I don’t know what people need. And I’m not going to impose my ideas about what they need. I just want to think through the topic of whether it’s even possible to say that people need something. At the same time, the discussion will concern the social dimension—what people need in society, what they need from the state, and so on. It’s clear this topic is inexhaustible. Moreover, essentially, the notion of what people need lies at the very foundation of political activity, at the foundation of various ideologies, and so on. I will not discuss what people “really” need; I merely want to draw readers’ attention to certain details of how this problem is commonly thought about here, and to the amazing effects to which this “how” leads.
Let me begin with a quote that contains a clear and full-fledged vision of this problem. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is a quote from the US Declaration of Independence. As we can see, this understanding lies at the very foundation of this country, and it is not difficult to see that it yields decent results.
However, if I were to propose taking these principles—which allow answering the question “what do people need?"—as the basis of our state, they would immediately start hissing at me maliciously. Why? Well, they would say, these are the principles of the " Americans,” this is all deeply alien to us. Interestingly, the " Americans" incorporated these principles into the foundation of their country at the moment of its emergence—they knew them even before the USA existed. Basically, the country was created for the implementation of these principles. Similarly, it is interesting that our country has already existed for 17 years but has not produced anything of its own, “non-American,” in its own justification.
The question arises—how uniquely “American” are these principles? Let us examine them in order. The right to life is obviously a necessary condition. Freedom is a state that makes life possible, allows one to move in any direction at all. And finally, the pursuit of happiness—as I see it, the most important thesis of all political philosophy, it answers the question where a free person should live.
I think there is no point in debating the right to life. As for freedom, yes, I can already see battalions being formed that will rush to prove various mutually exclusive theses with foam at the mouth, just to convince each other that being free and not free is the same thing. Don’t, my dear ones, save your energy. We will argue about freedom some other time. Right now, the pursuit of happiness is far more interesting to me.
Well, here everything is quite simple—the battalions about to disperse for drinks will say disappointedly, after all, it’s obvious to everyone that happiness is different for everyone. What is there to argue about? Well, the thing is, there is something to argue about. Because happiness is actually one and the same.
That is, no one will argue that it is realized differently for each person and consists of different things, but the meaning of happiness is the same. No one will deny that happiness is good, beauty, and other such useful things. Being happy is good, being unhappy is bad—with this, again, everyone will agree. Questions will begin when it comes to what “good” is and what “bad” is. And here I will again have to disappoint the battalions that were starting to grow uneasy. I have no intention of imposing anything on anyone in this eternal dilemma. On the contrary, I assert that in our society there is precisely no discussion about what is good and what is bad. And that is precisely the problem. What happiness can there be when “good” and “bad” are considered relative values? By the way, Nietzsche fans should be pleased—our society is wonderfully located beyond good and evil. Want to see what real Nietzscheanism is? Welcome to Ukraine.
Kulturka-Multurka
Here I will have to make a digression. I think most people don’t need proof that we live here beyond good and evil. For those who do, I will give a few examples. The first is the same " Americans" over whose “stupidity” it is customary to laugh. As is well known, in social phobias—which widespread contempt for " Americans" undoubtedly is—one’s own fears are reflected first and foremost. What most of our “critics” don’t like about the " Americans" is precisely the idea that good and evil exist and, moreover, that it is the duty of good to fight evil. This theme, which is a standard of mass culture—that is, of the mass representations of the same " Americans"—is categorically unacceptable here. I myself have seen how some harmless children’s cartoon about the virtues of friendship, honor, and mutual aid can drive certain " American" haters into a nervous fit.
The second example is the image of a loser, that is, someone who deserves censure and mockery, that exists in our contemporary culture. This image is called “loh” (sucker). Let us try to formulate the traits that social consciousness attributes to this type. This is a person who is non-mercenary, unresentful, rather absent-minded, trusting, and, apparently, not evil. If we look at the type who, on the contrary, is not considered a sucker, we will see an extremely mercenary individual who suspects everyone and everything of everything, thievish, rude, and constantly in a state of struggle with the surrounding reality. Agree that of these two, it is the “loh” who looks like a normal person, and it is he who can be happy.
Well, the third example is quite simple—if I now call on you to some revolution or generally “pompously” cry out about the need for social and political activity, the first thing our fellow citizens will do is look for why “I need this.” Someone will be satisfied that I once worked for X, which, in their opinion, means that I am acting not independently but exclusively by the will of whoever sent me. Most will look for my material benefit. And the funniest thing is that, not finding any, many will be very offended. I think you will agree that this is exactly how it will go.
All this means that for our person, good and evil do not exist. There are only certain physiological interests, the ability to ensure them, and status as a collective value of all this.
Michel Foucault and Advanced Hooligans
If we talk about the reasons for the mass spread of sentiments “beyond good and evil,” they are obvious. After the collapse of the USSR, freedom for moral choice arose. However, the correct choice was quite difficult. It was easier to declare it non-existent or insignificant. This is exactly what happened, including through the efforts of “opinion makers” like Pelevin.
It is amusing that the victims of the collapse of the grand leftist experiment massively adopted leftist postmodernist philosophy, which holds that “eternal values” are totalitarian and paranoid obsessions that impede creative realization, and essentially denies the possibility of reliability and objectivity… “such concepts as ‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’ lose their meaning…” It is interesting that this postmodernism also arose as a result of collapse—only ideological one—of various Marxisms and positivism, as a method.
In general, Deleuze can be pleased—here, any hooligan from the housing office professes postmodern philosophy and can explain it far more clearly than some Michel Foucault.
The General and the Particular
Notice how cleverly politicians exploited this mass sentiment. Huntington spawned Dugyn, and now “sovereign democracy” triumphs in Russia, the entire essence of which reduces to showing one’s ass to the " Americans," who exist only in the inflamed brains of Russians. We here are also deeply convinced that “Western recipes,” which no one has ever even tried to implement, are not for us, while, I repeat, no one has seen any of their own, non-Western ones either. All this happens because society believes that good and bad do not exist.
Of course, different cultures exist and, possibly, different civilizations. Of course, they sometimes have different versions of what is good and what is bad. But civilizational antagonism, which many imply as something self-evident, is simply an impossible thing. After all, if civilizations were truly different, then there could not be any relationship to another culture at all. If what lies at the very foundation of a person were different, people of different cultures would not be able to evaluate each other. Meanwhile, you merrily laugh at the “stupid Americans,” and this means, first and foremost, that what unites you with them is much greater than what divides you. At least because (I will repeat again) the nature of laughter is such that you always laugh at yourself—you imagine yourself in the situation in which the object finds himself. If you can laugh at someone, it means you are capable of mentally putting yourself in their place, you consider them your equal. Try laughing at ants, for example. No, it’s possible, of course, but you would have to smoke something first…
Instinct for Good
I once came across an article about research that proved doing good is feeling good. Of course, the article is American and written with the aim of… eee… manipulating those who are not part of the “golden billion.” But nevertheless, such studies exist, and they prove that doing good is good for a person even at the physiological level. Honestly, I don’t believe in science—neither the " American" one nor in any other, and I wrote this for those who do believe in it. My everyday experience is sufficient for me to assert that people perfectly well feel what is good and what is bad.
For example, let’s take such a cultural phenomenon as the villain’s monologue. It exists even in those cultures that consider themselves “antagonistic.” In its most obvious form (i.e., among the " Americans"), the villain’s monologue usually occurs in a situation when the Main Villain has almost defeated the Main Hero. The hero lies nearby half-alive (or half-dead—whatever is more pleasant), and before finishing him off entirely, the Main Villain explains to him what is actually happening and why all this is needed. Usually, for plot purposes, this moment is used so that Unexpected Help can arrive, but we are not discussing this now. The villain’s monologue is generally possible (regardless of how it is most often used) only because knowledge of good and evil exists. And the villain is perfectly aware that he is a villain. All his rather elaborate reasoning is a way to justify himself, to prove to himself that this is not so.
Another example you yourself invented. This is the phrase: “they treat you like a human being.” Usually it is spoken when one wants to emphasize something that is, generally speaking, normal. After all, “being a human being” is usual. But if it is worth mentioning separately, then everything happening around and the society in which you live is not human.
The third example can be shared by anyone who has ever returned from abroad. The first thing that shocks a person who has somewhat gotten used to being away from his homeland is… eeee… the faces of its inhabitants. I would call them vicious mugs. Notice—deeply unhappy even in appearance.
Well, and about unhappiness, or rather, about happiness, one of our last places in the “happiness index” testifies. What is there to say… Dear Ukrainians! I want to ask you—why are you so unhappy? Maybe you don’t eat well? I think not. Do you lack material goods? Apparently you have them in abundance. You have a TV (some have several), most have housing, many have a car, and a “mobile” is simply owned by everyone! So what is the matter?
I can only assume that you categorically lack your own dignity. Despite being well-fed and materially secure, you are unhappy, and this oppresses you. The reason is simple—happiness cannot exist without noble and selfless acts, without recognition that there is good and bad, right and wrong. Happiness is necessary for all people, even Ukrainians. But beyond good and evil, it is impossible.