Every person in his life has come across the concept of morality more than once. However, not everyone knows its true meaning. IN modern world the problem of morality is very acute. After all, many people lead a wrong and dishonest way of life. What is human morality? How is it related to such concepts as ethics and morality? What behavior can be considered moral and why?
What does the term "morality" mean?
Very often morality is identified with morality and ethics. However, these concepts are not exactly the same. Morality is a set of norms and values of a particular person. It includes the individual's ideas about good and evil, about how one should and should not behave in different situations.
Each person has their own standards of morality. What seems normal to one person is completely unacceptable to another. So, for example, some people have a positive attitude towards civil marriage and do not see anything wrong with it. Others consider such cohabitation immoral and strongly condemn premarital relationships.
Principles of Moral Conduct
Despite the fact that morality is a purely individual concept, there are still common principles in modern society. First of all, these include the equality of the rights of all people. This means that in relation to a person there should be no discrimination based on gender, race or any other grounds. All people are equal before the law and the courts, all have the same rights and freedoms.
The second principle of morality is based on the fact that a person is allowed to do everything that does not run counter to the rights of other people and does not infringe on their interests. This includes not only issues regulated by law, but also moral and ethical standards. For example, cheating loved one is not a crime. However, from the point of view of morality, the one who deceives causes suffering to the individual, which means that he infringes on his interests and acts immorally.
The meaning of morality
Some people believe that morality is only a necessary condition in order to go to heaven after death. During life, it absolutely does not affect the success of a person and does not bring any benefits. Thus, the meaning of morality lies in the cleansing of our souls from sin.
In fact, such an opinion is erroneous. Morality is necessary in our life not only for a particular person, but also for society as a whole. Without it, arbitrariness will come in the world, and people will destroy themselves. As soon as the eternal values disappear in society and the usual norms of behavior are forgotten, its gradual degradation begins. Theft, depravity, impunity flourishes. And if immoral people come to power, the situation is aggravated even more.
Thus, the quality of life of mankind directly depends on how moral it is. Only in a society where basic moral principles are respected and observed can people feel secure and happy.
Morality and Morality
Traditionally, the concept of "morality" is identified with morality. In many cases, these words are used interchangeably, and most people do not see a fundamental difference between them.
Morality is certain principles and standards of human behavior in various situations, developed by society. In other words, it is a public point of view. If a person follows the established rules, he can be called moral, if he ignores, his behavior is immoral.
What is morality? The definition of this word differs from morality in that it refers not to society as a whole, but to each individual person. Morality is a rather subjective concept. What is normal for some is unacceptable for others. A person can be called moral or immoral, based only on his personal opinion.
Modern Morality and Religion
Everyone knows that any religion calls a person to virtue and respect for basic moral values. However modern society puts freedom and human rights at the head of everything. In this regard, some of God's commandments have lost their relevance. So, for example, few people can devote one day a week to serving the Lord because of the busy schedule and fast pace of life. And the commandment “do not commit adultery” for many is a restriction on the freedom to build personal relationships.
Classical moral principles concerning the value of human life and property, help and compassion for others, condemnation of lies and envy remain in force. Moreover, now some of them are regulated by law and can no longer be justified by supposedly good intentions, for example, the fight against non-believers.
Modern society also has its own moral values, which are not indicated in traditional religions. These include the need for constant self-development and self-improvement, purposefulness and energy, the desire to achieve success and live in abundance. Modern people condemn violence in all its manifestations, intolerance and cruelty. They respect the rights of a person and his desire to live as he sees fit. Modern Morality focuses on the self-improvement of a person, the transformation and development of the whole society as a whole.
The problem of youth morality
Many people say that modern society has already begun to morally decay. Indeed, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction flourish in our country. Young people do not think about what morality is. The definition of this word is completely alien to them.
Very often, modern people put at the head of everything such values as having fun, idle life and fun. At the same time, they completely forget about morality, guided only by their selfish needs.
Modern youth has completely lost such personal qualities as patriotism and spirituality. For them, morality is something that can interfere with freedom, limit it. Often people are ready to commit any act in order to achieve their goals, without thinking at all about the consequences for others.
Thus, today in our country the problem of youth morality is very acute. It will take more than one decade and a lot of efforts on the part of the government to solve it.
Our life acquires moral meaning and dignity when between it and the perfect Good is established improving connection. According to the very concept of perfect Good, every life and every being is connected with it and in this connection has its own meaning. Is there no meaning in animal life, in its nourishment and reproduction? But this undeniable and important meaning, expressing only the involuntary and partial connection of an individual being with the common good, cannot fill a person’s life: his reason and will, as forms of the infinite, demand something else. The spirit feeds on the knowledge of the perfect Good and multiplies by doing it, that is, by the realization of the universal and unconditional in all particular and conditional relations. Internally demanding perfect union with the absolute Good, we show that what is required is not yet given to us and, consequently, the moral meaning of our life can only consist in achieve to this perfect connection with the Good, or to improve our existing inner connection with him.
In the request for moral perfection, the general idea of absolute Good is already given - its necessary attributes. It must be comprehensive or contain the norm of our moral attitude towards everything. Everything that exists and that can exist is morally exhausted by three categories of dignity: we deal either with what is above us, or with what is equal to us, or with what is below us. It is logically impossible to find anything else fourth. According to the inner evidence of consciousness, the unconditional Good is above us, or God and everything that is already in perfect unity with Him, since we have not yet reached this unity; equally with us by nature is everything that is capable, like us, of self-active moral perfection, that is on the path to the absolute and can see the goal in front of it, i.e. all human beings; below us is everything that is not capable of internal self-acting perfection and that only through us can enter into a perfect connection with the absolute, i.e. material nature. This tripartite relation in its most general form is a fact: we are in fact subject to the absolute, whatever we may call it; in the same way, in fact, we are equal to other people in the basic properties of human nature and are in solidarity with them in general life destiny through heredity, history and community; in the same way, we actually have significant advantages over the material creation. So, the moral task can only consist in the improvement of the given. The triplicity of the actual relationship must be turned into a triune norm of rational and volitional activity; fatal submission higher power should become a conscious and free service to the perfect Good, natural solidarity with other people should turn into sympathetic and concordant interaction with them; actual advantage over material nature must be translated into intelligent dominion over it for our benefit and for its benefit.
The real beginning of moral perfection lies in the three basic feelings inherent in human nature and forming its natural virtue: in feeling shame guarding our highest dignity in relation to the seizures of animal desires; in feeling pity, which internally equalizes us with others, and, finally, in religious the feeling in which our recognition of the highest Good is expressed. In these feelings representing good nature, initially striving for must(for the consciousness, however vague, of their normality is inseparable from them - the consciousness that one should be ashamed of the immensity of carnal desires and slavery to animal nature, that one should pity others, that one should bow before the Divine, that this is good, and the opposite of this is bad), - in these feelings and in the evidence of conscience that accompanies them lies the single or, more precisely, the triune basis of moral perfection. A conscientious mind, generalizing the motives of a good nature, elevates them to a law. The content of the moral law is the same as that given in good feelings, but only clothed in the form of a universal and necessary (mandatory) requirement or command. The moral law grows out of the testimony of conscience, just as conscience itself is a feeling of shame, developed not from its material, but only from its formal side.
Concerning the lower nature moral law, generalizing the immediate feeling of shame, commands us to always dominate all sensual drives, allowing them only as a subordinate element within the mind; here morality is no longer expressed (as in an elementary feeling of shame) by a simple, instinctive repulsion of the hostile element, or a retreat before it, but requires a real fight with flesh. - In relation to other people, the moral law gives the feeling of Pity, or sympathy, a form of justice, requiring that we recognize for each of our neighbors the same unconditional value as for ourselves, or treat others as we could wish without contradiction, so that they relate to us, regardless of this or that feeling. - Finally, in relation to the Deity, the moral law asserts itself as the expression of His legislative will and requires its unconditional recognition for the sake of its own unconditional dignity or perfection. But for a person who has achieved such clean recognition of God's will, as the very Good of the one and all, it should be clear that completeness this will can be opened only by the power of its own, inner actions the soul of man.
Having reached this peak, formal or rational morality enters the realm of absolute morality - the goodness of the rational law is filled with the goodness of the divine grace.According to the everlasting teaching of true Christianity, which is consistent with the essence of the matter, grace does not destroy nature and natural morality, but “perfects” it, i.e. brings it to perfection, and in the same way, grace does not abolish the law, but fulfills it, and only to the best of its ability and to the extent of actual fulfillment makes it unnecessary.
But the fulfillment of the moral principle (by nature and by law) cannot be limited to personal life. individual person for two reasons - natural and moral. The natural reason is that a person separately does not exist at all, and this reason would be quite sufficient from a practical point of view, but for firm moralists, who are not interested in existence, but in duty, there is also a moral reason - a discrepancy between the concept of an individual, disconnected from all man and the concept of perfection. So, for natural and moral reasons, the process of improvement, which constitutes the moral meaning of our life, can only be conceived as a collective process that takes place in a collective person, that is, in the family, people, humanity. These three types of collective man do not replace, but mutually support and complement each other and, each in its own way, go to perfection. The family is being improved, spiritualizing and perpetuating the meaning of the personal past in moral connection with the ancestors, the meaning of the personal present in true marriage, and the meaning of the personal future in the upbringing of new generations. The people are improving, deepening and expanding their natural solidarity with other peoples in the sense of moral communication. Humanity is perfected by organizing goodness in general forms of religious, political and socio-economic culture, more and more corresponding to the final goal - to make humanity ready for an unconditional moral order, or the Kingdom of God; religious goodness, or piety, is organized in the church, which must perfect its human side, making it more and more in line with the Divine side; interhuman goodness, or just pity, is organized in the state, which is being improved, expanding the area of truth and mercy regarding arbitrariness and violence within the people and between peoples; finally, the physical good, or the moral relation of man to material nature, is organized in an economic union, the perfection of which is not in the accumulation of things, but in the spiritualization of matter as a condition for a normal and eternal physical existence.
With the constant interaction of personal moral achievement and the organized moral work of a collective person, the moral meaning of life, or Good, receives its final justification, appearing in all its purity, fullness and strength. The mental reproduction of this process in its totality, both following history in what has already been achieved and preceding it in what still needs to be done, is the moral philosophy set forth in this book. Bringing all its content to code expression, we find that the perfection of the Good is finally defined as indivisible organization of triune love. The feeling of reverence, or piety, first through timid and involuntary, and then through free filial submission to a higher principle, knowing its object as infinite perfection, turns into pure, all-encompassing and boundless love for it, conditioned only by the recognition of its absoluteness - rising love. But, conforming to its all-embracing object, this love embraces everything else in God, and above all those who can share in it on an equal footing with us, i.e. human beings; here our physical, and then moral and political pity for people becomes a spiritual love for them, or equation in love. But the divine love assimilated by man, as all-encompassing, cannot stop here either; becoming descending love, it also acts on material nature, introducing it into the fullness of absolute goodness, like a living throne of divine glory.
When this is a general justification of goodness, i.e. its extension to all life relations will become in fact, historically clear to every mind, then for each individual person only the practical question of will will remain: to accept for himself such a perfect moral meaning of life or to reject it. But the end, although near, has not yet come, until the rightness of goodness has become an obvious fact in everything and for everyone, perhaps still a theoretical doubt, unresolvable within the limits of moral or practical philosophy, although not in the least undermining the binding nature of its rules for people of good will.
If the moral meaning of life is essentially reduced to an all-round struggle and triumph of good over evil, then the eternal question arises: where does this evil come from? If it is from the good, then is it not a misunderstanding to struggle with it, but if it has its origin apart from the good, then how can good be unconditional, having outside itself the condition for its realization? If it is not unconditional, then what is its fundamental advantage and the final guarantee of its triumph over evil?
Reasonable faith in the absolute Good is based on inner experience and on what follows from it with logical necessity. But inner religious experience is a personal matter and conditional from an external point of view. Therefore, when a reasonable faith based on it passes into general theoretical statements, a theoretical justification is required from it.
The question of the origin of evil is purely mental and can only be resolved by true metaphysics, which in turn presupposes the solution of another question: what is truth, what is its certainty, and how is it known?
The independence of moral philosophy in its own field does not exclude the internal connection of this field itself with the objects of theoretical philosophy - the doctrine of knowledge and metaphysics.
Least of all is it proper for those who believe in the absolute Good to be afraid of the philosophical investigation of truth, as if the moral meaning of the world could lose something from its final explanation, and as if union with God in love and agreement with the will of God in life could leave us unparticipated in the Divine mind. Having justified the Good as such in moral philosophy, we must justify the Good like truth in theoretical philosophy.
APPLICATION.
THE FORMAL PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY (KANT) - EXPLANATION AND EVALUATION WITH CRITICAL REMARKS ON EMPIRICAL ETHICS
The task of philosophical ethics cannot consist only in expressing in a short formula the total number of moral actions, then stating their validity and, finally, reducing them to one fundamental fact, which is recognized in the prevailing systems of empirical ethics as the fact of sympathy, or compassion. That there are just and philanthropic actions, and that their inner natural basis lies in compassion, or sympathy - simple worldly experience and ordinary common sense are enough to convince of this, therefore, the philosophical study of morality cannot have only this task. It requires not ascertaining these well-known and undoubted facts, and their explanations.
In fact, we are given two kinds of human activity. One of them, precisely the one in which the good of others is meant, we recognize as morally good, which should be, that is, normal; the other, precisely the one in which our exclusive good is meant, we recognize, on the contrary, as morally bad, improper, or abnormal.
Here is the real Datum ethics, Φti, that which is to be explained; The quaesitum of it, i.e., the required explanation of this given, this fact, must obviously consist in showing the rational, intrinsically binding basis for such a factual distinction, that is, in showing Why The first kind of activity is what should be, or normal, while the second is not. Here is the real dioti - Why ethics.The very empirical foundation of ethics, the closest source of moral activity - compassion is again only fact human nature. A similar and even more powerful fact is egoism, the source of antimoral activity. If, therefore, both activities are equally based on the fundamental facts of human nature, then it is not yet clear why one of them is normal and the other abnormal. A fact in itself, or as such, cannot be better or worse than another.
Since egoism, or the striving for exclusive self-affirmation, is the same direct property of our mental nature as the opposite feeling of sympathy or altruism, then from the point of view of human nature (empirically given), egoism or altruism, as two equally real properties of this nature, is completely equal rights, and, consequently, that morality, which knows nothing higher than existing human nature, cannot rationally justify the advantage that is actually given to one property and the activity resulting from it over another.
But, they say, there is no need for any rational justification, any theoretical substantiation for the moral principle. A direct moral feeling or an intuitive distinction between good and evil inherent in man is sufficient, in other words, morality as an instinct is sufficient, there is no need for morality as a reasonable conviction. Not to mention the fact that such a statement, obviously, is not an answer to the main theoretical question of ethics, but a simple denial of this question itself, besides this, the reference to instinct in this case is devoid of even practical meaning. For it is known that for man the general instincts do not at all have that unconditional meaning that determines all life, which they undoubtedly have for other animals, which are under the unlimited power of these instincts, which does not allow any deviation. In some of these animals we find a particularly strong development of precisely the social or altruistic instinct, and in this respect man is far inferior, for example, to bees and ants. In general, if we have in mind only direct or instinctive morality, then we must admit that most of the lower animals are much more moral than humans. Such a proverb as "a crow will not peck out a crow's eye" has no analogy in humanity. Even the general public of man is not a direct consequence of the social instinct in the moral altruistic sense; on the contrary, for the most part, this external community, from its psychic source, is rather anti-moral and anti-social in nature, being based on common enmity and struggle, on the forcible and illegal enslavement and exploitation of some by others; where the public really represents a moral character, this has other, higher grounds than natural instinct.
In any case, morality based on immediate feeling, on instinct, can only take place in those animals in which the abdominal nervous system (constituting the closest material lining of immediate, or instinctive, mental life) decisively prevails over the head nervous system (constituting the material lining of consciousness). and reflections) but since in man (especially in the male field), unfortunately or fortunately, we see the opposite phenomenon, namely, the decisive predominance of the head nerve centers over the abdominal ones, as a result of which the element of consciousness and rational reflection necessarily enters into its moral definitions, then thereby exclusively instinctive morality is unsuitable for him.
This intuitive or instinctive morality itself renounces all mental significance, since in its very principle it denies the main mental requirement of ethics - to give a rational explanation or justification for the basic moral fact, and recognizes only this fact in its immediate, empirical existence. But, on the other hand, as has just been shown, this morality cannot have practical, real significance due to the weakness of a person's moral instincts(corresponding to the relatively small development of his abdominal nerve centers and the abdominal part in general). But if, therefore, this intuitive morality can have neither intellectual interest nor practical force, then obviously it cannot have independent significance at all, but must be accepted only as an indication of that instinctive or immediate side that exists in any moral activity, although it does not have a determining force in a person for the reasons indicated.
So, leaving this immediate or instinctive morality ad usum bestiarum to which it rightfully belongs, we must look for a rational basis for human morality. Schopenhauer, the main newest representative of the doctrine under consideration, agrees with this, who turns to some speculative idea to reinforce his empirical principle.
That which is in itself, Ding an sich, or metaphysical essence, is inseparable, one and identical in everything and everyone, while the plurality, separateness and alienation of beings and things, determined by the principio individuationis, that is, the beginning of isolation, exist only in appearance or representation according to the law of causality, realized in matter, in the conditions of space and time. Thus, sympathy and the resulting moral activity, in which one being is identified or internally united with another, thereby affirms the metaphysical unity of beings, while, on the contrary, egoism and the activity resulting from it, in which one being relates to another as to completely separate and alien from it, corresponds only to the physical law of the phenomenon. But what follows from this? The fact that the fact of sympathy expresses the substantial identity of beings, and the opposite fact of egoism expresses their phenomenal multiplicity and separateness, does not yet consist in the objective advantage of one over the other; for this phenomenal multiplicity and separateness of beings is absolutely as necessary as their substantial unity. It is logically clear that all beings are necessarily identical in substance and just as necessarily separate in appearance, these are only two sides of the same being, having, as such, no objective advantage over one another. If these two sides were mutually exclusive, then, of course, only one of them could be true, and the other would necessarily be false, but in this way this latter would also be impossible. This would be the case if it were a matter of applying two opposite predicates, what are unity and plurality, to the code and the same subject in the same respect; then, according to the logical law of identity, a dilemma would occur, i.e. it would be necessary to recognize one of the predicates as true and the other as false.
But since in our case unity and plurality are affirmed not in the same relation, but in different ones, namely, unity in relation to substance, and plurality in relation to the phenomenon, their exclusivity is thereby denied, and the dilemma does not take place.Apart from this logical consideration, the very reality of both sides of being shows that they are generally compatible; wherefore, if by a necessary law historical development various religious and philosophical teachings stop alternately either at a substantial unity or at a phenomenal plurality, sacrificing one to the other, that is, a delusion that is historically necessary, but not unconditional. From the fact that the human mind had to go through this delusion, it does not follow that it should have remained with it.
Of course, the logical and physical compatibility of universalism and individualism, sympathy and egoism does not exclude the moral inequality of these two principles.
But in order to affirm positively such inequality, it is necessary to show that what it consists in what is the intrinsic advantage of one over the other. In order to show the falsity or internal inconsistency of egoism, it is not enough to assert, like Schopenhauer, that every particularity, as existing only in representation, is a ghost and deceit, that the principium individuationis (the beginning of particularity) is the veil of Maya, etc.; for such assertions or are figurative expressions without a definite logical content, or they say too much a lot of. Namely: if the world of multiple phenomena is a ghost and a delusion because it is a representation, and not a Ding an sich, and the representation determines both the object and the subject (that is, by the correlation of these two terms, the subject, as such, is only possible in representation), then in this case both the acting subject and those in whose favor it acts morally are only a phantom and deceit, and consequently the very moral activity that tends to affirm the phantom existence of other subjects is a phantom and deceit no less than its opposite egoistic activity, striving to assert the illusory existence of the actor himself.
Thus, even from this metaphysical point of view, moral activity is no better, truer, or more normal than immoral or egoistic activity. When you help someone out of compassion, save someone from danger, do a good deed, after all, you affirm the individual, special existence of this other subject, you want him, as such, to exist and be happy - he, this individual, and not the universal a metaphysical entity that cannot need our help. Consequently, moral activity, which generally strives for the affirmation and development of the individual being of all beings in their multiplicity, thereby, according to the concepts of Schopenhauer, strives for the affirmation of ghost and deceit, therefore, it is abnormal, and thus the metaphysical idea of monism, instead of to justify morality, turns against it. And it follows that we must look for other rational grounds for ethics.
An examination of the universally recognized formula of the moral principle of action to which Schopenhauer refers will lead us to the same conclusion, namely: do not harm anyone, but help everyone as much as you can - neminem laede imo omnes, quantum potes, juva. This supreme moral rule is not limited to the negative requirement “do not harm anyone”, but it certainly contains the positive requirement “help everyone”, i.e. it requires of us not only that we ourselves do not inflict suffering on others, but also, mainly, that we free others from any suffering, and not caused by us, not dependent on us. It is only a feeling of sympathy or compassion elevated to a principle, and since there can be no internal limitation here (for here, obviously, the more the better, the limitation of quantum potes, “as much as you can”, refers only to the physical possibility of fulfilling , and not to the moral will), then final meaning of this positive moral principle, which indicates the ultimate goal of normal practical activity and the highest moral good or goodness, can be more precisely and definitely expressed as follows: strive for the liberation of all beings from all suffering, or from suffering as such.
But in order for this requirement to have real significance, it is obviously necessary to know what the essence of suffering is and how deliverance from it is possible.
Suffering generally occurs when the actual states of a known being are determined by something external, alien and repugnant to him. We suffer when the inner movement of our will cannot reach fulfillment or fulfillment, when aspiration and reality, what we want and what we experience, do not coincide and do not correspond. Thus, suffering consists in the dependence of our will on an external being alien to it, in the fact that this will does not have in itself the conditions for its satisfaction.
To suffer means to be determined by another, external, therefore, the basis of suffering for the will lies in its heteronomy(foreignness), and, consequently, the highest, final goal of normal, practical activity is the liberation of the world will, i.e. the will of all beings, from this heteronomy, i.e. from the power of this alien being.
Thus, the essence of morality is determined autonomy or self-legitimate will, and the direct task of ethics is to show the possibility of this autonomy, those conditions, under which it can be valid. The definition of these conditions will include an explanation of the basic moral difference between the proper and the improper, since the normality of moral activity directly depends on the conditions of its self-legality.
Such a task, obviously, lies beyond the bounds of any empirical ethics, for in experience we cognize only the will, bound by a being alien to it, manifesting itself according to the laws of necessity external to it, the will alien. Thus, through experience, we can only obtain the conditions for the heteronomy of the will; consequently, the desired conditions for its autonomy can only be found by pure, or a priori, reason.
The reader familiar with philosophy will see that in terms of the heteronomy of the will and its autonomy, determined a priori, or from pure mind, we suddenly moved into the realm of Kant's moral ideas. Thus the last result empirical, or material, ethics naturally turns into requirement purely rational or formal ethics, to which we now turn.
The empirical, material basis of the moral principle turned out to be insufficient in itself, because, having as its content one of the actual properties of human nature (compassion, or sympathy), it cannot explain this property as universal and essential source normal actions and at the same time cannot give it practical force and predominance over other, opposite properties. It is true that the last requirement—to give the moral principle practical force and predominance—can be rejected by the philosophical moralist as being outside the means of philosophy in general. But the first requirement of a reasonable justification or explanation of the moral principle as such, that is, as the principle of normal actions, must necessarily be fulfilled by an ethical doctrine, since otherwise it is not clear what the task of such a doctrine could be in general.
It is necessary to distinguish ethics as purely empirical knowledge, from ethics as philosophy. The first can be content with classifying moral facts and indicating their material, factual foundations in human nature. Such an ethic is part of empirical anthropology or psychology and cannot be claimed to be of any fundamental importance. The same ethics that exhibits a well-known moral principle, must inevitably show the result of this principle as such.
Empirical morality in all its forms reduces the moral activity of a person to certain aspirations or inclinations that constitute the actual property of his nature, and in the lower forms of this morality, the main aspiration from which all practical actions are derived has an egoistic character, while in its highest, final form, the main moral aspiration determined by the nature of altruism, or sympathy.
But any activity based only on a certain natural inclination, as such, cannot have a proper moral character, that is, it cannot have a meaning. normal, or should be activity. In fact, to say nothing of those lower expressions of empirical morality, which are generally unable to indicate any permanent and definite difference between normal and abnormal activities, even in the highest expression of empirical ethics, although such a distinction is indicated, it is not at all substantiated.
The moral meaning of love
Love that binds a man and a woman is a complex set of human experiences and includes sensuality, which is based on a true biological principle, ennobled moral culture, aesthetic taste and psychological attitudes of the individual. Love between a man and a woman as a moral feeling is based on biological attraction, but cannot be reduced to it. Love affirms another person as a unique being, a Person accepts a loved one as he is, as an absolute value, and sometimes reveals his best, not yet realized possibilities. In this sense, love can mean: a) erotic or romantic (lyrical) experiences associated with sexual attraction and sexual relations with another person; b) a special spiritual connection between lovers or spouses; c) affection and care in relation to the beloved and everything connected with him.
But a person in love needs not just a being of the opposite sex, but a being that has aesthetic appeal for him, intellectual and emotional psychological value, and a common moral concept.
Only as a result of a happy unification of all these components does a feeling of harmony in relationships, compatibility and kinship of souls arise. Love brings bright joy, makes a person's life pleasant and beautiful, gives birth to bright dreams, inspires and elevates.
Love is the greatest value. Love is a human condition, it is also a human right to love and be loved. Love manifests itself as a feeling of incredible inner need in another person. Love is the most vivid emotional need of a person, and, apparently, it expresses a person's craving for a perfect life - a life that should be built according to the laws of beauty, goodness, freedom, justice.
At the same time, love also contains specific motives. They love for individual features, beautiful eyes, noses, etc. Abstract and concrete characteristics of love, generally speaking, contradict each other. This is her tragedy. The fact is that in a relationship with a loved one, thought, apparently, moves in the same way as in the usual process of cognition. Love begins with specific moments, ignites on the basis of the coincidence of some individual features of a loved one with an image previously formed and presented in consciousness or subconsciousness. Then begins the selection of the essence of another person, in an abstract form, inevitably accompanied by the idealization of this person. If this process is simultaneously accompanied by reciprocal emotional reactions, this leads to increased feelings and closer relationships. In the future, apparently, the movement from the abstract to the concrete begins, the thought, as it were, begins to try on the abstract image formulated by it to reality. This is the most dangerous stage of love, which can be followed by disappointment - the more rapid and strong, the more powerful was the degree of implementation of the abstraction. With different spiritual development, mutual misunderstanding may arise associated with various intellectual requests.
Psychologists believe that love lives and develops according to its own special laws, which include both periods of violent passions and periods of peaceful bliss and peace. Then comes the stage of addiction and often a decline, attenuation of emotional excitement. Therefore, in order not to fall into the terrible trap that love prepares, one should definitely strive for mutual spiritual development in love.
The ethical, moral nature of love is deeply revealed by the Russian philosopher Vl. Solovyov in the treatise "The Meaning of Love": according to Solovyov, the meaning of human love is the justification and salvation of individuality through the sacrifice of egoism.
Egoism is generally destructive for the individual, unproductive as a principle of relationships. The lie and evil of egoism, Solovyov believes, consists in the exclusive recognition of unconditional significance for oneself and in the denial of its presence in others, which is clearly unfair. With reason we understand this injustice, but in fact only love abolishes such an unjust attitude.
Love is the recognition of the unconditional value of the other - and not in an abstract consciousness, but in an inner feeling and vital will. “Love is important not as one of our feelings, but as the transfer of all our vital interest from ourselves to another, as a rearrangement of the very center of our personal life,” wrote Vl. Solovyov. Thus, he closely connects the meaning of love with the overcoming of egoism: “Love is the self-denial of a being, the affirmation of another by it ... this self-denial is its highest self-affirmation. The absence of self-negation or love, that is, egoism, is not the real self-affirmation of the being, it is only a fruitless, unsatisfied desire or effort for self-affirmation, as a result of which egoism is the source of all suffering; real self-affirmation is achieved only in self-denial...” According to Solovyov, love leads to the flourishing of individual life, while selfishness brings death to the personal principle.
Approving, it would seem, his person, in fact, a selfish person destroys it, highlighting the animal or worldly principle to the detriment of the spiritual principle. The true self-affirmation of a person as a spiritualized being consists in overcoming egoism, in asserting oneself in another. “Love, as the actual abolition of egoism, is the actual justification and salvation of individuality. Love is ... an inner saving power that elevates, and does not abolish, individuality.
According to Solovyov, “love’s own immediate task” is to lead “to a real and inseparable connection of two lives into one”, so that such a combination of two specific beings is established that would create an absolute personality out of them, true man as a free unity of masculine and feminine principles, retaining their formal isolation, but overcoming their essential discord.
But if true love consists in the fact that, through mutual complementation, two loving beings create an ideal personality, then the question arises: is such an ideal coexistence of two personalities possible? Will the weaknesses of one be made up for by the strengths of the other? Will the gap between the shortcomings of one and the other be closed? And, in general, does such love exist as Vl. Solovyov, or is it just a dream, and we, mere mortals, are not destined to know it?
Here is what the author of The Meaning of Love thinks about this: “So, if we look only at the actual outcome of love, we must recognize it as a dream that temporarily takes possession of our being and disappears without turning into action. But recognizing, by virtue of the evidence, that the ideal meaning of love is not realized in reality, should we recognize it as unrealizable? It would be completely unfair to deny the feasibility of love on the sole ground that it has never been realized until now. Love exists in its rudiments or inclinations, but not yet in reality... If love revealed to us some kind of reality, which then closed and disappeared for us, then why should we put up with this disappearance? If what is lost was true, then the task of consciousness and will is not to accept the loss as final, but to understand and eliminate its causes.
The philosopher defines love as "the attraction of an animate being to another in order to unite with him and mutually replenish life." From the reciprocity of relationships, he deduces three types of love. First, love that gives more than it receives is downward love. Second, love that receives more than it gives is ascending love. Thirdly, when both are balanced.
In the first case, it is parental love based on pity and compassion; it includes the care of the strong for the weak, the elders for the younger; outgrowing family - "fatherly" relations, it creates the concept of "fatherland". The second case is the love of children for their parents, it rests on a feeling of gratitude and reverence; outside the family, it gives rise to ideas about spiritual values. The emotional basis of the third kind of love is the fullness of vital reciprocity, which is achieved in sexual love; here pity and reverence are combined with a sense of shame and create a new spiritual image of a person.
At the same time, Vl. Solovyov believed that "sexual love and the reproduction of the genus are inversely related to each other: the stronger one, the weaker the other." He deduced the following dependencies from this: strong love very often remains undivided; with reciprocity, strong passion often leads to a tragic end, leaving no offspring behind; happy love, if it is very strong, also usually remains fruitless.
Love for Solovyov is not only a subjective experience, but also an active intrusion into life. As the gift of speech does not consist in speaking in itself, but in the transmission of thought through the word, so the true purpose of love is not in the simple experience of feeling, but in the fact that thanks to it, the social and natural environment is transformed.
Solovyov sees love in five possible ways of development - two false and three true. The first false path of love is "hellish" - a painful unrequited passion. The second, also false - "animal" - indiscriminate satisfaction of sexual desire. The third way (the first true) is marriage. The fourth is asceticism. The highest, fifth way is Divine love, when we are confronted not with a sex - “half of a person”, but with a whole person in the combination of male and female principles. Man becomes in this case a "superman"; it is here that he solves the main task of love - to perpetuate the beloved, save him from death and decay. At the same time, the essence, the meaning of love is determined by him through the measure. But how can love be measured? All-consuming passion, offspring or something else? It is very difficult to determine this. And no one could do it as accurately as Blessed Augustine, who said: "The measure of love is love without measure."
« Can it be a vice in a private person that which is revered as a virtue in the whole nation? This prejudice, confirmed by the democratic envy of some philosophers, serves only to spread base egoism. The disinterested thought that the grandchildren will be respected for the name we have passed on to them, isn't it the noblest hope of the human heart?
Mes arriere-neveux me devront cet ombrage!»*.
(* My great-grandchildren will owe me this canopy! - French;
Pushkin A.S. Works in three volumes. Volume three.
Prose. – M.: Artist. literature, 1986. - S. 444).
The history of the development of Russian civilization has not preserved for us the living shoots of the ancient Russian, pre-Christian religious and moral tradition, and only a genuine miracle can resurrect them to a new life. Such a historical miracle in the fate of national culture was the unexpected acquisition in the twentieth century. "Veles book", which refers not only to religious faith of our ancestors, but also about the main principles of their earthly life, about the legendary past of the entire Slavic tribe (Asov A.I. Holy Russian Vedas. Book of Veles. - M .: Fair-Press, 2005). Since the acquisition of the texts of the Old Slavonic religious tradition presented by the "Book of Veles" (Veles, Volos - in Slavic mythology the god of cattle, wealth and mentor of people in practical wisdom), disputes between professional linguists, representatives of the scientific and pseudo-scientific community about their historical authenticity do not subside (Zaliznyak A.A. On professional and amateur linguistics // Science and Life. 2009. No. 1‒ 2. [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/15245; http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/15349.; Rudnitsky Yu.V. " Unwilling hoaxers" // Mirror of the Week. No. 13 (642). April 7‒13, 2007 [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/56306 .; What scientists think about " Veles Book", St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2004. 220 p.). In this controversy, we share the opinion of those researchers who recognize their reliability. Let us point out the moral and ethical foundations of our position on this issue. To what extent does the moral character of the “discoverers” of a literary monument give us the right to doubt their moral cleanliness? And to what extent do their creative abilities correspond to the "universal spirit" of this literary masterpiece, no less brilliant in its historical meaning than The Tale of Bygone Years, The Tale of Law and Grace, The Tale of Igor's Campaign? If the “Book of Veles” is a fake, then it must be admitted that its creator is a genuine “national genius”, about whose life and work every Russian should know. Or is it still a “folk genius”, that is, he himself folk spirit who creates historical life and captures its deeds in the literary tradition of his historical memory?
The historical roots of the Russian people "Veles book" produces from the legendary progenitor Father Bogumir and his children - three daughters (Dreva, Skreva and Poleva) and two sons (Seva and Rusa): "Northerners and Ruses come from them" (Asov A.I. Holy Russian Vedas, Book of Veles, Moscow: Fair-Press, 2005, p. 53). According to the creators of the Veles Book, in the name of the progenitor of all Slavs, a spiritual connection with God the Creator was fixed as their heavenly Father. “And that Bogumir was named Tvastyr, for that Forefather to him and to all the Slavs. And it was so, and so it will be, for the gods called this name ... And so he left childbirth after himself, and therefore the Gods are the cause of childbirth, and so other genera went from childbirth. And so Svarog is the Father, and the rest are His sons ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 57).
The good-neighborly relations of the first Slavic clans with other tribes led to the formation of new inter-clan associations, the main of which was the Scythian-Slavic union, symbolically represented by the image of the righteous fireman Arius Osednya and his sons, who led the campaign of the united clans in search of better lands (Asov A.I. Decree cit. - P. 65). Having crossed the great snow-covered and icy mountains, the tribes led by the “Aryan clans” “flowed into the steppes ... And there they were Scythian cattle breeders. And then for the first time the Rule was spoken to our fathers from the forefathers ”(Asov A.I. Decree. soch. - P. 71). So in the VIII century. BC. the steppes of the northern Black Sea region became the “promised land” for the Proto-Russian clans, the spiritual brainchild of which was the Russian land, located between Ilmen, the Carpathians and the Don with a center in Kiev: “And after that land stood for five hundred years” (Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - S. 81).
The everyday features of the Scythian society were expressed in a number of its ethnic names: “chips”, “spols”, “disputes”, “sklavins”, “sakaliba” (Shambarov V.E. Rus: the road from the depths of millennia. ‒ M .: EKSMO- Press, 2002. - S. 152-153). Close in meaning to these names is the self-name "dew" among the Russian people. The Slavic-Scythian Union existed as a state-political entity until the beginning of the 2nd century BC. BC e. and died as a result of the invasion of the Sarmatian tribes (Shambarov V.E. Decree. Op. - P. 208). It took three centuries for the Proto-Russian clans to regain strength after the Sarmatian pogrom for the new arrangement of their newfound homeland, for the establishment in the world of the moral dignity of the Slavic name.
higher meaning religious life of our ancestors, according to the texts of the Book of Veles, the name of the Slavic ethnos, derived from the verb “glorify” - “glorify”, “praise”: the “Slavic” clan is glorious because it glorifies its gods both in word and deed. “Veles taught our forefathers to plow the land, and sow cereals, and reap, weaving sheaves, in the fields of suffering, and put a sheaf in a dwelling, and honor Him as the Father of God: Our Father, and Glory to our mother ... So we walked, and were not parasites, but were Slavs - Russians who sing glory to the Gods and therefore - are the Slavs ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 27). The Slavic faith completely rejects any double-mindedness in a person’s life and entrusts his fate to “higher providence”, not demanding any life blessings from the gods. “And what we ourselves are, Perunko and Sheaf know. And since we prayed to God, lifting up glory, but never asked Him, and never demanded from Him what we need for life ”(Asov A.I. Decree. cit. - P. 75). Self-denial, the unconditional faith of the Slavic tribe in the highest craft determines it practical life as the "Way of Rule", as "religious and moral Righteousness", linking the earthly affairs of people with God's will. “And the Thunderer - God Perun, the God of battles and struggle, they said:“ You, reviving the manifest, do not stop turning the Wheels! You, who led us along the Path of Rule to the battle and the great feast! O those who fell in battle, those who walked, you live forever, in the army of Perun! (Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 7). Historically, the path of Rule begins for the Slavs with the assertion of God's Truth on Russian soil. “And then for the first time the Rule was spoken to our fathers from the forefathers who protect us from Navi, who in the great struggle of strength give us to repel the enemies of God” (Asov A.I. Decree. cit. - P. 71).
The absolute obedience of the ancient Slavs to the will of the gods is not the blind obedience of disenfranchised slaves to the requirements of the master, but the worship of faithful children before the righteous will of their heavenly parents. “And this is and will be our true sacrifice to the Gods, who are our Forefathers. For we are descended from Dazhbog, and became glorious, glorifying our Gods, and never asked or prayed for our good ”(Asov A.I. Decree. cit. - P. 73). The boundless trust of the ancient Russians in their gods is an expression of their filial duty, when the Slavic race is presented as God's people, creating on earth the holy will of their heavenly parents. “And we proclaimed glory to Svyatovit. He is both Rule and Reveal God! We sing songs to Him, because Svyatovit is Light. … Praise the great Svyatovit: “Glory to our God!” And grieve with your heart, so that you can renounce our evil deed, and so flow to good. Let the children of God embrace” (Asov A.I. Decree. Work. - P. 9). The religious "Pravedism" of the Slavs affirms their spiritual kinship with the gods, who will always come to the aid of their faithful children in difficult times. “Be the sons of your Gods and their power will be upon you to the end!” (Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 49). Therefore, the Slavs must remain spiritually pure before the gods, not worship foreign gods, not deviate from their own. heavenly patrons, follow their precepts, go through life the way of Rule, be the defenders of the highest Truth on earth. “So they went south to the sea and smashed the enemies with swords, they went to the great mountain, to the valley with herbs, where there are many cereals. And there Kiy got used to it, which began to build Kyiv, which became Russian. That exodus cost the Slavs a lot of blood. The Antes neglected evil and went where Arius spoke. For “our blood is holy blood,” he said about this in Semirechye. And we are all Russians. And we do not listen to the enemies who speak unkindly. We come from father Arius” (Asov A.I. Decree. cit. - P. 73).
The first law of the righteous life of the ancient Russians was the demand for freedom as the main value of human earthly existence. “There Perun goes, shaking his golden head, sending lightning into the blue sky, and it hardens from this. And mother Slava sings about the labors of her soldiers. And we must listen to her and wish for a severe battle for our Rus' and our shrines. ... And with this we are not afraid of death, for we are the glorious descendants of Dazhbog ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 89). Only with the preservation of freedom, the selfless defense of the Russian land from enemies, the independence of Rus' from foreign rulers, the devotion of the Slavs to the highest craft is really confirmed and the highest care for them as God's children is preserved. “And now the Gods tell us: “Walk around Rus' and never to enemies!” And Mother Sva-Glory sings for us to go on a campaign against enemies. And we believed Her, since Glory is the Essence of the Bird Vyshnya, flying from Svarga over Russia ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 73). Therefore, every Russian must be, first of all, a warrior, a defender native land, and for the sake of the freedom of his native country he is obliged to sacrifice his life, because in freedom lies the sacred connection of man with the heavenly ancestors “And here is Svarog, who is the Creator Himself, said to Arius: “You were created from the fingers of God. And they will say about you that you are the sons of the Creator, and you will become like the sons of the Creator, and you will be like My children, and Dazhbog will be your Father. And you must obey Him, and He will tell you what to have, and about what you should do, and how to speak, and how to do things. And you will be a great people, and you will conquer the whole world, and trample other clans that draw their strength from stone, and work miracles - carts without horses, and do various miracles without magicians ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - S. 77).
The religious "Pravedism" of the Slavic tribe proclaims the family ties of the Russian clans with the gods: therefore family ties acquire a sacred meaning, become an earthly and quite visible expression of the presence of a higher will in the affairs of people. Therefore, there can be no true love between parents and children outside of family feelings between brothers and sisters. The unity of the clan is the main internal factor in the preservation of people's freedom and righteous faith. And then they began to know the truth, that we only had strength when we were together– then no one could defeat us. And in the steppes, we, united, were not defeated, for we are Russians and received glory for themselves from enemies who curse us ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 47). The sacred gift of freedom can only be preserved in people's lives when they sacrifice themselves for the future of all relatives. Therefore, those who fell in the battle for relatives gain eternal life. “And that’s why we didn’t have death, but we had eternal life, and the brothers always worked for the brothers!” (Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 15).
Family relations, ties of kinship are in the worldview of the Russians a sacred, indissoluble character, defining the path of Rule as the fulfillment of a moral duty to the forefathers, as the affirmation of the spiritual brotherhood of generations in the accomplishment of a common cause. “And so we proclaimed glory to the Gods, who are our Fathers, and we are Their sons. And we will be worthy of Them by the purity of our bodies and souls ”(Asov A.I. Decree. Op. - P. 69). Filial self-sacrifice, a moral sense of love and fraternal solidarity, selflessness, sacrifice for the sake of the Russian land and relatives determine the main quality of the ancient Slavic mentality. “Hear, descendant, the song of Glory! Keep Rus' in your heart, which is and will remain our land! And we were obliged to defend it from enemies. And they died for her, as a day dies without the Sun ”(Asov A.I. Decree. cit. - P. 25).
"Russians" or modern "Rosses", professing the "Glory" of the ancient "Russ", appear on the historical arena as a spiritual "pure», « light», « clear" And " transparent», « open"for everyone, sincere people, "faithful" and "true" in words and deeds, affirming God's Truth as the highest value of their earthly life. Therefore, the current generations of the Russian ethnos should be proud of their family name as a designation of moral nobility. "pure people" who do not hide their plans from the world, do not conceal black thoughts: our soul is open to every good intention. Sincerity, imprinted with our name - faith in God's Providence about man as the embodiment of truth - makes us invincible in the confrontation with the forces of evil and deceit. And therefore, the Russian people must keep their faith in the highest providence and honor their native name as a living reminder of the main goal of their life - the affirmation God's Truth on earth: our Word is holy, for it transforms the truth in the human world. “All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that came into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3–4).
The final historical meaning of the all-Russian cause is stored in the religious precepts of our ancient Word and is concentrated in the idea "Holy Rus'" as the enlightened life of all mankind. “The great historical vocation of Russia, from which its immediate tasks only derive significance,” V. S. Solovyov defines the fundamental meaning of the Russian cause, “is a religious vocation in the highest sense of the word. Only when the will and mind of people enter into communion with the eternally and truly existing, then only will all the particular forms and elements of life and knowledge receive their positive meaning and price, all of them will be necessary organs or through one whole life ”(Soloviev V.S. Philosophical beginnings whole knowledge. // Works in 2 volumes - 2nd ed. - T. 2. - M., 1990. - S. 173). The concretization of this higher idea is the three religious plans of the historical deeds of the East Slavic peoples - Ukrainian (Little Russian), Russian (Great Russian) and Belarusian (purely Russian). Each of the Russian peoples thinks of "Holy Rus'" in their own way, based on their own ideas, guided by their own inclinations and abilities. The Ukrainian historical concept is concentrated in the idea of the New Jerusalem as the City of God's Love not for a separate nation, but for all Humanity. The main historical task of the Great Russian nation is the problem of arranging the Father's House as a perfect earthly kingdom - the Third Rome, capable of reconciling peoples on the basis of the idea of equality as a guarantee of universal social justice. The main goal of the Belarusian ethnos is to preserve Love in the Father's House, to strengthen peace between brothers, to bind the heavenly truth of New Jerusalem and the earthly truth of the Third Rome with internal, spiritual bonds based on the moral efforts of a spiritualized person. The selfless mental attitude of the Belarusian people is guided by the idea of “filial duty” to earthly and heavenly parents, is determined by the principle of the sanctity of family ties as a real evidence of true Love in the relationship between God the Father and his spiritual children from the human race, as a confession of the ultimate heavenly and earthly truth of the coming God-manhood in gathering of enlightened persons. The practical implementation of these ideas is the historical purpose of the Russian peoples, ultimate destiny Total Russian world.
Each of these ideas individually is powerless, and only in their unity can they be translated into reality and embodied in the guise of Holy Rus'. Only the unity of these three paths of the historical deeds of the Russian peoples will lead them to victory over the dark forces. Thus, the all-Russian national idea can be realized in its true essence only on the basis of the unification of the three paths of the spiritual life of the masses - the religious and mystical path of the Ukrainian ethnos, the socio-technological path of the Great Russian ethnos and the socio-cultural efforts of the Belarusian ethnos. The religious and mystical desire of the Ukrainian ethnos to commune with God presupposes, first of all, the unification of all the historical branches of Russian Orthodoxy, which means the revival of moral strength "Old Russian faith", which once liberated the Russian people from both Mongol slavery and Polish violence, and today is so necessary for the Russian people to save themselves from their own madness by a feat" supreme faith».
But this path to God must also be supported by appropriate earthly means in transforming reality on the basis of knowledge, scientific and philosophical thinking. “According to the classical and eternal definition of faith,” N. Berdyaev emphasizes, “it is equally valuable both in religious and in scientifically faith is the conviction of things invisible. In contrast, knowledge can be defined as the denunciation of things visible ... visible, i.e. compulsorily given things are a field of knowledge, not visible, i.e. things that are not given forcibly, things that should still be acquired, the realm of faith” (Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of Freedom // Works. - M.: Thought, 1994. - P. 42‒43). The path of Faith and the path of Knowledge must be united and complement each other. If Ukraine follows the path of Faith, and Russia follows the path of Knowledge, then Belarus has chosen the path of Love as a practical crossing of Faith and Knowledge in the feat of self-sacrifice, spiritual, creative self-improvement of the individual. Therefore, the true beginning of the establishment of Holy Rus' in the practical activities of the Russian peoples should be the appearance of a historical Personality as a true spokesman spiritual being Russian nation in the implementation of the Supreme Will. It is Belarus that today is the real center of Russian spirit brotherly love in relations between people, the real embodiment of the spiritual essence of Holy Rus' in the historical practice of the Russian peoples.
Today, not Kyiv or Moscow, but Minsk is becoming the guiding star of the Russian people in the realization of their spiritualized future. In modern conditions of globalization of public life and the concentration of all its contradictions, the Third Brother should become the head of the all-Russian cause and practically establish the ideology of brotherhood in the realities of global society. As long as Belarus is alive, valid in the world and Holy Rus'! God is not in power, but in Truth - Holy Rus' has stood and will stand on that. “And I saw an open sky, and behold white horse, and the one who sits on it is called Faithful and True Who judges righteously and fights. ... He had a name written, which no one knew except Himself; He was dressed in clothes stained with blood. His name is the Word of God. And the hosts of heaven followed him on horseback whites clothed in fine linen white and clean. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, with which to smite the nations. He shepherds them with a rod of iron; He tramples on the winepress of the fury and wrath of God Almighty" (Apocalypse 19:11-15).
Gorelikov L.A. – Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Academician of the Noospheric Public Academy of Sciences 10.10.2018.
