Literary Criticism Part 2

If we come to the conclusion that social relations in their totality are contradictory and can not be controversial as people’s minds, the question arises: how to manifest this conflict and how can it be withdrawn gradually and give way to unity? The contradiction is manifested in the social organism through the existence of different models of a group of historical consciousness (through the existence of layers corresponding to different phases of historical development of civilization, and the opposition of consciousness separate groups, belonging to the same level of historical development), it is also evident in individuals, as reflected the distinction of “vertically and horizontally. In the subordinate social groups because of lack of self-historic initiative distinction is even sharper and more decisive is the struggle for liberation from imposed, rather than the proposed principles to achieve an independent historical consciousness. Entry criteria for this fight are different, and one of them, is precisely the “naturalness” that is, to put forward as a paragon of “nature” has been very successful, because it seems clear and simple. Meanwhile, what should be the formation of such a historical consciousness, if it comes from, regardless of the proposed principles? How could a person must select and combine various elements to develop an independent mind? Do I have deliberately reject any “imposed” element? It should be rejected. As an “imposition”, but not for itself, that is, he must give a new form, commensurate with a given social group. In fact, if education is compulsory, it does not mean that it should be rejected or that new arguments can not justify a new form of his commitment. It is necessary that what you do on the “necessity” has become “free” motivation, but it should realize that there is “objective” necessity, that is, that it is objectively primarily for the group in question. And for this we must start from the technical relations of production, of a certain type of economic civilization, which for its development requires a certain lifestyle, certain rules of conduct, a certain kind of habits and perceptions. Make sure that the “objective” and the need is not only a certain weapon, and to a certain type of behavior, some education, a certain type of human society, etc. In this objectivity and historical necessity (which, incidentally, is not in itself self evident, but requires that its critically recognized and upheld in full and “inclusive” sense of the word) can find its justification of “universality” of moral principle and, moreover, has never existed a “universal”, in addition to this objective need for certain norms of civil dorms, although it is interpreted with the help of transcendental or transcendental ideological concepts and to achieve the desired goal it to gradually add more and more historically effective form.

The concept, similar to the above, apparently, leads to a form of relativism and, therefore, moral skepticism. It is noticed that the same could be said of all hitherto developed philosophical concepts, whose categorical imperative and the objective is always implied the possibility of being consolidated “ill will” towards certain forms of relativism and skepticism,. To a religious concept could seem at absolute and objectively universal, it would be necessary that it acted as a monolithic, or at least perceived by all believers as a unity in the intellectual sense, which, however, very far from reality (there different schools, sects, trends and class distinctions, there are simple and well-educated, etc.): hence the role of the pope as an infallible teacher.

The same can be said about Kant’s categorical imperative: “act always so, as you would like to act all the people in the same circumstances.” Clearly, everyone can believe in my innocence, that all do the same, as he did even when he commits acts that are repugnant to the people having a more developed consciousness, or consciousness, formed by another civilization. A jealous husband who kills his unfaithful wife, believes that every man should kill the unfaithful wives, etc. It should be noted that there is no criminal who deep down do not have to justify his crime, no matter how dastardly and cowardly as it may be; while not devoid of some naive belief protests of many prisoners who allege that they are innocent. In fact, each one has an accurate idea of at what the subjective and objective circumstances, he committed a crime, and from this representation that the offender is often unable to meaningfully communicate to others, he draws the conviction that he was subject to “justify”; only in the case if he changes his attitude, he comes to different conclusions, which often takes place and explains the many cases of suicide. If Kant’s formula for a realistic analysis of the subject, then find out that it is not beyond any of this medium with its moral prejudices and barbaric customs; it – static, blank form, which can be filled with any historical content, timeliness or anachronistic (with a characteristic course , this content is contrary to, and therefore what is true on the other side of the Pyrenees, is a lie on this side of the Pyrenees). If it seems that Kant’s formula is something higher, something is happening is because the intelligentsia is investing in it ‘meaning associated with her special way of life and activity, and permissible to admit that sometimes some of the intelligentsia in the level of culture superior to their environment.

Thus, the argument about the dangers of relativism and skepticism turns out to be insolvent. In fact, an issue that should be raised is this: whether this moral conception of traits that are more or less permanent nature, or else it is modified on a daily basis, or, finally, it provides a basis within the same group for the extension of the theory of double truth? In addition, whether based on this concept formed elite, which would lead the masses, brought to them and would have the capacity to serve as “an example”? If all of these questions is answered affirmatively, the concept is justified and useful.

However, it may come a period of weakening of moral principles and even the moral laxity and decay of morals. This is not possible, but it also can not serve as a convincing argument. Periods of expansion like to go to history is often, although it remained the dominant old obschemoralnaya concept. This phenomenon rise to a real, specific causes, rather than by moral concepts: very often it is a sign that some sort of concept is outdated, broken up into its constituent parts, was hypocritical formality but is trying to forcibly retain its original force influencing minds, forcing society to live a double life, periods of moral depravity and decay just mean the reaction to the hypocrisy and duplicity – a reaction that takes extreme forms, these periods are almost always proclaim that already formed a new concept.

As for the danger of moral deafness, she brought fatalistic theory of groups who share the concept of “natural”, according to nature of animals, livestock, and for them everything is justified by the social environment. And therefore all sense of individual responsibility dulled, every individual responsibility is absorbed by an abstract and elusive of social responsibility. If this concept were true, the world and history have always stayed motionless. In fact, if the individual to change, needed to for this mechanically, by some mysterious superhuman strength, has changed the whole society, then no change would never have happened. The history of the same – a constant struggle of individuals and groups whose purpose – to change what exists at any given moment, but to struggle to be effective, these individuals and groups will need to feel superior to the surrounding reality, to feel

Lia Smith