A man thinking: Are you Superfluous?

In the era of "fullness of life", gigantization, modern society can be divided into 2 camps: people-themselves-in-themselves and most. Ortega called this majority by the masses for a number of reasons. People from the outskirts of human history got to the mise en scene of history, thereby capturing once-minimized positions in society. But this state of affairs is fraught not only in the context of socio-political changes. If hitherto, to be exact before the 18th century, politics and economy were based on elitism, which is more intellectual in nature, now we can observe the hardening of the situation due to the ideological oppression of ossassage.

Among this ossassage it is very difficult to live a person who is trying to realize his being, to find an excuse for life. I adhere to the concept of Kierkegaard, who argued that man is thrown into this life. And what should he do? To vegetate its existence or live, to feel life? The thinking person wants to understand the nature, the world around him not only from the words of the prevailing opinion, but also through his own reasoning, searches. In the process of comparison, we can relate the self and the non-I, to disassemble the laws of the world around us.

But what is the disappointment of exposing a person when he sees around him not what he is used to observing? This conflict of Self and Society is described quite colorfully in Camus in his Essay on the Absurd. Every person is absurd, the question is, to what extent. And it is when homo cogito tries to modify the world through itself, the words of Kierkegaard are relevant: "Life depends on ourselves - by changes in ourselves we change the others." In fact, I believe, nothing will change until everyone is aware of themselves, their place in this world.

But due to the processes of massaging, the erasure of intellectually individual traits, homo cogito is extremely hopeless. It is wrong, in my opinion, who have seen people, fathers of society, consider idle, they are simply compared to young minds, not directed by energy clots, have already realized the hopelessness of the struggle with the windmills of the public. But with all this, life is a struggle, a constant struggle with circumstances, with yourself, in the first place.

Creator-God dumps us from the bridge of serenity into the turbid lake of mass existentiality with a stone of our hopes and prejudices on the neck. Conscious of this fact, homo cogito is trying to float to the surface, but the debugged system of the muddy bottom system only strengthens our confusion, and the inhabitants instead of unfastening the load and helping to choose, on the contrary, are pulled down to themselves. People do not like it when someone aspires to up, seeing in this a reproach to themselves, although they themselves are thrown into this world. Modern society is a well-established system of cogs and gears, where the force of traction and inertia are illusions, illusions of a better life, of perfect prosperity. And when new details appear that do not fit into the specific social position of the mechanism, it brakes, jams and stops. Massa does not like the happiness of an individual - it devours a lot from within the bile of criticism. It is from these positions, I believe, people agreed on the need to adopt the concept of "equality": neither to me, nor to you - to anyone. People in their majority envy success by virtue of their own inactivity, which, incidentally, does not bother them at all. It is much easier for them to criticize or belittle, rather than internally agree with their own laziness and inaction. They do not care about the notion of happiness as such, which is seen as the result of the actions of a particular individual, no. They are affected by the fact of success, the property of any good. It's like buying a washing machine into a house where water has not yet been brought in just because the neighbors have already acquired it.

Man himself makes himself a slave of circumstances and obligations. It would be much easier to strive for happiness, choosing for oneself individual trails of its achievement, and not following the patterned highways. But in the latter case it is easier to manage. Nomo cogito is the embodiment of contradictions, it is a person who wants to be the master of one's own life. A person can do everything and even more. According to many anthropologists, man has already outlived himself as a biological and social being-only a vast psychic space has left, which, like a clean board, is limited by our prejudices and worldview. But is it worthwhile allowing others to plow it with bulldozers of public installations?

Nietzsche divided people into gentlemen and slaves. The former aspire to be masters of life, reaching the attitudes themselves, the necessary norms of life, the latter rely on all sorts of authorities, shifting the burden and charm of choice to them.

Nomo cogito is fully a supporter of humanistic ethics, it is a man who gives birth and again creates, following a long history of mankind within himself, a rule that determines the patterns of cohabitation. Unlike the masses, he is a fully reflective being. If a mass person can be taught to live an illusion, a substitution of choice with an assortment, then these tricks with homo cogito will not pass.

I have already pointed out the difficulty of cohabitation between the thinking person and society as a whole. I want to note once again that homo cogito- is a human condition, a state that is the further development of an absurd human-in-turmoil.

But people who think hard to manage in modern times: either they themselves will be in power, like Toleran, or will be in opposition, although this will bring them a lot of trouble. It is hard to resist someone else's opinion, when you have your own no less reasoned. A vivid example is the Ancient Hellas. Tyrant Corinth, who could not get order in his policy, sent an ambassador to Miletus, famous for his respect for laws and public order. When he returned, he complained to the tyrant that he had not learned anything good for two days, just strolled with the ruler of Miletus over his possessions and talked to abstract topics .. he also noted the strangeness of the Milesian ruler that he knocked down his richest, Liquid ears of corn and trampled them into the ground. The entire control system is based on the identity of its subordinate elements, this is akin to the Procrustean bed - either wedge in the parameters, or you are infringed.

We are inspired by desires that depress us, for it is easier to control the suppressed mass.

And in conclusion I would like to slightly change the expression of Plato, the mass can not be homo cogito.