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?
Most succinctly, this dilemma can be expressed in a simple expression familiar to all of us-choosing the lesser of two evils. Therefore, the metaphor with a fork is one situation, and all the teeth are moving. And about the history of the concept, the friend in the answer has already copied quickly from the Wiki.
The dilemma can also be described as a so-called pseudo-choice. It is often used with children – what will you eat, soup or porridge? Either, sweep or wash dishes? The child does not want either, but it seems that he chose it himself. Of course, with children, this works up to a certain point, if at all. Much more often, we are faced with a situation of pseudo-selection, knowing perfectly well that “radish horseradish is no sweeter”, but we still can't get around it.
In general, the history of the Russian woman is replete with similar examples. So, at the end of the monarchy, people were divided into two camps, each chose a civil war, and in the end, everyone was waiting for a very difficult future, regardless of the choice of side.
Currently, well, you know. For example, the current pension reform in some sense put us in such a situation – you work for the state, you save up a solid length of service, and it is not a fact that you will live to retire, and even if you do, its amount will be so conditional and insignificant that the alternative to private employment without a pension no longer looks as unprotected as before. And yet, we choose between risks and utter uncertainty on the one hand, and imaginary stability and conditional security on the part of the state. Or the elections held in March even more clearly illustrate the situation of pseudo-elections – there is a list of candidates, go, dear citizen, choose, but there is no one to choose from, and our choice does not affect anything, because the results are predetermined.�
And if at the global level we in Russia seem to live in a situation of pseudo-election, then let's at least try to be honest, first of all, with ourselves and our loved ones, and not resort to this manipulative method of interaction whenever possible.
The expression originated from the tax collection policies of John Morton (1420-1500), Lord Chancellor of England
an expression (dilemma) that describes a situation of choosing between two equally unpleasant alternatives, or a situation in which two branches of reasoning lead to equally unpleasant conclusions.
The original expression originated from the tax collection policy developed by John Morton, Lord Chancellor of England in 1487 in accordance with the laws of Henry VII (who abolished benevolences — levies from the population under the guise of a voluntary donation — but needed money for the war with France).
His approach is that if someone lives in luxury and undoubtedly spends a lot of money on himself, then he certainly has enough income to spare for the king. If someone lives economically, then again, he must have money to transfer to the treasury, since thanks to saving, he inevitably accumulated a certain surplus.
These two arguments are like the prongs of one fork, a favorable choice is excluded regardless of material security