"The era of glasnost", among many other filth, revealed the following: the outstanding philosopher GWF Hegel at one time made a completely conscious choice "between the Masonic lodge and the Prussian monarchy." Without delving into this slippery topic, we will quote only one phrase of a competent biographer: "Forced to choose between ... the Masonic lodge and the Prussian monarchy, Hegel unambiguously chose the monarchy and until the end of his days honestly served its interests."
We are concerned here not so much with Hegel himself (we have not forgotten the expression "people and Russians", do not worry), as with the historically vivid illustration of the REAL choice of the builders of democracy and the people's lovers. Hegel did not love us, and God is his judge, but he loved the Germans. And, loving, from a young age he was fond of the ideas of democracy, representative government.
And being carried away, he made a conclusion that every intelligent person is doomed to make, having embarked on the path of such research: there is no republicanism in the form in which propaganda depicts it, and cannot be, and the practical choice has to be made between freemasons and monarchies.
Thus, democratic institutions do not exist on their own (by themselves, they only ruin society).
Either they exist as the lower floor of the monarchical vertical of power, or as the lower floor of the "group secret autocracy" of the ruling (not elected and not controlled by anyone) Freemasonry.
It was in this space that Hegel described "the brilliance and poverty of elections."
Democracy operates at the executive level and is controlled by an unelected supreme ruler. There are no questions about it. And therefore, he also has no fear of losing power: all parties are “his majesties”.
They compete not for power, but for the status of the best performers. It is and only for this reason that the supreme ruler has no motives to rig elections, falsify the results or manipulate the election campaign of parties.
Everyone, choosing his servants, is really interested in choosing the best: the most intelligent, the most responsible and executive. That is why the voting procedure (only in this situation!) Can be fair, or at least relatively fair.
Because there is an authority that controls the elections regardless of their outcome.
If there is no such instance, then all the complaints do not just go to "Sportloto" or "to grandfather's village". They do directly into the hands of those complaining about !
A completely insane system arises in which the elections are controlled by those who are chosen by them. That is why they lose their meaning: how can the controller and the beneficiary be combined in one person?
Lawyers have such a concept - “conflict of interest”. So, in the case of republicanism, the conflict of interests becomes blatant, acute and obvious. The results of the elections are assured and announced by the very group that won the same elections (allegedly?)!
If in the Hegelian model of the Prussian monarchy (as an ideal society for Hegel) there are voters who are elected and a controller over the elected (who is not elected himself, and is independent from elections), then in republicanism one has to take the elected at their word.
When they are overthrown by force, they say that all their elections are fake, but again, check it out! It is clear that the new government will rivet on the old, where else can it go? We must somehow justify the coup!
One of the most striking incarnations of Hegel's scheme is not only the Prussian monarchy (Germany would have been in the lead in the world if not for its outrageous militancy and inclination to declare war on everyone at once), but also the USSR.
It is easy to see that in practice the USSR embodied precisely the anatomy of the Prussian monarchy, no matter what he himself said and thought to himself. A tongue without bones, but the facts are there ...
Abstracting from Hegel and his Prussia, let us consider the Soviet material.
The fusion of the supreme monarchy (of the Byzantine type) and grassroots democracy (in the Soviet language - the "democratic centralism" of the CPSU) is unconditional. Democracy manifests itself primarily in the property and share rights of each person, in guaranteed provision and in the "social lifts" of vertical mobility. Careers from the very bottom - are made fabulous, in a modern market society (very stagnant caste) unthinkable.
A person can self-actualize, express himself - but not as a "free radical", but by proving his loyalty to the ideology and system.
Everything is based, of course, on the religious nature of the CPSU (what Bismarck called "practical Christianity"). There is a single mega-idea for all, for treason which is punished and punished very severely.
But within the framework of this idea, equality of opportunity is maintained (initially based on such an institution of direct, direct democracy as freedom of denunciation).
Since the system-forming mega-idea is of the general and universal character of an indisputable dogma, we can say about it:
Idea - shared by society
Idea - shared by the supreme ruler
Since millions of ordinary people and one monarch have a common idea, one for all, they are allies in its implementation. The tsar wants the same as the people want (in the Middle Ages they "together" wanted the triumph of Orthodoxy, in the twentieth century - communism).
The supreme ruler, by and large, does not have a lot of choice: if he renounces the mega-idea in an ideologically tense society, then he will not be re-elected (kings are not re-elected) - he will be torn to pieces.
Popular fanaticism consists of two components:
1) Correctness, persuasiveness of ideological values
2) The habit of its long and unchanging existence.
From my point of view - the most ideal combination of persuasiveness with the durability of Christianity, but I do not impose anything on anyone. Simply, abstractly, a kind of Alpha idea, a bit of an obsession, a kind of psychosis (this psychosis helps to cure all others who cannot be treated without the centralization of the psychophone - I’m already speaking as a sociopathologist).
Compared to the Alpha idea, everything else (in the eyes of the bearer) is bullshit. Pavka Korchagin continued to fight for communism even when his arms and legs were taken away, and - believe me - he was much happier than the unprincipled, confused in life, modern drunks and drug addicts.
An alpha idea must be convincing - that is, satisfy the mind of the listeners of its propagandist and solid, in order to appeal to the sense of tradition, the precepts of the grandfathers-ancestors. Then for her they really will die and kill - sounds creepy, but there is no civilization without it .
If there is nothing to die and kill for, then there is no need to live: thought decays and fades away, ultimately descending to complete animality.
Popular fanaticism, shared by the supreme ruler (in this case - the father of the people, the patriarch in the old, original sense of the word) - raises the question of finding good performers of his plans. That which is jointly conceived by the king and the people.
So that the executive authorities, departments and departments would not be clogged with any pro-Indian trash, cunning conspiracies of officials, in which “the hand washes the hand”, would not degenerate into the mutual responsibility of the “freemasonry of clerks”, elections are needed.
The king cannot personally enter into all matters, and asks his people to look after the executive vertical of power on his behalf.
Tsarist Russia (in contrast to Hegel's Prussia) lacked this very much, but in the USSR it was widely used.
Democracy in these elections lies not in the fact that the people choose power for themselves (an idea fanatic cannot choose between ideas), but in the fact that the people control officials for compliance with ideology. And almost something is wrong - the results of the voting fall on the tsar's table: people on the spot do not trust such and such ... Some of them are not real communists ...
But this whole system of correction works only as long as the tsar is not dependent on elections, as long as the tsar's candidacy is not discussed.
As soon as the supreme ruler becomes dependent on elections, the elections will immediately turn into a pro-hindiad and a vile cocktail of lies, manipulations and fraud.
If, for the ruler, elections are a form of control over servants, it is one thing. If his own fate is decided on them, it is completely different. It is hard to believe that he will admit himself a loser. And that his competitor recognizes him as an honest winner.
It is impossible to choose power - power is not given, it is taken. But elections can be genuine if they determine not the power itself, but the quality of the apparatus executors.
The origins of true democracy lie in the Protestant parishes in England and New England. Rejecting the monarchical principle of "ordination", Roman Catholic and Orthodox, Protestants began to elect for themselves the heads of the community.
But, since they were then (regardless of the sect) fiercely fanatical, then there could be no question of choice of power ... Power was chosen by the Protestant community once and for all: their God and their religion. And the Protestants chose the service personnel for this power, those who are more intelligent and more honest than others who can serve their God and their religion.
With this approach (and only with it), elections make sense and do not corrupt, do not ruin society. If we apply them according to the liberal scheme, then we will get a triumph of criminal mafias, turmoil and disintegration of all institutions, prostitution of everything and everyone, complete loss of orientation and anomie.
That is why liberal democracies do not live long anywhere. Power in the United States is a variant of the Hegelian scheme. It has a significant difference from Hegelianism, but we are not talking about that now.
The essence of an efficient democracy is clear: society knows, and the supreme power does not hide, that the goal is invariable (“practical Christianity” in Bismarck, communism in the CPSU).
And therefore, the elections are limited by the fact that they are looking for performers in a competitive mode - who will be the most fulfilling of all?
When they try to choose the supreme legislator - then insanity inevitably begins : the river cannot flow into its own sources. In the same way, the supreme source of the law cannot obey its offspring - otherwise it would not be able to give the law the proper weight and authority.
I think any believer understands that God is not chosen. It remains only to bring this evidence to the less developed secular fellow citizens.
If mystical depths are inaccessible to them (requiring a higher level of generalizations of thought), then they are quite able to understand the simpler and more earthly: a person cannot decide for himself how to live.
If everyone decides how to live, then everyone will choose himself as the ruler of the world, and declare everyone else as his henchmen. A person - if he chooses for himself how to live - will not be able to obey anyone and nothing. If he is his own supreme legislator, then you will not offend yourself ...
This is what happens in animals. And the liberals ...
Ideology can exist on its own - as a systematization of ideas in the head. But it cannot rule by itself. As long as a Pithecanthropus with a club has the opportunity to kill a philosopher, the Pithecanthropus will rule, not a philosopher.
Any power, of course, primarily relies on the Force, on its irremovability , at least - irremovability on demand and whim. If the power can be changed, then it will be replaced, which means that talking about it as power is the same as talking about Gorbachev as “our president” (formally and legally, he remains so, because the new president of the USSR was not elected).
The first and most primitive type of power is the power of the naked Force. It is no different from the zoological dominance in the pack.
Higher types of power are generated when the Force is engaged in matters of Expediency. When the Force thought about what would be appropriate for its plans, an interesting phenomenon arises: “ perceived expediency ».
If we imagine expediency in the form of a precious stone, then the expediency understood by a person is the precious stone he found. Power does not create expediency, but realizes it (and not always immediately). But when the Force realized that it was most expedient for it, an ideological type of power was born. It is based not on arbitrariness, not on a changeable whim, but on principles.
A combination of overwhelming seizure right Strength, understanding this Power of Expediency, and adherence to Tradition - forms the COL (Civilized Way of Life).
Democratic institutions can also help support it - if used correctly ... If they do not turn, as in our country, into “perestroika”, into revenge of bestial arbitrariness, into tyranny, when “there is strength - no mind is needed,” the understanding of the expediency and value of tradition is thrown overboard by all Sobchaks ...
Hegelianism is an important contribution to the theory of the rational and correct use of democratic institutions.
For the fire localized in the hearth is useful, and the fire scattered everywhere will only burn the house, sometimes together with the residents ...
"Hegel between the Masonic lodge and the Prussian monarchy" - Jacques d "Ont. Hegel. M., 2012.
Liberal theorist, political scientist Yekaterina Shulman in the "ABC of Democracy" says about it this way: "Actually, the" iron law of oligarchy "is formulated as follows: In any structure, there is a tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a small group. This, apparently, is really a social law. " And, comforting the supporters of democracy, he assures them that this is not such a terrible sentence. “Power is everywhere and always belongs to close-knit groups; if you want power, become a close-knit group yourself. "
The point of view of the independence of the authorities and their mutual limitation seems to Hegel to be false, since it presupposes the hostility of each of the authorities to the others, mutual fear and opposition. As a result of all this, Hegel notes, there is only "general equilibrium, but not living unity." Different authorities are just different moments of a single concept, therefore, Hegel regards all kinds of "abstractions" of the independence of authorities as a monstrous mistake.
For the Hegelian interpretation of various powers, it is primarily characteristic that they all go back to the power of the monarch, which contains all three moments of state integrity: the moment of universality (participation in legislation), the moment of the relationship of the special to the universal (participation in government power) and, finally, the moment of singularity is actually the right of the monarch as the last decision and absolute self-determination.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the researcher of Hegel's biography, the French researcher Jacques d "Ont (1920-2012), a student of the famous Jean Hippolytus, for a long time and in all seriousness refuted" Hegel's regularly arising suspicions of "cryptostalinism." Hegel considered the Prussian monarchy close to ideal of the state.He believed that every state has its own interests, which are higher than the interests of individual citizens.
Along with the extinction of the freedom to denounce the "unreliable", democracy in society is also extinct. “Untouchables” appear who, whatever they do, remain unpunished, inaccessible to the revenge of the lower classes. Denunciation, of course, is a shameful thing, but ignoring denunciation is a clear sign of dividing people into varieties, castes. Like, we do not believe the signals coming from ordinary people, members of the highest caste are beyond suspicion, no matter what they do ...
We find something similar in some Russian Old Believer sects and among various sectarians in Russia.
It is as follows - since it is two-story, of the Jewish model "kagan-bek". There is the supreme power, the ruling freemasonry, the autocracy of the group. And a community of "scapegoats" is assigned to it - who are elected, criticized, regularly replaced, punished for everything and at the same time do not really affect anything.
The difference from Hegelianism here is that in Hegel, the people chosen by the people for the monarch did have an administrative resource, very significant official powers. They were, if not the supreme power, then the real apparatus of real power.
In the Jewish system of the “kagan-bek” model, the elective power is entirely rudimentary, decorative, does not influence anything and does not actually dispose of anything. American presidents and other elected officials are really only "scapegoats" and no one else.
At the heart of all Roman law the principle of indisputability and non-discussion of the verdict of the supreme instance lies : "Roma locuta, causa finita" - "Rome has spoken, the case is closed"; "Rome has spoken and it's over." This means that any dispute without an unconditional arbiter will drag on endlessly, and any law without an absolute interpreter that annuls all other interpretations can be interpreted as you like, until it is completely meaningless.
An important and well-studied aspect of zoopsychology is the animal's belief that the whole world was created for him and no one else. Each large predator considers himself the ruler of the entire planet, kills or expels his own kind, tries to fertilize all females alone, etc. It is interesting to note that small, weak animals are also convinced of the same. Stronger animals are perceived by them as annoying elements, evil forces of the surrounding nature, like a flood or fire. A small animal sees the world as its fiefdom, and even marks the ground with its secretion wherever it finds itself. In gregarious animals, the process is not so linear (the gregarious mechanisms of group egoism are activated there), but on the whole we reduce it to the same conviction - the world is ours, the world was created for us, we rule the world.
We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel
From the poem "With the Whole Voice" (1930) by Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky (1893-1930):
We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel,
With the clatter of battles, she burst into verse.
Allegorically: about the absence of a systematic, real education, the lack of which supposedly more than replaces a rich life experience.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M .: "Lokid-Press"... Vadim Serov. 2003.
See what "We taught dialectics not according to Hegel" in other dictionaries:
GEGEL- (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich G. (1770 1831) - German philosopher) Look - he is a doctor of philosophy, And he should be her veterinarian. It grows from Hegel and the Titan coffee before each new seminar. Shuttle. P910 e (II, 530); Once Hegel accidentally And, probably at random ... ... Proper name in Russian poetry of the XX century: a dictionary of personal names
rattling- A noun; 27 cm. Appendix II Knights and men at arms are riding past, Trumpet howl, rattling / nye of silver, And no one will look at the gatekeeper, the Bright Apostle Peter ... Dictionary of Russian stresses
Biography. The teachings of Marx. Philosophical materialism. Dialectics. Materialistic understanding of history. Class struggle. The economic doctrine of Marx. Price. Surplus value. Socialism. The tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat ... Literary encyclopedia
See in Art. Dialectics. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M .: Soviet encyclopedia. Ch. edition: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983. DIALECTIC LOGIC ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
- (lat. patres fathers) the direction of philosophical and theological thought of the 2-8 centuries, associated with the activities of the early Christian authors of the Church Fathers. Semantically axiological sources of P. History of Philosophy: An Encyclopedia
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Winged Words and Expressions Serov Vadim Vasilievich
We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel
We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel
We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel,
With the clatter of battles, she burst into verse.
Allegorically: about the absence of a systematic, real education, the lack of which supposedly more than replaces a rich life experience.
From the book Friday Manager. About managers jokingly and seriously the author E-xecutive managers communityForget everything you have been taught http://www.e-xecutive.ru/friday/article4115/ An adult does not like to learn. And he can’t. He does not know how, because he does not love - and does not love, because he does not know how. Paradoxically, this statement is most suitable for those people who say that very, very, very
From the book Encyclopedic Dictionary of Winged Words and Expressions the author Serov Vadim Vasilievich"I was taught this way ..." Everyone was taught. But why did you become the first student, you brute? From the play "Dragon" (1943-1944) by the Soviet playwright Yevgeny Lvovich Schwartz (1896-1958). Dialogue between the knight Lancelot, who killed the Dragon, and the knight's former friend, the Burgomaster, who became
From the book Who's Who in World History the author Sitnikov Vitaly PavlovichWhat and how were boys and girls taught in ancient Rome? Children of Ancient Rome from the age of seven were sent to elementary school, where they studied three subjects - reading, writing and counting. The teaching lasted for five years. According to one character in the Roman comedy, in such a period
The proposed system of teacher remuneration denies the current one, and I intend to deny the proposed one. Isn't it a "negation of negation"? But first things first.
The current system of teachers' remuneration is based on two pillars: the teaching load of the teacher and his category, or qualification category. The greater the load and the higher the grade, the more significant the salary. What does education reformers not like in the traditional scheme? Insufficient material incentives for the teacher, as well as the lack of a visible connection between the results of his work and material reward. In addition, teachers are reproached for the pursuit of extra hours in the name of personal enrichment, which inevitably leads to an unacceptable overload of students and low efficiency of pedagogical work. These "grabber", having picked up hours, do not strive for high-quality teaching, since they are personally not interested in it in any way. It's time to end this. First of all, it is necessary to discourage teachers from recruiting teaching hours and electives without any measure, for which a new sectoral payment system is being introduced. How it looks in practice, and not in the offices of the capital's developers, we learn from the letters of teachers working in those regions where, as an experiment, such a system is already operating. For obvious reasons, I do not provide names, passwords, and names.
“Teachers in our region are promised new wages. We have not seen the money yet, but at school they are forced to sit until 17.00.
We now have a 40 hour work week. They are not allowed to check notebooks at work, they say that you are paid separately for this, they say, check them at home.
And in our rural school there is no toilet, canteen, nowhere to dine, and we sit hungry and angry. A state of complete despair.
There is no way to prepare for lessons either, since the methodological literature is at home, there is no way to make didactic material for the lesson either - there is only one computer in school, there is a queue of teachers for it.
We leave the students for additional classes, and after 5 lessons they are tired, they go home, live far from school and then don’t come.
From such experiments on people it becomes sickening.
Will you say that the government decree No. 191 on hourly wages has already been canceled? Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Education"? I lead 23 hours, and I get the same salary as those with 15 hours of work. Why?"
Comments, as they say, are superfluous. But this always happens when the abstract, born in the heads of economists (namely, they are ruling the show today: they determine the strategy and tactics of education), the scheme descends on our domestic soil. It is noteworthy that, condemning the activities of the young reformers of the early nineties, who cut the country to the core, guided exclusively by macroeconomic schemes, with a tenacity worthy of better application, we are strengthening this same line in education.
But to moderate the appetites of teachers, equalizing them in terms of "imprisonment" in a school building, is only half the battle. The field has been cleared. The next necessary step is to link the teacher's pay with the real results of his work. In other words, finally include quality indicators. Because of this, in fact, all this fuss is started. (Do not confuse, in this case, pine forest is not a pine forest on a hill, but a budget-oriented result.) But where is the thermometer with which you can measure the quality of the teacher's work? From now on, it will be determined by the number of students enrolled in "4" and "5". So simply, in the Soviet way (the notorious percentage of quality, for which schools were accountable in those years, immediately comes to mind), it is planned to put Hegel's law into practice, thereby making a leap towards a new quality of education. And this is in conditions when problems associated with the physical and mental health of children are growing everywhere, and, as a result, every year the contingent of students who come to school becomes more complicated in the circumstances of the transition to universal complete compulsory secondary education. You don't have to be a great professional to distinguish a student's "learning" from his "learnability". Deep psychological knowledge is not required in order to understand the simple truth about the various educational opportunities of children. You should not indulge in research on the history of Soviet education in order to be convinced of the dire consequences of the notorious struggle for the percentage of academic achievement and quality. Then why, with one hand, teachers are required to teach all children without exception, regardless of their actual educational capabilities, and with the other, the teacher's salary is made dependent on the highest achievements of his pupils? Where is the logic? Formal logic does not work here, so let's turn to dialectical logic. Indeed, without old man Hegel, we can’t figure it out here either. His law of "unity and struggle of opposites" will help us to understand this paradoxical situation. The social and educational functions of the school are precisely those opposites that are simultaneously in struggle and in close unity.
From the point of view of socialization, society and the state need to educate all children without exception. Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Education" and the transition to per capita financing are aimed at solving this important problem. But the transition to universal compulsory complete secondary education inevitably lowers its level. And the country needs competent specialists capable of solving the problems of modernization. Therefore, teachers are required to improve the quality of education. How can this contradiction be removed? The answer to this question, at first glance, sounds paradoxical: through a qualitative assessment of the teacher's work in particular and the school as a whole.
In gymnasiums, lyceums and other elite educational institutions that select a contingent of students, the educational achievements of students, their victories at domestic and international Olympiads, really testify to the quality of the work of teachers who successfully implement the teaching function of the school. In educational institutions, whose contingent leaves much to be desired, the social function of the school comes to the fore. There, teachers should be evaluated and rewarded based on how successfully they use correctional techniques, what is the dynamics of the development of their problem students. In other words, the first step towards assessing the quality of a teacher's work is to analyze the contingent of students with whom he has to work. Based on this analysis, the priorities in the school's activities are determined, which affect the material incentives for teaching staff. For example, for a school operating in a complex microdistrict, where people with a low educational level, low social status live mainly, where alcoholization of the population is a harsh reality, the preservation of the student population is paramount. For its solution, it is necessary to reward the teacher, since his students, with rare exceptions, in principle, cannot demonstrate high educational achievements. It is immoral to compare, based on the results of attestation or passing the exam, the results of such a school with the success in the activities of an educational institution operating in fundamentally different conditions. I deliberately chose polar, extreme examples: an elite gymnasium and a school that works mainly with difficult children. It may be objected that in a mass general education school we are dealing with a mixed, heterogeneous contingent of students. How can the quality of a teacher's work be assessed there? Differentiated, based on the analysis of the real learning capabilities of those classes-groups in which this particular teacher works. Based on constant monitoring, recording the dynamics of the development and learning of students. Modern diagnostic procedures make it possible to obtain those informal data that will serve as the basis for stimulating the quality of the teacher's professional work. Then the work of a teacher who is successfully engaged in pedagogical correction can be paid not less, and in some cases, when he deals with very difficult students, even higher than the work of his colleague in raising gifted children. This will be an extremely fair and adequate assessment of the quality of the teacher's work, stimulating the parallel solution of two tasks of the school: social and educational. I leave financial details aside, because, having understood the principles of payment, any sane administrator will find an acceptable way to stimulate his teaching staff.
In conclusion, I again express regret that at one time we and our leaders did not teach dialectics from the original source. Whatever you say, philosophy classes hone thinking, help to find subtle tools for analyzing and tuning any system, in this particular case, educational. Armed with them, we would not swing an ax (mark) in order to establish the normal functioning of computer networks with the help of such a primitive tool.
Evgeny YAMBURG, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Pedagogy, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Director of the Moscow Education Center No. 109
