Let's try to figure out what the ideal is, why everyone wants to find it, and why it doesn't exist. The ideal is when everything about a person suits you. When you like all his advantages, but he has no disadvantages, or they are so insignificant that you do not pay attention to them. Here a person is born, he is raised, he lives and experiences the world around him, learns to walk, talk, run, jump. Then he goes to kindergarten, after school, to higher education, and then to work.
In the process of his development, he forms his own worldview of the world around him, and he also develops hobbies. He can take up music professionally, play some instrument or just listen to it, he can play football in the yard, or he can take up music professionally and achieve great success, etc. He develops his own interests depending on the company around him, who surrounds him, those with whom he communicates, who is interesting and what is interesting.
And now we have a personality, namely a person with his own interests, views and other things that are inherent in everyone. And so you fell in love with him, you like his appearance, his figure, you are interested in communicating with him, you have common interests, etc. But let’s say he likes to drink cocktails, and you like beer, and then you try to persuade him to give up cocktails, giving reasons why they are more harmful than beer or you support CSKA, and he supports SPARTAK. And so you begin to have arguments and misunderstandings, which lead to little, but usually to hatred, resentment and separation.
Have you ever thought that changing a person is stupid, that drinking beer is as harmful as cocktails, that he likes this football club, but you don’t need to change anything, it’s just a sport. Your attitude towards each other, your feelings are much more important, and let each other’s interests be in the background. Have you ever thought about the fact that all his interests, previous partners in life, in study, in communication, his trips there, his trips there, what he listens to, what he reads, whether he likes this, etc. All of these things made him who he is today and if you take away one thing, you think he will become better. By removing what you think is a disadvantage, a minus.
But you probably also have disadvantages; will you be pleased if he forbids you something? If he says don’t wear dark socks, I like light ones, or he’ll tell me not to watch House 2, but rather watch football with him. This is why there is an argument, hatred and anger accumulate, unnecessary and incomprehensible anger, which spoils your relationship.
Each person is unique in his own way and no two are alike, and in order to have harmony in the home, to have a happy, friendly family, understanding, trust, respect, honesty and sincerity towards each other are necessary, this is the only way to build something real and lasting, and What is quickly built, is quickly destroyed. That’s why I don’t believe that friendship and true love are built at first sight, it’s just sympathy, interest, love.
Please don't confuse infatuation with love. Live together for a week or month, not paying attention, adapting to the person, and then achieve your goal, gain trust and leave it easily. But to live for several decades and not pay attention to the disadvantages, loving a person for who he really is and immediately, so as not to accumulate and quarrel over trifles, is difficult.
Having answered the question, what is ideal, now let’s take a closer look at why there can’t be an ideal. Let's say a person devotes a lot of time to his lessons, studied with straight A's and graduated from college with honors. And here before us is a specialist who knows his business very well in his field. But not everything is so simple, no one knows how much effort he had to put in to study lessons day and night in order to get only A’s, what he sacrificed and what he possessed, seeing how his peers played football in the yard, went to the movies, hung out with the girls, etc. He simply did not have time or had very little, and since he was very tired, he spent it mainly on rest, sleep, relaxation with music or TV.
Hence the conclusion that such a person can provide his family with everything necessary, but it will not be very interesting to go somewhere with such a person, talk about anything other than work, since he simply lived a different life and has other interests. It turns out that either a person dominates in one area, but is weak in another, or vice versa, or both are average. Therefore, it is worth looking for just this golden mean, to focus on what you really need in your soul mate most of all. Choose those qualities and criteria for which you will love, and everything else comes in the background.
A small example: a man has a car and a girlfriend. The girl wants the guy to devote more time to her and spend more money on her. But at the same time, she wants to drive a car and not walk, therefore, the guy will spend part of his time on repairing and maintaining the car. And the girl gets offended and starts making a scandal that he loves the car more than her. Here, again, you need to understand each other and find this balance, this middle ground, so that everyone is satisfied with everything, otherwise the relationship will soon end.
And I also really liked the phrase of a Woman on TV once (I don’t remember what program was on) she said the following: “It’s not the man’s fault that I was fascinated by him, that I fell in love with him, that I liked him.” he is not obligated not to go out and communicate with you, just as you are not obligated to go out and communicate with those who liked you, but you don’t like them. Therefore, you don’t need to immediately get used to it and fall in love with a person. Just communicate, make friends, spend time if you are satisfied with the conditions, but don’t regret it, don’t agree to them with the idea that they will later give you what’s yours. That someone will owe you something, since all this leads to a sense of duty that pushes people away from each other.
What is an ideal
| Like | |
Ideals - Human behavior has a source not only in the sphere of human needs and his orientation (interests, inclinations). The moral sphere is also of great importance, which is entirely determined by human ideals - ideas about exemplary behavior.
As S. L. Rubinstein noted, we do not only what we feel an immediate need for, and we do not only do what interests us. We have moral ideas about duty, about the responsibilities that lie upon us, which also regulate our behavior. The due, on the one hand, opposes the individual, because it is perceived as independent of the person. What should be is universally significant, not subject to subjective arbitrariness. Ideals are what are not subject to chance, mood, momentary motives, etc.
On the other hand, if we experience something as a ought, and not just abstractly know that it is considered such, the ought becomes the subject of our personal aspirations, the socially significant becomes at the same time personally significant, a person’s own conviction, an idea that has taken possession of his feelings and will.
Ideals can be considered as a kind of obligatory ballast that limits a person in his actions, fetters freedom and forces him to do as he should, and not as he wants. But the ideals passed down from generation to generation also contain the culturally transmitted experience of survival in society. This experience can say, for example, that you cannot succumb to momentary temptation and steal something - it can be very expensive later, you cannot succumb to sexual arousal and rape someone - sexual tension will be relieved for a couple of days, but there may be harm from this action colossal. If ideally it is said that one should always tell the truth, then this is not only “because because”, but also because in following this ideal one can achieve an impeccable reputation, which is sometimes extremely useful (for example, in science).
An ideal can determine a set of norms of behavior. An ideal is a holistic image; this image embodies the most valuable and attractive human traits. This image serves as a standard model, and any deviation from this standard model is interpreted as undesirable. Strong deviations are considered unacceptable. For example, a person adheres to the ideal of honesty. He can allow himself a small lie, for example, lying on the phone that some person is not there. He interprets this behavior as undesirable, but if he sees no other way to respond, then he has to lie. In other cases, when the lie no longer seems momentary and can have far-reaching consequences, he will definitely tell the truth, even if this is fraught with great trouble for him. In extreme cases, he will evade or refuse to answer. In other words, what is quite important is not only and not so much the fact of deviation from the ideal, but the degree of this deviation. At the same time, obviously, different people interpret this degree of deviation very differently and have different scales in this regard.
If a person can have models of the best behavior in his mind, then he can also have models of the worst behavior, that is, anti-ideals. Anti-ideals in general have the same characteristics as simply ideals. They also work in two ways: both for preliminary assessment of planned actions and for post-facto assessment.
Human behavior is thus sandwiched between two poles: positive and negative. People are naturally repelled by the negative and attracted to the positive. However, this system is not at all stable over time. A person’s ideals and anti-ideals are also subject to change. This is mainly due to the change and detailing of the picture of the world. What previously seemed obvious and indisputable now seems highly doubtful. The changed picture of the world influences the formation of new ideals and the disappearance of old ones.
Often the transformation of ideals occurs so radically and rapidly that it causes great surprise and deep misunderstanding of others. The ideal or ideals of a person seem to change polarity: what was previously considered good is now considered bad, and vice versa. Such a 180-degree turn usually occurs during periods of deep frustration and crisis experiences. In such states, a person may come to the conclusion that the reasons for his failures or even collapse lie in the value sphere. He abandons his ideal in favor of an anti-ideal, because this image has long been formed, visible, “ready for use.” This is the reason that a person rushes from one extreme to another.
People with extremely inadequate self-esteem and personality disorders in general may experience the following. Low self-esteem can lead to the fact that a person’s most important anti-ideal coincides with his own self-image. That is, everything that a person does is wrong. High self-esteem leads to the opposite effect: the ideal coincides with one’s own self-image. It may sound aphoristic, but people’s ideals are far from always ideal.
The ideal represents not what a person actually is, but what he would like to be, not what he really is, but what he would like to be. A normal situation is when a person’s self-image is somewhere between two poles, between the ideal and the anti-ideal. A person may even feel that he is closer to the anti-ideal than to the ideal. What is important for personal well-being is not so much proximity to one pole or another, but rather a confident movement towards the positive pole.
The formation of a person’s ideals is influenced by a number of factors. Of course, the state structure and official ideology are of great importance. Many people had the opportunity to live under two different social systems: socialism and capitalism, and compare the ideals of people from different eras. Under socialism, especially in the first decades of the USSR, the ideas of collectivism, mutual assistance, selflessness, diligence, rationalism, etc. were found in people’s ideals. Under capitalism - the ideas of individualism, hoarding, hedonism, enterprise, status, etc.
Ideals, as already mentioned, are formed largely under the influence of the picture of the world. People of faith have one ideal, people with a scientific picture of the world have another. For humanists, ideals are more focused on interpersonal communication, while for techies, ideals are more closely related to abilities and work experience.
In many ways, ideals are formed under the influence of others, close people. In this case, ideals are transmitted both as they are and transformed, and even turn into anti-ideals. Basically, the nature of such borrowing depends on the social status of the other person. If this social status is high, then the ideals are transmitted as they are. If, for example, the social status of a parent is very low (does not have a good job, is not respected, he leads an asocial lifestyle), then all his attempts to convey his ideals to the child are unlikely to be successful, with a high degree of probability they will be perceived with a minus sign .
Historical figures, as well as fictional characters from books and films, sometimes play a decisive role in shaping the ideals of the younger generation. At the same time, a boy or girl can have a separate personality or a collective image from different books and films as an ideal. Often the collective image of a number of fictional characters has more power than the personality of a real person from history or the present.
In the sense of transforming quantity into quality through increasing complexity, Teilhard also imagines the development of life. In accordance with the law of “planned complication,” large molecules arose from small molecules, and from the latter, the first cells. Thus, life arose from preliminary stages that lie outside living matter, through the formation of “an essentially new type of corpuscular grouping.” Teilhard already in 1938 believed that the direct process of the origin of life could someday be observed in the laboratory.
Such Catholic positions differ decisively from the speculations of the official apologists of Catholic dogmatics.
The human soul arises, according to Teilhard, in the process of evolution, in a natural way. Nowhere does he say that the human soul is created by God out of nothing, as required by Catholic dogma.
For Teilhard, Adam and Eve are not objects of scientific consideration. “Humanity came into being in principle the same way as any of the other species.” The question whether Adam and Eve were the first people cannot “claim scientific significance, since paleontology can treat species only in the form of groups.” Thus, for Teilhard, there is also no original sin. This in turn gives him the opportunity to show optimism about the future of humanity on earth. Teilhard de Chardin's optimism does not at all correspond to the views of the Catholic Church.
The obvious contradictions between matter and spirit - “God”, between the natural and supernatural order, which the church teaches, are erased, for Teilhard defends the unity of the world. For the Peto, matter and spirit are not two things, but two states and aspects of the same cosmic substance. One god in nature, one god becoming simultaneously with nature - this, of course, is not a Christian god, since it allows us to remove the required transcendence.
Teilhard's system approaches pantheism. Teilhard's natural scientific evolutionary basic concept openly contradicts Catholic teaching. The insurmountable contradiction between official Catholic theology and Teilhard’s pantheistic worldview persists even when he tries to find a loophole for the creative activity of God, recognizing that nothing prevents the spiritualist thinker from “substituting under the veil of the phenomenon of revolutionary transformation any “creative creation or special intervention.” This statement does not, however, remove the fact that Teilhard considers development as a process that naturally occurs without the intervention of God. God is only a superfluous addition here.
It goes without saying that the Christian Teilhard cannot imagine humanity and its future without religion. His ideal is a close connection between science and religion. Religion seems inevitable to him, because a person, in order to continue to work and continue to search, must be convinced that the universe has meaning.
This religion of Teilhard has very little in common with Christianity: “Its true function is, however, to support and accelerate the progress of life.” Teilhard has little to say about his “omega” god: “I do not, however, feel particularly confident in his existence. Believing does not mean seeing. I wander... in the shadow of faith... under these conditions I decide to go to the end of the road... towards the horizon, which is increasingly covered with fog.
| Leafing through the pages of religion: |
Greek id?a - idea, image] - the image of a person who is a model for others. I. is the subject of study of various sciences and is considered as something perfect, which may not yet exist, but which should be strived for. A set of norms of behavior can act as an I.; an image that embodies the most valuable and attractive human traits, an image that serves as a model. A person’s image does not always represent his idealized reflection. I. often embodies what a person lacks, what he strives for in order to be satisfied in his plans and dreams. The desire to achieve I. can act as the most important motive for a person’s behavior and become what constitutes the meaning of his life. I. in its developed form is inherent in a person who is able to precede a real action with an ideal one, to imagine the results of work before it begins. I. are formed under the influence of the social environment and are largely determined by a person’s worldview and the mentality of society. Each era forms its own ideas about the ideal of a person, however, this idea is not an absolute, since different communities cultivate their own ideas about I. In this case, a specific historical figure in whom valuable traits are most fully embodied can act as I. There are two types of attitudes towards I.: contemplative-enthusiastic and passionate-active. 1) A person limits himself to virtual admiration and admiration for I. 2) Generates in a person the energy to transform I into real personality traits. I. acts as a motive for self-education and self-change. In this case, it contains a program of work that helps achieve a person’s compliance with the ideal image. V.A. Shuster
Ideal
an emotionally positively colored Idea, a person’s thought about something or someone that is considered as the most desirable, the best for him. The ideal determines the meaning and purpose of a person’s life, his aspirations, behavior and thinking, especially in childhood and adolescence. With age, a person's ideal may change.
Ideal
(French ideal, from Greek idea - idea, prototype) in the commonly used sense: a) the highest degree of value or the best, completed state of any phenomenon, b) an individually accepted standard (recognized sample) of something, usually relating personal qualities or abilities.
IDEAL
fr. ideal) - an image of something. perfect, model, the highest goal of aspirations of a person, a social group. I. is relatively unattainable and represents only the idea of a regulatory order. It gives direction to a goal rather than creating a concrete image of the goal itself, and therefore guides a person more as a sense of the right direction than as a clear image of the result of an activity or behavior. On the other hand, I., in principle, cannot. unattainable. He is not a dream that has no relation to reality. I. as such is always specific, and it must be gradually realized in the biography of a person and the history of society (E.V. Ilyenkov, 2001). The ideal solution to the problem of conflicts today seems to be, firstly, the complete eradication of conflicts that lead to death and physical suffering of people; secondly, the exclusion of intrapersonal conflicts that cause suicide and serious depression. Both of these ideas, in principle, are quite achievable if the majority of organizations and states were led by moral, cultural and intelligent people.
Ideal
Greek idea - idea, concept, idea) - 1. perfection; 2. a perfect example of something. Thus, F.M. Dostoevsky considers A.S. Pushkin to be the ideal of a Russian person. The writer predicts that at the end of the 22nd century after R.H. the inhabitants of Russia will reach the level of intellectual and moral development of the poet; 3. the highest and unattainable goal of aspirations and activities.
Ideal
Greek idea - idea, idea) - the concept of moral consciousness and the category of ethics, containing the highest moral requirements, the possible implementation of which by a person would allow him to achieve perfection; the image of the most valuable and majestic in a person, the absolute basis of obligation; criterion for separating good and evil. The content of moral identity is formed in the process of people realizing the injustice and unnaturalness of their position, as an alternative to the existing one, as an internal protest against the established order of things. Moral I., in whatever form it may appear, embodies, first of all, the dream (hope, hope) of the unity and brotherhood of people and the corresponding demand for unconditional humanity (altruism, humanism) in the relations between them. At the same time, the cultural and historical originality and diversity of history were determined by the specificity of the historical role and social interests of those classes and social strata whose aspirations were expressed in them. Within the framework of class ideologies, social ideals are formulated as forecasts or utopias of a social order in which moral ideals are realized and the individual achieves perfection. Moral ethics in ethics was most often considered not only as a denial of imperfect reality, but also as its spiritual overcoming. The theoretical development of the concept of moral ethics begins in the Hellenistic era and first acquires great importance in Christian morality, in the era of the crisis of ancient society, when a deep contradiction between what should and reality emerged. Then the image of a morally perfect person - Jesus Christ, a man-god - is contrasted with the imperfection and depravity of “mere mortals”. In Christian morality, religion seems, as a rule, unattainable for people (neo-Protestantism). The only exceptions can be “holy righteous people.” Similar ideas also penetrate into philosophical ethics. So, according to Kant, I. is an unattainable prototype that can never become reality. Feuerbach tried to lower moral I. from unattainable heights to the ground. But his realism remained only a call for the moral improvement of man in general. Today's understanding of I. is based on the ethical postulates of universal human values.
