“Does our life have any meaning at all?” - asked V.S. Solovyov. If there is, the Russian philosopher continues, then does it have a moral character, is it rooted in the moral field? And if so, what does it consist of, what will be true and full definition? “It is impossible to ignore these issues regarding which there is no agreement in the modern consciousness. Some deny any meaning to life, others believe that the meaning of life has nothing to do with morality, that it does not depend at all on our proper or good relationships towards God, towards people and towards the whole world; still others, finally, recognizing the importance of moral norms for life, give them very different definitions, entering into a dispute among themselves that requires analysis and resolution.”
First of all, V.S. Solovyov considers those deniers of life who take the path of suicide. When a theoretical pessimist asserts as a real truth that life is evil and suffering, then he expresses his conviction that life is like this for everyone, but if for everyone, then it means for himself. But if this is so, then on what basis does he live and use the evils of life, as if they were good? They refer to an instinct that forces one to live contrary to the reasonable belief that life is not worth living. According to V.S. Solovyov, such a reference is useless, because instinct is not an external force that mechanically forces one to do something. Instinct manifests itself in the living being itself, prompting it to seek pleasant states that seem desirable or pleasant to it. “And if, thanks to instinct, a pessimist finds pleasure in life, then doesn’t this undermine the very basis for his supposedly rational conviction that life is evil and suffering?”
If we recognize the positive meaning of life, then, of course, a lot can be considered a deception, precisely in relation to this meaning - as trifles that distract from the main and important thing. The Apostle Paul could say that in comparison with the Kingdom of God, which is achieved through life’s struggle, all carnal affections and pleasures for him are rubbish and dung. But for a pessimist who does not believe in the Kingdom of God and does not recognize any positive meaning behind the feat of life, where is the criterion for distinguishing between deception and non-deception?
V.S. Solovyov emphasizes that in order to justify pessimism on this base soil, one remains childishly counting the number of pleasures and sufferings in human life with the preconceived conclusion that there are fewer of the former than the latter, and that, therefore, life is not worth living. On this occasion, the philosopher notes: this account of everyday happiness would make any sense only if arithmetic sums pleasures and pains existed really, or if the arithmetical difference between them could become a real sensation. Here the arithmetic of despair is only a game of the mind, which the supporters of the concept being analyzed themselves refute, finding in life more pleasure than suffering, and recognizing that it is worth living to the end. “Comparing their preaching with their actions, one can only come to the conclusion that there is a meaning in life, that they involuntarily submit to it, but that their mind is not able to master this meaning.”
What about suicides? According to Solovyov, they involuntarily prove the meaning of life. They assumed that life has meaning, but, having become convinced of the inconsistency of what they accepted as the meaning of life, they take their own lives. These people didn't find him, but where did they look for him? Here we have two types of passionate people: some have a purely personal, egoistic passion (Romeo, Werther), others connect their personal passion with one or another historical interest, which they, however, separate from the universal meaning - about this meaning of universal life, from on which the meaning of their own existence depends, they, just like the first, do not want to know anything (Cleopatra, Cato the Younger). Romeo kills himself because he cannot have Juliet. For him, the meaning of life is to possess this woman. But if the meaning of life really lay in this, then how would it differ from nonsense? As V.S. Solovyov wittily notes, besides Romeo, 40 thousand nobles could find the meaning of their lives in the possession of the same Juliet, so that this imaginary meaning of life would deny itself 40 thousand times.
V.S. Solovyov interprets these life situations as follows: what happens in life is not what we think should happen in it, therefore, life has no meaning. “The fact of the discrepancy between the arbitrary demand of a passionate person and reality is taken as an expression of some hostile fate, as something gloomily meaningless, and, not wanting to obey this blind force, the person kills himself.” Defeated by world-power Rome, the Egyptian queen did not want to participate in the triumph of the winner and killed herself with snake venom. The Roman poet Horace called her a great wife for this, and no one will deny the majesty of this death. But if Cleopatra expected her victory as something for granted, and in the victory of Rome she saw only a meaningless triumph dark force, which means she also accepted the darkness of her own view as a sufficient basis for denying universal truth.
V.S. Solovyov draws a legitimate conclusion: it is clear that the meaning of life cannot coincide with the arbitrary and changeable demands of each of the countless individuals of the human race. If it coincided, it would be nonsense, i.e. it wouldn't exist at all. Consequently, it turns out that the disappointed and despairing suicide was disappointed and despaired not of the meaning of life, but quite the opposite - in his hope for the meaninglessness of life: he hoped that life would go the way he wanted, that there would always be only direct satisfaction of his blind passions and arbitrary whims, i.e. will be nonsense. He is disappointed in this and finds that life is not worth living.
But here's the paradox. If he became disillusioned with the meaninglessness of the world, then he thereby recognized the meaning in it. If such an involuntarily recognized meaning is unbearable for this person, if instead of understanding it, he only blames others and gives the truth the name of “hostile fate,” then the essence of the matter does not change.
“The meaning of life is only confirmed,” writes V.S. Solovyov, “by the fatal inconsistency of those who deny it: this denial forces some (pessimistic theorists) to live unworthy - in contradiction with their preaching, and for others (pessimistic practitioners or suicides) the denial of life’s meaning coincides with the actual denial of their very existence.”
The meaning of life is beauty. This is the point of view of F. Nietzsche. V.S. Solovyov does not support this point of view. No matter how much we devote ourselves to the aesthetic cult, we will not find in it not only protection, but not even the slightest indication of the possibility of any protection against that general and inevitable fact that internally abolishes this imaginary divinity of strength and beauty, their imaginary consistency and unconditionality : the end of all local strength is powerlessness and the end of all local beauty is ugliness.
“Is a force that is powerless before death really a force? Is a decaying corpse beauty? Ancient representative strength and beauty died and decayed only like the most powerless and ugliest creature, and the newest admirer of strength and beauty turned into a mental corpse. Why wasn’t the first saved by his beauty and strength, and the second by his cult of beauty and strength?” In fact, Christianity, against which F. Nietzsche fought, does not deny strength and beauty, it just does not agree to rest on the strength of a dying patient and on the beauty of a decomposing corpse.
According to V.S. Solovyov, the pessimism of false and true suicides involuntarily leads to the idea that there is meaning in life. The cult of strength and beauty involuntarily shows us that this meaning does not lie in strength and beauty, taken in the abstract, but can belong to them only under the condition of triumphant good. So, the meaning of life lies in the idea of good, but here a new chain of delusions is born. First of all, it is important to understand what good is...
Our life receives moral meaning and dignity when there is established between it and the perfect Good. improving connection. According to the very concept of perfect Good, all life and all being are connected with it and in this connection have their own meaning. Is there no meaning in animal life, in its nutrition and reproduction? But this undoubted and important meaning, expressing only the involuntary and partial connection of an individual being with the general good, cannot fill a person’s life: his reason and will, as forms of the infinite, require something else. The spirit is nourished by the knowledge of perfect Good and multiplied by its doing, that is, by the implementation 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 has not yet been given to us and, therefore, the moral meaning of our life can only consist in achieve until this perfect connection with the Good or so that improve our existing internal connection with him.
In the request for moral perfection, the general idea of absolute Good is already given - its necessary characteristics. 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 internal 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 achieved this unity; Equally with us by nature is everything that is capable, like us, of independent moral improvement, 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-improvement and that only through us can enter into perfect connection with the absolute, i.e. material nature. This threefold relationship in its most general form is a fact: we are in fact subordinate to the absolute, no matter what we 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 a common 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 improving the given. The triplicity of the actual relationship must be transformed into a triune norm of rational and volitional activity; fatal submission to a higher power must become a conscious and free service to the perfect Good, natural solidarity with other people must turn into sympathetic and harmonious interaction with them; actual advantage over material nature must be transformed into rational dominion over it for ours and for its good.
The real beginning of moral improvement lies in three basic feelings inherent in human nature and forming its natural virtue: in the feeling shame protecting our highest dignity in relation to the seizures of animal instincts; in feeling pity which internally equalizes us with others, and, finally, in religious a feeling in which our recognition of the highest Good is reflected. In these feelings representing good nature initially striving for the fact that must(for inseparable from them is the consciousness, even vaguely, of their normality - the consciousness that one should be ashamed of the immensity of carnal desires and slavery to animal nature, that one should feel sorry for others, that one should bow before the Divine, that this is good, and that which is contrary to this is bad), - in these feelings and in the accompanying testimony of conscience lies a single, or, more precisely, a triune basis for moral improvement. A conscientious mind, generalizing the motives of a good nature, elevates them to 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 from the testimony of conscience, just as conscience itself is a feeling of shame, developed not from the material, but only from its formal side.
Regarding the lower nature, the moral law, generalizing the immediate feeling of modesty, commands us to always dominate all sensual attractions, allowing them only as a subordinate element within the limits of reason; here morality is no longer expressed (as in the elementary feeling of shame) by a simple, instinctive repulsion of a hostile element, or retreat before it, but requires real struggle 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 importance as for ourselves, or treat others as we could without contradiction wish, so that they relate to us, regardless of one feeling or another. – Finally, in relation to the Divine, the moral law asserts itself as the expression of His legislative will and demands its unconditional recognition for the sake of its own unconditional dignity or perfection. But for a person who has achieved this pure recognition of God's will as the all-one and complete Good itself, it should be clear that completeness this will can open only by the power of its own, inner actions in the soul of a person. Having reached this peak, formal or rational morality enters the realm of absolute morality - the good of the rational law is filled with the good of the divine grace.
According to the everlasting teaching of true Christianity, consistent with the essence of the matter, grace does not destroy nature and natural morality, but “perfects” it, i.e. brings to perfection, and in the same way, grace does not abolish the law, but fulfills it and only by force 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 the personal life of an individual for two reasons - natural and moral. The natural reason is that man individually does not exist at all, and this reason would be quite sufficient from a practical point of view, but for strong moralists, for whom it is important not to exist, but to ought, there is also a moral reason - the discrepancy between the concept of the individual, disconnected from all man and the concept of perfection. So, on natural and moral grounds, the process of improvement, which constitutes the moral meaning of our life, can only be thought of as a collective process, occurring in a collective person, that is, in a family, people, humanity. These three types of collective man do not replace, but mutually support and complement each other and, each in their own way, move towards perfection. The family is being improved, spiritualizing and perpetuating the meaning of the personal past in a moral connection with ancestors, the meaning of the personal present in a 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 improving by organizing goodness in the general forms of religious, political and socio-economic culture, more and more consistent with 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 improve its human side, making it more and more consistent with the Divine side; human 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, physical good, or the moral relationship 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 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 the Good, receives its final justification, appearing in all its purity, completeness 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 remains to be done - is the moral philosophy expounded in this book. Bringing all its contents to one expression, we will find that the perfection of Good is finally defined as the indivisible organization of triune love. The feeling of reverence, or piety, first through fearful and involuntary, and then through free filial submission to a higher principle, having recognized 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, in accordance with its all-encompassing object, this love embraces everything else in God, and above all those who can participate in it on an equal basis with us, i.e. human beings; here our physical, and then moral and political pity for people becomes spiritual love for them, or equation in love. But divine love, assimilated by man as all-embracing, 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 universal justification of good, i.e. its extension to all life relations will become, in fact, historically clear to every mind, then for each individual person there will only remain the practical question of the will: to accept for oneself such a perfect moral meaning of life or to reject it. But while the end, although close, has not yet come, until the rightness of good has become an obvious fact in everything and for everyone, a theoretical doubt is still possible, insoluble within the limits of moral or practical philosophy, although in no way undermining the binding nature of its rules for people of good will.
If the moral meaning of life is essentially reduced to the all-round struggle and triumph of good over evil, then the eternal question arises: where does this evil itself come from? If it is from good, then isn’t the struggle with it a misunderstanding; if it has its beginning apart from good, then how can good be unconditional, having outside itself a condition for its implementation? If it is not unconditional, then what is its fundamental advantage and the final guarantee of its triumph over evil?
Reasonable faith in absolute Good is based on internal experience and on what follows from it with logical necessity. But internal religious experience is a personal matter and, from an external point of view, conditional. Therefore, when a rational faith based on it turns into general theoretical statements, 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 reliability 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 subjects of theoretical philosophy - the doctrine of knowledge and metaphysics.
It is least fitting for believers in the absolute Good to be afraid of 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 uninvolved in the Divine mind. Having justified the Good as such in moral philosophy, we must justify the Good as Truth in theoretical philosophy.
Application [ 1 ]
Introduction
1. Love as the highest value
1.1 Types of love
1.3 Theories of love
1.4 Moral meaning of love
2. The meaning of life
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Love is probably the most mysterious and most ambivalent of human feelings. Why do you suddenly begin to feel a strong craving for another person? Why is it this person you want to see, must see, cannot help but see? And why is it for others - it is not the main magnet of all, but something half-noticeable?
This can be answered, perhaps, only approximately, by comparison.
The purpose of this test work is: to understand the moral meaning of love and the meaning of life, using various sources, including philosophical ones.
1 Love as the highest value
Love is one of the most sublime feelings common to all humanity. Among all peoples at all times, it was glorified in literature, deified in mythology, heroized in epic, and dramatized in tragedy. The theme of love has been considered by philosophers of all eras.
The philosophy and ethics of love began to take shape in ancient times. Love belongs to the most complex and multifaceted human relationships.
1.1 Types of love
Love is a feeling of attachment to the object of love, the need for connection and constant contact with it.
The moral foundations of such attachment differ depending on the object to which it is directed. Love is a feeling of attachment to the object of love, the need for connection and constant contact with it. The moral foundations of such attachment differ depending on the object to which it is directed.
Love can be viewed as:
love for the whole world, all people, the ability to show mercy (humanism);
love for God is a manifestation of the transcendental principle;
love for the fatherland and people underlies the worldview and manifests itself as a deep patriotic feeling;
love for parents, children and grandchildren is one of the manifestations of this feeling, which often becomes the meaning of a person’s life;
love for one’s work, passion for one’s profession as an all-consuming passion.
But, of course, what occupies most people’s minds is the feeling of love between a woman and a man. IN in a broad sense words, love is a feeling that is expressed in a selfless and selfless desire for its object, in the need and readiness for self-giving.
1.2 Versions of the origin of love
People still speculate about how love arose: whether man brought it from the animal kingdom, from cave life, or whether it arose later and is a product of history. There are several approaches to the question of when love arose on earth.
According to one version, the phenomenon of love appeared about five thousand years ago. Wife Egyptian god Osiris, the goddess Isis, who resurrected her deceased husband with her love, is considered the ancestor of all lovers. Since then, love has firmly taken its place in the life of humanity, its culture and way of life.
Another version is based on the fact that in ancient times there was no love. Cave people lived in group marriages and did not know any love. As Schopenhauer writes in “The Metaphysics of Sexual Love”: “......in individual cognition it is reflected as a sexual instinct in general, without focusing on any specific individual of the other sex...”
Some believe that in ancient times there was no love, but only bodily eros, sexual desire. Only with the fall of antiquity and the period of barbarism on the wave of Christianity did a spiritual upsurge begin in society. Philosophy and art are developing, people's lifestyles are changing. One of the indicators of these changes is the emergence of chivalry, which became the patron and bearer of a developing culture and a special cult of love. This love was primarily spiritual, its Center was in the soul. However, these versions should hardly be accepted. Numerous documentary sources testify: love arose and became known to people since ancient times.
1.3 Theories of love
Each people, each nation in its own way understood and assessed and created its own philosophy of love, which reflected: the characteristics of the national culture, moral and ethical ideas, traditions and habits characteristic of a given culture. The European theory of love differs significantly from the Eastern one.
Eastern love cult, which appeared in Ancient India, comes from the fact that love is one of the main goals in life (along with wealth and knowledge). Love among the Hindus was connected with the world of human feelings and knowledge. Sensuality rose to the level of an ideal, acquiring spiritual content. The most famous treatise on love is the Kama Sutra.
In Arab countries there was a cult of bodily love. Among the Arabs, in the Arabian Nights fairy tales, it is shown that love is a holiday, a feast of all human sensations.
The ancient Greeks distinguished four types of love:
1) enthusiastic love, physical and spiritual passion, craving for possession of a loved one (eros);
2) love - friendship, a calmer feeling; united not only lovers, but also friends (philia);
3) altruistic, spiritual love, full of sacrifice and self-denial, condescension and forgiveness, similar to maternal love. This is the ideal of humane love for one's neighbor (agape);
4) love-tenderness, family love, full of attention to your loved one. It grew out of natural affection and emphasized the carnal and spiritual kinship of lovers (storge).
In myths Ancient Greece it is said that the goddess of love Aphrodite in her retinue had the god Eros, who personified the beginning and end of love. He had: an arrow that gave birth to love, and an arrow that extinguished it.
For Pythagoras, love is the great principle of the world (cosmic) vital force, physical connection.
Starting with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, theories of spiritual love appeared. Love is a special state of the human soul and human relations.
So in Plato there is a feeling that connects a person’s craving for beauty and the feeling of something missing, the desire to fill what a person does not have. In love, everyone finds their own, unique other self, in union with which harmony is achieved. According to Plato, the characteristics of a particular lover’s love are revealed not in what he feels, but in how he treats his lover and what reciprocal feelings he evokes.
In the Middle Ages, heavenly love, love for God, was opposed to earthly love.
“Carnal connections” were rejected, but sensual relationships between spouses were allowed as a condition for procreation.
During the Renaissance, human sensuality was poeticized. Interpreting that love is a thirst to taste pleasure from the object of desire; believing that love is inherent in everyone by nature and through it the foolish is equalized with the wise and man with the animal.
In modern times, Descartes shared the love:
on love - attachment - this is when the object of love is valued less than oneself;
love - friendship, when another is valued equally with oneself;
and love is reverence, when the object of love is valued more than oneself.
According to Kant, the motive of moral activity is not love, but duty; he spoke about the obligation to do good to another, regardless of the other’s attitude towards him.
Dostoevsky argued that in love a person has the opportunity for self-realization, for demonstrating an active, caring attitude towards people. He thought. That love is the metaphysical basis of morality. Vl. Soloviev (1853-1900) believed that the meaning of love is in overcoming selfishness, recognizing the value of another, that love leads to the flourishing of individual life. Love is such a coexistence of two personalities when the shortcomings of one will be compensated by the dignity of the other.
Soloviev distinguishes three types of love.
First, downward love, which gives more than it receives. This is parental love, which is based on pity and compassion; it includes the care of the strong for the weak, the elders for the younger.
Secondly, upward love, which receives more than it gives. This is the love of children for their parents, based on feelings of gratitude and reverence.
Thirdly, love, when both are balanced. The emotional basis of this type of love is the fullness of vital reciprocity, which is achieved in sexual love; here pity and reverence are combined with a feeling of shame and create a new spiritual appearance of a person.
Solovyov points out five possible ways for the development of love:
a) the false path of love - “hellish” - painful unrequited passion;
b) also the wrong path - “animal” - indiscriminate satisfaction of sexual desire;
c) the true path of love is marriage;
d) the fourth path of love is asceticism, renunciation of any relationship with a loved one;
e) the highest - the fifth path - is Divine love. when the main task of love is solved - to perpetuate the beloved, to save him from death and decay.
In the 20th century, the study and analysis of love and all its manifestations continues with psychoanalysis and anthropological philosophy, and legal scholars have compiled “ Family code”, which outlines the rights and obligations of spouses.
But it is necessary to keep in mind that theoretical analysis and rationalistic approaches to the phenomenon of love are not able to reveal the innermost meaning of love, its secret and riddle.
No one can understand why this person loves this particular woman or this man.
1.4 Moral meaning of love
The love that connects a man and a woman is a complex set of human experiences and includes sensuality, which is based on a true biological principle, ennobled by 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 for who he is, as an absolute value, and sometimes reveals his best, hitherto unrealized 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 emotional connection between lovers or spouses; c) affection and care for a loved one and everything connected with him.
But a person in love needs not just a being of a different sex, but a being who has aesthetic appeal for him, intellectual and emotional psychological value, and a commonality of moral ideas.
Only as a result of the happy unification of all these components does a feeling of harmony in relationships, compatibility and relatedness 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 person’s 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 ordinary process of cognition. Love begins with specific moments, ignites on the basis of the coincidence of some individual features of the loved one with a pre-formed and presented image in the consciousness or subconscious. Then the isolation of the essence of another person begins, in an abstract form inevitably accompanied by the idealization of this person. If this process is simultaneously accompanied by emotional responses, this leads to increased feelings and closer relationships. Subsequently, apparently, a movement begins from the abstract to the concrete; thought, as it were, begins to try on the abstract image it has formulated to reality. This is the most dangerous stage of love, which can be followed by disappointment - the more rapid and strong, the greater the degree of implementation of abstraction. With different spiritual development, mutual misunderstanding may arise due to different intellectual needs.
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 and attenuation of emotional arousal. Therefore, in order not to fall into the terrible trap that love prepares, you should definitely strive for mutual spiritual development in love.
1.5 Pragmatic and metaphysical meaning of love
The pragmatic meaning of love, of course, is to enjoy another. Metaphysical elements of love are associated with embellishing the other, focusing on him or even deifying him.
But here it is important to emphasize that the pragmatic meaning, paradoxically, is lost if the metaphysical elements disappear. Complete elimination metaphysical meaning eliminates this phenomenon.
As ethnographic studies have shown, ancient societies did not know the phenomenon of love in the mentioned metaphysical sense. People of this society did not understand how it was possible to suffer or even sacrifice life because of love. But the times of chivalry were a period of the romantic cult of love; the union of lovers was necessarily delayed, which led to tension in emotions and increased passion.
Ibn Sina tried to explain the strong emotions that accompany love as a disease and wrote methods of psychotherapeutic influence for cure. A. Schopenhauer argued that love is a great obstacle in life. He said: “….this passion leads to a madhouse.” In the Eastern tradition, strong love emotions were treated with caution. Considering that they are capable of unbalancing a person, thereby causing harm to health and distracting from other important matters.
Feuerbach used pragmatic elements of love in describing love. From his point of view, someone who loves to take care of another person simply for selfish reasons, without the happiness of this person, his own happiness will not be complete. Feuerbach's position presupposes a certain morality that stands before his rational egoism. From Feuerbach's point of view, caring about the object of love for purely pragmatic reasons, nevertheless, this object must be the same. This imposes certain moral obligations arising from the need to take into account each other’s weaknesses, forgive mutual shortcomings, and mutual support.
The pragmatic position is dangerous because in it the grounds of love turn out to be purely selfish. If selfishness, personal happiness and, ultimately, pleasure form the basis of love, there is a danger of rejecting love altogether as an unnecessary feeling, while preserving the other only as an object of one’s own pleasure. From everything it follows that if the pragmatic moment of love does not lose its metaphysical meaning, then this elevates a person in his personal merits, for which he can be loved. Love is a breakthrough to another person through a lot of obstacles. created by life. A necessary premise of love is respect for a person as a person, seeing him as a unique spiritual being. Here, metaphysical and pragmatic characteristics interact in the form of equal components, one of which strengthens the other in an avalanche-like manner. It seems that the feeling of love increases constantly until love itself is completely destroyed.
2. The meaning of life
In ancient times, questions arose in the human mind that were related to understanding the meaning of one’s existence and determining a person’s place in life. Who am I? Why am I? Who are we? Why am I living? What do I want from life? Every person thinks about this, everyone has their own scale of values, it is impossible to give specific advice here, because these questions are of a personal, even intimate nature, and therefore a person must decide on them independently, look for his own solution.
2.1 Basic concepts of the meaning of life
In any ethical system there are always ideas about the meaning of life. The meaning of life for Socrates is in the reasonable content of the “art of living”; for Plato, the concept of the meaning of life is associated with the idea of the highest good. The meaning of life is in perfect activity - according to Aristotle. In keeping the commandments and striving for divine perfection - in Jesus Christ.
Quite conventionally, in the history of ethics we can distinguish three approaches to the question of the meaning of life: pessimistic, skeptical, optimistic. The pessimistic approach consists of denying any meaning to life. Life is perceived as a meaningless series of suffering, evil, illness, death. A pessimistic approach to the meaning of life often leads a person to a fatal step - suicide. Moreover, exalted romantic natures take their own lives in order to do something “out of spite”, to prove to parents, teachers, those around them their dignity, that they are right. This is cruelty and frivolity, first of all, in relation to oneself, in relation to one’s own unique and only real concrete life.
A skeptical approach to understanding the meaning of life is associated with the presence of doubt about the meaning and significance of earthly existence.
Skepticism is expressed in excessive caution, suspicion of everything unusual and peculiar; in fear of action, in inaction. In the absence of any activity.
An optimistic approach to the question of the meaning of life is expressed in the recognition of life as the highest value and the possibility of its realization. Optimism in the approach to understanding the meaning of life requires turning first of all to life itself, the sphere of basic human desires and interests. The meaning of life is to get maximum pleasure.
2.2 Meaning, meaning and purpose in life
Apparently, the most optimal approach to interpreting the meaning of life is the view that the meaning of human existence lies in love.
People consider love in general and the love of men and women in particular to be the meaning of their lives. It is believed that this point of view was first most fully formulated by L. Feuerbach. He believed that all people at all times and in all circumstances have an unconditional and obligatory right to happiness, but society is not able to satisfy this right equally for everyone. Only in love did Feuerbach see the only means of satisfying every person’s desire for happiness. Of course, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of love in a person’s life. However, the philosophy and ethics of the 19th century comes to the conclusion that love cannot be the only meaning of life - despite all the importance of love as the most important element of a person’s personal life. Modern philosophy, primarily psychoanalysis, makes it possible to clarify some socio-psychological mechanisms of the formation of an individual’s idea of the meaning of life. Philosophers believe that a person’s desire to find and realize the meaning of life is an expression of a special kind of orienting need. This is an innate tendency. It is inherent in all people and is the main driver of behavior and personality development. The need to find and realize the meaning of life is formed under the influence of:
a) the conditions in which the child’s initial activity takes place: the child’s actions must correspond not only to specific practical actions, but also to the requirements that adults impose on the child;
b) the expectations of the individual himself regarding the results of his activities, practical experience;
c) requirements and expectations of the environment, group;
d) personal desire to be useful to others;
d) the individual’s requirements for himself.
A person must believe in the meaning that his actions have, and the meaning requires its implementation.
The meaning of a person’s life is determined by a system of certain higher values. These are values: transcendental, socio-cultural and personal life values.
Transcendental values are ideas:
b) about the absolute principles that underlie the universe;
c) about the system of moral absolutes.
Transcendent values allow a person to comprehend his life and death, give meaning to life, they unite people into society.
Socio-cultural values are:
a) political ideals;
b) history of the country;
c) the culture of the country;
d) traditions, language, etc.
A person can see the meaning of his life in serving the Motherland and its culture.
The values of a person’s personal life are:
a) idea of health, healthy way life;
b) the values of creativity, the main way of implementation of which is work, as well as the success, fame, and prestige that accompanies it;
c) love and sensuality, family life, children.
Having meaning in life is a positive emotional state that is accompanied by:
presence of a goal;
awareness of one’s importance in relationships with other people;
acceptance of the existing world order, recognition of it as good;
awareness of one’s place in the world, one’s calling.
At the same time, finding meaning does not mean realizing it. A person will never know until his last breath whether he has truly succeeded in realizing the meaning of his life.
There is a distinction between the meaning of life and meaningfulness.
Meaning presupposes an objective assessment, a meaningful criterion.
Meaningfulness is a subjective attitude towards one’s life, awareness of its meaning.
Realizing the meaning of your life means finding “your place in the sun.” The concept of purpose is closely related to the awareness of meaning. A goal is a certain milestone, and the meaning of life is not the final goal, but the general line that defines the goals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the following should be noted. It is quite natural that there are different points of view on the problems of love and the meaning of life. Sometimes these points of view are mutually exclusive. But it is important to remember that in these issues of moral life, a significant role is played by the belief that, after all, love and the meaning of life exist. Without this faith (even weak) human life will become too painful and burdensome.
A person’s life is filled with meaning, becomes meaningful, worthy of a person when it is useful to others, when a person engages in his work with pleasure and complete dedication, when his existence is imbued with love, moral goodness and justice. Following N. Berdyaev, one can exclaim: “We don’t know what the meaning of our life is. But the search for this meaning is the meaning of life.”
Bibliography
1. Golubeva G.A. Ethics. Textbook/ G.A. Golubeva M.: Publishing house "Exam" 2005 - 320 p. (Series textbook for universities)
2. Razin A.V. Ethics. Textbook for universities. 2nd ed. M.: Academic Project 2004 - 624 p. (Classical university textbook)
3. Popov L.A. Ethics. Course of lectures M.: Center 1998.
4. Schopenhauer A. Selected works M.: Education, 1993.- 479 p.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
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 There is “justification and salvation of individuality through the sacrifice of egoism.”
Egoism is generally destructive to the individual and unproductive as a principle of relationships. The lie and evil of egoism, Soloviev believes, consist in the exclusive recognition of unconditional value 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 unfair attitude.
Love exists recognition of the unconditional value of another - and not in the abstract consciousness, but in the inner feeling and will of life. “Love is important not as one of our feelings, but as a transfer of all our vital interest from ourselves to another, as a rearrangement of the very center of our personal life,” wrote Vl. Soloviev. Thus, he closely connects the meaning of love with overcoming selfishness:“Love is the self-negation of a being, its affirmation of another; by this self-negation its highest self-affirmation is realized. The absence of self-denial, or love, that is, egoism, is not a real self-affirmation of a 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.
While seemingly affirming his persona, 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 spiritual being consists in overcoming egoism, in establishing oneself in another. “Love, as the real abolition of egoism, is the real justification and salvation of individuality. Love is... an inner saving force that elevates, and does not abolish, individuality.”
As Solovyov believes, “love’s own immediate task” is to lead “to a real and inextricable union of two lives into one,” so that such a combination of two specific beings is established that would create from them absolute personality, true man as a free unity of masculine and feminine principles, preserving 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 disadvantages of one be compensated by the advantages
another? Will the gap between the shortcomings of one and the other be closed? And in general, does such love exist as Vl. Soloviev imagines it, 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” himself thinks about this: “So, if you look only at the actual outcome of love, then you 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 only on the grounds 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 was 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 relations he deduces three types of love .
First, love that gives more than it receives - descending Love. In the first case, this 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” relationships, it creates the concept of “fatherland”.
Secondly, love that receives more than it gives - ascending Love. 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.
Thirdly, when both balanced. The emotional basis of the third type of love is the fullness of vital reciprocity, which is achieved in sexual love; here pity and reverence are combined with a feeling of shame and create a new spiritual appearance of a person.
At the same time, Vl. Soloviev believed that “sexual love and reproduction of the species are in an inverse relationship with each other: the stronger one is, the weaker the other.” He deduced the following dependencies from this: strong love very often remains unrequited; with reciprocity, strong passion often leads to a tragic end, leaving no offspring; happy love, if it is very strong, it also usually remains sterile.
Love for Solovyov is not only subjective experience but also active invasion of life. Just 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 transformation of the social and natural environment is accomplished.
Soloviev sees love five possible paths development- two false and three true.
The first false path of love is “hellish” - painful unrequited passion.
The second, also false - “animal” - indiscriminate satisfaction of sexual desire.
The third way (the first true one) is marriage.
The fourth is asceticism.
The highest, fifth path is Divine love, when what appears before us is not a gender - “half a person”, but a whole person in a combination of male and female principles. In this case, the person becomes 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 measure. But how and with what is possible measure love! An all-consuming passion, offspring, or something else? This is very difficult to determine. And no one could do this as accurately as St. Augustine, who said: “The measure of love is love without measure.”
4. Love as “the answer to the problem of human existence”
Modern ideas about love are based on the fact that any theory of love must begin with the question of the essence of man and his existence. And this question, in turn, is connected with another: how to overcome one’s separateness, how to go beyond one’s own individual life and find unity with another. This question was already relevant for primitive man who lived in caves; it remains just as relevant for modern man, because its basis remains the same: human situation, conditions of human existence. It is in this “human situation”, in the very essence of man - in his desire for unity E. Fromm sees the origins of love.
The fact is that the experience of separation gives rise to anxiety, he believes. To be separated means to be rejected, helpless, unable to master the world, unable to realize one's human powers. However, the unity achieved in working together, - not interpersonal; the union achieved in sexual ecstasy is transitory; unity achieved in adaptation to another is only pseudo-unity.
The complete “answer to the problem of human existence” lies in achieving a very special, unique type of unity - merging with another person while maintaining one’s own individuality. It is this type of interpersonal unity that is achieved in love, which unites a person with others, helping him overcome feelings of isolation and loneliness. At the same time, love “allows a person to remain himself, to maintain his integrity. In love there is a paradox: two beings become one and at the same time remain two” (E. Fromm).
Love is not a happy accident or a fleeting episode, but art, requiring self-improvement, dedication, readiness for action and self-sacrifice from a person. This is exactly what Erich Fromm talks about in his book “The Art of Love”. “Love is not a sentimental feeling that anyone can experience, regardless of the level of maturity they have achieved. All attempts at love are doomed to failure unless a person strives more actively to develop his whole personality in order to achieve a productive orientation; satisfaction in love cannot be achieved without the ability to love one's neighbor, without true humanity, courage, faith and discipline."
In his work, Fromm identifies five elements inherent in love. This giving, caring, responsibility, respect and knowledge.
“Loving,” he says, “is mainly about giving and not about receiving. Giving - this is the highest manifestation of power... I feel abundant, spending, alive, happy. Giving is more joyful than receiving.” For Fromm, love is not just a feeling, it is, first of all, the ability to give another the strength of one’s soul. But what does it mean give away? Although the answer to this question seems simple, it is full of ambiguity and confusion. The most widespread misconception is that to give means to give up something, to become deprived of something, to sacrifice something. This is exactly how the act of giving is perceived by a person who takes the position of authoritarian ethics and is oriented toward appropriation. He is ready to give only in exchange for something; to give without receiving anything in return means for him to be deceived.
What can one person give to another? He gives himself, the most precious thing he has, he gives his life. But this does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life to another. He gives him his joy, his interest, his understanding, his knowledge, his humor, his sadness - all experiences and all manifestations of what is alive in him. This giving your life it enriches the other person, increases his sense of vitality. Moreover, he does not give in order to take in return: giving in itself can bring a feeling of pleasure. At the same time, by giving, he evokes something in the other person that comes back to him: he encourages the other person to also become a giver, and they both share the joy that they together brought to life. In the case of love, this is the force that gives rise to reciprocal love. Therefore true love is phenomenon of excess. Its prerequisite is the power of a person capable of giving.
Love is activity, action, way of self-realization. The active nature of love can be justified precisely through the assertion that to love means first of all give, but not take. At the same time, love is statement And fruitfulness. She creative Essentially, it resists destruction, conflict, and hostility. Moreover, love is a form productive activity. It involves the manifestation interest and care for the object of love, emotional response, expression of diverse feelings towards him (emotional “resonance”). That love means caring is most evident in the love of a mother for her child. No amount of assurance will convince us that she really loves if she does not take care of the child, neglects to feed him, does not bathe him, does not try to completely care for him; but when we see her care for the child, we believe in her love. This also applies to the love of animals and flowers. “Love is an active interest in life and the development of what we love” (E. Fromm) Such an aspect of love as responsibility, is a response to the expressed or unexpressed needs of a human being. To be “responsible” means to be able and willing to respond.” A loving person feels responsible for his neighbors, just as he feels responsible for himself. In love, responsibility concerns, first of all, the mental needs of another person.
Responsibility could easily degenerate into a desire for superiority and domination if there were no respect.“Respect is not fear and reverence, it is the ability to see a person as he is, to recognize his unique individuality.” Respect presupposes non-exploitation. “I want the person I love to grow and develop for himself, in his own way, and not to serve me. If I love another person, I feel oneness with him, but with him as he is, and not with him as I need him as a means to my ends.”
“It is impossible to respect a person without knowing him: care and responsibility would be blind if knowledge did not guide them.” Fromm considered love as one of the ways to understand the “secret of man,” and knowledge - as an aspect of love, which is an instrument of knowledge that allows one to penetrate to the very essence.
So love is active interest in life what or who we love. But at the same time love is also the process of self-renewal and self-enrichment. True love enhances the feeling of fullness of life and expands the boundaries of individual existence. Hegel wrote: “The true essence of love is to renounce the consciousness of oneself, to forget oneself in another Self and, however, in this same disappearance and oblivion to find oneself for the first time.” Therefore, love is unattainable for those who do not strive to develop their personality, who do not strive to achieve a productive orientation. The joy and happiness of individually targeted love is impossible without the ability to sympathize with one's neighbor, without true humanity and kindness.
According to Fromm, there are several types of love: brotherly, maternal, erotic, self-love and love of God.
Under brotherly love Fromm understands love between equals, which is based on a sense of unity. “Love begins to manifest itself only when we love those whom we cannot use for our own purposes,” writes Fromm. Mother's love, According to Fromm, this is love for a helpless creature. Erotic love is what we most often mean by the word “love,” sexual love between a man and a woman. ABOUT self love E. Fromm speaks of a feeling without experiencing which it is impossible to love someone else. Love for God Fromm interprets it as the basis of all types of love, as the progenitor of parental and erotic love. He talks about her complex structure and relationships with all facets of human consciousness. But on this, you can probably argue with him, since there are people who do not feel the need for the love of God, but they become wonderful parents, loving spouses, and wonderful friends. Perhaps because they profess a different religion - the religion of Love.
Absolutely complete, all-encompassing love organically includes all types of love. But among them the most seductive and, paradoxically, the most difficult to obtain is the species that we call "erotic love"- the love of two people for each other, love that longs for complete fusion, unity with a loved one. It is by its nature exceptional, and therefore exists not only in unity with other types of love, not only as highest moral value, but also as real earthly attitude and attraction as a relatively independent desire and need. And at the same time, it itself is so diverse and unpredictable that it requires a separate analysis.
