We (not even in Russia, but in general in the world) live in an era of relative tolerance and freedom of opinion, and this is good. Tolerance quite competently and confidently outlines its own boundaries: it is tolerant of everything except intolerance. Freedom, if it is worth something and is capable of defending itself, resists encroachments on freedom.
That is, in any ideal Hyde Park, for example, cannibalism is unacceptable. And even not only physical, but also verbal, say, the preaching of cannibalism.
For two thousand years of the development of the Christian civilization alone, mankind has gained some kind of experience. In a garden where all the flowers bloom, some (in percentage terms – an insignificant part) clearly give off rotten meat. There are ideas that are disgusting even at a cursory glance. There are ideas that do not give themselves away so quickly, but have finally compromised themselves in practice (for example, the communist idea). There are ideas based on incorrect facts. Finally, there are ideas that are simply stupid, intellectually flawed, crumbling in the light of elementary counterarguments. But in response there is freedom: not to recognize, not to see, not to understand the obvious. At the same time, brain failure may well be compensated by muscle strength and organizational activity.
In other words, following Osip Emilievich Mandelstam, there is also just nonsense. And if this or that person falls into this gloomy nonsense, whether it be Nazism, Satanism, rabid leftism or something more exotic, serious problems begin – this person with society and society with him. Moreover, if these problems are resolved amicably (as, for example, with Hitler and the German people), they move to another level. And the question arises: is it possible to educate or educate a young person in such a way as to avoid these absolutely indisputable troubles? As the apostle Paul said to stupid pagans, desperate to explain to them the intricacies of fasting: “Eat what you want, but do not eat each other.” That is, we are not talking about moral heights and wisdom, but about a certain hygienic minimum. Can it even be guaranteed?
There is a question; There is an immediate answer: no. First, historically determined. If we remembered the apostles, then Jesus Christ also found a black sheep among the disciples. Or another discouraging experience: the world educator and philosopher Seneca has the most famous pupil – the world scumbag Nero. Lowering the pathos – in the same families, that is, in equal social and genetic conditions, the righteous and the executioners grew up. Free will turns out to be the decisive condition and, in a conflict situation, cancels everything else. Secondly, from a psychological point of view, we cannot discount the protest mood, especially among young people, but not only them. That is, a person, not by an unfortunate accident, chooses something the most vile from the point of view of his inner circle, but it is precisely by this criterion that he chooses. And the more, relatively speaking, the Zvezda TV channel will unilaterally tamper with historical memory and defame the swastika, the more willingly stupid young people who do not like the Zvezda TV channel will draw it on concrete fences.
For the reasons enumerated above, it is necessary to further weaken the wish and remove the question of guarantees. Let’s say there is some statistical danger. Obviously, there are educational strategies that increase this danger (the Hitler Youth, the education of martyrs, etc.). And are there those who lower it, even if not to zero? Let’s specify the questions.
Does a good knowledge of history increase the likelihood of a correct historical assessment? (Let me remind you: we are talking about obvious things and do not ask confusing questions about how good, say, the Augustan principate was. We limit ourselves to the fact that the Gulag and Auschwitz are bad.)
Do developed intellect, imagination and fantasy contribute to (at least minimally) morality? Because it is not so easy to develop all this, but in principle it is possible.
In my experience, unfortunately, the answer is no.
The two admirers of Hitler I knew were highly educated and historically savvy. They operated with serious statistics, knew a lot of quotations and explained well how this or that measure of the Fuhrer increased the well-being of Germany. Actually, the logic is clear: in order not to see the forest, you need a lot of trees. I believe that among the researchers of Stalin’s biography, the percentage of Stalinists is higher than the national average. When you deal with shit, you get used to the stench. That is, rather beat off the scent than develop it.
As for powerful intellect and fantasy, in my opinion, moral constants are connected with the fact that this and this simply does not fit into the head. And the intellect and fantasy are aimed precisely at the fact that (ideally) everything fits. People with serious intellect get to wild nonsense; Simpletons don’t understand this.
As a result, a young man who has not heard the name of Lenin gives me hope, not anxiety. We get a sad morality: it’s better not to remember, not to know, not to bother. To a certain extent, yes. I think many of you feel the smell of TV shows on the valiant Channel One: Beria! Stalin’s youth! Malenkov: young years! It seems to be why not, no obvious overexposures are allowed. But attention is fixed by interest, and interest overcomes disgust. And if for me, disgust is the shortest path to moral hygiene.
Here is a visit to the Holocaust museum or the Gulag – yes, something like that moves the soul. But here, you see, we are not talking about knowledge, but about an emotional burn. That is, almost literally about vaccination – and then how it will turn out …