Good and Evil

Today we will continue dealing with questions concerning the period of a person's growing up and formation, and the topic I would like to touch on now is called "Good and Evil." What do these concepts mean, and how do we explain them to children? You often recommend explaining the idea that "the heart of man is evil from birth." Yet psychology takes exactly the opposite approach: to work with the child on the idea that he is not bad, but may merely behave badly. That is, psychology leads parents toward such a distinction, so that they feel that there is not someone bad in their home, but rather someone who behaves badly. But one must learn to find a way from within in order to draw out something good.

In what you have said there is already an obvious contradiction.

True. But parents need to distinguish between the concepts "you are not bad" and "bad behavior."

The question arises: "Who are you, anyway?" It turns out that here there is "you are bad" or "you are good," or else "you are neutral." And within you there is good and evil.

And what is good and evil? Figuring this out is not simple at all. There are theories that say a person is good, and there is Freud's theory, which characterized man as "evil from birth." Of course, the events of the Second World War contributed to this, having proven what evil can happen in the world. And, naturally, there are viewpoints that characterize man as one who seeks connection, who is good and truly in search of good. Undoubtedly, a certain conflict exists, and it is not for nothing that I raise this question.

Our attitude toward the categories of good and evil in fact should not depend on the times. A person is neither good nor bad, but two forces: good and evil reside in each of us. And we must see the person as a kind of neutral place, over which the natures of good and evil are at war: which of them will seize control, seize power.

That is excellent! The good side of this is that there is a possibility of choice.

True, it is precisely the person who chooses who will rule over him. He will not manage to escape from either one or the other. Nor will he be able to rise above both manifestations of Nature and simply choose, "this I want, and that I do not want."

He cannot be only good or only bad.

Here, in fact, there are whole systems that he can draw to himself in order to rule by right. The forces of good and evil grab hold of the person. And then he makes a decision. Ultimately, he is given the force to rise above his desire and above good and evil — and to determine what will govern this desire of his. In other words, he himself is the point above both forces and above the desire itself.

In essence this is what a child cannot do, correct? He is only beginning to learn it.

This process happens gradually, but we need to begin preparing him for it. We must psychologically prepare the child for the fact that one person thinks one way and another thinks differently. But we need to reinforce all of this with a good foundation and bring the explanation onto some common plane, where we speak about your desire, about your ego, about good and bad things. Both the one and the other prompt you to act, so let us rise above them. That is, this can be explained to a child, and one can easily make a child into a psychologist for himself. After all, a child very much wants to be like adults. And if he understands that the adult thinks this way, then he too will want to think this way.

Right, but often his perception is much narrower. He cannot see above the level that he sees and on which he lives.

True. But we give him examples of good and bad, of relationships between him and someone else: one situation, another, a third. In this way we provide him with models for examination, and then he absorbs them and with their help will be able to solve more serious problems. He will also be able to analyze each case.

This means that, using speech, we begin to lay out for him various possibilities. There is more than one option for behavior, correct? And it turns out that you have a choice. When a child behaves aggressively, he feels that this action was the only right one at that moment. But when, in practice, we go over it together with him, we show him that if he had tried to think, or to take a breath, to restrain his emotions for a minute, he could have acted differently. It is not a case where someone hit me and I hit him back.

I do not think we will be able to see substantial results from this. We will be able to explain all this to the child, and let him even agree and understand. But will he be able to do it when such a moment arrives? We assume that children are growing all the time, and their desire grows even faster. And therefore, when they receive from you an edifying piece of advice, an ethical teaching…

It is not an edifying piece of advice, but let us say, a strategy.

Let it be a strategy, but it rests on examples from the past. Will it help if this recurs at a higher level?

All right, and how would you explain it to the child if he is getting more and more agitated?

A past state is no longer an example for him — it is a weak example. The child will say: "Last time I also wanted to, but not as strongly as now. But now, when I had such a great desire, he offended me…"

Well then, how does one do it right?

Only with the help of the influence of the environment. The environment will show him examples of the fact that it does not accept him as he is now, that it does not agree.

But today's environment, too, does not agree with this.

Which environment? The children? What do they not agree with?

They do not agree with aggressiveness, with violence, and yet…

It cannot be that the children in the environment do not accept these things, while the child behaves this way. Then he would have to be crazy or completely cut off from his surroundings. It cannot be that the environment would be unable even, not to explain, but to make him feel that it does not accept him as he is, and does not agree with his presence.

Because of the way he reacts.

They will show him that they do not accept him, that he is not wanted in their midst. Do you know what a blow to one's pride is?

It is the worst thing that can be. To be left alone, rejected by everyone…

That is what I mean. And society must become important to everyone. Therefore, we do not need to work with the child at all; we must not touch him.

But you did advise conducting discussions and conversations with the child. So what do we do this for, if he cannot think ahead, but can only use prior experience?

Only in order to prepare within him the foundations, examples, models for a better understanding of his surroundings, the possibility of finding a common language. But behind all this, it is as if we are explaining to him in a whisper: "If you behave this way, know that they will not love you. Do you want to see it? Look at that, pay attention to this." For it may be that in fact he does not see it. He still thinks that he is strong, that he will yet show everyone. But we tell him, like a voice-over: "You know, they do not love you, they do not want to be friends with you. They want to get away from you, because they do not want to accept you into their company." We explain to him the language of the environment, so that he becomes more sensitive to it. Because, ultimately, only society will be able to bring him to the right state.

But how can a milieu made up of individuals, of children just like him, create such an environment?

There is nothing to be done — this is the work of the group, and it must be done only through the influence of the surroundings. Acting by a frontal method, against a single individual, we will achieve nothing, both with regard to adults and to children. The result will be the same at the age of 40 as at the age of four.

A person immediately resists and does not accept it.

There is no other way, when a person is under the power of the ego, of inner impulses, of good and evil manifesting themselves. In such a situation he cannot become a judge of himself. This will happen only on the condition that he is connected with a society that can hold him in its hands. Then he will be able to judge himself, proceeding solely from this principle of his environment. Otherwise, how will he do it by himself? On what basis? How will he hold himself back, with what forces? With what will he be able to curb himself?

We are all products of society and wish to belong to it. If society signals to us that "this is not accepted here," then we change our behavior. But so far we observe in society a great deal of aggression and violence.

Understand, we are not able to work with this; the cause of everything happening to us in this world is shame.

What does that mean?

It is all very simple. Shame is the burning flame of hell.

Yes, it is a difficult feeling.

If we used it correctly, then there would be no need for any warnings, or explanations, or any philosophical reasonings, or actions defining our attitude toward someone. We need only to awaken shame in the child just a little. And with respect to what?

Only with respect to the surroundings. And in relation to the people in this world — only in this way can I give an assessment of myself. In other words, shame and the environment are the two foundations. Knowing how to manage them, every person will be able to manage himself and change himself under the influence of society. Envy, honor, power are deliberately laid into us by Nature. Using society correctly, we will be able to force ourselves to rise above our egoism, wishing to present ourselves as "something worthwhile." Using these needs of a person, one can mold him into an altruist — both an adult and a child.

It turns out that, in essence, we need to shape not the person, but his environment? The surroundings — are these more grown-up people?

They are those with whom he reckons. Those who are important to him.

But one must be careful in using such a quality as shame, for experiencing it is truly hard.

No, we approach it with caution, only in order to help. I approach him as a friend… He must feel me as a friend, not as above him. And then I will explain to him what is happening with him, and what his friends expect of him.

But this happens only after something has already occurred. You speak quietly with him…

If he feels social pressure, I can already teach him. And he will listen to me attentively, for he does not wish to be disgraced and feels himself that he is guilty of something.

It turns out, then, that he experiences shame not in relation to some quality of his own? He has shame in relation to the environment.

He is influenced only by the attitude of society toward him. With the help of this we can bring a person to love of others, and not only stop his aggression.

One could also say that you should not be ashamed, because there is within you such a force that gives cause to behave this way.

Of course, but I do not think that even adults are able to accept this explanation.

In our conversations you constantly return to one concept, which in psychology is called the "mirror." That is, the person is invited to look at himself all the time as if from the outside. And the most modern psychological theories adhere to this — for example, the approach based on working with life situations, telling about them and looking at all of it from the outside, rather than living with it inside oneself. As if laying out these facts on the table all the time and looking at what happened to us.

Filming a video and discussing it together.

But when you said that you would explain things to the child, a question arose for me: "What happens to authority?" How will you do this in a group, if you want to remain the child's friend? Do you think you will not lose your authority? It seems to me that in such cases authority is lost, the ability to determine who decides. This is present also in the wish to help each child. If, let us suppose, we are in a group in which the mentor is of an age like mine, or older. What will happen if someone must set a boundary or stop someone, if something bad has happened, while in the group everyone is equal?

There must exist some higher primary source, in relation to which there is a generally accepted recognition. And this must be felt by the child himself, and by his teacher, and by the members of his family. In our case — these are the conclusions of our research, set forth on the Internet, confirmed by many authorities. We need to introduce into upbringing elements of these sources, which tell us about the revealed foundations of the universe. These concepts children must receive not from the teacher.

And you derive this from the authority of the child and the teacher, and say that there exists a third thing.

True. It turns out that the child sees in the teacher also an example of himself. But besides this, it is necessary to study with the children materials that touch on this theme, the psychology of such a state. It is very important that the child sees that this change under the influence of the environment is esteemed by his friends and in his family.

I can give examples. Our children read articles together, which are then explained to them, and they see that their fathers also study these articles. I see that everyone lowers himself in relation to these principles, and they do not want it to be only me who lowers himself.

Here there is something higher — a system of laws, according to which the teacher relates to me. The child will not come to complain to the teacher, because the teacher will show him how to behave.

But the problem with this method is that here we need to deal with the totality of all the problems — both the person himself and his entire environment. I cannot pull the child out of school for a few hours and work with him, and then return him to the same society or the same family, as if nothing had happened, and on top of that still demand of him that he change. I need to work on him through society. A person, ultimately, is a product of society. And if we change only society itself, then the person too will change.

The problem is that when such things are said, the person immediately becomes submissive: "What can I do against such a large mechanism? What can I undertake against the means of communication and information?"

He is right. But we know that every 15 years a new generation grows up. Let us begin now, and in 15 years we will get a new humanity. There is nothing in the world more driving, more dynamic, than a person. Let us begin working with children right now. Let us determine the age, say, starting from the first grade of school and up. We will address everyone through the mass media and begin to exert influence.

You see this as an organization of a parents' council, quite literally?

This must become the very biggest state problem. For this is a problem of society, of the country, of the world. If it turns into a problem of the citizens, then it will begin to interest the state, since the votes of the electorate are important to it.

I consider this to be the source of all problems, and I hope that, in the end, a person will come into the government who will be able, precisely against this backdrop of the problem of the upbringing system, to come to power and determine the order of things. This must happen against the backdrop of a new global system of upbringing in society. Such a change can be made in a society bounded by the framework of a country.

Does it not have to be a worldwide system? Is it enough for this to be carried out within the framework of a country?

Even on a scale smaller than a country.

Even in just one city?

The most important thing is that society radiate such a feeling onto the children or adults placed within it.

It is necessary that the importance of these values and the desire to make a change be felt. The child must feel this in every place: in the media, in the kindergarten, at school, at home, from parents and friends. In a word, he must be surrounded by such an environment.

I consider this possible. Everything depends on how many crises, how much suffering we will yet endure before we decide and begin to bring this to life.

One question about love of others and love of oneself troubles me. In psychology there are various viewpoints on this, but they all converge on one thing: that in the process of a child's development there is a beginning, when he sees his reflection in his mother's eyes and understands that she loves him, admires him, is glad of him, and cares for him. And then he, in essence, learns the feeling "I am good," and out of his love for himself there develops a certain ability to love others. But you describe a different process of transition to love of others. Psychology asserts that, proceeding from the fact that I can love myself, I can come to love others. There are many such psychological approaches, saying that if I do not love myself, then I will never be able to come to love of others.

This is familiar to me. A beautiful egoistic approach. First let me love myself, and then, proceeding from this, I will love you too. Beautiful!

There are also schools of thought that hold that at a certain stage society is a problematic thing for the child. He needs to be given the chance to develop his own "I," his attitude toward himself, and then he will be able to return to society again. This approach is not particularly representative, true. But still, when I look at it from the standpoint of the child's development, it seems to me that he, in fact, studies himself from within the surroundings. First with the help of his mother. And only afterward does he learn to draw close to other people, and not the other way around.

That means the mother is behaving incorrectly.

Why? On the contrary, the mother is behaving correctly.

In what? In that she constantly shows him in various ways that he is wanted and good? Why is this good? The mother must talk with him, that is, show him the good and bad sides of his behavior and constantly correct and develop him. There must be two reins, two forces.

But I am speaking only about that important process of transition from love of oneself, or acceptance of oneself as a good person, to love of others.

If I think of myself that I am good and that I feel good, then, proceeding from this, I will only punish and blame others.

If I am good, then it is obvious that they are bad, since something bad happened.

From the moment a person comes into the world, the mother is obligated to raise him in dialogue: to point out to him what he does right and what he does not, in what he acts well and in what badly. She needs to talk with the child all the time taking two sides into account, from two directions, and explain to him that this may be done, and that may not, even if before her lies a still uncomprehending infant.

Yes, but how does love of others develop out of this?

He begins to feel that one must open up a relationship to people through two channels: good and evil. And then in the same way he will relate to the surroundings, because the mother too is a milieu, relating to him well and badly. And then it will be easy for him to enter any society.

That means one must, from the very start, establish the boundaries of what is permitted?

I do not consider evil and good to be restrictions. If the mother behaves in this way, she allows the child's egoism to develop in a correct, rather than a distorted, form. Why should one tell the child that everything is good and restrict him in nothing? By doing so we fail to give him a model of behavior. It is given with the help of two opposing forces, and then the child, being between them, begins to understand and feel what he may and may not do, what is good and what is evil. He looks at his mother in order to understand whether it is worth doing or not, whether it may or may not be done — and so he grows.

And this contributes to his beginning to work out an attitude toward the surroundings as well, and not only toward himself. It leads him away from the thought that I am good, to the thought that there is a milieu from which good or evil comes, and he needs to determine his attitude toward it.

If the mother wishes to prepare the child for life, she must behave with love, but like a milieu.

You have expressed your opinion about mothers who are too kind.

They are foolish mothers. Forgive me for calling them that.

On this we will conclude. The key point today is good and evil. And be that as it may, one must create such feelings within the milieu itself and bring about a change in society. And then this change will help a person relate correctly to reality and understand that there are always two reins: good and evil, which govern him, and between them he must build himself.