Collapse

Numerology

Christian love. The doctrine of love in the context of Christian anthropology The Christian concept of love

Numerology - 29.11.2021

- 79.50 Kb

INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY "VISION"

Branch F 00149 ukr 97

ON THE TOPIC: "Love as a key concept of Christian ethics"

COURSE: "Ethics in Leadership"

3rd year students

Ivanova Irina

February 2013

INTRODUCTION 3

1. CONCEPT OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS 5

2. LOVE IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS 8

3.LOVE IN THE CHURCH 16

CONCLUSION 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY 20

INTRODUCTION

Mankind has spent a lot of time and effort trying to answer the question of what is good and what is evil; what is moral and what is immoral? For humans, this task proved beyond their strength. The man faced the same question: how to be guided in making a decision? This is a very serious problem, because at present there are many different currents in the world that are contrary to biblical teaching.

Moral truths stand closer to life. Questions about what is good and what is bad, what is the meaning of human life, are of interest to all people without exception. It should be noted that there are many different ethical standards, including Christian ones.

Modern ethical standards do not recognize the Bible as a criterion of morality, since it was written in a different time and in different cultural conditions. However, regardless of any opinions, God remains above every culture and every time. His word, which is recorded in the Bible, is relevant at all times and is applicable to all cultures. Christians can use the moral principles of the Bible in the present tense and in present conditions.

Every day, all people receive a huge amount of different information. And all this people give their assessment and express their attitude. Even something insignificant does not pass by the opinion of a person. In everyday life, people constantly deal with ethics. However, they may not be aware of it. Speaking of ethics, we mean the actions of a person and the evaluation of these actions. If you like the act, then people say that it is good. If not, then that's bad.

Ethics is getting a lot of attention these days. IN modern world almost all notions of ethics are either questioned or rejected outright. Love and ethical principles and norms are inextricably linked, both in the relationship of God with man, and in the relationship of man with man. People want to be independent and independent. The determining factor in their behavior and attitude towards life and people is selfishness, not love. Believers should be exemplars of Christian ethics. And their attitude to life and to people should be determined by the attitude of love.

The question is often asked: what does it mean to be a Christian? There are many different answers to this question. But they all come down to one thing: to be a Christian means to follow Christ in everything. God is love. And it is love that includes all the virtues. She makes every act beautiful and valuable. Actions driven by love are truly spiritual because they are determined by motive and not by result.

This paper will consider such issues as the concept of ethics and love, as a necessary component of any relationship.

1. THE CONCEPT OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

The Ozhegov dictionary gives the following definition of ethics: "ethics: a set of norms of behavior". In other words - the usual or habitual behavior. The concept of ethics and morality is inseparable. Ethics is a science that studies and confirms the moral actions of people. The way people think is reflected in their manners. At the same time, morals are determined by a certain way of thinking. From this it becomes clear that ethics is the embodiment of moral views.

The main source of Christian ethics is the Holy Scripture. "Christian ethics is the awareness of moral actions, based on what the Holy Scripture prescribes to us." The Lord is the Legislator of ethical norms and rules. A perfect God has given humanity a perfect standard that remains the same throughout the history of the earth.

Dr. Ronald L. Bernier, in his book Shades of Grey, writes: “The task of Christian ethics is to determine what is consistent with

God's character and what not. Thus, the starting point of Christian ethics is not the rules, but the image of Christ and the formation of the church in accordance with His image. The highest good for man is the fulfillment of God's will.

Christian ethics believes that not only the attitude towards others is important, but also the internal state of a person, his motivation. She is God-centered. Christian ethics teaches not to sin. To act morally means to act in accordance with the standards set by God. Knowing these norms, a person himself makes a choice of how to act and bears responsibility for this choice. This choice is considered from the position of good and evil.

People, having passed some part of their life path in the sinful world, have gained negative experience: hatred, revenge, envy. They learned to defend themselves, to be angry, irritated, to hate and not forgive each other, to lie and envy. And when people accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they bring all this baggage with them. But now it is necessary to give all this to Jesus Christ and receive love from Him, and learn to love from Him: “God created man in His own image. Its main law for man is that man be a reflection of the image of God and become like God in his character, demonstrating love that fulfills His covenants, fidelity that fulfills obligations, reliable truthfulness, concern for society, expressed in justice, and a balanced order with a passionate desire to correct abuses; and a righteousness that seeks to act honestly and responsibly in all relationships.”

The apostle Paul wrote about the Old Testament commandments that they were necessary so that people could determine what sin is: “But we know that the law, if it says anything, speaks to those under the law, so that every mouth is stopped, and the whole world becomes guilty before God, because no flesh will be justified before Him by the works of the law; for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:19,20).

But even the most rigorous observance of all laws and regulations cannot bring salvation. Salvation is possible only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If you carefully study world religions, you will notice that the moral principles inherent in Christianity are present in them in one form or another. The main difference is the direct participation of God in the salvation of mankind. The worldview of the followers of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of the Living God came from Heaven to earth in the flesh. He endured suffering for the sins of all mankind, was crucified and resurrected. The life of Christ, His behavior and attitude towards others is an example for His followers. Christian ethics is not a set of rules and not a system of theoretical principles, but the consciousness and principle of Christian life changed by the light of God's Word: “To act on the basis of a principle means not to fall into the trap of feelings, sensations, emotions, needs, desires. It means, based on the Word of God, to base your life on what is right and not on what is wrong.”

Ethics is the science of the correct attitude of a person to God, to other people and to his life path. The main ethical principle in man's relationship with God is love for Him. The very first and most important commandment says: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength" (Mark 12:30). The main ethical principle in relationships with other people is love for people. Ethics is the core of spiritual development. It is around this rod that everything else is formed and grows, which forms spiritual man: knowledge, skills, spiritual and mental abilities and other qualities. The basis of ethics is love.

2. LOVE IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Often people in building relationships are repelled from the wrong starting point - from themselves. And this is a very common mistake. Such a focus on oneself is not capable of building ethically correct, loving relationships with people. Man is not the author of the universe. Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Life writes: “Many people try to use God as a means of self-realization, but this is completely contrary to the natural course of events and therefore doomed to failure. We are made for God, not the other way around, and life is about letting God work His purposes in and through us, not about taking advantage of Him.”

The Lord Jesus Christ saw how much a person is focused on himself. Concern for one's own well-being, for food, for clothing, obscured God. Therefore, the Lord taught: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). God is the only source of life. Therefore, to seek His righteousness and His Kingdom is to seek His reign in the life of a Christian. This is a very important and responsible truth, by accepting which a person finds peace with God, joy and peace. The Scripture says, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). Love is the center of God's nature. God has perfect love for all of His creation, without exception. God's love is an act of God's will, not just an emotion. The Almighty loved mankind so much that, despite disobedience, He gave a chance for salvation by giving His Son as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of people. Jesus Christ, possessing the full divine character of the Father, went to death not out of a sense of duty or responsibility, but guided solely by love. And to his disciples and followers He gave the command to love one another: “I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved you, [so] let you also love one another” (John 13:34). Jesus also emphasized, outlined the main rule of communication in the spiritual family: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Both obedience to God and observance of His ethical standards must come from a heart full of love.

Ethical standards are determined by the character of the Lord. The properties of God's character express His nature, His essence. God endowed man with the ability to live and act in love: "Because the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who was given to us" (Rom. 5:5). A person who has given his life to Jesus Christ learns along the way to live in love and act in love. This is not a very easy task. There are many disappointments and falls along the way. But a loving God has provided for each person a chance to get out of failure and continue the path anew. God always gives the sincerely repentant sinner a chance to be reformed and re-formed. His touch to a person is the touch of love. The ethics of love never destroys. The ethics of love has only creative power.

Salvation is the beginning of a close relationship with God that builds and deepens over time. God wants people to love Him, to respond to His love. And the more Christians grow in the knowledge of God, the more comes the realization that God gave all that He could give when He sacrificed His Only Son in order to forgive the sins of people. The great sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the highest manifestation of God's love of God for His creation. “God allowed Jesus to become human so that He could fully experience His own creation and then free man from self-blame and shame, a form of bondage that comes from admitting one's own sins. But when a person looks at his sins in the light of what Jesus did, then this process leads to peace and the ability to grow in God.

The Word of God says: "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). If Christians love Jesus Christ, then love itself will push them automatically to live and act according to His commandments. The commandments that could not be fulfilled by people living in the times of the Old Testament become fulfillable thanks to the power of God's love that fills people. It is no coincidence that God placed in Scripture examples of how His love, His intervention brought people back to God's original plan. Scripture tells how Peter was destroyed when he denied Christ. Paul was destroyed by pharisaic self-righteousness. And today, sin and disobedience to God's will, His plan are destroying Christians, leading them away from God's original plan.

Ethical precepts in general say that relations between people should be built in love, mercy and justice. These commandments contain the principle of equality of people before God and their responsibility before Him for their actions towards other people. Love, as a key concept of Christian ethics, exists not only in the relationship between God and man, it is also relevant in the relationship between man and man.

A new Christian comes to church, to God's family, in the hope of finding peace, rest, and purpose in life. People afflicted with sin are destroyed. Many people are driven by guilt. Guilt keeps people in the past, preventing them from living in the present, dreaming and making plans for the future. A person driven by guilt unconsciously gives his life to this feeling. Love and ethics are the two essential qualities of a Christian to help a broken person enter God's destiny.

Only God's love, poured into the hearts of people by the Holy Spirit, is able to lead a person out of the impasse of problems and failures into God's destiny.

Love meets all the requirements of Christian ethics: “Love is long-suffering, merciful, love does not envy, love does not exalt itself, is not proud, does not behave violently, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Love has no selfish roots, it is always ready to give. God set an inimitable example of love by giving His Son. God's love didn't look like a fun stroll through the Garden of Eden. The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth to become a sacrifice for sin and to redeem mankind from the power of sin. God gave the Son to win man.

When Jesus was asked about the first of all commandments, Jesus replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength ... Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Mark 12: 30.31). In the Kingdom of God absolutely everything and everything comes down to this truth. This is why Jesus commanded His disciples to love one another as He loves. For His disciples, this simple teaching was the new foundation upon which the rest of spiritual truths would be built.

Description of work

The ethical norms and moral foundations of the inhabitants of the earth changed depending on the time in which they lived, on the place where they lived and on the environment. In a society of people, ethical norms peculiar to these communities were formed. Evaluation of actions by the majority was a measure and determined the boundaries of morality. But human ethics are far from God's moral principles. Unregenerate people could not create such ethical norms that would save society from destruction. Deprived of the glory of God, people were exposed to sin and death. Sin has perverted the path of man, and leads him to a dead end of non-fulfillment of God's purpose.

Introduction

1. The concept of love in the historical aspect

2. A New Image of Love in the Gospel

3. Love is like a silent song to God

4. Transformations in the ethics of the "ethical status" of love

5. Christian love is a gift of the Holy Spirit

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Love is the basis of the Christian life, the basis of Salvation.

Love is the soul of world life. Without love, the mind mortifies and even righteousness frightens. True Christian righteousness is in the unity of love and truth, according to the words of the Psalmist: Mercy and truth meet, righteousness and peace kiss each other. In this unity, love is guided by truth, and truth is revealed in love. Love for a fallen creation moved God the Father to save the world lying in evil: For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. The all-earthly deeds of the Son of God from the Incarnation to death on the cross that served to deliver people from sin, damnation and death.

The Christian concept of love, as it was expressed in the New Testament, combining Judaic and ancient traditions, highlights self-sacrifice, care, and giving in the understanding of love. The care born of Platonic eros or Aristotelian philia was due to a special attitude towards this particular person, who became beloved due to his beauty.

In this paper, we will consider in detail the concept of the Christian understanding of love.

1. The concept of love in the historical aspect

A common point of view is that antiquity, up to the late Stoics, knows nothing like the commandment of love. Associated with this is (and is associated with) the opinion that ancient ethics is primarily a social ethics of justice; that justice is enough for her and that she does not pay much attention to humanity. Antique ethics really par excellence - the ethics of justice. And as such, ancient ethics was a social, socially oriented ethics. However, in this certainty, ethics was conditioned by the nature of sociality itself in the era of classical antiquity. This is a sociality that asserted itself in opposition to the clan, individual willfulness, tyrannical arbitrariness. Under these conditions, humanity can be conceived as primarily conformity to the law, i.e. in socially predetermined forms of behavior. Meanwhile, lawfulness is not limited to the space imperative in classical antiquity.

It is an undoubted historical and ideological fact that both Platonic love-eros and Aristotelian love-philia carry an important imperative value content that directly opens the prospect to the formula of love-agape. It has become commonplace for any discussion of love, and not only popular ones, to begin with a description of the differences between these ancient concepts of love. But these are the very differences that are mediated by a fundamental commonality.

According to Iamblichus of Chalkis, we owe the word "friendship-philia" to Pythagoras. Pythagoras called friendship the union of everything with everything, including man with man. Friendship is a universal connecting force in Cosmos. In some ways, Confucian jen (humanity) is similar to Pythagorean friendship: this is the property of human nature, thanks to which a person is connected with everything - with people, with animals, with nature. In the formula of the unity of heaven, earth and man, V.S. Solovyov saw a comprehensive truth.

We know the Platonic definition of love as “the thirst for integrity and striving for it”, given in the “Feast” (193a) through the lips of Aristophanes, who anticipates his myth about the androgyny of the first people with this formula. In love, everyone finds their own unique other self, in conjunction with which harmony is found. Xenophon's Socrates, preoccupied with the need for a strict distinction between spiritual love and sensual love, points out: It is with spiritual love that “people love each other mutually”, look “one at the other with pleasure”, talk with benevolence, show "trust to each other" and take care of "each other", etc. (Mem, 8, 17-19).

In love, a person joins the Good, Cosmos, eternity. Speaking about Eros, Plato builds a hierarchy of beauty in the "Feast", in the context of which the meaning of "Platonic love" as aspiration to the sublime and beautiful is clarified. Both Plato's Socrates (in "Phaedrus") and Xenophon's (in "Feast") consistently pursue the idea that the peculiarities of love of a particular lover are found not in what he feels, but in how he relates to his beloved and what reciprocal feelings he evokes. Eros is a fundamental cognitive and creative force. In love for another person is affirmed, he renews himself through another, is reborn and acquires immortality.

So, behind the Platonic doctrine of sublime love-eros, a certain ethical paradigm is visible, which is determined and mediated by the attitude towards the "neighbor" by the relation to the higher. This paradigm can be called sympathetic-perfectionist. The same paradigm of ethics is in Aristotle's teaching of love-friendship. The doctrine of friendship has an important place in the structure of the Aristotelian Ethics. It begins with the doctrine of the highest good, then continues with a discussion of how a person should be in order to correspond to the highest good, then with a reasoning about how a person should relate to himself, then about how a person should relate to other people (and so the doctrine of friendship), and at the end it is explained what the blessedness of such, i.e. virtuous, temperate and friendly person.

The essential content of friendship, the content of friendship in the proper sense of the word, lies in special - virtuous and morally beautiful - relationships. Friendship in the narrow sense of the word is, in fact, precisely those relationships in which a person consistently and to the end manifests himself as virtuous. What is this relationship? In friendship people do good to each other; and vice versa, people do good primarily to friends. A friend is valuable to a friend in itself.

Obviously, both in content and even in form, the Aristotelian “formula” of friendship is very close to the commandment of love (in the “Rhetoric” the theme of friendship directly follows the theme of mercy and precedes the theme of beneficence), however, in its Old Testament content: friendly disposition (or, what is the same, love - philein) is considered to be common only to really and potentially close ones, but among those, among others, those who do not remember insults and are always ready for reconciliation are mentioned.

In the further development of the philosophical doctrine of friendship, the concentration of purely ethical characteristics is preserved in full. So, according to Epicurus, despite the fact that friendship is an indispensable condition for happiness and one of the fundamental foundations of the blessed life of a sage, it is what is desired for its own sake. And according to the Stoics, friendship is a form of relationship based on free will and virtue. To say about someone that they are friends, noted Epictetus, means to indicate that they are honest and just. Whether those who are together are capable of friendship or not depends on where they place themselves and their benefit - in free will, in themselves or outside. Friendship is autonomous: accompanying relatives, family relations or comradeship, it does not depend on them, because it is not kinship or comradeship that distinguishes friendship, honesty, conscience and devotion to the beautiful (Diss. II, 22, 30). in Seneca it is specified in connection with trust: a friend should be accepted wholeheartedly and trusted in him as in oneself (Epist. III, 2).

Christian concept of love, as it was expressed in the New Testament, combining Judaic and ancient traditions, highlights self-sacrifice, care, giving in the understanding of love. The care born of Platonic eros or Aristotelian philia was determined by a special attitude towards this particular person, who became beloved due to his beauty. Christian merciful (agapic) love is not the result of personal sympathy or admiration for others. It actualizes the kindness of a person, potentially contained in him and before meeting with this particular person; At the same time, it is the neighbor with his specific worries and problems that turns out to be loved in the original love for the neighbor. Therefore, Christian love for one's neighbor, in principle, excludes hatred: it is impossible to love one and hate the other. The most significant thing in the Christian understanding of love was that it also included forgiveness and love for enemies.

In the Christian understanding of love-agape just as in the Platonic understanding of love-eros, the relation to the highest and the relation to the neighbor are combined. However, the ancient "sympathetic-perfectionist" paradigm of ethics develops into a "perfectionist-altruistic" one; however, its beginnings can be traced already in Aristotelian teaching about friendship. If the "sacrament of love" in Plato's "Feast" consisted in the fact that, thanks to eros, a person can ascend the hierarchy of beauty and perfection from the lowest (love for a single beautiful body) to the highest (love for the highest good), then in Christianity, love for God predetermines and at least least mediates love for one's neighbor.

At the same time, if I may say so, the ethization of love-agape takes place. After all, the eros of antiquity does not simply transform into the agape of Christianity. There is also a significant change in the modality of love. True, Socrates in Plato and Xenophon only superficially does not pretend to be more than a description of love. The already accentuated distinction between the earthly Aphrodite (common people) and the heavenly Aphrodite, played up by both Plato and Xenophon (and later by the Neoplatonists), indicates that not all that love is worthy of what people consider love: there is beautiful love (to the soul, to the eternal, to immortality, to God), and as such it is due. Thus, in a certain sense, the "ethics of love" is contained in the ancient theories of love. The Christian theory of love is initially formalized as an ethic. Christianity explicitly and insistently prescribes love. Agape (caritas) becomes the fundamental principle of Christian ethics.

love christian friendship gospel

2. The New Image of Love in the Gospel

The New Testament declared love to be the main law in the relationship between man and God. Love, unlike worship and fear, is a mutual relationship. According to Christian ideas, God loves people, and He fully showed His love by sending His Son into the world. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him,” says the Gospel of John (Jn 3:16-17). "... God proves His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us..." (Rom. 5:8). The following words of Jesus addressed to people also testify to the new attitude of the Christian toward God: “My friends, if you do what I command you.” “I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have told you everything that I have heard from my Father” (Jn 15:14-15).

Another important feature of the Christian understanding of love is the requirement to love "neighbor". And the notion of the near, related to old testament only to the "sons of Israel", Jesus extends to all people, regardless of their belonging to one or another people. At a farewell conversation with his disciples (“Last Supper”), Jesus more than once mentions, as if giving a testament before parting, the duty of brotherly love: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; as I have loved you, let you also love one another; By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35).

According to the New Testament, love for one's neighbor is a necessary condition for love for God, a step towards Him. "... For he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see?" (1 Jn 4:20). Love for neighbor includes, above all, love for relatives, children, and wives. The Apostle Paul calls: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her..." (Eph 5:25). However, love for neighbors, even for relatives, should not obscure the main thing - love for God. Jesus tells his disciples: “Think not that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, for I came to divide a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. And the enemies of a man are his household. Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Love must occupy a higher place in the Christian soul than even faith. The Corinthian apostle Paul wrote about this: “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love, then I am a ringing brass or a sounding cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but I do not have love, it does not profit me at all.

Affirming love as the highest Christian virtue, the apostle John appealed to people: “Beloved! let us love one another, because love is from God… He who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 Jn 4:7-8).

The Christian ideal of love had a huge impact on the worldview of Europeans, although for two thousand years it did not become the daily norm for everyone, but remained an ideal.

3. Love as a silent song to God

The deep division between Christianity and paganism in the understanding of love is clearly seen in the writings of Augustine Aurelius (354-430), one of the first Christian philosophers.

He draws a sharp line between love and lust (lust). Love he calls the desire of the soul to enjoy God for its own sake, as well as oneself and one's neighbors - for the sake of God. On the contrary, lust, according to Augustine, is the desire to enjoy oneself and one's neighbor not for the sake of God. True love is like a song dedicated to God; it can be sung in silence, because love itself is a voice to God.

Speaking of carnal desires, Augustine does not call them the word "love", but only "lust", "lust". He considers sexual intercourse obscene because "the movement of copulating organs ... disobeys the human will." The person himself is guilty of the fact that his flesh is not always obedient to him, because “it would be unfair if the slave, that is, the flesh, obeyed the one who himself does not obey his Lord!”

Only matrimony and procreation can serve as some justification for "voluptuousness", although matrimony still does not turn vice into good. Augustine gives the following comparison: if the lame man stumbles to something good, then this arrival is not evil because of his lameness, but the lameness does not become good due to the benefit of the arrival. A person, entering into a carnal relationship, is only unconquered by vice when he curbs and humbles disorderly, obscene movements and uses them only for childbearing.

Augustine calls debauchery not carnal desires and their satisfaction, but unbridled desires, greedy for carnal pleasures. Thus, drinking and eating, necessary for bodily health, can turn into gluttony when they become an end in themselves. "... Pleasure is a dangerous companion..." "... That which is enough for health is not enough for pleasure." The danger of pleasures is that because of them a person can remain ignorant of true Love (ie God). After all, “the one who loves something else and loves not for Your sake loves You a little.”

Carnal desires Augustine compares to the glue on the wings, which does not allow you to fly. It is necessary to clean the wings of this glue in order to rise into the sky. Only in a pure heart is there a place for the Creator. A pure heart, open to love, leads to God more surely than rational knowledge. According to Augustine, any love (for mother, friend, beauty, knowledge) only has a real value when it sees the creation of God in everything and is directed through the creation to the Creator. “If the bodies are pleasing to you, praise God for them and turn your love to their master… If the souls are pleasing, let them be loved in God…” “The good that you love is from Him, and since it is with Him, it is good and sweet but it will become bitter—and justly—because it is not fair to love the good and leave the One who gave it good.”7 When in our inclinations and attachments we forget about the Creator of what we love, inevitable bitterness lies in wait for us; after all, everything earthly is changeable and mortal, therefore the soul, bound by love to someone that is mortal, is unhappy. “Only he does not lose anything dear to whom everything is dear to the One Who cannot be lost.” We should not lament over the death of a friend, the death of a mother - the immortal God embraces everything, and, loving God, we do not lose our love connection with them. “Nothing is far from God,” Augustine recalls the words of his mother, a sincere Christian; therefore, when she died,” he describes, “we thought it inappropriate to mark this death with tearful lamentations: after all, they usually mourn the bitter lot of the dead and, as it were, their complete disappearance. And for her death was not bitter, and in general for her there was no death. Love, sanctified by God, knows no loss, only it brings blissful peace to a person.

As you can see, the Christian understanding of love is significantly different from the ancient one. From the ancient Greek interpretations of love, the Christian doctrine adopted only "agape" - love for one's neighbor, moreover, having invested more broad sense in the concept of "near". The Platonic theory of ascent from lower to higher eros was rejected by the Christian worldview: eroticism began to be regarded not as a step up, but as a swamp that can only suck in. (Note, however, that Augustine, in his Confessions, actually describes how gradually, in overcoming "lower inclinations", his own ascent to God took place, but Augustine himself does not seem to attach value to the steps by which he ascended.)

It would be wrong, however, to think that Christianity only narrowed the sphere of love. It formed a new ideal - love for God and selfless, unlustful, brotherly love for all people. This ideal later became the basis for the emergence of a new type of love - the love of a person for a person, which in the modern world is called "true love".

Along with religious ideals, in the Middle Ages, the ideal of “knightly” love was also formed, which in many ways was not similar to “canonical” Christian love. We will not dwell on this aspect; those who are interested can recommend the book by M. Ossovskaya.

4. Transformations in the ethics of the "ethical status" of love

This is a change in the "ethical status" of love, i.e. the place and role of the concept of love in ethics stimulated changes within the broader ethical knowledge. And in Platonism, and especially in Neoplatonism, love-eros was considered as a powerful cognitive and creative force. Augustine perceives this tradition of understanding eros as a mystical faculty of knowledge: it is not knowledge of the mind; it is knowledge of the heart. But he connects this tradition with the doctrine of love - agape. In fact, this is where the tradition of the philosophy of the heart, rich in the European history of thought, originates. Augustine also perceives the ancient differentiated understanding of love as heavenly love (caritas) and earthly love (concupiscentia). Caritas is expressed in the desire of the soul to enjoy God for its own sake; regardless of the commandments of God.

Thomas Aquinas almost completely follows Aristotle in his interpretation of love: love always embodies the desire for good; the attitude towards something as good is the attitude of love; striving for the highest good is expressed in love for God. On the basis of this, in the philosophical understanding of love, the variety of imperative-motivational and value bases for self-determination of the individual is clarified. Bernard of Clairvaux conducts a more subtle differentiation of the varieties of love. Heavenly and earthly love is not just love for God and love for oneself: love for oneself can flow from self-love as such, or be inspired exclusively by God's love for man distinguishes love for oneself; selfish love for God; and love for God may be out of selfishness, or it may combine selfishness with striving for God for its own sake. Selfishness and mercy appear rooted in the same source; mercy is the result of the purification of love from all forms of selfishness.

In the Renaissance, the theme of love splits and develops in the spirit of either neoplatonist-mystical or hedonistic eroticism. This splitting of love themes is also preserved in the philosophy of the New Age. Thanks to the first trend in the understanding of love, supported, in particular, by M. Ficino, G. Bruno, B. Pascal, the ideas developed in the philosophy of eros were translated into the philosophy of morality. So, B. Pascal (following Bruno and, before, Augustine), counting love driving force knowledge, considered the "logic of the heart" as the basis of truth; It is in love that a person ascends to the highest forms of knowledge - the knowledge of God. Already in ethical sentimentalism, the heart as a moral feeling (for Shaftesbury and Hutcheson) or conscience (for J. Butler) was considered as the main ability in moral knowledge.

In rationalism, on the contrary, the cognitive function of love is disavowed and, as a result, love is forced into the area of “insignificance”. R. Descartes consistently separated love from the sphere of knowledge, and, making a distinction between love-benevolence and love-lust, gave it a place exclusively in the sphere of passions. At the same time, Descartes retains an understanding of love, essential for European thought, as an embodied integrity, in which a person includes, along with himself, another person (unlike hatred, in which a person considers himself as a whole, completely separated from another); in love, the other is treated disinterestedly (in the sense disinterestedly) and benevolently, the other represents a value in itself. According to the intensity of the manifestation of these characteristics, Descartes distinguished between love-affection (the object of love is valued less than oneself), love-friendship (the other is valued on an equal basis with oneself) and love-reverence (the object of love is valued more than oneself). B. Spinoza also considered love in a sensationalistic context: love is a pleasure that a person experiences by perceiving some external object. However, unlike Descartes, Spinoza believed that the desire of the lover to unite with the beloved thing is the non-essence of L., but only its property and its manifestation.

It seems that it is Spinoza's understanding of love as pleasure and sensation that I. Kant has in mind, denying behind love the possibility of being an object of desire, and even more so of obligation. Thus, Kant places love outside of morality (duty): love is not sane. But behind such an attitude to love is a certain understanding of morality as an exclusively imperative sphere. What is not subject to imputation on the basis of the imperative does not apply to morality. At the same time, Kant finally reveals the tendency of the new European thought to extrapolate the essential characteristics that were initially identified already in antiquity in the analysis of friendship and love, to morality and personality. The second practical principle of the categorical imperative, in its sublated form, contains the characteristics of not only Christian love-agape, but also Aristotelian love-philia, and Platonic love-eros: according to the categorical imperative, one must treat the other as well as a goal, i.e. for its own sake. However, what can practically mean the attitude to the other as a value in itself, if not the attitude of care, giving and love?

Similar content is also found in Hegel's disclosure of the concept of freedom as the identity of me with the other - free and freely recognized by me as free, as a state, in which "I, reflecting into myself, is directly reflected by the other, and vice versa, I become directly related to myself relating to the other." Hegel, perhaps implicitly, but with great attention to the tradition of the philosophy of love (which could be felt already in his early works). We can also find direct evidence of the migration of ideas that interests us. It was thanks to the Christian doctrine of love-agape, he believed, that the concept of personal freedom enters the European tradition: "This idea came into the world thanks to Christianity, according to which the individual as such has infinite value, since he is the subject and goal of God's love." But without this idea, the new European concept of morality is inconceivable.

However, along with the assimilation in the concept of morality of ideas developed in relation to the concepts of friendship and love, changes occur with these concepts themselves. The concept of morality gradually develops over the course of the 18th century. But this is exactly the time when the problem of friendship and love recedes into the background in philosophy: the experience of interhuman relations, which was rationalized and generalized in terms of friendship and love, receives a different, broader and more abstract conceptual expression - in the concept of morality. Friendship and love seem to be no longer mentioned in philosophical reasoning, if we are talking about morality. In particular, this concerns the concept of friendship - it completely ceases to be that important and special subject in moral and philosophical considerations, as it was, according to A. Schopenhauer, among the ancient philosophers). But on the basis of the "import" from the concepts of "friendship" and "love" into the concept of "morality" of the essential content characteristics of human relations, a reverse movement of ideas occurs: in the modern consciousness, friendship and love are such phenomena of human relations that bear the sanction of morality, are morally justified - justified by the fact that they seem to contain the qualities imputed by morality.

5. Christian love is a gift of the holy spirit

Let us consider the understanding of love as the highest virtue for salvation from the point of view of theological analysis.

Love in the Christian understanding is a gift of the Holy Spirit, according to the words of the Apostle Paul: The love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us (Rom. 5:5). This is that necessary gift of the Holy Spirit, without which the Christian faith and life are generally impossible. In his “Hymn to Love”, the Apostle Paul irrefutably testifies to the superiority of love over all other virtues bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, for without love they have no value and do not lead a person to Salvation: If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love, then I - melodzvenshaya or cymbal sounding. If I have the gift of prophecy, and I know all mysteries, and I have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it does not profit me at all (1 Cor. 13: 1-3).

Thus, veranasha, and statutory piety, and theological knowledge, and even the gifts of wonderworking and prophecy - all this loses all meaning, depreciates, turns into nothing if we do not have the gift of love, this defining sign of a "disciple of Christ", for the Lord Himself gave a new commandment to the apostles in a farewell conversation: I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; as I have loved you, so shall you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).

It is the gift of Divine love that creates the Church as consubstantial human souls in the image of the Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity. “The Church, says V. N. Lossky, is the image of the Holy Trinity. The Fathers constantly repeat this, the canonical rules confirm it. The gift of Divine love creates the inner, invisible, ontological side of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, without this gift there is no Church in the indicated sense of the word, and there is no Salvation. On the other hand, the Epistle of the Apostle John says: God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), that is, love is the content of Divine Life, and therefore one who has acquired Divine love, by virtue of this alone, becomes immortal, for Divine Life is not subject to death: We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers; he who does not love his brother abides in death (1 John 3:14).

So, if Christian love in its origin is a gift of God, then by its nature it is the coexistence of human souls, creating the Church as a living organism of love, as the mystical Body of Christ, or in other words, as the invisible ontological side of the Church. In His High Priestly Prayer, the Savior prayed for such unity among His disciples and all followers that exists in the Divine life. Holy Trinity: I do not only pray for them, but also for those who believe in Me, according to their word: May they all be one; as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so let them also be in Nestedine (John 17:20-21). These words clearly express the essence of Christianity: it is not some kind of abstract teaching that is accepted by the mind. Christianity is a life in which individuals, by the power of Divine Love, are united inseparably and unmerged into one multi-hypostatic Being, representing the Church from its inner, invisible side. It saves and brings into eternal life only acceptance into oneself, into one's soul. The Divine Life of the Trinitarian God, which consists in the mutual self-giving of each Hypostasis (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to each other, when each hypostatic "I" exists in another "I". This is the eternal self-denial and humility, which gives the infinite bliss of love, and to those who partake of Divine Love, the mystery of the Trinity is revealed to the extent of his participation. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky (1893-1979) wrote: “The Lord elevates the commandment of love to the mystery of Trinity unity, for this mystery is Love… We can say that the Church is an image of the Holy Trinity in creation, and therefore the revelation of the Trinity is connected with the founding of the Church.” All of the above can be summarized in the words of priest Pavel Florensky: “To love the invisible God means to passively open your heart before Him and wait for His active revelation so that the energy of Divine Love descends into the heart. “The reason for the love of God is God” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux). “On the contrary, to love a visible creature means to allow the perceived Divine energy to open up through the one who has perceived, in the outside and the one who perceives around - just as it acts in the Trinitarian Divinity itself, - to allow it to pass on to another, to a brother. For one's own human effort, loving one's brother is absolutely impossible. This is the work of the power of God. Loving, we love God and in God.

Only he who knows the Triune God can love with true love. If I did not know God, did not partake of His Being, then I do not love. And the opposite: if I love, then I have communed with God, I know Him. There is a direct relationship between knowledge and love for the creature. The center of their descent is being - oneself in God and God in oneself.

And that we have come to know Him, we learn from the fact that we keep His commandments. Whoever says, “I have known Him,” but does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and there is no truth in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him the love of God is truly perfected: by this we know that we are in him. Whoever says that he abides in Him must do as He did (1 John 2:3-6). But as yet this co-existence of God and man is a position of free faith, and not a fact of coercive-dominant experience. The Epistles of John are devoted almost exclusively to this dependence.

Everyone who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7). This is not only a change or an improvement, or an improvement, no, it is precisely the procession from God, communion with the Holy One. The lover was reborn or born a second time - into a new life, he became a “child of God”, acquired a new being and a new nature, was “dead and came to life” to pass into a new realm of reality (this is what the parable of the prodigal son says; see Lk. 15, 32). Let others - people with a "petrified heart" - he continues to seem the same, just a man. But in reality, a mysterious transubstantiation took place in the invisible entrails of the "prodigal" soul. The cessation and agony of absolute skepticism were only the agony of birth from the cramped and dark womb of carnal life into the vast expanse of infinite and all-luminous life. The one who loves has passed from death to life, from the kingdom of this world to the kingdom of God. He became a partaker of the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). He appeared in a new world of Truth, in which he can grow and develop; in him dwells the seed of God - the seed of the Divine Life (1 John 3:9), the seed of Truth itself and true knowledge. Knowing the Truth, he now understands why such a change happened to him: We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers; he who does not love his brother abides in death. Anyone who hates his brother does not have eternal life that dwells in him (1 John 3:14-15). He who does not have eternal life - that is, who has not entered the life of the Most Holy Trinity - cannot even love, for love for a brother itself is a kind of manifestation, as it were, an outflow of Divine power radiated by a loving God.

Not a legal-moral, but a metaphysical meaning has the position: Whoever says that he is in the light (in truth. - Ed.), But hates his brother, he is still in darkness (in ignorance. - Ed.). He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no temptation in him (that is, the darkness of ignorance. - Ed.). And whoever hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes (1 John 2:9-11). Light is Truth, and this Truth will certainly reveal itself; the type of her transition to another is love, just like the type of transition to another stubborn, unwilling to recognize herself as such of the darkness of ignorance is hatred. Whoever does good is from God: but he who does evil has not seen God (3 John 1:11).

No love means no truth; there is truth - it means that there is also love. Whoever abides in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him and has not known Him (1 John 3:6). Whoever is born of God commits no sin, because his seed abides in him; and he cannot sin because he is born of God. The children of God and the children of the devil are recognized this way: everyone who does not do what is right is not from God, just like he who does not love his brother (1 John 3:9-10). Love with the same necessity follows from the knowledge of God, with which light radiates from the lamp and with which the night fragrance flows from the opened cup of a flower, “knowledge becomes love” (St. Gregory of Nyssa). Therefore, the mutual love of the disciples of Christ is a sign, a sign of their learning, their knowledge, their walking in the Truth. Love is its own sign by which a disciple of Christ is recognized (John 13:35).

But one could not have made a greater mistake than identifying the spiritual love of the one who knows the Truth with saltruistic emotions and striving for the "good of mankind", at best based on natural sympathy or on abstract ideas. For love in the last sense, everything begins and ends in an empirical matter, the value of a feat is determined by its visible action. But for love in the Christian sense, this value is relative, external. Even moral activities, such as: philanthropy, the struggle for social equality, the denunciation of injustice, taken in themselves, outside of Divine love, have no true spiritual value. It is not the outward appearance of various kinds of “activities” that is desirable, but the grace-filled life that shimmers in every creative movement of the individual. Moreover, empirical appearance as such is always open to counterfeiting. No time dares to deny that false apostles, crafty workers, take the form of the Apostles of Christ, that even Satan himself takes the form of an Angel of light (2 Cor. 11, 13-14). But if everything external can be faked, then even the highest feat and the highest sacrifice - the sacrifice of one's life - in themselves are nothing; if I distribute all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but I don’t have love, I don’t have any benefits (1 Cor. 13:3).

Love outside of God is only a natural, natural-cosmic phenomenon, hardly subject to Christian unambiguous and unconditional assessment. It is all the more clear that the words “love”, “love” and derivatives from them in their Christian sense are used here, and family, tribal and national habits, selfishness, vanity, lust for power, lust and other “scum” of human feelings, hiding behind the word love.

True love is a way out of the empirical and a transition into a new reality. Love for another is a reflection of true knowledge on him, and knowledge is the revelation of the Triune Truth Itself to the heart, that is, the presence in the soul of God's love for a person: if we love each other, then God abides in us, and His love is perfect in us (1 John 4 , 12). We entered with Him not only into an impersonal, providential-cosmic relationship, but also into a personal father-son relationship. Therefore, “if our heart does not condemn us” (but, of course, the very heart cleansed of the bark of filth that has eroded its surface, and capable of judging the authenticity of love), if we realize with a chaste consciousness that we love not in word or tongue, but in deed and truth (1 Jn. 3:18), then we have indeed received a new essence, indeed entered into personal communion with God, we have boldness towards God, for the carnal man judges everything according to the carnal. For whoever keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And that He dwells in us, we know by the spirit that He gave us (1 John 3:24). If we love Him, then we abide in Him and He in us (1 John 4:13).

But the question is, in what concrete way is this spiritual love expressed? In overcoming the boundaries of selfhood, in getting out of oneself, which requires spiritual communication with each other. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, then we lie and do not act truly (I Jn. 1, 6).

The Absolute Truth is known in love. But the word "love" is understood not in the subjective-psychological sense, but in the objective-metaphysical sense. It is not that love for a brother itself is the content of Truth, as some religious nihilists claim, not that everything is exhausted by this love for a brother. No, love for a brother is a manifestation to another, a transition to another, as if during that other entry into the Divine Life, which in the very God-communicating subject is recognized by him as the knowledge of the Truth. The metaphysical nature of love lies in the supralogical overcoming of the bare self-identity “I = I” and in going out of oneself, and this happens when it flows onto another, when the power of God influences the other, breaking the bonds of human finite selfhood. By virtue of this emergence, the “I” becomes in another, in a non-I, by this not-I, it becomes consubstantial with a brother, consubstantial, and not only like-substantial, which like-existent constitutes moralism, that is, a vain inwardly mad an attempt at human, extra-divine love. Rising above the logical, meaninglessly empty law of identity and identifying with the beloved brother, the "I" thereby freely makes itself not-"I" or, in the language of sacred hymns, "empties" itself, "exhausts", "degrades" (cf. Phil. 2 , 7), that is, it deprives itself of the necessary data and attributes inherent in it and the natural laws of internal activity according to the law of ontological egoism or identity for the sake of the norm of alien being. “I” goes beyond its boundary, from the norm of its being and voluntarily submits to a new image in order to include its “I” in the “I” of another being, which is not “I” for it. Thus, the impersonal not-"I" becomes a person, another "I", that is, "you". But in this “impoverishment” or “exhaustion” of the “I”, in this “emptying”, or kenosis of oneself, there is a reverse restoration of the “I” to its own norm of being, and this norm of it is no longer simply given, but also justified, that is, not just present in a given place and moment, but having a universal and eternal significance. In the other, through its humiliation, the image of my being finds its “redemption” from the power of sinful self-affirmation, is freed from the sin of a separate existence, about which the Greek thinkers spoke; and in the third, as the redeemed one, he is “glorified,” that is, he is affirmed in his incorruptible worth. On the contrary, without humiliation, the “I” would own its norm only in potential, but not in act. Love is the "yes" that the "I" says to itself; hatred is "no" to itself. Love combines value with givenness, introduces obligation, duty, into the elusive givenness, and duty, after all, is what gives longitude to givenness. This love unites two worlds: “the great thing is that there is a mystery here, that the passing face of the earth and the eternal Truth touched here together” (F. M. Dostoevsky).

The love of the lover, transferring his “I” into the “I” of the beloved, into “you”, thereby gives the beloved “you” the power to know the “I” of the lover in God and love him in God. The beloved himself becomes loving, he himself rises above the law of identity and in God identifies himself with the object of his love. He transfers his "I" to the "I" of the first through the third. But these mutual “self-surrenders”, “self-exhaustion”, “self-abasement” of those who love only for reason appear side by side, going into infinity. Rising above the boundaries of its nature, "I" goes out of time-spatial limitations and enters Eternity. There, the whole process of the relationship of lovers is a single act in which an endless series, an endless series of separate moments of love is synthesized. This one, eternal and infinite act is consubstantial in love in God, and the "I" is one and the same with the other "I" and at the same time different from it. Each "I" is not-"I", by virtue of the rejection of the other "I" for the sake of the first. Instead of separate, disparate, self-persistent "I" we get a two - a two-in-one being that has the beginning of its unity in God: the limit of love is that the two will be one (Eph. 5, 31). But besides, each “I”, as in a mirror, sees in the image of God another “I” its own image of God.

This duality has love as its essence, and, as a concretely embodied love, it is beautiful for objective contemplation. If for the first “I” the starting point of consubstantiality is truth, and for the second, for “you”, it is love, then for the third “I”, for “he”, beauty will already be such a fulcrum. In him, beauty excites love, and love gives knowledge of the truth. Enjoying the beauty of the duality, "he" loves it and through that cognizes, affirming each, each "I" in his hypostatic originality. With this affirmation, the contemplating "I" restores the self-identity of the contemplated hypostases: the first "I" as the "I" of the loving and beloved; the second "I" as beloved and loving - as "you". Thus, through giving oneself to the duality, by breaking the shell of one's self-isolation, the third "I" joins its consubstantial in God, and the duality becomes a trinity. But "he", this third "I", as contemplating the duality objectively, is itself the beginning for a new trinity. By the third “I”, all the trinities grow together into a consubstantial whole - into the Church or the Body of Christ as an objective disclosure of the Hypostases of Divine Love. Every third “I” can be the first in the second trinity and the second in the third, so that this chain of love, starting from the Absolute Trinity, which by its power, like a magnet fringe of iron filings, holds back everything, stretches further and further. Love, according to Blessed Augustine, is "a certain life that combines or strives to combine."

This is the breath of the Holy Spirit, comforting with the joy of contemplating the omnipresent and fulfilling everything with a good treasure, giving life and cleansing the world from all filth with its indwelling. But for consciousness His life-creating activity becomes apparent only with the highest insight of spirituality.

This is the scheme of self-justification of individuals. But how concretely does love reveal itself, this centrifugal force of being, emanating from the one who knows the Truth? Without dwelling on the details, let us recall only the well-known passage from the "Hymn of Love" by the Apostle Paul, which says everything: Love is long-suffering, merciful, love does not envy, love does not exalt itself, does not pride itself, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, endures everything. Love never ceases, although prophecy will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part: when that which is perfect comes, then that which is in part will cease. When I was a baby, I spoke like a baby, thought like a baby, reasoned like a baby; and as he became a husband, he left the childish. Now we see, as it were, through a dull glass, guessingly, then the face of the klitsa; Now I know in part, but then I will know, just as I am known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the love of them is greater (1 Cor. 13:4-13).

Conclusion

Christianity brought into the world a new understanding of love, almost in everything opposite to the ancient understanding.

Christianity recognizes God as the main center of love. Neither the ancient nor the Jewish world knew this kind of love. The ancient gods were revered, worshiped, made sacrifices, but did not love any of them as the One, most perfect God, as a person. The Jewish religion recognized fear as the norm of man's attitude to God.

Christian concept of love, brings to the fore in the understanding of love self-sacrifice, care, giving. The care born of Platonic eros or Aristotelian philia was determined by a special attitude towards this particular person, who became beloved due to his beauty. Christian merciful (agapic) love is not the result of personal sympathy or admiration for others. It actualizes the kindness of a person, potentially contained in him and before meeting with this particular person; At the same time, it is the neighbor with his specific worries and problems that turns out to be loved in the original love for the neighbor. Therefore, Christian love for one's neighbor, in principle, excludes hatred: it is impossible to love one and hate the other. The most significant thing in the Christian understanding of love was that it also included forgiveness and love for enemies.

The most important feature of the Christian understanding of love is the requirement to love "neighbor".

Bibliography

1. Apresyan R.G. "From 'friendship' and 'love' to 'morality': about one plot in the history of ideas". Ethics lecturer at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ethical thought. - Yearbook - M.: IF RAN. 2000.

3. Balashov L.E. Ethics. Textbook - M., 2003. - 137 p.

4. Information portal of the Petrozavodsk and Karelian diocese. The article “Love is the highest virtue of salvation. Theological analysis” - eparhia.onego.ru/

5. Demidov A.B. Name Phenomena of human existence. 1999.

6. Ethics: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. R.G. Apresyan, A.A. Huseynov. M.: Gardariki, 2001.

7. Ethical thought: Scientific publicist. reading / Editorial: A.A. Huseynov and others - M ..: Politizdat, 1990. - 480 p.

Second coming
dispensationalism
Conservatism Liberalism

Love as a Christian virtue (in the New Testament, the Greek word "agape", Greek. αγάπη , lat. caritas) - love without reason, reason, self-interest, capable of covering any shortcomings, misconduct, crimes. One of the three main virtues of Christianity along with faith and hope.

Essence

In its essence, it resembles paternal (maternal) love for a child whom the parent continues to love and participate in his fate no matter what.

But unlike parental love, Christian love does not depend on family ties, as well as on age, gender, difference in social status, etc.

Encourages to serve a person, there is a desire to help, protect, fill any need, regardless of one's own interests.

« For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"(John 3:16)" I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; how I have loved you”(John 13:34) Christian love for a person is given from above, it cannot be fully experienced without the supernatural influence of the Lord Jesus Christ (hence the name).

The concept of divine love

Christianity distinguishes between divine love and human love. Human love after the fall is seen as imperfect, infected with selfishness and sin.

Divine love is one of fundamental and the most important concepts of Christianity. It is inextricably linked with the basic principle of God the Creator - the principle of freedom. God the Creator, who created the universe, created everything that exists in it free, that is, having the right to determine their will. This is how the world was created, including man (the act of creation is described in the first book of the Bible - "Genesis"). Freedom is grace gift God the Creator to each of his creations, having the right to be (exist) independently of the Creator, and at the same time uniting with Him. This form of connection (co-creation) is called Divine love. Divine love is the desire to be (exist) not for personal good, but for the good of another, and therefore Divine love is inseparable from freedom, because in free choice and an act of Divine love is manifested.

According to Christian teaching, the observance of the fundamental principles “love your enemy”, “love your neighbor as yourself” leads a person to Divine love.

Concepts of Christianity related to the concept of Divine love

According to Christian doctrine, God is love. (1 John 4:8)

If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but have no love, then I am a ringing copper or a cymbal that sounds. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but I do not have love, it does not profit me at all. Love is long-suffering, merciful, love does not envy, love does not exalt itself, is not proud, does not behave violently, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, endures everything. Love never ceases, although prophecy will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished.

Love for God arises from the realization of who God is. This feeling can begin to develop on the basis of gratitude to God, when a person realizes how the Lord loves him, what God has done for him personally and for all mankind as a whole:

This is love, that we did not love God, but He loved us and sent His Son as a propitiation for our sins.
Beloved! If God so loved us, then we must also love one another.

Love for neighbor is inextricably linked with love for God:

Let us love Him, because He first loved us.
Whoever says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
And we have such a commandment from Him that loving god loved his brother too.

Love for God and neighbor is the fruit of the Holy Spirit:

Love for God in the Bible

Hear, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
And love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.
And let these words which I command you today be in your heart

So love the Lord your God, and keep what He commanded to keep, and His ordinances and His laws and His commandments all the days.

Teacher! what is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus told him: love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind:
this is the first and greatest commandment;
the second one is similar: love thy neighbor, as himself;
On these two commandments all the law and the prophets are established.

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loving begotten loves the one who is born of Him.
That we love the children of God, we learn from when love God and we keep His commandments.
For it is love for God that we keep his commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

MORAL QUESTIONS are eternal human questions! They have always found such or another response in the inner human sanctuary... But never before, it seems, have they excited human minds to such a strong degree as they are excited now. And at the same time, never before has such a multitude of contradictory, sometimes mutually exclusive and undermining views, strangely unfounded and, however, captivating an inexperienced crowd with their tinsel, views been preached, as again at the present time. If the notorious oracle of a certain part of society, Count Tolstoy, in incomprehensible self-blindness, proudly declares that only he was the first after the end of the 19th century to have correctly understood the meaning of the moral teaching of Christ; if a host of other short-sighted thinkers are unable to see the impenetrable abyss between Christian and Buddhist morality, which in Christianity is supposedly only modified from a Judeo-Stoic point of view; then others calmly hand over Christian ethics to the archive, as a doctrine that supposedly has already fulfilled its purpose and for the age of Darwinian evolutionism (in all its modifications) is de anarchism ...

All this, as we see, are views, either recognizing as false the understanding of the moral foundations of Christianity by Orthodox Christ, or trying to strike straight into the heart even by itself Christian morality.

From this it is clear that the first and most urgent task of all that is resolutely presented to the Christian moral theologian is to vigorously combat such false and poisonous teachings, ignoring which at the present time would certainly be inexcusable. The apologetic element must occupy a particularly prominent place in contemporary systems of Christian ethics.

To the credit of Orthodox Russian theologians, it must be said that they understand the disturbing state of affairs that we have outlined quite clearly. Already they have made quite a few successful excursions to the enemy country. Already in our relatively meager, but more and more continuously enriched, theological ethical literature, we come across excellent works that excellently defend Christian moral truths ... Moreover, the defense of the latter achieves its goal the sooner and more surely every time, the more theologians - moralists, while refuting the views of their opponents, at the same time stand on enemy soil - the more they beat their enemy with his own weapons. Otherwise, both sides, like people speaking different languages, will not understand each other, and all their mutual bickering and reasoning will be just empty, absurd verbiage.

The spokesmen of a negative attitude towards Christianity did not leave any of the basic Christian moral principles untouched.

The central of the latter, penetrating and spiritualizing the whole moral life of a Christian, as you know, is the Lord's commandment, commanding a person to love his neighbor as himself. The whole law, by interpretation. St. app. Paul, lies in this one word.

On the great commandment of love, we naturally and consider ourselves entitled to stop the gracious attention of a highly enlightened Assembly, especially since this subject of our speech, as will be clarified below, is directly outlined by the most recent scientific data.

The characteristic features of the Christian teaching about our love for our neighbor are as follows.

This love, according to the apostle, is the totality of perfection. Its manifestation is a sign that such a person belongs to the host of Christ's disciples; meanwhile, without it, all spiritual goods, which this or that person can possess, are deprived of meaning and meaning.

To put it briefly: if we love a friend, then a friend abides in us and we are in God.

Hence, all our concerns should tend to, as St. Apostle, owe nothing to anyone except mutual love - to do good to everyone, whoever it is, even our enemies, - to overcome evil with good ...

In particular, our love for our neighbors should be manifested in concern for their well-being - both physical and spiritual - moreover, manifested disinterestedly and from a heart overflowing with it ...

Finally, perhaps the highest degree of manifestation of our love for our neighbors is our self-sacrifice: there is no greater love, according to the word of the Lord, than if someone lays down his life for his friends. The Christian is thus called upon, in case of need, to show to his neighbor a love higher than what he shows to himself.

This is the very essence of Christian love for neighbor.

This love, as we have seen, is not an accidental moment, surpassed from without. On the contrary, it is something inextricably linked with the concept of man, with his nature, something contemporary with the emergence of the very first relations between people.

In contrast, the relationship between people, marked by the seal of egoism, is a phenomenon, from a frank point of view, a relatively recent one, first revealed only after the fall of the forefathers, when those who justified themselves before God, instead of sincerely repenting before Him, selfishly referred to Eve, calling her the culprit. his crimes - when, consequently, love - as the beginning, until then only regulating the relationship of the ancestors - lost its meaning. As later, as accidental and, consequently, not necessarily connected with the essence of human nature, the phenomenon given by her ipso is abnormal, and therefore, according to the biblical conception, not only cannot be recognized as in any way leading or anything similar in this respect. , but should be, if possible, eradicated and eliminated; it must give way to love and love), which, as we have already seen, is noted with particular clarity in the New Testament.

And so, love, and not selfishness, is the only true basis of human relationships, according to a frank teaching.

In contrast to the latter, ethical worldviews have long declared themselves, preaching that it is not love, but, on the contrary, egoism that should be considered as the primary moment in the mutual relations of people, that love is a later phenomenon, marked by the nature of chance, that it, so to speak, "an outgrowth on selfishness" and at its core certainly breathes the spirit of self-interest.

To help the utilitarians who find themselves - even in the person of their representatives, what - Bantam, J. St. Mill ..., - powerless in substantiating their doctrine and - trampling on the gospel doctrine that disagrees with the latest, about love for one's neighbor, as the primary principle, inextricably linked with the very essence of man ..., were evolutionists who tried to correct and eliminate the shortcomings of their predecessors.

Evolutionary morality, whose brilliant representative is the modern English thinker Herbert Spencer, who created it on the basis of Darwinism, is currently considered the most fashionable.

Darwin taught that everywhere in the world there is a so-called "struggle for existence". All beings, driven by their egoistic striving to preserve their being, take every care to achieve their goals at the expense of the interests of the beings around them. And since external material nature lives its own, special life, in no way coping with the interests of living beings, these latter, willy-nilly, have to somehow adapt to nature: to climate conditions, to the characteristics of a given area, and so on. The more such adaptation takes place, the more the adapting beings win in their "struggle for existence", and vice versa. There is thus a "natural selection" (or "selection") of the fittest, who are more likely to survive and outlive others than beings less adapted or completely unadapted. "Natural selection" occurs gradually, imperceptibly, but rigorously. Whatever, for example, a sheep breeder, skillfully selecting and crossing the best specimens of sheep breed and, as a result, obtaining improved cattle, also seems to be done by nature, which selects and preserves those who are more able to adapt to the environment, and removes from the field battles of the least able to adapt ...

And so, in the life of living beings, according to this doctrine, factors dominate: "struggle for existence", "natural selection".

What follows from here? It directly follows that, according to such a development of the life of the entire organic World, the right to exist to have all the same egoism, which, as we have seen, was noted as a primary moment by utilitarians. In fact, is it really possible to speak of any kind of evangelical love for one's neighbor where the principle of "struggle" is preached in the sense of the basic principle of life, no matter how one understands it? Is it possible to speak of love for one's neighbor where adaptability to the environment, to surrounding conditions, is elevated to a principle? The most consistent and unceremonious evolutionists indeed consider any idea of such love to be absurd.

Spencer is already making every effort to "defend egoism against altruism." But he, however, on the other hand, also defends "altruism against egoism." Then, finding that it is certainly neither pure egoism nor pure altruism that are wrong, he produces "between the litigants, a trial and a deal." At the same time, by the way, he tries to prove that “utilitarian altruism” is “properly limited egoism”, that “the suicidal nature of pure altruism” is a fact that “pure altruism, in whatever form it may be expressed, constantly leads its adherents to different absurdities ... Finally, setting out to "finally reconcile" altruism and egoism among themselves, Spencer comes to the conclusion that "altruism in its final form will be the achievement of pleasure for oneself through sympathy with those pleasures of others that they receive mainly through the successful fulfillment of their its own activities of every possible kind, i.e., it will be a sympathetic pleasure that costs the recipient absolutely nothing, but is simply a gratuitous addition to his egoistic pleasures ... So, in essence, everywhere - egoism and egoism, no matter how manifested and no matter how understood; but not Christian love, reaching the point of self-sacrifice, which, as we have seen, Spencer even sneers at as absurdity... “The specially moral conclusions of evolutionist morality,” one of its critics says, “amaze with their bleak indifference. Not a single ethical school of modern times has understood the true motives of moral activity so low, under the guise of their comprehensive explanation. Elevation of egoism into the root force of human nature, and everything disinterested in it - into some kind of growth on selfishness - cruelly avenge oneself. We are witnessing a phenomenon that has not been seen in the history of morality for a long time: the champions of evolutionism proclaim the fulfillment of selfish needs as the highest and first duty of man. Spencer... spares no dark colors to depict that nasty impression that people evoke, for the sake of their neighbors, who do not take care of themselves, thereby upsetting their own health and becoming a burden to everyone. On the other hand, a prudent egoist, who knows how to preserve his strength and defend his interests, seems to be the most precious creature for society” ... “Take care of your health, good mood” and so on, “and you will surpass all the saints” - this is the final principle of evolutionistic and , in particular, of course, and Spencerian ethics.

Other moralists, whose writings, in one way or another, reflected the influence of Darwinian evolutionism, go even further than Spencer.

In this case, we mean the now especially fashionable moral philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche "The deep influence of Darwin's theories on Nietzsche" is beyond doubt). "People are animals sole basis their lives are a struggle for existence, for power and strength” ..., “bellum omnium contra omnes” ... - these are the provisions of Nietzsche's morality. According to it, a person must live, obeying only the attraction of his animal instincts, therefore, giving himself up to the will of his passions, indulging in all kinds of pleasures. In relation to neighbors “a person should become angrier”, people should “love only themselves, not spare their neighbor”, “be cruel and merciless to everyone”, since “only the cruel is truly noble”. “Naroticism, self-aggrandizement” - this is the essence of “higher morality, aristocratic”. According to Nietzsche, Christian moral teaching, which preaches completely different principles, is a "contradiction to human nature."

The names of the persons who are the confessors of the evolutionary doctrine are legion. Their claims are endless. Without any hesitation, they “proclaim beggarly” anyone’s “beliefs in ... everything that does not concern the struggle for existence in conditions of the best adaptation to the external”, adding that “without the bloody law of continuous struggle, determined by the experience of the fittest , mankind would never have emerged from its primitive barbarism, and civilization would not yet have been born") ... They calmly decide to affirm Darwin's "biological hypothesis" as the basis of ethics and legitimize, with the blessing of science, the struggle of people, i.e., malice , enmity, cunning and mutual destruction, which, ”says one thinker,“ many psychopaths can not be more at heart. Such theories found their exponents even in “university departments”, from which it was proved that “the struggle for existence is not a vice, but, on the contrary, the basic law of life, and the intensity or energy of this struggle is the only criterion of higher organization” ...

We have thus seen that the Christian doctrine of love for one's neighbor, according to the "fashionable" moralists-naturalists and their followers, is supposedly false in its very essence. We have also seen that in place of the eliminated Christian principle, these thinkers put forward their own, incompatible with that and alien to it - egoistic ...

Are their proud claims justified, however?

As far as the utilitarians are concerned, even in the person of their best representatives, the truth, as we have seen above, is not on their side. Hence, we naturally leave aside the utilitarian doctrine, as already earlier, in the respect that interests us, recognized as untenable. Instead, let us examine: how consistent is the morality of evolutionism (in all possible modifications and expressions outlined by us), which has taken upon itself the task of making corrections and additions to the utilitarian one?

Sane (spiritual and secular) scientists have already come out to fight against the false provisions of evolutionism.

At the same time, it should be noted that a lot has already been done in this direction by our Russian thinkers: we mean the works of especially prof. and about. A.P. Maltsev, as well as some others. These theologians-moralists subjected to a solid critical assessment of the doctrine: utilitarianism (in the person of all its major representatives) and evolutionism (in the person of Spencer).

Darwinism is refuted with remarkable thoroughness in the colossal work of N.Ya. Danilevsky, who aroused the “gnashing of teeth” in our Darwinists, but, nevertheless, not yet crushed by them, but by lovers of truth, met with genuine delight ... Nietzsche’s moral views were not left without consideration and evaluation (although not always correct) from, for example, professors - Shcheglov, Preobrazhensky, Grot and a friend. .

Among secular writers, however, we pronounce the name of L. Popov (Elpe) with special emphasis. This Russian biologist in his "scientific letters" often refers to Darwin and Spencer with their followers and successors, and each time strikes them with the most significant blows, remaining on their own soil.

We have neither the time nor the need nor the intention to dwell on the presentation and evaluation of all those objections to the conclusions of evolutionary ethics, which are full of works, both of those just indicated, and of other thinkers-fighters for truth.

Referring everyone who wants to get acquainted with these objections to the very works of those thinkers, we intend to draw the attention of the highly esteemed Assembly to the study of the research of Prof. Charles Richet, which bears the title: "The Striving for Life and the Theory of Final Causes". The present study appeared last summer and, as belonging to the "undoubted" luminary in the scientific field, naturally attracted the attention of lovers of truth.

For us, in particular, it is very important, mainly in view of the fact that the venerable author eventually leads the reader to recognize the full meaning behind the proposition about the need to love one's neighbor, only to consider this principle of relationships as the only - well-founded, the only - normal - and at the same time everywhere remains in the sphere in which is allowed by the data of biology and in which only representatives of the opposite camp (in relation to the solution of the question of interest to us) rotate. We insistently emphasize this latter circumstance for the reason that preachers of a different view of the meaning of human relationships are very skeptical, and often quite negatively, of all kinds of evidence drawn from any other areas, including even from psychology. If the English moralists recognize the full significance of the latter and “pay most of all attention to the psychological development of our feelings”, in their opinion, “which are initially egoistic, and then turn into altruistic under the influence of the social environment, social laws and social education”, then, for example. , “French positivists do not trust psychology and the main meaning” are learned only by “physiologists” ... Some others do the same, for example, the German Nietzsche ...

And so, what do we find in Richet?

"At first glance, it seems," he says, "that nothing is more naive than the theory of final causes." In general, biologists treat it with "mistrust", some "consider it superstition", "discarding any teleological consideration from biology". The reason for this circumstance lies in that "exaggerated" meaning, which is sometimes assimilated by certain people to the teleological moment and which the extreme of the opposite property naturally brings into being.

However, the study of the "animal and plant kingdoms", accessible to our careful observation and study, gives us full reason and right to conclude that teleologically the moment is not superstition, but fact. "The most ardent opponents of teleology," says Richet, "should still join our opinion, at least in some cases." “For example, is it possible to deny that the eye is meant for seeing? To assume that there is no relationship between the eye and the ability to see, as between cause and effect," meant - "to fall into" a strange and unreasonable "extreme. That the eye has the ability to see, “this is not an accident”, but the immediate and inevitable result of “a whole arrangement of parts, a wondrous mechanism, which, in general, and in its most” insignificant “particulars”, as clearly as possible shows that immutable truth, that the "eye" is arranged "in order to see." It is impossible to avoid such a conclusion. Features of the construction “the eyes have a purpose, and this purpose is sight”, which is extremely “clear” and irrefutable “even by the most subtle sophists”. An explanation of "the anatomy and physiology of the eye in its smallest details and in its most subtle technical details would be nothing more than" just "a commentary on the same conclusion: the eye" is arranged "in order to see."

What makes sense in relation to the eye is no less appropriate in relation to our other organs: "ear, heart, stomach, brain, muscles." The adaptation of "organs to their" functions is so complete that "that involuntarily" the thought arises of its "not accidental but" deliberate "character. This adaptation causes astonishment, if we mean "even the smallest", the most insignificant particulars and "details". So, undoubtedly, "for example," the circumstance "that the brow bulge, prominent and strong," is designed to protect the delicate "eyeball" - that the same purpose is served: "eyelids, mobile and fast - eyelashes", protecting “the eye is protected from dust—the subtle sensitivity of the connective protein coat, causing an immediate reflex”... The proposition “that the eye is protected” to the desired degree is “not a theory or a hypothesis”, but an immutable and undeniable “fact”. That's what anatomy says. Or: “when, for example, some “foreign, irritating body, excitation of the laryngeal nerves” penetrates the mucous membrane of the larynx immediately - “but, as a result of a reflex, it causes coughing and stops inhalation.” The direct duty of the “physiologist” is to “boldly declare that this reflective cough is expedient” to the point of “obviousness”. It is required “that the foreign” body be removed by means of vigorous “exhalation”, and in case of insufficiency of this method, a temporary suspension of breathing is necessary, since otherwise this body can “go down deep into the bronchi” .., These and many other examples with visualizations prove that there are no "useless organs", that "everything has a definite purpose". - The meaning behind the "theory of final causes" is recognized not only by physiologists, but also by zoologists. For example, zoology states the following fact: if you “take a crab by the leg”, then it “will tear off” the last one with a quick contraction, “in order” in this way to get “the opportunity to escape from its enemy.” It is unlikely that anyone will see in "this" a "phenomenon" with an "accidental" lining - and not a completely natural "fact" of expedient "self-defense"! Or: "An octopus caught by an enemy emits a stream of ink so that" thus elude the unpretentious eye and survive. Is the "black" color of this "liquid" accidental? Nothing. Undoubtedly, "this ejection of ink" is in direct relation to the "self-defense" of the octopus. Everything that conveys about such discoveries of "self-defense, willy-nilly" subscribes to the "theory of expediency, as" posed in the need to "assume that" the basis of "various defense functions" is "the goal is the defense of the organism" . .. True, it is not in the power of a person to give “everything” a proper “explanation so that” one can then, with tangible certainty, admit the “expediency hypothesis”, but in fact there is no serious – urgent need in it, since for the essence of the matter “ a few brief" and "general" data are sufficient, "which may serve" as a completely reliable "guiding idea for a more general theory".

“And so,” according to Richet’s persistently expressed “persuasion”, “it is impossible to exclude the theory of expediency from anatomy, zoology and physiology.”

In order to be convinced of the same truth, this French scientist proceeds from considering the details to pushing aside "more extensive general functions" calculated "also" for a well-known strictly - "definite goal".

From the “function” with a positive character, Richet notes that it is in direct connection with the “instinct to reproduce”, striking with its energy. The high degree of intensity of the latter, its seeming irresistibility are clear signs of its not being accidental. There is no doubt that here we are dealing with "a certain will, premeditation in view of a known goal." Ignoring the assumption "that" the Creator "desired the continuity of the race, we" will walk in darkness and resolutely "understand nothing." Meanwhile, having agreed that in the present case there is a “goal to ensure the life of the family”, we immediately understand “everything”, and the darkness was gone! ...

Negative moments are also “expedient”, such as, for example, “fear, disgust, pain”.

The feeling of fear experienced by living beings is directly related to the sense of self-preservation. Without the feeling of “fear” on the face, not a single living being could not only remain intact, but even live more or less for a long time. An oyster “closing” its shell “at” the appearance of an “enemy” - “dizziness” experienced by a person standing above the abyss - a cowardly hare - all these and similar examples illustrate the stated position to a completely sufficient degree.

Further, if living beings did not know the feeling of "disgust" in relation to all objects that could be harmful to them in one way or another, then again none of the latter could live more or less significant time ... What a child, for example ., has an attraction to mother's milk, that the animal has an "aversion to concentrated sulfuric acid", that "carnivorous" creatures love meat, and "herbivores" - greens, vegetable food in general, and not vice versa - all this and similar to it, in their turn, is also quite eloquent.

Finally, the role of the "feeling of pain" in the self-defense of living beings is also enormous: "devoid of sensitivity, beings could not" provide proper opposition to "external influences", while in her face they have the most reliable "guardian" who carefully "warns them about danger and protecting them. If "the task of "protecting us from bruises, fatigue, poisoning, from all kinds of dangers" was entrusted only to "our mind alone", then, "probably, already after" a "week" there would be no people left in the world. At every step, all sorts of “dangers” await us, which even “ten times the strongest of our minds” would be unable to prevent. The "amazing" "in its subtlety and" ever-awake "sensitivity of our skin is worth the wisest conclusions of our mind." "Pain from burning, biting, wounding" - this is the most impressive "syllogism", more than anything else, inclining us to the "image of dangers" ...

To put it briefly: "the feelings of living beings, the structure and functions of their organs" are in direct "relationship with the preservation of the individual and the genus."

Hence, "living things are organized for life". At the same time, as regards, in particular, "higher beings", their "individual life" is "so well protected that", even with "all kinds of dangers, the individual is able to successfully continue his existence" ... In view of all such kind and similar moments, “should we not admit the existence of a striving for life and the first final cause, which is life?” Yes. Like a day, it is obvious that from the very first moment of its "every being appears on the earth's surface, as if it were ordered to live" (which, of course, is the case in reality); “in its” structure “and in its functions, everything is adapted” to “for it to exist” ... “To abandon this first final cause would mean,” according to the French scientist, “to go against the natural order of our thinking.” .. And so, we must recognize two positions: one, that all "beings strive to live," and the other, that "they are organized" in accordance with this very desire of them. Hence, Richet says, “in all biological theories it will be necessary to take into account” the unquestionable law: “the desire for existence, for life” . From now on, the "theory of final causes" should take "an important place in the biological sciences. Let us beware of exaggeration, but let us assume that every living being has a certain purpose, that all its parts, all its functions serve to protect and develop that particle of life that is in it.

The help rendered by the French scientist to ethical science is undeniably extraordinary. At the same time, to a certain extent, it is indifferent to us that he himself stopped, so to speak, halfway through - it is indifferent because it is already relatively easy to complete the latter, which is currently done by people interested in this field of science: I.P. Kondyrev and L.K. Popov.

Having posed the question: “Has the law of the struggle for existence been established by science?” the first through the mouth of Richet answers in the negative. And “in reality,” says Mr. Kondyrev, “the law of the struggle for life has never been established by the naturalists and cannot be established according to a strict scientific method.” not - the constancy of the phenomena of the real struggle for life. Not only meek, domesticated animals, but even "predatory ones" recommend themselves as "only" by the indicated manifestations as "exceptional" only. And on the other hand, the fact that "without exception, the movements of animals are subject to the law of conservation of life" cannot be doubted. If the invented law of the "struggle for existence" were a fact and had signs of constancy and universality - if, in other words, every being only saw enemies around him and enemies with whom he would have to fight at every single moment, then he , no doubt, would soon fall in such an unequal struggle. However, in reality, it does not fall, and because, of course, it is not forced to wage such a struggle - everywhere, on the contrary, it encounters help and support. The latter kind of phenomenon is usually, which is why we usually do not notice it. The opposite of it is much more rare, and therefore it attracts more of our attention to itself, rather we notice it. “Over the phenomena of life” undoubtedly “reigns” not the law of “struggle”, but the “law of mutual assistance” ...

Thus, fully aware that, if the French biologist promulgates the law of expediency, the law of evolutionism, in the sense of the law of "struggle for existence", there can be no place, our Russian thinker, as we have seen, assumes that the French scientist thinks exactly the same way. while the latter in reality clearly recognizes the existence of two separate laws: "the law of the struggle for existence" and, "as a consequence" of it, "the law of striving for existence - for life." Such a recognition is more than unexpected, and, in any case, cannot be more or less substantiated.

Further, under the assumption of universal expediency, under the assumption of a law that says that every living being “strives to live”, that this desire is adequately supported by its “organization”, “that all parts, all functions of every living being serve” the goal of “preservation and development of that particle of life that is in it" on the face - the "hypothesis" of evolutionists about the so-called "natural selection" also loses its stability. This truth again had to be noted by the French biologist, but, surprisingly, he did not do this, on the contrary, recognizing the significance of the named hypothesis.

And Mr. Kondyrev, in his turn, recognizes that it is possible to admit the existence of "in nature the fact of natural selection" (or "selection"). He only makes a (very successful, however) attempt only to refute the "explanations" of this selection by the "hypothesis of the struggle for life." His data are as follows: 1) the “not rare” result of the “struggle” is the “so-called accidental death” of not only “weak individuals”, but also others, moreover, “without any distinction and without regard to natural selection, which has” , - from the point of view of evolutionary doctrine, - "keep only the most perfect organisms"; 2) the "struggle often" to remove from the scene of life "the best producers, especially" those who have a "tendency towards" it; and this circumstance, meanwhile, is irreconcilable with the "role" assimilated by the "struggle in the phenomena of natural selection"; hence the latter is not "its main or only factor"; 3) it is not “even the least influential factor in natural selection”, because its “tools are not preserved” by “heredity”, but, on the contrary, gradually disappear under the influence of the latter, parallel to the “evolution of the animal kingdom”; finally, 4) “paleontology, in the person of” its best representatives and exponents, decisively declares “that in the development of animals and their organs during geological epochs the struggle for life did not play any significant role” .

Richet's case was brought to a complete conclusion by the above-mentioned biologist Mr. Popov.

Recognizing the great significance of the new law, thanks to which from now on in biology "a major turn begins" from the previous explanation of "vital phenomena by the principles of mechanics in the direction directly opposite", - declaring that only now precisely those "phenomena" can be understood properly, i.e. i.e., with the help of the teleological moment, by means of "the replacement of mere mechanical chance by an active will", meaning "a certain goal", - this biologist decisively asserts that "the whole doctrine of Darwin in general", as irreconcilable "with the principles of teleology", must be rejected.

That the "struggle for existence" is not in harmony with the teleological principle, this, as we have seen, is definitely stated by Mr. I.P. Kondyrev. Mr. L.K. Popov. If, as the first argues, as a result of the struggle "often" there is "the death of not only the weak, but also the strong, not only badly, but also well organized", - if the "struggle" leads to "the degeneration of even the most gifted species" , thus clearly diverging “from the phenomena of perfection, progressive development,” then, obviously, the second one says, “that from this point of view, the law of life, in the sense of striving for perfection, gradual movement towards the goal, not only cannot be sanctioned the very fact of the struggle for existence, but requires other, opposite relationships on the part of the representatives of the organic world: not a struggle, but an alliance-mutual assistance.

If, with the law promulgated by Richet, the law of evolutionism, which preaches the struggle for existence, loses its meaning, then, along with it, the law of the evolutionary doctrine of natural selection loses its meaning, since these two laws are in close, direct connection with each other, in by virtue of which the rejection of one is at the same time the negation of the other: "without the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest is impossible, and the action of selection is also impossible." What does evolutionism want to explain with its doctrine of selection? As you know, the invention of this doctrine has as its goal "from initially random, poorly combined, completely disorderly changes, by gradually experiencing the most adapted, to create order and harmony." Meanwhile, these "order and harmony" have always been in existence, therefore, there is no need to invent any theory to explain their supposedly gradual emergence. This situation is most confirmed by the latest paleontological data. “They said,” writes one of the most authoritative representatives of the latter, prof. Gaudry that “as if in different geological epochs creatures often fought” with each other, and “as if the stronger defeated the weakest, so that victory” was the lot of “the most gifted individuals; thus progress must be the result of the hostile clashes and sufferings of the past. This is not the conclusion which is a consequence of "paleontological" research. “The history of the animal kingdom unfolds before our eyes a picture of evolution, where everything is combined, as in the successive changes of a grain, which “finally” turns into a beautiful tree covered with flowers and fruits, or an egg turns into a complex and beautiful animal. One should not believe,” Gaudry insisted, “as if order arose out of disorder.” So, what does paleontology testify to? And about "that the organic world" lived without any assistance and interference from the "struggle for existence and natural selection, that progressive evolution, the improvement of life went its own" way, regardless "and often even contrary to the conditions of struggle and selection"

It is also necessary to pay attention to the discrepancy between the doctrine of natural selection, which supposedly preserves only the most “perfect”, with reality, which testifies to the existence in the world of “regressive types, falsehood, lies called mimetism, and protected by the same selection”. The last circumstance is beyond doubt. Natural selection is completely indifferent to what “types” it deals with in this case, i.e., with “perfect” or opposite to them ... For it, only one side of the matter matters: in what relation to their “environment” Are there certain “types”? If there is harmony between the latter and the former, if they adapt to this, they, so to speak, receive permission to exist, and vice versa: “types” that are in disharmony with the external conditions surrounding them are condemned by natural selection to death. For the veracity of these provisions speak "hundreds, thousands of facts from the world of flora and fauna." Moreover, “Charles Darwin himself” was forced to declare “that natural selection is completely indifferent to the phenomena of improvement” ... On what, then, does the latter depend? Where is its ultimate cause, its source? Not in the "struggle for existence," not in "natural selection," not in "adaptation to the environment," but in "life itself," in "its inner psychic forces." With a different presentation and understanding of the matter, one would have to give the first place among the most perfect beings to “the simplest organisms and the entire plant world”, as undoubtedly “endowed with the highest means of adapting to the environment”, which, however, would be absurd, refuted by the actual state of things. ..

Such are the conclusions drawn by Mr. L.B. from Richet's law. Popov. From now on, the latter says, “the mechanical principle must be replaced by the mental principle, as a single biological force that governs life, all its manifestations.”

The “means” to which “nature” resorts (of course, obeying the divine voice) “in order to raise higher” and higher “living beings along the steps of self-determination”, - we read from the authoritative “pathologist E. von - Rindfleisch”, - “consist in the fact that this latter is subject to love for one’s neighbor. Each of the billions of cells that make up the “higher organism” lives only with the help of others. They live only as organs of one body, and without this connection, existence is impossible for them. One for all, all for one - such is the law of nature, such is the highest command of morality. to one's neighbor - this is one of the most essential "signs of life", it is - "a means to achieve the goal of life".

Such is the voice of the newest impartial doctrine of natural science, coinciding with the voice of all former - new and ancient - sound thinkers. Even the pagan Marcus Aurelius taught: “We are born for mutual help, like legs, arms, eyes, like the upper and lower jaws. It would be unnatural for them to harm each other."

In a word, we have the right to say that the fashionable modern Darwin-Spencer-Nitzschean (and Co.) doctrine of human relationships, which in one way or another eliminates or devalues the element of Christian love, as the principle that completely regulates these relationships, is a painful phenomenon. It does not withstand the touch of serious criticism, and moreover, it is not based on any ground alien to it (for example, theological, etc.), but on the very same ground on which it itself is fruitlessly trying to establish itself. This last circumstance, which we have said before and which we emphasize now with special emphasis, is extremely important and significant. By its enormous significance, we repeat, it prompted us to dwell on the question disclosed by our present speech ... Indeed, if opponents of purely Christian love were to be opposed by Christian theologians-moralists, who take frank teaching as their starting point and as a support, then the former, who do not recognize such a foundation as reliable and that starting point as consistent, would never be convinced by the arguments of the latter and would consider themselves unshakable in their conclusions and positions. If, further, philosophers-metaphysicians began to argue with the opponents of true Christian love, presenting in its defense one or another abstract, alien to the empirical spirit, arguments, then even in this case the parties would not come to an agreement among themselves, just as they cannot to agree with each other in judging about a well-known object, faces looking at it - each - from different points, yes, moreover, also through glass distorting reality (which, of course, must be said about modern fashionable naturalists-moralists) ... But once the enemy is beaten with his own weapons - as in the case we are considering - then there is an end to strife and disputes. And honor to the representatives of an impartial and not superficial natural-scientific doctrine, who in one way or another help the cause of substantiating and defending Christian principles!

Highly Enlightened Assembly! At the end of the last 18th century, such a colossus in the philosophical field as Kant was and remains, delivered a wonderful speech on "eternal peace" (a well-known indicator of love). Since then, more than a hundred years have passed, known for numerous and bloody wars, their presence loudly speaking about indomitable human egoism, about people's unwillingness to follow the divine commandment of love ... The thought of eternal peace was shattered by sad reality. But at the end of the expiring century, a voice is heard again, calling people to peace, to love - the most powerful voice in the sublunar world of the Ruler of the many millions of Russian people. Is it possible that humanity will not wake up from a deep egoistic sleep even now, will it not make at least a serious attempt at such an awakening? Will selfishness forever trample on the rights of love and dominate the world? Let it not! Both, and a sound natural science doctrine, a sound mind, as we have seen, clearly and categorically recognize the rights only behind the loving relationships of people to each other. Hence, we, as beings endowed with reason, must follow where this "eye" leads us, which distinguishes man from the whole unreasonable World. The stages of the path we are to follow are these: bring the spirit of true love into each of us's relationship to ourselves, to our own aspirations, inclinations, and discoveries, and then to our families. And after we have passed through these two initial stages, the passage of the rest will turn out to be relatively easy and safe, i.e., in other words: if we have true Christian love for ourselves and for our families, our relations will also be easily regulated. - public and all others; when everyone carries peace within himself, then universal peace will come...

However, no matter how we treat the Christian commandment about love, it itself, from the side of its foundation and essence, as we have seen, remains unshakable, despite all the efforts of certain persons and directions to shake it: and the rain comes down, and you come rivers, and raising the winds, and attacking the temple ... and not falling: it was founded on a stone. Anti-Christian teachings come and go, giving way to new ones, which, in turn, are also perishing and disappearing due to the lack of inner strength and power in them: and the rain came down, and the river came and raised the winds, and questioned the temple of that one, and fell: and there was destruction her greatness.

For example, Winkler, Bruno-Bauer, Gavé, Weigoldt... Chit. also about the "Congress of Religions at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893". ("Christ. Thursday" for 1898, July; article: "Christianity and Buddhism in the West" ... N. N. Pisarevskogo; pp. 5, 13, 14 and other.) ...

Mainly works can be named: 1) prof. A.O. Gusev ["The moral ideal of Buddhism in its relation to Christianity". St. Petersburg. 1874. Peru of this theologian also owns several works directed against Tolstoy, etc.]; .); 3) Father A.P. Maltsev (“ Moral philosophy utilitarianism." SPb. 1897); 4) prof. I. V. Popova (“The Natural Moral Law”. Serg. Pos., 1897); 5) Reverend. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (his various articles); 6) reverend. Nikanor (Brovkovich) (for example, against Tolstoy about "Christian marriage") and many others (especially in various spiritual journals).

: for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in a hedgehog: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as unto thyself. - Wed. Mate. XXII, 35–40-.– I ac. II, 8. - Chit. See also: John. XIII, 34, 35.–1 John. III, 11, 18, 23; IV, 7–9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21; II, 10, 11. - Kore. XIII - -. - Colossus. III, 14–1 Timoe. I, 5 Heb. XIII, 1...

For details, see our article: "The Essence of the Christian Doctrine of Man's Relationships with Neighbors" (Christ. Reading, November 1897; pp. 237-263).

The expression of prof. Lopatin (see “Problems of Philosophy and Psychology”, Moscow, 1890, 1st, book 3; article: “Criticism of the Empirical Principles of Morality”; p. 103).

Anyone can get acquainted with their views and with the assessment of the latter, for example, from the book cited above by Fr. A.P. Maltseva [read. also experiments related to the history of ethics: Gass'a Luthardt'a, Ziegler'a, Köstin'a, partly Jadl'a, Sidgwick'a and someotor. Friend.].

All these provisions concerning the evaluation of the utilitarian doctrine are disclosed in great detail in the cited book by Prof. I.V. Popov, and, to a certain extent, other researchers: Fr. A.II. Maltsev (op. cit.). etc.; cf. books by V.S. Solovyov: partly " Criticism of abstract principles"(Moscow, 1880) and " Justification of the Good”(St. Petersburg, 1899) ... Researchers are also introduced to utilitarians (not always, however, assessing them with proper impartiality and more or less correctly) studies: Grote ("An examination of the utilitarian philosophy"; Cambridge, 1870), Guyau ("La morale utilitaire"; Paris, 1874), Guyau ("La morale anglaise contemporaine"; Paris, 1879. - In the past -1898 - in Russian. "N. Yuzhin's translation" was published: "M. Guyot. History and criticism of modern, English teachings about morality”; SPb.), Fulje ("Criticism of the latest systems of morality" - Russian translation of Maksimova and Conradi; SPb.. 1898), Jodl ("History of ethics in new philosophy» - Russian. transl. edited by V.S. Solovyov; Moscow, vol. II. 1898), A. Smirnova ("English moralists. Historical and critical review of the main theories of morality in English philosophy from Bacon and Hobbes to the present": cm. “Teachings Notes of the Emperor. Kaz. University"; 1876 ) and quite a lot. others, which we see no need to list here.

However, denying the primacy of altruistic feelings, utilitarians still recognize the beginning of love as a necessary, desirable moment (although, as we said, they are powerless to find out the origin of altruism from egoism, the obligation for a person to follow the dictates of the first rather than the dictates of the second ...) in the interests of himself. showing love for others, a person (see the writings of Bantam, J. St. Mill). We note this circumstance in view of the fact that among later moralists who came to the aid of the utilitarians, the question of love of neighbor, as we shall see, more and more recedes into the background, until, finally, it completely disappears from the horizon and until it gives way to the question quite the opposite character. Thus, the further time goes, the darker and more we see attempts to shake the foundations gospel commandment about love for one's neighbor... But, by the way, this will be discussed later.

The Significance of Evolutionism in given case noted by Prof. I.V. Popov (you can refer readers to his book for details; we don’t need to this occasion to go into any particulars, since we are interested in Here not utilitarianism, but evolutionism and those extreme teachings which are built on its basis; Therefore, without dwelling on this point, let's move on ...).

The English "selection", according to some, is more convenient and more correctly translated into Russian: "selection", not "selection". - See K. Timiryazev "Charles Darwin and his account" (ed. 4th. Moscow; 1898): p. 111.

You can get acquainted with this teaching in detail as we compose Darwin himself, translated into Russian [see, for example, "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection" - trans. edited by Blagosvetlov; St. Petersburg 1871 ... See new Russian. transl. works of Darwin, undertaken by K. Timiryazev and a friend. in volumes I-IV], and according to various Russian studies about this English scientist [chit. esp. N.Ya. Danilevsky: "Darwinism. Critical Study"; I, part 1–2, St. Petersburg. 1885; vol. II, St. Petersburg. 1389 - Chit. an excellent "preface" (to the 2nd volume of this excellent study by Danilevsky, who unfortunately died prematurely) by N. Strakhov (pp. 1–48). - Chit., by the way, M. Guyot: "History and Criticism of Modern English Doctrines of Morality"(see about this book above: in the 32nd note); part 1, ch. IX, pp. 164–176, dedicated to specially to "Darwin" ... Read., among other things, K. Timiryazev quotation, in the 35th note. book. Especially cheat. many "Scientific Letters", one way or another affecting Darwin's teaching, placed in various nos. of the "New Time" and belonging to the talented thinker Elba [this is - Lazarus Const. Popov, the author of many works that have long put him forward - as a large figure, and his special advantage is his ability to present difficult situations and scientific data in a generally accessible popular form. We talk about him in some detail in view of the fact that we will have to deal with him more than once. Some information about him in the Encyclopedia. Words” by Brockhaus-Efron: vol. XXIV, semit. 48; SPb. 1898, pp. 562–563]. Read, by the way, Alfred Fullier, Criticism of the New. syst, mor.(see our note 32); page 13 and following...

See "The Foundations of the Science of Morality" - Herbert Spencer - Russian. transl. SPb. 1880 Chapter XI: "A defense of selfishness against altruism" (pp. 234–250).

Anthropological ideas in our time are becoming more and more practically relevant and simply vital. The well-known Western anthropologist K. Levi-Strauss wrote about this: "The 21st century will be the century of human sciences, or it will not exist at all" (see: Ivanov, 1989, p. 360). The future will show how right he will be, but the past 20th century is extremely indicative from this point of view. He revealed an important pattern: to the extent that humanity did not have knowledge and understanding of man, to that extent it followed either the path of open suppression of the human personality (as in the Soviet system) or the path of manipulating it (as in American and Western democracy).

It is logical and instructive that the historical fact is that the first among the sciences that suffered in Russia at the beginning of the Soviet regime were precisely the sciences of man (Lomov. 1989, p. 6), and they, in general, could not recover from this blow and still. The intolerant attitude of the authorities towards the sciences of man went hand in hand with an exorbitantly dismissive attitude towards man himself, who was turning into a statistical labor force (in fulfillment of the "five-year plan"). The outstanding Russian philosopher M. Mamardashvili wrote about this, drawing parallels with the now sensational environmental crisis: "Let me remind you that Baikal was" alive and well "when we had in front of us already in the 20s (and later) the wild spectacle of the degenerate face of man "(Mamardashvili. 1989, p. 332). And further: "Among the multitude of catastrophes that the 20th century is famous for and threatens us with, one, main and often hidden from view, is the anthropological catastrophe" (ibid., p. 317).

Indeed, an anthropological catastrophe is not as conspicuous as environmental, economic or political problems. But this does not make it easier: with a person as such, it gets worse and worse. Doctors talk about the genetic and biological degeneration of man. Psychologists are talking about an increasing number of mental anomalies. Sociologists talk about the deterioration of interpersonal relations, etc. Moreover, this cup did not pass not only Russia, but also other, "developed" and rich countries. It's just that in Russia these problems are more noticeable and more pronounced, but in general, the anthropological catastrophe has long been a planetary phenomenon that can no longer be ignored: "A split person in a split world is the truth that modern life reveals to us" (Gorelov. 1991, p. 63).

This is true, but what are the reasons for this? – From the point of view of the author cited by us: “The world is split because man is split, and man is split because he lives in a split world” (ibid., p. 63). In other words, the egg comes from the chicken, and the chicken hatches from the egg. Such an approach to the problem at hand is certainly not the most productive. Perhaps, in 1991, when the above words were written, it was not yet the time to solve such problems at a deep level, which means moving on to a spiritual, religious analysis of these problems. Perhaps this is not characteristic of the author himself in terms of his worldview and other convictions. But, be that as it may, at the present time it is possible and necessary to call such things by their proper names. The mystery of man is deep and the solution to his problems is not simple, but much becomes more understandable if you do not wander into the occult or esoteric, pseudo-philosophical or parapsychological darkness, but turn to the Christian doctrine of man. This is doubly relevant because both Russian and European culture have deep Christian roots, ignorance of which, of course, hinders the solution of not only anthropological, but also many other problems.

From a Christian point of view, human problems have deep spiritual roots are the consequences of the fall. Comprehension of this is the key to the physical and moral survival of modern mankind. Therefore, it seems to me that the only correct solution in this situation is to turn to the centuries-old anthropological, psychological and spiritual experience of Christianity.

Blessed Augustine in his "Confession" exclaimed: "People go to marvel at the heights of mountains, the ramparts of the sea, the expanses of rivers, the ocean that surrounds the earth, the circulation of the stars - but they leave themselves aside!" (Augustin. 1992, p. 135). Yes, indeed, the main and main interest of Christianity, both in the time of Augustine and at the present time, lies in man (in his purification and salvation). into place cosmologism, characteristic of the ancient worldview, Christianity set anthropologism- Appeal to the person. As a religion of personal salvation, it was addressed to the individual person, which found its expression in the concept of personal immortality and individual reward beyond the grave (Chukovenkov, 1997, p. 98).

This anthropological orientation was fixed in European culture which appeared and developed under the influence of Christianity. Part of this anthropologism, but already, it is true, in a secular form divorced from Christianity, has also passed into modern European science. Thus, now, following Christianity, the secular point of view recognizes the importance and centrality of man, and hence the importance of the science of man, anthropology. But here, of course, one should not turn a blind eye to the fact that, in a historical perspective, sufficient differences have been identified between secular and Christian anthropology in terms of their methods, subjects, ways of describing a person, and other important methodological and conceptual issues.

Let's dwell on some features Christian anthropology in its relation to secular anthropology.

First, it is a factor integrity. Any position of patristic anthropology is most closely connected with Christian teaching as a whole (Sitnikov, 2001, p. 110). Therefore, Christian anthropology is built on the principle of integrity: when the whole is greater than the parts, it gives meaning and life to the parts (Kuraev, 1992, p. 258). But this also results in a certain non-differentiation of both the whole of Christian theology and Christian anthropology as an independent field of analysis. By the way, Christian anthropology and Christianity in general are still blamed for this lack of differentiation, but not everything is so simple here (more on that later).

Second, Christianity is a religion revelations, therefore, it does not rely on the discursive thinking habitual in the world, which tries to deduce everything from itself. Therefore, Christian anthropology is not built on a strictly logical, inductive approach, which belittles it in the eyes of the zealots of the "strictly scientific approach." From a Christian point of view, everything here is absolutely natural, for a hidden man answers the hidden God, corresponds to apophatic theology apophatic anthropology (Evdokimov. 2002, pp. 98-99).

Third, Christianity is a religion salvation, and everything in Christian teaching is directed to this, including anthropology. Therefore, anthropology exists within Christianity not as a kind of self-sufficient, ordered system of knowledge, in which the most important thing is to "sort things out", but as a tool and method of spiritual growth, purification and salvation of a person, that is, it soteriological.

Fourth, and most importantly, Christian, Orthodox anthropology is concrete and ontological, she happens to be ontology of deification(Evdokimov. 2002, p. 136), that is, she takes a person in the mode of his possible spiritual enlightenment, not just real current existence.

It must be said that all the above listed features of Christian anthropology can only be assessed negatively by those who are too narrow in their scientific academicism. Interestingly, many areas of modern science, while developing, go beyond the academic framework, leading to the emergence of interesting intersections with the above features, or "shortcomings" of Christianity and Christian anthropology. Let's give some examples.

1) In Western science, after several crises and methodological revolutions, the so-called holistic (holistic) approach appeared, which, precisely, consists in an attempt to holistically analyze phenomena. Thus, it turns out that modern science has gradually come to understand the importance of what Christian anthropology contained in itself from the very beginning, and therefore this feature of it is by no means its shortcoming.

2) In modern science, not the inductive ("bottom-up"), but the deductive ("top-down") approach, one example of which is systems theory, is increasingly used. This scientific deductive approach, although it has a number of its own features (especially in terms of content), but in the form of its orientation, it is similar to the principle of deductivity in Christian anthropology.

3) The next task of modern science is its transition from abstract scientific nature to the solution of vital problems. As they proclaimed in Soviet times: "scientists - practice!". But it turned out that this is not so easy to do and this problem has not been solved to this day (both in our country and in the West). Most likely, the point here is that at first science struggled for too long and stubbornly for its independence and independence, dissociating itself from "applied" problems. And after it became a fundamental science, it lost almost all connection with the concrete problems of life. Therefore, one can only welcome the "practicality" and spiritual aspiration of Christian anthropology, its inseparability from life. It would be good if modern Christian anthropology, even in its further development, would avoid the temptation of scientism and pure academicism ("knowledge for the sake of knowledge").

Based on all the above features of Christian anthropology (integrity, deductivity, soteriology, ontology) the doctrine of love occupies a special, most important position in it, in a certain sense being its methodological basis, which we will try to reveal in this work.

Can't be overestimated the importance of love in Christianity: "Without going into a detailed analysis of the dogmatics of Christianity, without touching upon the earthly life and the Divine-human Personality of its Founder, without also referring to the history of the Church - its guardian and distributor, we can characterize our religion in one word, exhausting its dogmatic and moral essence in that to the extent to which, by the will of God, it is revealed to us: this word is Love ... We do not find anything like this in any other religion" (Mikhail (Mudyugin) archbishop 1995, p. 31). It is clear that it cannot be otherwise for a religion in which "God is love" (1 Jn 4:16), and its main commandments are love for God (Mt 22:37) and love for one's neighbors (Mt 22, 39).

About the special importance of love for a Christian, ap. Paul (we arranged the apostolic text in the form of a kind of ladder, emphasizing, as it seems to us, its content):

"If I speak in tongues

human and angelic

but I don't have love

then I am ringing copper

or a sounding cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy,

and I know all the secrets

and I have all knowledge and all faith,

so I can move mountains,

but if I have no love, then I am nothing.

And if I give away all my possessions

and I will give my body to be burned,

but I don't have love

it profits me nothing" (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

By the way, the concept of love is no less important for psychology: “There are concepts that can rightfully be attributed to the foundations of the foundations of psychology. This is “Love.” Any general psychological theory without love is a fiction, a game of secondary spillikins. Love is a support soul, and, consequently, the support of the whole science of the soul" (Selivanov. 1999, p. 195-196). But in the vast majority of psychological textbooks of the Soviet era, there was no place for love, however, as well as for friendship, conscience and many other moral and spiritual concepts. In perestroika and post-perestroika psychology, there has been a positive trend in this matter, but so far, unfortunately, we have to state that this is not happening fast enough and, alas, not always. right. In some justification of this, we can say that this is due not only to purely psychological reasons, but also to the fact that different types of worldly love, up to the most carnal ones, are also called love in Russian, as if mixing them with true, divine love. This language problem exists not only in psychology, but, of course, in our pedagogy, and in philosophy, and in all culture-forming disciplines and directions, and simply in our Everyday life.

"Love is evil - you will love a goat," says a Russian folk proverb. ABOUT Which love is in question here? About the same one who needs to love God and her neighbor, as it is said in the Gospel? - It is clear that it is not, but the different meanings of the word "love" in Russian are determined only from the context of the statement itself.

In terms of terminological indistinguishability between different types of love, the Russian language is not alone - a similar situation is observed in French and in many other European languages. But, for example, in English there are already two corresponding terms, although the tradition of their mutual use is gradually disappearing: “In my generation, children were still corrected when we said that we “love” berries; and many are proud that English has two verbs - “love” and “like” ... but we now increasingly say about everything: "I love". The most pedantic people now and then repeat that they love some kind of food, game or work "(Lewis. 1998, p. 210).

IN Greek In the same language, at least four basic words for love can be found (storgos, filia, agape, eros). They also existed in the ancient Greek language of the time of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, and their analysis according to the texts of the New Testament is interesting and important from a theological and psychological point of view (in addition, we will expand and supplement the conclusions of this analysis by applying them to some topical problems of our time). Let's look briefly at each of these words.

Storgos, Greek "στοργος", is a tender, cordial attitude, affection, mainly of parents to children, or children to parents. In the New Testament, this word is rare and not in a direct form, for example, with a negation: αστοργος - unloving, heartless, devoid of a feeling of love (Rom 1.31; 2 Tim 3.2); or in combination with another word: φιλοστοργος - tenderly loving (Rom 12.10).

The term " agape"(αγαπη) and the words derived from it had the most exalted meaning of all the words related to love. They meant: to love (disinterestedly and selflessly), to wish good, to appreciate. This is love, in which the readiness to serve people and help them is manifested. This is the most a kind of love that is constructive in personal terms, because in a mysterious way the situation is such that the more a person gives, the more it remains itself (Valverde, 2000, p. 366).

It is this concept that is used in those Gospel passages that speak of God's love for man and man's love for God or other people.

In the full sense of the word, it can be said that Christianity appeared precisely as revelation of love but a love like the world has never known before. This love was manifested by God the Son: “Love reveals to us Its secret on the Cross, revealing itself as a Sacrifice, when the redemptive path of the Lord appears before us in the form of suffering and humiliation beyond all understanding, absorbing all the weakness of human nature in order to tear death to pieces on the Cross of Obedience” (Sidorova, 1999, p. 45). And the description of this love was expressed in the Word of God in a very specific and unambiguous way - in the form of the concept of agape love.

Word " philia"(φιλια) meant: love, affection, friendship. It came from the verb" phileo "(φιλεω) - to love, be friendly, have affection, nurture feelings, and even kiss. It had a wide and often not very differentiated use: from friendship with a friend to love for food delicacies.

Moreover, if φίλία means love in the sense of a natural inclination, in the form of an affect with a touch involuntariness, then in the concept of αγαπη the moment comes to the fore precisely free election object of love (Zarin, 1996, pp. 370-371).

In the text of the New Testament, the words "philia", "phileo" are used in various similar meanings: friend, friend (Lk 16:9; Jn 15:13; Acts 19:31; Jas 4:4, etc.), kiss (Lk 7 , 38; 7, 45; 15, 20; 22, 48; Mt 26, 48), love to eat (Mt 11, 19), love pre-presentation at feasts (Mt 23, 6), love of money (Lk 16, 14; 1 Tim 6:10; 2 Tim 3:2), selfishness (2 Tim 3:2), arguing (1 Cor 11:16), lover of excellence (3 Jn 1:9), pleasure lover, lustful (2 Tim 3:4). ), who loves unrighteousness (Rev. 22:15), who does not love what is good (2 Tim 3:3).

It is deeply symbolic that the philic "love" of Judas is similar to his kiss, which is denoted through a philic synonym: "He who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: Whom I will kiss (φιλησω), he is, take Him" (Mt 26, 48) .

Philic love is also wrong in regards to himself“He who loves (φιλων) his soul will destroy it; but he who hates his soul in this world will keep it for eternal life” (Jn 12:25). If, according to the Gospel word (Mt 22:39), one must love one's neighbor (αγαπησεις) "as himself", then, of course, it is assumed here that one must love oneself precisely with love agapic; this is confirmed by the fact that such a negative quality as pride, is designated philically (2 Tim 3:2). Therefore, the point is not, as it is usually thought, that in Christianity at all it is impossible to love oneself, but in the fact that it is recommended to do this not philically, but agapicically. Thus, in just a nutshell, Christianity has formed a whole theological, psychological and pedagogical concept, which would be useful to know for a specialist in various fields (primarily for psychologists and teachers).

From the point of view of the conceptual analysis of words philia And agape in the New Testament, the dialogue between Jesus Christ and St. Peter (John 21, 15-17), whose inner background became almost incomprehensible when translated into Russian:

“When they were eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon Jonas, do you love me more than they do? Peter Jesus says to him, feed my lambs.

Another time he says to him: Simon Jonin! do you love me? Peter He says to Him: Yes, Lord! You know I love you. Jesus He says to him, feed my sheep.

Says to him for the third time: Simon Jonin! do you love me? Peter was sad that he asked him for the third time: do you love me? and said to Him: Lord! You know everything; You know I love you. Jesus says to him, feed my sheep."

Before looking for some subtle, for example, numerical correspondences (Peter's threefold denial of Christ and this threefold affirmation by Peter of his love before Christ Himself), one must understand the primary, basic meaning of the statement, which was lost when translated from Greek into other European languages.

Here is a schematic structure of this dialogue from the point of view of the verbs of love used (indicating their Greek forms in brackets):

1) question - agapas (αγαπας); the answer is filo (φιλω) (Jn 21:15);

2) question - agapas (αγαπας); the answer is filo (φιλω) (Jn 21:16);

3) question - phileis (φιλεις); the answer is filo (φιλω) (Jn 21:17).

Then the general idea of ap. John can be expressed approximately as follows: 1) Christ asks St. Peter about self-sacrificing love, the very love that one must love (αγαπησεις) of God and one's neighbor (Mt 22:37-39); in response, he hears that St. Peter loves Him with an intimate but grounded philic love; that is, sharpening the situation, Christ asks about the readiness to die for Him, for there is no greater love (αγαπην) than if someone lays down his life for his friends (Jn 15:13), and hears in response that they have friendly feelings for Him ; 2) and the second time Christ asks about the same, but already strengthening the significance of the question, which is expressed in the very fact of its repetition; Peter also answers - he does not catch these subtleties or does not particularly pay attention to them; 3) therefore, it is not surprising that "Peter was saddened" at his third question - he thinks, firstly, that he answers correctly, and secondly, that he answers the same question; but at the third question, and this is fundamentally important, not the verb agapas was used, but phileo - Christ goes towards the language used by Peter, but at the same time, as it were, asks: "so, after all, you did not agapao me, but philio?"; and for the third time Peter answers in the same way, but now affirming Christ's question about the philic nature of his love. But God also values those grains of love that we have, or that we cannot recognize and express - and this makes it clear why, after each questioning, Christ blesses Peter for his service to others (“feed my sheep”), for only in such service, and philic love will be purified and true agapic love will be cultivated.

It seems to us that this is one of the many difficult lessons that the Lord taught not only to the apostles, but also to all Christians and the whole world. As a further possible development of this lesson, it can be noted that the gospel phrase of Christ to Peter "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15) does not necessarily mean that Peter is superior to the other apostles in the management of the church, as Catholic authors often write. On the contrary, if you imagine the app. Peter as a type catholic church, then it will be clear that by asking him in three ways, Christ showed the too philic, human, earthly type of love of the Catholic Church and, most importantly, her lack of understanding of this problem of hers. And just as Peter was ordered to "graze the sheep" not as a reward for special merits or special love (which he did not have), but in order to correct philic love and acquire agapic love, in the same way modern Catholicism needs to "graze the sheep" not in the sense of striving for primacy in the church and leadership of peoples and people, but in a diametrically opposite sense - in serving them all and belittling oneself, which is the essence of true, Christian, agapic love.

And finally the word Eros"(ερως) was used to refer to the following phenomena: desire, desire, passion for someone, passionate love. It clearly showed a sexual connotation, and at present it is used almost exclusively in the physiological-sexual sense.

We did not find in the New Testament no one the use of the word eros (nor its derivatives), while we used the electronic form of the ancient Greek Textus Receptus and the help of printed Greek-Russian dictionaries of the New Testament (which reflect All words found throughout the Greek text of the entire New Testament). And this blatant silence The New Testament says a lot: before Christianity, this word was used most often of all the Greek words for love, and it has already begun to claim the designation of "love in general" - and suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, in all texts of the New Testament, written at different times by different authors, it is not used at all. Most likely, one can assume special And conscious distancing from such a commonly used and widely used term in ancient Greek philosophy and culture, but having a context unacceptable for Christianity (more on that later).

For comparison, for example, in one Platonic dialogue "Phaedrus", we looked through it in the Greek-Russian parallel edition (M .: Progress, 1989), eros and words derived from it occur about 153 times, phileo - 62, and agape - once (p. 19) and then in a secondary context. The trend is again evident, but with the opposite sign than in Christianity. Therefore, it is quite reasonable both from the point of view of content and the name to describe Christian, evangelical love not only as agape love, but also as love not-eros or anti-eros.

Based on all this, it seems to us that criticism of the use in some modern philosophical and even theological texts of such, for example, the phrase as "divine Eros", moreover, in relation to God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit (but This is a separate, large topic, which we do not dwell on here).

But what is love in a proper Christian context? - Let's bring the New Testament description of love- it's real love song app. Paul from 1 Corinthians:

"Love is long-suffering, merciful,

love does not envy

love is not exalted

not proud, not outrageous,

does not seek his own, is not annoyed,

does not think evil, does not rejoice in iniquity,

but rejoices in the truth;

covers everything, believes everything,

hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:4-8).

Thus, the main quality Christian love is long-suffering, mercy, striving for truth, faith and hope, and in addition, the absence of envy, exaltation, pride and irritation. If all this is there, then there is also agapic love. And this is such a clear and precise criterion that it is understandable to every Christian without exception, regardless of his intellectual abilities or education received.

Conversely, there are many false stereotypes understanding of Christian love, to the analysis of which we turn.

Separately, it must be said about the existing modern stereotype of understanding love only as emotions or feelings: with the corresponding emotional disturbances, torments, etc. From a Christian point of view, this is too narrow, and therefore incorrect.

Let's turn to the text of the New Testament. The greatest commandment in the law, according to the word of the Lord, is formulated as follows (in the Gospel of Matthew): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Matthew 22:37). In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, in addition to the listed soul, heart and mind, "all your strength" is added (Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27).

Let's explore these concepts:

- the word "heart" in the narrow sense is emotions and feelings; "cordial" person, this is a kind, sympathetic, emotional person; True, there is also a broad understanding of the heart as the middle, the center not only of the body, but also of the human soul;

- the word "understanding" in Greek. "διανοια" means: 1) reason, understanding, consciousness; 2) thought, opinion, meaning; 3) way of thinking; that is, you must love God with all your mind, make Him meaning his life and the center of his way of thinking, or, in modern terms, their worldview;

- and the word "fortress" in Greek. "ισχυς" is "strength", "power", "fortress" - in this context it is a synonym strong-willed strength, strong-willed aspirations, that is, a person should strive for God and all his will;

- the listed emotions, mind and will constitute the main, central forces of the soul, that is, in fact, their joint enumeration is a reference to the whole soul as such, in its integrity; but the Word of God is exact and in detail, for there are also other powers of the soul, and in order not to list them all, it is said that one must love God and "with all soul yours."

Thus, integral Christian love-agape is possible only when a person loves God with all his soul in her integrity and all its separate forces-organs: emotions, feelings, mind, will, etc. On the earthly plane, this is an attitude holistic person to another person integrity, by and large it is the attitude of a person as personalities to another person as personalities(made in the image of God).

So agape love is the most holistic kind of love, and in it, in a folded and purified form, all other types of love can be present: and here it is not rejected and bodily love (eros), and specifically parental love (storgia), and friendly relations (phileo). But all of them are melted down and ennobled in agapic love and already bear another inner meaning(compared to ancient Greek and generally pagan religion):

– Eros now not just violent sexual desire, but the legal attitude of Christian spouses (but only in this way and only in this form, because sexual relations outside of marriage are fornication, and the betrayal of one of the spouses is adultery, one of the most terrible sins from a Christian point of view, since it is a sin against love, which should be an image of Divine love);

– philia now not just friendly relations, which are often not very deep and not very long; friendship in Christianity is full responsibility for a friend before God, readiness to "lay down one's life" for him, as it is said in the Gospel of John (Jn 15:13);

– storgia no longer the blind love of parents for their children, when parents corrupt their children with such love more than they educate them. Mother cries: "I devoted my whole life to him, I blew dust off him, well, what else does he need?" Reasonable the love of parents for children implies that parents will provide children with greater freedom and responsibility, as they grow physically and spiritually. Let us point to the example of God himself in relation to each person: Almighty God can do everything, but he cannot and does not want to forcibly bring a person to himself - it is God who is dear to God. free his choice, since man himself is endowed with freedom as a property of the image of God, according to which he was created. And parents who are overprotective of their children are actually doing so against the will of God. In education, as elsewhere in Orthodoxy, it is better to adhere to the golden middle.

Second existing stereotype perception of love lies in the fact that it comes down, in psychological terms, to one of the mental processes, that is, something that flows quickly enough and for a short time.

On mental process due to its mobility and, so to speak, susceptibility, almost any factors of a person’s environment can influence: they accidentally stepped on their feet in transport and a person immediately has negative emotions (and the occurrence of such situational emotions is very, very difficult to control, which is also described in patristic literature Therefore, the Holy Fathers advise to "endure" this state, as, for example, a person can suffer with a toothache once it has appeared; but at the same time, this state must still be tried resist, and at the very next opportunity to repent of it as a sin, and then in the sacrament of confession, God will cleanse the soul from the consequences and, most importantly, the predisposition to this). By the way, let me note the effectiveness of the sacrament as a mental medicine: a long-noted fact is that those Christians who try to regularly confess and receive communion become less angry and irritable.

Although there are also rapid changes in mental states, such as mood swings, but in general they change more slowly and for more compelling reasons: here one negative impact not enough, you need several failures in a row. Mental same properties, for example, character traits change the slowest of all and it is not very easy to do this (especially in the second half of life) - this requires a long time, constantly and purposefully making efforts to do this.

So what is agape love in terms of such a classification? – Love can be both as a process, and as a state, and as a property of a person.

Let me give you an example: the newlyweds came a month after the wedding to the registry office to get a divorce. They are asked: "why did you get married?" - "fell in love!"; "Why are you getting divorced?" - "out of love!". Clearly this is not love state. Although it may well be that in the beginning they had a certain emotion, a feeling towards each other, but it was only a spark, and it had to be saved and blown into a flame (this state), from which only a real and a constantly burning fire of true love, as character traits.

In order to come to love, as to character trait you have to go a long and hard way. In fact, this is the acquisition of love as Christian virtues which is the goal and task of the life of every Christian.

There are many other ordinary stereotypes in relation to love: humanistic love, "fatal", "platonic", "burnt" love and its other fakes. Each of them deserves a detailed analysis and criticism, since these are not just some theoretical constructions, but broken and crippled human lives.

From a false understanding of love, a false arrangement of all types of human relationships occurs: marital, parent-child, comradely, etc. This gives rise to many interpersonal and internal psychological problems that people experience very hard and painfully.

As positive disclosure of the Christian doctrine of love, let us point out a few of its most important points.

First, let us dwell on the Christian doctrine of heart as the organ of love.

We digest food with the stomach, we think with the brain, and what should we love? – The Holy Fathers answer this question unambiguously: heart, but not in the ordinary, narrow sense of the word: behind our physical heart there is a certain spiritual and spiritual reality, which St. fathers just called "heart". There is a heart middle, center the whole person, his body and soul. IN purified the heart gathers and unites all the forces of the soul, which were at war with each other before (and were in different parts of the body: the mind - in the head, emotions - in the heart, in a narrow sense; wishes - in the womb). In the monastic tradition of hesychasm, there are special instructions about "reducing the mind into the heart." Then, such a whole and purified heart becomes vessel to contain the God-given inextinguishable fire of love. But this is the last, most difficult and most important stage in the acquisition of Christian love. And, by and large, before asking God for love (or grumbling about the fact that God does not give the requested love), you need to fully realize what, in fact, we are asking Him for. No one in their right mind will grab onto a high-voltage wire that is energized by several thousand volts - otherwise the result will be simply deplorable, and only a pile of ashes can remain from a person. And Divine love is a million volts (although not in the physical equivalent), and if we do not prepurify our body and soul for the proper action of Divine love in them, the consequences can be no less sad, both physically and mentally and spiritually. It is for this reason that God does not give agape love to those who misunderstand it (in a worldly, everyday context), or to those who cannot keep it (they will extinguish the "spark of love"), as well as to those who themselves can burn out from such love, because they cannot bear it.

Secondly, the Christian teaching about personalities as the subject and object of love.

Is it possible, for example, to love a cat or dumplings with sour cream? The fact is that, according to basic Christian ideas, only personality, and she can also treat with love only to another personalities. Personalities are the Persons of the Holy Trinity and people created in the image of God (some authors also include angels here, but this is a topic for further analysis, because if an angel has a personality, then it is natural that the personality of an angel is significantly different from the personality of a person - and According to Orthodox theology, the personality of a person is closer to the personality of God than the personality of an angel). According to the patristic tradition, with all their extraordinary and miraculous abilities, angels are no higher than a man, as many St. fathers, up to Gregory Palamas, - and the main reason for this was that angels are not the image of God (Cyprian (Kern), 1996, p. 141). Thus, "one man was created in the image and likeness of God" (Macarius of Egypt, 1998, p. 132); “Man is more precious than all creatures, I even dare to say not only visible, but also invisible creatures, that is, ministering spirits. For God did not say about the Archangels Michael and Gabriel: let us make in our image and likeness(Gen. 1, 26), but he spoke about the intelligent human essence, I mean immortal soul"(ibid., p. 121); "God placed you higher than the angels, when He Himself in His person came to earth to be your Intercessor and your Redeemer" (ibid., p. 132). As Anastasius of Sinai wrote about this: "When God created the most venerable, truly holy, heavenly, eternal, divine and service orders of the Cherubim, Seraphim and all the heavenly Powers, which were really pure and blameless, He did not say: "Let us make the Cherubim and Seraphim in Our image and likeness," although Cherubim, in comparison with a man of dust, would be more befitting to be called "in the image of God" (Anastasius of Sinai, 1999, No. 1(19), p. 89).

Thirdly, there is a direct connection between love and image of God.

If "God is love" (1 John 4:8), then, of course, this is of paramount importance for man, created in the image of God. As Gregory of Nyssa wrote about this: “God is also love and the source of love; the great John speaks of this: There is love from God, and God is love(1 John 4:7-8). This is the Builder and our nature made hallmark. For says: Everyone understands about this, as if you are My disciples, if you have love for each other(John 13:35). Therefore, where this love is absent, all the features of the image are distorted" (Gregory of Nyssa, 1995, p. 17). Thus, the growth of a Christian in love is at the same time the purification in him of the original image of God, which directly correlates with Divine love.

Fourth, love has ontological status.

Intra-Trinitarian love in the Holy Trinity, there is her way of being. Therefore, man, as the image of God, was created in such a way that love is, or should be (after cleansing from sin), his way of being. Man is called to bring love into the world, to enlighten himself and other people with Divine love. Then love in a person's life ceases to be one of the emotions in a number of others, but acquires an ontological status and becomes a way of spiritual, mental and bodily existence of a person in the world.

Fifth, love in Christianity has a pronounced social aspect.

After the commandment of man's love for God, the second greatest commandment is love for one's neighbor (Matt. 22:39). Thus, Christian anthropology does not neglect the social, as psychologists would say, aspect of personality, but at the same time does not stick it out and does not make it self-sufficient. Here one can define personality as "being in communion", "being in love with other people".

Genuine human being not egocentric, not closed in on itself. A person is not a person, a person, until he, in the image of the Trinity, is turned to face others, does not look into their eyes and does not allow them to look into their own. A person realizes himself as a person not as an isolated individual, but only because he perceives and welcomes others as persons (Filaret Mitr. 2002, p. 126).

Let's do main conclusion our work. In the holistic context of Christian anthropology, love is agape love as described in the New Testament. It is a free, meaningful and holistic desire to meet with God and with another person, in which not only emotions, but will and reason, and the whole soul of a person should be involved. It is not only a short-term mental (mental) process - it is only a "spark of love", but also a state of mind (a blazing fire) and a personality trait (an unquenchable fire burning in a purified human heart). In the latter case, a person acquires love as a Christian virtue, likening him to God himself, Who is Love (with a capital letter). Therefore, Christian saints are called "reverend": they personally show not only various miracles, but, first of all, the miracle of true, Christian love. But the desire for such love is not the lot of the saints only: the Lord called each of the people to ascend to perfection (Matt. 5:48), called each of the Christians to acquire such love in order to love all people and God Himself with it.

A true understanding of agape love is necessary not only in the personal life of Christians, it is no less important in modern pedagogy, psychology, and other scientific areas, as well as in art, literature, economic, political and everyday life. All people strive for love, it is inherent in human nature itself, but this desire is often used for selfish purposes, and often people themselves deceive themselves in order to have at least some appearance of love. And here the Christian doctrine of love could become the methodological principle that would contribute to the humanization of our pedagogy, psychology and other areas of the humanities, and indeed of our entire life as a whole.

It is clear that in the volume of one article it is not possible to disclose, and even not to designate, all the variety of ideas and problems associated with the Christian doctrine of love, therefore we invite all those interested in this topic to familiarize themselves with the various materials located on the specialized website "Christian psychology and anthropology" (according to address: www.site).

LITERATURE

Augustine. Confession. - M.: Respublika, 1992.

Anastasy Sinai. Three words about the dispensation of man in the image and likeness of God. The first word // Alpha and Omega. 1998, No. 4(18), p. 89-118; 1999, No. 1(19), p. 72-91; No. 2(20), p. 108-146 (translation and commentary by A. I. Sidorov).

Valverde K. Philosophical anthropology. Per. from Spanish Moscow: Christian Russia, 2000.

Gorelov A. A. A split man in a split world. Moscow: Knowledge, 1991.

Gregory Nyssky. About the constitution of man. Per., approx. and after. V. M. Lurie. St. Petersburg: Aksioma, Mithril, 1995.

Evdokimov P. Orthodoxy. Per. from fr. - M .: Biblical-theological. Institute of St. app. Andrew, 2002 (translation: Paris, Desclee De Brouwer, 1979).

Zarin S. M. Asceticism in Orthodox Christian teaching. M .: Palomnik, 1996 (repr. re-ed.: T. 1. Book 2. St. Petersburg: Typ. V. F. Kirshbaum, 1907).

Zenko Yu. M. Evangelical concept of love-αγαπη and actual problems of Christian anthropology and psychology // Acta eruditorum. Scientific reports and messages. Issue. 4. St. Petersburg, 2007, p. 140-146.

Ivanov V.V. Neurosemiotic approach to sign systems of art // Man in the system of sciences. M., 1989, p. 351-361.

Cyprian (Kern), Archim. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M.: Palomnik, 1996 (reissued: Paris, 1950).

Kozlov Maxim Rev."Verbs of Love" in the New Testament // Alpha and Omega. 1995, No. 2(5), p. 21-36; No. 3 (6), p. 23-38.

Kuraev Andrei deacon. The Man in Front of the Icon (Reflections on Christian Anthropology and Culture) // Quintessence. Philosophical almanac. M., 1992, p. 237-262.

Lomov B.F. The study of man on the basis of a systematic approach // Man in the system of sciences. M., 1989, p. 5-13.

Lewis K. Love // Him. Collected Works in eight volumes. T. 1. M., 1998, p. 203-278.

Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual conversations, messages and words. - M .: Rule of Faith, 1998 (repr. reed.: 4th ed. St. Trinity. Serg. Laurus, 1904).

Malkov P. Yu."Love is an infinite God" (Orthodox teaching about love) // Theological collection. 1997, no. 1, p. 42-78.

Mamardashvili M.K. Consciousness and civilization // Man in the system of sciences. M., 1989, p. 307-332.

Michael (Mudyugin) archbishop. An introduction to basic theology. M.: Public Orthodox University, 1995.

Selivanov V.P. Mysticism and rationalism of the soul: Fundamentals of metapsychology. Saratov: Slovo, 1999.

Sidorova S. Divine love and human love. Reflections on the Book of Job // Alpha and Omega. 1999, No. 4(22), p. 33-45.

Sitnikov A.V. Philosophy of Plotinus and the tradition of Christian patristics. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001.

Filaret Met. Minsky and Slutsky. Theology and anthropological concepts of the XX century // Man. 2002, No. 1, pp. 118-126.

Yu. A. Chukovenkov The origins of Christian human studies: (Religious analysis). M., 1997.

Edition:

Zenko Yu. M. The doctrine of love in the context of Christian anthropology // Questions of religion and religious studies. Issue. 2. Book. 2. Religious and philosophical anthropology. – M.: MediaProm, 2012, p. 67-80.

forma-vl.ru RECOMMENDS

Why dream of crying in a dream: interpretation from various dream books

according to Loff's dream book, we often cry in a dream. Crying is usually a human response to...

2023-07-26 01:17:47

Why is the Pig dreaming in a dream?

A pig in a dream reflects physical needs, wealth, or sloppiness, stupidity. Sometimes...

2023-07-24 01:11:59

Orthodox prayers from the evil eye and corruption, witchcraft, evil, enemies to Jesus Christ, Cyprian, Matrona, the Life-Giving Cross, Guardian Angel, Nicholas the Wonderworker: text, words

If you are suffering from strong spoiled deeds, turn to Matrona with prayerful help ...

2023-07-23 01:18:34

Why dream of height and fear of falling: you are afraid of life's difficulties

Even in ancient times, people are trying to unravel the secrets of dreams, or rather, what kind of information load they ...

2023-07-22 01:15:54

Protection from damage How to put on protection from damage and the evil eye

How to protect yourself, your home, your relatives from the evil eye and damage, without resorting to the help of magicians or ...

2023-07-21 01:13:30

Christian love. The doctrine of love in the context of Christian anthropology The Christian concept of love

Essence

The concept of divine love

Concepts of Christianity related to the concept of Divine love

Love for God in the Bible

see also

See what "Christian love" is in other dictionaries: