Speech is amazing strong remedy, but you need to have a lot of intelligence to use it.

Georg Hegel

It is believed that one of the main differences between a person and an animal, along with the mind, is the ability to speak. Speech makes our life much easier. With its help, we can express our feelings, wishes. The word is the most powerful tool (or rather, a weapon) in our age of information. Everyone knows that a word can sometimes hurt much more painfully than force.

And for us, Muslims, it is more important than anyone else to be the owner of the correct speech.

Consider what should be the speech of a Muslim.

1. Pleasant to the ear, namely, not to contain jargon, and even more so obscene expressions.

2. Soft and calm.

3. Extensive (rich), i.e. a Muslim must have a large vocabulary.

4. Filled with meaning.

« How many absurdities are said by people only from the desire to say something new ", said Voltaire. Indeed, one can only be surprised when people sometimes speak only for the sake of speaking.

Do not engage in empty useless conversations. This is condemned in Islam. Remember that by the way and what we say, others get the impression of all Muslims. The entire Ummah is judged by our speech.

5. And, of course, the speech of a Muslim must be truthful, not contain false words.

Imam Sajjad said: Do not lie in big or small, neither in jest nor in earnest. A person who lied about a small thing will go to a big lie ».

There are very wise saying thought-provoking: Don't always say what you know, always know what you're saying "(Claudius).

6. The speech should show respect for the interlocutor, which is manifested in the desire to listen and hear him. Do not interrupt the interlocutor.

An Arabic proverb says that we are given only 1 organ for speech and 2 organs for hearing, so that we know that we need to listen more than speak.

And why should these qualities be inherent in the speech of a Muslim? Because, firstly, in our manner of speaking, people who are far from religion form an idea of ​​Islam. Secondly, loud, broken speech is unpleasant to hear, and in a discussion, the ability to calmly convey one's position to an opponent can become an additional advantage. Thirdly, having a rich vocabulary, we can give compelling arguments and unique examples in upholding Islamic principles.

And, finally, simply because the media is currently actively promoting the backwardness of the Muslim community and its lagging behind the rest of society in development.

Our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is an example for us. Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

1. Do not lie in speeches.

2. Keep your promises.

3. Don't let down those who have trusted you.

4. Avert your eyes.

5. Keep your shame.

6. Do not give free rein to the hands and tongue.

I don't think there is any other reason to give.

Sometimes you can say something in anger without even thinking that these words can offend the interlocutor, hurt him, change his life. But not in vain folk wisdom reads: " The word is not a sparrow: fly out - you will not catch ».

A person rarely regrets that he spoke little, and, on the contrary, very often regrets that he spoke too much. This is an old truth, known to all and usually forgotten by many. So let's, brothers and sisters, let's not waste words in vain, let's not say what we don't know, let's follow and work out correct speech. May Allah help us!

It doesn't take much intelligence to blame Putin. Much more effort is required to understand the logic of his actions: he accepted the historical challenge of the West, but gave the wrong answer to it. The liberal opposition was so carried away by the fight against Putin that they generally let the topic of national interests out of sight.

To political disaster, as a rule, leads an impeccable chain of logically verified and impartially calculated steps of impeccably competent people ...

However, psychologism and mysticism have become dominant trends in the interpretation of the Kremlin's new course. In one form or another, most critical citizens are inclined to the hypothesis of war as an "irrational choice" Russian authorities- not due to any objective reasons, a voluntaristic decision, the explanation of which is more in the field of psychoanalysis than economic or political analysis. Differences arise only in the question of how many people "have gone crazy" - one, a whole group or the whole country.

However, the war with the West has not only subjective (which is much talked about), but also objective reasons. It arose from a tangle of economic and political contradictions in relations between Russia and the West, which had been accumulating for decades without finding their solution, and which, pressed by Western pressure to the Kremlin wall, Putin decided to cut with the "Novorossiysk sword" like a Gordian knot.

Is it necessary to kill a cancer patient?

Saving Russia is like treating Ebola in Central Africa: the virus is not so terrible as ignorance. Attitude to Ukrainian war split society. Public debate is increasingly reminiscent of a Kafkaesque discussion at the bedside of a cancer patient: "progressive" doctors offer to immediately kill the patient in order to destroy the tumor, and village relatives do not let them near the dying man's bedside, saying that they are proud of "the best tumor in the world." Russia, meanwhile, lies prostrate between liberals and nationalists, like a sick person on the canvases of Goya.

The good news for Russian nationalists is that Russia has not gone crazy at all, as many people think. decent people while trying so highly controversial and in a wild way protect their national interests. And in this, and not only and not so much in the effect of the activities of the means controlled by the authorities mass media, lies the solution to the mystery of the notorious "86 percent", voting for the war, for power and "for all the good against all the bad." Write off today's public sentiment exclusively for propaganda is to indulge in soothing and useless liberal self-deception. The bad news for nationalists, however, is that the nationalist war in Ukraine is the most unfortunate and almost suicidal way to protect them.

Negative attitude towards the existing in Russia political regime(of course, those who have a negative attitude towards it) should not obscure the vision that Russia, like any other state in the world, has certain economic, geopolitical (including military) interests that do not coincide with the interests of other states, and, accordingly, has the right to make active efforts to protect them.

Ideas about what the national interests of Russia are at a given moment in time, about possible and acceptable ways their protection, as well as their comparative effectiveness, can vary significantly. But this does not mean that Russia's national interests themselves can be ignored in the framework of public discussion as something secondary and insignificant. And that is exactly what is happening today. In order for the discussion to be productive, it is necessary to start the conversation with the question of Russia's national interests, and not end with it. Only in this case, "doctors" and "relatives" will have a chance to hear each other.

Hitting the solar plexus

Looking through books at the stand of the largest London store Waterstone, I came across an interesting brochure on the history of Great Britain. The author listed the events that became cornerstone formation national identity modern Britons - by the way, these events turned out to be not as many as we might have imagined. Of course, it all started with the Bill of Rights. But there was creation national system healthcare after World War II (the Bolsheviks created it in Russia decades before).

The last point was victory in the war with Argentina to keep the distant Falkland Islands under British control. This was somewhat unexpected for me.

Ukraine is an extremely sensitive, one might say, critically important area of ​​concentration of Russian economic, political and military interests, and the imperial syndrome, although present in the behavior of the Kremlin, is by no means the only or even dominant motive for its behavior. Ukraine is as important to Russia as the Middle East is to the US, and much more important than those already mentioned above. Falkland Islands for Britain. You can dislike Putin as much as you like, but it is difficult to dispute the fact that any, even the most liberal and democratic Russian government, being faced with the fact that Ukraine will join the economic system European Union would be in a very difficult position.

Russia and Ukraine in many ways continue to be part of a single economic system(although formally their economies are independent). The fact is that the division of Soviet economic " Siamese twins“In practice, this has never happened. Therefore, everything that happens to the Ukrainian economy can have a very painful effect on the state of the Russian economy - and vice versa, by the way, too. Connecting Ukraine, even if only partially, to the EU economy really creates a headache for Russia. it real problem, not "excuses".

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Kremlin, under these conditions, shared “its pain” with others.

Of course, it is outrageous that Moscow used this circumstance as a pretext for military aggression and carried out the annexation under this pretext. Crimean peninsula. But this does not mean that this circumstance itself should now be hushed up. Just as it should not be hushed up that the potential threat of the deployment of NATO military bases on the territory of Ukraine cannot be ignored by any political leadership of Russia (be it Putin or Khodorkovsky). NATO will cease to be a problem for Russia only in one case - if Russia joins NATO. But this is not yet discussed.

Ukraine is not just a zone heightened attention from the Russian side. it solar plexus Russian national interests. One way or another, but in the current format, Russia cannot exist without Ukraine. It was a serious omission on the part of the US and the EU (and even more so of Ukraine itself) to assume that Russia would react to Ukraine's change of political orientation in the same way as it reacted to Western actions in the Balkans or the Middle East. In principle, Russia's reaction could have been calculated, but this was not done, because in the West there was a very stereotypical idea of ​​Russia as an ordinary autocracy.

The weak start and lose

Throughout the twenty-five years of post-communism, the West slowly but consistently "squeezed out" Russia from participating in solving major problems. international problems, including those where Russia had a substantial interest of its own. Neither in the Balkans, nor in Iraq, nor in Libya, nor in Syria, the Russian point of view was taken into account. I do not touch here on the question of whether this point of view was correct or even simply adequate - I am only stating the indisputable fact that it was neglected.

It turned out to be much easier to break" iron curtain than learning to live without it. Russia turned out to be uncompetitive in relation to the West in a free market. There is a point of view, and it is not without reason, that the war between Russia and Ukraine is a reaction to Ukrainian revolution. It is both so and not so at the same time. The revolution was just a pretext for war. The Ukrainian blitzkrieg of the West has become last straw, which fell into the sea of ​​Russian grievances, after which it overflowed its banks. The real reason war is a chronic conflict between Russia and the West, the essence of which boils down to the fact that Russia, economically and politically long since moved from the front rows of the stalls to the amphitheater of world politics, believes that it is in the wrong place, and the West does not see good reasons, according to which he must continue to hold in the stalls the state, unable to pay the full cost of the ticket.

The war began not so much from an excess of forces, but from their lack. This is a desperate demarche of the weak against the strong. In the format open economy Russia is simply unable to effectively protect its economic and political interests in Ukraine. If Ukraine really becomes a free economic platform, Russia will most likely be ousted from Ukraine within a few years. Under certain conditions, Ukraine may even turn into a springboard for the EU's economic expansion into the domestic Russian market, which the political leadership of Russia does not tire of repeating. It will also make it much more difficult for Russia to engage in the traditional dispute over energy prices with Ukraine. Ukraine has tried to use its unique position as a transit country before to get gas at a discount. Together with the EU, it will certainly do this more efficiently.

The Ukrainian revolution deprived Putin of the comfortable opportunity to do nothing further. A dilemma arose before him: either to make Russia really strong, that is, competitive, by conducting deep economic and political reforms, or, without changing anything inside the country, push the West away from the Russian borders with the help of military force and hide behind Chinese wall". The Kremlin wars are an imitation of a response to a historical challenge, a way to avoid a solution pressing issues domestic policy. The irony of history is that Putin found it much easier to start a "hot" war than a war with the Ozero cooperative.

Liberalism and national interests

It doesn't take much intelligence to constantly blame Putin. Much more effort is required to understand the logic of his actions. He understood and accepted the historical challenge of the West, but gave the wrong answer to it. Instead of carrying out a deep modernization of Russia and increasing its real competitiveness, he decided to stop historical time and fence off the West" polite people". Russia has become like a fish-devil - on the whole, a rather small and not very dangerous predator - which lay down on the bottom and eerily swelled up. She desperately burns aviation kerosene, sending her bombers to distant shores to scare the "vultures" from her borders. But no one is afraid. No one will fight with Russia anyway - they will wait until the kerosene runs out.

Putin is not Stalin. Stalin's wars were part of his brutal program to modernize Russia, and Putin's wars are their replacements. Putin still has neither the Stalinist swing, nor the Stalinist obsession, nor the Stalinist ideological and psychological base. Putin is not a grand inquisitor, but a great imitator who creates an illusion historical life in a blooming swamp. He conducts seances, calling on the spirits of dead eras (and all at once - Muscovy, the Empire and the USSR), in the hope of getting help from the afterlife. historical world. But the spirits of the past do not know how to make the microchips needed for modern weapons.

The war could bring Russia to a plateau of stability for a short time. But in long term Russia has no chance to stay on this plateau without a technological breakthrough. A technological breakthrough without effectively working state institutions impossible. Of course, purely theoretically, Putin could become a "grand inquisitor", but for this he must, following Lee Kwan Yew, put all his closest friends behind bars. Moreover, since Russia is not Singapore, there will hardly be only twenty-six of them. If this happens, then it will be a completely different story. But so far it also looks unlikely.

Putin has chosen a response to the challenge that is beneficial not so much for Russia as ruling regime. At the same time, he managed to convince the majority of the population that the interests of Russia and the interests of the regime completely coincide, thus securing unprecedented public support for himself. As paradoxical as it sounds, it was not difficult for him to do this. And the reason is not at all in Putin's genius, but in the short-sightedness, selfishness and dogmatism of the liberal opposition, which continues to discuss the attitude towards Russian nationalism, instead of standing at the head of the national movement.

The liberal opposition was so carried away by the fight against Putin that, in the heat of the fight, they completely lost sight of the topic of Russia's national interests, leaving their protection to the "hated regime." She not only denies the option chosen by Putin to respond to the challenge (in which one can agree with her), but behaves as if no challenge exists at all.

Chaste liberalism dominates in Russia, for which Russia exists in an economic and political vacuum filled with vibes of love and mutual assistance (but this is impossible not only in the world of real politics, but also according to the laws of physics). BUT real world with its fierce competition and struggle for markets, resources and influence, it has completely fallen out of the liberal discourse.

As a result, Putin found himself on the political field ceded to him without a fight, practically beyond competition (all illiberal opposition groups to him in this moment joined). While the Kremlin, under the pretext of war, carried out an emergency social mobilization of Russian society, the liberal opposition continues to insist on its immediate "demobilization". There is nothing surprising in the fact that it remains misunderstood by its people. The populace instinctively feels threatened and instinctively prefers someone who offers a flawed defense strategy to someone who offers nothing.

Abstract reasoning about freedom is of little help. The ideologists of "Russian liberalism" behave today as if there were no "90s" with their barbaric privatization supported by the West, with the collapse of the economy and state-legal institutions, the criminalization of public and public life, the destruction of education and health systems. But they were, and all of the above was done precisely under the slogan of building democracy and a free market. It is foolish and short-sighted to expect that society has a memory as short as that of the "creative class".

All "peacekeeping" efforts will sink into the sand until the objective reasons that led Russia to war with the West (at the moment - in the "Ukrainian format") are analyzed impartially and honestly in all their complex ambiguity. When the world collapses, whether in a family or on a planet, there is no one party to blame. A wedge is being knocked out with a wedge - the liberal opposition must either propose its own program of national mobilization, alternative to Putin's, or be forced to leave the historical stage forever.

“Speech is an amazingly powerful tool, but you need to have a lot of intelligence to use it” G. Hegel

In this quote German philosopher Geogr Hegel raises the issue rational use human speech.

The meaning of this statement is that before you say something, you need to think carefully, scroll through this information several times in your head. To do this, you need a lot of intelligence in order to competently use speech for your own good, to correctly formulate your thought in your head, to express it clearly and clearly with the help of speech.

In order to most clearly reveal the problem raised in this quote, it is worth referring to such concepts as speech, thinking and analysis. Speech is a historically established form of human communication through language. Thinking is a person's ability to know. Analysis - the mental decomposition of the subject, the identification of the main properties, signs.

It is also worth noting that the problem is the most relevant at the present time.

Let us turn to examples of situations in order to most clearly reveal the essence. There are examples in history when large conflicts, wars, clashes began because of an incorrectly expressed thought. And there are thousands of such examples. For example, you can take the war for colonies between countries Western Europe. These wars were very stupid, as the conflicts started because of a simple misunderstanding of the parties.

The second example is the ordinary televised political debate. Most often, the participants in these debates do not think at all what they are saying, they only shout over each other, insult, carry all sorts of nonsense, instead of coalition detachment come up with a solution to a problem.

Summing up common feature of his work, I would like to note that only really clever man thinks through a thought before expressing it.

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

Charles Maurice Talleyrand - French politician and diplomat. The name "Talleyrand" has become almost a household name to denote cunning, dexterity and unscrupulousness. Talleyrand was born into a wealthy aristocratic family. As a result, Charles Maurice perfectly understood and felt the full power of money, their nature and properties. From this arose his aphorism: “In order to have a lot of money, one does not need to have a lot of mind, but one must not have a conscience.”
Money has always been one of the themes of good and evil. Someone was a supporter of the fact that money is everything in our life, the key to success and recognition. “A man with money is a man everywhere!” - says famous phrase from The Brothers Karamazov by F. M. Dostoevsky. M. Mitchell, in his work “Gone with the Wind,” said: “There is only one reliable remedy in the world against any misfortune that fate can bring down on a person - this is money.”
Others, on the contrary, considered money to be the root of evil. “Money with everything that can be bought with it does not bring happiness,” J. Galsworthy. Bulgakov repeated: "The history of capital is a sad, terrible tale of human heartlessness and selfishness." Charles Maurice Talleyrand, in his aphorism, spoke of money as a source of human cruelty. After all, it is conscience that warns people against sin. money in in large numbers only in exceptional case are honest. Millions of people get higher education, but do not earn much money later. But those who are not clean before the law and their own conscience safely sail on their own yachts across the expanses of the oceans. They go to meanness, deceit, betrayal and even murder in order to earn as much as possible. more money. By robbing their competitors, they are robbing themselves without noticing it. They plunder their soul, break it into small pieces, into puzzle pieces that can no longer be assembled.
But why do people have such a zeal for money? Chernyshevsky said that wealth is a thing without which one can live happily; but wealth is a thing necessary for happiness. With the development of society, commodity-money relations also developed. Almost all wealth and recreational resources became paid. People have a range of needs. According to Maslow, they are divided into basic, spiritual, prestigious, etc. And these needs people, in view of their nature, must satisfy. It turns out a closed chain: people - needs - money-needs-people. And the more we have, the more we want. From here, many of us forget about our conscience, but we get everything that we can buy. But no matter what we say, there is something in our life that cannot be bought. Love, friendship, family, peace and much more. Money comes and goes, but friends remain. Just like the mind, education. You must always know the measure.
If the thesis were wrong, then the world would finally be captured by the fall. Everyone would kill, steal, lie, forget about the closest people. There would be endless wars, endless chaos. Thank God that money has not captured the souls and minds of all people.
The aphorism “In order to have a lot of money, one does not need to have a lot of intelligence, but one must not have a conscience” closely intersects with catch phrase: “There is no evil without good” or “everything is known in comparison”. By the way, money perfectly opens a person to us. By how a person earns and how he spends money, you can judge how good a person is.
There are a lot of examples from life on this topic. It is enough to turn on the news to hear about a murder or an attempt, on the basis of monetary relations. Sad statistic.
The opinions of Charles Maurice Talleyrand are also shared by Plato and Huberman. Plato said that it is impossible to be both very good and very rich at the same time. And Huberman believed: "Alas, but it is impossible to improve the budget without soiling the cuffs."
I agree with the opinions of Charles Maurice Talleyrand, Plato and Huberman. Money has always been a source of evil and wars, and I want to live in a world where goodness and love reign. Of course, I understand that I will not change anything, but I will make at least a small contribution to the creation of such a world. You need to be able to stop in time, and if possible, be sure to share. Hope I'm not the only one who thinks so.