West vs East (ინგლისურად მხოლოდ), მოვპარე ნეო ნაცებს

ძირითადად რუსეთზეა მარა ჩვენზეც მუშაობს

Russian civilisation is not the Western world part. It's an independent civilisation in which are inherent both the western and east values. The mentality of the East thus prevails.

Problem of representatives of the western civilisation that they do not realise existence of fundamental philosophical distinctions between various cultures and the people. Also try to estimate the people which they know a little and do not understand from positions "the American democracy". I.e. from a position of culture which is based on Protestant, English-Saxon ethics and an individualism cult.

Therefore that existing philosophical distinctions in vision of world around, the place in it, and forms of interaction with society at representatives of East civilisations and Western were clear, it is necessary to try to formulate them.


1. The West. Conviction that the power can be based upon physical, spiritual or other superiority of the person over the person.

The East. Confidence of the divine origin of the power which have been not connected with any human advantages.

2. The West. The relation to a policy as to a version of disputed social activity which is under construction on principles of fair game and equality of citizens before the law.

The East. The relation to a policy as to messianic, the activity inaccessible to all, subordinated to the code of behaviour of Heroes and principles of divine board; negation of accident of political events and understanding of a policy as statement of consensus, harmony and peace.

3. The West. Comprehension of self-sufficiency of the person for realisation of imperious powers, the relation to the political rights as to a condition of strengthening of the property right; a primacy of ideals of individual freedom.

The East. Negation of self-sufficiency of the person for realisation of imperious powers, requirement for the intermediary for relations between the individual and the power; a priority of ideals of justice; political indifference of persons.

4. The West. A recognition of the individual the main subject and a source of a policy, the relation to the state as to the institute dependent on a civil society, the guarantor of the rights and personal freedoms, the tool of enterprise activity and group.

The East. A recognition of a predominating role in the politician of elite and the states, preference of patronage of the state over the person; a priority recognition over the person of heads of communities, social communities, groups; domination of values of corporativism.

5. The West. The rational relation to execution by ruling elite and leaders of the functions on management of a society, understanding of necessity of the control over their activity and observance of rules of contract ethics.

The East. Sacralization of governors and their activity on management of a society, absence of conviction in necessity of their control.

6. The West. Preference the person of plurality of forms of a political life, competition type of participation in the power, pluralism and democracy; preference of the complicated organisation of the power (presence of parties, various groups of pressure, etc.).

The East. Preference the person of performing functions in a political life and the collective forms of political participation deprived of an individual responsibility; gravitation to authoritative type of the board, the simplified forms of the organisation of the power, searching of the charismatic leader.

7. The West. A primacy of nation-wide laws and establishments over private norms and behaviour rules, understanding of distinctions in moral and legal motivation of political actions of citizens.

The East. A priority of local rules and customs of the local right over formal establishments of the state, the tendency of smoothing of contradictions between moral traditions of a generality and legislative establishments as motives of political behaviour.

8. The West. Notable enough ideological thinking of political positions of citizens.

The East. Less expressed ideological thinking, toleration (except for Islamic currents).


According to the logic of the Western civilisation the power should pass to stronger, clever, talented, rich, etc. during competitive struggle between all members of a society. The relation to the Law from here follows. For the Western civilisation, - the Law letter is primary, since it is the arch corrected, which regulates the relation of the power with the people and a way of penetration into the power. "The law is severe — but it's the law" - the formula of the Roman Law. It is the Western civilisation. Following to the rules established and issued on a paper, submission and respect, is a basis of the western mentality. It which realises those restrictions and the compromise and the civilisation based as accepts community of individuals.

In East ethics, the Law is only time formulation of rules to come nearer to divine justice. I.e. for the person initially its internal sensation of Will of Gods and honour as Justice. I.e. the law can and should be sometimes broken if it seems unfair. The governor should operate as it is dictated by its intuition, its communication with Divine, instead of to submit to the rules formulated by someone. The cult of Heroes, is the East. The power is something God-given, and the right to the power often is meant a birth in the certain environment, or consecutive advancement in a framework of existing system of hierarchy. All cultures of the East by definition are traditional.

The western civilisation, is a cult of individualism. Each person is independent, the society is a group of independent individuals which have developed any rules of behaviour and ethics in the course of interaction with each other. Each person bears in itself the independent Universe, from here a conclusion - each individual should be dear and untouchable, while its behaviour is not direct threat for other individuals. Such painful relation of the Western civilisation to the rights and liberty of various groups, national minorities, homosexuals, lesbians, mad, serial murderers etc. Each person from here follows is independent, so it has the right to have the ethics which by definition are not comprehended by other individual. The supreme value is a life of an individual, and inviolability of its private world.

In community of the individuals, everyone has the right to the power. Therefore it is got during competitive struggle. But individuals understand that if struggle will turn to constant war of all with everything anybody from it will not win. So rules on which should be formulated there lives a society and to them should submit all. What is the democracy? This rule on which during universal suffrage the lost minority undertakes to obey will of the majority. Democracy as a system seems the most fair and humane system for a civilisation cultivating individualism. The lost minority understands that them now less and it is fair, and when them will be more they also will demand unconditional submission to the will. This rule of the public contract of the Western civilisation. It seems to the most humane that is why it is idolised and cultivated as the best system.

East civilisation is a collectivism. Each person is a part of a family, group, the nation, culture, a religious family etc. Existence of the person without relatives senselessly. Laws of divine harmony, secondary - interests of collective, tertiary - interests of the person are primary. Interests of the nation always above interests of an individual. The death of an individual for the good of the Native land is not the big harm for it, since the highest for it value - interests of collective. The primacy of interests of the State over interests of an individual from here follows. The state in the East is an image which bears in itself interests of the nation. The State is an empire which bears in itself spirit of the nation, - all who where, all who lives also all who will live. The higher pleasure for the representative of a civilisation of the East - to serve the country, the people, a family and to die for them. The individual is only a part of God and compound of soul of the nation. Interests of an ego of an individual are below interests of his nation (or families depending on abstraction level on which the person is capable).

From here laws in ethics of civilisations of the East follow. The personal liberty rights, - anything if the person has broken ethics of behaviour on which there lives a civilisation. The aspiration of the person to have the rights to inviolability and autonomy of internal ethics is condemned by all members of a society egocentrism and individualism display. If the behaviour of the person is inadmissible from the point of view of dominating culture (for example, homosexuality) the society considers correct to punish the turncoat and the destroyer of a civilisation. Because a supreme value for representatives of the East are Divine laws as they them see, and in any way inviolability of an individual. Therefore rhetoric of representatives of the Western civilisation about personal freedoms, liberty, inviolability, inadmissibility of authoritarianism, etc. fetish of the Western civilisation for the representative of culture of the East - are absurd. Especially, when the representative of the East sees that that who tries to learn him to "correct" outlook, his civilisation does not know, does not understand and does not consider it necessary to understand.

Other important sign, consists in that that the Western civilisation - ascertains existing distinctions (between persons, groups, the people), East - them always estimates. Dialogue among Russian (as people of East culture) bears always in itself very important estimated component. Discussion of any theme will be accompanied by emotional and estimated criteria of participants of discussion, - that is good, and that is bad that is correct, and that is not present. When the representative of the Western civilisation gets to the Russian environment, it seems to it that Russian very much conflict, are emotional, intolerant, aggressive, always argue with each other etc. And on the contrary, for Russian - Westerners seem superficial, insensible, callous, and empty. Because for the western civilisation it is important not to reconcile the party having revealed who it is right, and formally to find the comprehensible permission of a problem supported by the majority, whenever possible avoiding discussion generating conflict situations.

For East civilisations it is important to define an ethical estimation to events, to reveal and punish guilty, to analyse the revealed contradictions, their reasons, and to develop strategy on the future. For the West civilisation - to liquidate unpleasant consequences of the emerged problems, to achieve the maximum comfort for individuals, to avoid discussion of disputed themes.

For civilisations of the East idea about that not consent minority should obey to the majority as a result of democratic elections is unacceptable. The East is categorical, the West is liberal. In the East estimate events from the point of view of the vision of God rules so any submission by that who deforms these rules (let them and more) cannot be. Democracy as a form of government is unacceptable, it inevitably leads to civil war or anarchy. East civilisations are ready to submit only to authority of the power, and it cannot be selected during democratic voting, the power is authoritative only when it is sacral.

If speech about Russian civilisation at us search is always actual it is unique the fair decision. Aspiration to find the ideal decision with which would agree all. Traditionally slavic form of government - national veche. It not democracy, because speech not about universal suffrage, and about public discussion of a problem with the veto. Therefore for Russian those forms of government when decisions accept similar councils made of competent professionals seem more fair. And the people will consider natural to show readiness for submission, and such system of more reasonable than general democratic elections.

Distinctions in psychology are very deep and are reflected in language distinctions between Russian and English. For example, in Russian such concepts as «liberty», «independence» and «freedom» are translated often in a word "svoboda" (which is an average between «independence» and «freedom»). And in English there is no such rich spectrum of ethical and estimated categories without which dialogue in Russian is impossible. Similarly key concept of Russian "spravedlivost" on English can be translated as «Justice», «Fairness», «Truth», but any of terms does not convey completely Russian meaning.

I hope that I managed to explain a little what such mentality of the West and the East from the point of view of Russian. The described values and traditions of interaction of the person and the power should form integrally opposite political cultures, as, for example, in the USA and Iran. And even reorganisation of political institutes on samples of the western culture cannot shake stability of values of former culture of the East. Among powers in which there is a certain synthesis of values of western and east type it is possible to allocate only Japan and the countries of the former USSR. And still, these countries remain more representatives of east mentality. These arhitips are put in character of the main nations and are hardly probable subject to any changes.

Nachkebia
აკრძალულია ფორუმზე ისეთი თემების გახსნა, სადაც მხოლოდ უცხოური ტექსტია და არანაირი ქართული თარგმანი.