Theses of the general principles of organization. What is a thesis
04.12.2014 01:54
On Thursday, Vladimir Putin delivered his annual address to the Federal Assembly. The beginning and end of his speech were devoted to the new socio-political situation of 2014. Putin traditionally devoted most of his message to the economy, where a lot should also change. His main thesis can be considered the words about the need to maintain national unity and work together for the welfare of the country.
1. Immediately after the opening remarks, Vladimir Putin thanked all the citizens of Russia for demonstrating unity and solidarity during the testing period. He considers it important not only that Russia, in difficult conditions, has shown its ability to protect its compatriots, to uphold truth and justice, but also that the corresponding actions of the state were fully supported by citizens.
Here you can pay attention to the use of not quite legal terms "truth" and "justice". Putin's words once again demonstrate that in Russia the formal bureaucratic categories play a much smaller role than the categories of internal authenticity.
2. Putin called the reunification of Crimea with Russia a historic event. He especially drew attention to the fact that Crimea is not only an important region for Russian history and not only a place where our compatriots live. The President recalled that it was in Crimea that Prince Vladimir was baptized. It was the spiritual soil, according to him, that became the basis of the unity of the people. Thus, the reunification with Crimea, supported by the majority of the country's citizens, received in the mouth of the president not a territorial or defensive meaning, and not even the meaning of restoring justice - it was about unity and spiritual roots.
3. The message could not do without the theme of Ukraine. Putin, on the one hand, noted that Russia has always supported the sovereignty of Ukraine and still supports it, and that Russia has provided and continues to provide significant financial assistance to Ukraine. At the same time, the president considers the methods of the coup d'état that were used in Ukraine unsuitable and senseless. According to him, the ongoing civil war in Ukraine proves that the Ukrainians should have taken a different path. Putin expressed confidence that the people of Ukraine would give an adequate assessment of what had happened.
4. He especially noted the role of "Western partners" in the Ukrainian conflict. He noted that they demonstrated hypocrisy, cynicism and were not in the mood for any dialogue. Since the dialogue failed, Russia will defend its interests unilaterally, Putin said. He stated that Russia would not submit to such a policy, in which the "lower" are considered uneducated and are not considered. Unlike a number of European countries, the concepts of national pride and sovereignty have not been forgotten in Russia, the President noted.
There are two important points to note here. Firstly, the rejection of hypocrisy and cynicism - it would hardly occur to any of the Western leaders to talk about sincerity in politics, and this is important for the Russian president. Secondly, the concept of sovereignty plays a special role for Putin. In his opinion, full-fledged international relations should be based on the principles of mutual respect for sovereign subjects, and not on the principle of setting the rules of the game by the “main player”.
5. Regarding the sanctions applied against Russia, Putin said that it was not at all about Ukraine: if the Ukrainian and Crimean events had not happened, another reason would have been invented. The real reason, in his opinion, is the desire of the United States and its allies to restrain the development of Russia. These Western partners, according to Putin, “would be happy to let us go according to the Yugoslav scenario,” and lately every attempt by Russia to explain or justify itself has only led to more impudence on the part of Western partners. From these words, we can conclude that the Russian state is no longer going to make excuses: if the words of Western partners are hypocritical, and an attempt to reach a compromise leads to an increase in reciprocal impudence, then it is worth looking at things realistically and steadily defending your interests, Putin believes.
6. Part of the message on the foreign policy situation was devoted to two aspects: military and peaceful. Putin recalled the ongoing deployment of the US missile defense system, which, in his opinion, is not only a sign of the desire of this country to dominate without regard for anyone, but also a threat to the security of the whole world. Russia does not plan to get involved in an arms race, but at the same time it will fully ensure its security, Putin said.
As for the peaceful part, Russia, according to the president, intends to consistently defend the diversity of the world and convey the truth to people. The goal will be to gain as many equal partners as possible, both in the east and in the west. Mentioning interaction with Asian countries, Putin once again used the word “sincere”, which is important for him – according to him, many of Russia’s partners in Asia, unlike in other regions, demonstrate precisely a sincere desire to cooperate.
If these words do not remain wishful thinking, then we are talking about creating alternative centers of power, primarily using mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral contacts. Putin expects that at least some countries will prefer this way of building relations to the current policy.
7. Sanctions, according to the president, should become an incentive for the development of the economy and an incentive to work better. Our success should depend on us, not on the market situation, the president said. Ahead of the country is a difficult time, when much will depend on the work of everyone. Putin used the same thesis when speaking about the interaction between the state and business - their goal should be "a common cause."
Another relatively new thesis was the call to all citizens of the country to be more active - both in economic and political life. The state should support this activity, Putin believes. He illustrated this thesis with several examples - in particular, he called for removing barriers for NGOs in the social sphere and continuing to work on removing unnecessary barriers for business, abandoning the principle of total control and checking only on the case. Perhaps this part of the message is the most important, since, according to many experts, it is the problems with showing initiative that are the main reason for low economic growth rates. The question is whether the necessary methods will be found.
8. Within the framework of the concept of cooperation between business and the state for the sake of a common cause, Putin proposed a number of specific measures to support entrepreneurs. In particular, they talked about a 4-year moratorium on any amendments to tax laws and a 3-year moratorium on inspections of those small businesses that have proven themselves. The loudest initiative was the proposal for a complete amnesty for capital returning to Russia: Putin stressed that there should be no law enforcement prosecution against such capital and their owners. But the second such chance to give, according to him, will not be given.
9. At the same time, he proposed restructuring the relationship between business and the state so that it is business that gives advice on what barriers are superfluous, what assistance is required from the state. Business, which understands better what it needs, must convey it to the state, and the state must provide it with conditions for work. In addition, a number of measures were proposed to support domestic producers. For example, Putin suggested that large state-owned companies buy only domestic equipment, if we are not talking about some unique technologies that are not available in Russia.
10. The president ended his message the same way he started: by stating the fact that at a fateful moment the people of Russia demonstrated unity, solidarity and patriotism - and by an expression of confidence that it will continue to be so.
Surely, many readers have come across a situation where an author offered to get acquainted with the thesis of his speech (report), so that the reader could form his own opinion about the ideas proposed by the author. Moreover, some of us in polemics have repeatedly met with the wording “prove the thesis” or “refute the thesis”, sometimes not fully understanding what the thesis is, what it is used for, what are the features of its application. In this material, I will tell you what a thesis is, how to formulate and write an abstract for any material, and what you should pay special attention to when working with it.
The term "thesis" (Greek θέσις - from τίθημι - I put, put) used in quite different areas of human activity. We can meet "thesis" in music, where it is understood as the stressed part of the measure, in literature, where the thesis denotes the part of the foot that does not carry rhythmic stress, or in linguistics, where the theses of the verbal and nominal system are used.
Nevertheless, with all the differentiation in the use of this word, it is most clear what the term "thesis" is in two main interpretations:
- As formulated and summarized main provisions of an article, report, scientific work, etc. (for example, “thesis of the article”);
- As a position (conclusion) that needs to be proven.
Let's take a closer look at each of these interpretations.
Definition 1: The thesis is the quintessence of your material
Those readers who are familiar with scientific activities firsthand have probably met with the presentation of some scientific material in the form of abstracts. Such theses were lapidary, rather concise formulations in which the author sets out the main provisions of his concept (theory).
The totality of such abstracts (usually small in total volume) can also be the basis for creating a voluminous lecture material, they are published in various collections based on the materials of scientific conferences, and so on.
Abstracts based on the materials of one of these conferences
Definition 2: A thesis is a logical conclusion requiring proof
The second part of the interpretation of this term refers us to formal logic, where a thesis is understood as a position that must either be confirmed or refuted. In most cases, such a “position-thesis” is rather shaky, and the person who formulated the thesis is forced to defend his thesis with arguments from other polemicists who want to refute the stated thesis.
In this case, often in opposition to the thesis, an “antithesis” is often formed, containing an opposite (or qualitatively different) understanding of the essence of the issue relative to the original thesis.
How to formulate a thesis?
After we figured out what the thesis means and why it is needed, let's look at the features of the wording of both versions of the thesis.
Formulation of abstracts of any material
When creating abstracts of any material, one should first of all decide whether the abstracts will be created on the basis of existing material, or whether they will become a “conceptual framework” for creating such material in the future.
If we already have the material:
- If we are dealing with an already finished work, for which it is necessary to write abstracts, then it is recommended to re-read the entire work and highlight the most important structural elements in it;
- From each such piece, it is necessary to isolate the most important ideas, and arrange them in the form of a complete clear thought (this will be our theses);
- The totality of such theses should be logically combined with each other, reflecting the general structure of the base text;
- The result of your work will be a small material (article) containing a logical sequence of the main ideas of the material you have analyzed. Acquaintance with these theses should give the reader the opportunity to understand the general concept of the basic material, its main thoughts, structure, and so on.
For example, scientific abstracts usually contain the topic of the work, information about the author, a brief introduction to the topic. The study of this topic, its problems are considered, the goals and objectives of the work, the object and subject of this study, the methods and principles used in the work, etc. are described. Also, information on the main stages of work, conclusion, list of sources used in writing the work, graphics and need).
If the material only needs to be created:
If your theses are a prototype of the future material, then you need to decide on the main ideas of the material, and state them in the theses, observing the potential structure of the future work, its characteristic features, if necessary, use examples that confirm your statements, and so on.
Formulation of the thesis-inference
If we are dealing with the creation of a logical thesis, then when formulating it, it is important to pay attention to the following:
- The thesis should not have the features of a postulate (that is, it should NOT be accepted as an obvious fact, without evidence). Usually the thesis needs to be proved, which opens up rich opportunities for argumentation and various forms of verbal tightrope walking;
- The thesis must have a rigid form (i.e. it must not change during the procedure of its proof or refutation). Changing the essence of the thesis during the procedure of its proof leads to a whole host of logical errors of the “strawman fallacy” level. , "ignoratio elenchi" and others;
- The thesis must be clearly formulated. It is necessary to avoid the ambiguity of the thesis, too general formulations, as well as the “spreading of thoughts along the tree”, as a result of which it may be difficult to determine the main idea of the thesis. Usually, a sentence of an affirmative or negative form is used as a thesis;
- When formulating your thesis, take into account the audience of people in front of whom you will have to defend your thesis. Try to take into account the characteristic features of this audience, and formulate a thesis relevant to its specifics.
Conclusion
What is the thesis? As we can see, the semantic load of the word "thesis" is quite different, differentiating from the specifics of application in various fields of knowledge. The most commonly used forms of this term are "compendium" (a summary of the main ideas contained in the material) as well as the form of the thesis as a logical conclusion that needs proof. For the correct formulation of abstracts, I recommend using the above tips, they will help you in creating the correct versions of the abstracts for their further use.
In contact with
the philosophical teaching of N. Fedorov, subordinated to the idea of the resurrection of ancestors, fathers, which meant the re-creation of all living generations, their transformation and return to God by regulating the blind forces of nature by means of science and technology and space exploration, which should lead to the formation of a universal education of brotherhood and kinship. This goal is the common cause of mankind.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
COMMON CAUSE
the name attached to the philosophical teachings of N. F. Fedorov (1829 - 1903). The terms "supramoralism" and "pathrification" are used as synonyms (all definitions are conditional, since N.F. Fedorov himself preferred the oral presentation of his ideas, and their systematization was undertaken posthumously by his students V.A. Kozhevnikov and N.P. Peterson in an extensive compilation work entitled "Philosophy of the Common Cause", the first volume of which was published in 1906, the 2nd - in 1913. The edition of "Works" by Dorov, published in 1982, includes fragments from the unpublished 3rd volume). On the whole, Fedorov's teaching is in the general mainstream of Russian cosmism of the 19th-20th centuries, representing an original synthesis of its religious and scientistic versions. Fedorov's main provisions and style of philosophizing clearly present the character of a prophetic revelation (which is facilitated by the rather developed mythology of the philosopher's personality, and his asceticism, disinterestedness, phenomenal mental abilities), designed to change the entire system of life-value orientations of modern society. According to the philosopher himself, O.D. is to direct the three foundations of human life (morality, scientific and technical complex and social organization) to the total reorganization of the world and the rational change of human nature itself. The highest goal of such a change is the achievement of universal immortality, the mastery of cosmic forces and space, and, finally, the "resurrection of the ancestors" or, in fact, "patrophication" - the main moral duty of man. Although O.'s project is based on a "subtle empathy for natural life," the affirmation of the universality of natural evolutionary development, Fedorov paradoxically perceives the spontaneous course of evolution and history as almost unnatural and perverted. Only the active intervention of mankind (see "Active evolution") returns cosmobiosocial processes to their proper course. In general, the methodology for the synthesis of O. d. is a comprehension from the position of due, due to which utopian motives, projective pathos and uncompromising judgments about reality are extremely significant in it. First of all, the realization of O. d. presupposes an understanding of the true nature of man. On the one hand, it is defined as generic, fundamentally collectivist. Collectivism consists not only in the recognition by the individual of the supremacy of generic goals and values, the blood "brotherhood" of all people, but also in a special feeling of an organic all-penetrating connection with the general "current of the living" in nature, in understanding one's place in the evolutionary interconnection of matter and beings. On the other hand, the essence of man is determined by two driving impulses, the instinctive foundations of the psyche and individual motivation. It is the "feeling of mortality" and the "fear of birth". The identification of these main stimuli for individual and socio-cultural activity should divert the attention of mankind from solving momentary socio-economic, political and egoistic problems. The possibility of transferring the attention of mankind to genuine problems, i.e., to O. d., is realized through the formulation and resolution of "Easter questions" (Fedorov also called his teaching "New Easter"). They are posed as a rigid opposition to the "essential" and "proper" qualities of socio-cultural reality: private property - socialization, individualism - "community", national-state isolation - internationalism, gender differentiation - complete equality of the sexes, utilitarianism - the moral rigorism of "Easter consciousness", obedience to the laws of nature - the mastery of natural forces, the use of technology for mutual killing - its use for increasing life support, etc. In the most general form, all these oppositions come down to one: "devouring fathers by sons" - the resurrection of fathers. The "Easter questions" are solved by a simple preference for the second quality and its affirmation as a universal measure of activity and a criterion of morality. From this grows criticism of traditional Christianity, which, according to Fedorov, is the foundation of modern culture and society; consequently, in the doctrine itself, in the functioning of the church, there are prerequisites for that false path along which the formation of mankind has gone. At the same time, the implementation of O. d. does not imply the complete elimination of Christianity, but only its transformation. First of all, two sides of the Christian worldview are criticized: the idea of partial salvation "and mystical-eschatological quietism. O.D. therefore bears such a name because it calls for universal, universal salvation - that is, deliverance from death. The outcome of world history for Fedorov is not a cosmic tragedy and an unambiguously predetermined event: it must be actively created by the combined efforts of mankind.Among other things, O.D. means the combination of all the creative and transforming abilities of mankind, and Christianity in its established form is mainly aimed very dismissive of the achievements of scientific and technological civilization.These aspects of Christian culture, according to the philosophy of O. d. must be overcome. The cultural synthesis that should result is what Fedorov calls "active Christianity."
Teaching O. d. caused at one time very controversial assessments in intellectual circles. Official Orthodoxy, of course, reacted negatively to him - as well as to any attempt to revise the archetypal foundations of dogma and worldview in general. Among those who associated socio-cultural problems with the prospects of "renewal of Christianity", its reorientation to the solution of pressing issues, O.D.'s teachings also did not find numerous supporters. Fedorov's relationship with such leaders of unorthodox religious thought as V. S. Solovyov, ? is characteristic. ?. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy. The first and the last at first reacted to the projects of O. d. with interest and sympathy, but then changed their attitude towards rather harsh criticism and almost complete rejection. ?. ?. Dostoevsky actually kept silent in response to the proposal addressed to him to publish Fedorov's works under his own name (Fedorov himself was extremely negative about any property, including thought). In general, in the Russian philosophical tradition a strange attitude has developed towards the philosophy of O. d. recognition of the high moral and personal qualities of its author (but not the concepts themselves). Apparently, the former saw in O. d. unacceptable motifs of "techno-mysticism" and "unscientific fiction", while the latter could not accept the obvious "naturalization", "earthiness" of Christian ideals. Fedorov's unwillingness to express philosophical concepts in the traditional language of theoretical philosophy, and his commitment to the linguistic synthesis of typically Christian (mainly homiletic) rhetoric with a rather "common", "lubok" language played a role. On the whole, contemporaries took the ideas of O.D. superficially, and their criticism was, accordingly, predominantly evaluative and ideological in nature. Due to this, those motives of this doctrine were left out of any attention, which closely linked, and sometimes even anticipated the most promising, key problems at the junction of natural science and social and humanitarian knowledge. Here, first of all, it is necessary to pay attention to a holistic assessment of social processes in European civilization: the author of O. D. considers this problematic not as self-sufficient, but as one of the aspects related to cosmic sociobiological interaction. The entire modern social system is perceived by Fedorov as a rupture of blood-related and directly spiritual ties, giving rise to a total alienation of people, their hidden and obvious opposition. Whereas the ideal is "brotherhood", excluding any elitism, inequality, suppression. This is a kind of conciliar communism, based not only on the "community of property", but also on the collective awareness of the unity of goals and tasks. The transformation of society, in turn, is not a self-sufficient process, but only a necessary basis for consolidating all forces and means to fulfill the sacred duty of children to their fathers and, ultimately, to the entire universe. Communal-communist interaction should direct all the power of the intellect, the collective scientific mind and all available technical means to a comprehensive knowledge of the laws of nature and ways to use them for the well-being of mankind. From this t. sp. The real history of the evolution of life and its special human form appears in the framework of O.D. as a "universal cemetery", a hopeless process of successive "devouring" of previous generations by the next. Each person is at least vaguely aware of his involvement in this universal cannibalism. This generates both a "sense of mortality" (fear of the inevitable devouring by one's children), and "shame of birth" (a presentiment of the need to live and eat at the expense of parents). The current culture suppresses these feelings, creating myths about "terrible dead" or substantiating the idea of progress ("new means better"). The point is to educate on their basis the awareness of duty and the desire to fulfill it. When humanity is imbued with these feelings and ideas, a turning point in history takes place: this is both the apotheosis of the "natural" evolution of matter, which has found its full disclosure in man, and the fulfillment of the gospel prophecies about the completion of the creation of the perfect world by man himself, the disclosure of the providential plan in the free will of the "newly come creator" . This is how the anthropocosmic meaning of evolution is formulated: "Nature in us begins not only to realize itself, but also to control itself." The axis of this movement is the overcoming of "non-kinship" and the creation of "kindred" ties that connect the cosmos, life and the universal community. The technical power of man provides, on the one hand, the basis for directed evolution, but, on the other hand, it also presents an obstacle: a one-sided technical impact on nature is the same cannibalism, the destruction of one's own external body. Firstly, a universal synthesis of sciences must be achieved, overcoming their isolation and inertness, and secondly, science in a new capacity should be directed not at the construction of "artificial appendages" of the organism, but at the restructuring of the organism itself. The task of "active Christianity" and O. d. is to develop the theoretical, moral, and practical foundations for "mastering the natural miracle-working - fabric creation." It will allow pushing the boundaries of corporality, developing hitherto unprecedented human abilities (for example, unlimited movement in space) and gradually eliminating death itself. Ultimately, the primary balance of living matter will be restored: a person will be able to restore himself from the original physiobiological material, transform the body as needed, etc. Since the "immanent resurrection" of all the dead raises the question of the limited life resources of the planet, the next task is the exploration of outer space. The new united and evolved humanity will be able to solve this problem and go beyond any existing limitations. This, according to Fedorov, is the decoding of the Christian symbols of "paradise", "hell" (death) and "purgatory" (temporary earthly existence). The utopianism of the presented picture of O.'s deployment does not deprive it of remarkable anticipations, confirmed, for example, by the development of genetics, information technologies, and the formation of ecological and noospheric thinking. In general, the philosophy of O. d. ?. ?. Fedorov is, of course, one of the most unique variants of the emerging in the 20th century. anthropocosmic type of understanding of nature, society and man.
Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1828/1829 - 1903) - Russian religious thinker and philosopher, one of the founders of the so-called "Russian cosmism".
THE QUESTION OF BROTHERHOOD OR RELATIONSHIP, ABOUT THE CAUSES OF A NON-BROTHERN, NON-RELATED, I.E. NON-PEACEFUL, STATE OF THE WORLD, AND ABOUT THE MEANS TO RESTORE KINLAND
Note from non-scientists to scientists, spiritual and secular, to believers and non-believers
PART I
1. The great significance of the discovery of the possibility, by means of explosives, or in general by means of everything that is used in war, to produce rain: a) the significance of this discovery as a means of getting rid of hunger and war; b) as a true proof of the existence of God, proof by deed itself, or in fact; c) the sacrilege of the American attitude to this discovery as a means of profit, speculation. 2. Duty of scientists, not performed by them. 3. Meaning and essence of regulation. 4. The failure of scientists to fulfill their duty forces non-scientists to turn to them with a question about the causes of discord and the causes of the disasters they are undergoing. 5. The disintegration of thought and deed produced all other disintegrations, including the disintegration into rich and poor. The division into scientists and non-scientists is the reason for the immaturity of the human race, its dependence on nature. 6. The question of brotherhood is a practical question; obligatory for all without any exceptions. 7. The question of brotherhood is only the posing of a question, and by no means its solution. Its acceptance by scientists would be a discovery, a raising of this question. 8. About causelessness (indeterminism) for some and about unconditional, fatal, i.e., irremovable, causality (determinism) for others of a non-brotherly state; for the former, therefore, there is no knowledge (theoretical reason), for the latter there is no action, but only knowledge, there is no practical reason, and only theoretical reason exists. 9. Legal and economic relations are the essence of non-brotherhood. Conditions for the transition from such relations to brotherhood and the time when such a transition must occur. 10. The question of the personality and the genus and the non-singling out of the individual from the mass that make up the genus. 11. The double meaning of the question of brotherhood: a) its general meaning in the sense of turning knowledge into action, and b) the meaning of this question as an appeal of non-scientists to scientists. 12. The dependence of the resolution of the question of brotherhood in its general meaning on the resolution of this question in relation to the learned class and the advantages of scientists in the event of its resolution in the brotherly sense. The vices that were a necessary consequence of the allocation of scientists to a special estate: a) the transformation of the world into a fiction; b) any kind of intoxication of oneself and c) hypnotism (or fooling). 13. Positivism and criticism do not resolve the question of brotherhood and do not even raise it. 14. Everyone is a being conscious, feeling, endowed with a soul only for himself. 15. According to positivism, salvation is not only impossible, but also undesirable; the doctrine of progress excludes the doctrine of resurrection. Understanding progress as development, the organization of society according to the type of organism, we deny the possibility of an adult society.
16. The doctrine of resurrection is true positivism, positivism in relation to action, the way out of school, such a positivism that eliminates all possibility of agnosticism, i.e., anything inaccessible to knowledge. 17. Knowledge without action does not resolve the issue of brotherhood, does not lead to salvation; only a deed based on knowledge, only knowledge that is inextricably linked with the deed and expressed in it, is salutary. 18. As long as knowledge is only a reflection, it will have a destructive effect on a person as a moral being, will reduce him to an animal. But if knowledge, in order to be true, requires deeds, then what will be the common good, when even it is made an object of only thought, and not of implementation? Knowledge is proved by action, while morality is destroyed by knowledge without work (i.e., idle knowledge). 19. The question of the best and most natural use of life by the sons of men in their totality, that is, in their coming of age.
Why is the world not the world? why for some the world is only outside the world, while for others there is no world either in the world or outside the world?
Why is nature not our mother, but a stepmother or nurse who refuses to feed?
Is it the participation of all in comfort, or the participation of all in labor, necessarily voluntary, in the recognition of blind power, which carries hunger, ulcers and death in itself, in the labor of turning it into life-giving? ..
1. In the disastrous year 1891, when in many provinces that make up the granary of Russia, there was a famine due to a drought that had apparently become chronic, when rumors constantly arose that supported the tense expectation of war, it suddenly became known about experiments in causing rain by means of explosives, i.e., those that have hitherto been used, one might say, exclusively in external wars, as well as internal ones, such as revolutions, dynamite conspiracies, etc.
The coincidence of our hunger from drought with the discovery of a remedy for lack of rain, and this remedy turns out to be the very one that served only for mutual extermination, could not but make a stunning impression, especially on those who were close to hunger, who had loved ones at an age that obliges them to become in the ranks of the troops in the event of war - and not only on them! each other (the invention of the most destructive weapons and, in general, means for mutual destruction); the very ways of communication, which modern man is especially proud of, and they serve only strategy or trade, war or hoarding; and the young ladies look at nature precisely “as a pantry, from where it is possible to obtain means for the convenience of life and pleasures, and predatory destroys and squanders the wealth accumulated in it for centuries.” (The word of Ambrose of Kharkov, uttered at Kharkov University, "On the Christian direction of natural science." - "Church. Ved.". 1892, No. 5th.) All this could not but lead to despair, for everywhere, without any light, one could see one only evil. And suddenly, like a ray of light for “those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,” the news that turns everything upside down, the good news that all the means invented for mutual extermination become a means of salvation from hunger, and there is a hope that an end will be put at once and hunger, and war, the end of the war without disarmament, which is impossible. This could not but affect even the unbelievers: even the inveterate atheist could not but recognize in this the indication of the Divine Providence, the indication of the truly Divine on the possibility of turning the greatest evil into the greatest good. And in fact, isn’t this the most real proof of the existence of God and God’s Providence, a completely new proof, drawn not from the contemplation of expediency in nature, but known from implementation expediency in reality in fact! And is this not a manifestation of the greatest, truly Divine mercy towards a person who, apparently, has reached the depth of a fall, who has sinned against nature, against his brothers, and even rejected the very existence, the very existence of God? Lord, and all Your ways are right. . . . Truly, the Lord heard the prayer of the Orthodox people, who, praying in their dry fields, knew what they were doing (they did not know what they were doing, only those who mocked this prayer of his). And now, however, a voice is heard from the pulpit: "Beware of this insolence that wants to draw rain from the sky with cannon shots." (The final words of Ambrose of Kharkov.) But if cannon shots cannot be unconditionally condemned even when they bring death (in defense, for example, of the homeland, fatherland), then why condemn them when they bring life, they will relieve hunger? Won't this, on the contrary, turn out to be the fulfillment of the good will of God?.. Won't this be a turn from evil pessimism and joyless skepticism to a living, active faith, especially if it is told to those who have not heard and explained to those who have not understood from the pulpit of the Church, from the pulpit of Faith, which will indicate thus, a new path to Reason (Note 1).
It is impossible not to notice that the Lord, having created man, commanded him to possess the earth and everything that is on it. Why, then, should the cloud be taken away from the place where the rain it shed would bring harm to the place where this rain will be beneficial, why is it criminal, why is it impudence, even as if a reproach to the Lord? .. (The word “O Christ. For example, natural science When water is diverted for irrigation from a stream, from a river, this is not considered a resistance to God, why would it be a resistance to Him to direct moisture according to the needs of a person, not in the river, but in the air currents enclosed? Moreover, this is done not for luxury, not for pleasure, but for daily bread.
However, the condemnation in the word “O Christians. e.g. natural sciences, did not mean only that way of using the discovery made, which, apparently, the Americans were counting on, who were already talking about privileges, who even wanted to turn the holy cause of saving from hunger into speculation? .. If this is so, then one cannot help bowing before the wisdom of judgment. Our hopes are not in the possibility of producing rain with a few shots or explosions, but in the possibility, by means of influences produced over vast spaces, to control both wet and dry air currents, to save not only from droughts, but also from destructive downpours; this is a matter that requires the concerted action of the armies of all peoples and, consequently, cannot be turned into speculation in any case. The discovery of the possibility of producing rain by means of explosives, even if it did not justify the hopes placed on it, would still not lose its significance as an indication of the mode of action for the entire human race in its totality. It is possible that the cannons will be unable to direct the currents of air that carry moisture, but in that case there may be other means of that which are used in war. However, among such means of controlling meteorological phenomena of nature, the well-known V.N. Karazin, the founder of the Ministry of Public Education and the founder of Kharkov University, has already indicated that this means is a lightning rod raised into the upper layers of the atmosphere in a tethered balloon - the latter, i.e. air the ball, if it has not yet become completely, is already becoming a military weapon. At present, everything serves the war, there is not a single discovery that the military would not be engaged in in terms of applying it to war, there is not a single invention that would not be tried to be converted for military purposes. And if the troops were to be charged with the obligation to apply everything that is now applied to war also to the control of the forces of nature, then military affairs would itself turn into the common cause of the entire human race.
2. The crop failures, and especially the famine of 1891, compel the ignorant to remind scientists of their origin and their consequential purpose: study as a sacred duty and, at the same time, the most simple, natural and understandable, and b) to unite everyone, scientists and non-scientists, in the matter of studying and controlling by blind force. For a being conscious of another purpose, there can be no other matter. To expect that the blind force, given to the control of this conscious being and not controlled by him, would itself produce only good, give only good harvests, is the height of childishness, the expression of which was the exhibition in Paris in 1889 and the French exhibition in Moscow, and this is in such a year as the hungry year of 1891. How not to say that the Lord, apparently, was angry at our prolonged immaturity! .. And how can He not be angry at us who do not fulfill His covenant - to come into the mind of truth - which lies in the fact that everyone should be one, like Him in the Father; and we can be united only in the common paternal cause. Scientists who have broken science into many separate sciences imagine that the disasters that oppress and fall upon us are in the department of special knowledge, and do not constitute a general question for all, the question of the unrelated relation of blind force to us, rational beings, which is nothing of us, according to apparently, and does not require, except for what it does not have, what it lacks, that is, the ruling mind, regulation. Of course, regulation is impossible with our discord, but discord exists because there is no common cause; in the regulation, in the control of the forces of blind nature, lies the great work that can and must become common (Note 2).
3. The regulation of the meteorological process is needed not only to ensure the harvest, not only for agriculture, but also to replace the hard labor underground work of miners extracting coal and iron, on which all modern industry is based; regulation is needed to replace such mining by extracting driving forces directly from atmospheric currents, from the solar force that created coal reserves, since the position of the miners is so difficult that it would be unforgivable to forget about it, and it is their position that the enemies of society, the socialists, use to arouse unrest . Thus, in the regulation, in the management of the meteoric process, the solution of both agricultural and industrial issues lies.
Practical reason, equal in volume to the theoretical one, is the ruling mind, or regulation, that is, the conversion of the blind course of nature into a rational one; such treatment for scientists should seem like a violation of the order, although this order of theirs only brings disorder into the environment of people, hitting them with hunger, and an ulcer, and death.
4. Unlearned, as bearing all the consequences of non-kinship, cannot but turn with the question of non-kinship to scientists as an estate that, on the one hand, is the most extreme expression of non-kinship, and on the other, as an estate that bears in itself the duty, ability and the possibility of restoring kinship, as a class in whose hands is all understanding, and therefore the solution of this question, and which, however, not only do not resolve it, but for the sake of female whim, creating and supporting the manufacturing industry, this root of non-kinship, invent all new and new means for expressing it, i.e., they invent weapons of destruction to protect the manufacture generated by the whim of women. Non-scientists are even obliged to address the issue of unrelatedness to scientists, and this obligation depends not only on the present attitude of scientists towards non-scientists, but also on the very origin of the learned class. We would not be true to history, explaining the origin of scientists by a temporary assignment or a commission for some purpose, just as the philosophers of the 18th century were not true to history, explaining the origin of the state by an agreement, a contract. Of course, there is no legal evidence of a business trip; but in history, morally understood, the separation of the urban estate from the rural, the scientist from the urban, cannot have any other meaning than a temporary business trip, otherwise it would be an eternal disintegration, a complete denial of unity (Note 3rd).
And if we are not faithful to history, explaining the origin of scientists by a temporary business trip, if we do not agree with how this happened in reality, then we are faithful to morality, that is, to how it must be. A truly moral being does not need coercion, an order, an insistence; it is itself aware of the duty and reveals it in its entirety; it itself gives itself a business trip, appoints what it must do for those from whom it has separated, since separation (whether it was forced or voluntary) cannot be irrevocable; yes, it would be criminal to abandon those from whom they descended, to forget about their good. However, to do so for scientists would mean renouncing their own good, forever remaining prodigal sons, being eternal mercenaries, slaves to urban whims and completely neglecting the needs of the villages, that is, the real needs, since the needs of the villages, not spoiled by the influence of the city, are limited an urgent need, which consists in ensuring existence from hunger and disease, destroying not only life, but also family relations, replacing love with enmity, hostility. Therefore, the rural question is, firstly, the question of the unrelated relationship of people among themselves, who, out of ignorance, have forgotten their relationship; and secondly, the question of the unrelated relationship of nature to people, that is, the unrelatedness that is felt, if not exclusively, then predominantly, mainly, mainly in the villages that are in direct relationship with this blind force; in the cities, which are far from nature, only for this reason can they think that they live the same life as nature.
5. The hated separation of the world and all the misfortunes that result from it compel us, the unlearned, that is, those who put the cause above thought (but the cause common to all, and not the struggle), to turn with this note on the question of non-kinship and about means to restore kinship with scientists, and especially with theologians, that is, with people of thought, or ideas, with people who put thought above deeds. Of all divisions, the disintegration of thought and deed (which have become the property of special estates) is the greatest calamity, incomparably greater than the disintegration into rich and poor. Socialism, and our time in general, attaches the greatest importance to the division into rich and poor, believing, of course, that with the elimination of this division, the former will also disappear, i.e., everyone will become educated. But we do not mean popular education, which, with the elimination of poverty, will indeed be more evenly distributed, we mean participation in knowledge itself, and precisely participation in general, of all; participation in the knowledge of all, without which the division into scientists and non-scientists will not disappear, cannot be caused by the elimination of poverty alone. Until everyone participates in knowledge, until then pure science will remain indifferent to the struggle, to extermination, and applied science will not cease to help extermination, help both directly, by inventing tools of extermination, and indirectly, giving a seductive appearance to things, commodities that bring enmity. among people. Without taking a direct, personal part in the struggle, i.e., in the war itself, and standing outside of natural disasters, protected from nature by the peasantry, which is directly related to it, science remains indifferent even to the exhaustion of natural forces, to climate change itself, for the townspeople even pleasant, although this change produces crop failures. Only when all are participants in knowledge, pure science, now knowing nature as a whole, in which the feeling is sacrificed to the insensible, will not remain indifferent to such a perverted relation of the insensible force to the sentient being; then applied science will not be a participant and ally of insensible force and will turn the weapon of extermination into an instrument of regulation of the blind, deadly force. Haeckel 1
Haeckel Ernst(1834 - 1919) - German thinker, founder of the natural-philosophical doctrine of "monism", the ideal of knowledge, "clear integral worldview" as the highest good. He sought to formalize his views into a special "monistic religion", to create a "monistic church".
Recognizes "scientific materialism" and denies moral materialism, the highest good, pleasure, sees in knowledge, in the discovery of the laws of nature. Let us assume that such knowledge is accessible to all, where will the enjoyment be? Everyone everywhere will "see the merciless, extremely deadly struggle of all against all." Is it possible to enjoy such a hell?
The solution of another question - about the division into rich and poor - depends on the resolution of the first, i.e., the question of the division into scientists and non-scientists (into people of thought and people of action). The question of the disintegration into people of thought and people of action has as its starting point common calamities (such as illness and death) and for resolution it requires not wealth or comfort, but the highest good, the participation of all in knowledge and art, and, moreover, in knowledge and art, attached to the solution of the question of non-kinship and to the restoration of kinship, that is, he seeks the Kingdom of God.
6. By the question "about brotherhood and the causes of the non-brotherly state of the world" we understand the conditions under which brotherhood can and must be realized, and even predominantly these conditions; i.e., this is a practical question, a question in the same sense as they say - an Eastern question, a question of colonization, a resettlement question, etc. This is a question of what needs to be done to get out of a non-brotherly state. And in this form, this question is obligatory for all the sons of men - and even more so for all fathers baptized in the name of God; this is not a question of a scientist, not a research, although it concerns mainly scientists, because the question of knowledge, science, a theoretical question, is already in the practical question as a necessary, antecedent, integral part of it.
7. Calling everything that will be stated under the aforementioned title in this note, presented to scientists from non-scientists, a question, a statement of the question, we thereby acknowledge, we want to point out our weakness, in comparison with those to whom we are addressing this question. It is not, of course, those who know who ask, but those who are conscious of their impotence; and this consciousness is not an expression of modesty, usual in prefaces, but an inevitable humility before the terrible force of the causes of non-brotherhood, compelling to unite, forcing those to whom it is not customary to speak; it is humility before that power, before which all interests fall silent.
If Russia, Russian science, were to address this question to other peoples who are superior to it in the mental and moral sense, then for these high-ranking peoples, for their pride, there would be nothing insulting in this matter.
A person can only succeed if he has a reliable ally who understands him and will never let him down. Only together can we overcome various obstacles and achieve our goals. This I can prove based on one story that happened in real life.
Ira and Natasha have been friends since kindergarten. And this is not surprising, because their houses were neighboring. At school, they sat at the same desk and were inseparable friends. Their friendship has been tested by time.
The girls always helped each other and stood up for each other like a mountain.
Natasha's eyesight began to drop sharply, but as a teenager, putting on glasses was something unrealistic. The fact is that peers would definitely not understand her. There was only one option - lenses. But they were constantly lost, so this did not fit. Then the girls together found a way out of the predicament.
Because Ira was always there. She read everything to Natasha that was written on the blackboard, told her about those people who are a few meters away and who definitely need to say hello. Thanks to Ira, no one knew that Natasha had poor eyesight.
This behavior of the girls helped to reassure how strong their friendship is.
But the time has come for the university and the girls who dreamed of being together there, did not succeed. One chose journalism, and the other decided to comprehend the profession of a social teacher. The girls made new friends, friends. Gradually they drifted apart. And only from time to time they talked on the phone, and their meetings were less and less.
When the friends graduated from the university, both of them, unfortunately, did not manage to get a job in their specialty. One started working as a waitress, the other worked in a clothing store. It seemed that life had stopped, and there was nothing positive in it anymore. Only boring work and people around who can do nothing to help.
After a certain period of time, former classmates met by chance. They started talking and, it turns out, both were not happy with their lives, instead of complaining, the girls remembered an old dream that they so wanted to fulfill when they grow up.
So, Natasha drew well and understood fashion, so she often drew various dresses, suits and other clothes during her lessons, and Ira always had a commercial streak. She managed money well, knew how to save.
Therefore, word for word and friends decided to realize a former dream. Natasha completed sewing courses, and Ira found cheap suppliers of fabrics, and so they started a common business together. Their business became so popular that the friends themselves did not believe such a stunning success.
Now they have their own families, but this does not prevent the girls from being close friends and doing a common thing. And did they succeed if they decided to open their own business one by one. Most probably not. Since they successfully complement each other, that's why they succeeded.
Therefore, it is important to understand that there are reliable people nearby. Only thanks to such proven friends is it not scary to go through life, because if you stumble, they will never condemn, but on the contrary will support you and together you will be able to find a way out, even from the most hopeless situation. But it will be much harder to get back on your feet alone, so you never need to push away loved ones who are nearby, starting from childhood, since only they can help in difficult times.
It seems to me that those people who say that there are no friends in business are wrong. It is simply important to let only proven people into your business, and then everything will definitely work out.