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?
The origins of this philosophy (and yes, it is a serious modern formalized current of thought) are found in the works of the American-Polish sociologist-Sovietologist Jozef Bohenski and the British logician Galen Strawson. Historically, their work was the result of a polemic with the philosophy of libertarianism, and all together it is a modern stage of the discussion about determinism: whether a person has free will or not. Bohenski and Strauson defend the position of so-called incompatibilism, i.e., non-compliance.e. a person cannot be 100% responsible for his consciousness and external conditions, which means that he can generally remove all responsibility and not be responsible for anything. This teaching developed on fertile ground, when hippies and their children grew up in academic departments, who, on the one hand, picked up the Buddhist ideas that there is nothing, no personality, no connections, no reason, no responsibility, and on the other hand, experienced a crisis when entering the era of consumerism, the growth of consumption in the society of civilized countries with a reduction in communications.�
In the late 1980s, these ideas began to spread from universities to the general public. And the digital revolution, which destroyed the familiar world and proved that a person may not need other people at all for a normal life, and the criteria of human identity themselves can be unrealistically blurred (anonymity in the network, virtual characters) – brought them to the dominant ones all over the world. Of course, they were immediately picked up by marketers (the first to react to changes in society), who began to promote the image of “a strong independent young healthy consumer who is ready to pamper only himself.” Marketers were also followed by personal growth training gurus, who instantly wrote 100,500 books on “psychology” on this topic. The peak of libertarianism in the politics of European countries and incompatibilism in the mass consciousness falls exactly in 2002-2008. The global economic crisis slightly crippled them.
However, all the adherents of the philosophy of “a person owes nothing to anyone” that I know hardly know Bohenski (at most Sviyash, but perish) and at the same time are absolutely sure that they are owed: parents – maintenance, government – scholarships, waiters – efficiency, taxi driver – politeness, friends – tact, media – satisfaction of requests, children – respect, neighbors – silence, etc.And the person who does not owe anything to anyone is only themselves.
When considering the issue objectively, the following conclusions can be drawn : on the one hand, this philosophy reflects the attitude to freedom, the desire to be free from responsibility, and social obligations, but this position also has a downside. This position is very immature and from the point of view of age psychology and is more typical of the adolescent age, the period of rebellion. In social interaction, each person is responsible at least for their own behavior, in some cases for relatives, family members, pets, and this responsibility of a person is his duty, the duty to take care of others. A person is a part of the society in which he lives and develops, and each individual must bring to this society something important and constructive that would contribute to the development of this society. And the position of a person who does not consider it his duty to contribute to the development of society can lead him to isolation from society.
You're exaggerating a bit. “No one owes anyone anything.” Let's get this straight. We owe our underage children and the animals we have tamed. Helping parents is a gift of love and gratitude, basic decency, but not duty. All other “debts” are monetary relations. You pay taxes, the state protects you, protects you, and teaches your children. Believe me, life is easier for those who have realized that no one owes them anything. A person counts only on himself, develops, improves himself. First of all, I don't have to.
In my opinion, this is a very sound philosophy. For a conscious person. Debt, bondage is a negative, destructive, non-resource state. The body does not give a resource for something that does not come from me, for someone else's will. What I owe (and who I owe), I will subconsciously avoid. No matter how much I try to convince myself of the correctness of this attitude, I will only make myself feel more guilty and even more indebted. Accordingly, even greater lack of resources. Etc.
Here it is healthier, in my opinion, to act from excess, from the desire to give and share. And a big internal task is to transfer your accumulated debts (and we are socially based on debt and guilt, this is almost the main moral motivator) into a conscious choice and voluntary desire.
But, I repeat, this is the mechanism of a conscious person, for some it may not work yet, and they will need a strong impact, negative reinforcement, in order to really motivate themselves.
The psychologist Kapranov talks about this a lot and well.
This is one of the tenets of liberalism, the religion of atheism. All liberalism is psychologically based on selfishness, egocentrism.
A simple logical chain:
There is no God, so I am in charge, so I don't owe anyone, so everyone owes me… And it turns out to be a modern liberal society, in which it is impossible to build a family, and the elderly die in nursing homes. The degradation of society to the cave level and below, and it all starts so sweetly: “Love yourself, … you deserve it!”
What is this philosophy of modern people “I don't owe anyone anything”?Where did it come from and who is cultivating it?
———————————————————————————————————
Most likely, this philosophy arose as a continuation of the philosophy of consumption that prevails today in the capitalist world and led the world to epicureanism and hedonism.
Epicureanism is a philosophical doctrine based on the ideas of Epicurus and his followers. According to him, the highest good is considered to be the enjoyment of life, which implies the absence of physical pain and anxiety, as well as getting rid of the fear of death and the gods.
Hedonism (other Greek :δδονή — “pleasure”, “pleasure”) – axiological teaching, according to which pleasure is the highest good and the meaning of life, the only terminal value, while all other values are instrumental, that is, the means to achieve pleasure.
So, the modern worldview is the search for pleasure, enjoyment and, accordingly, the avoidance of any displeasure, but duty just refers to what is not pleasure, but rather self-sacrifice, burden, etc.
It was taken as a natural reaction to the Christian “you have to live your life”, and to a similar implicit thesis in many parenting systems.
That is, on consistent centuries-old systemic efforts to control people through the cultivation of feelings of guilt.�
Until the 19th century, these efforts worked: the vast majority of people were illiterate, and when they were told “you are a sinner because Adam ate an apple, so you must pray and pay tithes” , they stupidly believed it. Well, or “my father and I fed you for 15 years, so pick up a pitchfork and go clean the pigsty.”
The 20th century began to slowly change the situation.�
On the one hand, capitalism, which introduced the idea of “work must be paid at least in some way” to the masses, on the other hand, mass education. And slowly, slowly, people began to try the idea of a “lifetime debt” to T. S. for strength. And some even succeeded.
And suddenly it turned out that not living under the constant burden of guilt and lifelong debt is good for your health (mental), and much more pleasant in everyday life.
Well, since man is still a social being, people who tried out this idea began to popularize it.
It is cultivated by those people who, on the one hand, are uncomfortable with the fact that they are being forced, and on the other hand, have not yet made voluntary commitments.
For example: obviously silly to say “I don't owe you anything” his one-year-old child, but an obligation to feed and water is a subjective voluntary regardless of whether it is dictated by the maternal instinct or love for their child (objectively, it is not entirely voluntary, because the citizen is still obliged to support their child, and it was enshrined in legislation).
–
Sometimes people around us, for some reason, try to force us to do something. For example, to value stability and bonds.�To strengthen their position, they psychologically try to put themselves in the position of “parent” and impose their position through a certain moral duty.
The thesis “I don't owe anyone anything” is quite a good answer to this kind of encroachment.
But this is no longer a philosophy, but a tactical technique.
Where did it come from? From modern Western society. And before this approach to personality in the West was not. Civilization was built by people who owed money – to the family, to God, to the idea, to culture, to education, to duty, to honor, to the motherland. These values formed a certain mindset and intentions. They created and destroyed states, inspired great works, feats, hard work and loyalty to their views.�
In a modern consumer society, such things as values are basically not needed by anyone. Because super-effort, struggle, overcoming-all this is massively left in the past. And it is for Western countries with a high level of consumption. In our country, these things are not dead yet, but they are already on their way – but in poor countries with difficult living conditions, they should have values, they keep afloat and guide us.
Now the main value is the freedom of a person to do whatever he wants, without interfering with others. You can't imagine how many people now seriously believe that they do not owe anyone anything, freedom is the main thing, and all values are relative. This, of course, has nothing to do with objective truth, but is only a sign of the times. But we live in this era of moral relativism, the era of postmodernism and the Internet. And so far, things are exactly like that in society. You should not look up to the majority, it is almost always wrong.