Light a candle!

I listened to a radio program while having breakfast. Radio, and television as well, now make up our mostly passive information background. Interviewed by two doctors of sciences. If I’m not mistaken, economics and linguistics. It was, of course, about the state of domestic science, finances, personnel, and so on. They spoke sensibly and energetically. One defended the priority of university science, the other – academic. The reforms were treated critically, but they also found positive aspects. Of course, they complained about funding. However, the main thing, the main thing – both argued – is the poverty of scientific personnel. Education is mediocre, the level of dissertations is sometimes ridiculously pathetic and helpless. Not to mention plagiarism. The best go abroad, but we have a thick swamp.

Read more:

• “Time to go”: the formula that doesn’t work

Then take the correspondent and ask: did you yourself have to participate in such scientific ceremonies for awarding degrees? It turned out that it was necessary, and how. Both are members of not one, but several commissions and committees, both have been opponents or supervisors of dissertators more than once. And what, there were no weak or even mediocre among them? There were, of course. And did you interfere in any way?

At the same moment, the eloquence left the scientists. They became like schoolchildren who had not learned their lesson and referred to a sore throat or a meteorite that had flown in through the window. But both, I will say for the sake of justice, were honest people and did not boast of imaginary exploits. No, they did not interfere, because it is impossible. Behind each applicant is a well-known scientist or a reputable university, with whom not only professional, but also friendly relations have developed. In addition, somehow all this is also connected with accountable plans, cash bonuses, and it seems unethical to turn the leg on a colleague. There were many explanations, but from these speeches even the mugs under the window began to dry up.

All this was, unfortunately, familiar to me. Standing up for truth and justice often leads to damaged relationships with colleagues, and even career problems. In short, it requires not only conviction, but also a certain courage. The main thing is a real, active sense of responsibility.

During the Soviet era, the sense of responsibility atrophied. Even the most decent, the most talented, the most ambitious. Because we lived in a world of nameless patterns that only leaders knew about, it was the circumstances, or “them,” that were to blame. And what do you want if the initiative from below is punishable?

It would seem that everything has changed a long time ago, and freedom greeted us joyfully at the entrance. But this is psychology, a habit, and habits are not parted so quickly. Moreover, it is habits that have a special advantage in inheritance. And this habit was born long before the Soviet regime. The remarkable Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky wrote about a society “where it has become a habit to complain about centralization, about the constraint on public initiative, about the lack of rights and not using what is given, neglecting duties, how soon supervision weakens, where people quickly forget what they were yesterday , and do not want to think about what to be tomorrow.

Isn’t it very similar. We argue about global problems and even experience masochistic pleasure from their insolubility. I’m afraid that some people will accept this quote from Klyuchevsky with aching pleasure: well, in Russia it’s always like that.

Yes, nothing like that! Pedaling the typological problems of Russian society is also from the category of philosophical trampling at the domestic puddle, with scratching the back of the head and suffering grins. Realizing the harm and even the ridiculousness of historical tradition is the first step in getting out of its captivity. Today, a generation of cheerful, free, energetic and responsible guys is already growing, who in any business prefer to rely on themselves, and they perceive conversations about general issues as a clown self-affirmation of intellectuals. The demagnetization of worldly philosophers is simply not to their liking. I’m not even sure that this is an exclusively age property, there are more and more such people in all generations. But the sweet craving for unsolvable, and therefore not requiring action, issues is still strong. Recently, I myself found myself on this habitual hook.

We talked with Daniil Granin about mercy, sensitivity and compassion, the lack of which is felt in society. It would be absurd to suppose, I said, that people in the West are a lot kinder than ours. But then why in Rome, after Beslan, thousands of people with candles took to the square, while we had a numb silence?

Granin replied rather irritably: “What answer can there be? Why does anyone have to answer? No need to look for an answer, you need to do something. It is necessary to call for action, and not to figure out what’s what. I don’t know why. And hardly anyone will answer this question. And even if he did, what would change? Do you know what Confucius said? Do not curse the darkness, but light a candle.”

I was not upset by this reproach, but thought that my interlocutor was right. Confucius, of course, too.