Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Hm…a familiar ideology. This is essentially a false dilemma. Why instead of?
And the division into I and we is absurd. We is made up of many selves. How will we exist if everyone forgets about I?
A shared life does not exist in the sense you mean. Everyone has their own goals, problems, views and ideals. So when these things are replaced by public interests, this is already a perversion. We can only create conditions for the realization and comfortable life of many selves. We can lend a helping hand if necessary. We have already created a certain system in which each self exists(bad or good is already a separate conversation). But does it destroy someone's self?
And you have a very one-sided view of selfishness. It is useful and necessary, and sometimes solves some problems. The question is only in the degree and in its manifestations. It's hard to imagine a mature person without healthy selfishness.
Society is not made up of I's or we's. It is held together by mutually beneficial relationships between people. In order to improve the overall life, it is not necessary to be guided by the interests of the majority to the detriment of individuals. Totalitarian regimes use such arguments in their propaganda to devalue the lives of individual citizens and force them and others to accept state violence against them. A better life can be achieved by reducing the transaction costs of mutually beneficial relationships between people in society, facilitating trade, business, interaction of people with people and people with the state, ensuring transparency of state activities, its control over society, and creating mechanisms that allow you to quickly and easily correct unfair and irrational laws based on scientific data, high-quality expertise and sociological research.
Society is already Us. And if we are parts of the whole, then we are the whole.
Awareness of this leads to the disappearance of hostility, closeness and disconnection.
But is it necessary if it is contrary to human nature?�
Society consists primarily of individuals who try to achieve happiness in various ways. By acting in their own personal interests, they are doing more good than ever: the butcher sells you meat because he wants to make money, not because he is acting in the public interest (otherwise there is no incentive). Such examples can be given for a long time.
An individual in his life maintains dozens of connections at the same time: the same person can be a husband, a father, an employee in one place and an employer in another, a member of a party, an interest group, or a sect. Therefore, you should not row everyone under one comb.
Schematically, society is not one single circle on paper (as socialists would like to see it), and groups of people are not separate circles, but rather a huge set of circles that intersect with each other.
The “we” society should work only in completely backward countries, when the state cannot provide anything.
I know three examples of the “we” society in Russia:
Subbotniks. It would seem that it is a good idea to clean up your area from garbage, to make your environment better, but, on the other hand, this is the direct responsibility of the district authorities. Why don't they clean up? Instead of subbotniks, I think it is more appropriate to write complaints (this can be done alone).
Stop-ham. Similarly, these people work where the traffic police are powerless.
Pedophile catchers. Similarly, it comes from disbelief in the courts, the authorities, the police, etc.
There are also regular situations when someone stands up for someone on the street… Of course, this all fuels self-esteem, but it doesn't have to work like this.
Unfortunately, many people who want the “we” society look for the problem in the effect, not in the cause. In fact, you need to know your rights and demand from the state that it copes with its direct duties. However, few people know their rights.
Maybe, if you can. Improve everyone's life. You can become an assistant deputy in the local government. You can become a municipal employee
Perhaps it was for this purpose that Christ came, who converted people from building the Matrix-a world dominated by selfish ulterior motives and intentions-to building the Kingdom of God, where righteousness, love, mutual understanding, mutual service, peace and self-sacrifice reign, and so on. Few people responded to His “project”, and those who do not always respond and do not completely follow this “project”, correct it, facilitate it, change it, and so on. All because in this “project” you need to correct yourself, change, strive to be perfect, and this is not a very popular way. Much more attractive are projects where the evil is in someone else and you need to change someone else – Jews, bourgeois, capitalists, destroy them and the world will become brighter.
Here only education and instilling respect for each member of society.
And we are made up of many “I's”. Developing the self helps others around you. The fruit stall was opened by a Tajik, he is an entrepreneur, he is happy with the profit, we are happy with the fruit and so with the rest of the people who inhabit the country.
The most obvious example: the United States and the USSR. Independence, freedom and collectivism. In the US, smart people developed their self and got Microsoft, Apple, Google, and so on, but in the USSR they died in the camps. Where are the USA and the USSR now, from an economic point of view?
Everyone has developed the ” I ” in their own field of activity, so much for the benefit of the whole society.
P.S. Yes, one-sided. Commies, I don't need to write about space, war, and so on. This is just my example, where “we” has fallen apart and ” I ” is redolent.