Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No. Moreover, I believe that the “just world order” is a spherical horse in a vacuum, and that a world order that would be fair for everyone, in principle, does not exist and cannot exist with the current diversity of individuals in the human environment. Consequently, the desire to achieve a “just world order” will invariably include the mass extermination of those who do not fit into this justice.
From my point of view, the world in general is fundamentally beyond justice. It is a fundamental property.�
At the same time, a person has a high need to consider the world fair, or that it “should be” fair. Because the need for control. Because you're safe.
But it simply exists, and does not relate in any way to these needs of people.
It depends on the scale in which we consider the question, and also whether we accept the infinity of existence, or believe that after death there is nothing. If the story ends with the death of a person, then the world is definitely unfair. But if each birth is predetermined by actions in the previous one, then it is more than fair, since everyone turns out to be the creator of any of their positions. If we do not accept that our troubles may have causes beyond this life, then there is no justice. Moreover, even within the framework of this birth, it is rarely actually possible to truly trace causal relationships. We see that a person is raking in money, but we do not see that he is driving himself into conditions in which he will inevitably rake in money. So this is essentially a question to which, depending on the worldview, the answer will be diametrically opposite.
Justice has never been and never will be. There was only natural justice. How should it be? Birds fly, fish swim. We get sick, we are born in different conditions, with different organisms. Dyatlovtsev in the mountains, killed. Cook was eaten. You walk on ants, trample them. You produce garbage and dirt, and in return, what do you give to nature? And consuming everything you gave to people?
A fair world order is described in the novel” Solaris ” by Lem. Namely, the planet itself with the only intelligent being-the ocean. He is God and the Creator of everything and himself.
Again , I answer as the question is asked. Namely, your opinion. Without any pretensions to any objectivity or correctness.
I think that it is harmful to believe in the justice of the world in general. Yes, the world is sometimes fair. But, as practice shows, most often not. And at such moments, a person with a conviction of justice will be strongly beaten and wounded by reality. So that this does not happen, it is better to initially absorb the installation that the world can be different. You can always create (or try to create) justice in your world. In the one that surrounds you.
On this occasion, I can recommend reading the” Declaration of Acceptance of Reality ” by Nikolai Kozlov. A very useful, sobering thing that acts as an inoculation against such maladaptive beliefs.
I'll add it. The belief in all sorts of ” boomerang effects “(like-everything comes back), this is also nothing more than magical thinking, coming from one's own helplessness. After all, we can not always express aggression directly or repay the offender in the same coin. Therefore, for personal peace of mind, some people firmly believe that the universe will return all evil to those who deserve it.
We just don't know how it really is in the world. The scientific picture of the world suggests that all events and coincidences in our lives are random.