Ïðîáëåìû áûòèÿ ëè÷íîñòè

Ñòð. «100—127»

Ñåðãåé Ïèëåöêèé

Î òëåòâîðíîé "áàöèëëå" íåïðîòèâëåíèÿ / On the pernicious "bacillus" of non-resistance

Àííîòàöèÿ. Îáñóæäàåòñÿ îñòðàÿ è àêòóàëüíàÿ âî âñå âðåìåíà ïðîáëåìà – âîçìåçäèå. Âåðîÿòíî, íå ñóùåñòâóåò êàêîé-ëèáî èíîé ïðîáëåìû, êîòîðàÿ áû ïðîâîöèðîâàëà òàêîé íàêàë ýìîöèé è èìåëà áû ñòîëü ñèëüíûé îáùåñòâåííûé «êàìåðòîí çâó÷àíèÿ». Îíà ïîèñòèíå ïðîíèçûâàåò âñå ãëóáèííûå ñòðóêòóðû íàøåãî ñîçíàíèÿ è òàê èëè èíà÷å çàòðàãèâàåò ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå «áîëåâûå òî÷êè» íàøåãî áûòèÿ. Ýòó ïðîáëåìó íå ìîæåò îáîéòè ñòîðîíîé íè ôèëîñîôèÿ, íè ðåëèãèÿ, íè èñêóññòâî. Âåëè÷àéøèå óìû ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà íàïðÿæåííî ðàçìûøëÿëè íàä íåé, ÷òî ñòèìóëèðîâàëî ïîÿâëåíèå âûäàþùèõñÿ ôèëîñîôñêèõ êîíöåïöèé è ñîçäàíèå íåïðåõîäÿùèõ ëèòåðàòóðíûõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé. Ýïîõàëüíîé âåõîé â ïîñòàíîâêå è ñâîåîáðàçíîì ðàçðåøåíèè âîïðîñà äîïóñòèìîñòè ìåñòè è âîçìåçäèÿ â æèçíè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ñòàëî âîçíèêíîâåíèå õðèñòèàíñêîé ðåëèãèè, à â íåé – Íàãîðíîé ïðîïîâåäè Èèñóñà Õðèñòà. Áåçóñëîâíî, åñòü íå ïðîñòî ñóùåñòâåííîå, à ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå îòëè÷èå ìåæäó ÿçû÷åñêîé è õðèñòèàíñêîé òðàêòîâêîé ýòîãî âîïðîñà. Íî êðîìå òîãî, åñòü, êàê íè ñòðàííî, è ÿâíîå ðàçëè÷èå ìåæäó îôèöèàëüíî-öåðêîâíûì (õðèñòèàíñêîé) è ñâåòñêèì (õðèñòèàíñêèì) òîëêîâàíèåì ïðîáëåìû âîçìåçäèÿ â êîíöåïòóàëüíûõ ïîñòðîåíèÿõ ïîáîðíèêîâ «àáñòðàêòíîãî ãóìàíèçìà». Àâòîð áåðåò íà ñåáÿ çàäà÷ó ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàòü òåìó âîçìåçäèÿ ÷åðåç ïðèçìó è â êîíòåêñòå òåîðèè «íåïðîòèâëåíèÿ çëó íàñèëèåì» Ëüâà Íèêîëàåâè÷à Òîëñòîãî, «òåîðèè íåíàñèëèÿ» Ìàõàòìû Ãàíäè è òåîðèè «áëàãîãîâåíèÿ ïåðåä æèçíüþ» Àëüáåðòà Øâåéöåðà. Áîëåå òîãî, àâòîð ïûòàåòñÿ äîêàçàòü, ÷òî èñõîäíàÿ ïîñûëêà âñåõ óïîìÿíóòûõ òåîðèé, óòâåðæäàþùàÿ ïðèíöèï íåíàñèëèÿ â îòíîøåíèè çëà, íå òîëüêî ëîæåí â ñâîèõ îñíîâàíèÿõ, íî è ãóáèòåëåí äëÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà.

Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: ìåñòü; âîçìåçäèå; ïðèíöèï íåíàñèëèÿ; õðèñòèàíñòâî; òåîðèÿ «íåïðîòèâëåíèÿ çëó íàñèëèåì»; òåîðèÿ «áëàãîãîâåíèÿ ïåðåä æèçíüþ»; «àáñòðàêòíûé ãóìàíèçì»; óòîïè÷åñêèé ðîìàíòèçì.

Abstract. The paper rises the sharp and actual in all the times problem – the problem of retribution. Perhaps, there is no any the problem that provoked such an intensity of emotions and had such strong social «tuning fork sound». It truly penetrates all the deepest structures of our consciousness and anyway touches practically all the «sore points» of our existence. Neither philosophy, nor religion, nor art can ignore this problem. The greatest minds of man- kind pondered hard on it, which stimulated the emergence of outstanding philosophical concepts and the creation of enduring literal works. The milestone in the formulation and original solution of the issue of the permissibility of revenge and retribution in human life was the creation of the Christian religion, and in it the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ. Of course, there is not just an essential, but a fundamental difference between the pagan and Christian interpretations of this issue. But, in addition, there is, strangely enough, a clear dif- ference between the official church (Christian) and secular (Christian) interpretation of the problem of retribution in the conceptual constructions of the advocates of «abstract human- ism». The author undertakes the task to analyze the theme of retribution through the prism and in the context of the theory of «nonresistance to evil» of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, «the theory of non-violence» of Mahatma Gandhi and the theory of «reverence for life» of Albert Schweitzer. Moreover, the author tries to prove that the initial premise of all the mentioned theories, which affirms the principle of non-violence against evil, is not only false in its founda- tions, but also destructive to humanity.

Keywords: revenge; retribution; the principle of non-violence; Christianity; the theory of «nonresistance to evil»; the theory of «reverence for life»; «the abstract humanism»; the utopian romanticism.

×èòàòü ïîëíûé òåêñò ñòàòüè