The concept of truth. True

Jesus said to Him: I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (). For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ().

Christ answered Pilate’s question “What is truth?”, only Pilate did not want to hear and accept this answer ().

prot. Georgy Metallinos:
Speaking about Orthodoxy, there is no need to repeat the mistake of Pilate, when he asked Christ “what is truth?” Correctly, “Who is the truth?”... Because truth is not some idea, theory, system, but the face of the All-Holy Face of God the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ.

Saint:
To seek truth means to seek an object of love. If you seek the Truth with love and for the sake of love, She will reveal to you the light of Her face as much as you can bear it without burning out. In addition, She will bring you everything, but you will understand that you do not need anything more than Her radiant and sweetest face.

Christ is the incarnate Truth, His is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (), containing the fullness of the truth.

Truth and Revelation(Chapter 2 of the book)

ON THE. Berdyaev

“I am the way, the truth and the life.” What does it mean? This means that truth is not of an intellectual and exclusively cognitive nature, that it must be understood holistically, it is existential. This also means that truth is not given to a person in a ready-made form, as a material, objective reality, that it is acquired through path and life. Truth presupposes movement, striving into infinity. Truth cannot be understood dogmatically, catechetically. Truth is dynamic, not static. Truth is completeness, which is not given complete.
Fanaticism always occurs because a part is mistaken for the whole, and they do not want to allow movement towards completeness. This is also related to why Jesus did not answer Pilate’s question: “What is Truth?” He was the Truth, but a Truth that must be unraveled throughout history.
Truth is not at all a correspondence in the knowledge of reality located outside of man. Knowledge of Truth is not identical with objectivity. Knowing the truth is not objectification, that is, alienation and cooling. Truth is primary, not secondary, that is, it is not a correspondence to something else. In the final depth, Truth is God and God is Truth. This will be shown throughout this book.
Truth is not reality and is not a correspondence to reality, but is the meaning of reality, is the supreme quality and value of reality. A spiritual awakening to the Truth must occur in a person, otherwise it is not achieved or is achieved deadened, ossified. Truth can judge God, but only because Truth is God in purity and height, in contrast to God, degraded and distorted by human concepts.
Truth is not an objective reality, but a creative achievement. This is a creative discovery, and not a reflective cognition of an object, of being. Truth does not stand in front of a ready-made reality from the outside. It is a creative transformation of reality. The purely intellectual world, the world of purely intellectual knowledge, is essentially an abstract, largely fictitious world. Truth is change, transformation of a given reality. What is called a fact and to which a special reality is attributed is already a theory. Truth is complete even when it refers to a part. It is completely wrong to attach a purely theoretical meaning to Truth and to see in it the intellectual submission of the cognizer to the reality given to him from the outside. There cannot be a purely intellectual attitude to the Truth; it is inevitably volitional and selective. Man does not find the Truth contained in things. Discovery is already the creative creation of Truth.
Nietzsche's attitude to Truth will be discussed later. But he was right when he said that Truth is a value created by man. He just substantiated it poorly philosophically and gave it a false pragmatic character. The dogmatic assertion of motionless, complete Truth is the greatest delusion. This lies equally in Catholic dogma and Marxist dogma. Nietzsche completely abandoned the so-called “objective” Truth, universally binding precisely because of its objectivity.
Truth is subjective, it is individual and universal in its individuality, it is on the other side of this opposition, it is subjective, that is, existential, but it would be even more correct to say that it is on the other side of the opposition of subjective and objective. The universality of Truth refers only to the socialized side of the Truth, to the communication of the Truth to others. Truth is a quality, and therefore it is aristocratic, like any quality.
It is completely wrong to say that only that which is obligatory is Truth. Truth can be revealed only to one and denied by the rest of the world, it can be prophetic, but the prophet is always alone. And at the same time, Truth does not exist specifically for the cultural elite; it is the same lie as the democratic understanding of the quality of Truth. Everyone is called to join the Truth; it exists for the whole world. But it opens only under certain spiritual, intellectual and cultural conditions. When the revealing Truth is socialized and applied to the average person, to the human mass, it is reduced in quality, its depth disappears in the name of accessibility to everyone. This has always happened in the historical Churches. This is what I call sociomorphism in relation to God. The truth about Spirit and spirituality presupposes a certain spiritual state, a certain level of spirituality. Without this condition, this Truth becomes frozen, static, even ossified, as we often see in religious life. Truth is communitarian, i.e. presupposes communication and brotherhood of people. But this communication and brotherhood of people easily degenerates into forced, authoritarian collectivism, when the Truth seems to come from the outside and from above, from a collective body. There is an absolute difference between communitarianism and collectivism. Communitarianism is a fraternal attitude towards the Truth of human individuals and presupposes their freedom. Collectivism is a forced organization of communication, the recognition of the collective as a special reality standing above the human personality and oppressing it with its authority. Communitarianism is the realization of the fullness of the free life of individuals. In religious life, this is conciliarity, which always presupposes freedom. Collectivism is the degeneration and deformation of human consciousness and conscience, the alienation of consciousness and conscience, the subordination of man to a fictitious, unreal reality. This is very important for understanding the role of Truth in human life and in his religious life. Truth can open up to communitarianism, open up to love, as Khomyakov thought, but it cannot open up to collectivity. The criterion of benefit for any collective is rather a criterion of lies than of Truth. This is how the revelation of Truth was distorted.

On the basis of Kantianism, they tried to recognize Truth as a value and an obligation (Windelband-Rickert school). There was something true in this, in contrast to the objective-realistic understanding of Truth. Truth is not an objective, existential reality reflected in the knower and entered into him, but enlightenment, transformation of reality, the introduction into the world of a quality that was not there before the knowledge of the Truth and the revelation of the Truth. Truth is not a relationship with what is called being, but the ignition of light in being. I am in darkness and looking for light, I don’t yet know the Truth and I’m looking for the Truth. But by this I already affirm the existence of Truth and light, but existence in a different sense than the existence of world realities. My search is already a kindling light and a slightly revealed Truth. This is sometimes expressed in such a way that Truth is value, but on this basis a kind of scholasticism could develop. It is deeper and more accurate to say that Truth is spiritual, it is the introduction of spirit into world reality, world reality. Abstract intellectual Truth does not exist, it is holistic and is also given by the effort of will and feeling. Imagination and passion can be a source of knowledge of the Truth. When Truth is made intellectual and rational, it is objectified, attracted to the state of the world and man, and the light in it is weakened. Light and fire remain great symbols for us, as was the case with the great visionary J. Boehme. Objectification is, first of all, the weakening of light and the cooling of fire. But the objectified world must ultimately burn up in fire, its hardness must melt. Primordial life, primary reality, which must be captured by philosophical knowledge of truth, is located before the division into subject and object and disappears in objectification. Truth, whole Truth with a capital T, is Spirit and God. Particular truths, with a small T, developed by special, differentiated sciences, relate to the objectified world. But the very process of cognition of this world is possible only because the knower has an unconscious attitude towards this one Truth. Without this, man would be crushed by the confused multiplicity of the world, its evil infinity, and would not be able to rise above it in knowledge. This does not mean that only knowledge of the general and universal is possible and knowledge of the individual is impossible. This is a special question in the theory of knowledge, not directly related to my topic about Truth and revelation. Truth is God, divine light, and at the same time truth is human. This is the main theme of God-humanity. Knowledge is divine-human. Cognition of the Truth depends on the levels of consciousness, on the expansion or narrowing of consciousness. There is no average normal transcendental consciousness, or it exists, but it is sociological and not metaphysical in nature. But behind the different levels of consciousness there is a transcendental man. One could say that the transcendental man corresponds to superconsciousness. Truth is revealed differently depending on the levels of consciousness, and the levels of consciousness are very dependent on the influence of the social environment and social groupings. There is no universally binding intellectual truth. It exists only in the physical and mathematical sciences, but least of all exists in the sciences of the Spirit. Truth is human and can only be born in human effort, the effort of the entire human being. But Truth is also divine, divine-human. And this is the whole complexity of the problem. This is the whole complexity and problems of revelation, which always wants to be the revelation of the highest Truth. The dependence of the revelation of Truth on the levels of consciousness leads to the fact that there is no universally binding intellectual Truth. The intellect is too much at the service of the will. The knowledge of Truth rests not on the objective, universal mind, not on the transcendental consciousness, but on the transcendental man. It is this connection with the transcendental person, who does not immediately and easily reveal himself, who first reveals himself, then covers himself, and makes the knowledge of the Truth divine-human in principle, although not in actual implementation. The integral, non-partial Truth is the revelation of the higher, i.e. non-objectified, world. It cannot reveal itself to the abstract mind; it is not only intellectual. Knowledge of the Truth presupposes enlightened humanity.

§

The 20th century is experiencing a crisis of the idea of ​​Truth. This crisis was already revealed among thinkers of the second half of the 19th century, but in our century its results have been discovered. The currents of pragmatism in philosophy and science put forward a criterion of Truth, which questions the very existence of Truth, replacing it with benefit, adaptation to the conditions of life, fruitfulness for increasing the power of life. Pragmatism itself, which has now almost lost its significance, was not distinguished by the radicalism of thought and did not have the revolutionary consequences that other movements had. There is also something undoubtedly true in pragmatism, since it sees the connection of knowledge with life and the function of life. That is why Dilthey is not a pragmatist, but a forerunner of existential philosophy. Pragmatism recognizes the humanity of knowledge, as opposed to abstract intellectualistic idealism, which completely separates knowledge from man. Pragmatism wants to recognize as Truth that which is useful and fruitful for a person and contributes to increasing the strength of his life. But he does not notice that he essentially presupposes the old criterion of truth as correspondence to reality. That which corresponds to reality turns out to be useful and fruitful, but non-compliance with reality is harmful and fruitless for life. It is as if the creative character of knowledge is being defended, but in reality this creative character does not exist, just as it did not exist in the old idealism. Pragmatism is very optimistic and does not see the tragic fate of Truth in the world. And here is the main mistake and lie of this line of thought. In reality, there is a pragmatism of lying, lying can be very useful for organizing life, and this lie plays a huge role in history. The leaders of human societies valued socially useful lies very much; for this purpose, myths, conservative and revolutionary, religious, national and social, were created, and they were presented as the Truth, sometimes even the scientifically substantiated Truth. Supporters of pragmatism very easily mistake useful lies for Truth. Illusions of consciousness play a very real role in the lives of human societies, they are often very massive realities. Human disturbances and emotions, when they take on a collective character, create realities that press tyrannically upon human life. Liberation from this tyrannical pressure of pragmatically useful lies always means the ignition in a person of a different, higher Truth, which may not be useful at all. Man is called upon to free himself from an innumerable number of religious and social illusions, reactionary and progressive. Even in scientific knowledge there are useful illusions that are later overcome. There is an eternal tragic conflict between Truth and benefit, benefit. Purified, that is, truth that has creatively extracted supra-mundane light can be not only not useful, but even dangerous for the settling world. The desire for pure, unadorned, even sad Truth is a desire for the divine. The pure, undistorted and not adapted to anything Truth of Christianity could turn out to be very dangerous for the existence of the world, for earthly societies and civilizations; it could be a consuming fire brought down from heaven. But this Truth revealed from above was pragmatically adapted to the interests of organizing societies and churches. Pragmatically useful Truth, fruitful for the growth of power in this world, is always associated with the fear of weakening and death, with the threat from the forces dominating the world. The problem of the relationship between Truth and fear is a very important problem. Finding the Truth presupposes fearlessness, victory over fear, which humiliates and suppresses a person. The world is engulfed in fear, reminiscent of terror antiquus. Pragmatism, by its very principle, does not conquer fear of the forces of the world; it must admit only Truth, subordinate to the deadly flow of time; it cannot admit eternal Truth. But Truth is the voice of eternity in time, it is a ray of light in this world. Truth is above the world, it judges the world, it also judges revelation, insofar as it is adapted to the world. There is no religion higher than Truth. This was vulgarized by Theosophy. But religious revelation must be a revelation of Truth, a supermundane light that enlightens the darkness of the world, a supermundane freedom that liberates from the slavery of the world. For the world, Truth is not a benefit, but a supreme value that cannot be understood only idealistically. Pragmatism remains partially true for the positive sciences, for truths and not for Truth, but even in this area it is not completely and not completely true. Science makes discoveries that may not be useful, but destructive for the world, for example<имер>experiments in the decomposition of the atom, which in essence means the decomposition of the cosmos, in the strength of which they believed too much. But we see a deeper and more radical crisis of truth not in pragmatism, but in Marxism and Nietzscheanism.

We find a very deep shock to the old idea of ​​Truth in Marx. He doubted the idea of ​​a universal, universally binding truth, and with this [he] had a devastating logical contradiction. At the same time, Marxism considers itself a rationalist doctrine. It is incorrect to say that Marx doubted anything, because he doubted nothing. He declares a passionate struggle against the old understanding of theoretical, intellectual Truth, which in the past united a very large part of thinking people for whom knowledge was separated from life. What people considered to be Truth was only a reflection of social reality and the struggle taking place in it. Any ideology is only a superstructure over the economy, which is the primary reality. Marx wants to expose the illusions of consciousness generated by a society in which class exploitation and class struggle take place, religious, philosophical, moral, aesthetic illusions, etc. He often very rightly denounced class lies, class distortion of the Truth, but, unfortunately, he identified Truth with human conditions of perception of Truth, which are socially determined.

Therefore, Truth turned into a weapon for him in the social class struggle, the highest Truth for him turned into a weapon in the struggle for social revolution. Not only was the lie class-based, which may be completely true, but the Truth was also class-based. The proletariat has a different Truth than the bourgeoisie. There cannot be a universal Truth that unites humanity, just as there cannot be a universal morality. This was a unique form of pragmatism, although Marx’s materialism, very controversial and contradictory, required realism in the sense of the correspondence of the Truth of knowledge with reality. This realism was especially naive in Lenin. But the Truth still turned out to be what was useful and fruitful for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Truth is known in praxis; reality is revealed only in practical action. Truth must contribute to the victory of socialism; only such truth is recognized and valued, just as only such freedom is recognized and valued. Marx was a student of Hegel; he emerged from German idealism and deeply adopted Hegelian dialectics, turning it upside down. Hegelian dialectics helped him understand Truth relativistically, subordinating it to the fluidity of the historical process. A dialectical understanding of Truth means turning it into an instrument of historical struggle for power and authority. Marx received his worship of historical power from Hegel. And Marxists, who often vulgarize Marx, abuse dialectics to justify any useful lies. The vulgarization was that Marx himself was not a utilitarian and spoke with contempt of him as a petty-bourgeois ideology. But the doctrine of Marxism contained within itself the danger of any conclusions useful for the given moment, the danger of a crude apology for force. Human communication on the basis of Truth has become almost impossible for Marxists, debate itself has become impossible, because the opinion of anyone criticizing Marxism is considered as an ideological trick of a class enemy. There could be no talk of a supramundane Truth, rising above the struggle of interests. But Marxism in its understanding of Truth is torn apart by a logical contradiction, which, due to the extreme dogmatism of Marxists, is not noticed. If truth, like any ideology, is only a superstructure over the economy and a reflection of the social struggle of a given historical moment, then what does the Truth that Marxism itself lays claim to become? Is Marxist truth only a reflection and expression of the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist system and the bourgeoisie, only a useful weapon of struggle, or is it finally the discovery of the real Truth, which can claim universal significance? In the first case, Marxist truth cannot claim greater truth than all other truths established in history; it is only useful and fruitful in the struggle for increasing strength, and for the victory of the working class, and for the implementation of the socialist system. The almost religious claims that the Marxist doctrine has, the messianic hopes that are justified by this totalitarian, integral doctrine, are falling. Marxists will not agree to have their teaching included among other teachings. But in the second case, if we assume that finally in the middle of the 19th century a miracle happened and Marx discovered the real Truth, the real Truth, which has universal and even absolute significance, not a reflection only of the economy of its time, not only a useful weapon of struggle, but a truth that reveals the secret of the historical process, then the discovery itself falls. This means that the discovery of Truth is possible, which does not depend on economics and utility in the class struggle, which rises above historical reality. Marxists, totalitarian and not partial Marxists, are forced to lean first to one solution or another, without rising above the contradiction. In any case, Marxism wants to subordinate truth to the relativism of the historical process and thereby reveals a crisis in the idea of ​​Truth, characteristic of an entire era. Marxism believes that being determines consciousness and on this basis gives an incorrect classification of philosophical trends into idealistic and materialistic, in which Thomas Aquinas must be recognized as a materialist. But it is assumed that the only being is material being, in life historical-economic being. Everything turns out to be distorted by this dogmatic assumption. Marxism denies both the universality of Truth and its individuality; the universal and individual drown in the collective.

Marx always thought about society and about man in society and for society; he was addressed to the masses, from whom he expected violent revolutionary movements. In everything, Nietzsche is the opposite of him, an aristocratic thinker, addressed only to individual people of high level. In him we find a crisis of the idea of ​​Truth even deeper than in Marx. But he also had a striking contradiction. Nietzsche's philosophy was a philosophy of values, unlike Marx, who had a philosophy of goods and no philosophical concept of value. The philosophy of values ​​is a philosophy of quality, while Marxist philosophy is a philosophy of quantity. Nietzsche, although he wanted to replace man with a superman, believes that man can create values ​​and calls for the creation of new values. Truth in knowledge was for him a created value, and not a reflection of reality. Truth is a value created by the will to power; it is needed for the realization of this will to power. Man rises higher through the created Truth. Nietzsche always strived for heights. But, turning Truth into an instrument of the will to power, he essentially falls into pragmatism and views Truth as useful for the process of life, although he hated the idea of ​​usefulness, rightly considering it the most anti-aristocratic, plebeian idea. It is the supermundane Truth that is aristocratic, which cannot be turned into a benefit for the processes of life, for the will to power. Nietzsche influenced in the direction of denying the supermundane Truth. His criterion remains biological. But his philosophy is not so much biological as cosmic. He worships the god of the Cosmos - Dionysus. For Nietzscheanism, which was very vulgarized, there is also no universal, universally binding Truth, just like for Marxism. For a person who rises above the rest of humanity, the truth is completely different than for the rest of humanity, just as the morality is different. Such an exalted man is also guided by benefit in the exercise of his power, just like the man of the masses who realizes the new society. In both cases, truth is measured by its usefulness and fruitfulness for life in this objectified world. Community, communitarianism of people in the Truth is impossible, because there is no Truth, it was a remnant of old beliefs, ultimately beliefs in God. For Truth is God. Both Marx and Nietzsche identified the crisis of Truth. Its age-old foundations have been shaken. But what should be kept from Marx and Nietzsche? What must be retained from Marx is a sociological understanding of the conditions for the perception of Truth, the dependence on social conditions of the degree of a person’s openness to accepting or rejecting the Truth and, consequently, the possibility of lies and illusions. Nietzsche must be kept from understanding Truth as a creative value, as creativity, and not as passive reflection. Nietzsche is of particular importance for the construction of a new doctrine of man. Marx is important exclusively for the doctrine of society, but his teaching understands man exclusively as a product of society. Nietzsche is of great importance for the dynamic understanding of Truth as opposed to the old static understanding. It is true that Truth is a creative value; it is obtained through human creativity. Truth is not an objective reality falling on a person. Truth is the enlightenment of the world. This light coming from the Truth must be extended to an increasingly enlightened understanding of the Truth, which is always in danger of hardening, ossification and death. This is not the light of the abstract mind, it is the light of the Spirit. The criteria of usefulness and benefit must be completely removed. But the criterion of absolutized reason, claiming to know the Truth, must also be removed. People rebelled against the dictatorship of reason in various forms. J. de Maistre was ready to recognize absurdity as the criterion of Truth. Kirchegaardt was ready to see him in despair. Dostoevsky connected the knowledge of Truth with suffering. The ancient Greek definition of man as a rational being has been rejected. Man began to be defined and understood from bas fonds. Freud and psychoanalysis, the discovery of the unconscious, greatly contributed to this understanding. Philosophies like Heidegger and Sartre stand on this understanding of man exclusively from below. But how can such a low creature claim to know the Truth, that is, to rise above the baseness of man and the world? Where is the light coming from? Truth does not serve anyone or anything, it is served. The Light of Truth is the revelation of the highest principle in man.

§

Truth not only can, but must judge historical revelation. “Historical revelation has value only if it is a revelation of Truth, an encounter with the Truth, that is, a revelation of the Spirit. That in historical revelation that is not of Truth and Spirit has a relative and transitory significance, and revelation must ultimately be purified and freed from it. The knowledge of the Truth is not the knowledge of an alienated and opposing object, but it is communion with it, the beginning of life in the Truth. Truth cannot be only a matter of knowledge, it is also a matter of life, it is inseparable from the fullness of life. And this should not be understood at all in such a way that Truth should be the servant of life. Truth is the meaning of life, and life must serve its meaning. But this service is not submission to an authority that stands above life, but is the revelation of the inner light of life. Authority is always a product of alienating objectification. And that in revelation that is from authority, generated by objectification, has only exoteric and social significance and is subject to overcoming in Spirit and Truth. They will say a general phrase, where is the criterion of Truth, which can be a judge, is this criterion not subjective and arbitrary? This is a common argument of people whose consciousness is completely lowered by the idea of ​​external authority, which for some reason seems to be an objective, solid and reliable criterion. But why? Why, if an external, historically formed authority says that something is the Truth, is it convincing and reliable? After all, authority is always lower than what it relates to. This is how the material and legal signs of Truth, which has a spiritual nature, are affirmed. In the end, we must admit that for Truth and Spirit there are no criteria that lie outside them and always stand below them, taken from an objectified world in which Truth and Spirit are belittled. The search for the criterion of Truth leads us into a vicious circle from which there is no way out. An objective, authoritarian criterion of religious Truth presupposes a subjective belief in it, but a subjective belief that has historically taken on a collective, socialized character. We inevitably return from one subjectivity to another subjectivity. Subjectivity does not necessarily mean arbitrariness and is not associated with what they like to call “individualism.” Subjectivity can be communitarian, internally communitarian. What Khomyakov calls “conciliarity” and which can hardly be rationally expressed is not an “objective”, collective reality, it is an internal quality. When I am in existential subjectivity, I am not at all in a state of isolation, not at all an “individualist.” I rather become an “individualist” when I am plunged into objectivity and objectification, and that is when I become a ferocious “individualist.” Individualism and isolation are one of the products of objectification. To the question of people who are completely immersed in objectification and, therefore, in authoritarianism, where is the solid criterion of Truth, I refuse to answer. From this point of view, Truth is always doubtful, unstable, and problematic. Accepting the Truth is always a risk; there are no guarantees and there should not be. This risk is present in every act of faith, which is the exposure of invisible things. Only accepting visible things, accepting the so-called objective world is not risky. The spirit always involves risk from the point of view of the objective world that rapes us. The lack of risk that they want to establish for the Christian faith, which has taken the form of organized orthodoxy, is sociological, not spiritual, and is determined by the will to guide human souls. This is especially clear in the Catholic concept, which is the most socially organized. It is impossible to recognize as Truth what has always been recognized by everyone. This criterion is quantitative and numerical. This is the kingdom of Das Man. Tradition is of great importance in religious life, and its importance cannot be denied. It means an expansion of individual experience and an inner connection to the creative spiritual process of the past. But tradition is not a quantitative principle and is not an external authority. Loyalty to her requires the continuation of the creative process. Cognition of the Truth is achieved by the totality of a person’s spiritual powers, and not just intellectual ones. And this is determined by the fact that Truth is spiritual and is life in the Spirit. An error, a lie in its source is not intellectual, not theoretical in nature, it is associated with a false orientation of the spirit and an act of will. The discovery of Truth is a free willed, and not just an intellectual act; it is a turning of the entire human being towards creative value. The criterion lies in the very act of the Spirit. There is no criterion of Truth outside the testimony of Truth itself, and the search for absolute guarantees is false, which always belittles Truth. This is the consciousness of a person on the verge of two worlds.

There are stages of knowledge of the Truth: scientific, philosophical, religious or mystical knowledge, gnosis. Knowledge and faith are usually opposed. But the contrast is relative. If religious philosophy or mystical gnosis presupposes faith, then to a different degree they presuppose faith and knowledge that is purely philosophical and even scientific in the sense of the so-called exact sciences. The sharp division of faith and knowledge is a scholastic and conventional division. Both faith and knowledge are related to the spiritual human act. Both faith and knowledge mean a breakthrough to light through this objectified world, in which darkness prevails over light, necessity over freedom. The transcendental man acts both in faith and in knowledge, for the empirical man is suppressed by the world, its infinite multiplicity and darkness. The truth is always cognized by a transcendental person; only he has the creative power that is needed in order to cognize the world of phenomena that rapes a person, the objectified world. A person must cognize it in order to navigate in it and protect itself from the threats coming from it. But the very recognition of the material world that is subject to knowledge presupposes an elementary act of faith, because even the most objective world is not a world that is completely visible and easily enters into us. Science takes many things for granted without realizing it. This is, first of all, the acceptance of the very existence of matter, which is very problematic. It is naive to think that the objective existence of matter can be scientifically proven. Only scientific specialists who are philosophically completely naive can think this. For example<имер>, materialism, which is not even worth talking about philosophically seriously, is entirely based on faith and easily turns into the most fanatical religion, as we see in Marxism. It is critical philosophy that must recognize the element of faith in scientific knowledge, which plays either a positive or a negative role. A decisive “no” is faith just as much as a decisive “yes.” And every negation presupposes affirmation, non-existence presupposes being, nonsense presupposes meaning, darkness presupposes light, and vice versa. So, for example<имер>, the most decisive denial of the meaning of the world presupposes the existence of meaning. This has not a logical, but primarily an existential meaning. Man by nature is a believer, and he remains a believer even when he falls into skepticism and nihilism. A person can believe in nothing, in non-existence, and now this is the most widespread belief. A philosophy that did not presuppose elements of faith has never existed; it is only a matter of degree and consciousness. Materialistic philosophy is the most naively believing... Religious philosophy is the most consciously believing. Negative philosophy is no less dogmatic than positive philosophy. On the other hand, the most elementary, most unenlightened faith contains an element of knowledge, without which a naive believer could not affirm anything. Obscurantist faith is simply a refusal to think on this topic. Every believer must recognize his faith as true. But recognizing something as Truth is already knowledge. When I pronounce the words of prayer, I assume an element of knowledge, without which these words are meaningless. When I admit my faith is insane, and in a certain sense faith is insane, I affirm the Truth even in the case when I do not want to hear anything about the Truth. It is not at all so important what a person affirms or denies in his consciousness, which is often very dark and superficial. When an atheist passionately denies God in his mind, he ultimately affirms the existence of God. One can even say that atheism is a form of knowledge of God, a dialectical moment of knowledge of God. Atheism is one of the forms of faith. The sharp opposition between faith and knowledge belongs to the objectified world and has developed in relation to it. But this opposition disappears when you turn to spiritual experience and to authentic existence, which overcomes the division of subject and object. Objective knowledge, objective truth are conditional expressions that have a secondary meaning. Objective scientific knowledge is of great importance for man in his relation to the world, but it deals with the secondary, not the primary, and philosophical criticism gives it a meaning that may elude specialist scientists. Scientists dealing with partial composition are called<аемого>objective world, discover truths, not the Truth. But these partial truths cannot contradict the integral Truth, just as they cannot justify it. A person in knowledge ascends in stages from bottom to top and descends from top to bottom. These are two inevitable movements, without which a person cannot navigate the world. In the name of Truth, a person would have to sacrifice everything. But the Truth can be bitter for a person, and he often prefers deception that elevates him. Sometimes it is also deception that a person, out of a proud feeling, rejects all consolation from the Truth and recognizes hopelessness as the highest Truth. Sometimes a modern person must humble himself before the Truth, which can give him hope and joy. The man here is very cunning. He is more pleased, more consoled by the denial of Truth and hopelessness. This is especially true of modern man. This is at the heart of Nietzsche's amor fati. But the goal of life is vital, integral knowledge of the Truth and communion with the Truth, life in it. Truth is enlightenment and transformation of life and the world. The Illuminating Logos acts in individual form and in all knowledge of Truth, which breaks down into particular truths in scientific knowledge. Truth is God. This differs from the usual understanding of Truth as a judgment corresponding to reality. But this is a diminished Truth, orienting in reality, the Truth of adaptation, not enlightenment, reflection, not change. Logically, truth lies in the proposition. But it is also a judgment on the world, on its untruths. And then she rises above the world and above any judgment about the reality of the world; she is supramundane. She is God, revealed in knowledge and thought when she is spiritual.

Communal – from French commun – community, commune. - Approx. ed.

Sobornost(catholicity, integrity, internal completeness) - a concept introduced by A. S. Khomyakov, interpreted by him as a general metaphysical principle of the structure of existence, namely as the free unity of the foundations of the Church in the matter of their joint understanding of the truth and their joint search for the path to salvation, a unity based on unanimous love for Christ and divine righteousness. The concept of conciliarity was developed in Russian religious thought (Vl. Solovyov, Father P. A. Florensky, L. P. Karsavin, ). See Berdyaev's study of the life and work of Khomyakov, as well as the origins of the idea of ​​conciliarity (Berdyaev N.A. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov. M.: Put, 1512). Berdyaev in a number of cases equates conciliarity with communitarianism. - Approx. ed.

Spaso-Troitsky Voynovsky Monastery (in the village of Eckertsdorf in East Prussia, now the village of Voinovo in Poland), ch. arr. for the purpose of polemics with the Fedoseevites who denied marriage. Work on "I." Pavel instructed his student K. E. Golubov (Golubev) (1842-1889). The first number "I." was printed in the printing house of the publishing house A. Gonserovsky in Johannisburg (now Pisz, Poland). Having married the daughter of a wealthy Old Believer, Golubov bought Gonserovsky’s printing house, it became known as “G[olubov] printing house, in Johannisburg”, from 1867 - “Slavic printing house”. Golubov worked there as a typesetter, printer, and proofreader, and was the author of a number of publications in I. In 1863-1865 5 issues of gas were printed in Johannisburg. "AND." (No. 1, 2 - Jan., July 1863, No. 3 - Apr. 1864, No. 4, 5 - March, Dec. 1865). In 1866 the publication was transformed into a magazine, in 1867-1868. 4 issues of the magazine were published, as well as 19 books and brochures.

In 1867, Pavel Prussky left the East. Prussia to Russia, where he converted to Edinoverie. Golubov followed his mentor in February. 1867 appealed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod with a request to allow the transportation of the printing house from Voynov to Russia; Golubov promised to accept Russian citizenship and, with his publications, to persuade the Old Believers to unite with the Orthodox Church. Church. Obtaining this permission, as well as permission to bring with him an extensive library of Old Believer books prohibited for import into Russia, took a long time. On March 28, 1868, Golubov and his family settled in Pskov; on July 1, he purchased a ticket to a trade and industrial establishment from the city government; on July 13, he was allowed to use the printing press of the provincial government printing house under the control of overseers appointed by the Pskov Consistory: Archpriest of the Trinity Cathedral, Mikhail Kuninsky and priest husband. Gymnasium Grigory Tarasov.

In Pskov, Golubov first of all resumed the publication of I. Since 1868, the magazine has been published 6 times a year, since 1887 - 1 issue per year under the title “Missionary articles called “Truth”” (2 issues were published: in 1887 and 1889). Initially, the magazine was printed in Slavic and civil fonts. In 1871, the first 4 books were repeated in a separate edition. The task of the magazine, according to the publisher, was “to reveal the history of the schism and expose it in the spirit of meekness” (Smirnov P. S. Measures of civil power against the schism and spiritual actions to weaken it from the time of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich to the present day (1826-1893) // Missionary collection, Ryazan, 1893. No. 3. P. 38). The materials in most of the magazine's issues were grouped into 4 sections: “General articles exposing the schism”, “Articles exposing unbelief”, “Articles exposing lack of priesthood”, “Articles exposing clericalism”. The publication covered a wide range of issues in the life of Old Believers of different consents, published polemical conversations, Old Believer writings, and information about the schism. Imp. by decree of October 16. 1869, it was prescribed that the magazine be distributed through deans to the clergy of Old Believer churches, by decree of September 17. 1870 it was considered useful to distribute “I.” in theological academies and seminaries, “especially in missionary classes.” In 1879, the Synod appointed “I.” annual allowance of 500 rubles.

In March 1870, Pskov bishop. Pavel (Dobrokhotov) ordained Golubov as a priest of the Edinoverie Trinity-St. Nicholas Church. and soon appointed him as a diocesan missionary and dean of the Edinoverie churches of the diocese. Afterwards The priest was elected a member of the city duma and the district zemstvo assembly. In 1871 Fr. Konstantin Golubov for the publication “I.” purchased a fast printing machine and moved the printing house from public places to a building at the Troitsko-Nikolskaya Church. Besides "I." priest Konstantin published the secular “Pskov newspaper” (“literary-archaeological and industrial-cultural publication”), the publisher and editor of which was officially listed as his eldest daughter E. Golubova; from the beginning 1886 to April 29 In 1887, 133 issues of the newspaper were published. O. Konstantin was buried at the Mironositsky (edinoverie) cemetery in Pskov.

F. M. Dostoevsky was interested in Pavel of Prussia and Konstantin Golubov, Old Believers who joined Edinoverie, who considered them, who after spiritual wanderings had found their native “soil” and faith, true “new people”, in contrast to the figures from the revolutionary democratic environment. The names of Pavel of Prussia and his student appear in the unrealized draft of Dostoevsky’s epic “The Life of a Great Sinner” (1869) and are mentioned in the preparatory materials for the novel “Demons”.

Source: Index of articles in the first 30 books of “Truth”: // Truth. 1874. Book. 32. P. 1-16; Index of articles published in books 31-53 of “Truth” // Ibid. 1877. Book. 55. P. 1-11; Index of articles published in books 54-90 of “Truth” // Ibid. 1884. Book. 96. P. 1-13; Andreev G. L., Troitsky A. N. Christian periodicals in Russian. language: Bibliography. review // Christianity: ES. 1995. T. 3. P. 540.

Lit.: Iwaniec E. Wydawnictwa “Drukarni Słowiańskiej” (“Slavic Printing House”) na Mazurach w latach 60-ch XIX stulecia // Slavia Orientalis. 1976. Roč. 25. N 2. S. 229-237; aka (Ivanets E.). Old Believer gas. “Truth” in 1863-1866: (To the 350th anniversary of the city of Johannisburg, now Pish) // World of Old Believers. M., 1998. Issue. 4: Living traditions: Materials of the international. conf. pp. 370-375; idem. Droga Konstantyna Gołubowa od starowierstwa do prawosławia. Białystok, 2001. S. 79-138, 262-268; Pochinskaya I. V. Old Believer book printing // virlib.eunnet.net/oldbelief/main/ch1 /1_2_4.htm [Electr. resource]; Budanova N. F. Pavel Prussky and his book “Conversations about the coming of the prophets Elijah and Enoch, about the Antichrist and the weeks of Danilov”: (New materials on the topic “Dostoevsky and the Old Believers”) // Dostoevsky: Materials and research. St. Petersburg, 2007. T. 18. P. 86-101.

E. A. Ageeva

Many people, regardless of their origin, education, religious affiliation and occupation, evaluate certain judgments according to the degree of their correspondence to the truth. And, it would seem, they get a completely harmonious picture of the world. But as soon as they begin to wonder what truth is, everyone, as a rule, begins to get stuck in the jungle of concepts and get bogged down in disputes. Suddenly it turns out that there are many truths, and some may even contradict each other. And it becomes completely unclear what truth is in general and whose side it is on. Let's try to figure this out.
Truth is the correspondence of any judgment to reality. Any statement or thought is either true or false initially, regardless of a person’s knowledge on the matter. Different eras have put forward their

Thus, during the Middle Ages, it was determined by the degree of compliance with Christian teaching, and under the dominance of materialists - the world. At the moment, the scope of the answer to the question of what truth is has become much wider. It began to be divided into groups, new concepts were introduced.
- This is an objective reproduction of reality. It exists outside of our consciousness. That is, for example, the statement “the sun is shining” will be an absolute truth, since it really shines, this fact does not depend on human perception. It would seem that everything is clear. But some scientists argue that absolute truth does not exist in principle. This judgment is based on the fact that a person experiences the entire world around him through perception, but it is subjective and cannot be a true reflection of reality. But whether absolute truth exists is a separate question. What is important now is what is intended for the convenience of its assessment and classification. One of the main non-contradictions states that two mutually negating propositions cannot be both true and false at the same time.

That is, one of them will definitely be true, and the other will not. This law can be used to test the "absoluteness" of truth. If a judgment cannot coexist with its opposite, then it is absolute.

A true but incomplete or one-sided judgment about a subject. For example, the statement “women wear dresses.” It is true, some of them actually wear dresses. But you can just as well say the opposite. “Women don’t wear dresses” will also be true. After all, there are some ladies who don’t wear them. In this case, both statements cannot be considered absolute.

The very introduction of the term “relative truth” became humanity’s recognition of the incompleteness of knowledge about the world and the limitations of its judgments. This is also due to the weakening of the authority of religious teachings and the emergence of many philosophers who deny the very possibility of objective perception of reality. “Nothing is true, and everything is permitted” is a judgment that most clearly illustrates the direction of critical thought.

It is obvious that the concept of truth is still imperfect. It continues its formation in connection with changes in philosophical directions. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the question of what truth is will worry more than one generation.

Concept of truth- complex and contradictory. Different philosophers and different religions have their own. The first definition of truth was given by Aristotle, and it became generally accepted: truth is the unity of thinking and being. Let me decipher it: if you think about something, and your thoughts correspond to reality, then it is the truth.

In everyday life, truth is synonymous with truth. “Truth is in wine,” said Pliny the Elder, meaning that under the influence of a certain amount of wine a person begins to tell the truth. In fact, these concepts are somewhat different. Truth and Truth- both reflect reality, but truth is more of a logical concept, and truth is a sensual concept. Now comes the moment of pride in our native Russian language. In most European countries, these two concepts are not distinguished; they have one word (“truth”, “vérité”, “wahrheit”). Let's open the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl: “Truth is ... everything that is true, genuine, accurate, fair, that is; ...truth: truthfulness, fairness, justice, rightness.” So, we can conclude that truth is a morally valuable truth (“We will win, truth is with us”).

Theories of truth.

As already mentioned, there are many theories, depending on philosophical schools and religions. Let's look at the main theories of truth:

1. Empirical: Truth is all knowledge based on the accumulated experience of mankind. Author - Francis Bacon.
2. Sensualistic(Hume): truth can only be known sensitively, by sensation, perception, contemplation.
3. Rationalistic(Descartes): all truth is already contained in the human mind, from where it must be extracted.
4. Agnostic(Kant): truth is unrecognizable in itself (“the thing in itself”).
5. Skeptical(Montaigne): nothing is true, man is not capable of obtaining any reliable knowledge about the world.

Criteria of truth.

Criteria of truth- these are the parameters that help distinguish truth from lies or misconceptions.

1. Compliance with logical laws.
2. Compliance with previously discovered and proven laws and theorems of science.
3. Simplicity, general accessibility of the formulation.
4. Compliance with fundamental laws and axioms.
5. Paradoxical.
6. Practice.

In modern world practice(as the totality of experience accumulated over generations, the results of various experiments and the results of material production) is the first most important criterion of truth.

Types of truth.

Types of truth- a classification invented by some authors of school textbooks on philosophy, based on their desire to classify everything, sort it into shelves and make it publicly available. This is my personal, subjective opinion, which appeared after studying many sources. There is only one truth. Breaking it down into types is stupid and contradicts the theory of any philosophical school or religious teaching. However, truth has different Aspects(what some consider to be "species"). Let's look at them.

Aspects of truth.

We open almost any cheat sheet site created to help pass the Unified State Exam in philosophy and social studies in the “Truth” section, and what do we see? Three main aspects of truth will be highlighted: objective (that which does not depend on a person), absolute (proven by science, or an axiom) and relative (truth from only one side). The definitions are correct, but the consideration of these aspects is extremely superficial. If not amateurish.

I would highlight (based on the ideas of Kant and Descartes, philosophy and religion, etc.) four aspects. These aspects should be divided into two categories, not lumped together. So:

1. Criteria of subjectivity-objectivity.

Objective truth is objective in its essence and does not depend on a person: the Moon revolves around the Earth, and we cannot influence this fact, but we can make it an object of study.

Subjective truth depends on the subject, that is, we explore the Moon and are the subject, but if we did not exist, then there would be neither subjective nor objective truth. This truth directly depends on the objective one.

The subject and object of truth are interconnected. It turns out that subjectivity and objectivity are facets of the same truth.

1. Criteria for absoluteness and relativity.

Absolute truth- a truth proven by science and beyond doubt. For example, a molecule is made up of atoms.

Relative truth- something that is true in a certain period of history or from a certain point of view. Until the end of the 19th century, the atom was considered the smallest indivisible part of matter, and this was true until scientists discovered protons, neutrons and electrons. And at that moment the truth changed. And then scientists discovered that protons and neutrons consist of quarks. I don’t think I need to continue any further. It turns out that relative truth was absolute for some period of time. As the creators of The X-Files convinced us, the Truth is out there. And yet where?

Let me give you another example. Having seen a photograph of the Cheops pyramid from a satellite from a certain angle, one can say that it is a square. And a photo taken at a certain angle from the surface of the Earth will convince you that this is a triangle. In fact, it is a pyramid. But from the point of view of two-dimensional geometry (planimetry), the first two statements are true.

Thus, it turns out that absolute and relative truth are as interconnected as subjective-objective. Finally, we can draw a conclusion. Truth has no types, it is one, but it has aspects, that is, what is true from different angles of consideration.

Truth is a complex concept, which at the same time remains united and indivisible. Both the study and understanding of this term at this stage by man has not yet been completed.

Job dissatisfaction is caused by three underlying factors that can manifest themselves regardless of position. At first glance, they are obvious and seemingly easy to eliminate, and yet in most organizations they are hardly noticed.

Impersonality

A person will not be happy with a job if they don’t know about him. Everyone needs understanding and assessment of their unique qualities from management. While this may sound like a truism, it is certainly true. People who feel like an invisible, nameless gray mass cannot love their work, no matter what they do.

Uselessness

Every person wants to feel that their work is important to someone. For anyone. Without seeing the connection between his work and the satisfaction of another person or group of people, an employee simply cannot be happy for any long time. Even the most cynical people should know that they are working for the benefit of someone, even their own boss.

Immeasurability

Employees must be able to independently measure their contribution and progress. They will not be satisfied with work if their success depends on the opinion or whims of another, even the most benevolent person. Without tangible tools to measure success and failure, motivation will eventually decline as people realize they have no control over their own destiny.

Just? Without a doubt.

Obviously? May be.

So be it. But why is it that so many managers—dare I say most managers in the world—fail to give their people these basics of meaningful work?

Maybe because it's all too obvious. Well-educated people often have difficulty grasping simple solutions. Or maybe the writer Samuel Johnson, who lived in the 18th century, was right, and we just need to remind them more often? Or maybe they just don't know where to start?

Regardless, in the following sections, you'll find a deeper look at the three root causes of job dissatisfaction, the benefits of eliminating them, and everything you need to make any job more enjoyable.

Finding out and correcting the causes of job dissatisfaction, impersonality

Impersonality

It is much more difficult to decide to leave an organization or team (even a family for that matter) if you feel that others understand you and know you as an individual. A manager is a person who, by showing interest, can have the strongest influence on an employee. Even more than the CEO and managers three levels higher in the hierarchy, the supervisor must take a genuine, personal interest in the employee to increase job satisfaction.

What does it mean to take a personal interest in someone? I've heard management coaches tell managers to listen to music their employees like and watch their favorite television shows. I suspect it won't hurt in some situations, but it's probably not the best place to start.

First, when the fifty-year-old shop manager starts talking about how he listens to hip-hop and watches the MTV program Cribs! (I have to admit, I've never watched it), it will look insincere and stupid. Employees can smell a fake attempt at “fraternization” a kilometer away. Another problem with “cultural mirroring” (if it exists at all) is that it is by its nature overly generalized and stereotypical, and often reinforces the feeling in employees that they are viewed as some kind of mass.

The best way to eliminate any sense of impersonality and invisibility is to simply get to know your employees. Take time to sit down with each of them and ask what is going on in their lives. Some managers reflexively avoid this because they have been taught that the law prohibits asking such questions in an interview. They somehow forget that what is unacceptable during the selection process becomes the most important act of kindness towards the person already hired.

Moreover, such behavior must be sincere. When I say that a manager should be interested in an employee, I mean genuine interest. Managing people effectively requires a certain degree of empathy. A manager should be curious about why a person gets out of bed in the morning, what is on his mind and how to help him become a better person.

In addition, personal interest in an employee is not a one-time event. It can't be crossed off your to-do list. Interest needs to be strengthened and demonstrated again and again. It's one thing to know that an employee's daughter loves to dance, but quite another to ask how Friday's performance went. It's not bad to know that a subordinate lives with his parents, but knowing their names and inquiring about their well-being when they are sick is another level.

If this sounds sappy, think about how you would appreciate it if your manager took a real interest in you and your life. If at this point you're rolling your eyes and thinking that this doesn't have much to do with software development, assembly line or accounting, bear with me: I remind you that no one gets out of bed in the morning to write computer programs, assemble furniture or perform any accounting duties . People get out of bed to live life to the fullest, and work tasks are just an element. People want to be managed as people, not just as employees.

If you're still not convinced that this makes sense or applies to you, it's time to consider leaving your managerial role and finding a job that allows you to make an individual contribution. But if you agree with me, there are two larger dragons and they must be killed.

Uselessness

Some people wonder why so many athletes, rock stars and actors live chaotic and unhappy lives. It's easy to point to drugs, alcohol, and the love of material possessions as the culprits, but in my opinion, these are just symptoms of the underlying cause: an intangible fear of uselessness.

I give this example because it is difficult to understand why a person who earns much more than others, does what seems to be his favorite thing and basks in the rays of attention and admiration, can be unhappy. And why a nursing home caregiver, a church custodian, or a high school volleyball coach can be happy even though they earn only a fraction of what a rock star or athlete makes. I think the answer has a lot to do with need, with impact on other people's lives.

A person must feel that he is needed by others, and he must be reminded of this almost every day. He needs to know that he is helping others and not just serving himself.

When a person stops seeing his influence on the lives of others, or, even worse, comes to the conclusion that there is no influence at all, he begins to die psychologically. The fact is that God did not create people to be concerned only with themselves. Everyone, in the end, wants to help their neighbor, and when there is no such opportunity, dissatisfaction appears.

Some will say that rock stars, athletes and actors actually influence others, and I would agree with that. However, they often do not notice this or fail to take advantage of suitable opportunities. They see their work as a series of isolated activities with no clear connection to the daily lives of others.

To determine the value of their jobs, all people, be they rock stars, software engineers, or teachers, must answer two questions, and their manager must help them do it.

The first question to answer is: “Who am I helping?” Obviously, the search must begin with clients. For flight attendants, fast food cashiers, teachers, priests, doctors, waiters and salespeople, it's simple. However, many people outside the service industry, from the CEO to the accounting clerk to the head of information technology, interact with customers relatively infrequently.

A common answer for this category is “internal customers,” other employees, and departments. Some people, hearing this, will say: “everyone in our company must serve customers,” and I won’t argue. However, this does not mean that everyone has the opportunity to influence the lives of clients on a daily basis, and that a person will enjoy influencing someone with whom he rarely, if ever, encounters.

When answering the question “whose lives do you influence?”, the CEO should certainly mention the leadership team. For accountants, this will likely be the head of the finance department or some other division of the company that they serve. And for many people, get ready, the answer will be “my boss.”

The way it is. In apparent contradiction with the concept of servant leadership (which I really like, by the way), a manager sometimes needs to help his employees realize that their work has a serious impact on him. This idea is difficult to stomach because it conjures up images of selfish managers who take advantage of their employees, keeping them on a leash and at their beck and call. Because of this, managers often downplay the very real impact that their employees' work has on their own satisfaction and career growth.

It's horrible. If employees don't already think their manager is a jerk, they'll get a lot of satisfaction and energy if the manager thanks them for their work and explains how they benefited them personally.

Think about it again. We are afraid of appearing selfish, and this prevents us from giving our employees the satisfaction of knowing that they helped us. Ironically, the result is that they feel like we take their efforts for granted. It is much better for the manager to be frank with employees: “You know, I included your amazing report in the presentation. The board of directors was impressed and asked to tell you that you did a great job. I must say that you have raised the entire department and me personally in the eyes of the CEO to the proper height. Thank you!" This is completely different from saying: “Thanks to you, I was on the wave today. When I become rich and famous, I will try not to forget about little people like you." And this is undoubtedly better than a formal “you did a great job.”

When managers - even out of modesty! - Pretending not to notice the impact of other people on their own careers and job satisfaction, they take away the feeling of positive contribution from employees.

The next question managers need to help employees answer is “how exactly am I helping?” The answer to this question is not always obvious.

When the maid at the Embassy Suites near the airport brings breakfast to a guest, she's not just delivering food. It helps a tired traveler feel a little better, and this can significantly affect his mood for the whole day.

And the clinic administrator who helps a patient find a receipt from six months ago is not just giving information. It gives peace of mind: a person will worry much less about the budget allocated for family health, and he himself will have fewer health problems.

Some managers will wince at all this and say: “Come on! The hotel maid just carries breakfast, and the clerk only does paperwork.” And here we come to the central point: If a manager does not see beyond the job description and does not help employees understand how they contribute, job dissatisfaction is bound to arise.

It's not about the work itself. It's a matter of management. And one of the most important tasks managers face is helping employees see why their work is important to someone. This may sound sentimental to some, but it is a fundamental element of human nature.

Immeasurability

First of all, I must admit that you will not find the word “immeasurable” in dictionaries. I came up with it to describe the third sign of job dissatisfaction because I couldn't find a suitable term. In essence, it is the employee’s lack of tools to clearly evaluate progress and success at work. This creates ambiguity and a sense of dependence on the manager's subjective assessment of daily, weekly or monthly achievements.

The problem is that great employees don't want their success to depend on the subjective views and opinions of another person: this often forces them to get involved in politics and take a certain position, which can be unpleasant for a variety of reasons, not least because of the loss power over one's own destiny. Employees who have the ability to measure their progress and contributions have a greater sense of personal responsibility and satisfaction than those who do not.

To determine effective performance measurement metrics, you need to identify the areas that an employee directly influences, and then ensure that the measurements are specific and related to the people they serve.

This point bears repeating: measurements that cannot be linked to what is needed are illogical and cause confusion among employees. They are left wondering why they are not in control of the most important elements of their work.

Very often, managers try to rally employees by setting big goals for them (for example, achieving set revenue targets, cutting corporate expenses, raising stock prices).

The problem here is that most employees do not have direct influence on these parameters, and certainly not every day. When they realize that there is no clear, observable connection between their daily job responsibilities and the standard by which they are measured, they lose interest and feel that they have no control over their destiny. And while some managers might be tempted to accuse them of being lazy and indifferent to the well-being of the company, what they don't realize is that employees are simply looking for metrics that are more closely related to their actual performance.

This is why so many people in sales enjoy their jobs. They are not dependent on a person to tell them whether they are successful or not. At the end of the day, or even better of the quarter, such a specialist himself sees the result and feels responsible for it.

Sport is another area of ​​explicit measurement (where impersonality and irrelevance are often issues). Imagine a basketball game in which there is no score and the winner is chosen by the judges based on subjective criteria. Sounds stupid?

Or think of a pitcher who has no statistical evidence of his own performance and is forced to trust his coach's instincts. Unfortunately, in many types of activities this style of management and performance evaluation is widespread.

Unlike sports, effective measurement in business is not always quantitative. In many cases, attempts to express some parameters with numbers turn out to be artificial and inappropriate. The best, most optimal measurements are often behavioral and simply require informal customer surveys or even routine observation of signs of satisfaction.

Oddly enough, performance measurement doesn't necessarily have to be linked to rewards. Psychological research has shown that tying performance to pay sometimes even reduces motivation. Whether this is true or not, the point is that the measured parameters allow a person to truly feel the work done. Great athletes celebrate goals and touchdowns because they love to compete, not because it affects the value of their contract, although, of course, they will not refuse money.

Cynics may disagree with this and cite sales specialists as an example, accusing them of commercialism and financial motivation. In reality, most of these people draw inspiration from victories and achieving goals. Yes, purpose comes with rewards, but money is just gravy. That's why many representatives of this profession love to compete outside of work - in sports and not only. They love to compete and win, and the reward doesn't have to be monetary.

Analysis of examples

Enough theory. It's time to see what the three causes of dissatisfaction look like in real life.

Below I'll give examples and show how managers in different industries and at all levels can make their employees' work experience better. Some illustrations are quite straightforward and easy to understand, while others are unique and require creativity on the part of the manager. Be that as it may, they are all achievable if a leader has the courage to change for the sake of his employees.

Example 1: Vice President of Marketing

Nancy is the head of marketing for a mid-sized software company. She reports directly to the CEO and oversees everything from branding and advertising to product marketing and company website design. Why might she be dissatisfied with her job?

Impersonality

There is a high probability that the main factor is impersonality. As is often the case in high positions, the CEO who manages Nancy has little time or desire to take an interest in the lives of his subordinates. He believes that they do not need special attention and support. However, we must not forget that senior managers just as much as ordinary employees need the manager to know and understand them as people, even if they rarely ask for it directly. This doesn't mean the CEO should pester Nancy about her inner child, but he does need to show genuine concern for what's going on in her life and career. This may sound lame, but it is important to Nancy and will improve her performance.

Uselessness

Many managers of Nancy's level eventually lose sight of the meaning in their work. Having achieved good earnings and high positions, they begin to wonder whether there is a greater purpose in their work. Her manager—the CEO—must help her find a personal connection to the company's mission, see the impact on customers, and make her feel like she can make a difference in the lives of employees by making them more successful, more satisfied, or both. The director must also help Nancy understand that her quality work is important to his own life and career.

Immeasurability

Nancy may not have much of a problem in this area, since most managers have a wealth of data at their disposal and often rely on quantitative analysis to do their work. However, it is quite possible that many parameters are divorced from the real purpose of its work. In addition to measuring the overall impact of marketing programs on the company, the CEO may ask the company to track progress with employees.

By the way, Nancy has an administrative assistant named Jenny...

Example 2: Administrative Assistant

Jenny is responsible for scheduling, contacting, and other assistance to her boss. She has virtually no contact with the company's clients and spends most of her energy protecting Nancy from people who constantly try to encroach on her time. Sometimes Jenny feels undervalued and belittled, made the gatekeeper who has to tell visitors “no” day after day.

Impersonality

For Jenny, impersonality is most likely not a problem, although this is not always the case. To improve the situation, Jenny's boss must take a human interest in her and her aspirations. Nancy can make up for what little career advancement opportunities she may have by providing her assistant with opportunities for personal development and by nurturing (yes, fueling) the special, individual relationship that always develops between manager and assistant.

Uselessness

Nancy needs to take the time to remind her how much Jenny's work impacts her own service to the company as a manager. She needs to help Jenny understand the extent of her own influence on her boss’s career, and how the decisions made by the assistant affect Nancy personally. Of course, to prevent Jenny from feeling that her success depends on the mood of the VP of Marketing, we need to help her find the most objective way possible to measure her performance.

Immeasurability

The best way to choose what you want to measure is to think about how to assess Jenny's multifaceted impact on her boss's workday and, therefore, the success of the company as a whole. This could be a weekly assessment of the time saved for strategic planning and creativity, the quality of communication with key people in the company, the removal of interruptions and the avoidance of unnecessary meetings.

By the way, Jenny organizes business trips for Nancy and often books her a room in a boutique hotel...

Example 3. Night duty at a hotel

Carson is the only person at the boutique hotel who serves guests on the night shift. He reports to the day manager, whom he rarely sees, and works in conjunction with the night manager. Carson's line of duty requires him to take orders, prepare food, and deliver it to guests from midnight to six o'clock in the morning. In addition, he helps the night manager with reporting, takes care of the safety and operation of the hotel at night.

Impersonality

This is a very likely factor in Carson's job dissatisfaction as he lacks regular contact with other employees. Because of this, the hotel's day manager should try his best to get to know Carson better, and he needs to maintain contact with him in the long run by all means. You should also work with the night manager to ensure that there is good communication between them and that Carson feels a strong connection to the company.

Uselessness

This is another likely cause of job dissatisfaction. Carson's manager must help him understand that the rare occasions when his services are required almost always involve atypical, serious needs. These guests arrive late due to flight delays or overnight flights. They can't sleep or just don't feel well. Carson, even more than his day shift colleagues, has a unique opportunity to make significant, lasting improvements to the guest's experience.

In addition to the influence that Carson has on guests, he can make an important contribution to the daily life of the night manager: helping him with paperwork, brightening up his loneliness.

Immeasurability

While Carson may well receive tips and compliments from guests, his manager needs to come up with better parameters. That doesn't mean you shouldn't track the number of positive reviews; you could simply ask Carson to measure something else, such as the time he spends fulfilling orders and requests. Carson can learn more about the quality of work from the night manager, one of his “internal clients.”

By the way, on Saturday morning Carson usually stops at the grocery store on his way home from work...

Example 4: Grocery store bagger

Andy is a sixteen-year-old teenager who works part-time at a supermarket on weekends, packing bags and helping customers carry them to their cars. He reports to the head of the cash service.

Impersonality

Andy knows he's near the bottom of the grocery store hierarchy. He has developed good relationships with many cashiers, but he probably feels that he is not high on the boss's list of priorities. The manager needs to connect with Andy on something important to him. American football could be that important. Regular conversations about Andy's favorite team or a free football magazine from the newspaper rack are a good first step. The manager can then build on the success and establish a deeper, more genuine connection so that Andy feels loyal to the store and strives to grow beyond his role.

Uselessness

Andy can easily come to the conclusion that his job is menial and worthless, just a way to earn some money on the weekends. The manager needs to help him figure out how he contributes to the lives of the customers and perhaps even to the lives of the cashiers. Andy can come up with a trick to make paying for purchases more fun for customers, such as telling them the weather forecast or match results, asking them simple questions or giving them an inspirational quote. If this sounds silly, think about whether this would make the shopping experience more enjoyable for customers and Andy's job? Great managers and good companies don't mind if something seems stupid at first, as long as the result is meaningful and useful.

Immeasurability

This is a problem for many people working in support positions. The manager needs to help Andy come up with several ways to measure daily success. Maybe you should count how many times you managed to make customers or cashiers laugh. Or perhaps you should pay attention to the speed of packing your purchases. Or for the time that the client stands in line. Whatever metric is used, it is important that Andy is able to track his own progress so that after his shift he knows how he performed that day. By the way, did I mention that Andy loves American football?

Example 5. Receiver

Michael, a wide receiver for the local football team, has recently become a star. He is twenty-five years old, earns $4.2 million a year, lives in a beautiful mansion, flies to games on a charter plane and stays in five-star hotels.

Impersonality

You may be surprised, but Michael, like many athletes of his level, is not satisfied with his work. You will be even more surprised if you learn that impersonality is largely to blame for this. Although Michael is famous, adored by fans, and constantly in the media, he doesn't feel like his coach knows him or is interested in his life off the field. When Michael moved to another city after signing the contract, the coach did not even mention it and did not pay attention to his personal life. The coach should talk to Michael about more than just injuries and statistics. He needs to find out what interests Michael outside the stadium, what he wants to do when his football career comes to an end. Otherwise, Michael will feel like a commodity—precious, sure, but still a commodity.

Uselessness

Many professional athletes like Michael lose the sense of contribution they make to other people's lives, or have never felt it. They think they are just playing a game that doesn't affect anything. The coach needs to help Michael understand that he makes people happy by playing well. Some fans spend a lot of money on tickets to see their heroes, and if the team wins, it's likely to be a good week. As strange as it may sound, this is the reality, and this gives Michael the motivation to give his best on the field.

Michael must also understand that his decisive, honest and skillful play, as well as his time signing autographs and sincere appreciation for fans, gives people a reason to be proud of themselves and their community.

In addition to the fans, Michael can influence the people who serve the team. Everyone from the general manager and head coach to equipment assistants and secretaries worry less about their jobs when the team wins. Achievements make them happy and have a serious impact on the lives of their children and spouses. If Michael doesn't understand the difference he makes in the lives of fans and employees, both he and the team lose a powerful source of motivation.

Immeasurability

Michael is doing relatively well in this area, as wins and losses are a good indicator of success. On the other hand, the outcome of the game and the season depends not only on Michael, so it is worth looking for other parameters of performance and behavior. Outside the stadium, you can track activities related to interaction with fans and club employees. One way or another, he needs to find a way to measure his impact on the people to whom his work matters.

By the way, Michael started renovating the house...

Example 6. Foreman

Peter is one of three foremen in a company engaged in luxury construction and renovation. He has seventeen workers under his command - three teams. Peter is extremely pleased with his work.

Impersonality

This is not a problem for Peter, since he has been with the company for twenty-two years and has developed close, friendly relationships with his boss and colleagues. They know Peter and his wife well, are interested in his aspirations outside of work and are involved in his life.

Uselessness

Peter's job satisfaction was not always great. After working for many years in this position, he partly lost his passion for what he loved - he realized that many wealthy clients did not value what they received from him. For a while, his boss had to remind him that he wasn't just in the construction business, he was impacting the lives of the people he led. Many of them did not even graduate from high school, some came to the United States to give their children a chance at a better future, and Peter is one of the key people to make their dreams come true. Eventually, Peter began to notice that the role of manager and mentor was more important than project management, although both were inextricably linked.

Immeasurability

Measuring success is also not a problem for Peter. Budgets and schedules have always been a good indicator, and clients are usually quick to report that they're happy with the work (and even quicker to report that they're dissatisfied). When it comes to measuring impact on employees, Peter prides himself on retaining people. He enjoys seeing them buy houses, send their children to college and save for the future. And he is very pleased that they come to work with joy.

By the way, Peter's daughter Nancy is the head of marketing for a mid-sized software company...

Cribs program! (“Go Home!”) allows you to look into the homes of the most popular stars of music, cinema, sports, and television.

Pitcher (English pitcher) - in baseball, a player who throws the ball from the pitcher's mound to the house, where the catcher (receiver) catches it and tries to hit it back.

Receiver (English: wide receiver) is a position of a player in American football, a player on the offensive team who specializes in receiving passes from the quarterback (point guard).