I asked Jaspers, or guessing about our future

To answer the question of what will happen to us in the near future, one can not use someone else’s historical experience, one can only experience it by going to history, as one enters the water to learn to swim.

In the context of today’s historical events, many are in a state of frustration and depression.

When I look at what is happening, I realize that there is almost nothing accidental about it. Everything has already been established in the architecture of Russia, in its past. Defined, but not preliminary conclusion. For me as a writer, as a politician and as a person, there is nothing strange. Except for stupidity, maybe. But it’s time to get used to it. However, I do not endow the current process with the characteristics of sanctity, fatal destination, fate. Unlike many, many who ask, “What is all this to us?”, “What is wrong with us?” and asks other well-known Russian questions.

My readers have reacted differently to the question of the importance of fate, the logic of nature, and the general universal abstract good. For example, like this:

“Nature is more crazy than smart. Fate … well, as a cause and as a result, if for example you were born into poverty, then you will live in poverty all your life, etc. And I understand the common good as a basic income for everyone. “

The poet Svyatoslav Belkovsky commented as follows:

“No, I do not believe it, I am an individualist and a materialist.”

An old friend of mine wrote the following:

“One. No, nature is not intelligent. Some species have the ability to learn (count, interpret words and commands, ride a bicycle, etc.). But in general, nature is irrational and not united.

2. No. Fate is a consequence of actions, deeds, circumstances. Destiny exists in the form of upbringing, heredity, character, and other similarly objective things, as an influence on events – but the subject can also change that.

“The common good is a utopia.”

A social media commenter put it this way:

Do I believe in the truth of the statement “nature is rational”? No I do not believe. I think this is an absurd statement, I omit the proof of absurdity. Do I believe in fate? Yes. Any “thing that exists” has a set of inherent qualities that determine its life in a world based on laws known and unknown to us. But fate is possible. The general abstract universal good – no, this is a mind game.

The opinion of the poet Anastasia Lukomskaya:

“I think all these categories are transcendental, they do not describe the structure of the world, but the structure of the human soul. For some reason, it is convenient for a person to describe the world using these concepts, where he can not find other explanations. The laws of how our brain perceives the world are more or less universal. “It’s like looking at the world through the same lens and seeing the same distortion.”

If a person relies on the religious notion of “divine plan” or “destiny” (an analogue of the “divine plan” for an atheist) often unconsciously, then in this way he feeds social delusions in the form of destinations. And already in the form of destinations they are manipulated by various kinds of totalitarian regimes.

In fact, a totalitarian sect and a totalitarian regime are phenomena of the same order, but of a different scale.

As a child, I saw both nature and existence as a huge total construction. But because they lack subjectivity and often personification, I can not literally blame existence. But I can blame those who endow him with a false subjectivity, with the characteristics of a deity. I can also blame those who suggest sacrificing subjectivity for an abstract common good.

So, for example, it is offered to us in real time, for breakfast, lunch and dinner, something like national repentance. What is this if not another holistic practice under the humanitarian cover of a modern agenda?

I recently wrote about the dangers of such an archaic mental construction as religion. Something that previously led to irreparable large-scale tragedies. Today, in the context of what is happening, it makes sense to talk about the so-called agenda.

So what do we have? After the Middle Ages, the religious consciousness of the masses (the mass unconscious) gave way to modernist ideologies. Which in turn fell on the information blows of the postmodern and degenerated into the postmodern. Who drafted the agenda. What is the agenda? It is any flow of information, in the distribution of which there are specific stakeholders and beneficiaries. Regardless of its real relevance and expediency. That is, in the real present we are witnessing the Third World Information War all against all. Messengers are easily recognized by their emotional turmoil, their aversion to events, and their lack of convincing arguments.

You are now trying to play with your own story and normalize the possibility of gaining political subjectivity, not only dissolving into the massive nerve of induced guilt, but also quoting quotes from Arendt and Jaspers.

This experience is not universal and applies only to a specific situation at a specific historical moment. Yes, and, in general, it is nothing more than a humanitarian interpretation of reality that you can not stand.

There is something in human nature that allows him to speak of the world as a kind of linear-circular structure, each time returning to his own circle, to move on, nourished by the experience of previous generations. But we have long been in a world of non-linear interactions, where the traditional approach to the value of the experience of previous generations is no longer representative.

You can not use someone else’s historical experience, get it from books and movies. One can only experience it by staying in history, as one enters the water to learn to swim. That is why I want those who are bound by the concept of destination and destiny to critically reconsider their positions. Otherwise we risk drowning in a historical swamp.

Related materials:

Did you find a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter

Leave a Comment