Yuri Vladimirovich PUSHCHAEV was born in 1970 in the city of Frunze (now Bishkek) of the Kyrgyz SSR. Graduated from the Philosophy and Philology Faculties of Moscow State University. Lomonosov. He is married with three children.

Yuri PUSHCHAEV: articles

Yuri Vladimirovich PUSHCHAEV (born 1970)- PhD in Philosophy, teacher of philosophy, journalist, columnist for the journal "Foma"

IF DOES NOT DIE ...
Candidate of Philosophy Yuri Pushchaev in the project "Intelligentsia"

Times change, and we change with them. Perhaps today, for the first time in Russian history, being an intellectual has become so unprestigious - not only in material, but also in spiritually... An intellectual today is not at all the ruler of thoughts, not a hero of our time, who is more likely an oligarch or a silovik. These are the two current pillars of our Motherland, whose service today, being in the focus of public attention, is both dangerous and necessary.

The point is not that the current intellectual earns, as a rule, little or very little. For example, the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligentsia was generally very ascetic. It was the Soviet power, having destroyed the tsarist and created its own, people's intelligentsia, made it a Soviet "middle class". The fact is that the current intellectual has practically no influence on what is happening in politics and in society. With the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of ideological censorship, the intelligentsia finally became decisively independent: today practically nothing depends on him. And this is insulting. For that former "teacher" intelligentsia, this is a real collapse. Because, along with the claim to be an intellectual and moral guideline, there has always been a claim to power - at least ideologically.

And now, for example, even the title of Vitaly Kaplan's article “I remain an intellectual” sounds somehow completely different than, say, it could have sounded thirty years ago. Then the words "I am an intellectual" would be considered immodesty. You called yourself an intellectual? Are you stuffing your mind, honor and conscience? Today, the confession “I am an intellectual”, on the contrary, gives off rather humility. "Yes, I potatoes, potatoes, just don't hit with your boots ...".

In many ways, conversations about the intelligentsia, including our project, are similar to the dispute and litigation of a pretty confused subject with himself. This is an attempt by the intellectuals themselves, those who come from the intelligentsia to learn from history and never again repeat the fatal mistakes.

There is a lack of agreement in the now widespread call “kill the intellectual in yourself”. To kill - in the name of whom or what? There must be a positive goal first for the destructive action to really make sense. Otherwise, it may turn out as with the now-popular aphorism - "they aimed at communism, but ended up in Russia."

Yes, the current marginalization of the intelligentsia is largely deserved. The historical swing has thrown the intelligentsia a lot - from one extreme to another. From the deliberate opposition to the authorities and the state in tsarist Russia until the full support of the regime and opportunism in Soviet times, and back. From the former populism to the anti-popularism of a large part of the present intelligentsia.

The pre-revolutionary intelligentsia is very different from the Soviet, and the Soviet from the post-Soviet. A.I. Solzhenitsyn in the article "Education" in the collection "From under the boulders". The reader will forgive the very long quote, but it's worth it:

“Circular artificial isolation from national life. (Now there is a significant cohesion, through the official position.) In principle, tense opposition to the state. (Now - only in secret feelings and in a narrow circle, ... the joy of any state failure, passive sympathy for any resistance, his own in fact is true civil service.) Moral cowardice of individuals before the opinion of the "public", lack of boldness of individual thought. (Nowadays, it has been far pushed aside by panic cowardice before the will of the state.) Love for equalizing justice ..., for the people's material welfare, has paralyzed in the intelligentsia love and interest in truth; "The temptation of the Grand Inquisitor": may the truth perish if this makes people happier. (Now ... let the truth perish if my family and I are saved at this cost.) Hypnosis of the common intellectual faith, ideological intolerance to any other, hatred as a passionate ethical impulse. (All this passionate fullness is gone.) Fanaticism, deaf to the voice of life. (Nowadays - listening and adapting to the practical situation.) There is no word more unpopular in the intelligentsia than "humility." (Now they obeyed to the point of subservience.) Dreaminess, good-heartedness, insufficient sense of reality. (Now - a sober utilitarian understanding of it.) Nihilism about labor. (Obsolete) practical work... (Suitability.) A tense atheism that unites everyone, uncritically accepting that science is competent to solve questions of religion, moreover - finally and, of course, negatively; dogmas of idolatry before man and humanity: religion is replaced by faith in scientific progress... (The tension of atheism subsided, but it is still spread over the mass of the formed layer - already traditional, sluggish ...) ... "

Now, many features of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia have returned to a certain part of the present, post-Soviet intelligentsia. This is a tense opposition to the state, and daydreaming, and ideological intolerance, and moral cowardice before the voice of "public opinion", and militant atheism. And what was really new was the rejection not only of the authorities, but also of the people of Russia as such. If earlier the intelligentsia felt guilt before the people and sacrificed itself in the struggle for the people's cause, then part of the present intelligentsia will willingly sacrifice the people in the struggle for their progressive cause. If the pre-revolutionary intellectuals were able to lead the people, then the current militant "liberals" cannot lead anyone, and either go into internal emigration, or they say: "we must get out of this country."

However, on the whole, the overwhelming majority of the intelligentsia class has always set themselves too high, and today's catastrophic decline in its prestige is to no small degree a punishment for the old pride.

Indeed, it was through her efforts that the 20th century in Russia became the century of revolutions, not excluding the last one, twenty years ago. As Fr. Sergiy Bulgakov in Vekhi, the Russian revolution was intellectual, because it was the intelligentsia that gave the revolution its ideological baggage, along with its progressive fighters, agitators and propagandists. The intelligentsia, writes Bulgakov, "spiritually shaped the instinctive aspirations of the masses, kindled them with their enthusiasm — in a word, they were the nerves and the brain of the gigantic body of the revolution."

Sergei Kravets in an interview with "Foma" within the framework of the project "Intelligentsia" gave the following definition: “The intelligentsia is a part of society, which has intellectual interests. These are people who need to know the world around them not at the material and everyday level, but at the level of ideas, perceptions, values, and on their basis form a holistic view of this world. " Striving for knowledge is wonderful. To one degree or another, it is characteristic of all people, and the intellectual makes it his life vocation. However, genuine knowledge should lead to the discovery of the infinity and mystery of the world, to intellectual and moral humility, to the Socratic "I know that I know nothing." The domestic intelligentsia too often treated knowledge as a fetish, was proud of its intelligence, as if admiring the ring of power on its finger. By the way, in the words “you cannot serve God and mammon at the same time” the latter does not have to be understood as exactly material abundance. There can also be passion and preoccupation with intellectual wealth, proud admiration for one's intelligence and erudition. Knowledge of the world should seem to lead to humility, but the opposite is true. Knowledge becomes not a way of recognizing the world and true self-knowledge, but a means for self-exaltation. It's like in a joke when a person walks into a pharmacy and says: "Give me pills for greed, and more, and more ..."

But, on the other hand, there are very rarely completely negative phenomena in history. Imagine that the intelligentsia, at least some of the intelligentsia, have done work on the mistakes and got rid of those negative traits, which were criticized at the beginning of the 20th century by the authors of "Vekh" and the authors of the collection "From under the boulders" in the seventies. What will then be left? Education, a tendency to think, moral sensitivity, indifference or a calm attitude to material wealth. Not the worst qualities, right? Provided, of course, that they are not overshadowed by pride and vanity. And these are probably the most frequent sins of the intelligentsia. The Church Fathers, by the way, said that the spirit of vanity is so varied, changeable and subtle that it is very difficult not only to be warned of it, but even to recognize it in oneself. They compared it to a bow: no matter how many clothes you take off, everything will be small, it is so difficult to get rid of it. So, for example, the same indifference to material goods can also be cause for vanity.

However, against the background of the largely justified criticism of the intelligentsia, how would we not throw out the child along with the water. Today, only money is becoming more and more valued in society, education and medicine are commercialized (and degraded). Therefore, it is very important not to lose among the social values the material disinterest of the intelligentsia and its need in the highest sense, to make sure that they do not completely disappear from the surrounding life - under the conditions indicated above.

The intelligentsia is now going through, perhaps, the most difficult times in its history. Whether it will disappear completely or remain in some kind of transformed form is still unknown. I would like to wish her (and all of us - in some ways the intelligentsia, in some of them) to wish genuine, and not imaginary humility and good luck in the most difficult occupation in the world - work on oneself: “If a grain of wheat, falling into the ground, does not die, then there will be one; but if it dies, it bears much fruit ”(Jn 12:24).

Source: FOMA Orthodox magazine for the doubters

THE CRISIS AND THE END OF THE ERA OF IDEOLOGIES

The peculiarity of today's crisis is global confusion. People are feeling insecure all over the world. Nobody understands what to do in an amicable way. At the same time, nothing really terrible and irreparable has happened, at least not yet. But in the air a feeling of slowly but inevitably impending threatening events seems to be floating. As one ironic blogger noted in LiveJournal, "before spitting out, God chews us slowly, like chewing gum."

Something similar happened just before the breakup Soviet Union... Already a year and a half before the August putsch (or the unsuccessful August attempt at counterrevolution) and the Belovezhsky agreements, it became clear that the country would soon become completely different. The collapse of the USSR, the painful breakdown of the old way of life and shock reforms also approached slowly, without haste, as they say, "with a delay."

However, what does the current slow, protracted pace of the crisis really mean? Maybe, in fact, everything is not so bad, and they only frighten us in vain, as they say, deliberately “nightmares”? This is the task of the media - they constantly need a sensation. What could be more understandable for the press than making apocalyptic predictions stretched out over many months? But they will constantly keep the audience in suspense and will be perceived as a sensation every time. Semi-hysterical public attention is assured. And there, you see, everything will be forgotten: a terrible dream, but God is merciful.

Russia today is not an ideological country

Indeed, we cannot predict how the current events will turn out. You cannot know your future history. Maybe everything will be okay. However, in today's situation, the readiness with which we began to receive bad news is surprising. Confusion is everywhere, but perhaps nowhere is there such a mood that all this is not accidental. As if here, in Russia, people in their hearts were already long before the officially announced crisis were ready for a global, total breakdown.

This is due to the fact that with the fall of the Soviet Union we no longer had an ideological project that would be common to everyone. For some, the social ideal was liberal democracy, for some Soviet socialism, for some the Byzantine Empire, but there was no decisive general agreement on this issue. This was the reason for Putin's defensive policy, mainly of a tactical nature, aimed at retention and stabilization. Today's Russia is not an ideological country. The feeling of deep uncertainty to a large extent took place due to the lack of a clear plan "how we can arrange Russia", with which the overwhelming majority of society would agree. Hence the uncertainty - from the uncertainty with the answer to the question, in what country and in what world do we live?

Today's crisis is a crisis of ideology as such

Now, suddenly, a deep sense of uncertainty and uncertainty was inherent not only to us. After all, if you compare the deadly Soviet crisis twenty years ago and the current crisis, already worldwide, this is what you can see. Then, having lost faith in the communist ideology, they wanted capitalism. Confidence in the "beautiful far away" was based on the fact that at hand there was a ready-made "assembly model" - the liberal-democratic ideology. There was also a clear example of the fact that everything would be all right at hand - the West. There people, with their brains and hands, created a "normal" life for themselves, finally, securely and comfortably settled on Earth, unlike us, unfortunate people. Therefore, that crisis passed in a kind of ecstasy, intoxicating fever. In Germany, they joyfully demolished the Berlin Wall, blurring the border between East and West, and we were happy about that too. The musical background of the radical changes was Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" to the words of Schiller: "Hug, millions!"

Today, greetings to the impending thunderstorm are not heard at all. This time at hand there is neither a ready-made ideological model for assembly, nor a concrete example of where they know and can do it right. The system of the Western way of life and the structure of life in general failed. Not only the model of financial capitalism is questioned, but also the liberal-democratic ideology associated with it. It turns out that it also does not guarantee a reliable existence on Earth.

However, the peculiarity of the “current moment” is that no other ideology is coming to replace democratic liberalism that could act as an alternative to it on a global scale. After all, ideology is only an ideology when its claims are universal, when it claims to the whole world, to the fact that only on its basis can one reliably settle down on Earth. Thus, the question arises: does the current crisis, the associated crisis of the liberal model and the absence of an alternative model, mean the beginning of the end of the new European era of ideologies in general?

What is ideology

The term "ideology" was introduced by the French philosopher and economist A.L.K. Destut de Tracy in early XIX century to designate the doctrine of ideas that will establish a solid foundation for politics and ethics. Ideology as such is a new European phenomenon associated with an attempt to emancipate a person from religion into the New and Newest time... Its essence is that ideology claims to understand the logic of history, to penetrate into this logic and to possess knowledge of how human society should be arranged. Ideology is built by rational means, appeals to rational knowledge and proposes projects of one or another type of social structure, which humanity must implement on its own in real life... Therefore, ideology is an attempt by a person to securely settle on Earth only with relying on his own strength and reason. In this sense, the concept of "Christian ideology" is no less an oxymoron than wooden iron. Naturally, I do not want to say that there can be no societies where Christianity or another religion will be the dominant form of social consciousness. But Christianity is not ideological and non-political. It focuses not on earthly self-arrangement, but rather on abandoning it in the hope of God's help.

At the same time, the current calls to urgently create a new "fourth theory" are not really leading to anything. They only emphasize the current lack of "theory" as such and the confusion of a person before the question of how he should be now.

To this we can add that it is no coincidence that the degeneration of politics is now observed. The current leading politicians look frivolous. So Venezuelan Hugo Chavez or Bolivian President Evo Morales is rather a parody of Cuban revolutionaries forty years ago, and, for example, Nicolas Sarkozy is a parody of de Gaulle. Disappointment in politics and disappointment in ideologies are interrelated phenomena: it turns out that they cannot deliver what they promise. And accordingly, on the political scene, which in many respects is already considered a sphere of rivalry and struggle of ideologies only by inertia, semi-parody figures turn out to be the leading figures. One has only to look at the previous US president or the current president. These are, shall we say, not Roosevelts, not geniuses. For example, when you look at Barack Obama, a strong suspicion arises that he really can not do anything and does not solve anything, but is a purely image project.

Three main ideologies

Liberalism, communism and fascism are the three main dominant political theories, which, according to the French conservative Alain de Benois, gave rise to many intermediate ideological currents in the twentieth century (1).

He notes that “theories that emerged later disappeared earlier than others. Fascism, appearing later than everyone else, perished faster than everyone else. Then communism. Liberalism, the oldest of these three theories, is the last to disappear ”(2).
Liberalism is the least expansionist of these three main ideologies. Unlike communism, it leaves a certain space of freedom for religion. In liberalism, as an ideological frame of mind, in general, there is some confidence in the given of life. As Friedrich Hayek wrote, “by tracing the cumulative effect of individual actions, we find that many of the institutions on which human achievement is based have arisen and function without the involvement of an inventing and guiding mind; that, as Adam Ferguson put it, “nations stumble over institutions that are actually the result of human action, not human intent” (3).

At the same time, one of the defining features of liberalism lies in the rather anthropological area - it is the understanding of man as a self-sufficient autonomous being, full of “nervous self-esteem,” as our Konstantin Leontiev put it. Communism is a stake on the collective “we”, which for the philosophy of communism is the true foundation and focus of being. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a bet on the individual "I" as on its own master. Who is more effective in conquering the world - an individual emancipated "I" or a collective, united "we" - this is one of the central points of divergence between communism and liberalism.

The deadly crisis of the ideology of communism and the communist system happened 20 years ago. The collective “we” lost the battle to the individual “I” claiming autonomy, because the structure of life based on the latter was both more flexible and at the same time more responsive to inner human vanity and pride. If under communism I personally still have to humble myself before the party and the state, meet their strict, draconian norms, then under modern capitalism I can already lead almost any way of life. However, it seems, it turned out that Babylon is still not very long.

True, even if we are right in our forecast of the coming change of epochs, it is clear that it will not happen at once. The past always does not go away immediately, it seems to disappear or crumble in parts. Do not wait for what is waiting for us tomorrow new world... The future will win its place gradually, and the past will resist and cling to life for a long time. So, for a long time and gradually, antiquity passed the battlefield, and then, almost a thousand years later, the Middle Ages.

Crisis is judgment

The word "crisis" comes from antiquity. In ancient Greek it means “judgment”. If the crisis is understood as a trial over an oversized humanity, then it is absurd to count on, as they say, "the settlement of the crisis", on a successful "fight against the crisis." The defendant is not capable of fighting the court, at least on an equal footing. The trial ends only with a verdict. Only in this sense can the case be “settled”. And escape is also out of the question here. In the sphere of being, as M. Bakhtin noted, there can be no alibi.

The final verdict of the current crisis court has not yet been announced, as well as the punishment. But on the basis of today's example of a practically panicky perception of even the initial stage of very likely future shocks, we can conclude that a person will not be able to firmly settle down on Earth, it is impossible. A person himself knows this in the very depths of his soul, otherwise the current mass panic moods would not exist. The “end of history” proclaimed twenty years ago by F. Fukuyama and the irreversible victory of liberal ideology are as unrealizable as the bright communist future.

As for Russia as a non-ideological country, here, oddly enough, one can try to extract strength from weakness. What seemed to be an obvious disadvantage quite recently may, paradoxically, turn into an advantage. In the face of the end of ideologies, the absence of a dominant ideology in our country gives us a greater degree of freedom than in Western countries. We are not tied to any project, which means that we have a wider horizon of vision, and therefore more opportunities for action.

In addition, we may have not yet had time to get used to the material prosperity that Western civilization has organized for a relatively short time historically and which we have been trying to arrange for ourselves for a very short time. Never before has humanity, at least a significant part of it, lived so well as in the second half of the twentieth century. But did someone give a 100% guarantee that this will last forever? As for us, as Vasily Shukshin spoke with some anguish and at the same time with humility, “we never lived well, don't give a shit to start”.

It does not matter to live in the material plane - this is only for the best in the sense that this state of affairs continues to last history. In Christian theology, the last times are unambiguously associated with the times of universal material prosperity. A man of such an era is much less capable of both creativity and self-sacrifice.

However, a departure from the principle of ideology as an attempt at active self-regulation on Earth does not necessarily mean a rejection of activity in general. In his own way, a trader can be extremely active, in his own way an officer, in his own way a monk. The question is what vigorous activity is aimed at: is it an attempt at self-righteous self-arrangement and self-exaltation, or is it adherence to values higher than earthly landmarks.

2 Ibid. P. 28.

3 Hayek F. Individualism true and false // On freedom. Anthology of world liberal thought (first half of the twentieth century). M., 2000.S. 389-390.

The famous "Ladder" by John Climacus, one of the main ascetic Christian works, was written at the end of the 6th century. Why is the book called that, the word "ladder"? It is the Old Church Slavonic version of our word "ladder". In the ancient Greek original, the name contains the word ἡ κλῖμαξ (klimaks). We need this ancient Greek word in order to draw the reader's attention to one curious and even curious fact from the history of modern European culture at the end of the article.

In general, the book is so called because it tells about the spiritual ladder or path leading from the earth upward, to Heaven or to God. Therefore, this work is also called "The Ladder of Paradise" (Κλῖμαξ του παραδείσου, or Scala paradisi in Latin), which emphasizes the direction of the path, the fact that this ascetic staircase leads to Heaven, to Paradise.

Of the thirty chapters of the Ladder (in imitation of the fullness of the Lord's age when He went out to preach), each is dedicated to a specific Christian virtue. The book tells about the spiritual work of monastics who, only strictly following this path in the indicated sequence and not trying to jump over the steps, should move along the path of spiritual perfection right up to the very top of the ladder.

Add a comment

The most original and ecclesiastical thinker - Konstantin Leontiev (Yuri Pushchaev)

About faith and fear of God, philosophy and education, monasticism and family

January 25 marks the 185th anniversary of the birth of Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev, the great Russian thinker, writer and publicist. Its uniqueness in the history of Russian culture is that it was, perhaps, one of the most distinctive, original and deepest, and at the same time the most ecclesiastical or close to Orthodox Church thinker. It is no coincidence that, shortly before his death, he accepted monasticism at Optina Hermitage and became brother Clement.

We bring to your attention a number of small excerpts from the works of Konstantin Leontiev.

Holiness

“I understand holiness as the Church understands it. The Church does not recognize as saints either an extremely kind and merciful, or the most honest, temperate and selfless person, if these qualities are not connected with the teachings of Christ, the apostles and St. fathers, if these virtues are not based on this threefold aggregate. The foundations of the doctrine, the firmness of these foundations in our soul is more important for the Church than all our virtues applied to earthly life, and if it is said that “faith without works is dead”, then this is only in the sense that with strong faith in a person who is the most vicious by nature or unfortunate by upbringing, there will still be deeds - deeds of repentance, deeds of abstinence, deeds of compulsion and deeds of love ... "

Add a comment

And again ideological mania, or How Patriarch Kirill is criticized (Yuri Pushchaev)

Alexander Tsipko's article “And again the mania of grandiose” in “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, dedicated to sharp criticism of “the teaching of Patriarch Kirill about the special Russian civilization of solidarity,” is extremely surprising and at the same time indicative.

Patriarch accused by former professional Soviet social scientist and author of books on the theory of socialism

It is strange, although somewhat amusing, that a former professional Soviet social scientist and author of books on the theory of socialism accuses the Patriarch of the unwillingness to “get away from the unambiguous Christian moral assessment of Stalin as an undoubted villain” and “an apology for the collective farm system” (!!!). Of course, Alexander Sergeevich sometimes experienced some career difficulties in the Soviet era, and he sometimes came into conflict with the very good officialdom of that time. Nevertheless, I think that the Patriarch, who was not even a pioneer at school and whose grandfather went through 47 prisons and spent more than 30 years in prison, knows no less than Alexander Sergeevich about the negative sides of communism and the crimes of Stalinism. Coming from a priestly family, the future Patriarch, as a minister of the persecuted Church, learned all the "delights" of Soviet communism, as they say, literally on himself and on his family. Unlike Alexander Sergeevich, who, although he writes that “for many years, from his student days (and this was half a century ago), he devoted religious philosophy", But still specialized in historical materialism and defended his doctoral dissertation in 1985 on the topic" Philosophical preconditions for the formation and development of Karl Marx's teaching on the first phase of the communist formation. "

Add a comment

Where is liberalism right and wrong (Yuri Pushchaev)

One of keywords The gospel is the word "freedom". In ancient Greek, this word sounds like ἡ ἐλευθερία (elevtheria), in Latin - libertas... Freedom is the great gift that the Christian faith affirms and promises to give. Christ said: "If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" ( Jn. 8: 31–32). And the truth in Christianity is Christ himself. It turns out that those who are in Christ have learned the truth and are free.

Here, however, an interesting question arises: how does the understanding of freedom in Christianity differ from the freedom that liberalism, the dominant worldview, proclaimed as its main value. He even took his name from the Latin noun libertas and the adjective liberalis - "free".

Liberalism today is the ideological mainstream, according to the canons of which the modern progressive world seeks to live. And if freedom is just as important for Christianity, then why not call Christians also liberals, simply? However, one cannot fail to see serious contradictions between Christianity and liberalism. Their relationship today is becoming more and more conflicting. And therefore it is very important for us Christians to be aware of this in what Christian freedom contradicts the freedom or freedoms that modern liberalism stands for.

Add a comment

God: the Lord who has power and authority (Yuri Pushchaev)

In modern and modern times, both in philosophy and in culture as a whole, the view of God only as a kind of moral Absolute has become widespread. Such a God expects from a person only moral behavior and requires only love, but not fear and worship. This was the opinion, for example, of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. According to this mentality, fear of God and worship of God in any cultic forms are superstitions that humiliate a person and deny his freedom. Say, God is not harsh and not vindictive in order to inspire "fear and awe." Fulfilling the commandment of love in relation to people, you thereby fulfill all the necessary Divine commandments. God cannot demand anything else from you - otherwise He is neither good nor merciful.

Add a comment

God: Creator and Chief Poet (Yuri Pushchaev)

Now philosophers and social scientists, sociologists and culturologists argue a lot about the secular and the post-secular, about whether we have entered the post-secular phase, when the rights of religion to social significance are again recognized, and it returns to public space. But what is secular time that coincided in the history of new Europe with the dominance of ideas, originating from the Enlightenment? Perhaps the defining feature of secularism is confidence in the self-sufficiency and autonomy (that is, of its own law, the existence of itself) of this world. In the secular era, the dominant perception is that there is no higher reality behind the world that determines and guides it. In the Middle Ages, however, the world, all things existing in it, were perceived, first of all, in the aspect of their creation, that is, as created and in this sense not self-sufficient, having the source of their existence in the transcendent God.

Add a comment

Fasting: non-eating of people (Yuri Pushchaev)

Non-love is the worst intemperance

Started today Great post, and it would be interesting to see what the word "fasting" meant in ancient Greek.

As for the Russian word, in a religious context it bears obvious and transparent associations with military service. The meaning of the Christian life implies that a Christian must be a Christian warrior, one of whose main virtues is fidelity (it is no coincidence that the words “faith” and “fidelity” are so similar, they have the same origin and a very close meaning). Then the time of Christian fasting is a time of special rigor in carrying out this service. A person seems to stand on guard, to a post, and all this time he should not sleep or somehow weaken his vigilance. It can be said that the religious life, the religious aspirations of a person should be strengthened during fasting. This is the time when we must try to avoid temptations even more, the time for even more repentance and more attempts to create mercy.

This is also indicated by the ancient Greek word for chastity - ἡ σωφροσύνη (sophrosyne). Etymologically, it is formed from the adjective σῶς (sound, intact, intact) and the noun ἡ φρήν (chest, heart, thinking, thought). It also indicates that chastity involves correct condition inner spiritual life as a whole, the integrity and unity of the personality.

The crisis and the end of the era of ideologies

Something similar happened just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Already a year and a half before the August putsch (or the unsuccessful August attempt at counterrevolution) and the Belovezhsky agreements, it became clear that the country would soon become completely different. The collapse of the USSR, the painful breakdown of the old way of life and shock reforms also approached slowly, without haste, as they say, "with a delay."

Russia today is not an ideological country

Today's crisis is a crisis of ideology as such

What is ideology

The term "ideology" was introduced by the French philosopher and economist A.L.K. Destut de Tracy at the beginning of the 19th century to denote the doctrine of ideas that will establish a solid foundation for politics and ethics. Ideology as such is a new European phenomenon associated with the attempt to emancipate a person from religion in modern and modern times. Its essence is that ideology claims to understand the logic of history, to penetrate into this logic and to possess knowledge of how human society should be arranged. Ideology is built by rational means, appeals to rational knowledge and proposes projects of one type or another of social order, which humanity must implement on its own in real life. Therefore, ideology is an attempt by a person to securely settle on Earth only with relying on his own strength and reason. In this sense, the concept of "Christian ideology" is no less an oxymoron than wooden iron. Naturally, I do not want to say that there can be no societies where Christianity or another religion will be the dominant form of social consciousness. But Christianity is not ideological and non-political. It focuses not on earthly self-arrangement, but rather on abandoning it in the hope of God's help.

Three main ideologies

True, even if we are right in our forecast of the coming change of epochs, it is clear that it will not happen at once. The past always does not go away immediately, it seems to disappear or crumble in parts. Do not expect that a new world awaits us tomorrow. The future will win its place gradually, and the past will resist and cling to life for a long time. So, for a long time and gradually, antiquity passed the battlefield, and then, almost a thousand years later, the Middle Ages.

Crisis is judgment

2 Ibid. P. 28.

3 Hayek F. Individualism true and false // On freedom. Anthology of world liberal thought (first half of the twentieth century). M., 2000.S. 389-390.

Christians are the salt of the world and in this sense of the word: to salt the world means to fill it with the meanings of the Call; heal him by familiarizing himself with the meanings of the Call; to call him on the path of the Lord, and this is carried out precisely as a response to challenges.

Clean people do not stain other people's faces.

The whole essence of human nature is in the words "what you gave is yours." A person is empty, he assimilates only by giving, because what he has managed to give is only assimilated, and everything truly assimilated strives to be given.

The one walking the right path, as soon as he embarks on it, will find his historical companions.

All people have nimbuses, like saints, but not all people have met their halos.

Man is mortal because he does not choose immortality, i.e. God.

Beautiful labels pasted on ugly actions cannot change the essence. Either a fool, a scoundrel, or a madman can call ugliness beauty.

People are still diligently looking for bushes in which they can hide from God, from life as it is, from themselves, because they are so dear to mugs of lies and deceit, soap bubbles of illusion, and the truth is so hateful.

Each of us is in his own hell, but heaven is common.

Everyone is looking for a place for themselves in another, but few are looking for a place for another in themselves, few are preparing themselves for another.

Wisdom is not in books, but in the Ray with which real books are written and read. He who has joined the Ray is wise, but who who has not joined is stupid.

People argue about the essence of things, attaching more importance to their opinions about it than to the essence itself.

Everything that is real works. Everyone has their own gifts, and people act on the basis of the gifts. And the mummers imitate the action in order to hide their fake. The mummers always intend to show off.

Russian philosophy reminds me of Zeno's turtle, which is ahead of Achilles only because it is looking not for fractional knowledge, but for the whole - that is, the Heart.

It is not necessary to dress in humility, because God dresses a person in humility. Who has found the truth, there will be desired shape- humility. Humility is the garment of truth. And he who arbitrarily dresses himself in the clothes of humility in order to appear humble, he looks unattractive and makes it difficult for himself to ascend to God.

Man is not a function, but being.

Much ado is always about nothing: the more useful, the less noise.

I'm afraid to know - those who know lie.

There are probably no mediocre people, but there are those who neglected the gift, undeveloped, flat people. After all, a gift is not so much a given as a given. That is, a person should be striving towards the gift, thirst for it, should grow, feeding on the coveted. Correct thirst and striving is the basis of everything.

There is information that, like garbage, clogs the brain with its uselessness. Having taken in the unnecessary, a person takes away the place in the head from the important and extremely necessary.

With quick strokes, the artist depicts a person's face on a seaside embankment or on a pedestrian city street, but his usual hands, an experienced eye grasp something so important, deep, hidden in a person. So we decided to paint portraits of our fathers. In the meantime, the artist is working, let's talk with our heroes about their fathers and their own fatherhood, about childhood and children. And in this conversation, perhaps, very personal, special experiences for each will appear. In general, these portraits, we hope, will allow us to better get to know the men of modern Russia in the context of the past and the future.

Born in 1970 in the city of Frunze (Bishkek). Graduated from the Philosophy and Philology Faculties of Moscow State University. Candidate of Philosophy, teacher of philosophy, journalist, collaborates with the magazines "Foma" and "Voprosy filosofii", collaborator of the society of the deaf-blind "Elvira". Lives in the city of Zheleznodorozhny, Moscow region. Married. Three children: Masha (born in 2005), Varya (born in 2008), Dunya (born in 2011).

About a happy childhood and an uncommunicative cheerful dad

My father was an engineer. Why am I I am very grateful to my father - for the fact that in childhood he fiddled with me a lot... On weekends we went to barbecues, swim, and generally spent a lot of time together. It was a very close communication and a very trusting relationship. Not in the sense that I told him everything, and he taught me something, but in the sense that I understood: my interests are his interests, I am always interesting to him, and whatever he can, he will do for me.

When, having matured, I found out that he is considered uncommunicative, I was very surprised... For some reason, I did not feel this isolation of him at all ... I think that the carefree laughter that I have in communication with my children was passed on to me from my father, because I I remember well the moments of our common fun, when he is funny and I am funny.

At the age of 18, I entered Moscow State University and left my home three thousand kilometers away. I felt like I was already on the threshold of a new life ... And at home - well, parents and parents ... Only later, with age, I began to understand that I was lucky with them and experienced some kind of conscious gratitude only then. I really understand that I had a happy childhood. I know that many children find themselves in traumatic situations due to the fault of adults, but I cannot say that I had this. My parents always treated me with care, maybe, on the contrary, they took care of me too much, so I don't really know how to do everything around the house. I think that they loved too much and took it upon themselves. Maybe because I was alone in the family. But, in fact, I've always worked hard. He studied well, read a lot, went in for sports. That is, I was not a bum and a lazy person.

Family peace and hammered nails

Something to do at home is minimal, I began to study in a family. I can fix the socket back if it fell out, for example. AND literally a revolution happened recently, I made a shelf for the cabinet... Previously, it was impossible to imagine such a thing, and I was still proud of my subtlety of nature! There is nothing to be proud of. It can be touching at first, and then it really starts to irritate loved ones ... If you want peace in the family, learn to hammer in nails.

Indeed, it may not be given to a person. There is some congenital clubhand. Another thing is that club-handedness can always be brought to the minimum acceptable level and not say in self-enlightenment that the prose of life does not interest you. The family is such a school of working on oneself in reality.

The wife does not work, mainly deals with children... The eldest Masha is already in school, in addition to this, she goes to a music school. Average Varya goes there to the choir, and both go to the pool. And from this autumn, perhaps, they will go to an art school, if the wife has the strength to take them there. Plus, a lot of time and effort is needed for therapy with the youngest daughter Dunya, who has an autistic disorder. It takes a wife almost every day for 2-3 hours, at least for classes and preparing for them. All the children's lessons are on her, as well as her initiative in general, so that they do all this, so she is a great fellow for me.

therefore I'm in recent times started to cook... I myself wonder if my head is resting. For example, I recently cooked a very tasty soup according to the recipe of Vladimir Vigilyansky's father, I saw it on Facebook. Bean soup like this - mixed beans, mushrooms, sauerkraut in equal proportions. A very cool recipe. I fry the fish. On Shrovetide I even baked pancakes, at first, of course, everything was lumpy according to the proverb, and then I got used to it.

About silence and ice cream

When my first daughter was born, I was naturally worried. But then I quickly got used to the fact that there is a child, and entered a new rhythm. Being a parent isn't that hard, really. When a child appears in a family, then everyday life adjusts to him, but in some ways you cannot adapt... For example, my wife and I loved to sleep, and the child was taught that if she woke up before 9 in the morning, she often just lay in her bed, played, fiddled with her toys.

When my second daughter was born, I came to the hospital, my wife said: "Come on, I'll show you, she's so pretty, pretty." She was five days old. I go in, there is some kind of wrinkled spider lying there, senselessly moving its legs and arms, and I think: "God, what's good here ..." This was the first sensation, but in reality it is very beautiful girl, very. They say about my daughters that they are all such pretty Slav girls ...

The real turning point happened when the third child was born- really more loading, less money and the wife can no longer work.

If, for example, only one child remains at home, then the feeling that there are no children at all at home is how one child in the house differs from three. Three - constantly screaming, noise, fights, terribly tired of this constant hubbub. And when one child remains, then silence, peace and tranquility. That is, one child - consider, there is no child. But you get used to the hubbub, and then, you can always bark, so that at least for a while it becomes quieter.

In general, my wife told me that the only moment when the house is quiet, this is when the children all eat ice cream together.

A little about autism

They love Dunya. Masha, like a good nanny, fiddles with her on the playground, walks, takes her, and even the day before yesterday she came up and said: "Let me now wash Dunya myself and feed her." The sisters do not understand that Dunya is special, for them she just Small child... Her behavior is normal, she simply does not speak, does not scandal, does not shout, a quiet child. She goes to a regular kindergarten, where she just behaves so quietly. She communicates through pictures. She wants something, brings a picture: "cartoon", or there "banana", or "grapes".

Girls to her: "oh, Dunya, oh, Dunya." Until they have questions... Probably, they will arise in the future, if the situation does not change. They say that we are lucky that she has older sisters, that we have more than one child in the family. When a child with autism is alone in the family, it is a different situation, but when there are sisters who bother, she elementarily looks after them and does the same.

About quarrels, disobedience and familiarity

Older girls fight all the time. And all because of some little things. "This is my toy." - "No, this is my toy." - "Dad gave it to me!" - "No, my dad gave it to me!" That is, complete nonsense. But on the other hand, I think so ironically that it is actually very similar to the quarrels of adults, if you step back from adult life and see why people scandal with each other, also complete nonsense, it seems to me. I think, there are no brothers and sisters without children's quarrels, and all the same Masha and Varya then play together and without each other they are bored. Therefore, it is not tragic. Not like adults - they quarreled over an apartment and then don't communicate all their lives ...

How to resolve disputes? Still trying to talk about what happened, what is the reason, and draw conclusions. It is imperative that children should be forbidden to sneak at each other, not to greet “but she did it”, “and here she is”. If you don't have the strength to figure it out or you see that you can't figure it out in this tangle, it's easier to remove the subject of the dispute itself, they immediately calm down.

I realized that we must be fair so that there are no pets in the family because it can traumatize the child from the very beginning, from birth. If you are clearly making someone's favorite, then, of course, the other child will definitely feel some kind of injustice.

There is no need to kill, the maximum is a slap on the buttocks. And childish disobedience is allowed not even by shouts, but by a ban on any activities that the child likes. My children love to travel to work with me. And so I somehow wanted to take the eldest to the editorial office, but she didn’t want to dry her hair in the pool, she wanted to go out wet with it. My wife and I calmly and firmly, without hysterics, said that in this case I would not take her to work with me. And then she walked like silk for three days.

Sometimes you judge yourself for being too strict... You shout at the child, or something else ... From fatigue, because there is a lot of work, there is simply not enough strength to sort out the situation more or less calmly - and sometimes you get frustrated. This, of course, is a minus. But for which I respect my parents, they often apologized to me if they got excited. “Sorry” from my parents I heard more than once, and not two, and not three. This is correct, it seems to me. And it’s easier on your own, and the children will understand that it’s okay, and they will forget, even if you broke off. So in this I take an example from them.

But at the same time there must be some kind of barrier that parents are not friends... There should be a hierarchy in the family. Children sometimes suddenly ask: "Where is Katya?" I immediately: “What is Katya? What does Katya mean? Is it your girlfriend? Katya is your mother. " Or when they start to overdo it in jokes, I always pull them back so that there is no such familiarity. This is harmful to the child himself. I say: "Stop already, you don't have to joke like that ... What am I to you, your friend or what, your friend in kindergarten?"

About gadgets, samovars and things that only dad can do

I am not a canon father, I have to work a lot - three jobs, but I try to spend time with my children.

We read books, but not often. I struggle with my oldest daughter to get her to read. Well, recently, for example, she told me, they say, "I hate these books"... I don't know what to do about it yet. One must think so as not to really develop in her a dislike of reading with her stinginess.

Maybe, by inertia, I am a supporter of reading? .. I myself read a lot in my childhood - my mother, the head of the library was a nursery, and I grazed there. But reading is necessary for the child to broaden his horizons, so that his thinking develops. After all, a child who watches cartoons, and a child who reads books, ask them to tell them what they experienced, I think the one who reads more will speak more literately, more logically and more fully, interestingly.

I told my children that they would not see any smartphones or tablets at all. I myself do not, and they will not. Because I think that this is really a very harmful thing, because of gadgets, children do not even know how to communicate. And to make a call, there is a regular, push-button. I don't growl, I don't swear when I say this, just categorical position that there will be no gadgets in our family.

Watching a movie... I taught them to the Soviet classics. "White sun of the desert", "Ivan Vasilyevich changes his profession" ...

I try to tell children something interesting... Who was Napoleon, for example. Or about the planets. When you yourself are interested in the same astronomy, and you try to convey this to children ... They know everything. Masha knew when she didn't go to school yet.

I try to take my children to church every Sunday ... Well, in general, if you go to church, then with children... They go to our Sunday school at our Transfiguration Church, they like it very much. There they make dances, and some kind of applications, and holidays with barbecue. They have a lively communication environment there.

Wife Katya dreamed that for her birthday presented with a real samovar, not electric. I donated. Sometimes we go out into the yard, heat it up, drink tea, the girls really like it. We have not done this for a long time, the topic is slowly exhausting itself. We often fry kebabs. Also next to the house.

We play football with them... Well, they really are girls ... They can't play basketball, and I just don't know what else ... So you have to play football ...

There are things that only a father can do... For example, recently we swam, so I threw them into the water in turn, everyone was having fun. Only I can throw them water, because I am strong. In general, children need a father!

About foolishness

I like to joke with them... They like to fool around too. Absolutely childish jokes. I will line them up, I tell them: "Well?" They answer me in unison: "Baranki wildebeest!" Or I deliberately try to repeat my favorite phrases from my favorite films, because I know that it will be imprinted in their heads, and they will be funny when they are adults later remembering.

For example me from time to time I go up, stroke them on the head and say: "Nice father chicks"... This is a quote from Theophrastus “Characters. Flatterer". How is it described as a flatterer? When he comes to the family, he sits down with the children on his haunches so that their father can see, pats them on the head and says: "Nice father, chicks." Children do not really understand this, because they are small, but then there will be no surety in their heads. Or there, I constantly try to reproduce some sayings. They say: "Buy us, dad ...". And I answer: "Yeah, and two buckets of borscht, right?" This is a quote from the series "Liquidation".

It is very important that you yourself be interesting. Games with children should not be strained.... If it’s strained, then it’s better not. If you're interested, the effect is real. You combine the useful with the pleasant.

The main thing, it seems to me that children appreciate the slightly goofy attitude of an adult... If he is ready to fool around with them, he gets a grateful response, and all this is useful for the atmosphere in the family, and life brightens up.

By the way, you, too, somehow make this text so that it is funnier to read ...

Prepared by Anna Ionycheva.

Artist: Galina Vedenicheva.