In the new philosophy, the question of free will gains special significance in the systems of Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant, to which Schelling and Schopenhauer, on the one hand, adjoin in this respect, and Fichte and Maine de Biran, on the other. Spinoza's worldview is a type of purest "geometric" determinism. Phenomena of the physical and mental order are determined by the nature of an extended and thinking being with a conditioned necessity; and since this being is truly one, then everything in the world exists and occurs by virtue of one general necessity, any withdrawal from which would be a logical contradiction. All desires (Discussion: instinct) and actions of a person necessarily follow from his nature, which itself is only a definite and necessary modification (modus) of a single absolute substance. The idea of free will is only a deception of the imagination with a lack of true knowledge: if we feel ourselves freely wanting and acting voluntarily, then a stone, falling to the ground with mechanical necessity, could consider itself free if it had the ability to feel well. Strict determinism, excluding any chance in the world and any arbitrariness in a person, naturally demanded from Spinoza a negative assessment of ethical affects associated with the idea that something that might not happen (regret, repentance, a sense of sinfulness). - Leibniz, no less Spinoza rejecting free will in the proper sense, or so-called. liberum arbitrium indifferentiae, claims that everything is finally determined by the will of God by virtue of moral necessity, that is, the voluntary choice of the best. Of all the possible worlds contained in the mind of the omniscient, the will, guided by the idea of good, chooses the best one. This kind of inner necessity, distinct from the geometric or even intellectual necessity of Spinozism, is inevitably required by the highest perfection of divine action: Necessitas quae ex electione optimi fluit, quam moralem appello, non est fugienda, nec sine abnegatione summae in agendo perfectionis divinae evitari potest. At the same time, Leibniz insists on the idea, which has no essential meaning, that despite the moral necessity of this choice, as the best, there remains an abstract possibility of the other, as if it does not contain any logical contradiction, and that, therefore, our world, absolutely speaking, should be deemed random (contingens). In addition to this scholastic distinction, Leibniz's determinism differs significantly from Spinozism in that world unity, according to the author of monadology, is realized in the aggregate plurality of individual beings who have their own reality and so far independently participate in the life of the whole, and are not subordinate only to this whole as an external necessity. Moreover, in the very concept of a single being, or monad, Leibniz put forward the sign of active striving (appetitio), as a result of which each creature ceases to be a passive instrument, or a conductor of the general world order. The freedom allowed by this view is reduced to the own nature of each creature as a living being, organically developing its content from itself, that is, all the physical and mental potentialities inherent in it.
Thus, here it is only about the will of the being as the producing cause (causa efficiens) of his actions, and not about his freedom in relation to the formal and final reasons (causae formales et c. Finales) of his activity, which, according to Leibniz, with unconditional by necessity are determined by the idea of the greatest good in the representation of the monad itself, and in the absolute mind - by the idea of the best coordination of all past, present and future activities (pre-established harmony).
Free will with Kant
Absolutely new production receives the question of free will from Kant. According to him, causality is one of those necessary and universal forms of representation, according to which our mind builds the world of phenomena.
According to the law of causality, any phenomenon can arise only as a consequence of another phenomenon, as its cause, and the whole world of phenomena is represented by a set of series of causes and effects. It is clear that the form of causality, like all others, can be valid only in the field of its lawful application, that is, in the conditioned world of phenomena, outside of which, in the sphere of being intelligible (noumena), there remains the possibility of freedom. We theoretically do not know anything about this transcendental world, but in practice, reason reveals to us its requirements (postulates), one of which is freedom. As beings, and not just phenomena, we can start out of ourselves a series of actions not out of the necessity of an empirically overriding motivation, but because of a purely moral imperative, or out of respect for unconditional obligation. Kant's theoretical reasoning about freedom and necessity is notable for the same ambiguity as his view of the transcendental subject and the relationship of the latter with the empirical subject. W. Schelling and Schopenhauer, whose thoughts on this subject can be understood and appreciated only in connection with their own metaphysics (see Schelling, Schopenhauer), tried to place Kant's doctrine of free will on a certain metaphysical ground and bring it to clarity. Fichte, recognizing the self-acting, or self-based, as the supreme principle, I asserted metaphysical freedom, and he, unlike Kant, insisted on this freedom more as a creative force than as an unconditional moral norm. The French Fichte - Maine de Biran, having carefully examined the active and volitional side of mental life, cultivated the psychological ground for the concept of free will as the causa efficiens of human actions. - Of the latest philosophers, Lausanne prof. Charles Sekretin asserts in his Philosophie de la liberté the primacy of the volitional principle over the mental in both man and God, to the detriment of Divine omniscience, from which Sekretan excludes knowledge of free human actions before they are committed. The final formulation and solution of the question of free will - see Philosophers; literature there.
FREEDOM OF WILL - a person's ability to self-determination in their actions. In the context of early Greek culture in the concept of S.V. the emphasis is not so much on the philosophical and categorical meaning as on the legal one. A free person is a citizen of the polis, one who lives in the land of his ancestors. The opposite is a prisoner of war, taken away to a foreign land and turned into a slave. The source of individual freedom is the polis, its land (Solon); free from birth living on the land of the polis, where a reasonable law is established. Therefore, the antonym of the term "free" is not so much "slave" as "non-man", "barbarian". In the Homeric epic, the concept of freedom reveals another meaning. A free person is one who acts without coercion, by virtue of his own nature. The maximum possible expression of freedom is in the actions of the hero who overcomes fate and thus is compared with the gods.
The theoretical premise of the scientific and philosophical formulation of the question of S.V. develops in the thinking of the sophists, who opposed "phusis" (the only possible order generated by nature itself) and "nomos" (the order of life independently established by each nation). Socrates emphasizes the crucial role of knowledge in the exercise of freedom. A truly free, moral act is possible only on the basis of clear concepts of goodness and valor. No one can act badly of their own free will, a person strives for the best in his actions, and only ignorance, ignorance pushes him on the wrong path. Plato connects the concept of S.V. with the existence of the good as the highest "idea". Goodness sanctifies the order that functions in the world as expedient order. To act freely means to act in accordance with the ideal of good, reconciling personal aspirations with social justice.
Aristotle considers the problem of S.V. in the context of moral choice. Freedom is associated with knowledge of a special kind - knowledge-skill ("fronesis"). It differs from the knowledge-"techne", which provides the solution of problems according to the known model. Moral knowledge-skill, paving the way for freedom, orients to the choice of the best deed in the context of ethical choice. The source of such knowledge is a specific moral intuition, which is brought up in a person by life trials. Stoicism develops its vision of freedom, recognizing the priority of providence in human life. The Stoics see the independent significance of the personality in the observance of duties and obligations (Panethius). At the same time, providence can be considered both as a law of nature and as a will in man (Posidonius). In the latter case, will acts as a weapon in the struggle against fate, and as such requires special education. Epicurus considers the question of S.V. in their atomistic physics. The latter is opposed to the deterministic atomism of Democritus. Physics Epicurus substantiates the possibility of S.V.: as its physical model, Epicurus indicates the possibility of free deviation of an atom from a straight trajectory. The reasons for this deviation are not external, it occurs completely spontaneously. A special stage in the formulation of the question of S.V. made up the Christian ideology. Man is called to fulfill his essence in unity with the Divine, the Bible teaches. The problem, however, is to combine the universalism of God's will, on the one hand, and the moral effort of a person who has not yet achieved (and in fact never achieved) union with the Divine, on the other.
Christian literature dealing with this problem can be classified according to the emphasis on one or the other side of this interaction. Thus, Pelagius (5th century) substantiates a fairly broad interpretation of the Christian idea of the participation of man's will in shaping his fate, unwittingly belittling the significance of Christ's atoning sacrifice. The idea of the universality of Providence in controversy with this point of view is defended by Augustine. Realization of good in human activity is possible only with the help of the grace of God. Moreover, Augustine does not associate her action with a conscious appeal to her on the part of a person. It manifests itself independently of him. Thomas Aquinas sees the sphere of S.V. in the choice of goals and means of achieving good. According to him, only one correct path leads to the goal. A rational being necessarily strives for good, while evil, as a result of rational choice, is impossible. A variety of positions is also manifested in the era of the Reformation, Erasmus of Rotterdam defends the idea of S.V. Luther opposes it, insisting on a literal reading of the dogma of divine predestination. God originally called some people to salvation, others sentenced to eternal torment. The future fate of man remains, however, unknown to him. At the same time, Luther pointed to a special sphere of being, "experiencing" which a person is able to consider the signs of being chosen in it. It is about the sphere of human everyday life and, above all, about professional activity, the successful implementation of which is a sign of the consistency (chosenness) of a person in the face of the world and God. A similar position is taken by Calvin, who believes that the will of God completely programs the existence of man.
Protestantism practically reduces free will to a minimum. The fundamental paradox of Protestant ethics, however, lies in the fact that by postulating the passivity of human will in the exercise of God's grace, by forcing a person to seek the "codes" of chosenness, thereby managed to cultivate an activist type of personality. The Jesuit L. de Molina (1535-1600) argued with Protestantism: among the various types of all-seeing of God, his theory singled out a special "average knowledge" about what can happen in general, but concretely will be realized if a certain condition is met. Molina connected this condition with living human will. This look got its further development from Suarez, who believed that God imparts his grace only to those actions of a person, during the performance of which the help of God does not suppress S.V. The doctrine of K. Jansen (1585-1638), in fact, revives the ideas of Calvin and Luther - a person is free to choose not between good and evil, but only between different types of sin. A similar view was also developed by the mystic M. de Molinos, who affirmed the idea of the passivity of the human soul in the face of God (see Quietism). Theme by S.V. reveals itself in the philosophy of modern times. For Hobbes S.V. means, first of all, the absence of physical coercion.
Freedom is interpreted by him in an individual-natural dimension: a person is the more free, the more opportunities for self-development open before him. The freedom of the citizen and the "freedom" of the slave differ only quantitatively: the former does not have absolute freedom, and the latter cannot be said to be completely unfree. According to Spinoza, only God is free, because only his actions are determined by an internal law, while man, as a part of nature, is not free. Nevertheless, he strives for freedom, translating indistinct ideas into distinct ones, affects - into rational love for God. Reason multiplies freedom, suffering reduces it, says Leibniz, distinguishing between negative freedom (freedom from ...) and positive (freedom for ...). For Locke, the concept of freedom is tantamount to freedom of action; freedom is the ability to act according to a conscious choice. It is S.V., opposed to reason, that acts as a fundamental definition of a person - such is the view of Rousseau. The transition from natural freedom, limited by the forces of the individual himself, to "moral freedom" is possible through the use of laws that people prescribe to themselves. According to Kant, S.V. is possible only in the sphere of moral laws that oppose themselves to the laws of nature. For Fichte, freedom is an instrument for the implementation of the moral law.
Schelling finds his solution to the problem of S.V., considering actions to be free if they arise from the "inner necessity of essence", human freedom stands at the crossroads between God and nature, being and non-being. According to Hegel, Christianity brings into the consciousness of European man the idea that history is a process in the realization of freedom. Nietzsche considers the entire history of morality to be the history of delusions regarding S.V. According to his opinion, S.V. - fiction, "delusion of everything organic." Self-realization of the will to power presupposes its purification from the moral ideas of freedom and responsibility. Marxist philosophy saw the condition of free development in the fact that associated producers are able to rationally regulate the exchange of substances between society and nature. The growth of the productive forces of society creates the material prerequisites for the free development of individuals. The kingdom of true freedom was conceived in Marxism as communism, destroying private property, exploitation, and thus the very basis of coercion. S.V. - one of central concepts fundamental ontology of Heidegger.
Freedom is the deepest definition of being, "the basis of the foundations", placing existence in a permanent situation of choice. Similarly, for Sartre, freedom is not a quality of the individual or his actions, it is rather a superhistorical definition of the generic essence of a person. Freedom, choice and temporality are one and the same, the philosopher believes. In Russian philosophy, the problem of freedom, S.V. specially developed by Berdyaev. The world of objects, where suffering and evil reign, is opposed by creativity, designed to overcome conservative forms of objectification. The results of creativity will inevitably be objectified, but the creative act itself is just as inevitably free. Perhaps the dominant tendency in S.V. (especially in the 20th century) there is a point of view according to which a person is always worthy of what happens to him. It is possible to find grounds for justification only in "borderline" cases. (See Transgression.)
A.P. Zhdanovsky
The latest philosophical dictionary. Compiled by A.A. Gritsanov Minsk, 1998.
FREE WILL- the concept of European moral philosophy, which was finally formed by I. Kant in the meaning of the intelligible ability of the individual to moral self-determination. In retrospect, the term "free will" can be viewed as a historical and philosophical metaphor: its historically recorded connotations are much wider than the possible normative meaning of the term, which emphasizes the meaning of the concept of "freedom", and "will" can be replaced by "decision", "choice" etc. equivalents. However, for many centuries the meaningful “core” of metaphor has demonstrated a high degree of invariance of the main problems: what is moral action; Does sanity imply free will? In other words: should moral autonomy exist (as a condition of morality and as the ability to generate extra-natural causality) and what are its limits, i.e. How does natural (divine) determinism correlate with the intellectual and moral freedom of the subject?
In the history of philosophy, two main ways of deducting the concept of free will can be distinguished. The first (it was adhered to by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Hegel) is reduced to the analytical deduction of the concept of free will from the very concept of will as the ability of the mind to self-determination and the generation of special causality. The second way (traced from Plato and the Stoics through Augustine and most scholastics up to Kant) - the postulation of free will as independence from external (natural or divine) causality and, therefore, as the ability to self-determination. For the second method, there are two types of justification. At first, theodicy (known since the time of Plato and found completion in Leibniz), where free will is postulated to prove the innocence of a deity in world evil. Secondly, the opposite in its initial premise (denial of any theodicy), but similar in principle, is the Kantian method of proof, where free will is postulated by the morally legislating reason. These two proofs are similar in the sense that they do not depend on the meaningful definition of will: it is enough to assume a certain value that ensures the formal correctness of the "moral equations". That is why “free will” is here equivalent to “freedom of choice”, “decision”, etc.
"Free will" in ancient and medieval thought (Greek τὸ ἐφ ’ἡμῖν, αὐτεξούσιον, αὐτεξουσία, less often προαίρεσνς, αὐτονομία; Latin arbitrium, liberum arbitrium). Greek moral reflection arose in the universal cosmological paradigm, which made it possible to explain the moral, social and cosmic orders through each other: morality acted as one of the characteristics of the "involvement" of the individual during cosmic events. The law of cosmic retribution, which appeared in the guise of fate or fate, expressed the idea of impersonal compensatory justice (clearly formulated, for example, by Anaximander - B 1): it is not subjective guilt that is of fundamental importance, but the need to compensate for the damage caused to order by any "culprit" or "cause ". In the archaic and preclassical consciousness, the thesis dominates: responsibility does not imply free will as an indispensable condition (e.g., II. XIX 86; Hes. Theog. 570 sq .; 874; Opp. 36; 49; 225 sq .; Aesch. Pers. 213 -214; 828; Soph. Oed. Col. 282; 528; 546 sq .; 1001 sq.).
Socrates and Plato discovered new approaches to the problem freedom and responsibility: imputation is more consistently associated with the arbitrariness of decisions and actions, morality is understood as an epiphenomenon of the highest moral good, and freedom - as the ability to do good. Responsibility in Plato has not yet fully become a moral category, but it does not remain only a problem of violation of the cosmic order: a person is responsible because he possesses knowledge of the moral ought (parallels in Democritus - 33 p; 601-604; 613-617; 624 Lurie). The virtue of action is identified with its rationality: no one commits voluntarily (οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν ἁμαρτάνει - Gorg. 468 cd; 509 e; Legg. 860 d sq.). From the need to justify the deity, Ptaton develops the first theodicy: each soul chooses its own lot and is responsible for the choice (“This is the guilt of the elect; God is innocent” - (Rep. X 617 e, cf. Tun. 29 e sd.). However, freedom for Plato it lies not in the autonomy of the subject, but in the ascetic state (in participation in knowledge and the intelligible highest good).
Plato's theory is a transitional stage from archaic schemes to Aristotle, which is associated with an important point in the understanding of free will: understanding "volitional" as the self-determination of the mind, which allows talking about the "spontaneity" of arbitrariness and analytically deriving the concept of independence of mind decisions from the concept of the decision itself; definition of voluntary as "that which depends on us" and an indication of the unconditional connection of imputation with the voluntariness of an act. Reason for the first time is understood as a source of specific causality, different from other types - nature, necessity, chance, habit (Nic. Eth. III 5, 1112a31 s .; Rhet. L 10, 1369 a 5–6); arbitrary - like that, the cause of which is in the performer (Nic. Eth. III 3, 1111 a 21 s .; III 5, 1112 a 31; Magn. Mor. I 17, 1189 a 5 sq.), or “that, what depends on us ”(τὸ ἐφ 'ἡμῖν) - imputation makes sense only in relation to reasonably arbitrary actions of Nic. Eth. III 1, 1110 b 1 s .; Magn. Mor. I 13, 1188 a 25 s.). The concept of "guilt" thus acquires a subjective and personal meaning. Aristotle outlined the future semantic circle of the terms "will", "choice" ("decision"), "arbitrary", "goal", etc. All the terms were adopted by Stoya, and through her passed to Roman authors and patristics. Aristotle's conclusions are extremely productive, but often presented by him in a social context (the morality of free citizens).
The Stoics cleared the "metaphysical" core of the problem from the social "husk" and came close to the concept of "pure" autonomy of the subject. Their theodicy, or rather cosmodicy, developed the ideas of Plato: if evil cannot be a property of cosmic causality, it flows from man. Appropriateness requires the independence of moral decision from external causality (Cic. Ac. Pr. II 37; Gell. Noct. Att. VII 2; SVF II 982 sq.). The only thing that “depends on us” is our “consent” (συγκατάθεσις) to accept or reject this or that “idea” (SVF I 61; II 115; 981); the idea of moral obligation was based on this basis. The stoic scheme of free will was, therefore, conceived with a double "margin of safety." The decision of the mind is the source of spontaneous causality and, by definition, cannot but be free (Aristotelian train of thought). Secondly, it must be free so that its imputation is in principle possible (conclusions from the theodicy of the Platonic type). At the same time, such autonomy did not fit into the deterministic picture of Stoic cosmology.
The alternative concept of Epicurus, developed somewhat earlier, proceeded from almost the same premises, striving to free arbitrariness (τὸ ἐφ 'ἡμῖν) from external determinism and associate imputation with the arbitrariness of action (Diog. L. X 133-134; fatis avolsa voluntas - Lucr. De rer. nat. II 257). However, replacing the determinism of fate with the equally global determinism of randomness, Epicurus lost the ability to explain the ultimate basis of a moral decision, and his concept remained a marginal phenomenon. Thus, the idea of moral autonomy and the unconditional connection between freedom and the implications of action became dominant no earlier than the 3rd century. BC. and found its paradigmatic expression in Plotinus (Enn. VI 8,5-6). At the same time, internal responsibility in the ancient understanding is distinguished by a strong legal connotation: for the ancient consciousness, the difference between morality and law did not have the same fundamental character as it acquired in the era of Christianity, and especially in modern times. The universal imperative of antiquity can be formulated as follows: the goal is one's own perfection and the right of one's neighbor. The normative terms that convey the concept of free will in the texts of non-Christian authors were Greek. τὸ ἐφ 'ἡμῖν, less often προαίρεσις (mainly in Epictetus), even less often αὐτονομία and αὐτεξουσία (including derivatives, for example, Epict.' Diss. IV 1.56; 62; Procl. In Rp. II p. 266.22; 324 , 3 Kroll; In Tim. III p. 280,15 Diehl), lat. arbitrium, potestas, in nobis (Cicero, Seneca).
Christianity 1) radically transformed the moral imperative, declaring the good of the neighbor as the goal and thus separating the sphere of ethics from the sphere of law; 2) modified theodicy, replacing impersonal cosmic determinism with unique divine causality. At the same time, the problematic side of the issue has not undergone significant changes. The existing semantic field and tested lines of thought are invariably present in Eastern Patristics from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V 14,136,4) and Origen (De pr. I 8,3; III 1,1 sq.) To Nemesias (39-40) and John Damascene (Exp. Fid. 21; 39-40); along with the traditional τὸ ἐφ ’ἡμῖν, the term αὐτεξούσιον (αὐτεξούσια) began to be widely used. The Nemesia formula, which goes back to Aristotle, "reason is something free and autocratic" (ἐλεύθερον ... καὶ αὐτεξούσιον τὸ λογικόν De nat. Hom. 2, p. 36,26 sq. Morani) is typical of a large period of Christian reflection (cf. Orig. In Ev. Ioan, fr. 43).
At the same time, the problem of free will increasingly became the property of Latin Christianity (starting with Tertullian - Adv. Herrn. 10-14; De ex. Cast. 2), finding its culmination in Augustine (he uses the technical term liberum arbitrium, normative and for scholasticism). In his early works - the treatise "On Free Decision" ("De libero arbitrio") and others - a classical theodicy was developed, based on the idea of a rationalistically understood world order: God is not responsible for evil; the only source of evil is will. For morality to be possible, the subject must be free from external (including supernatural) causality and be able to choose between good and evil. Morality consists in following a moral duty: the very idea of a moral law acts as a sufficient motive (although the content of the law is of a divine nature). In the later period, this scheme is replaced by the concept of predestination, which reaches completion in antipelagian treatises ("On grace and free decision", "On the predestination of the saints," etc.) and leads Augustine to a final break with ethical rationalism. Antagonists of late Augustine, Pelagius and his followers, defended the same classical theory of freedom of arbitrariness and imputation (in the form of "synergy", that is, the interaction of human and divine will), which Augustine developed in his early writings.
The medieval problem of free will in its main features goes back to the tradition of Augustinian "De libero arbitrio"; Boethius (Cons. V 2–3) and Eriugena (De praed. div. 5; 8; 10) act as intermediaries between Augustine and scholasticism. Early scholasticism - Anselm of Canterbury, Abelard, Peter of Lombard, Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo and Richard Saint-Victor - steadily reproduced the classical scheme, focusing on the Augustinian version, but not without some nuances. In particular, Anselm of Canterbury understands liberum arbitrium not as a neutral ability of arbitrariness (later its liberum arbitrium indifferentiae), but as freedom to good (De lib.arb. 1; 3). High scholasticism expounded the classical tradition with a noticeable peripatetic emphasis: in the 13th century. the basis of the argumentation is the Aristotelian doctrine of the self-motion of the soul and the self-determination of reason, while the Augustinian theodicy with the postulation of free will recedes into the background. This position is typical for Albertus Magnus and especially for Thomas Aquinas, who uses direct borrowings from Aristotle, in particular Sth. I q. 84.4 = Eth. Nic. III 5.1113 a 11–12). Liberum arbitrium is a purely intellectual ability, close to the ability of judgment (I q.83,2-3). The will is free from external necessity, since its solution is a necessity for itself (I q. 82.1 cf. Aug. Civ. D. V 10). The key aspect of the problem of free will is imputation: an act is imputed on the grounds that a rational being is capable of self-determination (I q.83.1).
Literature:
1. Verweyen J. Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der Scholastik. Hdlb., 1909;
2. Saarinen R. Weakness of the nill in mediaeval thaught. From Angusfme to Buridan. Helsinki, 1993;
3. Pohlenz M. Griechische Freiheit. Wesen und Werden eines Lebensideals. Hdlb. 1955;
4. Clark M.T. Augustutine. Philosopher of Freedom. A Study in comparative philosophy. N. Y.-P., 1958;
5. Adkins A. Merit and Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values. Oxf. 1960;
6. Die goldene Regel. Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der antiken und früchristüchen Vulgärethik. Gött., 1962;
7. Holl J. Historische und systematische Untersuchungen zum Bedingungsverhältnis von Freiheit und Verantwortlichkeit. Königstein, 1980;
8. Pohlenz M. Griechische Freiheit. Wfesen und Werden eins Lebensideals, 1955;
9. Clark M.T. Augustine. Philosopher of Freedom. A study in comparative philosophy. N. Y.–P., 1958.
A.A. Stolyarov
The Renaissance with its characteristic anthropocentrism and the Reformation gave the problem of free will a special acuteness. Pico della Mirandola saw the dignity and originality of man in free will as a gift from God, thanks to which creative participation in the transformation of the world is possible. God does not predetermine a person's place in the world, or his duties. At will, a person can rise to the level of stars or angels or descend to a bestial state, for he is a product of his own choice and efforts. The original sinfulness of human nature recedes into the shadows.
The rise of human freedom of will forced to return to the problem of its coordination with the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Erasmus of Rotterdam (De libero arbitrio, 1524) insisted on the possibility of "synergy" - the combination of Divine grace and human freedom of will, subject to the willingness to cooperate. Luther (De servo arbitrio, 1525) declared free will to "the purest deception" "the illusion of human pride": the will of man is not free either for good or for evil, it is in unconditional bondage either to God or to the devil; the outcome of all actions is predetermined By God's will... In a human soul, corrupted by the Fall, without Divine grace, pure thoughts cannot arise. An even tougher position on the question of predestination took J. Calvin in the "Instructions of the Christian Faith" (1536): even faith in Christ itself is an act of Divine grace, people are eternally predestined to salvation or damnation, and no act can either gain grace or lose it.
Thus, the founders of Protestantism brought the providentialist point of view of late Augustine to its logical limit. The consistent application of this "supranaturalistic determinism" led to contradiction, if not absurdity. Luther and Calvin ruled out the possibility of free self-determination, but thereby denied the ability of man to be a doer, a subject, and not an object of action, and questioned the human likeness of God. Trying to preserve at least the semblance of human activity (without which there can be no talk of guilt and sin), Luther was forced to allow the free will of people in relation to what is below them, for example. to property, and to assert that they still sin of their own free will. Calvin deprives a person of the ability to contribute to salvation, but allows the ability to make himself worthy of salvation. But here any connection between action and result is broken. Already Philip Melanchthon ("The Augsburg Confession", 1531, 1540) abandoned Luther's extremes, and Arminius directed the Remonstrant movement against Calvinist predestination.
Post-Trent Catholicism took a more cautious stance on the issue of Julia's freedom: the Council of Trent (1545–63) condemned the Protestant "bondage of the will", returning to the Pelagian-Erasmus idea of cooperation between man and God, the connection between action and retribution. The Jesuits I. Loyola, L. de Molina, P. da Fonseca, F. Suarez and others declared grace to be the property of every person, while salvation was the result of its active acceptance. “We will expect success only from grace, but we will work as if it depends only on us” (I. Loyola). Their opponents - Jansenists (K. Janseny, A. Arno, B. Pascal and others) inclined towards the moderate Augustinian version of predestination, arguing that free will was lost after the Fall. The Jesuit apology for free will and "small deeds" often turned into arbitrariness in the interpretation of moral norms (doctrine "Probabilism" ), and Jansenist moral rigorism bordered on fanaticism.
Theological disputes about free will determined the delimitation of positions in the European philosophy of modern times. According to Descartes, in a person the spiritual substance is independent of the bodily one, and free will is one of its manifestations. Human freedom of will is absolute, since the will can make a decision in any situation and even in spite of reason: "Will is by nature so free that it can never be forced." This neutral ability of arbitrary choice (Liberum arbitrium indifferentiae) is the lowest level of free will. Its level increases as the reasonable grounds for choice expand. Illness and sleep fetter free will, a clear mind contributes to its highest manifestation. By virtue of Cartesian dualism, it turned out to be impossible to explain how the will intrudes into the chain of changes in bodily substance.
Trying to overcome this dualism, representatives occasionalism A. Geilinks and N. Malbranche emphasized the unity of human and Divine will.
On Protestant soil, supranaturalistic determinism was transformed into naturalistic (T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, J. Priestley, D. Gartley, etc.). In Hobbes, Divine providence is pushed back to the beginning of an uninterrupted chain of natural causes, all events in the world and human actions are causally conditioned and necessary. Human freedom is determined by the absence of external obstacles to action: a person is free if he does not act out of fear of violence and can do what he wants. Desire itself is not free, it is caused by external objects, innate properties and habits. The choice is only a struggle of motives, "alternation of fear and hope", its outcome is determined by the strongest motive. The illusion of free will arises due to the fact that a person does not know the force that determined his action. A similar position is reproduced by Spinoza: "People are aware of their desire, but do not know the reasons by which they are determined" and Leibniz: "... In man, everything is known and determined in advance ... and the human soul is in some way a spiritual automaton."
Moral concepts and motives are thus placed on a par with natural causes.
The relationship between free will and causal determination is one of the central problems of Kant's philosophy. As an empirical subject, man is subject to immutable natural laws, and with knowledge of all the previous conditions, his actions can be predicted with the same accuracy as solar and lunar eclipses... But how "Thing in itself" , not subject to the conditions of space, time and causality, a person has free will - the ability to self-determination regardless of sensory impulses. Kant calls this ability practical reason. Unlike Descartes, he does not consider the idea of free will to be innate: he deduces it from the concept of ought (sollen). The highest form of free will ("positive freedom") consists in moral autonomy, self-legislation of reason.
Fichte abruptly shifted the emphasis from being to activity, declaring the whole world ("not-I") a product of free creativity of the I and completely subordinating theoretical reason to practical, knowledge (Wissen) - to conscience (Gewissen). Causal relationships become alienation of target relationships, and the world of natural dependencies becomes an illusory form of perception of the products of the unconscious activity of the human imagination. The acquisition of freedom is the return of the I to itself, the realization by it that it has unconsciously produced an ascent from sensual attraction to conscious goal-setting, limited only by the presence of other intelligent I; freedom is realized through the law in society. The movement towards free will is the content of Hegel's psychology of the spirit, and history appears in Hegel as the formation of objective forms of freedom: abstract law, morality, morality. In the culture of the Western world, which is born together with Christianity, gaining freedom is understood as the destiny of man. Arbitrariness is only a step in the development of freedom, its negative rational form (abstraction from everything accidental), revealing free will as the ability to self-determination. The highest manifestation of free will is a moral act, its act coincides with the decision of reason.
Schelling, having adopted the ideas of J. Boehme and F. Baader, emphasized the moment of antinomy in the concept of free will. Human free will is not rooted in reason and its autonomy, but has a metaphysical depth, it can lead to both good and sin, vice: in striving for self-assertion, a person is able to consciously choose evil. This irrationalistic understanding of free will ruled out its interpretation as the domination of reason over sensuality.
Marxism, following the Hegelian tradition, sees the main content of free will in the degree of practical awareness. According to F. Engels' formula, free will is "the ability to make decisions with knowledge of the matter." A. Schopenhauer returns to Spinoza's interpretation of free will as an illusion of the human mind: the attribute of freedom is applied not to phenomenal action, but to noumenal being (will as a thing-in-itself) and is practically reduced to loyalty to its intelligible character.
In the 20th century. in N. Hartmann's "new ontology" the concepts of freedom and activity, freedom and independence are separated. The lower layers of being - inorganic and organic - are more active, but have less freedom, the higher layers - mental and spiritual - are more free, but do not have their own activity. The relationship between the freedom of negative (arbitrariness) and positive (reasonable value determination) is rethought: a person has free will not only in relation to the lower physical and mental determination, but also in relation to God, in other words, to the objective hierarchy of values, the world of which does not possess immutable the determining force. Ideal values guide a person, but do not predetermine his actions. To the Kantian antinomy of freedom and natural causality, Hartmann adds the antinomy of duty: the ought determines the behavior of a person ideally, i.e. a range of possibilities, but for the choice to take place, real will is needed, which is associated with the autonomy of the person, and not the autonomy of the principle.
The ontological substantiation of free will was contained in the writings of such representatives phenomenology, as M. Scheler, G. Rainer, R. Ingarden). A kind of "idolatry of freedom" (S.A. Levitsky) presented existentialism , who brought the antinomy of human existence to a deep tragedy - "healthy tragedy of life" by K. Jaspers or "tragic absurdity" by J.-P. Sartre and A. Camus. Religious existentialism interprets free will as following the instructions of the transcendent (God), expressed in the form of symbols and ciphers of being, which are voiced by conscience. In atheistic existentialism, free will is the ability to preserve oneself, rooted in nothing and expressed in denial: values have no objective existence, a person himself constructs them in order to exercise his freedom. Necessity is an illusion that justifies "escape from freedom", as the neo-Freudian E. Fromm put it. Absolute freedom makes the burden of responsibility so heavy that the "heroism of Sisyphus" is needed to carry it.
Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century (N.A. Berdyaev, S.N.Bulgakov, N.O. Lossky, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, G.P. Fedotov, S.A. Levitsky, etc.) proceeds from the combination of Divine grace with the free self-determination of man. The most radical is the position of Berdyaev, who, following J. Boehme, believes that freedom, rooted in the so-called “abyss” of God, precedes not only nature, but also being in general; the free creative act becomes for Berdyaev the supreme and self-sufficient value. In the specific ideal-realism of N.O. Lossky, freedom of will is declared an essential attribute of "substantial figures" who independently create their character and their destiny (including from their body, character, past and even from God himself), independent of of the external world, since all events are for their behavior only reasons, not reasons.
Literature:
1. Windelband V. About free will. - In the book: He's the same. Spirit and history. M., 1995;
2. Vysheslavtsev B.P. Ethics of the transformed Eros. M., 1994;
3. Levitsky S.A. The tragedy of freedom. M., 1995;
4. Lossky N.O. Free will. - In the book: He's the same. Favorites. M., 1991;
5. Luther M. About slavery of the will;
6. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Diatribe, or Discourse on Free Will. - In the book: Erasmus of Rotterdam. Philosopher. manuf. M., 1986;
7. Hartmann N. Ethik. V., 1926.
The will of man and its freedom: the definition of will, its freedom, the reasonably-conscious direction of human will
What is the will of man?
Will should be understood as the ability of the soul, the ability of a reasonable human person to set in motion, to carry out their decisions and designs. This ability is manifested in total, combining the mind, feelings and will of a person. “Only as a function of the whole soul, will the will pulsate in all its depth and strength,” says Professor V.V. Zenkovsky.
How is free will to be understood?
Freedom, as such, is inherent in all the faculties of the soul: freedom of mind manifests itself in its reasonable orientation, freedom of feeling - in its various queries and expressions, free will- in its ability to meet the needs of a person, to serve his reasonable self-determination.
What is the rational-conscious orientation of human will expressed in?
This orientation is expressed in the fact that when solving vital issues, a person is guided by the motives of the alleged case, listens to the voices of conscience, duty, responsibility and independently selects the most important of them to make the necessary reasonable decision and proper action.
3. The beginning of free will and its completion
The beginning of free will and its completion: motivation, motives and their struggle, decision-making and determination to put this decision into practice with a real deed, assessment of the completed case
Freedom of will in its realization passes through the following volitional moments: motivation, struggle of motives per and against the upcoming action, the action itself and its assessment.
What is motivation?
Motivation – it is a general, purposeful reason for doing something. It is expressed in preliminary attunement, in the setting of the soul, in the stimulation of all its forces for the upcoming work. The impulse arises inside a person, from his deepest needs and most often manifests itself in vital active actions. But every action is conditioned by a struggle of motives per and against given action.
What are motives?
Motives – this is a number of considerations in favor of the upcoming case or against it. As a result of the heterogeneity of motives in the sphere of human self-awareness, wrestling motives. The whole person participates in this struggle. The mind analyzes the situation that has arisen, the mind evaluates it. Conscience gives its voice, a sense of duty, responsibility and worldly practical considerations and needs exert its pressure.
What is the role of our I am in this struggle of motives?
Our I am unites all these voices and forces, guided not only by motives as common cause, but also by the high appointment of a person. Struggle of motives usually ends making a decision on this issue and the emergence of a determination to implement this decision, having finished it the real thing.
What stages of development does a person's free will have?
The will of a person, as the ability to introduce him into a real, practical connection with individual phenomena of the surrounding world, has the following stages: motivation(general purposeful reason for doing the deed) struggle of motives(formal freedom) solution(preponderance in favor of the case in the choice of motives per this case) determination(starting moment of real freedom) action(a business) assessment of a completed case using its fruits in the subsequent life of a person(the evaluative action of freedom).
4. Types of free will
Types of free will: interaction of free will with the high purpose of a person; formal freedom, rational-conscious freedom, real; moral freedom, based on high moral self-awareness, choosing the best in the light of the truths of God, based on the fulfillment of the will of God; ideal freedom, an example of achieving the highest freedom, achieving it by a person who enters into the fullness of obedience to the will of God; awareness of their freedom through self-observation and the power of moral feeling
How does free will interact with human high purpose?
In its development, the will passes through the following moments: formal freedom, real freedom and evaluative freedom. will manifests itself in many ways, for it is closely connected with the high purpose of a person. His appointment consists of immediate and more distant responsibilities and tasks. These include personal, family, social, production and labor responsibilities. The degree to which these responsibilities are fulfilled depends on the degree of development of a person's versatile freedom. And freedom is formal and real, moral and ideal.
What freedom is called formal?
Formal is called the freedom of a person to experience his ability to incline towards good or evil. Therefore, it is a conscious act of self-determination, the inclination of the will to good or evil, but not yet an affirmation in one of them, but only a stop in choosing one thing.
Such was the state of the prodigal son from the gospel parable, when he, dying on the far side, he faced a choice: either to die in a foreign land, or to return to his father with a feeling of repentance. This happens with each of us when we are faced with the need to make a choice: the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of this or that intention or deed.
What is the real, reasonably conscious freedom of man?
Usually, free will does not stop at the formal preference of one motive over another or one action over another, but reinforces its choice. real the excitement of all the powers and abilities of the soul on the implementation of the selected action for reasons of life and practical goals and needs. In this case, the choice leads to a decision, to the accumulation of strength for the upcoming business and the very completion of it. This will be the real, reasonably conscious freedom of man.
What freedom is called moral?
Moral freedom is formed in the sphere of internal highly moral self-consciousness of a person. Therefore, in the struggle of motives, our I am manifests himself with full moral determination and strength. And the actions here can be really are truly free, although they are often preceded by self-compulsion, trampling on their self, natural pride.
For what reasons does moral freedom make its choice?
Moral freedom consolidates its choice by the real excitement of all forces and the ability of the soul for the upcoming business, not for practical practical reasons, but proceeding from high moral self-awareness, and manifests itself with full moral determination and strength.
What does moral freedom choose for a person?
Wisdom teaches that freedom manifests itself in the ability to choose wisely and to do the best unrestrainedly. Moral freedom therefore manifests itself as active ability of the soul, not enslaved to sin, not burdened with a judgmental conscience; she chooses the best in the light of the truths of God and puts this best into action with the grace of God.
What does moral freedom strive for?
This freedom cannot be constrained by anyone, for it is based on the will of God. Moreover, not to the detriment of himself, for he strives for the fulfillment of the will of God and has no need to shake human decrees. Moral freedom is perfectly willing to obey the law and legitimate authority, because it itself wants what obedience requires.
When does ideal freedom reveal itself to a person?
Perfect freedom is revealed to us when we live in God, goodness and truth, and when, as a result of this, our the personality becomes free from its created limitations. This freedom is also called triumphant freedom. It is inherent in the ascetic who has conquered himself, his selfhood, egoism, pride, and thus his opposition to God and people. Here is no longer slavery to sin, but bondage to righteousness(). In this "bondage" freedom from sin prevails and full surrender of oneself to obedience to love for God and people. Angels and holy people, established in God, abide in this freedom.
Who gives us an example of achieving the highest free will?
Christ the Savior gives us such an example. He gave His life for the salvation of people and for the love of them lived in Gethsemane struggle motives to excessive and unprecedented tension - until bloody sweat, to enter into complete obedience to Heavenly Father (). Thus, He showed us how difficult it is to achieve true, higher free will.
For what person is such freedom possible?
It is possible only for a person who leads a constant struggle and has achieved victory over himself, over sins and passions, when "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me"(). With freedom ready, people are not born. It is developed, forged by a sinful person in a difficult struggle with his self and with immoral phenomena in the life around him. Each person must suffer and deserve his freedom.
“If the flesh is not put to death,” teaches the holy martyr Peter Damascene, “and man is not entirely led by the Spirit of God, then he cannot do the will of God without compulsion. When the grace of the Spirit reigns in him, then he will no longer have his own will, but everything that happens to him will be the will of God. "
Thus, the highest freedom of will is possible only for a person who chooses for himself the highest principle of Christian freedom - the rejection of his limited human will through entering into the fullness of obedience to the will of God, good and saving.
Why are we not sufficiently aware of our freedom?
This is because we are not always attentive to the rapidly changing flow of our mental processes. Usually, only when there are big and important issues in life, we are serious in accepting smart decisions... Most often, in our minds, the internal flow of motives goes by gravity. Hence our I am necessary develop self-observation in oneself, clearly distinguish between voluntary and involuntary, good and bad internal states and movements. You must also have purity and strength of moral feeling, without which it is impossible neither to fight with sin, nor to have a clear consciousness of your moral freedom.
5. Good deeds
Good deeds: good deeds - observance of the order of life established by God, three meanings of the word "good", perfection of good deeds, the beginning of a good deed and its development, an excellent alphabet of good deeds, reading the inner law on the tablets of one's heart, a stable mood to do good, interaction with the grace of God
What do we call virtue?
Make good - means to keep the order of life established by God. In the Bible, the observance of this order is called righteousness carried out by virtue. According to the words of the Monk Mark the Ascetic, "the fulfillment of the commandment consists in the fulfillment of the commanded, and virtue occurs when what is done is consistent with the truth."
Closely related to good deeds a real manifestation of free will. According to the Monk John Climacus, "good will gives birth to labors, and the beginning of labors gives rise to virtues." He calls the beginning of doing the "color" of good deeds, and the "fruit" - constancy. Doing good must be constantly trained and acquired a "skill", and through it to take root in good.
So in the word good deeds concluded the idea of human activity aimed at committing good - on the observance of the order of life established by God.
How to understand the word good?
This word contains the understanding of human activities performed by a sense of duty, or follow norms of behavior, created on the basis of free self-determination, or striving for the highest goal of life.
In the first meaning good is that which is good, which corresponds to its nature and purpose. In this sense, we understand the best works of art and everything that bears the stamp of perfection, the mark of high quality.
In the second meaning good is the norm of human behavior, determined by his moral sense and created by free self-determination, that is, on the basis of the struggle between good and evil in the human soul.
And in the third meaning good should be considered that which exists objectively, independently, independently of us, and what is good and good in itself. In this sense Only God is Good and Good. Live connection with Him, based on the religious experience of a person, and there is ultimate goal life, and therefore good in the third sense of the word.
What determines the perfection of virtue?
Virtue is universal, it concerns all aspects of a person's life and activities. Where there is no good or it is not enough, sinfulness, willfulness, and evil take root there.
Where does it begin Good deed?
A good deed begins with ideas about him, but is fixed in the mind of a person through sustained attention to the image of this good. Attention causes heartfelt sympathy to a supposed good deed and encourages a person to mobilize inner strength and external funds for the realization of the imaginable good. At the same time, they raise their voice and a sense of duty, and a sense of duty, as well as conscience, encouraging good deeds, seeing in it the fulfillment of the will of God. Influenced by it all a wish really grasp the subject of thought develops into determination have and create it and then and into business.
Thus, the matter begins with the idea of it, with the idea of good, and is picked up by active attention to it. The determination to do good in a specific case and the best deed is a manifestation of the will of a person in the hope that it coincides with the will of God. As a result, the whole person participates in the accomplishment of any good deed: his mind receives experimental knowledge of good, the will calms down, having fulfilled its desire, the feeling experiences satisfaction and joy from a perfect God-pleasing deed.
What does the Monk John Climacus call "the excellent alphabet of good deeds"?
Good deeds, says the Reverend, are associated with certain inner experiences of a person. At first, he does good deeds with difficulty, with self-compulsion, and even with grief. But having succeeded a little, he ceases to feel grief from them or does not feel it much. When the carnal wisdom is defeated by him and taken captive by zeal, then a person performs them with joy and zeal, with great desire and with Divine help.
Good deeds help a person to come to perfection time and patience, for holy virtues are like Jacob's ladder. They are connected to one another, and the one who manages his freedom correctly is elevated to heaven.
For those who strive to assimilate goodness as a norm of behavior and thereby enter into union with God, the Reverend points to the virtues that follow one after the other, like letters in the alphabet: obedience, fasting, confession, silence, humility, vigilance, courage, labor, malice, contrition. , brotherly love, meekness, simple and incurious faith, simplicity with gentleness and others.
What is the essence of using this alphabet a person reads on the tablets of his heart?
The assimilation of this alphabet gives a person the opportunity to read the inner law of his heart in all undertakings and in any way of life. The essence of the law is as follows: see if you are truly doing your works for God? And the fruit of the test: for beginners - success in humility, for those in the middle of the path - cessation of internal abuse, for perfect - multiplication and abundance of divine light.
How does the alphabet work for the highest purpose of human life?
The Christian beginner, when he looks at the perfect, understands what made them so stable mood - always do good. It taught them good skills and habits to do everything in their life so that the good done made them related to God and led to perfection. In this way, a person gets used to good, in accordance with their nature, vocation and purpose received from God; gets used to good as a norm of behavior, conditioned by the experience of devotees of faith; seeks to approach Good and Good, to enter into union with Whom he regards as the highest goal of life. A Christian can achieve all this only through constant interaction with the grace of God, which gives his soul a zeal for a godly life. For by her (zeal) all the forces of human nature are gathered to do good that is pleasing to God and useful to all members of His holy Church.
6. Building goodness in family life
If a good deed begins with an idea of it, then family life is not complete without a proper idea of how it will proceed.
The first period of family life
The first period of family life: the building up of the family by the Lord, the need to observe that the Lord is the center of the family being created; building a house with blessed parental icons, introducing church orders into family life, meeting the family with the problems of the surrounding sinful world, the main condition of this period is the ability of a husband and wife to mutual spiritual love, unity and commonality of the life goal of the spouses
Why is it so important for the Lord to build a family?
What does the Christian family encounter at this time?
She faces the difficult problems of the sinful world around her. Family members, united by faith, the Law of God, the Sacraments and the hierarchy, meet them together with God and overcome them by His means. So, those who are building a family can easily get carried away with the acquisition of material property, considering it extremely necessary in modern house... Such a fascination with material concerns captivates the newlyweds so much that they do not have enough time either for each other or for the Lord. There is no need to rush into this matter. Before married whole life... There is no need to waste time thinking about new furniture, about the comforts of life that seem so necessary. It is much better to pay attention to the main thing: living according to God's ordinances.
What is the main condition for family life during this period?
The main condition during this period is the ability of the husband and wife to mutual spiritual love. Wherever it is found, there is a source of strength and beauty in family life. Indeed, a person is called to see and love in his beloved woman (or, accordingly, in a man) not only the carnal principle, not only the physical manifestation, but also the soul - the originality of the personality, the peculiarity of character, the depth of the heart. only then it acquires spiritual joy when it is placed before the face of God and when the beloved person is illuminated and measured by the rays of God. This is the deep meaning of the Sacrament of the Wedding, which opens before the spouses the path of spiritual glory and moral purity, a lifelong and indissoluble community. The strength of the family requires that people want not only the joys of love, but also responsible joint creativity, spiritual community in life.
What creates the unity and commonality of the life purpose of the spouses?
In marriage, a new spiritual unity and unity of husband and wife arises, giving them, by the grace of God, understanding of each other and a willingness to share the joy and sorrow of life together. For this, they are called to perceive life, and the world, and people with a single heart. Such homogeneity of spiritual assessments creates the unity and commonality of the life goal for both. In this case, the husband and wife will be able to correctly perceive each other and believe in each other. This is the most precious thing in marriage: complete mutual trust in the face of God. And trust is also associated with mutual respect, and the ability to form a new vitally strong spiritual unit of society, capable of actually carrying out the spiritual education of children.
The second period of family life
The second period of family life: the growth of the family, the appearance of children, the primacy of God in the house through icons, making walking in the eyes of God at the forefront of his life, the perception by a small child of worship with his eyes and ears, the perception of the life-giving word of the Church, the perception of the parent's word when “God is the father ours ”will become the God of my child; children are an inheritance, a reward from the Lord; the importance of the parental home, where children live and grow up under the shadow of icons
What is special about this period?
The second period of family life is associated with the growth of the family. Children appear and live, at first unconsciously feeling the "Primitive". Then, consciously correlating his actions with the presence of God. God's presence through icons always dominates the home. Reigns. Dictates. Teaches. Educates. And he achieves this practically by the life of parents, adults, who consciously made a constant walk in the sight of God at the forefront of their lives. Even in the smallest things of life - relationship with God's Law. And happy are the children who for the first time opened their eyes to meet the eyes of their parents, who absorbed their light along with the most necessary vital energy and those who have found in these eyes the first God's radiance, the first God's presence. Happy are the children who begin their lives in the church. Honor and praise to the mother, who, from early childhood, carries and takes her children to church very often. And children from an early age absorb the church. First, with their eyes and ears, unconsciously, they really absorb with their being. “First, the child perceives the service with his eyes and ears. Consciousness connects later, over the years. If a child is simply present in the church, this is already very important, already very good, ”says a spiritually wise pastor. According to the Gospel, the Church of God is like a man who sowed a grain, but how it sprouts, rises, grows, he does not know. The "seed" of the soul, still unconsciously, feeds on its Sacraments, its strength, its breath. And it sprouts. And he constantly begins to open his eyes - and see.
The ears are beginning to listen to the familiar, blood, life-giving word of the Church, already familiar from childhood. And hear. It, the word, gradually grows, acquires "flesh" - meaning and strength that can already educate.
And then the heart will speak. Will say: "God our Father!", "Abba Father!", "My God!" My . "My Lord and mine!" And this is happiness. For through the parental heart, through the parental word at one mysterious moment in life, "God our father" becomes the God of my child, his heart, his love, his breath and life. It seems that this is the purpose and meaning of the family during this period.
Why does God call children an inheritance, a reward from Him?
“This is the inheritance from the Lord: children; His reward is the fruit of the womb. As arrows are in the hands of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Blessed is the man who filled his quiver with them! "(). These are wonderful years, but at the same time they are demanding both financially and physically. These years are full of surprises. often expands our quiver, the number of children in the family. And God calls each of the children an inheritance, a fruit, a reward. God considers every child important, and wants them to be given the same importance in the family. During this period, parents will be busy and tired. But if their attitude towards children is correct, then they will be able to think not only about the work invested and the work done, but they will also see the potential opportunities in each child given by God.
Why is parental home important to a child?
When a child grows up, he is already in an adult state, he himself will begin to seek and educate in himself what he had in the family as a given, as a bright gift, as a determination of the path. And this will exist for him as an almost unattainable goal.
And here again a word about icons. The house begins with them, and the house of the icon is built. Each room has a Front Corner. It becomes the center, it becomes OKOM for the house, testifying to the presence of another world, which by its nature is unusually close, primordial, Fatherland. From them the feeling of the presence of Heaven is born. The honor given to icons “ascends to the Primitive”. Children live under the canopy of icons. They walk before God's eyes. And before the saints of God, their heavenly host. At first happily unconsciously, but always feeling them with a child's heart.
This is how parents build their house so that it will stand firmly and be for the children of the whole universe, both Heaven and the Promised Land. In such a house, children find everything.
The third period of family life
The third period of family life: its essence - children grow up and become independent, thinking adolescents; helping children from the family hearth to acquire a taste and flair for a spiritual understanding of life, love for the motherland and the Church, the main thing for him is to learn to love God and people; understand the idea of homeland and fatherland; meet the idea of rank through the perception of the authority of the father and mother; to cultivate a healthy sense of private property and social expediency; frankness and honesty of parents with their children - gifts of God; Home is a sacred and powerful place, the front room is a hall where parents and children gather to celebrate the Feast, pray to God and read the Gospel, where the fullness of the soul is brought from the church, where “the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart”; then the main thing at home becomes the main thing in the soul of a matured person
What is the essence of this period?
This period begins when young children grow up and become independent, thinking adolescents. By this time, parents, raising their children, lay the foundations of a spiritual nature in them, bring them to the ability to engage in self-education.
At a spiritually meaningful family hearth, parents help their children acquire a taste and flair for a spiritual understanding of life, raise them as faithful sons of their Motherland and Church, and prepare them to create their own family.
What is the main thing in the life of a grown-up child?
By this time, the child, firstly, must learn to love God and people. Moved by love, he must learn to suffer, endure and sacrifice, forgetting about himself, and serve those who are closest and dearest to him. In a healthy family, the soul of a person from early childhood learns to relate to his neighbors with respectful attention and love, she attaches herself to a close family circle and with this life attitude she enters adulthood.
Secondly, he must absorb and be able to transmit to others the spiritual, religious, national and paternal tradition. If the family became for him home place on earth, then he understands idea of homeland- the womb of his birth and fatherland - the earthly nest of his fathers and ancestors. And he begins to look at his future family as a school of mutual trust and jointly organized action.
Thirdly, in the family, the child learned the correct perception of the authority of the father and mother. He met an idea here rank, learned to perceive the highest rank of another person. In a healthy family, the teenager learned the conviction that power saturated with love is a benevolent force and that order in public life presupposes the same organizing and commanding power. Growing up, a teenager is convinced that he has found a way to inner freedom, learned from love and respect for parents to accept their orders and prohibitions, voluntarily obeying them.
And finally, the adolescent developed a healthy sense of private property, learned to make his way in life with the help of his own initiative and at the same time appreciate the principle of social mutual assistance. Being a private person and an independent individual, the teenager has mastered the basics of upbringing: to value and protect the bosom of family love and family solidarity; learned independence and loyalty - two main manifestations of a spiritual character; acquired the skills to creatively deal with property, develop and acquire economic benefits and at the same time subordinate the principles of property to a certain higher social expediency.
What wisdom do parents need when interacting with their grown-up children?
While the teenager learns this main thing for himself, the family is experiencing some kind of outside intrusion into the previously safe environment of the family. School, new friends, other people's philosophies, illness, accidents, difficult issues - all this can lead to a crisis in the family. These are difficult years. Parents during this period should be frank and honest with their children, treating them as gifts of God. And when they come and ask questions, the only correct approach is to try to answer them frankly and honestly, asking the Lord for wisdom.
How does the atmosphere of the house teach the matured child the main thing?
In the family's house, the main, ceremonial room is always arranged - the hall. This is the place where parents and children all celebrate the Holiday together. Where guests are met. Where in the evenings they gather to pray to God and read the Gospel. Where the Christmas tree is decorated and the children happily sit around it. This room in the Front Corner is dominated by best icons houses with lamps in front of them. And in every room of the house there is a Front Corner with lamps in front of the icons. The hall also builds a house, creating a certain atmosphere, mood, center. And the force is centripetal. The hall transforms its visitors. The fullness of the soul should be brought into it from the church, where the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart. Gathering after the church service, one should speak and speak, sharing the main thing, sharing impressions, sharing the surplus of the soul, equalizing it and calming down - dividing it.
This amazing place on earth is Home! It becomes for a person his a place on earth, sacred and strong, the "Promised Land"! It hosts joyful, festive events and events of sorrow, sorrowful, solemn in sorrow. In it, prayers are performed in front of home icons - thanksgiving, parting, at the beginning of any good deed. And dirges more than once need to be served in it. Then Domashnaya lives and acts. And the house contains and stores it.
The "main thing" at home then becomes the main in the soul of an adult: he is ready to create his own family, his own home.
The fourth period of family life
The fourth period of family life: its essence is that the parents are left together in order to live the rest of their lives together without close contact with their children, with joyful memories and consolation from meeting them; another concern is to prepare for the transition to eternity; mortal memory, filling life with the highest meaning, every word with reverence and love, every gesture with greatness; death is the beginning and the path to eternity, a moment of comprehension: what mark has a deceased person left in our life, evidence that a person has brought some light into the twilight of our world, and we must preserve and increase it; understanding and entering into eternity, where our departed moved, a deep feeling of values belonging to that world, making them our own too; the process of reconciliation with everyone in preparation for death to ascend into eternity; the last kissing of the deceased is the moment when all the knots in the soul are untied and one can say from the depths of the heart: "Forgive me!" and: "I forgive you, go in peace"
What is the essence of this period?
This period is similar to the first. The children have grown up and have their own families. Parents are left alone to live the rest of their lives together, but without close contact with children. This is how it should be. Scripture states that marriage is indissoluble and the relationship between husband and wife is inseparable, but this does not apply to the relationship between children and parents. The parent-child relationship is in many ways temporary. God says: "Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother." The family, in the center of which is the Lord, is certainly accompanied by the blessing of God, which gives joy to parents. There will be joyful memories, consolation from meetings with children and grandchildren, closeness of communication with them.
But there will be one more important concern - to prepare for the perception of death as a transition to eternity, to heal at the level of the demands of death, to become more perfect, to become "an undistorted image of God."
What is the meaning of “mortal memory” for spouses?
When people live without to the memory of a mortal they spend their current life as if hastily, carelessly writing a draft of their life, which one day, in their opinion, will be rewritten. When the thought and memory of death is there, then the highest meaning is given to real life. The presence of death, ready to come to a person at any moment, prompts spouses during this period of life fill every word reverence, beauty, harmony and love, which have accumulated in their relationship during the previous time of their life together.
The memory of death helps spouses to do everything that seems small and insignificant with greatness and meaning. For example, how you serve a cup on a tray to someone who is on his deathbed, how you straighten the pillow behind his back, with what filling your voice sounds - all this can and should become an expression of the depth of a relationship.
Only the memory of death allows spouses to live in such a way as not to face the terrible evidence, with the terrible words: it's already late. It is too late to say the words with which they could say about their kindness and attention, it is too late to make a movement that could express the depth of the relationship, the depth of respect and love.
FREE WILL
FREEDOM OF WILL - a person's ability to self-determination in their actions. In the contest of early Greek culture, the concept of S.V. emphasizes not so much a philosophical-categorical meaning as a legal one. A free person is a citizen of the polis, one who lives in the land of his ancestors. The opposite is a prisoner of war, taken away to a foreign land and turned into a slave. The source of individual freedom is the polis, its land (Solon); free from birth living on the land of the polis, where a reasonable law is established. Therefore, the antonym of the term “free” is not so much “slave” as “non-man”, “barbarian”. In the Homeric epic, the concept of freedom reveals another meaning. A free person is one who acts without coercion, by virtue of his own nature. The maximum possible expression of freedom is in the actions of the hero who overcomes fate and thus is compared with the gods. The theoretical prerequisite for the scientific and philosophical formulation of the question of SV. develops in the thinking of the sophists, who opposed "phusis" (the only possible order generated by nature itself) and "nomos" (the order of life independently established by each people). Socrates emphasizes the crucial role of knowledge in the exercise of freedom. A truly free, moral act is possible only on the basis of clear concepts of goodness and valor. No one can act badly of their own free will, a person strives for the best in his actions, and only ignorance, ignorance pushes him on the wrong path. Plato connects the concept of SV. with the existence of the good as the highest "idea". Goodness sanctifies the order that functions in the world as expedient order. To act freely means to act in accordance with the ideal of good, reconciling personal aspirations with social justice. Aristotle considers the problem of SV. in the context of moral choice. Freedom is associated with knowledge of a special kind - knowledge-skill ("fronesis"). It is different from the knowledge - "techne", which provides the solution of problems according to a well-known model. Moral knowledge-skill, paving the way for freedom, orients to the choice of the best deed in the context of ethical choice. The source of such knowledge is a specific moral intuition, which is brought up in a person by life trials. Stoicism develops its vision of freedom, recognizing the priority of providence in human life. The Stoics see the independent significance of the personality in the observance of duties and obligations (Panethius). At the same time, providence can be considered both as a law of nature and as a will in man (Posidonius). In the latter case, will acts as a weapon in the struggle against fate, and as such requires special education. Epicurus considers the issue of SV. in their atomistic physics. The latter is opposed to the deterministic atomism of Democritus. Physics Epicurus substantiates the possibility of SV: as its physical model, Epicurus indicates the possibility of free deviation of an atom from a straight trajectory. The reasons for this deviation are not external, it occurs completely spontaneously. A special stage in the formulation of the question of firefighting. made up the Christian ideology. Man is called to fulfill his essence in unity with the Divine, the Bible teaches. The problem, however, is to combine the universalism of God's will, on the one hand, and the moral effort of a person who has not yet achieved (and in fact never achieved) union with the Divine, on the other. Christian literature dealing with this problem can be classified according to the emphasis on one or the other side of this interaction. Thus, Pelagius (5th century) substantiates a fairly broad interpretation of the Christian idea of the participation of man's will in shaping his fate, unwittingly belittling the significance of Christ's atoning sacrifice. The idea of the universality of Providence in controversy with this point of view is defended by Augustine. Realization of good in human activity is possible only with the help of the grace of God. Moreover, Augustine does not associate her action with a conscious appeal to her on the part of a person. It manifests itself independently of him. Thomas Aquinas sees the SV sphere. in the choice of goals and means of achieving good. According to him, only one correct path leads to the goal. A rational being necessarily strives for good, while evil, as a result of rational choice, is impossible. A variety of positions is also manifested in the era of the Reformation, Erasmus of Rotterdam defends the idea of SV. Luther opposes it, insisting on a literal reading of the dogma of divine predestination. God, initially, called some people to salvation, others sentenced to eternal torment. The future fate of man remains, however, unknown to him. At the same time, Luther pointed to a special sphere of being, "experiencing" which a person is able to consider the signs of being chosen in it. We are talking about the sphere of human everyday life and, above all, about professional activity, the successful implementation of which is a sign of the consistency (chosenness) of a person in the face of the world and God. A similar position is taken by Calvin, who believes that the Will of God entirely programs the existence of man. Protestantism practically reduces free will to a minimum. The fundamental paradox of Protestant ethics, however, lies in the fact that by postulating the passivity of human will in the exercise of God's grace, by forcing a person to seek the "codes" of chosenness, thereby managed to cultivate an activist type of personality. The Jesuit L. de Molina (1535-1600) argued with Protestantism: among the various types of God's all-seeing, his theory singled out a special "average knowledge" about what can happen in general, but concretely will be realized if a certain condition is met. Molina connected this condition with living human will. This view was further developed by Suarez, who believed that God imparts his grace only to those actions of a person, in the course of which God's help does not suppress the SV. The teaching of K. Jansenia (1585-1638) essentially revives the ideas of Calvin and Luther - a person is free to choose not between good and evil, but only between different types of sin. A similar view was also developed by the mystic M. de Molinos, who affirmed the idea of the passivity of the human soul in the face of God (see QUIETISM). Theme SV. reveals itself in the philosophy of modern times. For Hobbes SV. means, first of all, the absence of physical coercion. Freedom is interpreted by him in an individual-natural dimension: a person is the more free, the more opportunities for self-development open before him. The freedom of a citizen and the "freedom" of a slave differ only quantitatively: the former does not have absolute freedom, and the latter cannot be said to be completely unfree. According to Spinoza, only God is free, because only his actions are determined by an internal law, while man, as a part of nature, is not free. Nevertheless, he strives for freedom, translating indistinct ideas into distinct ones, affects - into rational love for God. Reason multiplies freedom, suffering reduces it, says Leibniz, distinguishing between negative freedom (freedom from ...) and positive (freedom for ...). For Locke, the concept of freedom is tantamount to freedom of action; freedom is the ability to act according to a conscious choice. It is SV., Opposed to reason, that acts as a fundamental definition of man, - this is the view of Rousseau. The transition from natural freedom, limited by the forces of the individual himself, to "moral freedom" is possible through the use of laws that people prescribe to themselves. According to Kant, SV. is possible only in the sphere of moral laws that oppose themselves to the laws of nature. For Fichte, freedom is an instrument for the implementation of the moral law. Schelling finds his solution to the SV problem, considering actions to be free if they arise from the “inner necessity of the essence,” human freedom is at the crossroads between God and nature, being and non-being. According to Hegel, Christianity brings into the consciousness of European man the idea that history is a process in the realization of freedom. Nietzsche considers the whole history of morality to be a history of delusions about SV. According to his view, SV. - fiction, "delusion of everything organic." Self-realization of the will to power presupposes its purification from the moral ideas of freedom and responsibility. Marxist philosophy saw the condition of free development in the fact that associated producers are able to rationally regulate the exchange of substances between society and nature. The growth of the productive forces of society creates the material prerequisites for the free development of individuals. The kingdom of true freedom was conceived in Marxism as communism, destroying private property, exploitation, and thus the very basis of coercion. ST. - one of the central concepts of Heidegger's fundamental ontology. Freedom is the deepest definition of being, "the basis of the foundations", which places existence in a permanent situation of choice. Similarly, for Sartre, freedom is not a quality of the individual or his actions, it is rather a superhistorical definition of the generic essence of a person. Freedom, choice and temporality are one and the same, the philosopher believes. In Russian philosophy, the problem of freedom, SV. specially developed by Berdyaev. The world of objects, where suffering and evil reign, is opposed by creativity, designed to overcome conservative forms of objectification. The results of creativity will inevitably be objectified, but the creative act itself is just as inevitably free. Perhaps the dominant trend in the interpretation of SV. (especially in the 20th century) there is a point of view according to which a person is always worthy of what happens to him. It is possible to find grounds for justification only in "borderline" cases.
The latest philosophical dictionary. - Minsk: Book House... A. A. Gritsanov. 1999.
See what "FREEDOM OF WILL" is in other dictionaries:
The concept of European moral philosophy, which was finally formed by I. Kant in the meaning of an individual's intelligible ability to moral self-determination. In retrospect (pre or post-Kantian theories) the term "St." can be considered ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
A person's ability to self-determination in their actions. In the context of early Greek culture in the concept of C.B. the emphasis is not so much on the philosophical and categorical meaning as on the legal one. A free man is a citizen of the policy, one who lives ... ... History of Philosophy: An Encyclopedia
Free will- Freedom of Will ♦ Libre Arbitre Freedom of desire, absolute and not determined by anything; “The ability to define oneself without being determined by anything” (Marcel Conche, “Aleatorica”, V, 7). This is a rather mystical ability, belonging strictly ... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary
A category that denotes a philosophical and ethical problem is a person self-determined or determined in his actions, that is, the question of the conditionality of human will, in the solution of which two main positions were revealed: determinism and indeterminism. ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
The great reformers of the church stood for unfree will, and the Jesuits for free will, and yet the former founded freedom, the latter, the slavery of conscience. Henri Amiel You call yourself free. Free from what, or free for what? Friedrich Nietzsche We ... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms
FREEDOM OF WILL, a category denoting a philosophical and ethical problem, a person is self-determined or determined in his actions, i.e. the question of the conditionality of human will, in the solution of which two main positions emerged: determinism and ... ... Modern encyclopedia
free will- FREEDOM OF WILL, a category denoting a philosophical and ethical problem, a person is self-determined or determined in his actions, i.e. the question of the conditionality of human will, in the solution of which two main positions emerged: determinism and ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
free will- see will. Dictionary practical psychologist... M .: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 ... Big psychological encyclopedia