categories that reflect the system-forming moment of the program (C.) and what serves its implementation, the embodiment of C. into a result (C.). C., directing activity, answers the question “for what?” or “why?”, Being the core of the pattern of the result towards which the being strives. Thus, it represents what Aristotle called the “target cause”. C. exists wherever there is subjective reality, and the latter is the universal attribute of being in its entirety. Even in humans, C. is far from always conscious, and outside of human existence, we still do not know those who are guided by conscious goals. Nevertheless, they are selective, have information programs and, therefore, are not absolute puppets of external circumstances. The basis of change and development is both an objective process that obeys laws, and subjective activity, in which objective and subjective S. are chosen under the C. - Sagatovsky V.N. Fundamentals of systematization of general categories. Tomsk. 1973. S. 341-349.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
PURPOSE AND MEANS
concepts, the correlation of which constitutes a problem expressed in the well-known maxim “the end justifies the means” and related to the value aspect of the relationship between the end and the means and, accordingly, the choice and evaluation of means in expedient activity. Concerning the solution of this problem in the popular literature, the antithesis of the so-called. Jesuitism / Machiavellianism, etc. abstract humanism; it is generally accepted that the Jesuits, as well as Machiavelli, preached the principle that the end certainly justifies the means, and abstract humanists (which included L. N. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, A. Schweitzer) argued the opposite, namely: the real value of the means as a whole determines the value of the results achieved.
The named maxim goes back to the statement of T. Hobbes, made by him in explaining the sugi of natural law (“On the Citizen”, ch. “Freedom”, I, 8); according to Hobbes, each person himself, on the basis of reason, that is, natural law, must judge what means are necessary to ensure his own security. This maxim does not correspond to the spirit of the Jesuit teaching, and although the formula “To whom the goal is allowed, the means are also allowed” was developed in Jesuit theology (by G. Buzenbaum), it only assumed that the means can be value-indifferent, and their value is determined by the worthiness of the goal. to which they are applied. Maxima was openly preached by a number of Jesuits, but principles of this kind were adhered to (openly or secretly) not only and not necessarily by the Jesuits, but in fact by all those thinkers and figures for whom ideal goals were the exclusive subject of moral evaluation.
From a formal point of view, the proposition that the end justifies the means is trivial: a good end does justify the means. From a pragmatic point of view, any practical, i.e., oriented to a directly achievable result, action, by the very meaning of its intention, determines the means necessary to achieve it; the achievement of the goal compensates (justifies) the inconvenience and costs necessary for this. In the framework of practical activity, efforts are recognized as a means only in their relation to a specific goal and acquire their legitimacy through the legitimacy of the goal. In praxeological terms, the problem of reconciling goals and means is: a) instrumental (means must be adequate, i.e. ensure the effectiveness of activities) and b) goal-oriented (means must be optimal, i.e. ensure the effectiveness of activities - achieving results at the lowest cost ). According to the logic of practical action (see Benefit), successful and effective activity is an essential factor in the transformation of value consciousness: the achieved goal establishes updated evaluation criteria. In modern social sciences, antithetical ideas have been formed, correlating with the praxeological approach to this problem, regarding functionally different types of activities: predetermine the planned results and scope of the project; b) technical means are developed within the framework of systems of purposeful rational action, one does not develop separately from the other (J. Habermas).
A demagogic-moralizing approach should be distinguished from the pragmatic one (see Moralizing), in which the maxim “the end justifies the means” is invoked to justify obviously unseemly or criminal actions. At the same time, what is mentioned as a “good goal” is either (in the long term) a declaration, or (retrospectively) an event that chronologically followed the actions taken, and the actions themselves, given the results obtained, do not really turn out to be a means, but are committed irresponsibly and arbitrarily or for their own sake.
The actual ethical problem arises in connection with the assumption that for the sake of a good goal it turns out to be morally permissible to perform any necessary actions (even if they are usually considered unseemly, morally unacceptable, and even downright criminal). Such a point of view is objectively relativistic (see Relativism): although not all actions are recognized as permissible, but only those that really lead to what is recognized as the highest goal, in the end, the choice of means turns out to be determined by the strategy and tactics of activity. Such an approach is fraught with a relativistic error. As Hegel showed, this error lies in the fact that actions considered as means are morally negative objectively, in themselves and in their concreteness, while the alleged end is good only according to a subjective opinion based on the concept of abstract good. In other words, from an ethical point of view, although actions as means are performed for the sake of a certain goal, their moral significance is determined not by expediency, but by correlation precisely with general principles. Therefore, the problem of ends and means is constituted as an ethical one in opposition to pragmatism and prudentialism.
Significant clarifications in the very formulation of the problem of goals and means were introduced by / Ms. Dewey in a polemic with L. D. Trotsky. 1. The concept of goal has a double meaning: a) goal as a plan and motive, oriented towards the ultimate, all-justifying goal, and b) goal as an achieved result, or a consequence of the use of certain means; the results achieved themselves act as means to the end. 2. Evaluation of funds should also be made in terms of the result that is achieved with their help; this is the principle of the interdependence of ends and means. The end as a result depends on the means used and is determined by them; but their evaluation depends on the goal as the result achieved. Since the ultimate goal is the idea of final consequences, and this idea is formulated on the basis of those means that are evaluated as the most desirable for achieving the goal, the final goal is itself a means of directing action. Dewey's scheme contains a real dialectic of end and means, which is not exhausted by the universally recognized proposition that the goals achieved themselves become a means for subsequent goals (suffice it to say that this proposition was equally shared by both Trotsky and Jandi). Following the principle of interdependence requires a rigorous and critical examination of the means used in terms of how accurately the results to which they lead correspond to those planned. 3. A real unity of ends and means can be ensured on the condition that the means are actually determined in accordance with the ends, and not “derived”, as is often the case, from considerations external to the situation of choice (thus, Trotsky justified the methods of revolutionary struggle used "the laws of the development of society", in particular the "law of the class struggle"), otherwise it turns out that the goal is made dependent on the means, while the means are not derived from the goal. 4. The highest goals are moral goals, in the final analysis, they should be understood as an ideal, the achievement of which in the sense of practical realization, strictly speaking, is impossible; in activities oriented towards the ideal, it is all the more necessary to take into account the principle of the interdependence of means and ends as the practical consequences of the use of means. This provision was clarified by J. P. Sartre: the impossibility of realizing the goal, which is in the unattainable future and functions as an ideal, leads to a situation where the connection between the goal and the means is specific, while the goal as an ideal plays the role of an imperative. To develop this, an additional clarification is needed: morality is a value characteristic, but not the content of the goal. The attempt to accept "morality" as such as the goal of objectively defined activity, that is, to make the fulfillment of a principle or rule the content of actions, leads to rigorism. The assumption that "morality" may be the goal of activity turns out in practice that the goals actually pursued are not analyzed for their compliance with moral criteria; intoxication with the goal leads to the assumption of any goals. The ideal, the highest values and principles should not be the actual goal pursued, but the basis of actions and the criterion for their evaluation. Morality is not the ultimate goal of life, but the path of life (N. A. Berdyaev).
Final essay on literature 2018. Theme of the final essay on literature. "Aims and Means".
.
FIPI comment:“The concepts of this direction are interrelated and allow us to think about a person’s life aspirations, the importance of meaningful goal setting, the ability to correctly correlate the goal and the means to achieve it, as well as the ethical assessment of human actions. Many literary works feature characters who deliberately or mistakenly chose unsuitable means to implement their plans. And it often turns out that a good goal serves only as a cover for true (lower) plans. Such characters are opposed by heroes for whom the means to achieve a lofty goal are inseparable from the requirements of morality.
Consider the concepts of "goal" and "means" from different angles.
1. Purpose as a fundamental part of human life. About the role and importance of having a goal in a person’s life, about its absence, about a person’s striving for heights, about achievements and about a goal as an engine of progress, about self-realization, great discoveries that are possible only thanks to a goal, about obstacles on the way to a goal, about a goal as a continuous process, as well as about what and who helps a person on the way to his goals.
2. Goals are different(true, false, great, vile, unattainable, selfish) One can speculate about the differences between goals and dreams, as well as how a person’s goals are connected with his personality. What leads to the pursuit of certain goals.
3. Does the end justify the means? Here one can speculate about whether great goals achieved by dishonest means can be justified, about the importance of human life, about the methods of achieving the goal, and about the ethical evaluation of methods and means to achieve the goal.
Target- this is an imaginary peak, individual for each person, to which he aspires, and tries to fulfill for this all the necessary conditions, requirements, duties that depend on him. From the point of view of philosophy, the goal is a necessary condition for life, both for humans and for other organisms.
Synonyms: intention, end, task, task, plan, plan, project, calculation, target; meta, types, end, dream, ideal, aspiration, object (of the sweetest dreams), so that; end in itself, intent, ultimate dream, highest goal, landmark, intention, telos, meaning, setting, purpose, goal setting, function, mission, fireball, dream-idea
Means- technique, method of action to achieve something. or something that serves a goal, necessary to achieve, carry out smth.
Synonyms: way, possibility, method; tool, device, weapon; panacea, tool, system, path, asset, resource, condition, method, recipe, drug,
Quotes for the final essay 2018 in the direction "Aims and means".
A person who certainly wants something forces fate to give up. (M.Yu. Lermontov)
Man must learn to obey himself and obey his decisions. (Cicero)
When the goal is reached, the path is forgotten. (Osho)
The meaning of life is those goals that make you appreciate it. (W. James)
Perfect means for obscure ends are a characteristic feature of our time. (A. Einstein)
High goals, even if unfulfilled, are dearer to us than low goals, even if they are achieved. (I. Goethe)
If you want to lead a happy life, you must be attached to a goal, not to people or things. (A. Einstein)
You cannot change the direction of the wind, but you can always raise the sails to reach your goal. (O. Wilde)
Find a goal, resources will be found. (M. Gandhi)
If you are heading towards the goal and stop along the way to throw stones at every dog that barks at you, you will never reach the goal. (F.M. Dostoevsky)
The weaker and simpler people are best judged by their characters, the more intelligent and secretive by their goals. (F. Bacon)
It's never too late to step out of the crowd. Follow your dream, move towards your goal. (B. Shaw)
When it seems to you that the goal is unattainable, do not change the goal - change your plan of action. (Confucius)
No end is so lofty as to justify the unworthy means to achieve it. (A. Einstein)
We must set ourselves tasks above our strength: firstly, because you never know them anyway, and secondly, because forces appear as you complete an unattainable task. (B. L. Pasternak)
Ask yourself, do you crave this with all the strength of your soul? Will you live to see the evening if you don't get this thing? And if you are sure that you will not live, grab it and run. (R. Bradbury)
To reach the goal, you must first of all go. (O. de Balzac)
A person must have a goal, he cannot do it without a goal, for that reason is given to him. If he does not have a goal, he invents it... (A. and B. Strugatsky)
If you want to achieve the goal of your aspiration, ask more politely about the road you have lost. (W. Shakespeare)
I understand HOW; I do not understand why. (J. Orwell)
If you want to achieve a goal, don't try to be subtle or smart. Use rough tricks. Hit the target right away. Come back and hit again. Then hit again, with the strongest blow from the shoulder. (W. Churchill)
No transport will be passing if you do not know where to go. (E.A. Poe)
The one who aspires to the stars does not turn around. (L. da Vinci)
Life goes breathless without an aim. (F. M. Dostoevsky)
There are few unattainable things in the world: if we had more perseverance, we could find a way to almost any goal. (F. de La Rochefoucauld)
Some Jesuits say that every means is good, if only to achieve the goal. Not true! Not true! With feet defiled by the dirt of the road, it is unworthy to enter a clean temple. (I.S. Turgenev)
He walks faster who walks alone. (J. London)
Life reaches its peaks in those moments when all its forces are directed towards the implementation of the goals set for it. (J. London)
High goals, even if unfulfilled, are dearer to us than low goals, even if they are achieved. (Goethe)
At some second of the way, the target begins to fly at us. The only thought: do not evade. (M.I. Tsvetaeva)
The intention of a warrior is stronger than any obstacles. (K. Castaneda)
Only the one in whom the aspirations have died out is lost forever. (A. Rand)
It is much better to do great deeds, to celebrate great victories, even if mistakes happen along the way, than to join the ranks of ordinary people who know neither great joy nor great misfortune, living a gray life, where there are neither victories nor defeats. (T. Roosevelt)
Not a single person lives without some goal and striving for it. Having lost purpose and hope, a person often turns into a monster out of anguish... (F.M. Dostoevsky)
A person grows as his goals grow. (I. Schiller)
If there is no goal, you do nothing, and you do nothing great if the goal is insignificant. (D. Diderot)
Seek what is above what you can find. (D.I. Kharms)
Nothing calms the spirit so much as finding a solid goal - a point to which our inner gaze is directed. (M. Shelley)
Happiness lies in the joy of reaching a goal and the thrill of creative effort. (F. Roosevelt)
Analysis of the goals of participants in international relations is not only one of the most important conditions for understanding their characteristics, but also one of the most difficult tasks. The fact is that the goal is a largely subjective category, and it can be judged only on the basis of the actual consequences of the actions taken by the participants in international relations, and in this case, the degree of reliability of such a judgment is by no means absolute and far from unambiguous. This is all the more important to emphasize that the results of people's activities are often very different from their intentions.
Nevertheless, sociological science has developed such an approach to understanding goals, which, while not being an absolute guarantee against subjectivity, has proven itself to be quite fruitful. We are talking about an approach from the point of view of the behavior of the subject, that is, from the point of view of analyzing the consequences of his actions, and not his thoughts and declared intentions. So, if from several possible consequences of any action we observe the one that occurs, and we have reason to believe that it would not have happened without the desire of the acting subject, this means that the indicated consequence was its goal (1). An example is the rise in popularity of the government of M. Thatcher in the UK as a result of his actions to overcome the Malvinas crisis.
Based on this approach, most representatives of the science of international relations define goals as the intended (desired) result of an action that is its cause (motivator) (see, for example: 1; 2; 3). This applies both to supporters of political realism and to representatives of other theoretical schools in the science of international relations, including Marxist and neo-Marxist currents. The latter are based, in particular, on the position of K. Marx, according to which “the future result of activity first exists in the human head ideally, as an internal image, as an incentive and goal. This goal as a task determines the method and nature of a person’s actions, and he must subordinate his activity to it” (4).
A certain methodological similarity is also noted in the understanding of the meaning of the category "interest" for the analysis of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in the structure of the goals of participants in international relations. It is no coincidence that this category is given great attention in the works of representatives of various trends in the science of international relations. Thus, for example, the theoretical constructions of the school of political realism are constructed, as we have already seen, on the basis of the category "interest expressed in terms of power (power)". From the point of view of G. Morgenthau, the national interest contains two main elements: central (permanent) and secondary (changeable). In turn, the central interest consists of three factors: the nature of the interest that must be protected, the political environment in which the interest operates, and the rational necessity that limits the choice of ends and means (5).
It was already noted in the first chapter that R. Aron (and a number of his followers) considered the concept of national interest to be too ambiguous and therefore of little operational value for the analysis of the goals and means of international relations. At the same time, his provisions on the so-called eternal goals of any state essentially coincide with the traditional understanding of the national interest inherent in the school of political realism. Indeed, from the point of view of R. Aron, eternal goals can manifest themselves both in an abstract and concrete way. In the first case, they appear as a desire for security, power and glory, and in the second, they are expressed in a thirst for expanding space (or, in other words, increasing the territory occupied by a particular political unit), increasing the number of people (the population of the state) and the conquest of human souls (the spread of the ideology and values of a given political actor) (6).
Nowadays, in the conditions of increasing global interdependence of mankind, the category of "interest" plays an important role in understanding the essence of those events, phenomena and processes that take place in the sphere of international relations. However, it should be borne in mind that this role is not absolute.
As R. Aron noted, the foreign policy activity of the state is expressed in the actions of its leaders, who have certain degrees of freedom in choosing goals. At the same time, ideology, ambitions, temperament, etc. play a great role. leader qualities. On the other hand, their very position determines that they seek to create the impression that the basis of all their actions is the national interest. Moreover, some researchers believe that
that although interest is objective, it is essentially unknowable. Therefore, for a scientist proceeding from an objective interest in explaining the behavior of people and social communities, the danger lies in the almost inevitable possibility of slipping into the path of arbitrary "construction" of interests. In other words, there is a risk of replacing the subjectivity of those whom the sociologist studies with his own subjectivity (see: 1, p. 26).
A well-known French specialist in the field of international relations, J.-B. Duro-zel. “It would, of course, be good,” he writes, “if it were possible to define an objective national interest. It would then be quite easy to examine international relations by comparing the national interest proposed by the leaders with the objective national interest. The trouble, however, is that any reflection on the objective national interest is subjective” (7).
In the end, since it is not possible to define the concept of national interest from this point of view, it is suggested that the motivation for the actions of participants in international relations is not interest, but “national identity” (8). We are talking about language and religion as the foundations of national unity, about cultural and historical values and national and historical memory, etc. From these positions, for example, the behavior of France in the international arena can be better understood if we keep in mind the fluctuations of its historical traditions between patriotism and pacifism, anti-colonial ideology and the idea of a “civilizing mission” that underlay colonial expansions, etc. In turn, the historical tradition, the sides of which are the isolationism of the "Founding Fathers" and interventionism, can serve as the key to understanding the international activity of the United States (see: ibid., p. 474).
Indeed, without taking into account cultural and historical traditions and national values, an understanding of the foreign policy of a particular state and international relations in general would be incomplete, and therefore incorrect. And yet, most likely, G. Morgeitau is closer to the truth, who does not oppose national identity to national interest, but considers the first an integral element of the second (see: 18, p. 3-12).
In fact, the basis of any interest is the objective needs, the needs of the subject or social community, due to its economic, social, political and other
situation. The process of cognizing social needs is the process of forming the interests of people (see about this: 3, pp. 112-124). Interest, therefore, is an objective-subjective category. Moreover, objective in its basis can be not only true, but also falsely understood interest. Thus, for decades in the West there was an opinion about the Soviet military threat, and, consequently, that the buildup of armaments served the fundamental interests of democratic states in defense against attack from the totalitarian regime. And although the Soviet Union was not really interested in attacking the Western countries, its behavior in the foreign policy field, as well as at home, gave grounds for their distrust of it (in fairness, it should be noted that the reverse is also true). In reality, the arms race did not serve the interests of either side.
There are also imaginary and subjective national interests. An example of the first is such circumstances when an idea becomes a national myth, takes possession of the minds of people, and it is extremely difficult to prove this imaginary to them (9). As for the subjective interest, the textbook example here is the act of Herostratus, who achieved immortal "glory" by setting fire to the temple. In the sphere of modern international relations, the motives that guided Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 can serve as an example of subjective "national interest" (declarations on the need to annex "the province that originally belonged to Iraq" were only a pretext for trying to solve the internal difficulties of the Iraqi regime by a "small victorious war").
Along with the main (radical, permanent) and non-main (secondary, temporary) interests, objective and subjective interests, real and imaginary, there are also interests that coincide and are mutually exclusive, intersect and do not intersect, etc. (ten).
Based on the foregoing, the public interest can be defined as the conscious needs of the subject (social community) arising from the fundamental conditions of its existence and activity. At the same time, interest is the relation of a need to the conditions for its realization. Accordingly, the national interest is the awareness and reflection in the activities of its leaders of the needs of the state. This also applies to multinational and ethnically heterogeneous states: in fact, national interest means national-state interest.
the most important categories of politics and political science, characterizing the organic relationship and interdependence between consciously chosen methods, methods, actions and the results obtained due to this. Throughout the entire political history of mankind, the question of the relationship between ends and means has been at the center of attention of politicians - practitioners and theorists. Some schools and concepts were replaced by others, formulas and principles such as “achieving the goal by any means” or “the goal justifies the means” were put forward. However, the meaning of the real dependence existing here remained not open. Only in modern times, with the study of such theoretical problems as interest and idea, necessity and freedom, spontaneity and consciousness, did science and social science come to the heart of the matter. It turned out that each goal has a strictly defined arsenal of means, the use of which alone can lead to the chosen goal. Exceeding the limits of means compatible with a given goal inevitably leads to the loss of the chosen goal itself, leads to unexpected results that are very divergent from the intended goal. The real mechanism of the influence of the applied means on the progress towards the goal is due to the interdependence that exists between the genesis and the result, between the becoming and the becoming. Everything that was in the genesis is present as a result, in what has become there is only what was in the formation itself, and not only the material composition itself, but also the means of its organization affect the result: improperly carried out melting, with all the good quality of raw materials, will not give such a desired grade . The specifics of the relationship between goals and means in social development also became more and more clear: the means of changing social conditions here are the people themselves, their actions, during which the participants in the events themselves become different, and, as the young Marx noted, a worthy goal here is achievable only by worthy means. Noting the profound change in socio-economic conditions in the 19th century, K. Marx, M. Weber and E. Bernstein pointed to a fundamentally new role of consciousness, conscious actions in history: reason became the main condition for creating social wealth, science became a direct productive force. A situation has arisen when, as a result of unsuitable means - delusions, social psychoses, manipulation of the consciousness of the masses, as well as unforeseen consequences of organized actions - human civilization itself can be either directly destroyed (in the event of a deliberately organized nuclear missile conflict, an explosion due to the negligence or incompetence of a number of atomic power plants such as Chernobyl, as a result of industrial destruction of the ozone layer around the Earth, or the foundations of human civilization (ecological habitat, hereditary foundations for the reproduction of the human race, mechanisms of natural historical progress, etc.) ). Because of this, all of humanity or a certain part of it, a country, a nation, a people may find themselves in a socio-economic impasse or even a historical niche, from which such a country or such a people will no longer be able to get out and return to the common path of progress. This can be avoided by correctly balancing the means and the end. Soviet society embarked on the post-October path in conditions when humanity was not yet aware of not only all, but even the main dangers that could become fatal in the transition to a period of predominantly conscious evolution. Already within the framework of the policy of "war communism" of 1918-1921, when the goal was sought to be achieved by any means, a "cavalry attack" on capital was made, the first disastrous attempt was made by inadequate means - "direct orders of the state" - to achieve the desired goal: "to establish a state production and state distribution of products in a communist way in a small-peasant country”. (Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 44, p. 151). Life forced me to admit that this is a mistake. The realization led to a decisive turn away from "war communism" to "new economic policy" as an adequate means of advancing towards the socialist goal. But the assimilation of the lesson of history was not fundamental, but pragmatic: the unrealistic "assault" means of achieving the socialist goal were replaced by mediating ones. The main thing was not understood: the existence of a deep, organic connection between the goal and the means to achieve it. There was a huge danger in this, because a period of real “reversal” of the relationship between ends and means in Soviet history was setting in. The essence of socialism is to place the working man at the center of social life, to satisfy his needs and interests, to make him the master of life. But this requires certain prerequisites: the level of development of the productive forces and the well-being of the population, the culture of working people, democratic traditions, and so on. All this is ensured by a highly developed capitalist society. But if the transition to socialism begins in a country that is not highly developed, then the very creation of the aforementioned prerequisites or conditions, being in essence a means or even a condition for the emancipation of a person of labor as the goal of socialism, practically for society becomes for a more or less long time a goal, or rather an intermediate goal. without achieving which it is impossible to achieve the main essential goal of socialism - to ensure the emancipation of the working man, the satisfaction of his needs and interests. Thus, life itself “turned over” the essential connections between the goal and the means, changed their places, gave the means in the minds of people the halo of the goal, assigned them a central place. While the Leninist guard was still alive, they tried to explain the essence of the matter. So, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars A. Rykov said in 1929: “Questions relating to things and technical issues quite rightly occupy a huge place in our life, but we must not forget that all this exists for people - for workers and peasants.” The real reversal of the relationship between ends and means was of necessity a long-term one. Based on this objective-subjective premise, I. Stalin and his entourage made a second attempt to “build socialism at any cost”, embarking on the path of running away, began to profess and implement the formula “the end justifies the means”, which was a frank justification of subjectivism and voluntarism, official agreement with the impatience of the masses who, regardless of conditions, real opportunities and means, wanted to achieve the ultimate goal - socialism, to receive the benefits associated with socialism, or rather, their propaganda image, because society did not yet have the means necessary for real socialism. This is how a monster society arose, or pseudo-socialism in the barracks, which swore in its service to the working people, but was in fact the realization of the social ideal of the party-state bureaucracy. As the experience of the Soviet Union and not only shows, if an attempt is made to build socialism at any cost and in this case inhumane means incompatible with the nature of socialism are used, the goal will not be achieved. The use of means incompatible with the chosen goal changes the direction and nature of development itself and leads to very unexpected results. Therein lies the entire perniciousness of inadequate means for solving revolutionary problems, achieving a socialist goal, those means that Stalinism, Maoism, Polpotism, etc., imposed on society. They destroyed something that should not have been destroyed, and created something different from what they promised. Purpose and means. But what then is the real relation between ethics and politics? Is there really nothing in common between them, as has sometimes been said? Or, on the contrary, should it be considered correct that the “same” ethics is valid for political action as well as for any other? It has sometimes been assumed that these are two completely alternative statements: either one or the other is correct. But is there any truth in the fact that at least some ethics in the world could put forward essentially identical commandments in relation to erotic and business, family and service relations, relations to a wife, greengrocer, son, competitors, friend, defendants? Should it really be so indifferent to the ethical requirements of politics that it operates with the help of a very specific means - power, backed by violence? How, besides the personality of despots and dilettantism, does the rule of workers' and soldiers' Soviets differ from the rule of any ruler of the old regime? What is the difference between the polemics of the majority of the representatives of the most supposedly new ethics against the opponents they criticize from the polemics of some other demagogues? Noble intentions! - follows the answer. Good. But after all, we are talking here precisely about the means, and the nobility of final intentions is exactly the same with complete subjective honesty and opponents wounded by enmity. If the conclusion of the acosmic ethics of love reads: “Do not resist evil with violence,” then the exact opposite is valid for a politician: you must resist evil by force, otherwise you are responsible for the fact that evil will prevail ... We must understand for ourselves that every ethically oriented action can be subject to two fundamentally different, irreconcilably opposed maxims: it can be oriented either towards an "ethics of persuasion" or an "ethics of responsibility". But in the sense that the ethics of persuasion would turn out to be identical with irresponsibility, and the ethics of responsibility would be identical with unscrupulousness. This, of course, is out of the question. But a deep contrast exists between whether beliefs act according to the maxim of ethics - in the language of religions: “A Christian does what he should, and for the result he trusts in God”, or whether they act according to the maxim of responsibility: one must pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions. . The main means of politics is violence, and how important the tension between the means and the end is from an ethical point of view - you can judge this by the fact that this side (revolutionary socialists - A.B.) morally rejects the “despotic politicians” of the old regime because their use of the same means, however justified the abandonment of their ends. As regards the sanctification of means by the end, the ethics of persuasion in general seems to fail here. Of course, logically it has only the possibility of rejecting any behavior that uses morally dangerous means. True, in the real world, we again and again encounter examples when a person who professes the ethics of persuasion suddenly turns into a chiliastic prophet, such as those who, preaching “love against violence” at the moment, in the next moment call for violence - for the last violence, which would lead to the abolition of all violence, just as our military men at every offensive told the soldiers: this offensive is the last one, it will lead to victory and, therefore, to peace. He who professes the ethics of persuasion cannot bear the ethical irrationality of the world. He is a cosmic-ethical "rationalist". Of course, each of you who knows Dostoevsky remembers the scene with the Grand Inquisitor, where this problem is stated correctly. It is impossible to put a single cap on the ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility, or ethically decree which end should sanctify which means, if any concessions are made to this principle at all. The ancient problem of theodicy is precisely the question: why is it that a force portrayed as both omnipotent and good could create such an irrational world of undeserved suffering, unpunished injustice and incorrigible stupidity? Either it is not the one, or it is not the other; or life is governed by quite different principles of compensation and recompense, such as we can interpret metaphysically, or else such as will forever be inaccessible to our interpretation. The problem of the experience of the irrationality of the world has been the driving force behind all religious development. The Indian doctrine of karma and Persian dualism, original sin, predestination and Deus absconditus all grew out of this experience. And the first Christians knew very precisely that the world is ruled by demons, that whoever associates with politics, that is, with power and violence as means, concludes a pact with the forces of the devil, and that in relation to his action, not that is true, which can follow from good only good, and from evil only evil, but often vice versa. Whoever does not see this is indeed a child politically. Thus, the problem of political ethics is by no means raised by modern unbelief, born of the Renaissance cult of heroes. All religions have struggled with this problem with the most varied success, and because it was said, it could not be otherwise. It is precisely the specific means of legitimate violence, exclusively as such, in the hands of human associations, that determines the peculiarity of all ethical problems of politics. Whoever, for whatever purpose, blocks himself with the indicated means - and every politician does this - is also subject to its specific consequences. A fighter for the faith, both religious and revolutionary, is particularly susceptible to them. Let's take an unbiased look at the example of today. Anyone who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force needs a retinue for this: a human “apparatus”. He must promise him the necessary / internal and external / reward - heavenly or earthly reward - otherwise the “apparatus” does not work. So, in the conditions of the modern class struggle, the inner reward is the quenching of hatred and the thirst for revenge, first of all: Ressentimenta and the need for a pseudo-ethical feeling of unconditional rightness, reproach and blasphemy of opponents ... The retinue of a fighter for the faith that has reached dominance usually easily degenerates into a completely ordinary sing of the owners warm places. Whoever wants to engage in politics in general and make it his only profession must be aware of these ethical paradoxes and his responsibility for what will come out of him under their influence. He, I repeat, is entangled with the forces of the Devil, who lie in wait for him at every act of violence. The great virtuosos of acosmic love for man and kindness, whether they come from Nazareth, from Assisi, or from Indian royal castles, did not “work” with the political means of violence, their kingdom was “not of this world,” and yet they acted and acted in this world, and the figures of Platon Karataev and the saints of Dostoevsky are still the most adequate constructions in their image and likeness. Whoever seeks the salvation of his soul and other souls does not seek it on the path of politics, which has completely different tasks - those that can be solved only with the help of violence. The genius or demon of politics lives in inner tension with the god of love, including the Christian God in his ecclesiastical manifestation - a tension that at any moment can erupt into an irreconcilable conflict Indeed: politics is done, though with the head, but, of course, not only head. Ethical beliefs are absolutely right here. But whether one should act as one who professes the ethics of persuasion or as one who professes the ethics of responsibility, and when so, and when otherwise, this cannot be prescribed to anyone. Politics is a powerful slow drilling of hard layers, carried out simultaneously with passion and a cold eye. The idea is generally correct, and all historical experience confirms that the possible could not be achieved if the world did not again and again strive for the impossible. But the one who is capable of this must be a leader, moreover, he must also be - in the simplest sense of the word - a hero. And even those who are neither one nor the other must arm themselves with that firmness of spirit that even the collapse of all hopes will not break; already now they must arm themselves with it, for otherwise they will not be able to realize even what is possible today. Only he who is sure that he will not flinch if, from his point of view, the world turns out to be too stupid or too vile for what he wants to offer him; only he who, in spite of everything, is able to say “and yet! ”, - only he has a “professional vocation” for politics.
Have you ever wondered why some people go through life, achieving goal after goal, goal after goal, while others seem to set goals for themselves, they seem to be determined to do something, it seems that the goal is quite real and achievable , but something doesn't work. They don't reach their goals. They set a new goal for themselves, again they try to do something in this direction, and again they fail. What's the secret? Today I would like to draw attention to some points that are very important for the successful achievement of the goal.
1. Vision of your goal
The more specific the goal, the easier it is for the Universe to help you achieve it, and the easier it is for you to plan your path towards this goal. Specify your desires and set clear goals, present a picture of the desired result.
2.One goal
We are accustomed to "disperse", we want everything at once, and as a result we have nothing, because the focus of our attention and energy are dispersed. If you really want something, focus on one thing. The fewer goals you set for yourself at the same time, the better. More likely to concentrate their forces on them, and a positive result.
3. Don't contradict yourself
Nothing in your goal should be contrary to your deepest values and your inner convictions. The most banal example, a person wants to earn more, but at the same time believes that money is evil, you can’t earn big money, rich people are necessarily not honest, and by and large are also unhappy. How soon do you think he will reach his goal, if at all?
4. There is a goal, but there are means
It is also worth distinguishing where the goal is and where the means to achieve. If you want to buy a house, and for this you need a lot of money, then work on the goal - the house, not the money. Perhaps life will find another way for you to achieve it. And if you make money your goal, then life can give it to you, but houses by then will cost more.
5. Enough motivation
The number of pluses should greatly exceed in significance or quantity the number of minuses, which inevitably exist everywhere. You must clearly understand and say why you need this or that, having reached I will get this and that.
6. Not an imposed goal
The goal should be really yours, and not imposed from outside by society, family, beliefs received in childhood, etc. for successful achievement, the goal must be correlated with your vision of your mission in life (no matter how pathetic it may sound) and your desires.
7. Belief in yourself and in the attainability of the goal
Successful people, as a rule, reject doubts, they are not characterized by uncertainty. At the same time, they are able to anticipate and calculate undesirable options. Successful people approach unforeseen situations with confidence that there is a way out, they just don’t know it yet. Need to find out. When you get into the situation “I knew it ... that's what I was afraid of”, try to immediately remember that you need it for something, you will overcome it, and the taste of victory after successfully overcoming difficulties will be even sweeter ... In other words, never give up !
8. Commitment to your goal
Do not turn back. Do not give up after the first difficulties, and they will be 100% ... this is a prerequisite for any movement. The main thing is not to turn surmountable difficulties into terrible and dead-end problems. And it already depends on your attitude to the situation. A pessimist sees problems in all opportunities, while an optimist sees opportunities in all problems. Be optimistic!
9. Your life after reaching the goal
Feel successful. Look at your future self from the outside. As if you were shown a movie about you, but in the future. See your day when you have already achieved what you wanted. The more details you can imagine, the easier it will be for you to move towards them. Where will you live, with whom, what will your house look like, what will you do, what will your activities consist of, who will be in your environment. What will your life be like when you achieve what you want. One more small detail - this is not just something you need to see and clearly imagine, it should please you and fill you with energy.
10. Environment
Like it or not, we are all subject to the influence of the external environment. And the more successful, satisfied people around us, the easier it is for us to grow and achieve our goals ourselves. The more people around us believe in us, the easier it is for us to walk our path. The more people around us are ready to support us, the easier it is for us. The more people around whom we want to take an example, the easier it is for us to go to our goals. Surround yourself with such people!
