And why do they oppose? After all, in order to master the communist world to study the entire cycle of the Marxist-Leninist science. Study the same them, as indeed, teach the student, it is impossible without appropriate techniques - methods of teaching social studies. This idea is well recognized and appealed, as they say, is not subject. The entire collective (and individual too) experience of teachers, social scientists because this is said ...
These are the commonly arise in this regard, the objections of colleagues. This here is usually a reasonable question. Make a reservation at once: no one now raises the question of teaching social sciences at the university without a corresponding to this case, the technique. This formulation of the problem would be pseudo and automatically would have been outside a little bit of serious discussion in the social sciences. Another question. The fact that today we have in the Middle Urals has developed a very disturbing situation when teaching methodology, knowledge society very often carried out without ... (and instead!) Teaching Marxist-Leninist science.
Methods INSTEAD outlook?
Paradoxically, the fact! The result is that, even handing the state exam, "five," adopts the philosophy of our young people ... without thinking ... without a sense of aesthetic beauty, and ethics ... without morality, political economy of socialism ... no sense of socialist master, and scientific communism ... without the communist world. Therefore, no coincidence at the All-Union meeting of social scientists on Oct. 1, 1986 a Politburo member, Secretary of the CPSU EK Ligachev said: "According to the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee, more than half of all college students surveyed cities said that they lack the ability to conduct reasoned debate, discussion of political issues, because during training in high school they do not get skills to protect the ideological values of a socialist society, attitudes and beliefs. " / 1 /
What does this mean?
This means that our students in the first five years of study have not learned to see the difference between the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, for example, the ideology of the cult of personality superiors. That is, between what is socialism, and so, what is socialism, however, did not. Then he becomes leader of the socialist workforce without acquiring immunity to the "departmental", "bureaucracy", "technocratic approach", "leftover principle", "Philosophy of imitation", "komchvanstvu" - in short, to everything from what and folding mechanism of inhibition , the real AIDS for socialism. But the methodology was something in his teaching of Marxism-Leninism and all was well. Otherwise, there would become his teacher, one after another, senior lecturers, professors, and then ... But all that work, exactly, is that Marxism must learn not only the laws of techniques, many of the laws ... of Marxism itself.
"Opinion" on the procedure - a fact not a psychological or even "epistemological", especially the public. Because of the attitude towards the method lies the public attitude towards the Marxist-Leninist outlook, outlook - in real life, this life - to socialism ...
In short, defining its position on the teaching of social sciences, the social scientist-teacher enters into the objective, social and ideological relations to other people. And therefore look at the "anatomy" of these ideological social relations should be scientifically and seriously.
$ I. ... Marxism without Marx?
To the Editor of the youth newspaper "replaced!" Came a letter: "You can not grasp the immensity. And because everyone chooses for himself the ground, what he can realize himself as. Selects it. What sense, if you come on the production, knowing from cover to cover works of Marx. After all, there will have to wait on you another plan ahead, show what you're an expert. What will you be justified, after covering this same plan - to quote Marx? "Alexander Mikhailov, a student. Sverdlovsk.
That is not the first year in the pre-series of tests on scientific communism persistently and inevitably repeats the same situation:
- Hello - addresses a student. -
I need to get off. That student's record-book.
- Well, - responsible teacher.
- Let's see how you were doing during this semester ...
- I attended all the seminars, - says one. - ... Attend all the lectures - added another.
- ... Was absent only for a good cause, and what help there! - Explain the third.
- All catch up to the summer state exam, you should not doubt! - To assure you the fourth.
Well, really, doubt is usually not necessary. Not necessary even in those rare occasions when my student does not hide his irritation due to the need to solve completely irrelevant, in his view, the problem - pass a test as much for half a year before the exam.
This, however, is not even about them. After his trouble polvedeniya such guys finally realize themselves: the curriculum and there is one obscheobyazatelen for all. Do you want to be a student - where is there to get away? It is just about those who totally welfare and attendance, and achievement in the assessments. But it professes the principle of sophisticated student of rationalism: it is better to read the textbook from cover to cover, at worst to make "abstract" by saving anthology, it is better to attend classes, ... the study of Marx, Engels and Lenin ... the original sources.
- It is good that there are books and lectures! After all, they, in fact, to do more productive work of each student. A work that, sorry, not much lighter than any other! - We hear the indignant voice of the opponent.
Sure, such an understanding of good faith will find support in more than one dozens or even hundreds of votes. But even a thousand, even the "darkness" of these views, let's try to compare with only one single, true, very, very competent.
To recall the statement by Friedrich Engels: after socialism has evolved from a utopia into a science, it requires that to him and treated as a science, that is to be studied.
What is this, above all, is it?
When in 1890 a student at Berlin University, a future journalist Josef Bloch turned to Engels for advice on the study of Marx's theory of the materialist conception of history, the latter readily complied with the request. But it added: "I beg you to study the theory of primary sources, rather than second-hand - really, it's much easier to" / 2 / That is because, it turns out like! Easiest scientific essence of Marxism can be understood not by the book, namely the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Unless, of course, to "study" and not "learn". Learn something just easier to just by the book.
By the way, Engels, in his opinion today is not alone. "A rare textbook, full of quotations from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin did not distort the meaning of words spoken by the classics at least because of the mode of citation" - writes in a youth newspaper replaced! "Student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute, Lena Rychin. "Those who have studied philosophy at the tops, by comments in the book, one can only regret. Any source of the classics of Marxism-Leninism - is an interesting thing. Conversation with an intelligent man is always helpful. And here is a conversation with you, and at the highest level of trust and concreteness "- solidarizes with her classmate Vadim I..
But what is it, this confidential conversation with the reader? What exactly is losing someone who is inclined to study Marxism "second hand"? Certificate Georgiy V. Chicherin: "Modifying the end of his thought - that's what everyone learned in dealing with Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin always make fun of his inimitable humor, all vague, ambiguous and nedodumannuyu thought. His companion learned from him that every human thought must be diligent work, and not irresponsibly samouslazhdeniem or bluff. Let everyone learns from Lenin that thought is much more than a mood or an instinct. It must be logically carried through. " / 3 /
So, thinking - this is, firstly, a certain cultural skill, rather than instinct. Secondly, it is - a spiritual work, that is, honest, (and because of that!) systematic work. Third, this work - logical and, therefore, independent.
Communication of thought and independence ...
He lived in ancient times, a great scholar by the name of Euclid. He gave lessons to the king. And when a senior student wanted to quickly and easily master the science, the scientist replied emphatically: "There is no royal road to geometry!" And in general in the culture, we will add. And almost two thousand years later the great German philosopher Hegel was a sad irony, stated: contrary to the Prevention of Euclid are still fans of easy living. Their "royal road to science" is usually to read reviews of philosophical works, and perhaps the preface and the first paragraphs of these works ...
This verbal parasitism on the final results of another mental work even spawned a whole philosophy, calling themselves the positivism. "This cheesy positivism" - Karl Marx called it for the spirit of philistinism, of spiritual consumerism and alogism that it is currently concentrated. But no matter how improved the technique "royal road" to science, it is impossible in principle to think ... "for another." Unless, of course, think ... On this occasion the scientist-ethnographer MM Kovalevsky recalled: "From conversations with Marx, it was easy to deduce the belief that the foundation of its economic and historical doctrines was the philosophy of Hegel. He once told me point blank, it is logically possible to think only of the dialectical method, well, non-logical - albeit on a positive ". / 4 / illogic, disguised under a substitute for thought - the words are a sign of positivism! That is why today he is invariably accompanies any attempt to live someone else's expense.
Consequently, those who conscientiously thinks - he is working in good faith. And vice versa!. That is the lesson we Euclid, Hegel, Marx and Lenin. And to think conscientiously - hence always see a real contradiction of life, resolve and not be afraid of them. None of this is the answer, and concluded student A. Mikhailov, who believes that the production of asked you what you did in the workplace, and not that of Marx, read ... It is different, you see, things: "read Marx's work" and "work on Marx '!
The ability to do their job competently, creatively, and not a pattern people has long been called "mind." Um - is the ability or the ability to resolve conflicts. The science of this ability and acts of materialist dialectics. "Living soul of Marxism called her by Lenin. Past and are not those of the "rational" students who, quite rightly, sorry I. Vadim.
But there is this problem is another, perhaps equally important side. Students often complain that they de difficult to "understand" in a particular job. Characteristically, the classics of Marxism had written their works primarily for those working to understand them completely. And this despite the fact that the education they had no "no higher than five minutes, and sometimes not even starting. So what's the deal? Why do something that was quite capable of consciously working the recent past, sometimes turns out to be too tough for the modern student?
Otherwise, as the basis of life itself, from a different relationship to, this question can not be explained. After all, scientific communism, or Marxism is a doctrine about the pressing contradictions of human existence that we all have to decide today. But it is working, transforming the world with their labor, more than any other hamstrung by these controversies. Indeed. The world today has 5 billion people. Of these, 660 million are working, producing approximately ¾ of the world of social wealth. And last quarter, produced not by them, yet created by the tools, what worked in the industry. So that all of humanity today lives by and through the work ("living labor" and "dead labor") of the working class. In view of this "working much more independent in their judgments, is more susceptible to reality ... and not looking at everything through the prism of personal interest" - wrote Friedrich Engels. That is why it is working and has a clear need to understand these contradictions.
True, however, the opposite! Who in their life situation is far from the problems of real life or is relevant to them a very indirect one, of course, equally indifferent to the scientific and theoretical expression of these contradictions and problems. In other words, he is indifferent to the theory of Marxism as a spiritual expression of the working class.
What is true in general, it is true in particular. On closer examination it appears that all we Soviet people, live in a society of workers and students, we released at the time of learning from direct productive labor. At the same time, he continues to enjoy the full benefits and rights of working people. Simply put, lives at the expense of labor of the working class.
It goes without saying that releasing the student's time from productive labor, and related duties, the workers hope that someone other than purely professional skills, master the more theoretically developed consciousness of workers - their worldview. And he did it with the same diligence with which they, in turn, create it with all the conditions for the assimilation of culture and development in their heads. That is why, when a student or refuses to studying Marxism, or studying it formally (for credit, examination and diploma), to evaluate it should be clearly and only the highest ethical standards.
This means that he refuses to share with the workers not only their lives but also their way of thinking. A live through others, but do not share with them neither one nor the other - means to put yourself outside the moral attitude toward others and to himself. As the saying goes - "once lied to someone you believe it?" Who made the hypocrisy in one case, can lay claim to being a decent person except only in his imagination.
To think otherwise - is to recognize the right and privilege to use double standards: one for science, the other - for life, one for himself, and another - for others. But, as Marx argued, "to take a foundation for life, another for science - that means from the outset to allow a lie." / 5 /
Thus, to study whether the Marxism of Marx ...? This question is not only locked in the walls of the classroom. It clearly expressed personal attitudes students to science for life, for others, finally, his attitude toward himself. Indeed, the main product of the Marxist-Leninist education - it's mind. But do not mind "in general". How ancient philosophers used to say in mind, this "practical", ie moral, or to put in a modern way, "worldview." That is good to distinguish truth from error, and truth from falsehood. As a remarkable dialogue between the two great humanitarians:
- Actually, the dialectic - said Hegel - nothing like an orderly, methodically developed the spirit of the contradictions inherent in every person, and at the same time a great gift because it allows you to distinguish the true from the false.
- Unfortunately, - said Goethe - these mental quirk is often used to give the false for true, and true for false.
- It also happens, - has agreed to Hegel - but only with people mentally damaged. / 6 /
It seems that without any fear of falling into any inaccuracy, we can say this: the mind is the worldview, or wisdom - it is the mind, brought up on the dialectics of Marx, Engels and Lenin. And it consists in the ability to see life in all its contradictions, the ability to resolve its contradictions, but allow it from the standpoint of the interests of the working class. The former is impossible without the second. As, however, and vice versa. For the mind, without a class-based ideology is no better than the world ... crazy!
These are the commonly arise in this regard, the objections of colleagues. This here is usually a reasonable question. Make a reservation at once: no one now raises the question of teaching social sciences at the university without a corresponding to this case, the technique. This formulation of the problem would be pseudo and automatically would have been outside a little bit of serious discussion in the social sciences. Another question. The fact that today we have in the Middle Urals has developed a very disturbing situation when teaching methodology, knowledge society very often carried out without ... (and instead!) Teaching Marxist-Leninist science.
Methods INSTEAD outlook?
Paradoxically, the fact! The result is that, even handing the state exam, "five," adopts the philosophy of our young people ... without thinking ... without a sense of aesthetic beauty, and ethics ... without morality, political economy of socialism ... no sense of socialist master, and scientific communism ... without the communist world. Therefore, no coincidence at the All-Union meeting of social scientists on Oct. 1, 1986 a Politburo member, Secretary of the CPSU EK Ligachev said: "According to the Sverdlovsk Regional Party Committee, more than half of all college students surveyed cities said that they lack the ability to conduct reasoned debate, discussion of political issues, because during training in high school they do not get skills to protect the ideological values of a socialist society, attitudes and beliefs. " / 1 /
What does this mean?
This means that our students in the first five years of study have not learned to see the difference between the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, for example, the ideology of the cult of personality superiors. That is, between what is socialism, and so, what is socialism, however, did not. Then he becomes leader of the socialist workforce without acquiring immunity to the "departmental", "bureaucracy", "technocratic approach", "leftover principle", "Philosophy of imitation", "komchvanstvu" - in short, to everything from what and folding mechanism of inhibition , the real AIDS for socialism. But the methodology was something in his teaching of Marxism-Leninism and all was well. Otherwise, there would become his teacher, one after another, senior lecturers, professors, and then ... But all that work, exactly, is that Marxism must learn not only the laws of techniques, many of the laws ... of Marxism itself.
"Opinion" on the procedure - a fact not a psychological or even "epistemological", especially the public. Because of the attitude towards the method lies the public attitude towards the Marxist-Leninist outlook, outlook - in real life, this life - to socialism ...
In short, defining its position on the teaching of social sciences, the social scientist-teacher enters into the objective, social and ideological relations to other people. And therefore look at the "anatomy" of these ideological social relations should be scientifically and seriously.
$ I. ... Marxism without Marx?
To the Editor of the youth newspaper "replaced!" Came a letter: "You can not grasp the immensity. And because everyone chooses for himself the ground, what he can realize himself as. Selects it. What sense, if you come on the production, knowing from cover to cover works of Marx. After all, there will have to wait on you another plan ahead, show what you're an expert. What will you be justified, after covering this same plan - to quote Marx? "Alexander Mikhailov, a student. Sverdlovsk.
That is not the first year in the pre-series of tests on scientific communism persistently and inevitably repeats the same situation:
- Hello - addresses a student. -
I need to get off. That student's record-book.
- Well, - responsible teacher.
- Let's see how you were doing during this semester ...
- I attended all the seminars, - says one. - ... Attend all the lectures - added another.
- ... Was absent only for a good cause, and what help there! - Explain the third.
- All catch up to the summer state exam, you should not doubt! - To assure you the fourth.
Well, really, doubt is usually not necessary. Not necessary even in those rare occasions when my student does not hide his irritation due to the need to solve completely irrelevant, in his view, the problem - pass a test as much for half a year before the exam.
This, however, is not even about them. After his trouble polvedeniya such guys finally realize themselves: the curriculum and there is one obscheobyazatelen for all. Do you want to be a student - where is there to get away? It is just about those who totally welfare and attendance, and achievement in the assessments. But it professes the principle of sophisticated student of rationalism: it is better to read the textbook from cover to cover, at worst to make "abstract" by saving anthology, it is better to attend classes, ... the study of Marx, Engels and Lenin ... the original sources.
- It is good that there are books and lectures! After all, they, in fact, to do more productive work of each student. A work that, sorry, not much lighter than any other! - We hear the indignant voice of the opponent.
Sure, such an understanding of good faith will find support in more than one dozens or even hundreds of votes. But even a thousand, even the "darkness" of these views, let's try to compare with only one single, true, very, very competent.
To recall the statement by Friedrich Engels: after socialism has evolved from a utopia into a science, it requires that to him and treated as a science, that is to be studied.
What is this, above all, is it?
When in 1890 a student at Berlin University, a future journalist Josef Bloch turned to Engels for advice on the study of Marx's theory of the materialist conception of history, the latter readily complied with the request. But it added: "I beg you to study the theory of primary sources, rather than second-hand - really, it's much easier to" / 2 / That is because, it turns out like! Easiest scientific essence of Marxism can be understood not by the book, namely the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Unless, of course, to "study" and not "learn". Learn something just easier to just by the book.
By the way, Engels, in his opinion today is not alone. "A rare textbook, full of quotations from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin did not distort the meaning of words spoken by the classics at least because of the mode of citation" - writes in a youth newspaper replaced! "Student of the Ural Polytechnic Institute, Lena Rychin. "Those who have studied philosophy at the tops, by comments in the book, one can only regret. Any source of the classics of Marxism-Leninism - is an interesting thing. Conversation with an intelligent man is always helpful. And here is a conversation with you, and at the highest level of trust and concreteness "- solidarizes with her classmate Vadim I..
But what is it, this confidential conversation with the reader? What exactly is losing someone who is inclined to study Marxism "second hand"? Certificate Georgiy V. Chicherin: "Modifying the end of his thought - that's what everyone learned in dealing with Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin always make fun of his inimitable humor, all vague, ambiguous and nedodumannuyu thought. His companion learned from him that every human thought must be diligent work, and not irresponsibly samouslazhdeniem or bluff. Let everyone learns from Lenin that thought is much more than a mood or an instinct. It must be logically carried through. " / 3 /
So, thinking - this is, firstly, a certain cultural skill, rather than instinct. Secondly, it is - a spiritual work, that is, honest, (and because of that!) systematic work. Third, this work - logical and, therefore, independent.
Communication of thought and independence ...
He lived in ancient times, a great scholar by the name of Euclid. He gave lessons to the king. And when a senior student wanted to quickly and easily master the science, the scientist replied emphatically: "There is no royal road to geometry!" And in general in the culture, we will add. And almost two thousand years later the great German philosopher Hegel was a sad irony, stated: contrary to the Prevention of Euclid are still fans of easy living. Their "royal road to science" is usually to read reviews of philosophical works, and perhaps the preface and the first paragraphs of these works ...
This verbal parasitism on the final results of another mental work even spawned a whole philosophy, calling themselves the positivism. "This cheesy positivism" - Karl Marx called it for the spirit of philistinism, of spiritual consumerism and alogism that it is currently concentrated. But no matter how improved the technique "royal road" to science, it is impossible in principle to think ... "for another." Unless, of course, think ... On this occasion the scientist-ethnographer MM Kovalevsky recalled: "From conversations with Marx, it was easy to deduce the belief that the foundation of its economic and historical doctrines was the philosophy of Hegel. He once told me point blank, it is logically possible to think only of the dialectical method, well, non-logical - albeit on a positive ". / 4 / illogic, disguised under a substitute for thought - the words are a sign of positivism! That is why today he is invariably accompanies any attempt to live someone else's expense.
Consequently, those who conscientiously thinks - he is working in good faith. And vice versa!. That is the lesson we Euclid, Hegel, Marx and Lenin. And to think conscientiously - hence always see a real contradiction of life, resolve and not be afraid of them. None of this is the answer, and concluded student A. Mikhailov, who believes that the production of asked you what you did in the workplace, and not that of Marx, read ... It is different, you see, things: "read Marx's work" and "work on Marx '!
The ability to do their job competently, creatively, and not a pattern people has long been called "mind." Um - is the ability or the ability to resolve conflicts. The science of this ability and acts of materialist dialectics. "Living soul of Marxism called her by Lenin. Past and are not those of the "rational" students who, quite rightly, sorry I. Vadim.
But there is this problem is another, perhaps equally important side. Students often complain that they de difficult to "understand" in a particular job. Characteristically, the classics of Marxism had written their works primarily for those working to understand them completely. And this despite the fact that the education they had no "no higher than five minutes, and sometimes not even starting. So what's the deal? Why do something that was quite capable of consciously working the recent past, sometimes turns out to be too tough for the modern student?
Otherwise, as the basis of life itself, from a different relationship to, this question can not be explained. After all, scientific communism, or Marxism is a doctrine about the pressing contradictions of human existence that we all have to decide today. But it is working, transforming the world with their labor, more than any other hamstrung by these controversies. Indeed. The world today has 5 billion people. Of these, 660 million are working, producing approximately ¾ of the world of social wealth. And last quarter, produced not by them, yet created by the tools, what worked in the industry. So that all of humanity today lives by and through the work ("living labor" and "dead labor") of the working class. In view of this "working much more independent in their judgments, is more susceptible to reality ... and not looking at everything through the prism of personal interest" - wrote Friedrich Engels. That is why it is working and has a clear need to understand these contradictions.
True, however, the opposite! Who in their life situation is far from the problems of real life or is relevant to them a very indirect one, of course, equally indifferent to the scientific and theoretical expression of these contradictions and problems. In other words, he is indifferent to the theory of Marxism as a spiritual expression of the working class.
What is true in general, it is true in particular. On closer examination it appears that all we Soviet people, live in a society of workers and students, we released at the time of learning from direct productive labor. At the same time, he continues to enjoy the full benefits and rights of working people. Simply put, lives at the expense of labor of the working class.
It goes without saying that releasing the student's time from productive labor, and related duties, the workers hope that someone other than purely professional skills, master the more theoretically developed consciousness of workers - their worldview. And he did it with the same diligence with which they, in turn, create it with all the conditions for the assimilation of culture and development in their heads. That is why, when a student or refuses to studying Marxism, or studying it formally (for credit, examination and diploma), to evaluate it should be clearly and only the highest ethical standards.
This means that he refuses to share with the workers not only their lives but also their way of thinking. A live through others, but do not share with them neither one nor the other - means to put yourself outside the moral attitude toward others and to himself. As the saying goes - "once lied to someone you believe it?" Who made the hypocrisy in one case, can lay claim to being a decent person except only in his imagination.
To think otherwise - is to recognize the right and privilege to use double standards: one for science, the other - for life, one for himself, and another - for others. But, as Marx argued, "to take a foundation for life, another for science - that means from the outset to allow a lie." / 5 /
Thus, to study whether the Marxism of Marx ...? This question is not only locked in the walls of the classroom. It clearly expressed personal attitudes students to science for life, for others, finally, his attitude toward himself. Indeed, the main product of the Marxist-Leninist education - it's mind. But do not mind "in general". How ancient philosophers used to say in mind, this "practical", ie moral, or to put in a modern way, "worldview." That is good to distinguish truth from error, and truth from falsehood. As a remarkable dialogue between the two great humanitarians:
- Actually, the dialectic - said Hegel - nothing like an orderly, methodically developed the spirit of the contradictions inherent in every person, and at the same time a great gift because it allows you to distinguish the true from the false.
- Unfortunately, - said Goethe - these mental quirk is often used to give the false for true, and true for false.
- It also happens, - has agreed to Hegel - but only with people mentally damaged. / 6 /
It seems that without any fear of falling into any inaccuracy, we can say this: the mind is the worldview, or wisdom - it is the mind, brought up on the dialectics of Marx, Engels and Lenin. And it consists in the ability to see life in all its contradictions, the ability to resolve its contradictions, but allow it from the standpoint of the interests of the working class. The former is impossible without the second. As, however, and vice versa. For the mind, without a class-based ideology is no better than the world ... crazy!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий