Omsk State Technical University

HOMEWORK (option 10)

Fulfilled

student gr. RIB-223:

2015

Work plan:

Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius.

Basic virtues (according to Stoic philosophers)

The relevance of the judgments of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

Conclusion.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus - "philosopher on the throne"

MARK AURELIUS ANTONIN(Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) (121-180) seemed to me a very interesting person, because he is both a Stoic philosopher, and a Roman emperor (from 161), and a warrior. This is probably the only Roman monarch who left behind a book of reflections for his descendants.

“Mark Annius Catilius Severus, who went down in history under the name of Marcus Aurelius, was born in Rome on April 26, 121 and was the son of Annius Verus and Domitia Lucilla. Marcus Aurelius treated his mother with deep respect and believed that he owed her "piety, generosity and abstinence not only from bad deeds, but also from bad thoughts, as well as a simple way of life, far from any luxury" (1)

After the death of his father, he was adopted by the emperor Antoninus Pius and gave him the name Marc Elius Aurelius Ver Caesar. Marcus Aurelius received an excellent home education. Diognet taught him philosophy and painting. According to Mark himself, Diognet freed him from superstitions. He made him practice writing and thinking, writing dialogues. Under the influence of the philosophical treatises he read, Mark began to sleep on bare boards and cover himself with an animal skin.

Almost nothing is known about the life of Marcus Aurelius until 161. “After the death of the emperor Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius was proclaimed emperor in 161. He immediately requested the senate to grant equal powers to Antoninus Pius' other adopted son, Lucius (Lucius Ver (161–169)). This was the first case of a joint principate in the Roman Empire.”(1) During the period of joint rule, the decisive word belonged to Mark Antony. Lucius Ver was distinguished by a penchant for a wild life.

The entire reign of Marcus Aurelius was accompanied by a number of military conflicts: an uprising in Britain; the attack of the Germanic tribe of the Hutts; the capture of Armenia by the Parthians. In addition to wars, other disasters also undermined the empire. So, returning with a victory over Mesopotamia, the troops brought a deadly epidemic into the empire, which claimed the lives of many people. Other disasters followed: famine, floods, earthquakes. A difficult time for a fading empire and its emperor!

Paradox: Marcus Aurelius was prone to reflection all his life, but spent most of his reign in military campaigns

“In 169 Lucius Ver died, and Marcus Aurelius remained the sole ruler. From 170 to 174 he was with the active army on the Danube, fighting with the Marcomanni and Quadi. In 175, the governor of Syria, the commander Gaius Avidius Cassius, who had the broadest powers in the East, took advantage of the rumors about the death of Marcus Aurelius and declared himself emperor. The rebellion was quickly suppressed, Cassius was killed, but the emperor was forced to leave the Danube region, satisfied with the gains achieved. In the empty lands north of the Danube, the Romans invited barbarian tribes to settle, demanding from them only the defense of the Roman borders. These were the first steps towards the settlement by foreigners of the remote frontiers of the empire.

Marcus Aurelius returned to Rome in 176. He carefully followed the actions of the local administration, paid much attention to the reform of legislation and the collection of taxes. He supported the traditional Roman religion as an important part of the state system.

In 177 Marcus Aurelius made his son Commodus his co-ruler and again went to the Danubian borders. There, in 180, Marcus Aurelius died suddenly (possibly from the plague). This was the last of the "five good emperors" in Rome."(2)

The reign of Marcus Aurelius was called the last "golden age" of Rome. The Romans never saw off any of their emperors on their last journey with such sorrow and respect. The people were sure that after the death of Marcus Aurelius returned to the abode of the Gods.

The historian Ilya Barabash wrote about the reign of the emperor: “His orders outraged many compatriots. How! He sends gladiators to war so that they do not die senselessly to the cries of the crowd. He orders to lay mats under the apparatus for the performances of gymnasts. He deprives the Romans of circuses! He is too merciful to the slaves and children of the poor. And he demands too much from the mighty of this world! He is not treacherous even to enemies and even for the sake of military victories. He is crazy!.. And he is just a philosopher, a stoic philosopher, who believes that a person is essentially free and no problems can force him to act against his conscience. ”(3)

Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

Marcus Aurelius was one of the last representatives of the Late Stoa. His only work, his philosophical diary - "To himself." In this work, he appears before us as both a wise teacher and an attentive student. His reflections focused on practical ethics, epistemology and, to a lesser extent, cosmology. “Happiness lies in virtue - philosophical agreement with the universal mind. It is necessary to turn "to oneself", to adjust one's rational principle (which is the only one in "our power") with the nature of the whole, and thus to acquire "dispassion". Everything is predetermined from the age, the sage takes fate for granted and loves his lot. However, the philosopher is interested in substantiating the autonomy of moral choice. Virtue must be subject to a causation other than natural phenomena: man must make himself worthy of divine help. With Seneca, Epictetus, as well as with the Christian teaching of Marcus Aurelius, calls for humanity, for caring for the soul, for awareness of one’s sinfulness are brought together. ”(6)

I think that the key for Stoic philosophers can be considered the judgment Marcus Aurelius Antoninus: “Love the modest work that you have learned, and calm down in it. And go through the remainder, with all your heart entrusting all yours to the gods, but from the people, making no one your master or slave. He considered the main goal in life to be search and self-improvement, and this search is based on the self-sufficiency of a person. All people, according to this philosophy, are equal. Marcus Aurelius considers everything that happens in the world as a manifestation of nature, which is God - an active, rational beginning, passing through the whole world and uniting it into a single whole. A person must actively cooperate with the world, that is, with God, because everything in the world happens according to its natural laws. This is the principle of acceptance or generosity. Marcus Aurelius believed. that activity for the benefit of people - in any, even the simplest and most ordinary business - raises, elevates a person, gives him happiness. After all, happiness, according to the Stoics, is life in harmony with nature, adaptation to environmental conditions, reasonable self-preservation, peace of mind and freedom from passions. And it was Marcus Aurelius who said: “If you cannot change the circumstances, change your attitude towards them”

These thoughts are continued by the following judgment: “If circumstances seem to force you to become confused, go quickly into yourself, without deviating from the harmony more than you are forced to, because you will sooner master the consonance, constantly returning to it.”

According to the philosopher, if insoluble problems arise in the external environment, a person must look for a way out of the situation within himself. It is useless to pour out your feelings outside, to seek help from others, this will not help, but will only exacerbate the problem. Interior, spiritual world man is the source for any development. You need to pronounce the problem within yourself, consider it from different angles, get used to it, and there will be a way out. So it is in music - a complex consonance, disturbing the soul and difficult to reproduce, must penetrate into thinking and feelings, fill a person from the inside. And then a person can easily master it. “Hold on to yourself. A rational leader is by nature self-sufficient if he acts justly and thereby keeps silence, ”says Marcus Aurelius in his diary. 3. Basic virtues (according to the Stoic philosophers)

The Stoics recognize four basic virtues : reasonableness, moderation, justice and valor. The main virtue in Stoic ethics is the ability to live in harmony with reason. Stoic ethics is based on the assertion that one should not look for the causes of human problems in outside world because it is only an external manifestation of what is happening in the human soul. Man is a part of the great Universe, he is connected with everything that exists in it and lives according to its laws. Therefore, the problems and failures of a person arise due to the fact that he breaks away from Nature, from the Divine world. He needs to meet again with Nature, with God, with himself. And to meet God means to learn to see the manifestation of Divine Providence in everything. It should be remembered that many things in the world do not depend on a person, but he can change his attitude towards them. ”(8)

Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 AD) - the emperor of the Roman Empire, whose reign fell on a rather difficult period of its history. From the height of his position, he, like no one else, felt those crisis phenomena that were growing in Roman society, and thought about their consequences.

In the philosophy of stoicism, Marcus Aurelius was looking for an ideological means of harmonizing society against the general background of frailty, costliness, baseness and non-newness of life and a cellar in practical immersion in this temporality. All this is reflected in his work "To himself" ("Alone with himself"), which was found after his death.

In understanding the world, the meaning of human existence, Marcus Aurelius proceeded from the recognition of one big whole, which is led by his Mind - the Logos, in which everything is connected. This Whole is dynamic, subject to providence, therefore it must be perceived as providence, such that it follows from one beginning. In general, Marcus Aurelius also places God, worries about the welfare of people. People, as rational beings, are rational in their mind, and they all have a single world soul and a single mind, thanks to which they converge with each other. A person needs a mortal body, a soul - a manifestation of living power and a guiding principle - a hegemonic, which is the mind. Marcus Aurelius called reason in man his genius, a deity that must be protected and not offended by anything lower. This meant remembering shame, renouncing suspicions, curses, hypocrisy, from the desire for something that is hidden behind walls and castles, that is, not to let your soul fall into an unworthy rational being called to civilian life.

The ideal for Marcus Aurelius was a mature, courageous person, devoted to the interests of the state, who feels on guard and with a light heart expects the challenge of life, sees the wisdom of fair activity, and pursues long-term goals. He considered justice, truth, prudence, courage to be the main moral values, noted that with all the vanity of life, it is worth taking care of the truthfulness of thoughts, generally useful activities, non-slandering language, mental attitude, which gladly accepts everything as necessary, provided. Reason Marcus Aurelius compared it with "general useful activities", calling them "citizenship", opposing them to such pseudo-values ​​as the approval of the crowd, power, a rich life, full enjoyment.

The indicated was used by Marcus Aurelius with the recognition of the baseness of life, its uselessness, non-newness, disappointment, personal and historical pessimism and fagalism. Acutely sensing the fluidity of time, he did not recognize the value of either the past, which had already passed and in which there really was little new, nor the future. He often came to the idea of ​​human freedom by the will of the gods, but made it dependent on the will of God. Hence the refusal to actively fight evil, the sermon about accepting life and death as they are, where a person must live in such a way that every day is the last and every deed that she does is the last. For Marcus Aurelius, this meant spending a moment with nature and then retiring from life as relieved as a ripe fruit falls, blessing the nature that gave birth to it and thanks to the tree on which it ripened. This is precisely the requirement to live in harmony with nature, because what happens with the natural course of things cannot be bad. All this should be taught by philosophy, which Marcus Aurelius often diluted with mysticism.

Stoicism was sympathetically embraced by Christianity for its interpretation of God, providence, and destiny. Thus, Christian theologians falsified Seneca's correspondence with the Apostle Paul, using his ethics and the ethics of Epictetus to form their teachings, sharply negatively referring to another Hellenistic and Roman philosophical trend - Epicureanism.

Epicureanism - the teachings of Epicurus and his disciples - originated at the end of the 4th century. BC AD and lasted until the 2nd century. n. That is, although, according to the fair remark of A. Losev, he was never lucky in an adequate sense, since his parts led to the theory of unrestrained pleasure, ignoring all other abilities of the human spirit

Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. Therefore, to understand his philosophy, it is necessary to have some understanding of the Stoic teachings. Stoicism was one of the leading philosophical schools Hellenistic and Roman periods. Although its forerunners were early philosophers - especially Heraclitus and Socrates - as a separate philosophical movement, it was formed around 300 BC, when Zeno arrived in Athens from Cyprus (c. 336 - 264 BC) and began to teach in the Stoa, or covered marketplace.

Zeno and his successors developed a holistic philosophical system that included epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and the political philosophy of religion. The core of this system was metaphysical materialism, which, although not as intellectually sophisticated as the atomism of Democritus, nevertheless allowed the Stoics to describe the universe as a purely natural entity functioning in accordance with the law, and thereby find an ontological niche for God. Although this combination was not very viable from a logical point of view, it provided the Stoics with a structure around which all Stoic philosophy was built.

Stoicism came to Rome shortly after, in the middle of the second century BC. Roman weapons conquered Greece. During the period of the early empire, he played a leading role in the intellectual life of Rome. The two most important Roman Stoics were the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 AD) and the slave Epictetus (c. 50 - c. 125 AD)

The Stoics, despite a number of their ideas consonant with Christianity, remained pagans, for example, Marcus Aurelius, although “on duty”, nevertheless organized the persecution of Christians. But this relationship should not be ignored. And perhaps the deepest kinship between Stoicism and Christianity should be sought not in the coincidence of individual thoughts and statements, but in that self-deepening of the individual, at which the history of Stoicism ended and the history of Christianity began.

The revolution accomplished by the Stoics in philosophy can be called, if we use a modern term, “existential”: the more indifferent the Stoic sage became to the world around him (including the social world), the more he penetrated into the innermost depths of his own Self, discovering in his personality, a whole universe previously completely unknown and inaccessible to him. In “Reflections of Marcus Aurelius, apparently, the ultimate depth of self-consciousness and remembrance, accessible to ancient man, has been achieved. Without this discovery of the “inner world” of man (“inner man”, in the terminology of the New Testament), accomplished by the Stoics, the victory of Christianity would hardly have been possible. Therefore, Roman Stoicism can be called, in a certain sense, considered as the "preparatory school" of Christianity, and the Stoics themselves - as "seekers of God."

To understand Mark's stoicism in its entirety, it is necessary to start from his metaphysics. Here he is generally orthodox: the universe is a material organism, consisting of four basic elements. Everything that happens is causally determined, so there is no place for chance in the world.

Another way to express the same idea that Mark emphasizes is to say that the universe is governed by law and that the order of things is the manifestation of reason. From this, according to Mark, it follows that the existing rational legislator, or God, ruling the universe. However, in contrast to the Jewish-Christian tradition, Mark understands God not as a transcendent being who enters into a personal relationship with humanity. God, according to Mark, is rather an immanent mind that determines the course world history. Since the universe is wholly and entirely rational, Mark concludes, it is also good. Thus, to believe that something that happens in the natural order of things is evil is to commit a fundamental mistake. Therefore, the core of Mark's teaching is a kind of cosmic optimism.

The main ideas of Marcus Aurelius:

1. The universe is governed by the mind, which is God.

2. In a rationally arranged universe, everything that happens is not only necessary, but also good.

3. Human happiness lies in living in harmony with nature and reason.

4. Although the individual's actions are causally determined, he achieves freedom by acting rationally.

5. The evil deeds of others do not harm us; rather, we are harmed by our opinions about these actions.

6. All rational beings are subject to the law of nature and thus are citizens of the world state.

7. A reasonable individual should not be afraid of death, since it is a natural event of life.

"Reflections" cannot be called an ordinary philosophical treatise. Rather, it is a combination of an intellectual autobiography and a series of reifications addressed by the author to himself and indicating how one should act not only in everyday affairs, but in life in general. And, indeed, the title that Mark gave to his work is not “Meditations”, but a Greek phrase that can be translated as “thoughts turned to oneself”. Since the Meditations addressed the author himself and, apparently, were not intended to be published, they lack the completeness of a correct philosophical treatise. Thoughts are often fragmented, they sin by self-repetitions, and the entire volume of the work is extremely personal. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to understand what the author wants to say, or to follow the line of argument leading him to one or another conclusion. Nevertheless, the Meditations contain a philosophical teaching that is the Aurelius version of Stoicism.

"Reflections" of Mark are divided into books and chapters - but their order is purely external. Only the first book has some unity, where Marcus Aurelius recalls his relatives, mentors and close people and explains what he owes them, ending with a listing of everything that he owes to the gods. We have a kind of diary - not external events, but thoughts and moods that are more important in the eyes of the author than external events. It can be said that the Meditations are the exact opposite of another book, which was also written amidst military anxieties - Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War. Here, any penetration into the depths of emotional experiences is carefully eliminated, all interest is also exclusively absorbed by the objective world, as in Marcus Aurelius by the subjective world. Marcus Aurelius turned only to himself - he wanted to consolidate experiences that could serve as moral support and motivation. He never thought with these lines to influence others or correct them. Hence the deep sincerity, which is intuitively perceived by any reader of the Meditations and which is so lacking in many autobiographies and confessions, hence the ease of form: Marcus Aurelius did not look for it, just as one does not look for it, making marks on the margins of a book. There are no rhetorical concerns, but the expression always accurately and clearly conveys not only the thought, but also the spiritual background surrounding it.

First of all, the strength of moral truths is not connected for him with this or that idea of ​​the world. It does not have a definite cosmology, not even the one developed by Stoicism. He inclines towards the latter in its general features, but its certainty nowhere stands for him on a par with the certainty of the moral principles to which man refers. The point is not only that the interest of Marcus Aurelius is concentrated on these latter, as we generally observe in later Stoicism, and not only in his doubts about the possibility of comprehending physical truth; for him, even if not the Stoics are right, but the Epicureans, and if the world is governed by a single law, and the very case, if everything comes down to the play of atoms, this does not eliminate a person’s impulses for good and attachment to the world does not increase. This idea is repeated very often.

Therefore, when in the Meditations we read that the human body is characterized by fiery, airy, watery, and earthy elements, the author uses only a widespread hypothesis, without elevating it to the level of categorical truth.

This absence of dogmatism frees one from the sectarian spirit, from the exaggerated glorification of one philosophical school at the expense of others. When Marcus Aurelius finds thoughts related to him in Epicurus, he is not afraid to take them, he is not afraid to recognize in the representative of hedonistic philosophy a wise teacher of life.

Religious dogmatism is no more inherent in the Meditations than philosophical dogmatism. No one can claim the exclusive right to reveal to people the divine secret. One thing seemed certain to Marcus Aurelius: the presence of a deity in the world; atheism is counterintuitive. But what do these gods represent, are they merely aspects of the creative mind taught by the Stoics and often referred to by Marcus Aurelius? Undoubtedly, we will find in him a tendency towards monotheism. If the world is one, then the god who fills it is one, the common law is one, and truth is one. The doctrine of mediators between deity and man, that demonology, which was so adopted on the basis of religious-philosophical syncretism, remains alien to him. The communication of a person with a deity is carried out primarily by self-knowledge, and then by prayer. Apparently, for Marcus Aurelius, the first can replace the second: prayer is her only verbal expression of an inner feeling, and as such it should be simple and free, like the prayer of the Athenians cited by him for rain.

Man's place in the world is depicted in the Meditations in two, as it were, opposite aspects. On the one hand, reminders of all ephemerality constantly return. human life. The earth is only a point in infinite space, Europe and Asia are only corners of the world, a person is an insignificant moment of time. The vast majority disappear from the memory of those around them; only a few turned into myths, but these myths are doomed to oblivion. There is no more vain concern than the concern for posthumous glory. Only the present moment is real - but what does it mean in the face of infinity in the past and infinity in the future? And yet the human spirit is the highest that we find in the world; after his model we represent the soul of the whole. Man is not his actions; all his value lies in his soul. And again, Marcus Aurelius here remains alien to any anthropological dogmatism; it cannot be taken as the last indication that three elements are inherent in man: bodily, vital and rational, or that a spherical form is inherent in the soul. The dominant motive of Marcus Aurelius here is purely ethical. Man is a particle of the world; his behavior is included in the general plan of fate or providence. The very feeling of anger must fall when we remember that the vicious could not act contrary to his nature. But this does not mean that every freedom has been taken away from a person and every responsibility has been removed from him. Marcus Aurelius approached the great philosophical problem of necessity and freedom, to be solved within the limits of Stoic determinism; he, of course, was not able to. His understanding of ethics remained too intellectualistic. Sin is based on delusion and ignorance. And in the eyes of Marcus Aurelius, not by choice, but always in spite of itself, the human soul is deprived of truth - likewise, justice and, well-being, meekness. As always in intellectualistic ethics, the problem of evil is stripped of its tragic hopelessness, and there is no need for atonement that would exceed human strength. On the other hand, the fatalism of Marcus Aurelius is completely free from that ruthlessness in assessing the erring and sinning, which is so often worked out on the basis of a religious belief in predestination - at least in Calvinism.

Many, but not all, of Mark's ethical conclusions follow directly from his metaphysics and theology. Perhaps the most important of these is the call, repeated over and over in the pages of the Meditations: to maintain the harmony of the individual will with nature. Here we are confronted with the famous Stoic doctrine of "world-acceptance." This teaching works on two levels. The first relates to the events of everyday life. When someone treats you badly, Mark advises, you should accept bad treatment, since it cannot harm us if we ourselves do not allow it. This view is very close, but not identical, to the Christian exhortation to turn the other cheek. Jesus said of his executioners: “Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” and Mark could partly share his statement. Like Jesus, he believed that people involved in evil do so out of ignorance; like Jesus, he declared that their action should not be explained by some depravity of their nature. Rather, they act this way and not otherwise, believing that they are acting in the right way, which means that they will only err in judgment. But, unlike Jesus, Mark did not put on foreground the importance of forgiveness. He was much more interested in the internal reaction of the victim of the atrocity, and he never tired of emphasizing that no harm can be done to us against our will. Whatever happens to your possessions and even to your body, your inner and true self remains intact as long as it refuses to admit that it has been harmed.

The second aspect of the doctrine of "world acceptance" considers the life and place of the individual in the world. From the "Meditations" it is clear that Mark was not enthusiastic about his high position as a Roman emperor. He would almost certainly have preferred to spend his life as a mentor or scholar. But fate made him emperor, as she made Epictetus a slave. Therefore, it is his duty to accept his position in life and perform the task entrusted to him to the best of his ability.

The concept of fate presented a problem for Stoic philosophy. If, as Mark admitted, the universe is governed by reason, and because of this, everything that happens definitely happens in this way and not otherwise, then is there room for human freedom? Mark solves this problem by making a subtle distinction. If freedom is understood as a choice between equally open alternatives, then such freedom, of course, does not exist. But freedom has another meaning: to accept everything that happens as part of a good world order and to respond to events with reason, not emotions. The individual living in this way, Mark insists, is a truly free person. Such a person is not only free, but also truthful. Since the rationality of the universe is the basis of his goodness, everything that happens in the universe should only strengthen this goodness. Consequently, a rational person, accepting events, not only responds to an external good, but also makes a personal contribution to the value of the world whole.

Site search:

2015-2020 lektsii.org -

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

ESSAY

on the topic “STOIC VIEWS OF THE EMPEROR MARCUS AURELIUS”

• Introduction
• 1. The emergence of the Stoic school
• 2. Stoic-philosophical worldview of Marcus Aurelius
• 2.1 Marcus Aurelius
• Conclusion
• List of sources used

Introduction

Philosophy, especially in Ancient Rome, has always been revered, so its branching into different schools, the emergence of new directions, in each of which new ideas appeared, created the power of philosophizing, without which almost no one could do, especially the Romans.

In ancient Rome, the development of Hellenistic schools arose, the trends of which were so influential in history that they gave the world a number of famous personalities. In one of the directions of the Hellenistic schools, stoicism, such a cult personality was Antoninus Marcus Aurelius, who in turn was the last representative in this direction. As for the very emergence of Stoicism, its founder was Zeno, who arrived from Cyprus in the 4th century BC, and developed this direction long before the moment when this direction completely collapses and which will leave forever after the death of Marcus Aurelius.

Directly philosophy in the Roman Empire occupied a very important place and had a special influence on the life and culture of the Romans. The influence of the philosophy of ancient times on a person and the whole society in Rome meant the fulfillment of the function of religion, instruction. Since religion continued to protect and sanctify this state order, it was concentrated in the cult of the personalities of the emperors. But as any Emperor of the Greek world of one time or another, based on philosophy, received that knowledge, honoring which in his further actions, he acted wisely, and then for all the actions that he performed were awarded honor, respect, recognition, then such actions were truly worthy of the ruler. Such was the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

1. The emergence of the Stoic school

1.1 Emergence of Hellenistic schools

The immediate post-Aristotelian period ancient philosophy characterized by a sharp drop in the level of ontological research, i.e. research on the doctrine of beings. The same cannot be said, for example, about ethics and logic; about mores, morals, and about reason, concept and thoughts, in the spheres of which Hellenistic philosophy achieved significant results, but the "first philosophy" is experiencing such a crisis that cannot be explained by a simple pause in the process of the smooth development of the idea. Although it cannot be said that Hellenism came up with a new philosophical program, but to a large extent it continued the development of Socratic schools and tried to revive a number of pre-Socratic teachings. So, with good reason, the dialectic of the Athenian school can be considered a violation of evolution, an "emergent"; the Hellenistic schools were the "result" of a long-standing process initiated by the Sophists.

The Hellenistic schools were indeed more closely connected with the historical and cultural processes of Greece than the Athenian school.

For example, the Stoics and Epicureans were much more influential. The Epicureans, in turn, were students of Epicurus (347-270 BC), the materialist philosopher of the Hellenistic era.

The study of materialism (material), as one of the main philosophical directions, which was continued by the Epicureans, meant recognizing the objectivity, primacy, indestructibility and indestructibility of matter, which exists independently of consciousness and acts as the fundamental principle of reality.

As for Stoicism, it arose at the end of the 4th century, when Zeno of Kitia - Zeno Citium (335-263 BC), arrived from the Phoenician slope of Cyprus to Athens, where he opened the school of Stoicism. It got its name from the Greek word “Stoya”, which meant “portico”, or covered market square - a covered gallery with columns. His teaching of Stoicism became dominant in Hellenistic philosophy. Stoicism emphasized that happiness depends only on good quality(preferably, as Socrates thought) and that all external conditions of life can and must be endured by apatheia, i.e. "dispassion" (our word is "apathy") and a self-sufficient state, "autarky", or as it is also called self-satisfaction.

Stoicism also continued the Cynic doctrine of kosmopolis or "state of the world" as an ethical ideal. Cynicism, in turn, is defined as a moral quality that characterizes a contemptuous attitude towards the culture and values ​​of society. Cynicism belongs to the Cynic school.

This "World State" as an ethical ideal was realized later in the Roman Empire. Two curious representatives of the Roman Stoics at that time were Epictetus - Epictetus (55 BC - 135 AD), a slave (later freed), and Marcus Aurelius - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor, who ruled from 161 to 180.

With the exception of ethics, the Stoics devoted considerable creative attention to logic, but their metaphysical doctrines were for the most part derived from the teachings of Heraclitus (Heraclitus).

The world came to an end under Marcus Aurelius, whose closest thing was the main value of the "philosopher king", but also the same important general who led the main constant hostilities with the German invasion and the barbarian tribes along the Danube and across the Danube. And in all hostilities, he always remained at the forefront, having spent half his life in wars, and not how much half the time of his reign. And during these wars or not, he somehow imperceptibly from others, described the events in his notes of "Reflections", calming down in Stoicism.

During the reign, natural disasters fell upon the Empire, epidemics that descended from the East and claimed many lives. All this could not but affect the Empire, as well as Marcus Aurelius. But this did not mean that the Empire and the Emperor were weakened. Only the real failures of Marcus Aurelius should have left the Empire to his worthless son, Commodus (Commodus), which in reality was ruled out, since Commodus was mainly fond of the amusements of gladiator fights, and was far from the politics and problems of Rome. Marcus Aurelius, of course, did not like Chemod's hobby, and all this gathered into some kind of unanimous opinion, which resulted from Aurelius' unwillingness to give Rome such a ruler who was very far from the problems of Rome and the entire Roman Empire. Has also the fact that his son was a weak spirit. And such a person, who had power in his hands, was dangerous. And speaking of Commodus, it is important to say that, in turn, he was not worthy of the title of Emperor, but in spite of everything, he would later become one, although he should not have, thereby violating the idea of ​​​​Rome - its freedom. Freedom, according to Marcus Aurelius, was considered the very peace of Rome, which consisted in the desire for equality between the weak and the strong, the poor and the rich.

1.2 Hellenistic ontology. Stoicism

The main idea of ​​Stoicism was obedience to fate and the fatality of all things. Zeno said this about the Stoic: "To live consistently, that is, in accordance with a single and harmonious rule of life, for those who live inconsistently are unhappy."

Stoicism revived the teachings of Heraclitus on fire-logos; the world is a living organism, permeated with the creative primary fire, pneum, which creates cosmic sympathy for all things; everything that exists is corporeal and differs in the degree of coarseness or subtlety of matter; things and events are repeated after each periodic ignition and purification of the cosmos. Pneuma is something present in all living beings in addition to the dense tissues and fluids of which they are composed.

In ethics, stoicism is close to the cynics, not sharing their contemptuous attitude towards culture; the sage must follow the passionlessness of nature (apathy) and love his fate. All people are citizens of space as a world state; stoic cosmopolitanism equalized (in theory) in the face of world law all free people and slaves, Greeks and barbarians, men and women.

Stoicism, as is well known and well attested, identifies being (oysia) and corporeality (soma). Only at first glance can one see here fidelity to pre-Socratic syncretism, i.e. a combination of various philosophical principles into one system. But in the post-Platonic era, it was impossible to unite with ease and without reservations what had still disintegrated due to the historical metamorphoses of thinking. Perhaps that is why the doctrine of essence and body in Stoicism contains many unclear points.

The Stoics call the essence "the primordial substance of all things", and the body - an essence that has boundaries. Everything is to some extent a body, only the emptiness, which is outside the world, time and the meanings of words are incorporeal. On the other hand, for example, Diogenes reports that the Stoics distinguished between beginnings (archai) and foundations (stoicheia). The beginnings are incorporeal, formless, do not arise and do not perish. Being has two principles: active and passive. The first is god, or reason; the second is a qualityless essence. The isolated quality of the whole essence is God. It is obvious that the Stoics could not get by with the concept of the body alone, and a qualityless essence can also be understood as incorporeal.

The Stoic doctrine of categories has a purely ontological meaning. The most general category is "something" (to ti) - according to Chrysippus (280 - 208/05 BC; Chrysippus was called the second founder of the Stoa), or "existing" (toon) - according to Zeno, and "existing" in this context is a genus, that is, the greatest generalization that is not included in any other genus. From this main category flow the rest, from the point of view of the Stoics, revealing and concretizing, i.e. uniting the first. Being, as we see, turns out to be a predicate and a genus for the Stoics, which was forbidden in the system of Aristotle. This is in full agreement with the teaching of the Stoics about matter, which is the highest generalization as a potential qualityless continuum, i.e. bad continuation. Both matter and being are the maximum genus for everything in the cosmos.

Such a return to philosophical archaism would have to restore the integrity of the intuition of living being; the Stoics, presumably, sought precisely this. But in fact, there was a disintegration, dissociation (non-existence) of the main elements of ontological thinking. The Stoics, of course, had to abandon the distinction, i.e. distinction between the energy and dynamic levels of being, put forward by Aristotle, otherwise it would not be possible to consistently carry out the principle of somatism, i.e. point of view principle; but as a result, substance had to take the place that essence occupied in Aristotle's ontology. Essence itself would have to play the role of concrete fullness of meaning. However, in this case, the substance would lose that type of universality, which was dictated by somatism, stylized (under any image) under the ancient "physics". As a result, the Stoics were forced to introduce a number of principles into the ontology: logos (word, doctrine); lekton (pure meaning, or what is said as meaningful); providence, i.e. "will and thought" of God, as well as logos or world soul. All these principles led to the complication of the concept and difficult problems of connection of principles.

It is important to treat all ancient concepts as a universal interpenetration (krasis diholon) of "body" and "substance" - but only the Stoics were not original here. The problem was that the very principle of the identity of being and the body could not be combined with the Athenian dialectic without falling into contradictions, it was also impossible to completely ignore its achievements, and the Stoics were indeed quite closely connected with them, starting with the classification of sciences and ending with the ethics of freedom. .

Having turned out to be a substance, being becomes the very empty and powerless possibility that Aristotle saw in the continuum of "physicists", and if his criticism is applicable to the teachings of the pre-Socratics only in some respect, then to Stoic "physics" - to a much greater extent. It is characteristic that the system of categories among the Stoics has undergone very regular changes: with some external resemblance to the Aristotelian, it is directly opposite to it in essence, since in relation to the first category ("something", or "existing"), all the others are its concretization (combination ); the first one turns out to be the least meaningful and meaningful.

The teaching of the Stoics about quasi-being, that is, ideality, is not devoid of logical refinement; they tried to do the same thing that the neo-Kantians (followers of Kant) did in their time - to find a reality that would not "exist" but "mean", and thus get away from the antinomies (contradiction in the law) of the dual nature of being, that is, from such a situation when "to be" cannot be simultaneously attributed to both the ideal and the existential-material. But such a formulation of the problem and its solution only create great artificial difficulties. This is evident from the Stoic doctrine of the "lekton.

In the doctrine of the logos and the world as a living and rational being, the Stoics remove the sharp bifurcation of the world into the body and meaning, but the "lecton", in fact, remains an element of the amalgam, i.e. dissolution, without entering into a real merger with the world, and in this, perhaps, the most characteristic Stoic doctrine of being. The ethereal logos of the Stoics and the logos of Heraclitus in this respect are polar principles. The presence of an element that is not related to either being or non-being, that is, a kind of quasi-being, which does not even have a direct relationship to truth and falsehood, until it becomes part of the act of realizing the statement - this is the discovery of Hellenistic ontology, and its importance can only be assessed by history of the early Hellenistic schools. With the Stoics, in a sense, the novelty of this discovery was less noticeable than in other directions, since the Stoics were conscious restorers of philosophical antiquity; besides, "lekton" is necessarily a connection, and in the end - a kind of cosmic proposal; but on the other hand, the more noticeable is the incoherence of this proposal with the life of the world. From this it follows why the desired wholeness of being turned into disunity of principles.

Hellenistic ontology, it must be admitted that, despite the gap with the great achievements of the Athenian school, which sometimes takes the form of a fundamental rejection, the early Hellenistic schools did a huge and valuable theoretical work, rethinking the traditional settings of the ancient concept of being. The old forms of teaching about the unity of thought and being were subjected to revision in all three schools (cynic, epicurean, stoic). Fourth - Skepticism, i.e. investigating, criticizing, in their school there was no revision of the old form of the doctrine of the unity of thought. The school of skeptics existed even before the time of the Cynic, and dates from the beginning of 323 BC. The universe has disintegrated into life and meaning; meaning, in turn - on logic and ethics. This stratification of wholeness left no room for the concept of being: neither the flow of actual reality, nor the ideal structures of the "lecton" type, nor the ethical consciousness of the individual could and cannot correspond to the old doctrine of a single being, restored in Athens. But, at the same time, an important result was achieved: the idea appeared of a reality that cannot be reduced to all the listed layers, that in the language of later ontology it was called "existence", i.e. existence or way of being of the human person.

It should be noted that the Athenian school also made this discovery, but it did not appear in the conditions of its traditionalism as clearly as in the Hellenistic teachings. The latter placed special emphasis on the understanding of philosophy as life-creation, and the source of such creativity could only be the freedom of personal existence, which is realized in addition to logical foundations, or even contrary to them.

2. Stoic-philosophical worldview of Marcus Aurelius

Hellenistic Stoicism worldview of Aurelius

2.1 Marcus Aurelius

Roman Stoicism (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). They clearly saw the imperfection of the world, that the laws of life are not subject to man, and therefore it is pointless for him to fight fate. But a reasonable person can remove this conflict by the strength of his spirit, tempering his will, enduring hardships steadfastly, resisting them, not hoping for victory, but without losing dignity. The happiness of a person contributes to his self-improvement. Antoninus Marcus Aurelius was such a person.

Antoninus Marcus Aurelius (121-180), from the Antonine dynasty, was the last Stoic philosopher, whose philosophy could be regarded as the last completion of ancient Stoicism and at the same time its complete collapse. From 161 to 180 Roman Emperor and conqueror who expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire.

Marcus Aurelius restored the Roman protectorate (limiting the independence of the now dependent country in the field of defense and foreign policy when granting complete freedom in matters of internal politics) over Armenia and captured Mesopotamia in the war of 162 - 166 with the Parthians; in 166 - 180 waged war with the Germanic and Sarmatian tribes.

Mark Annius Ver, who later became, after Antoninus adopted him, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, was born in 121, in Rome, into a wealthy patrician family. His father died at a very young age, and the main concern for the upbringing of Mark fell on his grandfather Annius Verus, who was twice consul, and, apparently, enjoyed the favor of the emperor Hadrian, who was distantly related to him.

Marcus Aurelius was always imbued with a sense of gratitude to the people to whom he considered himself indebted.

Mark was educated at home and as a child fell under the influence of his main teacher - the Stoic. This teacher was the Stoic Lucius Junius Rusticus. But on the other hand, he also happened to receive a philosophical education from Diognet, under whose influence Marcus Aurelius happened to sleep on bare boards, hiding behind an animal skin; from the same Diognet, Mark learned painting. He also improved his education under the guidance of the sophist (from Greek - the sage) Herodes Atticus, the Platonists (followers of Platonist) Alexander and Sextus of Chaeronea, the peripatetic (follower of Aristotle) ​​Claudius Severus, the stoic Apollonius of Chalcedon. In Smyrna, he listened to the sophist Aelius Aristides, but Lucius Junius Rusticus remained the main thing for him.

In his future reign, Marcus Aurelius will surround himself with philosophers and rhetors, making statesmen of his old mentors, such as Herodes Atticus, Fronton, Junius Rusticus, Claudius Severa, Proculus, making them consuls and proconsuls.

Carried away by Stoicism, Mark will become the greatest admirer and admirer of the philosophy of Epictetus. Apparently, therefore, over time, only two outstanding personalities in Roman stoicism will be named - these are Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, the latter who drew for himself the importance of philosophical thoughts written by the Stoic Epictetus, realizing from his notes that it is necessary to correct and heal your temper. Marcus Aurelius was even glad that, because of his acquaintance with the notes of Epictetus, he did not turn into sophistry, into the analysis of syllogisms and did not take up extraterrestrial phenomena. Moreover, he was glad that he did not believe the tales of sorcerers and magicians, setting philosophy as his goal.

Marcus Aurelius, because of his love for Stoic philosophy, remained its adherent until the end of his days. His extraordinary abilities were soon noticed, and the ruling emperor Antoninus Pius, believing that he did not have long to live, adopted Mark, who was his nephew, gave him the family name Antoninus and began to prepare his adopted son to take the reins of government into his own hands. However, Antoninus lived longer than expected, and therefore, Mark became the head of the state only in 161.

For Marcus Aurelius, the transition to imperial power did not represent anything special, it was not a turning point in his inner and even outer life. He did not even want to be the sole ruler and took as an associate his adopted brother Lucius Verus, who also received the title of Augustus. The latter, however, with his inactive and dissolute character, did not provide the emperor with any help and often turned out to be a significant hindrance in business; however, Marcus Aurelius treated him with his usual inexhaustible patience and condescension.

Marcus Aurelius was distinguished by his disinterestedness, despised denunciations, successfully waged wars, and kindly ruled the provinces. He founded several philosophical schools in Rome, and brought famous philosophers of that time closer to the palace. In Athens, he founded four departments of philosophy, corresponding to each direction - academic, peripatetic (meaning learning while walking with the followers of Aristotle, who created logic), stoic and epicurean.

Teachers Marcus Aurelius established salaries at the expense of the state. In addition, in all the provinces, he appointed the philosophers state content.

The imminent crisis of the Roman Empire determined the specifics of the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. In his interpretation, Stoicism finally loses its materialistic features and takes on a religious and mystical character. God in Marcus Aurelius is the fundamental principle of all things; it is the world mind in which all individual consciousness dissolves after the death of the body. His ethics is characterized by fatalism, the preaching of humility and asceticism. He calls for moral improvement and purification through the very deepening and knowledge of the fatal necessity that rules the world.

Marcus Aurelius outlined his philosophical thoughts in the form of aphorisms in a single work - “To himself”. In the works “To Myself” (in Russian translation - “Alone with Myself”, 1914; “Reflections”, 1985), a picture of the world is drawn, controlled by the providence of nature (identified with God), and human happiness is understood as life in harmony with nature.

The philosophy of Marcus Aurelius big influence to Christianity, although the emperor himself severely persecuted Christians.

And, despite the fact that the Stoics gave away a number of their ideas consonant with Christianity, they themselves remained pagans, while persecuting Christians, not suspecting that all this could not but affect such kinship. And perhaps the deepest kinship between Stoicism and Christianity should be sought not in the coincidence of individual thoughts and statements, but in that self-deepening of the individual, at which the history of Stoicism ended and the history of Christianity began.

The revolution made by the Stoics in philosophy can be called the fact that the indifferent attitude of the Stoic sage to the world around him (including the social one) penetrates more deeply into the innermost depths of his own “I”, thus revealing in his personality the whole universe earlier completely unknown and inaccessible to him. In “Reflections of Marcus Aurelius, apparently, the ultimate depth of self-consciousness and remembrance, accessible to ancient man, has been achieved. Without this discovery of the “inner world” of man, accomplished by the Stoics, the victory of Christianity would hardly have been possible. Therefore, Roman Stoicism can be called, in a certain sense, as considering the "preparatory school" of Christianity, and the Stoics themselves as "seekers of God."

2.2 Main ideas of Marcus Aurelius

The main ideas of Marcus Aurelius are:

1. The universe is ruled by the mind, which is God

2. In a rationally arranged universe, everything that happens is not only necessary, but also good.

3. Human happiness lies in living in harmony with nature and reason.

4. Although the individual's actions are causally determined, he achieves freedom by acting rationally.

5. The evil deeds of others do not harm us; rather, we are harmed by our opinions about these actions.

6. All rational beings are subject to the law of nature and thus are citizens of the world state.

7. A reasonable individual should not be afraid of death, since it is a natural event of life.

2.3 Worldview of Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius deals exclusively with ethical problems and is very far from any logic, physics and dialectics. After all, the task is not to explore the earthly and underground depths, but to communicate with the inner “I” and honestly serve it.

The philosophy of Marcus Aurelius arose from a feeling of constant struggle with the outside world, with thoughts inside oneself, taking all the vicissitudes of fate for granted. Marcus Aurelius gives classical expressions to these feelings: “The time of a human life is a moment; its essence is an eternal flow; sensation is vague; the structure of the whole body is perishable; the soul is unstable; fate is mysterious; fame is unreliable. In a word, everything pertaining to the body is like a stream, pertaining to the soul is dream and smoke. Life is a struggle and a journey through a foreign land; posthumous glory is oblivion.”

In Marcus Aurelius, with all his kindness and, on the contrary, the mood to fight, from seemingly surging joy, sadness, or grief, these feelings were not reflected in any way on his expression. This suggests that he can and should be called persistent, courageous, and that, among his army, for all the wars, he lost many who were close to him.

Because of this, the heightened sense of longing in Marcus Aurelius to an incredible degree increases the appeal to the deity, faith in divine revelation. An example of this is the prayer of the Emperor, or as the legend calls it “the miracle with rain”. This legend says that when the Emperor was praying for his Roman army, for salvation, which was suffering from thirst, it suddenly began to rain, and thus the Roman army was saved.

In Marcus Aurelius, sometimes there is a general antique love for beauty, for pure and disinterested beauty, which has meaning in itself and which needs absolutely nothing. As for nature in Marcus Aurelius, it is higher than art only insofar as it exists, both creating and being created at the same time, while art in the usual sense of the word organizes only Dead Matter, the organization of which is only an area of ​​being created, but in no way creating. And where the creative and the created coincide in a person, it is no longer ordinary arts that are created, but the person himself is created, since the inner and morally perfect person is precisely the true work of art. But such a genuine work of art is nothing more than a continuation and development of the same nature. The inner man himself and with his own forces creates his inner beauty, just as nature also creates its own beauty itself and from its own resources. Such an aesthetic, however, is not very reconciled with the decadent assessment of the human subject, which can be found in late Stoicism. But for us, this feature is extremely important and even precious. After all, it turns out that even in periods of the darkest moralism, ancient man still could not forget the bright and cheerful ideals of a carefree and self-sufficiently thinking general antique aesthetics.

Here one of the most remarkable aspects of the personality of Marcus Aurelius is revealed: he is as far as possible from any utopias and he deliberately rejects them. Philosophy remains the law of life, but the philosopher must understand all the imperfection of human material, all the extreme slowness in the assimilation of higher moral and intellectual truths by people, all the enormous power of resistance that lies in historical life. It is impossible to forcibly renew the world, introduce perfect order, because no ruler has power over the thoughts and feelings of people. The tragedy here lies in the fatal discrepancy between the height of the mood of one who wishes to be a benefactor of mankind, and the prosaic nature of the results.

The attention to the child that goes hand in hand with the empowerment of women is the best indicator of the new spirit into which the legislation of the empire is penetrating.

It is no less felt in another area - in the recognition and protection of the rights of a slave: here, of course, it is possible to talk about character only in a moral, not legal sense - in the latter, a slave could not be a subject of law, but this did not prevent the legislation of the Roman Empire from providing his person from encroachment on life and honor, from cruel treatment, to ensure the integrity of his family, the inviolability of his personal property, to significantly limit, if not eliminate, his sale to fight animals in the amphitheater, and, finally, in every possible way to facilitate and encourage release into the wild. The very fine condition of the freedmen also improved considerably.

Many, but not all, of Mark's ethical conclusions follow directly from his metaphysics (super-experienced principles, the laws of being), and theology (the doctrine of God). The most important of them is the call, which is repeated every now and then on the pages of the Meditations: to maintain the harmony of the individual will with nature. Here we are confronted with the famous Stoic doctrine of "world-acceptance." This teaching works on two levels. The first relates to the events of everyday life. When someone treats you badly, Mark advises, you should accept bad treatment, since it cannot harm us if we ourselves do not allow it. This view is very close, but not identical, to the Christian exhortation to turn the other cheek. Jesus said of his executioners, “Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing,” and Mark could partly share his statement. Like Jesus, he believed that people involved in evil do so out of ignorance; like Jesus, he declared that their action should not be explained by some depravity of their nature. Rather, they act this way and not otherwise, believing that they are acting in the right way, which means that they will only err in judgment. But unlike Jesus, Mark did not emphasize the importance of forgiveness. He was much more interested in the internal reaction of the victim of the atrocity, and he never tired of emphasizing that no harm can be done to us against our will. Whatever happens to your possessions and even to your body, your inner and true self remains intact as long as it refuses to admit that it has been harmed.

The second aspect of the doctrine of "world acceptance" considers the life and place of the individual in the world. It is clear from the Meditations that Mark was not enthusiastic about his high position as Roman emperor. He would almost certainly have preferred to spend his life as a mentor or scholar. But fate made him emperor, as she made Epictetus a slave. Therefore, it is his duty to accept his position in life and perform the task entrusted to him to the best of his ability.

The concept of fate presented a problem for Stoic philosophy. If, as Mark recognized, the universe is governed by reason, and because of this, everything that happens definitely happens in this way and not otherwise, then is there room for human freedom? Mark solves this problem by making a subtle distinction. If freedom is understood as a choice between equally open alternatives, then such freedom, of course, does not exist. But freedom has another meaning: to accept everything that happens as part of a good world order and to respond to events with reason, not emotions. The individual living in this way, Mark insists, is a truly free individual. Such a person is not only free, but also righteous. Since the rationality of the universe is the basis of his goodness, everything that happens in the universe should only strengthen this goodness. Consequently, a rational person, accepting events, not only responds to an external good, but also makes a personal contribution to the value of the world whole.

The Stoic conception of reason as the ruler of the world is ambiguous, and this ambiguity makes itself felt again and again in the Meditations. On the one hand, reason is just an explanation of the fact that the life of the wholly material universe is subject to an invincible law. On the other hand, the mind is interpreted as a universal mind, suggestive of the existence of the spirit. This concept introduces the concept of God, i.e. Theism, or the existence of God and his relation to the world and man. There is no doubt that in some sense Mark was a theist, for he constantly speaks of God in terms that imply the existence of a good cosmic mind. It follows from this that there is a major theological problem: how to reconcile the materialism of Marcus Aurelius with his theism?

Another theological issue to which Mark devotes much space is the question of death and immortality. A reasonable person will not be afraid of death. Being a natural phenomenon, death cannot be evil; on the contrary, it participates in the good that is inherent in every natural phenomenon. After death, we simply cease to exist. The centuries we spend in nothingness after death are no different from the centuries we spent in nothingness before we were born. But that is not all. Mark shares the Stoic theory of immortality. According to this view, the history of the cosmos does not develop linearly, but cyclically. This doctrine is often referred to as the "eternal return" doctrine. Aeons later, the universe will come to the end of the present age and will be plunged into a state of primordial fire. A new universe emerges from the fire, which will exactly repeat the history of our universe. And so on ad infinitum. Therefore, we will live the same lives that we live now.

Our life, which has a tense personal aspect, is primarily a social life. Each of us lives in a particular society and is governed by its laws. But, being rational beings, we are also subject to a higher law - the law of nature. This law applies to each of us, whatever the society in which we live. According to natural law, all people are equal, whether you are an emperor, a slave, or whatever. Therefore, the assertion is true that, as rational beings, all people are members of one state, governed by the same laws. The famous thesis of Mark reads: “I am Antoninus, and my fatherland is Rome; I am a man, and my fatherland is the world.”

It is often said that the pagan world produced two "saints". The first one is Socrates. The second is Marcus Aurelius. Mark deserves eternal memory and respect not so much for the sublime ethical content of his Meditations, but for the fact that he managed to build his life, often in extremely unfavorable circumstances, in full accordance with the prescriptions of his notes of “thoughts to himself”.

“The world must be thought of as a single being,” he writes, and further on, “of one in nature and with one soul.” The unity of the world means that everything is intertwined with one another, subordinated and ordered in a single world order. The world is also incessant transformations. Marcus Aurelius accepts as a fundamental principle that the world is preserved by the transformations of the primary elements or their combinations. Everything that becomes becomes in transformations, he writes. The nature of the whole loves nothing more than to transform what is, producing what is young. Nothing can happen without transformation. Can you wash yourself if the firewood doesn't turn? asks Marcus Aurelius. Can you eat if the food doesn't turn?

Similar appeals in Marcus Aurelius are considered very often in his anthropology and ethics. Further, Mark writes - “There is nothing outside the universal nature, therefore all transformations take place within its boundaries. It transforms into itself everything that seems perishing, obsolete, and makes young out of it, so that it does not need a supply from the outside and does not need a place where to throw away the used, unnecessary. In this, Marcus Aurelius sees the difference between the craft of nature and the craft of a carpenter and a furrier. Transformations, changes are made by several causes, successive by a number of causes. He threw a seed into the womb, he gives an example, and departed, and there another reason is taken to act, and the child appears. In fact, we are talking about the self-deployment of nature.

Particularly noticeable in the worldview of Marcus Aurelius is the Heraclitean characteristic of being: nature, like a river, in a continuous flow; in the nature of the whole, as if in a stream, all bodies move; eternity is a river of becomings; flow and change constantly rejuvenate the world, etc. The flow in which being exists is circular. Up, down, the first elements rush in a circle, writes Marcus Aurelius. The world is governed by certain circuits. From the circulation of being, it follows, firstly, that nothing perishes, everything is reborn again. A grape ovary, a bunch, raisins - all transformations, and not into non-existence, but into not-now-being, says Marcus Aurelius. Secondly, it follows that everything that happens in this way happened, will happen and is happening now. He expresses this by the concept of uniformity and uniformity of everything, and says: a forty-year-old, if there is any intelligence in him, in some way due to uniformity, has already seen everything that was and will be.

The changes taking place in the world are controlled either by God, who is also reason (providing), or by chance. The mind passes through nature and through the whole eternity and governs everything according to certain circuits. Reasonable management of the world leads teleological, i.e. completion of the word predetermined by all events. Aurelius says that everything happens according to some initial aspiration of providence, according to which nature initially rushed to such a world order, taking into its bosom the meanings of what will be, and determining the generating forces of occurrences and transformations. Management is carried out for the benefit of the whole (universe). This is the general law of control. Nature does not bring anything that does not correspond to what she governs, that is, to the benefit of the whole.

About a man, Marcus Aurelius says the following: I am flesh, breath and leading or body, soul, mind; sensations to the body, aspirations to the soul, principles to the mind. Man received all this from nature and therefore can be considered its creation. I consist of the causal and the material, says Marcus Aurelius. No one has anything of their own, but your body and your soul itself came from there. Everyone's mind is a god, and has flowed from there. In general, again we see an opinion about the unity of man and nature, about man as part of the world whole (microcosm). What is earthy in me is given to me from the earth, said Marcus Aurelius. Just as breathing connects a person with the surrounding air, so understanding connects everything rational with the surroundings, because the rational force is poured everywhere and is available to those who are able to swallow it.

Man is a part of the world whole and as such is subject to the laws, attitudes and interests of the whole. For any part of nature, what the nature of the whole brings is good, says Marcus Aurelius. For example, the breath and the fiery principle in a person strive upwards by nature, the earthy and moist downwards, but, obeying the construction of the whole, they occupy the place that nature has assigned them and are held in conjunction. Thus the elements obey the whole. Here it is important to note a certain prototype of holism (the whole) in Marcus Aurelius. He often uses the concept - the essence of the whole.

The transformations of man as a part of the whole do not go beyond nature. Everything that happens to a person - illness and death, slander and deceit - is habitual and familiar, writes Marcus Aurelius, like a rose in spring or fruits in summer. Of course, death stands out from all the natural transformations of a person: as a part of the whole, you arose and will disappear in the one that gave birth to you. Everything associated with matter does not hesitate to disappear in the universal nature, and everything causal is immediately accepted by the universal mind. This means that the transformation of man in death consists in the fact that each part of him passes into the corresponding part of the world; since a person consists of two parts (body and soul-mind), insofar as he has two ways, two types of transformation after death: scattering of the body (“I will become the earth”, I will disintegrate into atoms, if any) and the unity of the ignited soul with the inseminating mind , moving into it after some stay (saving) in the air.

Like everything in nature, human life is subject either to fate with its necessity, or to a merciful providence, or to a random mess of chance. But all of the above are possibilities, in reality, according to Marcus Aurelius, fate-necessity dominates in people's lives. It is made up of all causes. What a cause-destiny brings to a person is assigned to him, since the causes intertwine from ancient times both the emergence of a person and all the events of his life. There is a stoic fatalism.

But with all the inclusion of a person in the material world, with all his subordination to the necessary course of life, Marcus Aurelius finds in him an island, independent of the bodily, stable in all the vicissitudes of life - this is his mind. Marcus Aurelius calls the understanding free from passions a stronghold. There is no stronger refuge for a person, where he becomes impregnable. Here, perhaps, the most important position of the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is revealed - the position on the autarchy of reason, i.e. about the self-satisfaction of the mind: the leading becomes irresistible if, closed in on itself, it is content with itself and does not do what it does not want. Thus, a person receives support in this fleeting and changeable existence and independence from life circumstances. Thus, thanks to the autarchy of the mind, he can preserve himself as an autonomous person. And if the waves carry you, says Marcus Aurelius, let the body be carried or the breath - the mind will not be carried away. He often expresses this idea: nothing corporeal and external touches the mind and should not be transferred to it. All the suffering of the flesh is its concern. They don't make the ruler-thought worse. It is also not affected by someone else's vice or speech. The individual is autonomous. For my will, writes Marcus Aurelius, the will of my neighbor is as indifferent as his body and breath. He expresses the independence of a person from other people, their influences by the concept of “erasing ideas”. It means that it is in the power of a person that there is no baseness, lust and confusion in his soul. The one who belongs to reason is not touched by tyrants or slander, nothing at all.

So, external influences on the soul are impossible. Things in themselves do not affect the soul, according to Marcus Aurelius, they have no entrance into the soul. Therefore, he endows the mind with self-activity, depending only on it. The leading one wakes up, transforms, makes of itself whatever it wants. Thus, everything that we are inclined to consider as an external influence, only seems to be such, in fact, being the action of a rational soul, which itself creates its own own world. An example of this are the words of Marcus Aurelius: - “The soul sets itself in motion, and what judgments it finds worthy of itself, such things will be for it. If something external saddens you, it is not it that annoys you, but your judgment about it.” Such judgments can be called "confessions (of the soul)" or "contracts" (from oneself or beyond the original idea). So, according to Marcus Aurelius, as soon as the mind does not recognize what causes sorrow, and it will not be. For example, you should not think of harm to yourself if you were told about the abuse against you, or the danger of death at the sight of a sick child.

In connection with the foregoing, let us clarify what a person is in the understanding of Marcus Aurelius. Of the body, breath and mind that make up man, only the third belongs to him, so that man proper is the mind. "Be smart!" - the motto of Marcus Aurelius (and all the Stoics). In hidden inside, he writes, setting in motion, there is life, there, let's face it, a person. One should not think at the same time with him the vessel that encircles it and the tools stuck to it. Outside of the reason that governs their movement or rest, they are not much more valuable than a weaver's needle or a scribe's reed. The mind of a person is his god, genius (in the original in Greek - a demon). He is the protector and guide of man, and the soul does what its genius desires. A person is obliged to submit to genius and live in harmony with it, serve it. It will be a blessed life.

Thus, it is possible to formulate another essential principle moral instruction of Marcus Aurelius: to live under the guidance of reason and in harmony with it. It can be further reformulated into the position: to live in harmony with nature, since for a rational being, what is done by nature, writes Marcus Aurelius, is also by reason. It turns out that a person must live both according to his nature and the general one. According to Marcus Aurelius, nature is the source of a good life, since everything that is in accordance with nature is not evil. In nature, everything is attractive, there is nothing ugly in it. Good cracks in bread, good bursting ripe figs, he remarks, if they are not considered separately, but in conjunction with what is in nature. Finally, the named principle is expressed in the fact that a person is ordered to live and act, mindful of the mutual connection of divine and human affairs, looking back at the gods. It is impossible to do anything human good, Marcus Aurelius points out, without correlating it with the divine. After all, the gods do not plunge people into evil, on the contrary, they take care of human affairs and help people live according to nature.

Next, let us consider in more detail what it means to live according to nature and reason, that is, to live morally. It basically means to live "in public", as Marcus Aurelius puts it. Primary in the human structure is the social, he said. foundation public life are nature and reason. Society is inherent in nature itself. Even in insensible nature there is an attraction of one to another; everything rushes towards the only begotten. That which is from the earth gravitates toward the earth, etc. All the more hastening to the only-begotten is that which participates in the common spiritual nature. Already among the foolish, writes Marcus Aurelius, a swarm, a herd, family nests, almost love were invented. Even more unifying force increases in people thanks to the mind. In the kinship of man with the entire human race, there is not blood and not seed, he believes, but a commonality of mind. The common mind of people unfolds into a common law, into citizenship, into participation in statehood. In other words, the community of people is expressed in such forms of communication, unity as the state, friendship, houses, meetings, and even during wars, treaties and truces, Marcus Aurelius points out.

In addition to the connection of man with nature, man is also connected with society. Thus, a person is included in two communities: in the natural (cosmos) as a person and in the civil (polis) as a citizen. This is the often quoted words of Marcus Aurelius: “My nature is reasonable and civic. City and fatherland to me, Antoninus, is Rome, and to me, a man, is the world.

From this it can be seen that humanity, with the exception of the stars, is most firmly bound in nature. According to his figurative expression, it is easier to find the earth that has not stuck to the earth than a person split off from a person. Marcus Aurelius understands social ties between people as truly organic. Reasonable beings are the joints of the body arranged for united cooperation. If a person considers himself simply as part of a whole (and not a joint in the totality of intelligent beings), then it means that he still does not love people from the bottom of his heart, Marcus Aurelius believes. It is interesting to note that, in his understanding, the unity of people in a community is so close that a person, split off from at least one person, has already fallen away from the whole community.

But what exactly is the moral meaning of social life? It is that the individual must work for the sake of society; turns his aspirations to the common good. In addition, he is in a humane attitude towards people, in caring for them, in love for his neighbor, in benevolence towards fellow tribesmen, etc.

According to Marcus Aurelius, it is natural for a person to do good, to do it instinctively, unconsciously, and not to demand any rewards for it.

One of the notable moments of the humanism of Marcus Aurelius in relation to people is the forgiveness of sinners. Shameless, swindlers, infidels and all those who err, he perceives as the inevitability of life and calls to be more benevolent towards them. In order for people to understand sinners and sympathize with them, he recommends being guided by a whole set of rules, which has nine provisions. Here, for example, some of them: we are born for each other, so retrain or transfer; if they do it wrong, then out of ignorance; and you yourself make a lot of mistakes, and you yourself are the same, etc.

A life in harmony with nature and reason also presupposes that a person obeys the course of events established by them, accepts what is happening for granted. Marcus Aurelius advises a man: “Voluntarily hand yourself over to the spinner Clotho and do not interfere with her sewing you into whatever fabric she pleases.” Therefore, with it, he condemns rebellion against what nature brings to man, and calls the rebel "an abscess on the world" (his usual metaphor). A person must accept fate with dignity, and one who is sad, afraid and angry at the laws of nature is like a runaway slave. The basis for reconciling and even tenderly accepting everything that happens to man is for Marcus Aurelius the fact that all this was conceived by the general nature and linked with the older causes (and man is not separated from the universal nature), and that with man there is no nothing inhuman (i.e., unusual, supernatural) happens. And there is no point in being angry about it.

A person is completely in the power of fate: “After all, one harmony penetrates into everything. And just as the world is composed of all bodies - a perfect body, so fate is composed of all causes - a perfect cause. Therefore, “nothing can happen to a person that is not determined by the fate of a person, just as nothing can happen to an animal, plant, stone that does not correspond to their nature. But if no being can experience anything other than that for which it has grown up and to which it is determined by its nature, why should you complain? Be sure that almighty nature has not endowed you with anything unbearable.

Among the events with which it is especially difficult for a person to reconcile, death is, of course, in the first place. And Marcus Aurelius gives a lot of arguments to convince a person to accept it as a blessing, as what nature desires. “Do you complain that you have so much weight in you? he asks. “So it is with time, how long will you live.”

The present is the only support, it is pointless to rely on the past or the future: “Look back - there is an immeasurable abyss of time, look forward - there is another infinity ... What is the difference between the one who lived three days and the one who lived three human lives?

“Imagine,” wrote Marcus Aurelius, “that you have already died, that you have lived only up to the present moment, and spend the remaining time of your life, as if you got it beyond expectation, in accordance with nature.” And further: “So, spend this moment of time in harmony with nature, and then part with life as easily as a ripe plum falls: glorifying the nature that gave birth to it, and with gratitude to the tree that produced it.” One can approach such a life attitude only through philosophy: “To philosophize means to protect the inner genius from reproach and flaw, to ensure that he stands above pleasure and suffering, so that there is no recklessness, no deceit, no hypocrisy in his actions ... and most importantly, that he meekly wait for death as a simple decomposition of those elements that make up every living being. To a person who encounters a rapist, Marcus Aurelius gave the following advice: “What will an unbridled rapist do to you if you remain invariably benevolent towards him and, when the opportunity presents itself, you meekly admonish him, and at the very moment when he wants to do you harm calmly say to him: “My son, do not do this; we were born for something else. You will harm not me, but yourself.”

Similar Documents

Ethical concepts are an organic part of the historical and cultural process. The emergence of the Stoic philosophical school. Similarities and differences between the features of the philosophical teachings of the late Stoics from previous philosophical schools. Ethical ideals of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

control work, added 12/14/2011


Brief information about life path and the activities of Augustine Aurelius - a Christian theologian and philosopher, preacher and one of the fathers of the Christian church. Stages of creativity and the main features of philosophy. The influence of the works of Augustine Aurelius on Christianity.

test, added 05/24/2016


Augustine the Blessed is an outstanding representative of Latin patristics. Historical transition from the ancient worldview to the medieval one. Spiritual evolution of Aurelius Augustine. Understanding the phenomenon of human personality. Truth, the problem of God and the problem of evil.

term paper, added 04/10/2012


Patristics and scholasticism as directions of the medieval philosophy of theocentrism. The teaching of Augustine Aurelius the Blessed about the "secular state" and the "kingdom of God". Philosophical views of Thomas Aquinas. Theories about the eternal existence of souls and their transmigration.

abstract, added 05/20/2014


Understanding power by ancient and Roman philosophers: a comparative analysis. The issue of slavery and human freedom. The enduring position of Marcus Aurelius. Self-overcoming and hysterical pathos of Epictetus. The Stoics are about power relations between man and God.

article, added 06/04/2013


The question of the causes of the emergence of everything that exists. The beginning of the historical formation of philosophy from a critical attitude to myth, from the question of the origin of the gods. The first philosophical school in Miletus. Criteria for the specificity of the philosophical worldview.

lecture, added 03/27/2011


The era of Hellenism as the final stage in the development of the culture of Ancient Greece. Athens in the Hellenistic era is the leading philosophical center. The ethics of passive heroism of Seneca, the positive ideal of man Marcus Aurelius. Philosophy of neoplatonism about man and society.

abstract, added 10/19/2010


Philosophy of the period of patristics: general characteristics. Philosophical views of Aurelius Augustine. "Confession" of Augustine the Blessed. Here the ideal of our thinker receives the most complete, perfect expression, is formulated as the unity of universal divine power.

abstract, added 09/22/2003


The concept of theodicy as a set of religious and philosophical doctrines. Philosophical views. The teleological teachings of various philosophical schools, beginning with the ancient materialists and Stoics, ending with the eschatological teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

test, added 11/24/2008


Siddhartha Gautama: personality; biography. Establishment of an academic, peripatetic, stoic and epicurean chair of philosophy in Athens. Stoicism is a doctrine in which ethics is central. Relationship between Marcus Aurelius and Siddhartha.

or Augustine Afr, also Blessed Augustine

Christian theologian and philosopher, holy most influential preacher, one of the Fathers of the Christian Church

Aurelius Augustine

short biography

In 354, on November 13, in the African province, the city of Tagast, was born Augustine (Aurelius), the future famous Christian theologian, whose works became fundamental for the Catholic Church. Fate prepared him to be born into the family of a Roman citizen-pagan and a Christian mother, thanks to whom he received his initial education. After his studies at the Tagasta school were completed, the young man continued to study sciences in Madavra, the nearest cultural center, and then in the fall of 370, thanks to the patronage of a family friend, he ended up in Carthage: here he had to study rhetoric for three years.

During these years, the interests of the young man were very far from the church: Augustine indulged in secular entertainment, in 372 he became a father. A kind of turning point in his biography was his acquaintance in 373 with the legacy of Cicero, which awakened in him a desire for something higher. Since then, philosophy has become his favorite hobby, there was an interest in studying Holy Scripture. Soon, Augustine became an adherent of Manichaeism, a fashionable trend at that time. Augustine was a teacher of rhetoric at Tagaste, then at Carthage; these same years were a time of spiritual quest, reflection on questions, the answers to which he tried in vain to find in the Manichaean postulates.

After he could not get them from Faustus, the main ideologist of the doctrine, Augustine decided to leave Africa and went to look for truth and work in Rome, where he stayed for a year, after which he moved to Mediolan and got a job teaching rhetoric. For some time, his mind was carried away by Neoplatonism, and then the sermons of Bishop Ambrose of Milan brought him closer to the Christian worldview. Reading the epistles of the Apostle Paul completed the turning point in his views. This moment in the biography turned out to be so significant not only for his personal life, but also for further development Christian thought that Catholic Church in his honor established a holiday (May 3). In 387, on the feast of Easter, in Mediolanum, Augustine, his son and close friend were baptized by Bishop Ambrose.

Then the newly-made Christian, parting with his property and donating almost everything to the poor, returned to his homeland, to Africa, to his native Tagast. There he created a monastic community, and for some time Augustine completely renounced worldly concerns. In 391, he was ordained a presbyter by the Greek bishop Valery, and began to preach. In 395 in Hippo he was ordained a bishop, and Augustine (Aurelius) held this post until the end of his life, which ended on August 28, 430, when Hippo was first besieged by the Arians-Vandals. In order to avoid outrage, the remains of the great theologian were transferred first to Sardinia, and then to Pavia, and only in 1842 they were returned to Algiers, where the French bishops erected a monument on the site of the destroyed Hippo.

It is difficult to overestimate the influence that the work of Augustine Aurelius had on Christian dogma; only a handful of examples of this magnitude can be found in history. Thanks to almost a hundred of his works, such as, for example, "Life in Unity with God", "Against Academicism", "On the Immateriality of the Soul", "Order", "Solilogvia" and many others, the vector of development of the Western Church was set for several centuries. forward.

Biography from Wikipedia

Augustine (Aurelius) was born on November 13, 354 in the African province of Numidia, in Tagaste (now Souk-Ahras in Algeria). He owes his initial education to his mother, the Christian St. Monica, an intelligent, noble and pious woman, whose influence on her son, however, was neutralized by a pagan father (a Roman citizen, a small landowner).

In his youth, Augustine showed no inclination towards traditional Greek, but was captivated by Latin literature. After graduating from school in Tagaste, he went to study at the nearest cultural center - Madavra. In the autumn of 370, thanks to the patronage of a family friend, Romanian, who lived in Tagaste, Augustine went to Carthage for a three-year study of rhetoric. At the age of 17, while in Carthage, Augustine entered into a relationship with a young woman who became his concubine for 13 years and whom he never married because she belonged to a lower social class. It was during this period that Augustine uttered his dictum: "Good God, give me chastity and moderation ... But not now, O God, not yet!" In 372, Augustine's son Adeodate was born in concubinage.

In 373, after reading Cicero's Hortensius, he began to study philosophy. Soon joined the Manichaeans. At that time, he began to teach rhetoric, first in Tagaste, later in Carthage. In the Confessions, Augustine dwelled in detail on the nine years he wasted on the "husk" of the Manichaean teaching. In 383, even the spiritual Manichaean leader Faustus failed to answer his questions. In this year, Augustine decided to find a teaching position in Rome, but he spent only a year there and received a position as a teacher of rhetoric in Mediolanum.

Having read some treatises of Plotinus in a Latin translation by the rhetorician Maria Victorina, Augustine became acquainted with Neoplatonism, which presented God as an immaterial transcendent Being. Having attended the sermons of Ambrose of Milan, Augustine understood the rational conviction of early Christianity.

During the stay of Augustine in Mediolanum in 384-388. his mother found a bride for her son, for which he left his concubina. However, he had to wait two years before the bride reached the required age, so he got another concubine. Ultimately, Augustine broke off his engagement to his 11-year-old fiancee, left a second concubine, and never rekindled a relationship with the first.

After that, he began to read the epistles of the Apostle Paul and heard from the vicar bishop Simplician the story of the conversion to Christianity, Maria Victorina. In his confession, Augustine tells about his meeting and conversation with the Christian Pontician, who first told him about the exploits of Anthony the Great and carried away the ideals of monasticism. This conversation is dated August 386. According to legend, once in the garden, Augustine heard the voice of a child, prompting him to randomly open the epistles of the Apostle Paul, where he came across the Epistle to the Romans (13:13). After that, he, together with Monica, Adeodates, brother, both cousins, friend Alipy and two students, retired for several months to Kassitsiac, to the villa of one of his friends. Following the model of Ciceron's Tusculan Discourses, Augustine composed several philosophical dialogues. On Easter 387, he, along with Adeodates and Alipy, was baptized by Ambrose in Mediolanum.

After that, having previously sold all his property and almost completely distributed it to the poor, he went to Africa with Monica. However, Monica died in Ostia. Her last conversation with her son was well conveyed at the end of the Confession.

Part of the information about the later life of Augustine is based on the "Life" compiled by Possidy, who communicated with Augustine for almost 40 years. According to Possidia, on his return to Africa, Augustine settled again in Tagaste, where he organized a monastic community. During a trip to Hippo Rhegium, where there were already 6 Christian churches, the Greek Bishop Valerius willingly ordained Augustine as a presbyter, since it was difficult for him to preach in Latin. Not later than 395, Valery appointed him vicar bishop and died a year later.

The remains of Augustine were transferred by his adherents to Sardinia to save them from the desecration of the Arian Vandals, and when this island fell into the hands of the Saracens, they were redeemed by Liutprand, king of the Lombards, and buried in Pavia in the church of St. Peter.

In 1842, with the consent of the pope, they were again transported to Algeria and preserved there near the monument to Augustine, erected to him on the ruins of Hippo by the French bishops.

Stages of creativity

First stage(386-395), the influence of ancient (predominantly Neoplatonic) dogmatics is characteristic; abstraction and the high status of the rational: the philosophical "dialogues" "Against the academics" (that is, the skeptics, Contra academicos, 386), "On order" (De ordine, 386; the first work in which the justification of the seven free arts as preparatory cycle for the study of philosophy), "Monologues" (Soliloquia, 387), "On the Blessed Life" (De Beata Vita, 386), "On the Quantity of the Soul" (388-389), "On the Teacher" (388-389), "On Music" (388-389; contains the famous definition of music Musica est ars bene modulandi with detailed interpretation; five of the six books, contrary to what the title promises, treat questions of ancient versification), On the Immortality of the Soul (387), On True Religion (390), On Free Will, or On Free Decision (388-395); cycle of anti-Manichaean treatises. Some of the works of the early period are also called Cassisiac, after the name of a country house near Mediolanum (Cassiciacum, this place in present-day Italy is called Casciago), where Augustine worked in 386-388.

Second phase(395-410), exegetical and religious-church problems prevail: “On the Book of Genesis”, a cycle of interpretations to the epistles of the Apostle Paul, moral treatises and “Confession”, anti-Donatist treatises.

Third stage(410-430), questions about the creation of the world and problems of eschatology: a cycle of anti-Pelagian treatises and "On the city of God"; critical review of his own writings in "Revisions".

Compositions

The most famous of Augustine's writings are "De civitate Dei" ("On the city of God") and "Confessiones" ("Confession"), his spiritual biography, essay De Trinitate (About the Trinity), De libero arbitrio (About free will), Retractiones (revisions).

Moreover, it deserves to be mentioned Meditationes, Soliloquia and Enchiridion or manuale.

Augustine's teaching

Benozzo Gozzoli. St. Augustine teaches in Rome. Painting c. Sant'Agostino in San Gimignano. 1464-1465

Augustine's teaching on the relationship between human free will, divine grace and predestination is quite heterogeneous and is not systemic.

About being

God created matter and endowed it with various forms, properties and purposes, thereby creating everything that exists in our world. The deeds of God are good, and therefore everything that exists, precisely because it exists, is good.

Evil is not a substance-matter, but a lack, its deterioration, vice and damage, non-existence.

God is the source of being, pure form, the highest beauty, the source of goodness. The world exists thanks to the continuous creation of God, who regenerates everything that dies in the world. There is only one world, and there cannot be several worlds.

Matter is characterized in terms of form, measure, number and order. In the world order, every thing has its place.

God, world and man

Augustine reveals the essence of the relationship between God and man. God, according to Augustine, is supernatural. The world, nature and man, being the result of God's creation, depend on their Creator. If neoplatonism considered God (the Absolute) as an impersonal being, as the unity of all that exists, then Augustine interpreted God as a person who created all that exists. And he deliberately made differences between the interpretations of God from fate and fortune.

God is incorporeal, which means that the divine principle is infinite and omnipresent. Having created the world, He made sure that order reigned in the world, and everything in the world began to obey the laws of nature.

Man was created by God as a free being, but, having committed the fall, he himself chose evil and went against the will of God. This is how evil arises, this is how a person becomes unfree. Man is not free and free in anything, he is entirely dependent on God.

From the moment of the fall, people are predestined to evil and do it even when they strive to do good.

The main goal of man is salvation before the Last Judgment, the redemption of the sinfulness of the human race, unquestioning obedience to the Church.

Oh grace

The force that largely determines the salvation of man and his aspiration to God is divine grace. Grace acts on man and produces changes in his nature. Without grace, salvation is impossible. The free decision of the will is only the ability to strive for something, but to realize one's aspirations in better side Man is capable only with the help of grace.

Grace in the view of Augustine is directly connected with the fundamental dogma of Christianity - with the belief that Christ has redeemed all mankind. This means that, by its nature, grace is universal and should be given to all people. But it is clear that not all people will be saved. Augustine explains this by the fact that some people are not able to receive grace. It depends, first of all, on the ability of their will. But as Augustine found out, not all people who received grace were able to maintain "constancy in good." This means that another special divine gift is needed to help maintain this constancy. This gift Augustine calls "the gift of constancy." It is only by accepting this gift that the "called" will be able to become "chosen."

On freedom and divine predestination

Before the fall, the first people had free will - freedom from external (including supernatural) causality and the ability to choose between good and evil. The limiting factor in their freedom was the moral law - a sense of duty to God.

After the fall, people lost their free will, became slaves to their desires, and could no longer help sinning.

The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ helped people turn their eyes back to God. He showed by his death an example of obedience to the Father, obedience to His will (“Not my will, but Yours be done” Luke 22:42). Jesus atoned for Adam's sin by accepting the Father's will as His own.

Every person who follows the commandments of Jesus and accepts the will of God as his own saves his soul and is admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Predestination (lat. praedeterminatio) is one of the most difficult points of religious philosophy, connected with the question of divine properties, the nature and origin of evil, and the relationship of grace to freedom.

People are able to do good only with the help of grace, which is incommensurable with merit and is given to those who are chosen and predestined for salvation. However, people are morally free beings and can consciously prefer evil to good.

About eternity, time and memory

Time is the measure of movement and change. The world is limited in space, and its existence is limited in time.

The analysis of the (o)consciousness of time is an old cross of descriptive psychology and the theory of knowledge. Augustine was the first who deeply felt the great difficulties that lie here and who fought over them, reaching almost to despair. Chapters 14-28 of Book XI of the Confessions, even now, should be thoroughly studied by everyone who deals with the problem of time.

Edmund Husserl

Thinking about time, Augustine comes to the concept of psychological perception of time. Neither the past nor the future have a real existence - the real existence is inherent only in the present. The past owes its existence to our memory, and the future to our hope. The present is a rapid change in everything in the world: a person does not have time to look back, as he is already forced to recall about the past, if he is not at this moment hopes for the future.

Thus, the past is a memory, the present is a contemplation, the future is an expectation or hope.

At the same time, as all people remember the past, so some are able to "remember" the future, which explains the ability of clairvoyance. As a consequence, since time exists only because it is remembered, it means that things are necessary for its existence, and before the creation of the world, when there was nothing, there was no time. The beginning of the creation of the world is also the beginning of time.

Time has duration, which characterizes the duration of any movement and change.

Eternity - it neither was nor will be, it only is. In the eternal there is neither the transient nor the future. In eternity there is no variability and no intervals of time, since intervals of time consist of past and future changes in objects. Eternity is the world of thoughts-ideas of God, where everything is once and for all.

Theodicy

Augustine argued that everything created by God in one way or another is involved in the absolute goodness - the all-goodness of God: after all, the Almighty, carrying out creation, imprinted in the created a certain measure, weight and order; they have an extraterrestrial image and meaning. To the extent of this, there is goodness in nature, in people, in society.

Evil is not some force that exists by itself, but a weakened good, a necessary step towards good. Visible imperfection is part of world harmony and testifies to the fundamental goodness of everything that exists: "Any nature that can become better is good."

It also happens that the evil that torments a person eventually turns into good. So, for example, a person is punished for a crime (evil) in order to bring him good through redemption and pangs of conscience, which leads to purification.

In other words, without evil we would not know what good is.

Truth and reliable knowledge

Augustine said of the skeptics: “It seemed probable to them that truth could not be found, but it seems to me probable that it could be found.” Criticizing skepticism, he raised the following objection against it: if the truth were not known to people, how would it be determined that one is more plausible (that is, more like the truth) than the other.

Reliable knowledge is a person's knowledge of his own being and consciousness.

Do you know that you exist? I know.. Do you know what you think? I know... So you know that you exist, you know that you live, you know that you know.

Cognition

Man is endowed with mind, will and memory. The mind turns on itself the direction of the will, that is, it is always aware of itself, always desires and remembers:

After all, I remember that I have memory, mind and will; and understand that I understand, desire and remember; and I wish that I had the will, understood and remembered.

Augustine's assertion that the will participates in all acts of knowledge was an innovation in the theory of knowledge.

Steps of knowing the truth:

• inner sense - sensory perception.
• sensation - knowledge about sensible things as a result of reflection by the mind on sensory data.
• reason - a mystical touch to the highest truth - enlightenment, intellectual and moral perfection.

Reason is the gaze of the soul, with which it itself, without the mediation of the body, contemplates the true.

About society and history

Augustine substantiated and justified the existence of property inequality of people in society. He argued that inequality is an inevitable phenomenon of social life and it is pointless to strive for the equalization of wealth; it will exist in all the ages of man's earthly life. But still, all people are equal before God, and therefore Augustine called for living in peace.

The state is the punishment for original sin; is a system of domination of some people over others; it is not intended for people to achieve happiness and good, but only for survival in this world.

A just state is a Christian state.

Functions of the state: ensuring law and order, protecting citizens from external aggression, helping the Church and fighting heresy.

International treaties must be observed.

Wars can be just or unjust. Fair - those that began for legitimate reasons, for example, the need to repel the attack of enemies.

In 22 books of his main work "The City of God" Augustine makes an attempt to cover the world-historical process, to connect the history of mankind with the plans and intentions of the Divine. He develops the ideas of linear historical time and moral progress. Moral history begins with the fall of Adam and is seen as a progressive movement towards moral perfection acquired in grace.

AT historical process Augustine (18th book) singled out seven main epochs (this periodization was based on facts from biblical history Jewish people):

• first age - from Adam to the Great Flood
• the second - from Noah to Abraham
• the third is from Abraham to David
• fourth - from David to the Babylonian captivity
• fifth - from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ
• the sixth - began with Christ and will end with the end of history in general and with the Last Judgment.
• seventh - eternity

Mankind in the historical process forms two "city": the secular state - the kingdom of evil and sin (the prototype of which was Rome) and the state of God - the Christian Church.

“Earthly City” and “Heavenly City” are a symbolic expression of two types of love, the struggle of egoistic (“self-love brought to neglect of God”) and moral (“love of God up to self-forgetfulness”) motives. These two cities develop in parallel, going through six eras. At the end of the 6th era, the citizens of the “city of God” will receive bliss, and the citizens of the “earthly city” will be given over to eternal torment.

Augustine Aurelius argued the superiority of spiritual authority over secular. Having adopted the Augustinian teaching, the church declared its existence an earthly part of God's city, presenting itself as the supreme arbiter in earthly affairs.

Influence on Christianity

Botticelli. "St. Augustine"

Augustine had a strong influence on the dogmatic side of Christian teaching. The impact of his sermons was felt over the next few centuries not only in the African, but also in the Western church. His controversy against the Arians, Priscillians, and especially against the Donatists and other currents, found many supporters. Augustine left numerous writings that had a significant impact on the anthropological side of the doctrine in Protestantism (Luther and Calvin). Developed the doctrine of St. Trinity, explored the relationship of man to divine grace. He considers the essence of Christian teaching to be the ability of a person to perceive God's grace, and this basic provision is also reflected in his understanding of other dogmas of faith.