21.05.2005 “Tolerance”, but in russian it is friendliness and understanding

There was a conversation with the reader of the chair of philosophy in Pertrozavodsk’s state university, whose name is V.A.Phillipova. She appears as a teacher in a project “The establishment of democratic and enlightener work and work with the youth of Karelia”.The project is supported by the german fund “ Memory and the future”.


The common notion nowadays is that russian society is positioned on turning-point of its development, when the life is utterly difficult and dynamic.That’s why it’s particularly important to settle and understand the values ,which are guided by young people, and which mostly determine ordinary realization and everyday notions concerning the present and the future of the generations, who’re beginning to live.
Where from there emerge unbelief in ourselves and in society,also confusion and pessimism in the mind of contemporary young man?Why do the youth has to choose the wrong job, which’s not to their liking,but which can provide for scanty deserved existence?The formation of the young people happens at extremely difficult conditions, when there break old values and shape new social relationships.However ,the reader of the chair of philosophy in Pertrozavodsk’s state university ,Vera Alekseevna Phillippova, is convinced, that interpersonal relations will be based on the same basis, i.e. understanding, mercy, friendliness at any time.
“We can’t put in line formal respectable relations with tolerance: these relations could turn out to be mean by its content- it’s some kind of so called formal politeness.The form has always been in difficult relations with the content.But, on the other hand ,we may fly into a rage when we’re in the condition of irritation, even if we don’t mind anything towards a man, just as regards the item of discussion.This’s a mistake of many students regarding teachers: they suppose, that if teachers are strict,it denotes, that they’re bad.However, it’s necessary to remember, that indifference in particular is drapped by the external treatment.Let’s take for example, children: we may feel frustrated of their behaviour, but we love them anyway.The same was in Leo Tolstoy’s work, when father Bolkonsky scolds his daughter,princess Mary, in front of their guests, because she dressed up not in a proper way on the occasion of Kuragin’s matchmaking.The whole scandal’s happened particularly because of her father’s love. “Relation doesn’t imply only conversation,but it’s also estimation and self-appraisal of a deed.We keep silence with our best friends, because we don’t need words, everything’s expressed by metaspeach - with the aid of look, gesture”-supposes reader Phillipova.
Vera Alekseevna doesn’t like the word “tolerance” not because of its foreign origin, but because she reckons ,that this word is imperfectly expressive for description delicate nuances of inner world of a man and the quality of interpersonal relations.Moreover, the fact,that many spaculate on the “tolerance”, it bears deliberately biassed attitude.The academic of Pertrozavodsk’s state university doesn’t want to use this word just because it’s become so fashionable nowadays and she expresses “tolerance” in russian words: friendliness,predisposition,understanding.
It is Vera Alekseevna’s opinion that, the basis of disrespect lies behind the fact that people are so narcissistic and non-containing self-criticism: “We understand each other so badly-thus the capability for identification ourselves with the others has weakened.This is what we call egocentrism.It’s the capability for forgiving everything to ourselves.”In fact, from the point of view of ethnology, as to emerge subjective notion of “we”, we ‘ve got to meet and stand apart with some“they”.In other words,if we examine the question in subjuctive, psychological flatness, it will turn out that “they”are more primary than”we”.The first act of social psychology is to be regarded the advent of a notion about “them” in the head of an individual.Only the feeling of “their” presence bears a desire to constitute one-self towards “them”, to stand apart “them” by way of “we”.
“They” are much more concrete,real at first times .They carry with them either, one or another definite properties,i.e. disasters of intrusion of their “hordes”, “their”lack of understanding “human” speech.We don’t have to personify “them” in the image of some leader, some kind of head group of healds or organization, as to imagine ourselves what they really are . “They” could present themselves as immensely varied , but not as a community at the proper meaning of the word. Just the opposition between their own community against another has always contributed to fixation and active fortification of their own ethnic distinctions and in that way it leads to strengthening the community. The specialists of ethnography have known a lot of examples about such artificially held domestic and cultural differences between neighbours for a long time ago.
“So many young people state, that they hate the black in THEIR country.However ,if a man studies in Russia, thus s/he appears to be a national or a guest , with whom we just can’t handle dissocially, because it would be indecently.Don’t socialize , if your antipathy is very strong .But you don’t have the right to pursue. We can’t state, that relations between people earlier were on a qualitative another level.You might remember A.Pyshkin’s words: “Terrible century, terrible hearts!” In essence, people have never loved each other.So nowadays , there’re left the same problems , but on the other material.
Religion appeals us to the ideal, to something , that is higher than we , to something that is piously , i.e. love, demanding not to grumble, proposing us the way of “leaning” to God.It’s necessary, but not enough.Not without reason there has appeared the terrorism, based on the religious buttresses.Although, religious conflicts in the course of the whole history have been developing into violence.The religion has always been speculated.But the moral is just a self-command, a support on the ontological values, the way out beyond of life logic to due logic. Cowardice,betrayal, stupidity, self-esteem that can be justified by the logic of life.These states are the basis of all vices by the due logic.For every action there is preceded a question: “What will I get from this?”-there are the usual claims for indispensable living success.What for?For the sake of what?This is the false way: sucess is unsafe and it can’t justify betrayal for the momentary interest.The same was in “Aibolit”: This could be actually good ,until we feel bad”.We should always make for the prospect of goodness.
Tolerance is not patience: we can’t have patience for everything.A mortal terrorist annihilate innocent people and does’t feel sorry for him/herself- “Vengerenderance for me,and I’ll render Az.”.This is not a vengerenderance, this is a new enmity.I’m against capital punishment, however I’d admit it as a form of suppression of a murder at this very case.It’s impossible to justify evil, we just can admit the least evil with bitterness.
I don’t like mostly in young people the fact that they judge old generation.Thus we call juvenile maximalism.A.Kushner expressed this in the following way: “We don’t choose times, we just have to live and die in them.”Contemporary youth with their willingness to judge is still surprisingly passive. “Youth Human Rights Group of Karelia” is just an exeption, this is a good intention, a motion , that is reasoned by the desire to make as much as impossible for our country.I’m trying , for my term, to influence on my audience: they are pupils, students, I’m trying to ifluence upon mass, but that is unreal. By the way,I ‘m teaching youth not to judge old generation.The way that people treat old people nowadays seems to me to be wildness.This is in our subconsciousness –everything that is old, is everything that has become obsolete.I guess, that there is no problem of fathers and sons now , there is a problem of tastes, interests, valuable orientations.I can’t tell that I’ve got more like-minded persons among people of my age , than among young people.Youth supposes that life belongs to them.That’s the truth , however they could crash the whole experience, which has been extracted by the preceding generation.That’s why it’s so important to support the principle of seniority, dialog.And a dialog is not a conversation, it’s a mutual search for a conversation. A lecture , for example, is a monologue by its form, but it’s built the way that listeners have to be silent participants of a conversation.A dialog is a norm of life, it’s the thing that philosopher G.G.Gadamer called the “team-work”. “A man goes out an another person after a dialog .S/he starts to understand interlocutor and him/herselve much better,”-supposes V.A.Philippova.
There was a question: do tolerance and patriotism contradict to each other?And Vera Philippova answered in the negative.She claims that patriotism is not love to russian sarafan, but it’s an ability to countenance and fence honest and righteous people-these are all positive powers , that contribute to improvement of life in the country.V.Philippova talks in the following way: “Culture is a dialog , maintenance of traditions and inroduction innovations, that’s why it’s stupid to beard against achievement of foreign culture out of patriotic feelings. “Tolerance is an ability to contribute to a dialog, but not to come down to mad imitation.”So ,Vera Philippova has ended up the conversation.
“Tolerance is the thing that makes possible to achieve the peace and lead from the culture of wars to the culture of peace”-that’s told in the Declaration of principles of tolerance, that was admitted by The General Conference of UNESCO in 1995 year. The concept of tolerance has been fixed in the Declaration in the following way:
• Respect, acceptance and the right understanding of luxuriant variety of cultures in our world , different forms of self-expression and demonstration of human individuality.
• Rejection of dogmatism, seeing in absolute terms the truth and affirmation different norms, that have been established in international and rightful acts in the area of human rights.
Tolerance is not an concession, indulgence or leniency, but first of all, it’s an active attitude, that shapes on the basis of admitting multi-purpose rights and general human liberties.
Maria Kirpichenko, the activist of the Youth Human Rights Group – Karelia