmness and refusal from the search for truth, once and for all, but in order to then think over this issue anew and come to a correct and clear understanding of things. Now with regard to making decisions with the exclusion of additional circumstances. If nothing rushes us, nothing forces us to make such decisions, this does not need to be done, you need to achieve inner clarity, or at least act carefully, leaving the opportunity to turn in one direction or another if something happens. However, in some cases, some decisions need to be made urgently, and there is not enough time to wait. In this case, you need to make the most obvious decision, even if it be contradictory, leaving no feeling of inner correctness and neglecting additional circumstances, but such that this neglect could subsequently be terminated, and the decision itself is corrected and, if possible, corrected. If we cannot fulfill the reconciliation of contradictions, we need to choose a more fundamental and no less fundamental, sacrifice a part, not a whole, fight the root cause of the problem, and not try to pay attention to the consequences. In this case, we will be able to maintain a constructive course, and after the temporary deviation from it is over, analyze the mistakes, find the best solution, and, on the basis of all this, try to avoid negative consequences in the future. For example, in 1939, a few days before the start of the Second World War, the USSR concluded a non-aggression pact with Germany - this was a controversial decision, but a forced and temporary one, which made it possible to gain time to prepare for war.