Knowledge and ignorance

What is the relationship between knowledge and ignorance?
Can we claim that we know more than we don't know? If we agree with this statement, then a paradoxical situation arises. On the one hand, we agree that we do not know something. On the other hand, if we claim that we know more than we do not know, then it means that we also know what we do not know. Otherwise, how can we appreciate-learn the boundaries of ignorance. After all, ignorance is ignorance because we do not know something and we don't know what is the volume this unknown something. And since we do not know the volume-dimensions of the unknown, we cannot claim that we know more than we do not know.
Now, on the contrary, can we claim that we know less than we do not know? PS Laplace, for example, said on his deathbed: "What we know is so insignificant compared to what we do not know." I think the mindset expressed by Laplace testifies not so much to an objective fact as to the indefatigable desire of a creative person to know more and more.
It seems to me that the answer to the above question should be as negative as the answer to the previous question. We can't know How many We do not know! Accordingly, we cannot claim that we know less than we do not know.
Thus, it is impossible to reliably assert either that we know more than we do not know, nor that we know less than we do not know. Knowledge and ignorance are, as it were, intertwined, dependent on each other. This fact is indicated, in particular, by the Socratic paradox "I know that I know nothing." Here is what can be said about him.

I know that I know nothing

Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." In form, this is a logically contradictory statement (if a person does not know anything, then he cannot know about what he does not know). In terms of content, this is a kind of attempt to formulate the principle of cognitive modesty. (Compare: Olcott: “To be ignorant of one’s own ignorance is the disease of the ignorant.” Or J. Bruno: “He is doubly blind who does not see his own blindness; this is the difference between perspicacious diligent people and ignorant sloths”). The Socratic paradox also points to such a feature of the cognitive process: the more we learn, the more we come into contact with the sphere of the unknown, that is, roughly speaking, the more we know, the more we know that we do not know. Physicist R. Milliken said: "The fullness of knowledge always means some understanding of the depth of our ignorance."
With cognition, that is, an increase in the circle of knowledge, the sphere of contact with the world of ignorance increases. Here is what D. Danin wrote about this:
“It is quite logical to say that scientific discovery reduces the area of ​​the unknown. But it is no less logical to assert that it increases at the same time. Through the fault of the discovery itself, it increases. When a person goes uphill, the horizon expands before him, but the lands beyond the horizon become more and more extended.
___________________

It is not known for certain whether Socrates uttered this phrase. In the work of Plato "Apology of Socrates" is a reasoning close in meaning to Socrates. A similar statement ("I only know that I know nothing") is attributed to Democritus. – In 304 Diels. See note no. 16 of the 1968 edition of the Apology of Socrates, edited by A. A. Tahoe-Godi.

1. Cognition as a social process.

2. Social and humanitarian knowledge.

3. The problem of truth in scientific knowledge.

4. Axiology in scientific knowledge.

5. Intuition and its role in the cognitive process.

6. Cognition as a "reflection" and knowledge as a "construction".

7. The problem of the unconscious in human behavior and activities.

Tasks:

240. There are five states of knowledge and ignorance:

1) when we know what we know;

2) when we know that we do not know;

3) when we don't know what we know;

4) when we don't know that we don't know;

5) when we don't know, but we think we know (when ignorance is presented as knowledge).

Give examples of each of these states.

241. Consider:

A) People stop thinking when they stop reading (D. Diderot).

(D. Granin. I'm going into a thunderstorm). Give a detailed answer.

242. How would you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A) The truth is good, but happiness is better;

B) Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer.

243. Try to explain: what are the similarities and differences between truth and truth?

244. Try to explain: what is the difference between knowledge and faith? (By faith is meant faith in general, not religious faith.)

245. What is truth? - Try to give an answer without looking into textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias.

246. How would you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A) Everything is known in comparison;

B) Comparison is always lame (J. Korchak, a well-known teacher, spoke even more

sharply: "Let's discard comparisons, they are misleading").

247. How would you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A) ... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow (biblical preacher Ecclesiastes).

B) Knowledge is power (F. Bacon) (compare: “Knowing more today means being stronger tomorrow” (E. Teller)).

248. Some consider intuition the highest form of cognition, others consider it an atavism inherited from animals. - And what do you think? Give a detailed answer.

249. Comment on the following statement, which belongs to Hegel:

There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete. Give a detailed answer, give examples.

250. A. Einstein stated: "Only theory decides what we manage to observe!" I. P. Pavlov spoke about the same thing: “If you don’t have ideas in your head, then you won’t see the facts.” - What did they mean? Give a detailed answer.

251. Who do you think is right? Comment.

A) "... works of art should not be created for study and not for guild scientists, but they<...>should be understandable and serve as an object of enjoyment directly in themselves. For art exists not for a small vicious circle, not for a few very educated people, but in general for the whole people ”(Hegel G. W. F. Works).
B) “The principle “art for all” is deeply false. It reveals a false democratization. “Art for all” does not at all imply the necessary clarity and simplicity, that would be fine - no, it contains the disastrous demand for cutting down the growth of the master to the level of contemporary ignorance and bad taste, the demand for “general accessibility”, alphabetic and usefulness. Art never speaks to the crowd, to the masses, it speaks to the individual, in the deep and hidden recesses of his soul.

Art should be "for everyone", but by no means for everyone. Only then will it preserve the relationship of individuality to individuality, which is the meaning of art, unlike other crafts that serve the tastes and needs of the multitudes ”(M. Voloshin“ Notes of 1917 ”).

252. The ancient philosophers put forward the motto "Question everything" - What did they mean? How can this motto be interpreted?

Test tasks:

253. Cognition in modern philosophy is mainly considered as:

a) abilities, skills, skills in a particular field of activity;
b) significant information in the aspect of activity;
c) objective reality given in the mind of the acting person;

d) the practice-driven process of acquiring and developing knowledge;

254. According to Hegel, the sequence of stages in the process of cognition is as follows:

a) sensation - internal and external ideas - reflection;

b) sensory experience and a priori categories - pure (non-empirical) principles;

c) sensory knowledge and innate ideas - rational knowledge;

d) sensual certainty - perception - reason.

255. In philosophy, "agnosticism" is understood as:

a) consideration of the process of cognition;

b) consideration of objects of knowledge;

c) complete or partial denial of the fundamental possibility of cognition;

d) doubt about the possibility of knowledge.

256. In modern epistemology, the object of knowledge:

a) exists "by itself";

b) opposes the subject of knowledge;

c) in its definition depends on the conceptual system of the knower;

d) is part of a self-cognizing subject.

257. A certain stage of the cognitive process, at which information about an object obtained in sensations and perceptions, being stored in consciousness, is reproduced later without a direct impact of the object on the subject, is:

a) sensual reflection;

b) cognitive contact with the object of knowledge;

c) presentation;

d) an explanation.

258. The type of knowledge woven into the fabric of the subject's life, but not possessing probative force, is called:

a) abstract;

b) theoretical;

c) ordinary;

d) scientific.

259. Since truth does not depend on the knowing subject, it:

a) abstract;

b) objective;

c) subjective;

d) absolute.

260. The concept opposite in meaning to "truth" in epistemology:

a) lie;

b) delusion;

c) judgment;

d) prejudice.

261. Among modern conceptions of truth there is no:

a) coherent;

b) compliance;

c) systemic;

d) pragmatic.

262. Anticipation of activities and their results in terms of developing ideals, decisions, programs, norms and a plan for future activities:

a) forecasting;

b) provision;

c) goal setting;

d) advance.

263. Any change, transformation, process is:

a) evolution;

b) development;

c) involution;

d) movement.

264. Does not apply to general logical methods of cognition...

synthesis

analysis

analogy

observation

265. The subject of knowledge in modern epistemology is:

a) an abstract individual;

b) a real scientist or philosopher;

c) technical means (computer, scientific equipment, etc.);

d) thinking team.

266. Modern epistemological research suggests:

a) empiricism;

b) rationalism;

c) intuitionism;

d) theoretical and methodological pluralism.

267. The form of practice is not:

a) the transformation of nature with the help of tools;

b) the transformation of social life through a change in existing social relations;

c) the impact of objects and phenomena of the world on the human senses;

d) scientific experiment.

268. Practice in terms of its functions in the process of cognition is not:

a) the basis of knowledge and its driving force;

b) the purpose of knowledge;

c) the criterion of truth;

d) a successful replacement for theoretical research and scientific creativity.

269. The main forms of living contemplation (in the theory of knowledge as a reflection) do not include:

a) presentation;

b) perception;

d) feeling.

270. The absolutization of the role and significance of sensory data in philosophy is associated with the direction:

a) rationalism;

b) realism;

c) skepticism;

d) sensationalism.

271. A form of thinking that reflects extremely general regular connections, sides, signs of phenomena, fixed in definitions (words):

a) concept;

c) definition;

d) term.

272. The sentence "Volga flows into the Caspian Sea" in philosophy can be considered as a form of thinking, namely, as:

a) concept;

c) judgment;

d) inference.

273. From the judgment-premise "All people think" and the judgment substantiating knowledge, "I am a man", make a conclusion:

a) I treat all people;

b) all people are like me;

c) I think;

d) animals also think.

274. According to G. Gadamer, the subject of understanding is:

c) "the essence of the matter";

c) the process of obtaining new knowledge about nature and man;

d) an ineffective means of knowing life with the help of the analytical method.

342. Determining the specifics scientific knowledge, K. Popper put forward the principle ...

a) codification

b) falsification

c) unification

d) verification
343. Pseudo-scientific - is called in philosophy ...

a) knowledge speculating on a set of popular theories

b) knowledge obtained as a result of a departure from the accepted norms of the cognitive process

c) knowledge that does not meet the criteria of scientific character, but has found the support of the authorities

d) proto-knowledge, which will become scientific in the future
344. At the present stage of powerful social upheavals, an important role is played by humanistic concepts reflecting the universal ideals and goals of social development. A. Schweitzer owns the concept:

a) “deserve the love of your neighbor”;

b) "the path of non-violence";

c) "reverence for life";

d) “a goal for mankind”.

345. O. Comte was convinced that in all scientific research it is necessary to strive "to replace the word "why" with the word ...":

c) how much;

d) how.

346. Offering his classification of sciences, O. Comte divided all sciences into two groups:

a) accurate and humanitarian;

b) theoretical and applied;

c) philosophical and natural;

d) positive and negative.

347. In the field of scientific knowledge, according to Nietzsche, truth is:

a) the purpose of scientific knowledge;

b) an objective reflection of reality;

c) current opinion;

d) a useful misconception.

348. From the point of view of representatives of empirio-criticism, the task of philosophy is:

a) generalization of the achievements of the natural sciences;

b) development of answers to the "eternal" questions of mankind;

c) "purification" of experience in scientific knowledge from extraneous ideas;

d) creating a holistic picture of the world.
349. From the position of the picture of the world of classical science ...

a) communication between different levels of organization is carried out through chaos

b) complexly organized systems cannot be imposed on the ways of their development

c) the development of the world is retrospective and predictable due to its linear nature

d) randomness is understood as a constructive development factor

e) the world is rigidly connected by causal relationships

350. Depending on the pace of development and the nature of the development of industrial production, crops are divided into:

a) traditional and industrial

b) high and low

c) pastoral and handicraft

d) eastern and western
351. In science, the term "noosphere" means ...

a) relations between states

b) assertion of the meaning of mind as a cosmic phenomenon

c) the unification of mankind into a single world system

d) global environmental modeling system

352. In the "noospheric" model of human civilization, the main role is given to:

a) the state;

in economics;

353. The present stage of development of civilization is characterized as ______ society.

a) patriarchal

b) traditional

c) post-industrial

d) industrial

e) informational

354. Modern researchers note the positive significance of such social consequences of the transition to post-industrialism as ...

a) approval of the class of knowledge carriers as the main

b) blurring and disintegration of social ties

c) Accompanying the production of wealth with increasing risk

d) innovative nature of production

e) increasing social inequality

355. Global environmental problems include ...

a) the threat of the spread of HIV infection

b) international crime

c) the current energy crisis

d) overcoming the contrast in the development of different countries

356. For permission global problems necessary...

a) slow down the pace of scientific and technological progress

b) unify national cultures

c) change the consumer attitude of man to nature

d) stop space exploration

357. A necessary and precondition for the solution of all global problems is...

a) development of the resources of the oceans

b) prevention of World War III

c) regulation of population growth rates

d) overcoming the spread of dangerous diseases
358. Philosophy believes that humanity can survive...

a) by starting to take a reasonable approach to the consumption of natural resources, and jointly solving global problems

In the theory of knowledge, there are two traditions of explaining where reliable, true knowledge comes from. The first is called rationalistic and appeared during the controversy between Socrates and the sophists.
The Sophists were a group of thinkers that formed in the 5th century BC. in Athens and defending positions of extreme skepticism. They said that it was impossible to know anything for sure and taught their followers to live without reliable knowledge about the world. In accordance with the well-known saying of Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things," the sophists urged people to "measure" things in accordance with their nature and needs. Socrates saw the danger of sophistical pedagogy in corrupting students, because it teaches something that the teachers themselves are not sure of the truth. Arguing that the truth is relative, the sophists deny the existence of universally valid concepts and norms and thus deprive people of the opportunity to understand each other. And understanding is the basis of harmony and unity of society.
Socrates and his student Plato insisted that the basis of knowledge and learning are general concepts, which are called universals. These universals are already embedded in the human mind from birth, and thus knowledge consists in remembering what we already know. But in this case, the question arises of where these universals come from in our memory. Plato said that since we do not receive knowledge about them during life, this knowledge is inherent in us before birth. Children are known to know very little at first, because the soul forgets at birth its knowledge of general ideas, and then somehow reminds the consciousness of the knowledge already contained in it. In the dialogue "The State" Plato explains in detail how memory is awakened and the knowledge of ideas is extracted from it. At the same time, he declares the knowledge obtained with the help of the senses to be unreliable, belonging to the first level. These are just pale semblances of truth, vague ideas about it. True knowledge is the contemplation of the universals hidden in man. The first step on the way to this knowledge is the development in oneself of the consciousness that the knowledge received through sensory perceptions is insufficient and often incorrect. The same object, considered from different points of view, turns out to be different, and the mind fails to comprehend its true nature. Therefore, one must abandon the reliance on sensory data and proceed to the study of the world of universals in one's own soul. For this, math classes are the best help, which develop thinking skills, help to correlate different ideas with each other. A complete understanding and comprehension of the nature of universals is ensured by the occupation of dialectics.
A similar to the Platonic point of view on the source and foundations of our knowledge was defended by the French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes. To test the reliability of our knowledge, he suggested that all knowledge should begin with a doubt about the available information about the world. By successively excluding facts that did not stand the test of the principle of doubt, Descartes came to the conclusion that there are only two facts, the truth of which cannot be doubted. The first of these is expressed in the now catchphrase: "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum). The second undoubted truth is, according to Descartes, the existence of God. The hallmarks of indubitable truths, which make it possible to separate them from falsehood and error, are clarity and distinctness. On this basis, we can be completely sure of the truth of all mathematical knowledge, since mathematics deals exclusively with clear and distinct innate ideas.
Theories of knowledge of Plato, Descartes and others like them are called rationalistic. They claim that by using certain logical procedures, with the help of the mind alone, one can obtain true knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of universals ( general concepts) that are innate to us and from which private knowledge can be deduced. The forms of rational cognition are the concept, judgment and inference. The philosophical discipline that studies the forms and laws of rational knowledge is called logic.

The second tradition, which explains the nature of true knowledge, is called empiricism. The philosophers representing it deny the existence of innate knowledge and are generally skeptical about the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge on the basis of reason alone. Those proofs of the existence of ideal objects given by Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and other rationalists are not at all convincing for other philosophers and scientists and do not always agree with the data that are discovered in the course of the development of science. The dynamics of scientific knowledge and the periodically occurring revolutions in the nature of human thinking indicate that absolutely reliable and unchanging truths do not exist even in mathematics, which is perceived by rationalists as an ideal. An example is the emergence of non-Euclidean geometry, in which there are theorems that are not true in classical geometry.
These doubts about the reliability of the rationalist theory of knowledge have prompted many philosophers to search for such explanations that would contain the answer to the question of where we get our knowledge from and what degree of reliability this knowledge possesses. As the basis and source of human knowledge, these philosophers take the data of sensory perception and on this basis they try to explain any other knowledge. The theory of knowledge, which considers sensory experience to be the source of knowledge, is called empirical.
Empirical philosophy appeared and was developed in England and the USA - countries in which material values ​​and practical interests were in the first place. In the states of continental Europe with a rich philosophical history, such as Germany, France and Russia, on the contrary, rationalistic philosophy dominated. The beginning of empiricism was laid by the industrial revolution in England, which began in the 17th century and was a powerful stimulus for the development of experimental natural science. Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and other scientists who laid the foundations of scientific and technological knowledge that are still used today did not set themselves the goal of discovering absolute and indubitable truths about the world. They solved quite specific practical problems and in the course of this formulated plausible hypotheses about the world around them, some of which were confirmed and received the status of theories, while the rest were supplanted by competing explanations.
With the accumulation of natural scientific knowledge about the world, a need arose for philosophical theories that would contain an explanation of the process of cognition in terms of sensory experience. The first such theory was proposed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) - an English statesman and philosopher, the author of the famous saying: "Knowledge is power, and he who masters knowledge will become powerful." But the most consistent criticism of rationalism is found in John Locke's An Essay on Human Understanding. In this work, Locke tries to prove that we have no innate ideas, and that all knowledge comes from impressions received from the senses. The human mind from birth can be likened to a blank slate (tabula rasa), devoid of any images of ideas. And only in the course of life, on the basis of experience acquired either with the help of the senses, or by observation inner world man acquires knowledge about the world. According to Locke, there are only two sources of knowledge: sensory perception and self-observation (reflection). Only in this case do we have sufficient grounds to be sure that this knowledge is true and that objects outside us correspond to it.
The initial form of sensory cognition is the sensations that arise as a result of the impact of objective reality on the sense organs. The most important types of sensation are visual, tactile and auditory. They deliver information about the color, temperature, density of external objects. The second form of sensory cognition - perception - provides a holistic reflection of the objects of the real world, primarily their shape, size, location. The most complex form of individual sensory reflection is a representation that acts as an image of a previously perceived object or phenomenon.
The main drawback of the empirical approach to the explanation of cognition is that feelings bring us knowledge about individual objects and individual properties of these objects. Relations between things, the nature of many processes remains beyond the possibilities of sensory knowledge. This is especially noticeable when analyzing causal relationships between events. English philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) convincingly proved that the succession of one event after another does not mean at all that the previous event is the cause of the next one. The contingency and sequence of two or more events, perceived by us in a sensual way, is not yet proof of the existence of causal relationships between them. What we take for such connections is nothing else. Like our mental skills and habits. Since the principle of causality is of key importance in explaining the events taking place in the world, Hume's criticism had far-reaching consequences and led to an increase in skepticism regarding the possibility of not only rational, but also empirical substantiation of true knowledge. Earlier, the philosopher and bishop of the Anglican Church George Berkeley (1685-1753) showed that the qualities obtained with the help of the senses - color, sound, form - are subjective, because nothing indicates that these qualities belong to external objects.
Thus, the question of what we humans can know reliably about the internal and external world is unresolvable from the extreme positions of rationalistic and empirical theories. Francis Bacon, the founder of English empiricism, drew attention to this with the help of the allegories "the path of the ant", "the path of the spider" and "the path of the bee".
The "Way of the Ant" is a method of extreme empiricism, characterized by a simple collection of facts obtained on the basis of sensory impressions, without their systematization and comprehension.
The Way of the Spider illustrates well the method of radical rationalism which attempts to deduce knowledge from a few innate ideas. In this he is like a spider weaving a web of material that he himself produces.
"The Way of the Bee" removes the extremes of empiricism and rationalism and is a two-stage process of cognition: the senses provide data on the properties of objects, which are then processed by the mind using the methods and principles of theoretical thinking.
Bertrand Russell, an English mathematician and philosopher, rightly noted that no one has yet been able to develop a theory of knowledge that would be logically consistent and at the same time inspire confidence in its reliability. The actual course of knowledge is complex and contradictory, but the impressive achievements of natural science over the past fifty years have become possible, including thanks to the ongoing attempts of scientists and philosophers to create a compromise theory of knowledge, which would combine the positions of empiricism and rationalism.

75. L.N. Tolstoy loved Buffon's saying "Genius is patience." On the other hand, V.G. Belinsky wrote: "Genius is not, as Buffon said, patience in the highest degree, because patience is a virtue of mediocrity."

Which of them is right? Or is there another answer?

76. :

A. One mind is good, but two is better.

B. One bad general is better than two good ones.

77. Judge:

A. People stop thinking when they stop reading. ( D. Diderot)

- Give a detailed answer.

78. What is stupidity? Give examples of stupidity in words and deeds.

79. One famous person (Socrates) claimed: "I know that I know nothing." Another no less famous person (D. I. Mendeleev) objected to him: “The ancient Greek sage said: I know that I don’t know anything. Yes, he didn’t know, but we know ...” (“Fundamentals of Chemistry”)

80. How do you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A. The truth is good, but happiness is better.

B. Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer.

81. There are five states of knowledge and ignorance:

1. when we know what we know

2. when we know we don't know

3. when we don't know what we know

4. when we don't know we don't know

5. when we don't know, but we think we know (when ignorance is presented as knowledge).

Give examples of each of these states.

82. Try to explain: What are the similarities and differences between truth and truth?

83. Try to explain: What is the difference between knowledge and belief? (By faith is meant faith in general, not religious faith.)

84. What is truth ? - Try to give an answer without looking into textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias.

85. How do you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A. Everything is known in comparison.

B. Comparison is always lame. (Janusz Korczak, a well-known teacher, said even more sharply: "Let's discard comparisons, they are misleading").

86. :

A. “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow” (biblical preacher Ecclesiastes).

B. “Knowledge is power” (F. Bacon) (compare similar: “to know more today means to be stronger tomorrow” - E. Teller).

87. Some consider intuition the highest form of knowledge, others - an atavism inherited from animals.

And what do you think? Give a detailed answer.

88. Comment on the following statement coming from Hegel:

There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete.

- Give a detailed answer, give examples.

89. What is the essence of the dilemma "scientism - antiscientism", is it possible to solve it? *

Give a detailed answer.

90. A. Einstein stated: "Only theory decides what we manage to observe!". I. P. Pavlov spoke about the same thing: “If you don’t have ideas in your head, then you won’t see the facts.”

- What did they mean? Give a detailed answer.

91. Who do you think is right? Comment

A .: “... works of art should not be created for study and not for guild scientists, but they ... should be understandable and serve as an object of enjoyment directly in themselves. For art exists not for a small vicious circle, not for a few very educated people, but in general for the whole people.” (Hegel. Work. T. XII. P. 280) [Compare: “Art belongs to the people” (V.I. Lenin)]

B.: “The principle “art for all” is deeply false. It reveals a false democratization. “Art for all” does not at all imply the necessary clarity and simplicity, that would be fine - no, it contains the disastrous demand for cutting down the growth of the master to the level of contemporary ignorance and bad taste, the demand for “general accessibility”, alphabetic and usefulness. Art never speaks to the crowd, to the masses, it speaks to the individual, in the deep and hidden recesses of his soul.

Art should be “for everyone”, but by no means for everyone. Only then will it preserve the relation of individuality to individuality, which is the meaning of art, in contrast to other crafts that serve the tastes and needs of the multitude.” (M. Voloshin. Notes of 1917)

92. Ancient philosophers put forward the motto "Question everything." What did they mean? How can this motto be interpreted?

Miscellaneous

93. Do you believe in fate? What is fate?

94. What is, according to you, a parable? Two examples:

A. (The Parable of the Samaritan) "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and, tempting Him, said: Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

And he said to him, What is written in the law? how do you read? He answered and said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.

Jesus said to him: you answered correctly; do so and you will live.

But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbor?

Jesus said to this: a certain man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho and was caught by robbers, who took off his clothes, wounded him and left, leaving him barely alive. By chance, a priest was walking along that road and, seeing him, passed by. Likewise, the Levite, being at that place, approached, looked, and passed by. But a certain Samaritan, passing by, found him, and, seeing him, had compassion. And he came up and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine; and putting him on his donkey, he brought him to an inn and took care of him (...) Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the one who fell into the robbers?

He said: Who showed him mercy. Then Jesus said to him: Go, and you do the same" (Gospel of Luke 10; 25-37).

B. (The parable “Buridan's donkey”) A certain philosopher, whose name was Buridan, leaving, left his donkey two identical armfuls of hay. The donkey could not decide which armful to start with and starved to death.

95. Comment

“When a war begins, the truth must be considered the first victim” (R. Kipling)

96. Comment on the following statement:

“Everything needs a measure, even in keeping it.”

97. Which of the two opinions suits you better? Why?

A. “Truth is not in strength, but strength is in truth.”

B. “He who is stronger is right” (option: “The strong one is always right”).

98. What is wrong with the following statement:

“With them it is humane to be cruel, cruel to be human” (this is what Catherine de Medici, the mother of the French king Charles IX, said in justification of the massacre of the Huguenots on Bartholomew's night).

99. What is the inconsistency, logical incorrectness of the following reasoning:

"Pleasure is the opposite of love, and not because it cannot accompany love, but because their essence is different (for example, the object of love can grow old, love does not, it is timeless)" (quote from the book).

100. Is Bismarck right when he says: "Only fools learn from their own experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." - Rate and comment.

101. How would you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A. "... nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion" (Hegel. Works. T. VIII. S. 23-24)

B. "Strong passions - weak nerves" (from the movie). Or: “Under strong passions, only a weak will often hides” (V. O. Klyuchevsky).

- Give a detailed answer.

102. Comment on how correct the use of the words “materialist” and “idealist” is in the following joke:

An elderly couple gets divorced in court.

The judge asks her husband about the reasons for the divorce.

The husband replies that the reasons are purely philosophical and explains that he is a materialist, and the wife is an idealist.

The wife enters into the conversation: “I gave him all my romantic sublime soul, and he says that he needs a young body.”

103. How do you explain the apparent contradiction between the two statements:

A. Not what you think, nature,

Not a cast, not a soulless face -

It has a soul, it has freedom,

It has love, it has language. ( F. I. Tyutchev)

B. There is no beauty in the desert. Beauty in the soul of an Arab.

(A. M. Gorky)

104. Is the statement correct:

“We do not notice the beautiful until we lose it” (from the movie).

- Give a detailed answer.

105. What does the expression mean"golden mean"? Give examples explaining this expression.

VII. THE PROBLEM OF IMPROVEMENT HUMAN. IS IT POSSIBLE?

dissatisfaction with existence

What it is, in principle, is clear to everyone. You can, of course, analyze this phenomenon, single out its various types: dissatisfaction with oneself, others, one's place in society and well-being, dissatisfaction with superiors, the government, the state, humanity, the entire sublunar world, etc.

You can consider various causes, emotional and intellectual manifestations of discontent, its connection with the opposite state of contentment (satisfaction, complacency, cheerful attitude, etc.), to say that there are happy or self-satisfied people, blessed, "not of this world" etc. But in this case it is not necessary. No matter how pleased a person is, discontent always nests in him, smolders, grumbles, and sometimes growls, swells and rages. All this is well known to us from life experience, from history, from fiction.

Of course, in many cases, dissatisfaction has clear everyday, psychological, moral or social reasons, it is a completely natural reaction, which is expressed by regret, indignation, condemnation, despair, not only criticism, but actions. It is a source of creative impulses, revolutions, a thirst for the transformation of life.

We are, however, interested in the deeper foundations of discontent, embedded in the very nature of man, which philosophers have been thinking about since ancient times. And not only meaningful negative and positive properties human nature, but also some inescapable, not entirely clear desire to overcome oneself. “Man is not satisfied with himself,” wrote Karl Jaspers. “Something incommensurable with his daily existence, his knowledge and the spiritual world lives in him.” And if we pose the problem of human improvement, then a serious discussion inevitably plunges us into a broader and extremely complex context - about the improvement of mankind, earthly civilization.

Is it even possible? Whom to improve, all or the chosen ones? What to improve? Who can and should do it? By what means, methods? And most importantly: why, for what? Here is a short list of questions to consider.

At the same time, it is necessary to highlight the various tasks and levels of human improvement. It is one thing to change individual functional properties ( ability development, memory, will, etc.), the other - moral qualities. It is worth distinguishing between improving oneself in “natural” ways (due to willpower, perseverance, tireless work) or using technical and medical means for this.

The situation is different when a person himself achieves a result or when he enlists the help of others; and sometimes a person relies entirely on others, on someone's mighty power, or even on a lucky chance, not to mention faith in God's mercy.

Let's start simple.

Phenomenal personalities

In connection with the recent Olympic Games, we can recall the American Ray Urey - the greatest athlete of the 20th century, the winner of three Olympic Games in a row in the long jump, high jump and triple jump. In early childhood, Rei Yuuri suffered from cerebral palsy and was confined to a wheelchair. His parents did everything possible for him. But in vain. No hope for recovery! The only thing the doctor once advised was to move your fingers and toes as often as possible, move your limbs as much as possible. The boy took these words literally, he trained his arms and legs incessantly, to the point of complete exhaustion, day after day. It is difficult to understand how a five-year-old kid could have such perseverance, such strength. And one day the day came when he was able to get up without help. Encouraged by this success, he continued to train with even greater perseverance. The next task was to take a few steps and go to the window to watch the neighborhood children play.

With colossal patience, perseverance, little Ray learned what children were given from birth: to walk, run, jump. Many years of incessant training made him strong and flexible. At 23, he first took part in sports competitions. And at the age of 27 he became the winner at the Olympics in Paris. Ray Urey has 10 Olympic victories.

A similar example of overcoming a seemingly incurable disease was set by our compatriot Valentin Dikul, who later achieved outstanding success in powerlifting and, based on his experience, revived dozens of people doomed to a deep disability to normal life.

Many facts are known when it was faith and will, strength and courage of spirit that allowed a person to overcome an incurable disease, survive in unimaginably difficult conditions, endure incredible suffering. This is wonderfully shown by Viktor Frankl, who investigated the problem of survival in a fascist concentration camp.

Another example, however, of a slightly different kind, but directly related to our topic, is my friend with almost thirty years of experience, Honored Artist of Russia Yuri Gavrilovich Gorny (Yashkov). I have experimented with him many times, attended his public speeches, analyzed the facts, and I can testify with full confidence about the unique abilities of this man.

Demonstrating his "psychological experiments", Yuri Gorny in a crowded hall for a thousand seats blindfolded, without contact with the inductor (unlike Wolf Messing) finds a hidden needle in two or three minutes, then a book, determines the page conceived in it, the line , word and letter and sticks a needle into it. But this is far from the most interesting number of Yuri Gorny. He demonstrates unique patterns of working and long-term memory, memorizing twenty scattered cards with numbers in two seconds, raising a two-digit number to a high power with lightning speed, and calculating the sum of many three-digit numbers that are pronounced one after another. He remembers the entire text of the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary (30 thousand titles), and when any page is called to him, he immediately reproduces all the articles placed on it. He knows how to introduce himself into a state of catalepsy and get out of it, while maintaining conscious regulation, to reproduce blindfolded drawings presented to him, to demonstrate the number of the famous Harry Houdini complicated by him (liberation from chains, handcuffs, ropes entangling him in conditions of complete cessation of breathing). But the most interesting and surprising thing (which, as far as I know, no one in the world does) is the simultaneous execution of five or six different things (reading a poem given to him and identifying, say, the 131st letter in it, playing the piano with one hand, writing a sentence to another, counting the sum of numbers that one member of the jury says of his choice, perception of the text read by another). These phenomenal abilities are of great interest to psychologists and brain researchers.

The psychological experiments of Yuri Gorny testify to colossal functional resources of the human psyche. There is no doubt that a person can achieve high development, improve cognitive and physical abilities, expand the possibilities of psychoregulation, control his physicality. There is nothing to argue about. The question is to whom and to what extent it can do it. Great achievements are demonstrated by yogis, a hundred or two outstanding personalities possessed by champion passions; several million have achieved major success in improving one or another functional ability (among them are athletes, representatives of circus art, etc.). And billions are at the average or low level, although very many, of course, have the abilities that allow them to be very successful in their chosen kind of activity, and even more simply failed to realize them.

Of course, under the slogan “Most of all, farthest, fastest of all!” you can learn a lot. Only it is unlikely to be a genuine elevation of man. All functional achievements of this kind do not have direct links with moral qualities, and can be used for base, selfish and criminal purposes. Nor do they have direct connections with truly creative abilities: they can either assist them or hinder them. The latter are equally morally indeterminate. Unfortunately, genius and villainy can go hand in hand.

Now, more than ever, there is a question about the meaning of creativity. Why and what to do? The frantic race of innovations in all areas - from consumer goods and mass culture to weapons systems - leads to an uncontrolled increase in problems, a heap of inauthentic needs that absorb wasted energy and time of life, to the erosion and loss of the true meanings of life and activity. Hence the acute question: what needs to be improved first of all, where is the key link?

Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine that the entire adult population of the Earth suddenly acquired the abilities of Yuri Gorny, retaining their current moral qualities, needs, personal and political goals. That would be "fun" on our planet! What would await us then? You can think for yourself.

The key element of self-improvement is the moral and ideological qualities that determine the main goals and methods of human activity, the meaning of its existence. Here we come to the broader context of the improvement problem discussed above.

Human nature and communism

Dissatisfaction with human nature is the flip side of dissatisfaction with the way society works. The intellectual history of mankind is permeated with condemnations of the social structure and projects for its transformation, on the path of which "human nature" has always stood.

Without going into a detailed analysis of this concept, I note that “human nature” means a set of stable properties of a social individual that are invariant with respect to different historical eras, ethnic groups, social and state structures. And this indicates their conditionality by the biological organization of man. They are formed on the basis of genetic factors and vary under the influence of external conditions - physical and social.

Taken individually and in combination, these properties relate to the needs, drives, inclinations, abilities, forms of behavior and human activities. In moral terms, they can be viewed from the angle of the opposite qualities of egoism and altruism. We can agree with the most common formulation that the nature of man biosocial , realizing a clear account of its biological basis.

The most grandiose attempt to transform man and society was the communist project in the USSR. It failed because of its contradiction to human nature. The insufficiency of the degree of altruism of the mass man for the set goal, the inconsistency of the idea of ​​creating a “new man” through “communist education” (although, of course, there were many rational moments in the latter), was clearly manifested.

The Marxist-Leninist ideology in the USSR was, as you know, ultra-sociological character, denied even the slightest influence of biological, genetic factors on the formation of personality, swept aside everything that contradicted the idea of ​​remaking a person and his complete control by the state. Hence, by the way, the defeat of genetics and the dominance of Lysenkoism. The Party and the government can and must remake and re-educate man, for his nature is exclusively social. Human selfishness and all the abominations are the result of an exploitative society, private ownership of the means of production. If exploitation is done away with, then communist morality will win, because the new society will not suppress human nature, as has been the case for many centuries since the days of the slave system. This was the theoretical setting. We know what came of it.

It is useful to recall the earlier communist experiences on a much smaller scale, in which good intentions and very persistent actions could not overcome the selfishness of human nature.The most striking example is the first Christian communities. “Primitive Christianity,” writes E. Renan, can be characterized “as heroic effort fight against selfishness... "(Renan Ernest. Apostles. St. Petersburg, 1991, p. 106 - my italics - D.D.).

The first Christian community in Jerusalem existed for about three years. “For nascent Christianity,” continues E. Renan, “it was a rare, unparalleled success that its first experiences of living together—essentially communist—collapsed so soon. Experiments of this kind always give rise to such blatant abuses that all communist organizations were doomed in advance to a quick death or to an equally quick renunciation of the principle that created them” (ibid., p. 115).

It was a rare stroke of luck that this community fell as a result of the persecution of 1937, and not from the inner turmoil that was already making itself felt. Therefore, it remained in the memory of Christianity as a wonderful example of human community, the moral purity of its founders and participants. Speaking about the fact that the “fall of the Jerusalem church” nevertheless began, E. Renan continues: “Such is common property institutions based on communism. Brilliant at first, because communism is always preceded by high exaltation, they quickly degenerate, because communism is contrary to human nature. At the moment of the rise of his good aspirations, a person considers himself able to completely renounce egoism and personal interests, but egoism avenges itself, proving that complete disinterestedness gives rise to even more serious troubles than those who thought to avoid by abolishing property ”(ibid. , p. 165).

Subsequently, the Church Fathers began to soften moral requirements, the Church decisively cut off the extremes of the Montanists and other sects that demanded sinlessness, complete disinterestedness from a Christian. She showed realism, understanding of human nature and thereby opened the doors to the broad masses; the latter inevitably, according to Renan, "lowered the moral temperature to the level of possibility" (Renan Ernest. Marcus Aurelius and the end of the ancient world. St. Petersburg, 1991, p. 133). Now the church “had also an average morality, suitable for everyone and not necessarily leading to the end of the world, like the morality of those who mortify the flesh” (ibid.); “A simple believer needs to be repeatedly admitted to repentance. Therefore it was recognized that it was possible to be a member of the church without being either a hero or an ascetic, and that for this it was sufficient to obey one's bishop. The saints will cry out, there will be no end to the struggle of personal holiness and hierarchy; but the average people will prevail; it will be possible to sin without ceasing to be a Christian” (ibid., p. 134; italics mine – D.D.).

The fact is that along with the irresistible power of the egoistic principle in human nature, there is an equally indestructible altruistic principle in it - virtuous intentions and actions, mutual assistance, friendship, fidelity, selflessness. The altruistic principle is also inherent in us by biological evolution; it served as an indispensable condition for human survival. It is deeply disclosed by the outstanding domestic geneticist Vladimir-rum Pavlovich Efroimson in his famous work "Genealogy of Altruism". The question is what is the ratio of altruism and egoism in human nature, how it manifests itself at the level of individuals and at the level of all mankind.

Superman: F. Nietzsche and V. Solovyov

When the question is raised about the improvement, the elevation of man, the touchstone is immediately the phenomenon of "mass man". This phenomenon became the subject of close attention in the second half of the 10th century.Iof the tenth century, when in Western Europe a man of the masses confidently entered the public arena as a result of the development of market relations, democratic forms public life, education, press, communications. The mass man most clearly exposes the negative aspects of human nature.

AND here, first of all, we must remember Friedrich Nietzsche with his idea of ​​the "superman". It grows in him from the sharpest criticism of the mass man, his base motives and habits, his primitive beliefs and self-deception, deceitful morality, the insignificance and meaninglessness of everyday existence, his complacency and his annoyance with himself, his self-praise and self-abasement. Man is "something that has failed." "We're tired of the man." “The time of the most contemptible man is approaching, who can no longer despise himself.” Contempt and hatred for a person are “arrows of longing for the other shore.” "Man is something that must be transcended." We are on the way to the superman (Nietzsche F. Works in two volumes. M., 1990. T. 2, p. 10–11) .

At first, Nietzsche thought of this path as purely evolutionary. “All beings have hitherto created something higher than themselves; and you want to be the ebb of this great wave and return to the state of the beast rather than surpass man? What is a monkey in relation to man? A laughing stock or a painful shame. And the same should be the person for the superman - a laughing stock or a painful shame ”(Ibid., p. 8).

In the future, Nietzsche changes his position somewhat. Man was and remains the crown of biological development. The point is the transformation of his spirit, which begins with "an hour of great contempt" for himself. An intermediate stage on the way to the superman is the "higher people" who survived the "hour of great contempt", broke ties with the ideals of modern society. These are “more spiritual people of the era”, striving to overcome the “spirit of heaviness”, which kills the thirst for life in a person. They have a special vitality, perseverance in the fight against themselves, faith in the possibility and necessity of self-improvement. They forge the road to the superman, steadily elevate their personality and achieve a great goal.

As we can see, the project of the superman, proclaimed by Nietzsche, is very abstract, does not contain any new real methods for transforming a person. And therefore does not create serious hopes for its actual implementation. Nevertheless, the idea of ​​a superman caused a great resonance in Western culture and received a very wide response in Russia. It turned out to be consonant with the moods of many Russian intellectuals who were experiencing at the end of XIFrom the 10th to the beginning of the 20th century, an acute attack of discontent, disappointment with a person and humanity, who passionately wanted to improve, elevate a person and his life. Philosophical and literary journals of that time were full of reflections, discussions, "teachings" and projects regarding the superman and superhumanity, "the highest type of man", "God-man".

Nietzsche is often compared with Vladimir Solovyov, who also proclaimed the idea of ​​a superman, but on a religious basis, in contrast to the atheist Nietzsche. The leitmotif of V. Solovyov's doctrine of the superman is the overcoming of death, the achievement of personal immortality. For Nietzsche, personal immortality is the greatest lie Christianity", "the most despicable of all unfulfillable promises". However, they still have much in common in understanding the troubles of human life, in understanding the tasks of elevation, transformation of man.

According to V. Solovyov, people by their nature tend to strive for the ideal of the superman and, consequently, for immortality. But an empty, meaningless life is unworthy of immortality, a person needs spiritual work of self-exaltation, persistent development of the divine principle in his soul, overcoming selfishness and conceit. This is the path of ascent to immortality, i.e. superman, and that is only the God-man.

It is interesting that in the beginning V. Solovyov, like Nietzsche, spoke about the need to transform the biological organization as a condition for overcoming death. Such a transformation should allegedly lead to the emergence of a new, androgynous human type, representing the unity, the synthesis of male and female principles. In this way, integrity, the ideal fullness of a person is achieved, which opens the way to the kingdom of God. But in later works, V. Solovyov denies the need for biological reorganization. After all, it was also created by God and does not need to be changed in order to ascend to God-manhood. The divine principle is inherent in every human soul, and insofar as V. Solovyov insists, every person is already a God-man. Here, there is a noticeable discrepancy between the potential and the God-man who has become. Moreover, according to V. Solovyov, a person cannot become a superman only on the basis of his strengths and aspirations, i.e. God-man. It requires the power and will of God. Otherwise, nothing will work out, no matter how hard a person tries, no matter how he exalts and improves himself. It turns out that ultimately everything depends on the will of God. (And Nietzsche's superman is declared the Antichrist).

V. Solovyov's project is conceived as a kind of historical process of man's ascent to God and God's descent to man. But it is also extremely abstract and, moreover, contradictory; it does not contain, in my opinion, anything fundamentally new in comparison with what has already been said many times in religious philosophy and theological literature.

Yes, in human nature there is a striving for the best, the highest, for the ideal, but there are no sufficient grounds to declare it a divine principle, because it can manifest itself in too many different ways, including in a devilish execution. Here, what is often desired is presented as reality, and good intentions lead to the opposite results. And a clarification is required: what exactly is the “best”, “higher”, what is the specific meaning of the “ideal”, what does it lead to. For different people, for different peoples, in different eras, the content of these concepts differs greatly. And why only the best properties of human nature are attributed a divine character. And the worst? Isn't the Creator responsible for his creation?

But we will not delve into all these ups and downs. For two thousand years, Christianity has been instructing, admonishing, educating a person, “bringing” him closer to the kingdom of God. And what are the results? Let us therefore try to remain on the basis of historical experience and scientific approaches to explaining the nature of man and the formation of personality.

Personality

and society:

biosocial problems

The positive and negative properties of human nature require consideration in two ways: 1) as inherent in many people (all people); here they are taken in a general form and 2) as inherent in a given individual; here they are individualized according to their character and degree of manifestation their mutual influences. Of course, these plans are closely related. The improvement of society is unthinkable without the improvement of the individual, but the inverse relationship is also obvious.

What is the reason for the repetition from century to century among different peoples of approximately the same human types and forms of social organization? Over the foreseeable period of history, human nature has not changed much. This is how extensive materials about the people of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, ancient Greek and Roman sources allow us to think, in which the people of that time with their interests, deeds, concerns, passions, actions are so vividly depicted. Reading "Characters" by Theophrastus, you are amazed at the amazing similarity: almost two and a half thousand years have passed, but people have not changed - all the same human types and the same forms of behavior. We find confirmation of this in Plato, Tacitus and Augustine, in outstanding philosophers, psychologists, historians of various eras and peoples. This recurrence cannot be explained without referring to the biological organization of man, which determines his deep mental properties. They have developed in the course of biological evolution and anthropogenesis and therefore are so stable.

The main thing in the problem of human improvement is a change in the negative properties of his nature (primarily irrepressible consumerism, aggressiveness towards one's own kind and towards oneself). Required as much as possible realistic approach, a deep scientific study of the reasons for the extraordinary strength and persistence of these negative properties, a more thorough understanding of the “arrangement” of the value-semantic and active-volitional structures of the psyche associated with these negative properties, the mechanisms of their rootedness in the unconscious sphere.

Until now, our various spiritual mentors promise the elevation of a person through religious education, enlightenment of the masses, they assure that a person can be weaned, brought to reason, that most of us are able to overcome the insatiable consumer and egoist in ourselves. But what about billions of people who live at the mercy of their instincts, needs and drives? And what about those who act as educators of the masses, preachers of morality, who also live by satisfying their needs and inclinations, ready to teach anyone but themselves?

The transformation of man is tantamount to the transformation of society. All the basic social structures and functions known to us are due precisely to human nature, which is clearly manifested in such a social institution as the state with its functions of ordering and coercion. The history of mankind represents a boundless multitude and variety of events, but a very meager set of forms of organizing social life (types of government, ways to achieve political goals, etc.).

What interests us here is precisely that common thing that has been reproduced in all ages among different peoples. And we see distinct structural and functional invariants, and not only at the level of types of state structure (personal power - the king, king, etc., oligarchy, democracy, their variations, combinations) and interstate, international relations(wars, alliances, etc.), but also in the field of government tactics, typical political games, conflicts, methods of balancing interests and eliminating opponents in the struggle for power (for example, quasi-democratic institutions who covered unlimited personal power - the Roman Senate under the Caesars, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, etc.; such a method of reprisal against political opponents as declaring them "enemies of the people" under Tiberius, Robespierre, Stalin, etc. and so on.).

Such invariants are precisely due to the properties that express the nature of man. These properties are inherent in different people to varying degrees, but they are invariably rooted in the bowels of our psyche and are not only negative, but also positive.

Historical experience allows us to believe that it is the uniqueness of the individual's genetic properties, their variations that largely determine the appearance of the individual. This, of course, does not mean that we are talking about some kind of unambiguous dependence. It is probabilistic, its degree is adjusted by the conditions and influences of the social environment, upbringing, the position of a person in society. However, taking into account this dependence is very important, especially when elucidating altruistic and egoistic in the structure of consciousness of a given individual.

Such a perspective of research is very important, for example, for a historian, especially in cases where a person has unlimited power. We see this with Suetonius in his "Life of the Twelve Caesars" (M., 1965), where he always specifically dwells on those properties of the ruler that are supposed to be innate, data from nature. Here is what he writes about Nero: “Insolence, lust, licentiousness, stinginess, his cruelty at first manifested itself gradually and imperceptibly, like youthful hobbies, but even then it was clear to everyone that these vices were from nature, and not from age” (p. .158). The blatant immorality of Nero is one of the worst historical examples of inhumanity.

The gallery of the Roman Caesars creates a unique material for understanding human nature, for the latter is clearly manifested precisely in conditions of unlimited personal power and permissiveness. Of all the Caesars (there were about a hundred and fifty) who ruled Rome for 519 years (although many of them - no more than a year, or even a month), we meet about ten people who retained high moral qualities. Two of them are truly examples of true humanity, who have confirmed with their whole lives that high moral values, in spite of everything, really exist, that altruistic motives are a force capable of triumphing over egoism and passions. They are Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

About the first of them, the ancient historian Julius Kapitolin writes that he “was soft, generous, did not encroach on someone else's; with all this, he had a good sense of proportion and the absence of any vanity. He was by nature very merciful and during his reign did not commit a single cruel act. A detailed description of the exceptional human qualities of Antoninus Pius is given by Marcus Aurelius, adopted by him and who became emperor after him (See: Marcus Aurelius. Reflections. St. Petersburg, 2003, p. 60–61).

Since childhood, having learned the principles of Stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius strove to strictly follow them. But this was still far from determining his moral character. Here is what a connoisseur of that time, Ernest Renan, says about him: “The consequence of this strict philosophy could be coldness and cruelty. But it is here that it manifests itself in all its splendor rare natural kindness Marcus Aurelius. He is only strict with himself. The fruit of such tension of the soul is boundless benevolence. All his life he tried to repay good for evil ”(Renan Ernest. Marcus Aurelius and the end of the ancient world, p. 15 - my italics - D.D.).

And then Renan expresses an important idea that the high altruistic qualities of a person in such a rare concentration are not necessarily associated with any religion, philosophy, ethical teaching, that they have deeper roots: “Marcus Aurelius was most pious of men, not because he was a pagan, but because he was the most perfect man . He was a celebration of human nature and not any particular religion. Whatever religious and philosophical upheavals may be in the future, its greatness will not suffer in the least, because it is entirely based on the fact that it will never perish - on the superiority of the heart ”(ibid., p. 17 - my italics - D.D.).

The image of Marcus Aurelius and his life provide abundant food for thought about altruism and selfishness, about human nature. After all, Nero youth studied Stoic philosophy under Seneca, who was his mentor for many years. But all his efforts went to waste. People perform altruistic acts, but very few are able to constantly maintain a willingness to do good deeds in spite of their needs and interests.

What nourished the forces of Marcus Aurelius, what supported the energy of this infinitely kind heart? Undoubtedly, one of the necessary conditions here was a happy combination of inherited genetic inclinations. They determine the outstanding degree of good-heartedness to the same extent as brilliant abilities (see: Efroimson V.P. Genius and genetics. M., Russkiy Mir, 1998). And therefore such people are as rare as brilliant poets. Probably, we can talk not only about brilliant poets, writers, scientists, but also about the geniuses of kindness, who have exceptional altruistic abilities.

Dependencies of this kind are also known in opposite cases - pathological egoism, shamelessness, shamelessness, entailing the gravest criminal acts. IN last years the press often reported on all sorts of maniacs. In relation to them, forensic medical examination and special studies make it possible to detect certain genetic anomalies in a number of cases.

When it comes to the psyche, the line between normal and pathological is often blurred. However, we know that a considerable number of those whose psyche does not go beyond the limits of the norm demonstrate extreme degrees of selfishness, indifference, insensitivity to the needs and sufferings of another person.

Involuntarily, the well-known experiments with rats come to mind. When one rat is shocked and squeals in pain, some of the nearby rats refuse to eat. The other part eats without paying attention; but if they are subjected to a similar procedure, then they also stop eating. However, a large part of the rats eat themselves calmly under any circumstances. These differences, as researchers have shown, are genetically determined in certain proportions.

In people, we see a wide range of specific correlations between their altruistic and egoistic inclinations, abilities, and actions.

Personality is a product of three types of determinations: 1) genetic factors; 2) external influences (physical, biological and social; the latter, especially education, are, of course, of paramount importance) and, finally, what is often left in the shade; 3) self-determination ( self-assertion, self-education, free will).These three types of determinations are relatively autonomous, they are, of course, connected, but not reducible to each other. The moral monsters are well known, vile bastards who received an excellent education, lived in excellent conditions, and had excellent educators; and vice versa: people who lived in the most difficult social conditions, uneducated, earned their bread by hard work, but retained a sensitive conscience, kindness, nobility.

A special role in the formation of personality is played by self-education, self-assertion, development of the will. Thinking about egoism and altruism, about their often bizarre combinations in one and the same person, we must take into account all three types of determinations. It is important to keep this in mind when trying to assess the balance of altruistic and egoistic manifestations both in the actions of an individual and in the life of human communities.

Moral progress?

The perfection of man means the attainment of moral progress. Is it possible? Is it permissible to speak of moral progress in the development of civilization?

Most of the thinkers who discussed these questions strongly denied the existence of moral progress. Such conclusions were based, of course, on a comparison of the moral state of society in different eras and peoples. But who and how assessed the moral state of society in this period? Usually such a mission was carried out by philosophers, poets, writers, historians of their time on the basis of observations, reflections, their own life experience, analysis of mass events, taking into account the opinions of contemporaries. The unfavorable state of morals in society is determined by the spread of immoral phenomena among a very large number of people, and especially at the top, which allows us to talk about typical negative phenomena, about the dominant behavioral traits and inclinations of an immoral nature. In a number of respects, assessments of this kind are approximate, too subjective, and sometimes concern only the upper strata of society.

Criticism of morals is a favorite pastime not only of great thinkers, outstanding poets, but also of the townsfolk. Those who left us written testimonies about the mores of their time often have strong personal antipathies, complexes that increase the critical tone, and even obvious compensation for their own selfish aspirations (extreme egoism in another is hated by an extreme egoist). But we have no other sources. We are forced to rely on these testimonies, trying to give preference to those authors who have proven themselves to be decent people and striving for objectivity.

Let's start with Pliny the Younger, who lived about two thousand years ago (I will quote the "Letters of Pliny the Younger" (M., 1983), indicating the appropriate pages for those who would like to see these places). Here is how he characterizes his contemporaries. They are searching and deceitful (p. 61), value wealth most of all (p. 15), cherish their own and careless with others (p. 70), they are fans of success, not justice (p. 90), slaves of the moment, one cannot rely on them, they are ungrateful and do not remember the good (p. 44), they are pleased to denigrate their neighbor (p. 9-10). And here are the reviews of Pliny about the courts, lawyers and senators. In this environment, it has long been customary to profit by any unclean means and trade in conscience (p. 92). It is difficult to count on the triumph of justice in the Senate when considering cases. Senators are a dissolute crowd that has no respect either for themselves or for the place where they sit (p. 58-59); they will not be ashamed to punish a petty thief in order to shield the big figures of real criminals (p. 49). What associations do you have, reader?!

And one more place from Pliny, which seems to be about today: “People have been seized with such a passion for profit that, apparently, they are more under the power of their property than they themselves own it” (p. 173). We find no less striking characteristics of the Roman society of the era of the Caesars in the multitude of Sallust, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Cicero and Julius Caesar himself in his Notes on the Gallic War.

Now fast forward a thousand years. And let's turn this time to the poetic forms of assessing the moral state of society.

Lies and malice rule the world.

Conscience is strangled, the truth is poisoned,

the law is dead, the honor is killed,

obscene deeds are innumerable.

Locked, closed doors

Kindness, love and faith.

Wisdom teaches today:

steal and cheat!

A friend in need leaves a friend

wife lies on her husband,

and trades brother brother.

That's what debauchery reigns!

What a time it is!

No order, no peace

and the Lord's son is with us

crucified again - for the umpteenth time!

This was written in the middle of the 12th century by the famous poet of his time, Primate Hugh of Orleans, who had a great influence on the work of the Vagantes. Maybe he is too emotional and exaggerates? But here is another poem created at the same time by another outstanding poet Walter of Châtillon, who was one of the most educated people of his time, studied law in Bologna, taught at the monastery school in Châtillon, was in the service at the court of Henry II, carried out orders from the French king in England, i.e. possessed a broad life material and horizons for reflection and generalizations:

Lost faith

hope has died.

Makes a career

Rogue and ignoramus.

Know, miserable wanderer:

Each pastor is

someone's nephew

or a friend!

You're worrying for nothing!

In a world of perfidy

You can advance

only by acquaintance.

In an honest man

Anger ripened great:

or given forever

the power of a despicable clique?

Cunning rules the world!

A world of enmity and theft!

A world where the Antichrist himself

Christ on guard!

And, finally, it is difficult to refrain from quoting a few more lines from a poem by a Vagant poet, whose name remains unknown; it was written by him over 800 years ago:

Those from whom he receives

it stands out in particular:

put it in your paw - you'll go up,

but if you don't, you'll be lost!

Everything in the world is for sale

Everyone gives in to debauchery.

A thief wants to become a saint?

Sun - and the conversation is over!

Oshalevshi from wealth,

Simon grabs the abbey

and to your friends - look! -

Distributes monasteries.

How familiar! The Vagant poets have much that is curious in this respect, and one could quote them further. But let's move forward another 300-400 years. Here we meet Machiavelli with his "History of Florence", Montaigne, and somewhat later La Rochefoucauld, who paint us approximately the same picture of the state of public morality. It is not difficult to cite similar and very colorful evidence from XVIII centuries with their refrain "man is a wolf to man". And, as they say, further - everywhere: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, classical Russian literature, etc.

The development of European civilization powders the lowly, selfish in the guise of the layman and the elite, creates new "intelligent" ways to disguise lies, hypocrisy, shamelessness, teaches observance of external decency, the ability to "keep a shade of nobility even in meanness." But it is unlikely that European civilization, even in its best periods, gives reason to speak of moral progress.

Revolutions and wars of the twentieth century, unprecedented in their scale in human history, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hitler's and Stalin's concentration camps, the genocide of entire nations, the period of the Cold War under the threat of the atomic bomb and the self-destruction of mankind - all this puts an end to the arguments about moral progress. Our time does not add anything new here, but rather exacerbates the pessimistic attitude.

Has there been a moral regression?

There was no moral progress and there is not! But the question remains: is moral regression taking place? A considerable number of philosophers, writers, journalists readily answer it in the affirmative. In my opinion, however, conclusions of this kind look unfounded. Let's consider this in more detail.

For that in order to assert the existence of a moral regress, evidence is needed that in previous eras the moral level of society was higher. Is there such evidence? On what basis do they conclude that things are worse now than before?

Usually, for this purpose, they refer to the blatant mass facts of immorality and the growth of crime, i.e. use purely factual arguments. No criteria for comparison with the past are used, there is no question, of course, of any statistics. Television and the press are systematically pumping up "darkness", speculating on the instincts of the mass subject in order to increase the rating. The writing and broadcasting brethren especially love to savor moral negativity, guided not only by ratings, but also by their inner, often unconscious motives, not suspecting that they betray their own low moral level. All this contributes to maintaining the plausibility of the conclusions about moral regression.

Meanwhile, such ways of arguing and presenting reality to us by the media only beat the age-old exclamation “Oh, times, oh, morals!”. The density of the facts of immorality and crime was in other centuries. Now there are much more people on Earth, and, therefore, there are much more such facts. They hit in the eye, but virtue is modest, hardly noticeable. The mass of "small" and "medium" (so to speak) virtuous deeds has always been quite large. And today it is probably no less. Don't each of us face them every day? But in what way can they be taken into account as opposed to vile egoism, immorality? I'm not talking about high-ranking virtuous deeds that require selflessness and self-sacrifice. After all, they are also present in our lives today.

There are no sufficient grounds for the conclusion about moral regression!

But if we are inclined to deny moral regression and deny moral progress, then this must mean that the level of social morality remains approximately the same, it fluctuates at different times and among different peoples around a certain average value, and does not fundamentally change. Such a conclusion is consistent with the immutability of human nature in the foreseeable period of the existence of civilization.

There remains one point that makes one think: the comparison of morality in communities of primitive type and in civilized communities. If we keep in mind the observance of simple moral norms (and they are the universal basis of any morality), then such a comparison will clearly not be in favor of civilized communities. Accustomed to duplicity, their representatives have repeatedly noted, for example, openness, honesty, loyalty to the word, truthfulness, loyalty in friendship, and the courage of the American Indians. Of great interest in this regard is the study of the lifestyle of the Papuans, conducted by N.N. Miklouho-Maclay. He puts them morally higher than the bulk of civilized people, emphasizes the corrupting influence on them of the "benefits of civilization." Numerous studies of the lifestyle of tribes that were at a low level of development are known, which confirm such conclusions. Here we must remember J.Zh. Rousseau, who was one of the first to try to justify the negative impact of civilization on morality. Proponents of this position believe that human nature was originally "good", but it was spoiled by civilization, which put an end to the "golden age" of mankind.

Such a thesis, however, is not entirely clear. The morality of primitive man, due to the narrow and almost unchanged range of needs, activities and communication, was also very limited. Limited in the sense that it included a relatively small set of vital altruistic qualities, fixed in instincts and customs and well balanced with selfish aspirations. Miklouho-Maclay has wonderful examples in this regard, when it would seem that the most acute conflicts associated with jealousy, betrayal of his wife, which at first had a stormy character, were soon easily resolved for the benefit of the community through a compromise. However, he also noted cases where the selfish principle prevailed, when, for example, two Papuans from a neighboring village conspired to kill him in order to profit from his things - so there is no need to idealize the morality of the community members.

In addition, communities of this type themselves are very diverse in their altruistic and egoistic characteristics. Some of them were not as peaceful and friendly as those among whom Miklouho-Maclay lived, they were distinguished by militancy, cruelty, extreme "egoism" towards their neighbors, and even practiced cannibalism. So with the recognition of moral regression, even in the narrow plan indicated above, as we see, not everything is unambiguous.

And yet, in primitive communities, we mainly observe the optimal type of balance of selfish and altruistic motives and actions that was necessary for the joint struggle for survival. In this sense, the nature of primitive man was "good." For that lifestyle! In those conditions! But since then, since anthropogenesis has already ended, it has not changed significantly, but only deployed its potentialities. in new conditions, multiplying the assortment of egoistic and altruistic aspirations and varying the forms of their balance.

After private property was established, social stratification of the community took place, property inequality increased, a power elite arose, the egoistic principle gained powerful energy and could no longer be balanced altruistic regulators of the behavior of individuals (as it was in the primitive community), which led to sharp destructive conflicts. Therefore, along with altruistic political, legal and economic means of regulation arose that played a leading role in maintaining this balance in society.

The entire history of earthly civilization proceeded in the form of a state system, performing functions of coercion, coordination of interests, maintenance of a certain measure of stability of social life, i.e., in the end, the same balance of selfish and altruistic aspirations and actions.

This balance must be considered in two ways. In the first case, we are talking about an individual and mass subject, i.e. about the entire population that makes up a given ethnic group, people, all the inhabitants of a given country. If you look from this angle, then, as already noted, the nature of this balance in different eras and among different peoples did not change significantly. However, the understanding of social self-organization involves considering not only the individual, collective, mass, but also institutional entity which requires special attention. This is due to the fact that institutional subjects - political, legal, economic, various public organizations, and finally, the state and the church - are able to concentrate value and volitional aspirations to a high degree, as well as material resources and create a cumulative effect in the formation of goals and the implementation of mass actions.

In primitive communities, there were actually no institutional subjects. They arose with the dawn of civilization; and in the process of its development they acquired an increasing number, variety and strength. The activities of institutional entities are determined by the relevant programs, main tasks; and although they are composed of individuals and pursue the interests of certain groups and individuals, their structure, organs and activities are largely independent of specific individuals, which, in principle, are interchangeable.

However, institutional subjects, like individual and collective ones, inevitably combine egoistic and altruistic actions in different proportions and forms.One thing is a charitable foundation pursuing purely altruistic goals, another is a large PR company. But the former also has competitive relations with various organizations and its own narrow interests, while the latter, not too burdened with moral obligations, can perform real (and not proclaimed) altruistic actions if they coincide with its interests and are desirable for its clients.

Extraordinary Diversity institutional subjects in modern society is the same variety of combinations of altruistic and selfish aspirations inherent in them. It is clear that social development and the moral atmosphere in society are determined by the main, leading, most powerful organizations in terms of structure and functions, in terms of their political, industrial and financial status. This is, first of all, the state with its multimillion-dollar bureaucracy and law enforcement agencies, political parties, religious institutions, the largest industrial and financial associations, institutions of science and art, and, of course, institutional entities that control the means of mass communications.

Functions social institutions, their activities are regulated by fairly strict rules. But all these functions are performed by people. And we are aware of cases when a house collapses and its inhabitants die due to the fact that once in the construction organization that erected it, one worker, due to his lack of conscience and irresponsibility, poorly welded the panels. And how are things in the state apparatus with its corrupt officials? Probably, if there were more conscientious, honest people in it, we would have already solved many painful problems. And what about our police, and the courts, other law enforcement agencies? I'm not talking about the extreme selfishness of the owners of large corporations, who in a few years have "put together" billions of dollars of capital and continue to double and quadruple it by any means. All this again testifies to the fact that the moral state of society ultimately depends precisely on the virtue of individuals.

As for economic institutional actors, their activities (both in our country and elsewhere) are, as a rule, dominated by pure egoism, which contributes to growth of selfishness other social subjects. The mass media make a “significant contribution” to this process, inciting consumer appetites and selfish instincts. It must also be said that the leaders and active figures of institutional subjects, primarily economic and political ones, are people with a high energy of self-affirmation aimed at achieving success - success at all costs. They can to some extent deflect the actions of the institutional subject in the direction of their personal interests, which is also capable of raising the egoistic tone of society. Undoubtedly, over the past decades, developed countries there is a noticeable increase in selfish tendencies. But this still does not give grounds for an unambiguous conclusion about moral regression, since similar negative phenomena have existed before, only on a smaller scale.

Let us now take these questions in a broader sense. Suppose our or another state acts towards its citizens out of altruistic motives (which, of course, is largely doubtful). But in relation to other states, it, no doubt, acts as an inveterate egoist (at best, according to the canons of "reasonable egoism"). And this is not canceled by any "friendship", "alliances" and "partnerships". It protects its "national interests" by all means. This is generally accepted, although it is often covered up by equally generally accepted altruistic demagogy.

The main problem today is that social development has brought us face to face with the most dangerous view egoism rooted in human nature - the egoism of all states, of all mankind in relation to living nature and nature in general. So much has been written and said about this that it is difficult to add anything. So far, however, there are no signs of slowing down the rapidly growing environmental crisis.

If the ecological crisis continues to deepen at the current pace, then we should expect powerful cataclysms that can cover large regions and acquire a global character. And just as in an extreme situation (fires, catastrophes, etc.) the instinct of self-preservation prevails in most people and only a few show selflessness, in the conditions of such cataclysms the fragile balance of egoistic and altruistic principles can be irreversibly disturbed. And then the moral regression will show its real, terrifying face.

Once again about the "mass man"

In order to overcome the ecological crisis and solve other global problems of our time, it is necessary to change the mass consciousness, at least some of its properties. We need to change the "mass man". The ubiquitous "mass man" is self-willed, self-confident, looks at his educators with a grin, he has gained such strength that he already lives in each of us. Culture is increasingly becoming the culture of the mass man; the authorities, the press, television curry favor with him, the Internet has become his patrimony. Even Nietzsche wrote about the cultural figures of his time: “Now is the age of the masses: they crawl on their belly before everything mass” (Nietzsche F. Works in two volumes. M., 1990. Vol. 2, p. 360).

But since then, the "mass man" has changed significantly. In 1930 a book by H. Ortega y Gasset"The Revolt of the Masses", in which he analyzed in detail the phenomenon of the "mass man". According to him, a mass person cannot be identified with the lower strata of society, with a semi-literate, downtrodden mass, this is not a representative of an estate, a class, but a certain type of person, common among all classes, including among the intelligentsia and the aristocracy. It is characterized by certain intellectual, motivational and moral traits. Their list is roughly as follows. The “unbridled growth of life lusts” is inherent in the mass man, he is very selfish and “full of worries about himself - about his entertainment, about his clothes”, he is not particularly constrained by high standards of morality, does not know how to subordinate his desires, pleasures to them, does what what you want, "without trying to correct and improve yourself." He is very active - “imposes his will and his tastes on the whole society”, “climbs into everything, imposing his vulgar opinion” (“vulgar philistine souls ... boldly declare their right to vulgarity”), “does not recognize anyone as elder and higher” (I I think, except for the highest ranks, especially those on whom it depends). He is a man of "ready-made opinions", is committed to the cult of strength, does not tolerate those who are not like him, ousts them from his personal, business, official environment.

Ortega y Gasset contrasts the mass man with people of a higher type, the "selected minority", which is also found among all classes: among aristocrats and among proletarians. Their hallmark is their commitment moral duty, responsibility, striving for higher meanings, nobility. “The 'Chosen One' is not at all 'important', i.e. one who considers himself superior to others, and a person who is more demanding of himself than of others.“The hallmark of nobility is not rights, not privileges, but duties, demands on oneself.”

Of course, the given Ortega y Gasset the signs and distinctions of these two types of people are hardly capable of withstanding rigorous analysis. In reality, things are more complicated, not so one-dimensional. But in the first approximation, his estimates are quite acceptable. True, in the almost 80 years that have passed since the release of The Revolt of the Masses, the mass man has acquired new features. His awareness, education, energy of self-affirmation greatly increased, he became almost the main figure in all the highest spheres of public life. His internal differentiation has sharply increased: the mass man is now a janitor, and a small trader, and a professor, and an oligarch, and a political leader, and, of course, a writer. Difficult to agree with Ortega y Gasset when he defines a mass person as an average, ordinary person who does not feel in himself any special gift and difference from everyone and is not at all upset by this. Modern mass man is ambitious, full of selfish sense of his exclusivity, competitive envy, readiness to distinguish himself from everyone. Many representatives of this type have an undoubted natural gift, have achieved success, passionately want to be the best, richest, most famous, amaze us with their consumer appetite, their cars, palaces, yachts, luxury. The press, television, the Internet are tools and personifications of the mass man, his psychology has permeated all strata of society, our intellectual elite is overwhelmingly the flesh of the flesh of the mass man or his cunning servant - otherwise you will not become popular, you will not earn decent money. The mass man triumphs in culture, politics, economics, he orders music.

And yet there are, have been and will be “chosen ones”. Likhachev, Sakharov, Rostropovich, V. Ginzburg, many not so eminent and completely unknown people from different strata of society, despite everything, retaining a sensitive conscience, nobility, high thoughts, spiritual generosity, goodwill, disinterested readiness to serve the people, humanity. And there are many, so to speak, partially “chosen ones”, those who are trying to escape from the embrace of the mass man, moving away from him, and those who are approaching him, combine both - peacefully, habitually, or reproach for it, and even hates himself.

It is rather difficult to draw a portrait of a mass person in his current Russian form. These are ordinary workers, many millions, earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brows, barely making ends meet, and business workers, wealthy to a small and large extent, and thousands of thousands of officials of various ranks, but this is also ours, as it is called, intellectual elite - a host of journalists, writers, artists, priests, politicians, etc. The latter have their own characteristics. For the most part, they are “promoters” of the mass man, bear his official seal, know well what he needs, skillfully indulge his instincts, tastes, and whims. They are the main producers of modern culture.

Ortega y Gasset also noted “ dominating the position that the spiritual plebs have now occupied in public life. What would he say today? Current Creators mass culture they do not just cultivate their field, they seek to belittle the great cultural heritage of Russia, created by geniuses, grumble and scoff at their address, imagine themselves to be geniuses and find understanding among their vast audience. Capable, energetic, shorthand, greedy mediocrity, possessing communicative gift, now occupies the highest places in culture.

Here is a recent example sociological survey population. From it we learned that our best singer is Dima Bilan. When asked who is now the largest writer in Russia, the vast majority answered: Daria Dontsova. Not Solzhenitsyn, for example, but Daria Dontsova! And herself she has no doubts about it. She has only one criterion. circulation. In an interview with Nedelya, where the results of this survey were published, she declares with inimitable arrogance that thanks to the profit she brings, the publishing house publishes unnecessary "all sorts of small books of all sorts of Akhmatovs." And after all, no one objected, did not put her in her place.

How to improve such a mass person if he himself cannot and does not want to do this? Naturally, he is not devoid of altruistic qualities. And he, of course, has a great demand for health, family well-being, happiness and good luck, for a guarantee against all sorts of misfortunes. All this he is offered to buy by various commercial structures and individuals. Among them in the first place are specialists in occult services. Approximately 400 thousand magicians, sorcerers, shamans, psychics, all kinds of healers, soothsayers, astrologers practice in Russia (the data, however, are seven years old; now they have become a little less due to strong competition and the emergence of many firms, "Centers", "Schools" , "Institutes" and, of course, "Academies" of black and white magic). It is clear that the number of their customers is in the millions. This is a huge market with billions of dollars in turnover. There is something to buy the press, television, "advanced intellectuals." One could cite a large number of names of titled artists, writers, journalists, and even some doctors of science who support occult practices out of conviction or in an effort to expose their exclusivity, some kind of involvement with higher powers. The press is replete with advertisements of guaranteed love spells and lapels, instant removal of damage, the “crown of celibacy”; in one session of magic, you will be provided with high potency, “punishment of offenders”, “implantation of fortune on the line of fate”, “transfer of good luck and wealth from a photo”, a cure for any diseases, etc. Russia is a wonderland! But in the West, all this is in abundance, although not on such a scale.

The extreme prevalence of occult services is an indicator of the state of mass consciousness. It has ineradicable hope in a wise, almighty mentor, steward, savior - he needs to pray or pay, and he will fix everything, improve, regulate (improve). So the seemingly respectable newspaper Izvestia publishes astrological horoscopes every day, and once a week - so on a whole page. For the sake of psychological interest, I sometimes read them. The regular astrologer of Izvestia is pushing, inventing instructions, because you need to instruct twelve times every day, and each sign has its own.

What a cheap rubbish! (I can't help but give an example:"Cancer. If you feel that you are hoarse, and the sonorous voice has been replaced by wheezing, then it's time to arrange a day off for your vocal cords. Switching to a whisper and replacing long speeches with short remarks will help to avoid worsening the situation and visit an ENT doctor "- newspaper issue dated 07/29/2008). The editor-in-chief is asked: why do you need this? Inconvenient after all, such a newspaper. He answers: for circulation. The interest of the mass man always takes precedence over dignity, truth, moral responsibility, and even over elementary common sense.

If we return to the above list of properties of a mass person, which are presented Ortega y Gasset, we will see that he was generally right. The famous Spanish philosopher also spoke of the "isolation of the mass soul." It is squeezed by egoism, the horizon of practical interests. The same “stiffness” is typical for the thought of “advanced intellectuals” who flicker on television screens, competing in “advancement”, in “righteousness” and criticism, in flowery turns and “jokes”, striving at all costs to satisfy their lush ambitions, but it is obligatory, at any cost, to please the masses, to please them, which means to succeed. We have a democracy, if you get the majority of votes, you are the winner and the torch of thought, you are right, because the mass man, the "people" is always right. The opinion of the masses turns out to be the main criterion of reality.

Our culture in its mass guise is increasingly losing its objectively s reality criteria, replacing them right playing the role. In public life, play imitation dominates, everywhere there are solid masks, "grimaces and jumps." Is it because the most interesting, attractive, most popular person - artist. In magazines, newspapers, on television, an exorbitantly large, almost central place is given to artists, the details of their lives, their children, dachas, their favorite food, their dogs and cats, holidays in overseas resorts, and, of course, their novels - everything what the mass falls for. For her, they are the salt of the earth. Irreproachable hypocrisy, the correct performance of the role - both by actors and spectators - is what is accepted by the mass person as real reality. This is facilitated in every possible way by the means of mass communication.

You may ask why I dwelled on the topic of the mass man, spoke for a long time about many well-known things? To highlight the scale of the problem! It is the mass man who is the main object of improvement. How to approach this problem? How to moderate egoism, consumer excitement, aggressiveness of the mass person? Yes, it is necessary to improve its well-being, improve the system of education, upbringing, legislation, change the activities of the mass media, following the lead of the lowest mass preferences and "ratings". You can't argue with these and other common truths repeated every day. But it is obvious that other, more effective means are also needed. Which? So far, no one can give a definite answer to this question. But this does not mean that there are no such funds and that we should sit with our hands folded. We will return to this issue below.

Self-knowledge and

self improvement

The transformation of man requires a much higher degree of self-knowledge. Genuine self-knowledge is not just a reflection of oneself, but a creative factor, it transforms the value-semantic structure of consciousness, forms new goals of activity, serves as a generator of will, spiritual energy. How often do we justify the ancient Roman saying: "I see the best and approve, but I follow the worst." We lack willpower, perseverance, we slip to a lower value level, experiencing remorse, trying to force out the fact of defeat, but convinced of the impossibility of getting rid of the sense of self nestled in the depths of our self insolvency.

What is the essence of this typical discord between the knowledge of the highest value, its acceptance as the most important goal and the inability to realize it? This is one of the main questions of self-knowledge. It is connected with the desire to look into, so to speak, constantly operating in the human soul, the sources of weakness of the spirit, skepticism, refined moral relativism, the ubiquitous, almost generally accepted phenomena of our life, expressed by the aphorism: morality falls on more and more comfortable beds.

Self-knowledge differs significantly from the knowledge of the phenomena of the external world; additional obstacles stand in its way, and above all, defense mechanisms. self-deception. Carl Jung wrote about these difficulties of self-knowledge. He noted that judgments about one's own personality are very unclear. These subjective obscurations of self-judgment are caused by compensation characteristic of each type of personality, which is biologically expedient, as it helps to maintain mental balance. Self-deception is a means of maintaining one's identity and self-worth, its mechanisms are deeply rooted in the unconscious sphere. Freud was partly right when he said that our Ego is not the master in its own house, because there are indeed many dark places and nooks and crannies in it that are not amenable to awareness; it is in them that irrational impulses lurk, imperiously breaking out against our will, among them is that dark lustful principle, about which Plato wrote that it has penetrated the soul and “turns many things upside down with its unreasonable power.” Or in Dostoevsky: "I was horrified by the great idle force, deliberately gone into abomination." How often does man show us the wonders of ambivalence and fragmentation! (It would seem such can never combine, coexist in one person, but it - alas! - combines, coexists).

A realistic understanding of human nature must take into account this paradoxical nature of man, which manifests itself both at the level of the individual and at the level of the people, the masses. Self-knowledge is not only the knowledge of the personality itself, but also the knowledge of another person, the knowledge of the people and mankind. Therefore, self-knowledge involves the study of both individual and social consciousness (collective, national, mass, institutional), clarification of prejudices, creeds, and various manifestations of social mythology.

Self-knowledge, like any kind of knowledge, always faces not only a problem (i.e., knowledge about ignorance of something specific), but ignorance about ignorance. This situation is determined retrospectively. Two hundred years ago, not only did people not know anything about the existence of the electron, or that the increase in solar activity causes an increase in mortality among suffering cardiovascular diseases, but did not know, did not suspect that they did not know it. And they were calm in this respect. I call this situation of not knowing about not knowing pre-problem or stage peace of mind- we have no question, this unknown is unknown to us and does not bother us. Now we also do not suspect about the many things that affect us, about the innermost things that live, last, take on new forms, die, disperse into dust right now, next to me and in me. I don't know it, I don't feel it, and it doesn't exist for me. But how can it not exist for me if it happens in me too? I may not know that I carry 100,000 kilometers of vascular channels in my body, I may not know and do not know what exactly is happening in billion neurons my brain when I think and suffer. This is unlikely to affect my moral choice. But what about in those cases when I do not know that I am the creator of evil and my conscience is calm. Desiring to affirm the good, making every effort to achieve a good goal, a person sometimes comes to such a result that crosses out the moral meaning of his life, plunges him into horror and despair. But if I am unable to know the consequences of my actions, how can I be held responsible for them? These are the problems and paradoxes of self-knowledge. Their foundations are also rooted in human nature.

Philosophers and poets have long paid attention to a blatant gap between the knowledge of external phenomena and self-knowledge, on an acute deficit of self-knowledge. "I know everything but myself." This catchphrase of Francois Villon is extremely relevant today. However, the point is not only in knowledge, but also in practical activities conditioned by the nature of knowledge. Here, too, we see a colossal gap: the transformation of the external world is incomparable with self-transformation person. Throughout the history of earthly civilization, the gigantic energy of cognition and activity has been directed precisely into the external world, and only an insignificant part of it has been directed towards self-knowledge and self-transformation. I call it fundamental asymmetry in cognitive and transformative action person. Unrestrained expansion into the outside world is the cause of the ecological crisis, and with it other global problems of the earth's civilization.

Meanwhile, even an elementary analysis shows the necessary dependence of knowledge and transformation of the external world (its goals, methods and results) on self-knowledge. The weakness of the latter inauthentic goals of knowledge and transformation of the external world, narrows the range of creative possibilities, leads to an increase in the negative consequences of activity, because too often a person does not know what he is doing, and if he knows that he is doing evil, he cannot stop, overcome his selfish aspirations and his weakness. This fatal asymmetry has deep and powerful biological roots.

The psyche of animals arose as a result of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution, it is very detailed, multifaceted and promptly displays it. external environment and only summarily and in fragmentary manifestations reflects it internal environment, internal activities of the organism. This is understandable. The external environment is unstable, fraught with unexpected changes that threaten death, requires immediate adequate display, quick response. The internal environment is relatively stable, its management at the cellular, organ and interorgan levels has been carefully worked out over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, it is carried out as if automatically, reliably coordinated with the nature of external actions. Accordingly, the mental activity of the animal, its actions completely focused on the outside world, and this activity is turned inward only to a very small extent. Thus, the psyche of the animal reveals a clear asymmetry. And, this is normal for him in view of the fact that his needs are constant, clearly defined by the genetic program, and thus the objects of his environment, goals and methods of action are rather rigidly set.

A person with his consciousness, although representing a qualitatively new level of development of the psyche, retains its fundamental biological properties. Consciousness initially bears this asymmetry and sharply deepens it. The whole history of mankind speaks about this. The meager results of self-knowledge and self-transformation compared with the knowledge and transformation of the external world. Man, having consciousness, continues to act like an animal.

But if an animal, having a weak and stable energy potential limited by its biochemical processes, did not violate, but, on the contrary, maintained the ecological balance, then a person who developed productive and technological activity thanks to his mind reached such an energy power that destroys the earth's ecological system, and he cannot stop in this suicidal activity of his. There is a clear paradox here: the deep biological principle of human nature leads to the destruction of all terrestrial biological self-organization, to self-destruction. A gloomy analogy arises between the attitude of human society to the system of earthly life, on the one hand, and the attitude of a cancerous tumor to human body, - with another. A cancerous tumor is a neoplasm consisting of extremely rapidly developing and multiplying cells that consume energy and matter from their environment of normal cells and thereby destroy it; this leads to the death of the organism, and with it the tumor itself dies (suicide!).

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human nature, fundamental asymmetry in his cognitive and practical activities . The consequence of this fundamental asymmetry was and remains a colossal waste of vital energy for inauthentic purposes, darkness meaningful landmarks of mankind, the growth of absurdity in personal and public life, the gap between knowledge and will, a pervasive tendency to self-deception as a way to maintain one's identity and self-worth. (Nowhere does a person reach such creative heights as in sophisticated self-deception!). And, of course, this asymmetry serves as an inexhaustible source of selfish impulses and actions.

MaybeIs it possible to overcome this fundamental asymmetry at all, while remaining a biological being? Is man able to limit his unrestrained expansion into the outside world? Will he have enough fortitude and sufficient means to curb the powerful biological intention inherent in him?

Let me first make a few general considerations. The prognosis of the fatal outcome that we so often hear about is a hasty product of the neurotic consciousness. It means a complete loss of faith in the mind, in the creative possibilities of man, i.e. complete loss of human dignity. Now, when we find ourselves in a situation of a rigid alternative, in a situation struggle for survival direct action of this uncompromising biological law, one can expect a sharp intensification of efforts in self-knowledge and self-transformation in solving environmental problems.

We should be encouraged that throughout their long history, living beings have shown miracles of adaptation and adaptability, generated new resources of resilience and survived in incredibly difficult conditions. And we, after all, are also living beings, having, however, an immeasurably wider creative range and much more diverse means of adaptation than animals. A biological system has a fundamental ability voltage forces in extreme conditions, their concentration in a specific narrow channel for the realization of the goal, which is clearly visible in animals with a developed psyche at the moment when their life is endangered. In humans, such a purposeful increase in activity appears in the form of a solid faith in achieving the vital goal and strengthening will, that nurture creativity. In this regard, we need to talk about creativity of faith and will.

Historical experience has repeatedly demonstrated that it was faith and will, fortitude, creative discovery that were the decisive factors in victory, achieving the desired goal in seemingly hopeless situations. (How much factual material on this subject is given by the Great Patriotic War! And to what a small extent it is used by psychologists and those who are trying to investigate the phenomenon of fortitude, mental and moral tension!).

Therefore, we must first of all, by all means, in spite of everything, strengthen our faith and will - the guarantee of human dignity and vitality, resolutely resist nihilism, skepticism and despondency, that euphoria " destructiveness” and “catastrophism”, which is now being whipped up and fed by a noticeable part of the intellectual elite. In the contradictory nature of man, along with negative properties, and even through them, there is an immutable striving towards the affirmation of life and opposition to death. This deep source of creativity is still able to have its say.

I realize that the above judgments are too abstract. But repeating them now is extremely important. If we lose faith and will, good creative energy, then earthly civilization is doomed. The problems facing her are of a fateful nature, the ways to solve them are far from a clear understanding. But, I think many of us firmly believe that a solution is possible. This faith and courage of spirit are the necessary conditions for maintaining an optimistic outlook and finding a way out. Moreover, in recent decades, significant breakthroughs in self-knowledge have been achieved, namely: in the knowledge of the biological nature of man.

For the degree of human improvement that the solution of environmental and other global problems requires, sufficient facilities. They can be created and are being created only on the path and as a result of scientific and technological development. Yes, we heard a lot of talk that all the troubles of our civilization come from science, that it is not capable of solving human problems. What can you offer in return?!

N B I C

This is the abbreviation in Western literature for four megatechnologies, on which the fate of our civilization depends.These are nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, informational technologies and cognitive technologies that closely interact and fertilize each other, creating unprecedented, truly grandiose opportunities for transforming nature, society and man. The scope of the article does not allow to cover this topic in detail. Therefore, I will confine myself to some general points and a few examples.

Nanotechnologyopen new horizons of knowledge and construction of the phenomena of the microworld. Microscopes have been created that allow one to see individual molecules and their components, and not only see, but systematically operate them, construct new microstructures (more precisely, nanostructures) from individual atoms, build molecular machines and nanorobots. Recently, a DNA molecule has been artificially formed for the first time. Work on the creation of a living cell is being completed. The genomes of two prominent geneticists have been deciphered, with their consent, James Watson (one of the discoverers of the DNA code) and Craig Venter. This allows you to find the genes responsible for many individual characteristics of a person, including his mental properties. The famous program "Human Genome" is practically completed, over time, the functions of all 30 thousand will be installed. genes contained in the human genome and will appear the opportunity to find out the "genetic formula" of each individual. Fundamentally new perspectives open up biotechnologies, creative design at the biochemical level.

We are entering bioengineering stage of development of earthly civilization. Already, genetic engineering and cell engineering have achieved significant success, in particular, in the field of genome correction by removing from it individual genes that cause hereditary diseases. A striking example of this is the method of removing the mutant p53 gene, which causes one type of cancerous tumor. With the help of this kind of methods, 45 hereditary diseases can be prevented. There are numerous other outstanding results of bioengineering design and construction that cannot be discussed here; their development is capable of qualitatively changing the face of our civilization, since they contain real means of transforming human nature.

Of course, intervention at the genetic level is fraught with enormous risks. But any big business is a big risk. Bioengineering development is irresistible. The wretchedness of the spells of those who would like to stop him is obvious. Undoubtedly, risk issues should be in the forefront in order to control and reduce its level, create insurance and compensatory funds, as has always been done. Reasonable legislative regulation of this activity is necessary, but it is impossible to prohibit it.

The development of biotechnology is closely related not only to nanotechnologies, without which operating at the level of biomolecules and individual genes would be unthinkable, but also with the development of information and cognitive technologies. The rapid development of information technology has penetrated in just a few decades into all pores of social life, creating, without exaggeration, a new type of human society. And this development continues to accelerate. On the agenda are quantum computers and DNA computers, the creation of “thinking” robots that replace humans in the most complex activities, and molecular robots that will perform healing activities inside the body. The ever-wider introduction of sensors, regulators, electronic systems, performing the functions of individual organs and capable of using special programs to control and optimize the functions of the body down to a single cell, moreover, to correct the psychological properties of the personality, since programs that exclude certain actions are quite conceivable (just as they are prohibited by our mental structures developed by education, but not always effective).

I'm not talking about fundamentally new opportunities for education, training, communication, about the prospects for replacing material consumption with information. These and many other exciting prospects, quite real and not so distant, are described in serious scientific literature. They are directly related to the problem of human perfection. Their implementation will also mean the improvement of society, the withering away and reorganization of many of its typical structures and functions, up to, for example, the gradual abolition of the bureaucracy.

A few words about the radical projects for the transformation of man, which have been actively discussed lately. This is about transhumanoids, about the processes of the symbiosis of man and robot, about the gradual replacement of all human organs with artificial ones, as a result of which a person will leave his mortal body, will not need food and air, be afraid of radiation and will be able to gain immortality. This also includes the project of "immortal electronic man", announced by our former compatriot, Professor A. Bolonkin, a prominent specialist in the field of information technology, now living in the United States. These and similar projects (modern variants of the idea of ​​a “superman”!!) proceed from the need for man to overcome his biological organization, since, as their authors believe, life on Earth is doomed due to an inevitable ecological catastrophe. The justifications for such projects of human transformation, despite a number of quite acceptable theoretical assumptions, are largely untenable, contain "promises" that have a touch of fantasy or are really unfulfillable in the coming decades. Earthly civilization is in time trouble, you can not have time. In projects of this kind, it is categorically unacceptable, extremely dangerous, the strategic attitude to the impossibility of overcoming the ecological crisis, to replace the biological civilization with an electronic one. Life is the highest, indisputable value! All the forces of mankind must be directed to its preservation. Information technologies have an exceptionally large transformative potential, but in their assessment it is important to distinguish between real and abstract possibilities.

As for cognitive technologies related to brain and psyche research, their achievements so far are less impressive. However, they have already managed to prove themselves as productive means of solving the problems of bioinformatics, engineering psychology and various types of practical activities. Following the decoding of the human genome, we are on the verge of deciphering the brain neurodynamic codes of mental phenomena. This can equip a person with new powerful means of transforming a person, but at the same time it can lead to a change in the fundamental foundations of interpersonal communications, to a violation of the principle of relative “closedness” of the subjective world of the individual. There will be the possibility of unprecedented control over another person, the "disclosure" of the innermost thoughts, desires, intentions of the individual against her will. It is likely that some will remain "closed". Who exactly, on what basis and why will "open" the rest?

Speaking about the development of four megatechnologies that create the most powerful means of transforming man and society, I am very far from enthusiastic euphoria, I am clearly aware of the scale of the problems generated and that without their resolution or neutralization, it is impossible to truly improve man and society. Moreover, if we fail to carefully, prudently, well-meaningly, fully armed with thorough scientific expertise, use these most powerful tools, then irreparable, disastrous damage may be done to our civilization. What is needed here is a sober, solid position, which at the same time maintains the courage of the spirit and resists panic moods. After all, historical experience testifies that any achievement (industrial, scientific, technical) that raised civilization to a new level always created new formidable problems of the same magnitude (for example, the discovery of intranuclear energy and the creation of an atomic bomb). There is nothing special here: having solved one problem, we must be ready to solve new, even more complex problems that this causes. We see the same thing at the level of the individual. Our existence is always, from beginning to end problematic. These are common truths based on historical experience.

It is clear that the availability of funds alone is not enough to solve the problem. This requires numerous conditions. The powerful means of transforming a person and society, briefly described above, need significant development, are scattered, and are not concentrated by any large structures in order to systematically solve environmental and other global problems (ultimately, in order to systematically transform a person!). Many political, economic, and social conditions have not yet matured in order to clearly set this strategic task and take appropriate actions in order to unite in this respect the efforts of the leading countries of the world, such as the United States, Russia, countries Western Europe, China, India, Japan. While their selfish interests too prevail over the global interests of the earthly civilization. Moreover, we observe a trend of deepening internal conflicts in the world community. The prospects for their mitigation are still extremely vague, despite the developing processes of globalization, which now cover mainly the information sphere, but otherwise express mainly the selfish interests of transnational corporations. But it does not follow from all this that we should limply wait for the necessary conditions to ripen of their own accord. By themselves, they may not ripen at all. Everything is done by individuals, groups of people who create appropriate structures that unite, concentrate efforts, overcome obstacles on the way to solving a certain large-scale problem, starting from a small one. There is no other. (Again, I am forced to repeat commonplaces, as I am convinced that in the current situation this is very important. Arrogance in relation to such simple truths is a well-known form of justification for civil lack of will, "indifference", flabbiness of the spirit under the guise of "arrogance").

Therefore, for all those who are convinced of the urgent need to actively resist the growth of disastrous processes in the earth's civilization, who believe in the real possibility of overcoming them, the time has come for unity and organization. And in the foreground now is the creation of intellectual centers capable of strategically comprehending the paths of those transformations of man and society that are urgently overdue as a result of the environmental crisis and the global problems associated with it. A lot has been written on this topic, but so far there is no deep, responsible, systematic analysis that would allow developing a theoretically substantiated assessment of the bottlenecks and the most dangerous links in the problem, identify real means and conditions for positive shifts, create a program of realistic steps towards its solution, a program which could serve as a basis for critical discussion and improvement and would be a guide to action.

This work must be done for the new generation, for the immediate future, which is now coming too quickly, “imperceptibly”. This kind of center can be created on a voluntary basis, counting on the support of the state (I mean so far our compatriots; Russia, of course, has internal problems, as they say, through the roof; and who does not have them; but since the role of Russia in world processes is high and will no doubt increase, there is hope, however faint, that our current government will find an opportunity to devote some attention and modest means to this). Such centers will undoubtedly be created in all developed countries. Something similar has existed for a long time already in various undeveloped forms. But it is hardly possible to speak of any really significant theoretically and, most importantly, practically purposeful results of their activities.

The transformation of man and society, of course, should be thought of as a gradual and lengthy process involving several stages. According to the calculations of the outstanding scientist N. Moiseev, if everything continues as it is now, we will have about 100 years left. The term is generally considerable, approximately the time for three generations, but on the condition that the rapid development continues NBIC and fruitful use of its results in all areas of society, which will be an opportunity to focus on solving the main problem in a more or less tolerant environment. But the latter, unfortunately, is unlikely. In the next decade, we should expect a sharp intensification of the struggle for energy resources, for water and other sources of life. Already now the primary task is to curb world terrorism, those extremist forces that threaten to plunge humanity into the darkness of barbarism and religious fanaticism. I think that at this first stage, large-scale cataclysms and the use of forceful methods of struggle, up to extreme ones, are inevitable. Regional cataclysms will take on a global shape, further damage will be done to the ecological system, and the problem of not only water, but also air, which is intelligible to everyone, will be added to this. On the western, and on the eastern world as well, the cold of non-existence will perceptibly blow. This is likely to cool the inveterate selfish ardor of the most powerful powers, to clarify the urgent need to unite the main efforts in order to survive. It must be assumed that Russia will play a paramount role in this because of its colossal territory and enormous natural resources.

Of course, other, darker scenarios are possible. However, it is still highly probable - we must believe in it and promote it in every possible way - that the peoples of the largest countries, personifying earthly civilization in both Western and Eastern forms of culture, will be able to unite sufficiently to concentrate efforts to exit from global dead ends. Whatever they say, humanity still has a rather high altruistic potential and the instinct of self-preservation. It has rapidly growing scientific, technological and other resources self-transformation which comprehensively cover genetic, functional-physiological and psychological registers. Development NBIC , directed by intensive humanitarian research and controlled by social expertise, is capable of causing such global socio-economic, structural, organizational and mental transformations that, at least by the end of the century, can form a new type of civilization. It will overcome or effectively block aggressive intentions and consumer desires in their current form.

With regard to the latter, they mean the insatiable appropriation by the individual of an ever-increasing amount of matter and energy in the form of products of production and natural phenomena the root cause of the ecological crisis. However, for the normal functioning of an individual comparatively enough low consumption of matter and energy. At the same time, every need of an individual (for a piece of bread or a diamond necklace) and its satisfaction are informationally mediated. Information is invariant with respect to the real and energy properties of the signal that carries it, i.e. the same information can be embodied and transmitted by signals that are very different in their physical properties. The signal that carries the most valuable information can be completely negligible in terms of its mass and energy. Hence the possibility of enormous savings in matter and energy consumed from external environment, by replacing real objects informational(virtual) in an extremely large area of ​​consumption, the possibility of changing the significance of the very act of consumption, its existential meaning. The realization of such a possibility (observed in a number of cases even now) will be the leading one in a new civilization capable of creating existential meanings and values, preserving those traditional higher meanings and values ​​that have been affirmed by the entire history of mankind.

It is not possible here to dwell in more detail on the description of the probable possibilities for the transformation of man and society; this requires a special analysis and discussion. Many questions, of course, remain debatable and lie outside our current knowledge and understanding of the world - the future, as already noted, always puts us not only in a problematic, but also in a pre-problematic position, replete with such turns that cannot be foreseen. Nevertheless, forecasts are possible and necessary, setting goals depends on them. And to an even greater extent, the struggle for the desired future is necessary.

I believe that the improvement of man and society is a real task, that for this we have and will continue to grow effective means, that many people are ready to devote themselves to this great goal (and there will be more of them), that it is possible to create large structures capable of uniting talented scientists and thinkers, to accumulate sufficient funds to solve this problem.I am fully aware of the limitations of my mind and spiritual horizon, so I have no particular claims. But I think the same about my opponents. I respect business and qualified opponents and without the slightest ambition I am ready to accept their reasonable arguments.

The main thing is that the current state of earthly civilization, the fate of our children and grandchildren, imperiously oblige us not only to speak, but act .

2008.