The author posted a question in Philosophy, the Unseen
My son asked me today? and got a better answer
Response from
Usually distinctly remains in memory what causes strong emotions A quiet, happy life is perceived by generations as something for granted, absolutely calmly not causing violent emotions in the masses. It is the same with rulers. Ruthless rulers caused fear in society, and fear deeply and permanently settles in the subconscious such is the nature of man - the instinct of self-preservation. Fear is necessary for humans and animals to live in order to avoid such situations. That's why the negative is better fixed in the memory, both individual and public At the subconscious level?
Response from 0[+++++]
Usually distinctly remains in the memory of what causes strong emotions A quiet happy life is perceived by generations as something appropriate absolutely calmly not causing violent emotions in the masses. It is the same with the rulers. Ruthless rulers caused fear in society and fear deeply and permanently settles in the subconsciousness is the nature of man - the instinct of self-preservation. Fear is necessary for humans and animals to live in order to avoid such situations. That's why the negative is better fixed in the memory both individual and public At the subconscious level.
Usually distinctly remains in the memory of what causes strong emotions A quiet happy life is perceived by generations as something appropriate absolutely calmly not causing violent emotions in the masses. It is the same with the rulers. Ruthless rulers caused fear in society and fear deeply and permanently settles in the subconsciousness is the nature of man - the instinct of self-preservation. Fear is necessary for humans and animals to live in order to avoid such situations. That's why the negative is better fixed in the memory both individual and public At the subconscious level.
Response from 0[+++++]
Because human society is based on fear.
Because human society is based on fear.
Response from 0[+++++]
It is connected with human nature. the tragedies of our country: repressions of rulers, numerous unjust shootings, we perceive more acutely than a carefree life. all tyrants were outstanding personalities only they directed their energy to bad things
It is connected with human nature. the tragedies of our country: repressions of rulers, numerous unjust shootings, we perceive more acutely than a carefree life. all tyrants were outstanding personalities only they directed their energy to bad things
Response from 0[+++++]
How old is your son? In my opinion, it is difficult to be a good ruler, but it is normal for human nature and cruelty stays as scars on the souls of those whom it has touched and they, in turn, pass on this memory to their descendants: Hi sonny for the good question! I voted for him.
How old is your son? In my opinion, it is difficult to be a good ruler, but it is normal for human nature and cruelty stays as scars on the souls of those whom it has touched and they, in turn, pass on this memory to their descendants: Hi sonny for the good question! I voted for him.
Response from 0[+++]
And what did you answer him? I think people like to be afraid and like to be subjugated. Only some strive to be free.
And what did you answer him? I think people like to be afraid and like to be subjugated. Only some strive to be free.
Response from 0[+++++]
This proves once again that with brutality and powerful propaganda such rulers create a halo of virtue around themselves. The same thing happens with any totalitarian system. And only after the death of the ruler or the fall of the system people gradually awakening knots more and more bad about the history of these virtues and the second - it is peculiar to the person to show heightened interest in the negative incidents whether it is a natural disaster or anything else negative.
This proves once again that with brutality and powerful propaganda such rulers create a halo of virtue around themselves. The same thing happens with any totalitarian system. And only after the death of the ruler or the fall of the system people gradually awakening knots more and more bad about the history of these virtues and the second - it is peculiar to the person to show heightened interest in the negative incidents whether it is a natural disaster or anything else negative.
Response from 0[+++++]
Pain always lingers in the memory.
Pain always lingers in the memory.
Response from 0[+++++]
We must not forget that Tsar Ivan was not surrounded by angels. Indeed, there were many traitors and traitors in the Russian kingdom was constantly attacked by enemies from all sides: the Kazan Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Poles and Lithuanians Livonians and Swedes. But the fact remains that it was under Ivan the Terrible Russia was considered a strong state. Russia from a small principality into a powerful kingdom with a single central government image of Ivan IV was strongly distorted after his death by political enemies. By the way, during his lifetime no one called Ivan the Terrible, a nickname he was assigned much later. In life the king was much less bloodthirsty than it is described in the chronicles, cleaned up and corrected by the boyars for comparison the opposite example, in our country for a long time reigned cult of Lenin was created image of a kind grandfather loving children and all people. And only recently the real face of this kind man who personally signed the death penalty orders for thousands and thousands of innocent citizens was open. By the way, the first concentration camps for Soviet people were created by Lenin's decree. Stalin, as a faithful disciple, only developed the teacher's idea.
We must not forget that Tsar Ivan was not surrounded by angels. Indeed, there were many traitors and traitors in the Russian kingdom was constantly attacked by enemies from all sides: the Kazan Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Poles and Lithuanians Livonians and Swedes. But the fact remains that it was under Ivan the Terrible Russia was considered a strong state. Russia from a small principality into a powerful kingdom with a single central government image of Ivan IV was strongly distorted after his death by political enemies. By the way, during his lifetime no one called Ivan the Terrible, a nickname he was assigned much later. In life the king was much less bloodthirsty than it is described in the chronicles, cleaned up and corrected by the boyars for comparison the opposite example, in our country for a long time reigned cult of Lenin was created image of a kind grandfather loving children and all people. And only recently the real face of this kind man who personally signed the death penalty orders for thousands and thousands of innocent citizens was open. By the way, the first concentration camps for Soviet people were created by Lenin's decree. Stalin, as a faithful disciple, only developed the teacher's idea.
Response from 0[+++++]
Fear, unfortunately, is better remembered. But you shouldn't tell your son about it. If seriously you should at least explain that this way to write your name in history is not the best. It is better to remain unknown but to do only good.
Fear, unfortunately, is better remembered. But you shouldn't tell your son about it. If seriously you should at least explain that this way to write your name in history is not the best. It is better to remain unknown but to do only good.
Response from 0[+++++]
I don't quite agree. At all times people aren't happy with their rulers. You can't please everyone. There have certainly been some very bloody ones, but how can you reason if history isn't always objective. There must be someone to blame. There were good rulers and good people are also remembered. People like shock and cruelty, so they remember the bad things. This is not consciously, subconsciously. If you consider that TV and mass media are ratings then there is a craving for blood and shock. Sometimes it seems that in fact all exaggerate that it would be as tragic as possible. And about Ivan the Terrible - we do not know the whole truth about him. What are the consequences of his bloodiness? Boris Godunov opened the first taverns in Russia and it led to the drunkenness of the Russian people.
I don't quite agree. At all times people aren't happy with their rulers. You can't please everyone. There have certainly been some very bloody ones, but how can you reason if history isn't always objective. There must be someone to blame. There were good rulers and good people are also remembered. People like shock and cruelty, so they remember the bad things. This is not consciously, subconsciously. If you consider that TV and mass media are ratings then there is a craving for blood and shock. Sometimes it seems that in fact all exaggerate that it would be as tragic as possible. And about Ivan the Terrible - we do not know the whole truth about him. What are the consequences of his bloodiness? Boris Godunov opened the first taverns in Russia and it led to the drunkenness of the Russian people.