Let's talk about why you can't believe. Let me tell you straight away that this is
not a call to action. What does the word faith actually mean? When we say, for example, that we know something, this knowledge can be based on some facts that we heard or saw, or felt them with some other organs of perception. This means that we have directly encountered this phenomenon or person, about which we can judge. BUT when it comes to faith, it means that a person simply has to accept the fact of the existence of someone or something just because someone told him so or in his culture it is customary to talk about it. But this is a kind of, one might say, forced faith, which a person is forced to adhere to due to external pressure from the environment.
But there is another kind of faith, this is when a person believes in another person. Suppose one of the sexual partners believes that his partner will always be faithful to him. Although I don't quite understand what it means to be sexually faithful (apparently not having sexual intercourse with anyone else). This is such a kind of state of internal infantilism, when a person thinks that the future will be like this and no other. But time goes by, partners change, their needs change, simply because their physiology changes. Physiologically, people cannot be a continuation of each other, because they are separate biological individuals - two separate biological organisms, but some kind of attachment arises between them, whether it is motivated by biological or some other reasons, but it arises.
And, based on this, a person creates a thought for himself in the form of a desire to preserve it, since it suits him at the moment. BUT, at the same time, he cannot enter into the shoes of his sexual partner and find out what he feels at this moment, he simply creates for himself an attitude to preserve a certain image of relations in the future, but at the same time he does not live in the present. This is a kind of desire to control the other in order to maintain a certain static position of the other person for your own sense of security, but at the same time not seeing his needs. It is like trying to build one's convulsive well-being at the expense of another person's control and limitations. And he can consciously or not consciously hypocritically call this kind of violence faith in a person, although his motives are absolutely selfish.
Why is faith attractive?
Faith is attractive because it is not based on any rational justification, that is, it is not even a hope for the existence of anything, when a person admits the possible development of events, an example of which he has already met in his life or the life of others and hopes for their repetition. In the case of faith, it means something that does not exist and a person has never felt an example of the existence of this with any of his organs of perception. In general, by the standards of a civilized society, this looks like obvious hypocrisy, because a person does not directly depend on nature, as if he were in it, being in a primitive society, where a person had no idea about the cause-and-effect relationships of natural phenomena.
Accepting an irrational element of faith, a person deprives himself of the opportunity to see the sharpness of phenomena in their interconnection, thereby cutting off his own ties with the world. He thinks that he can limit himself to faith in one thing, but this does not happen, because faith is inert in nature and paralyzes all spectrums of human perception.
People don't trust each other.
What a person understands as faith in another person, in fact, is a superficial interpretation of his selfish considerations. That is, he presents it as something sublime, while being guided solely by his own benefit. Or he can do good for some person, expecting the same actions from him. This is a kind of relational barter, built on an ethical premise on the part of the initiator of such barter.
Moreover, the emphasis on the part of the initiator is precisely on the action in the hope of a reciprocal action. The initiator assumes that his partner is guided by free willin relation to their needs and can control them depending on the wishes of the initiator of barter relations. As if there is no physiology that determines the human condition. From the side of the initiator, such relations are transferred, in his view, to the ethical plane, since from his position he himself observes a certain ethical code, although he is guided by the same physiology as his partner, while hiding behind, consciously or unconsciously, a picture of an ethical principle .
Why people of the opposite sex are disappointed in each other
Often people of the opposite sex are disappointedin each other, this is due to the fact that they hope for a certain behavior of their partner and, faced with a discrepancy with such hopes for his behavior, are disappointed. But, in this case, it is not the one who does not comply, but the one who connects the behavior of another with his hopes, since he does not see the meaning of that person for himself in the present tense, is to blame. He associates his behavior with conformity to his idea of what it should be, but does not take into account his real motives. That is, he thereby puts his motives higher than his.
If we take into account that the main motive for intersexual relations is the sexual instinct, then everything connected with the hopes of one for some ethical principles of behavior of the other seems a little, at least, absurd, because both individuals are ultimately guided by this instinct. Indeed, from the position of nature, such relationships are not some kind of snotty romance, but the solution of a certain biological problem in the form of reproduction and, as a result, the preservation of the species. And so a person often becomes a hostage to such unconscious stereotypes: he spends his life on the location of an individual of the opposite sex, thinking that this is something romantic and sublime, but in fact, this is just primitive biology and nothing more.
Faith in informational content.
This is a new kind of faith that has been formed in the conditions of modern ways of exchanging information, when everyone who was previously content with, at best, constructing models of toy aircraft, got the opportunity to be called a blogger, fortunately, now you can broadcast from every iron and do it to the whole world. The layman (blogger) instinctively thought that, having gained access to information, he automatically gets the opportunity to independently broadcast on political topics, or rather, on topics that he considers political. In his mouth, instinctively, all the elements that in the prehistoric era ( 30 years ago ) were assigned a special role as the content of the dialogue between people crowding at beer stalls turn into politics. Modern technologies for transmitting information ( the ability to broadcast from each iron) introduced new notes into the lives of those whose consideration was previously predetermined by somewhat different conditions, the difference of which was only in the inability to broadcast from each iron. And against the backdrop of all this, a new kind of faith was born, namely, faith in information content. Alas, modern "irons", despite all their fashionable revolutionary pathos, could not find their practical application, for which, in fact, they were created.
The individual, anticipating the consequences of his activity, comparable to a sewer break, began to think about whether he should return back to the cave era, but the path turned out to be closed, or rather, sewage drains filled the entire space. Now it has become his natural habitat. Absolute ignorance has changed to absolute knowledge, but the methods of the knower have not changed, he is still assertive and bold. Where silence used to be a natural way to show one's natural conformism, there is an opportunity not only to become an absolute nihilist, but to become, as it is called in modern Russia, an opinion leader. True, what opinions and opinions in what - is not specified. The nihilists themselves already believed in their nihilism and, inspired, began to gather their own Internet flock, which, mentally, never left its era, where it is organically prescribed to be. Political confrontation is still an irresistible desire to shoot the opponent with spit or throw a beer bottle at him, apparently, this is where nihilism manifests itself. Intellectual limitations, which earlier meant occupying a certain place in the everyday way of society, nevertheless broke through against the backdrop of inspiring opinion leaders, and the leaders themselves, inspired by the Internet crowd, began to claim their legal right to broadcast from every iron.
The viewer loves propaganda
The viewer not only does not critically perceive propaganda, he loves it, moreover, he does not perceive what is not presented as propaganda. After all, it's always so nice to watch and listen to something that is easy to look at and listen to. But the point is not to perceive it critically, but to understand why you are watching this or that information content. Faith is the basis of any ideology that changes a person's worldview through this belief in the goodness and harmlessness of the information consumed by a person.
That is, it is not propaganda as an ideological construct that influences, but the motives of the person himself encourage him to perceive information in one way or another. That is, if we mean the growth of a person from nature and society, then he takes from nature and society what is necessary, directly or indirectly, for his survival. After all, propaganda is not born as something independent and independent. In this sense, a person needs to be deceived, because he unconditionally agrees with the form of information that he perceives, that is, it is the form that seduces him, behind which anything can be hidden.
Behind the form, he finds nothing more than just some entertainment, an extra reason to distract himself from his own everyday life. Actually, this is the human motive, thanks to which propaganda becomes effective. The viewer sees the sweet face of the speaker, who will talk about his disagreement with the current political course, and for the viewer this will be enough. A certain instinctive response in his heart to this content is important to him, rather than his own understanding of it. The form captivates the viewer, because he is as relaxed as possible to receive such information.
What is the real faith?
Real faith is always individual, in the sense that it does not depend on someone else's external belief in you or you in someone else. Such a belief cannot be a substitute for reality, since it does not contradict one's own identity.