Bbabo NET

News

Hearing and morality

What happened on April 12, 1961? How is it - what? Hello to you! Gagarin's flight, the beginning of the space age.

Right! I also think so, and I seriously celebrate this day at home, although there are no astronauts or astronomers in my family. Why am I so happy about Gagarin's flight? Because I love progress, breakthrough, step into the unknown.

I believe that all my friends and acquaintances agree that this is a great day in the history of the country and the whole world.

But the question is - was anyone there, at Baikonur? Of course not - the age is not the same.

Okay. Has anyone seen at least one frame of television, film, or at least photography about this great event? Or at least some adequate and indisputable documents, such as the launcher log? Unfortunately no. There are no such personnel and there are no such documents.

The explanation for this is rather strange - but in the absence of others, one has to believe him. They say that Gagarin took a very big risk (another confirmation that this was a real feat). Allegedly, the risk of a rocket crash and the death of an astronaut was more than 30% - and this is a huge risk. However, it was still decided to start. But Khrushchev (or one of the rulers) forbade any documentary fixation of the launch and flight of Gagarin. What for? But why. If, God forbid, the rocket explodes or the astronaut dies in space, or when returning, we will pretend that nothing happened at all. No launch, no death. And if one of the witnesses tries to squeal that, they say, a rocket crashed and an astronaut died, then we will ask him: “Where is there any evidence that there was any kind of launch at all?” A purely Soviet manner, by the way, is to remove troubles from the information field.

But let's talk about the good! Gagarin flew and returned, cheers.

In such wonderful cases, the fact does not need scrupulous documentary evidence. Moreover, in the case of Gagarin, there is a lot of evidence “post factum”. No one, even the most notorious enemy of the USSR, could say that everything that followed was just a grandiose performance. Everyone is convinced that Gagarin's flight, of course, took place - but due to circumstances, we do not have documents about the very moment of the rocket launch. Well, is that the point?

What am I for? This is me to the point that you don’t have to shout angrily every time: “And what evidence do you have?” - if you see a fact that somehow does not suit you. Believe in the good, the pleasant - try to believe in the unpleasant.

For the proof - once again I will quote the mathematician Ouspensky - is just a reasoning that convinces us so much that we are ready to convince others with its help. Ethics often lies at the heart of such reasoning. In the extreme case - our "like" or "dislike".

When we like something, when something meets our moral criteria (the play on words here is not accidental!) - we say: “Why do we need all these links, pictures, quotes and dates? Everything is so clear! And when, on the contrary, when what is happening goes against our picture of the world and our moral principles, we gloatingly exclaim: “This is a fake! Where are the links? And your links are also fake!

In the limiting case, what we are accustomed to is clear. Get used to listening, nodding and repeating.

However, in the natural sciences and, to some extent, in history, there are still some more or less acceptable ways to prove that something actually takes place. But in politics, especially the current one, things are much more shaky.

"Post-truth" is not an invention of recent years. To paraphrase the once famous Soviet poet Nikolai Tikhonov, we can safely say: “Post-truth ate and drank with us.” Any form of censorship, any silence, hypocritical brackets or asterisks instead of phrases and individual words, bans on books, films, performances and paintings - the same post-truth.

What can we say, for example, about Soviet economic reports. The enemy did not know the truth about the Soviet budget, but Soviet economists, including Gosplan employees, also did not understand anything: how much we produce, how much we import and export, even in pieces, even in rubles. Soviet statistics was so completely entangled that in order to unravel it, a separate research institute had to be created - the history of the Soviet economy. Where do you get money...

Actually, all this fashionable “post-truth” is most likely just a polite synonym for the word “lie”, to create a deliberately false picture. Emphasis on the word "certainly". Because most of our statements are honest delusions. We believe that people from all over Russia went to Lenin’s funeral on foot in the bitter cold, or we believe that all opposition rallies were paid for by the enemies of our country, although if you strain your head a little, it becomes clear that both are, to put it mildly, Not certainly in that way. But I do not want to strain my head - this already almost atavistic organ. The current picture of the world is more expensive.

It really touches me (and actually worries me) that many people say: “In politics, you can’t be guided by the opinions of others, the opinions of others only affect the weak in mind or spirit. You have to think for yourself."Absolutely impossible requirement! We live only and exclusively in social mirrors. We learn our name from mom and dad. Its price - from the people around, from a friend in the sandbox to a great-grandchild, if anyone is lucky. About whether we are liberals or conservatives, smart or stupid, rich or poor, honest or vile - we also learn from others. Reflected in other people's eyes and other people's opinions.

Even that we are dying, we guess from the expression on the face of the doctor, from the behavior of our relatives, who suddenly bring us a notary or a priest.

And here, it would seem, is the simplest question: was there something or not? How and where can you find out, make sure, make sure?

Alas, only hearsay.

I will allow myself a long but beautiful quote from François Rabelais.

“We went to this noise and saw a hunchbacked old man, ugly. His name was Hearing; his mouth was up to his ears, seven tongues dangled in his mouth, and each tongue was cut into seven parts; it is not known how he contrived, but he only spoke in all seven languages ​​at the same time about different things and in different dialects; on his head and on his whole body he had as many ears as Argus had eyes; in addition, he was blind, and his legs were paralyzed.

Around him I saw a great multitude of men and women listening to him with attention. Within a few hours they became enlightened and learned, and at length, in refined terms, they talked about such extraordinary things, for acquaintance with a hundredth part of which a human life would not be enough - about the Egyptian pyramids, about Babylon, about troglodytes, about pygmies, about cannibals, about Hyperborean mountains, about all the devils - and all by hearsay.

I saw there, if I am not mistaken, Herodotus, Pliny, Philostratus, Strabo and who knows how many other historians - hiding behind a carpet, they secretly wrote beautiful books - and all by hearsay.

Next to Naslyshka, I saw a lot of exemplary and still quite young students; when we asked them what faculty they were in, the students said that from a young age they learn to be witnesses and that, returning to their homeland, they will live an honest labor of witness, testifying about everything in the world in favor of those who will give them more , - and all hearsay. Therefore, they warned us in a friendly way that if we want to advance in the service of a noble nobleman, then for this it is necessary to conceal the truth by all means.

("Gargantua and Pantagruel", chapter 31).

Please note: among the famous historians mentioned there are no names of Thucydides and Xenophon. Why? But because they were eyewitnesses and participants in the events that they described. And the rest knew about everything by hearsay.

Pay attention to how this very Hearing looks like.

He has neither legs nor eyes - that is, he does not go anywhere and does not see anything himself. But he has many ears. That is, it is already in the first half of the 16th century! – designed like a typical modern news site. It aggregates what has flown into it, without checking not only the reliability of the information, but also its factuality in general - not only “it was not so”, but in general “was it or was it not”. And he passes it on with all his seven languages ​​in different languages.

The information nightmare has been going on for five centuries, and every day the flow of various lies only intensifies.

However, the desire to have their own opinion consumes many. I don't want to be a parrot repeating words over a propaganda gramophone. How to figure everything out? How to reliably separate lies from the truth, fact from fake, accidental silence from malicious manipulation, and, finally, sincere concern from fraudulent manipulation?

The honest answer is: don't try.

Own opinion in politics cannot be factual, since the facts fall on us like a mudflow - you still can't get it right.

Own opinion can only be moral.

And morality can be - should be! - only good. Otherwise, it is not morality at all.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.

Hearing and morality