EAST-WEST: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF TOLERANCE

(a glance from Russia)

Emily A. Tajsin

Kazan State University of Power Engineering

Tatarstan State University of Humanities and Education

Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia

Emily_Tajsin@inbox.ru

Tolerance somehow turned to be a synonym of quiet epical goodwill or stoical “low-tempered” and indifferent attitude towards “The Other”. Logically, however, it’s something else: one has to endure lifelong infinite closeness of “The Stranger”. We should bare in mind different types of tolerance, too. Generally speaking, it may be indulgence of a senior to a child or condescension of a teacher towards a pupil; it may be indifference of despair; diplomatic pace; patience of an artist waiting for the right light-angle or self-control of a military officer at war; it happens to be persistance of a scholar repeating an experiment; conscious enduring of The Different or cherishing hidden insult; heroic “non-resistance to evil by evil” or – it can most preferably be endless tolerance of essentially different persons, groups or nations united by common fate, place, time, action, mission of goodwill and prudence.

We philosophers have to consider the problem in the aspect of East-West dialogue, so as to make use of theoretical ideas and practical models of “tolerant” attitudes and relationships.

Different powers rule human society, creating and changing history: economical life and financial streams, authorities and leaders and peoples’s will, tranquil tradition and burning modernity, lance, pen and sickle, organ mass and simple shepard’s song,  majestic strength of nature and God’s sublime calling, lofty spirit and basic historical laws of development.

In our country, together with progressive movement, political dramas and economical shocks have long been tests trialing all population.

Great Victory of humanism and goodwill over fascist totalitarism seemed to have put an end to the threat of World wars; and who of the winners or witnesses would have doubted it in the middle of the XXth century? Who would have brooded over Hamlet’s question – to be or not to be? Who would have, in those days, believed that the dilemma of reason and insanity, Goodness and Death would remain till the end of days?

But the XXth century opened and closed under the drums of battles. Kingdom of Goodness turned into a mystic mirage and flew away behind horizon. Political and ethical ideals broke down, different slogans rose and fall, generations were brought up having no notion of a single patriotic Idea able to consolidate the nation or the country. Economical, political and cultural problems forse us to speak of crisis, total and permanent... is it, for God’s sake, our fate?

We learned people have to think of it hard, to study all possibilities of  peaceful communication and tolerant behaviour, – but it’s not only a question of knowledge and intellect of scholars, since one can know truth and still ignore it.

Great Aristotle in his famous “Nikomakh’s Ethics” titled by the name of his son and written to edify and teach him, stressed out that human happiness is the activity of soul in order to realize and reify our virtues. All of the latter he divided into two groups: ethical virtues and dia-noethical (intellectual) virtues, which represent regular and lawful activity of mind in contemplation (theoretical mind), whereas the aim of this latter activity is likewise double-folded: 1) observing truth; 2) establishing norms of behaviour.

So, dianoia (understood also as the dialogue with oneself), which happens to be theoretical branch of virtue – together with [manifested] ethics, or ethiquette – (by Aristotle it’s marked with a famous symbol of “golden middle”), – is branching itself, dividing into theory and practice; and the latter is truly ethical (normative, proper) behaviour, which we can attest as moral. So the circle of virtues is closed, – drawing (or tracking) which, the inner feeling of balance, “metriopathia”, is supplied by conscientious belief, or, the more so, self-conviction in the necessity of moral regulative code, controlling people’s social behaviour.

And this opinion does not only belong to ancient fundamental classics, but also to contemporary world-known scholars. For example, Jurgen Habermas, one of “The First Ten”, also argues that pure “instrumental reason” isolated from moral values stops to help human being, drops its service and turns against him.

No one will ever call, even on the intuition level, a low-moralled society reasonable and civilized. Intellectual power of it, in a wider sense, is characterized not as much by the quantity of Nobel prize winners, scholars, high school professors, circulation of scientific press, number of theatres, libraries and museums, concert halls and the same – though it is very important! – but mostly by the level and state of morals – of person, group, social system as a whole. And only close relationship of intellectual and ethical gives birth to wise spirit and spiritual wisdom.

Now, philosophically speaking, dialectical categories of Universal and Unique have the same route: “Uni”, which is “One”. To continue the analysis of social problems in the aspect of national relationship in multicultural countries of East and West, we have to bare in mind the undividable unity of those oppositions. Every universal idea consolidating nation is very important; it is real power. Does it mean, anyway, that we have to annihilate every variety, level all unique cultures and traditions, do away with richness of multiplicity for the sake of best control or out of  primeval fear towards The Other? Such discourse goes against the laws of Life itself, because, to put it philosophically again, plurality, diversity, interrelation, ability of mutual reflexion lie in the basis of such priceless treasure as Life. It has to be cherished and fought for.

So, one system of similar moral values – one humanity, many parts of the world – many nations. Similarity is based on most valid consensus in estimation of meaning and purpose of human activities, mainly, preserving life by common labour. Accordingly, one idea – one nation, many peoples – many cultures and traditions, which altogether form a unity. Chinese have a proverb: let blossom hunred flowers, let flourish hundred (philosophical) schools. Sounds most true. East is abundant of wisdom.

And so is West. West that had for thousands of years studied from East: Ancient Greeks studied from Ancient Egyptians, Germans studied from Greeks, Russians from Greeks, Germans and Tatars, Tatars from Arabs and Russians, Christian world from Hebrew and Bisantian, Anglo-Saxon world – from all previous history. But for the great Arabic culture and Arab Khalifat, Europe would have lost any trace of Aristotle or Plato. By God’s will it hasn’t.

I have already quoted Aristotle and Jurgen Habermas. Let me now quote a contemporary Russian philosopher from St. Petersburgh, Boris Markov, famous for his works in ethics and anthropology. Analysing theory of communication offered by Habermas, which I think the best social model of desired time to come, he wrote: “We’ve got to recognize the existance of people following different ethical principles – without hoping for reciprocity... Playing the game of recognizing The Other is a risky affair, since there is high probability that he would not answer by mutual recognition. But inspite of all that, people still find the way to remain moral”. Neither colonization, nor expropriation, but – dialogue and interaction of The Mine Own and The Other gives birth to the Event, exclusive of conferment and dissolving itsef. (Morals and Reason. Conclusion to: J. Habermas. Moral consciousness and communicational action. SPb: 2001. P 374-375).

Pity as it is, in these days we lack such means as personal friendship in ancient Athnes, religious fraternity of rich and poor based on compassion in early Middle ages, or taste and politeness of educated public of the XIXth century (except, of course, Egyptians). They are all gone. Thus we need something else. The main remedy is – variety of perspectives, ability to take up the partner’s position and to distinguish scientific truth, moral normatives and personal sincerity. The unity in action is set not so much by transcendental goals but by acknowledging The Other – the more so, The Stranger – to be equal reality you have to put up with and live in accordance to.

These ideas help to discuss the vague and non-quantitative component, or part, of intellect. That very component is responsible for socializing individuals and groups, bringing up culture, refining social relations and enoble them.

I, for one, consider the best and richest treasure of the gone Soviet Union that should be our heritage – the true and real friendship that existed among the peoples. Russia has not, I believe, lost her dowry; accordingly, we are heirs apparent not without dowry. In no way should we underestimate or spend it out, neither may we treat it without respect; that would be not only thriftless but immoral and dangerous. So we learned people should speak out the following: first and foremost message and task for nowadays Russia is the Quest of Harmony. (And sure not only for Rusia).

We’ve got to prove that Russia is an heir not to a monstre of Empire overloaded with rockets but to Motherland of beautiful and gorgeous culture blessed by noble soul capable of love and comprehension. It’s not the matter of reciting Tytchev or Föt in public day after day, neither in filling up the radio with Tchaikovsky or Musorgsky. It is the matter of social justice, thought-over moral politics, responsibility for the nation, its health, science, and culture. Only positive attraction, only high example have power to save from splitting the historically curved out cultural space. Yes of course, the engine of integration, its pragmatic basis is economics. But to bring us together is a message of attractive rhealm of humanism, wisdom, and beauty. These are the words of Alexander Ebanoidze, Georgian by nationality, living in Moscow, writer and journalist, editor of a magazine “Peoples’ Friendship”.

Billions of people live in Russia; and, ethnically different, we are one nation. And it won’t be wrong to point out one of the subjects of Russian Federation to serve a positive example of tolerance and more than that – a true social model of cooperation, sympathy, and friendly national relationship, – which is Tatarstan.

Situated on the Volga river, once self-governed kingdom, now the centre and cor cordium of Russia, it has for centuries been the place to dwell for hundreds of peoples. But two main nationalities had been, and remain, Tatars and Russians. East and West, Christianity and Islam in one caldron, drawn together in war and peace, striving, working, thinking, singing, living, marrying, creating future... And we can’t imagine a situation in which we could meet a demand, a question: “Which do you prefer – Russia or Tatarstan? Choose!” It would have sounded as insane as: “Who do you prefer – Mother or Father? Choose! Because one of the parents you have to betray!” Would it not be blasphemy?

Both Russians and Tatars feel – and carry out – equal responsibility for everything going on in Tatarstan and in Russia as a whole. Both accomplish to science and culture, economics and technologies, commerce and spiritual life.

Multicultural space of our republic is organized so that all of us – every Tatar and Russian, Chuvash, Mari and Mordvin, Jew and Polack, Middle-Volga Germans, refugees from Tajikstan, from other republics hurt by military actions, who found shelter in Tatarstan, equally feel one simple and great truth: our mutual being is similar to communicated vessels. There is no reverse proportion, when one side wins and the other loses, one’s victory turns into other’s casualties, one survives and other perishes. On the contrary, we win and lose together; we could say: “what’s meat for one man is meat for the other; what’s poison for you is poison for me”.

Today, in November, 2007, during the festive days of the 3^rd Congress of peoples of our republic, same as in August, 2005, in the days of the 1000^th anniversary of Kazan, its capital city, and long before that, in ordinary days of life labour or at war time, Tatarstan has been convincingly demonstrating to all progressive humanity that peoples’ friendship is not a senseless empty sound, neither it is a Utopia; and that cooperation and harmony are not only possible, but real. What is the secret – if there is any – of our success in such an enormously difficult task?

In the culture of zen-buddism one fine cohan is used to teach wisdom those who are capable of learning. The tiger who does not want to be like all tigers descends down the mountains and in the city he is captured and put to the cage. The fish that does not want to be like all fishes leaps out of the water to the shore and there it dies. Wise man does not strive to differ from other people.

There is no single magic recipe which could have helped in some tricky way to solve social problems, especially as complicated as national problems. Both specialists in conflictology and ordinary men know that national and religious collisions are most devastating today. For this reason wise people would not shake the boat in which we travel through the time together. On the contrary, they will learn and teach to row rhythmically and harmoniously.

Still the question remains: Why Tatarstan became the territory of tolerance? Slavs ant Turcs, christians and muslims, people of dozens of other nationalities and confessions neighbour each other by rules of friendship and patience. Is the reason that conquering Caucassus by Tsarist Russia took place not even two hundred years ago, while conquering Kazan Khanate – next to five hundred? But, say for example, joining (or annexation) of Ukraine didn’t take place in the last century either. Pereyaslavskaya Rada (the document of agreement) is 350 years old... and who would have thought of separating slavic Ukraine from slavic Russia in the end of the XXth century? One route, one blood, one faith...

Maybe the reason lies within large number of mixed – Russian-Tatar marriages? They are approximately 20-25%... But in the last decades of the Soviet Union there were, for instance, next to 40% of mixed Russian-Kazakh marriages. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is an independant state nowadays.

Then maybe there exist some geopolitical cause. Tatarstan is an inner republic in Russia. But remember West Berlin in the XXth century, or Vatican up now, or Lichtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, – self-guided independent states within the country or surrounded by other larger states!

Probably the reason can be found in extreme similarity of national character? Both Russians and Tatars consider themselves patriotic, heroic, hospitable, generous, patient, value sense of humour and music taste. But there exist, of course, quite opposite features of national characters of Russians and Tatars, so it is not one exceptional reason...

No state of culture, no war or revolution, no prominent person’s biography, neither great migration of peoples, nor building a temple can be looked upon as a cause of all causes. Fundamentalism is dangerous because it realizes itself in alternative, irreconcilable oppositions and it doesn’t know any remedies to neutralize conflicts. No construction of “emblematic”, “most true” image of state, nation or culture will be granted success, east or west, north or south it may be. Because there is none, – though of course we can and should learn from each other.

This fact gives much freedom to the interpreter of culture. To declare some period of history, certain regime in society or peculiar event “classical model” to follow, or, on the contrary, to lessen its meaning and to demonstrate its mistake depends greatly upon the ability to argue, to persuade and to prove. There is a saying: “alas to the defeated, his history will be written by enemy”.

It doesn’t mean, though, that history is no more than Shekherezada’s fairy-tales. We trust Fukidides, Titus Livius, Tacites, Svetonius, Hegel, Weber, Schlimann, Russian historians Karamzin and Tatischev, Khudyakov and many others. The role of interpretation, very high indeed, should not only be performed artistically and sincerely; it should also be ethically oriented. It is vital that reconstructions of history aimed at enlightenment and education never lead to unleashing perilous fire of national or religious war. It can happen, nevertheless; but a responsible politician is due to apply all his intellectual power to fulfil the task of peaceful coexistence. Responsible politics means nothing else today. And the essential condition of such politics is will and readiness of peoples themselves to mutual understanding and cooperation, or dialogue of cultures, East and West.