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?
Different peoples have their own traditions, customs, and mentality. They may be incomprehensible to others, and what we do not understand is often considered somehow wrong and even bad.
There are no bad nations, but in every nation there are people, both good and bad. As they say, the family is not without a freak!
On the one hand, you are right. Within the framework of any nation, there are both bastards and saints.�
But the people do not have a biological community (skin color, nose size, etc.).d) there are also cultural traditions. That is, if it is normal for some nations to eat people, stone girls, force children to work in harmful industries, honorably kill non-believers, or something like that, then representatives of this people will do such things a little more often, and both scum and saints will do it. And only very incredibly good and strong personalities will resist this. This, of course, does not give the right to hate these peoples, and it only makes them relatively bad. But it gives us a reason to think about such traditions and start an international dialogue about them.
The people united in the state. a person expresses their desires and behaviors through a leader.
In a simple example, we can see that the common bee is devoid of intelligent mental activity and lives at the expense of natural instincts and reflexes aimed only at narrow specific activities – collecting pollen and feeding offspring.
But a swarm of bees has intelligence and can think quite concretely depending on the situation.
Similarly, flocks of birds, wolves, and humans behave in a new capacity as an egregor, which makes it possible to change the programs of individual individuals, embedding them in meaningful social models.
The idea of the superiority of some nationalities over others allowed the German government in 1939 to unleash a full-scale war against the Slavic, Jewish and other ethnic groups to completely destroy them and enslave the remaining groups in the lower status of public relations to perform “black” work.
Cultural traditions and morals are discarded, and morality is replaced by the cannibalistic paradigm of the superman, who owns the management of the world.
A people who have fallen into the charm of their exceptional position can be a danger to others. although in some members to remain a progressive and fairly adequate member of society.
In general, I think that the question of whether to consider someone bad is rather meaningless, and any answer to it can be correct, and therefore there is no correct one at all.
Speaking of “bad” – it should be clarified whether it is bad in what respect and why, because there is no rock in the world that says “evil” and which is really absolutely something bad and nothing else. A person can act badly – but also not everywhere and not always, but in a specific case and in relation to someone.
If you want to label a certain person as 'bad' because you usually get evil from them in a purely practical way, this can be done for convenience, so that you can know in advance what to expect from them (you can certainly believe that they have improved, but it is better to check).
But-if it is in principle permissible to do this in relation to a single person, what prevents you from calling the whole nation ” bad “ in the same way, on such grounds and for such a purpose? This is neither worse nor better than in relation to someone personally – it is just a generalization of your personal experience of communicating with this person or this people.
But I believe that there are no good and bad nations, and there are no bad and good people. And there are their own,and there are others. There are those for whom we care, with whom we live together, and there are entire continents and billions of people whose joys and sorrows we do not even think about. And it doesn't matter at all whether the people there are good or bad – what difference does it make? They're strangers, they're their own people, they don't care about us, they don't care about us. It doesn't really matter how good or bad the people around you are. Anyway, you and your life are already connected to these people and there's nothing you can do about it.
In my opinion, this is the most honest, sincere and unchanging chauvinism. Everything else is already a bit artificial.
And I agree with you. I don't see the point in hating a certain people/race/culture/nationality just because “there's so much trouble from them.” Troubles are caused by “bad” people, not by nations. Culture, of course, affects the formation of personality, but not every representative of any nation is a ” bad ” person.