Philosophy of war. Problems of war and peace in various philosophies and historical periods Man in war and peace philosophy

The idea of ​​the novel about people who went through Decembrism and exile (The Decembrists, 1863) leads Tolstoy to the era of 1812, which with unprecedented force exposed the power and vitality of the Russian character and the nation as a whole. But the task of identifying the internal sources of opposition to evil and the victory of a person (and a nation) over him turns the writer to the era of "failures and defeats", where the essence of character should have "expressed even brighter" (13, 54). The beginning of the action of "War and Peace" is postponed to 1805.

In the 60s. in connection with the peasant reform and the transformations of the country that followed it, questions about the laws of the development of history, about the very process of the historical movement of mankind, become the most important for Russia. Dostoyevsky's The Idiot (1868), Goncharov's The Cliff (1869), and Saltykov-Shchedrin's History of a City (1870) were peculiar answers to them. Tolstoy's historical concept turned out to be in the mainstream of the search for Russian social and literary thought of that period.

Tolstoy himself perceived "War and Peace" as "a book about the past" (15, 241), not subsumed under any of the genre forms. “This is not a novel, still less a poem, still less a historical chronicle,” he wrote. “War and Peace is what the author wanted and could express in the form in which it was expressed” (16, 7). However, the breadth of the philosophical and historical synthesis and the depth of the socio-psychological analysis of the diverse manifestations of history in man and man in history led to the assignment of the definition of “epic novel” to War and Peace. The infinity of the process of spiritual extraction when reading "War and Peace" is organically connected with Tolstoy's task of identifying the general laws of social and personal life that subjugate the fate of individuals, peoples and humanity as a whole, and is in direct connection with Tolstoy's search for the path of people to each other, with the thought of a possible and proper human "unity".

War and peace - as a theme - is life in its universal scope. At the same time, war and peace are the most profound and tragic contradiction of life. 28 Tolstoy's reflections on this problem resulted primarily in the study of the relationship between freedom and necessity, the essence of a person's volitional act and the objective result of its consequences at a particular moment. Calling the era of the creation of "War and Peace" "self-confident time" (15, 227), which forgot about the existence of this problem, Tolstoy refers to the philosophical, theological and natural science thought of the past, which struggled to resolve the issue of the relationship between freedom and necessity (Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine Blessed, Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Buckle, Darwin, etc.), and nowhere - neither in philosophy, nor in theology, nor in natural science - does he find a final positive result in resolving the problem. In searches of past centuries, Tolstoy discovers the constant return of new generations to the “Penelope work” (15, 226) of his predecessors: “Considering the philosophical history of the issue, we will see that this issue is not only not resolved, but has two solutions. From the point of view of reason, there is no and cannot be freedom; from the point of view of consciousness, there is not and cannot be a need” (15, 227–228).

Reflections on the patterns of development of human history lead Tolstoy to the separation of the concepts of mind and consciousness. The “revelations” of consciousness, according to the writer, presuppose complete freedom of the individual, while the requirements of the mind consider any manifestation of freedom (in other words, will) of a person in his complex connections with the surrounding reality according to the laws of time, space and causality, the organic connection of which constitutes a necessity.

In the draft versions of War and Peace, Tolstoy examines a number of the greatest moral "paradoxes" of history - from the time of the Crusades, Charles IX and the St. Bartholomew's Night to the French Revolution - which, in the writer's opinion, have not been explained in any of the historical sources known to him. philosophical concepts, and sets himself the task of finding new laws of human history, which he defines as "the science of people's self-knowledge" (15, 237).

Tolstoy's concept is based on the idea of ​​"continuous movement of personality in time" (15, 320). A large-scale comparison is carried out: “As in the question of astronomy, and in the question of humaniores of the present time, the whole difference of view is based on the recognition or non-recognition of an absolute immovable unit that serves as a measure of the change of phenomena. In astronomy it was the immobility of the earth, in humaniores it is the immobility of the personality, the human soul.<…>But in astronomy, truth took its toll. So precisely in our time the truth of the mobility of the individual must take its toll” (15, 233). The “mobility of the personality” at the same time correlates with the mobility of the soul, which has already been established since the story “Childhood” as an integral sign of a person “understanding”.

In relation to history, the question of freedom and necessity is decided by Tolstoy in favor of necessity. 29 Necessity is defined by him as "the law of motion of masses in time". At the same time, the writer emphasizes that in his personal life every person is free at the moment of committing one or another act. He calls this moment “an infinitely small moment of freedom in the present”, during which the “soul” of a person “lives” (15, 239, 321).

However, each given moment of time inevitably becomes the past and turns into a fact of history. Its uniqueness and irreversibility predetermine, according to Tolstoy, the impossibility of recognizing free will in relation to the past and the past. Hence - the denial of the leading role of arbitrary actions of the individual in history and at the same time the assertion of the moral responsibility of man for any act at every infinitesimal moment of freedom in the present. This act can be an act of goodness, “uniting people”, or an act of evil (arbitrariness), “separating people” (46, 286; 64, 95).

Repeatedly recalling that human freedom is “chained by time” (15, 268, 292), Tolstoy at the same time speaks of an infinitely great sum of “moments of freedom,” i.e., human life as a whole. Since at each such moment there is a “soul in life” (15, 239), the idea of ​​“the mobility of the personality” forms the basis of the law of the necessity of the movement of the masses in time.

The paramount importance of “every infinitesimal moment”, both in the life of an individual and in the world movement of history, approved by the writer in “War and Peace”, predetermined the method of analyzing the historical and determined the nature of the “pairing” of the scale of the epic with the detailed psychological analysis that distinguishes “War and the world" from all forms of artistic and historical narration and remains unique to this day both in Russian and in world literature.

"War and Peace" is a book of searches. In Tolstoy's attempt to find the laws of motion of human history, the very process of search and the system of evidence, which deepens the insight of the reader's judgment, is important. Some logical incompleteness and inconsistency of the general philosophical synthesis of these searches was felt by Tolstoy himself. He foresaw accusations of fatalism. And therefore, developing the idea of ​​historical necessity and a specific form of its expression - the law of the spontaneous movement of the masses towards an unknown goal - the writer persistently and repeatedly emphasized the moral responsibility of a person for any decision or action at any given moment.

The "will of providence" in Tolstoy's philosophical and artistic interpretation of the life process is by no means a paralyzing intervention of a "higher power" that eliminates the activity of evil. Both in the general and in the private life of people, evil is effective. "Indifferent force" is blind, cruel and effective. With the concept of "fatalism", used by Tolstoy himself to explain phenomena that are not subject to "reasonable knowledge", "knowledge of the heart" is connected in the artistic fabric of the novel. The “path of thought” is contrasted with the “path of sensation”, the “dialectics of the mind” (17, 371) – the “dialectics of the soul”. “Knowledge of the heart” takes on the name of “faith” in Pierre’s mind. This knowledge is nothing but a moral feeling, embedded by nature in every person, which, according to Tolstoy, is “supra-historical” and carries in itself that energy of life that fatally resists the forces of arbitrariness. Tolstoy's skepticism encroaches on the "omnipotence" of reason. The heart is put forward as the source of spiritual self-creation.

The rough drafts for War and Peace reflect a seven-year process of search and doubt, which culminated in the philosophical and historical synthesis of the 2nd part of the epilogue. The description of a series of events in the movement of peoples from west to east and from east to west, the ultimate goal of which, according to Tolstoy, remained inaccessible to the human mind, begins with a study of the era of “failures and defeats” of the Russian people (the nation as a whole) and covers the period from 1805 to August 1812 is the eve of the Battle of Borodino, and June - August 1812 (Napoleon's invasion of Russia and his movement towards Moscow) and the seven and a half years preceding this time are qualitatively heterogeneous. From the moment the French troops entered Russian territory, the “failures and defeats” of the Russian army were accompanied by an unusually rapid awakening of national self-consciousness, which predetermined the outcome of the Battle of Borodino and the subsequent catastrophe of Napoleon.

The genre originality of "War and Peace" is defined by Tolstoy in 1865 as "a picture of morals built on a historical event" (48, 64). The action of the novel covers 15 years and introduces a huge number of characters into the reader's mind. Each of them - from the emperor and the field marshal to the peasant and the simple soldier - is subjected by Tolstoy to the "test" of time: both by an infinitesimal moment, and by the sum of these moments - by history.

In Russia's opposition to Napoleon, the folk and the national organically merge. This unity is opposed in "War and Peace" by the highest St. Petersburg aristocratic circle, interpreted by the writer as a privileged social class denied by him, the hallmark of which is "misunderstanding". At the same time, the patriotic feeling of the people during the period of the Napoleonic invasion is considered by Tolstoy as the highest level of “knowledge of the heart”, which determined the possibility of “human unity” in 1812, historically significant for the subsequent fate of Russia and Europe as a whole.

The first detailed philosophical digression will precede the description of the events of 1812. But all its problems will be closely connected with Tolstoy's concept of "the movement of the individual in time", developed in the artistic fabric of the first volume of "War and Peace".

Already from the first part, which opens the novel, it becomes obvious that the inner motives of both Bolkonsky and Bezukhov and the objective result of their actions are not in a direct logical connection. Prince Andrei, despising the world (with its perverted "moral world") - the "vicious circle" without which his wife cannot live - is forced to visit it.

Pierre, suffering from the burden of the revelry of Kuragin and Dolokhov and giving the word to Bolkonsky to part with them, immediately after this promise goes to them. All the same Pierre, without thinking about the inheritance, becomes the owner of one of the largest fortunes in Russia and at the same time the future victim of the arbitrariness of the Kuragin family. The "infinitely small moment of freedom" of the characters turns out to be "chained by time" - multidirectional internal urges of the surrounding people.

The movement of Bolkonsky and Rostov to the catastrophe of Austerlitz is preceded by the retreat of the Russian troops across the Enns River and the Battle of Shengraben. In the center of both descriptions is the moral world of the army. The passage through the Enns opens in the novel that period of hostilities, when the Russian army was forced to act "outside of all the foreseeable conditions of the war" (9, 180). Instead of the offensive tactics "deeply considered" by the allies, Kutuzov's only "almost inaccessible" goal was to save the Russian army. The "general course of affairs", so important for Prince Andrei and inaccessible to Nikolai Rostov, affects both heroes equally actively. Bolkonsky's desire to change the course of events with a personal feat and Rostov's desire to find "fullness of life" in conditions that require only honest performance of military duty and allow you to get away from the complexities and "subtleties" of daily existence in the "world", constantly encounter unforeseen circumstances that, regardless of the will heroes undermine their hopes.

The beginning of the crossing over the Enns is depicted through the visual and auditory perception of a neutral secondary character - Prince Nesvitsky. Its end is given through the contradictory experiences of Nikolai Rostov. A diverse mass of soldiers and officers, on foot and on horseback, flashing in front of Nesvitsky, fragments of dialogues, short, unrelated and therefore meaningless remarks - everything drowns in the general picture of disorder, the elements almost beyond the control of man. The soldiers are close, but not together. Both Nesvitsy himself, the adjutant of the commander-in-chief, who arrived with the order, and Rostov are practically only helpless spectators. At the same time, the obscurity and haste of what is happening, the groans, suffering, death, the fear that is born and growing merge in Rostov’s mind into one painfully disturbing impression and make him think, i.e., do what is given to him with such difficulty and from which he is so often runs.

Bolkonsky does not see crossings over the Enns. But the picture of the "greatest haste and the greatest disorder" of the retreat of the Russian army makes it obvious to him that the "decay" of the troops. Nevertheless, both Bolkonsky the theorist in the first conversation with Bezukhov and Bolkonsky the practitioner in the dialogue with Bilibin, having already felt the destructive power of the “moral hesitation” of the army, are equally sure of personal choice, which should determine the outcome of the upcoming hostilities.

The Battle of Shengraben is the only event in the history of the war of 1805 that, from Tolstoy's point of view, had a moral justification. And at the same time, Bolkonsky's first practical encounter with the laws of war, which psychologically undermined his voluntaristic aspirations. The plan to save the main part of the Russian army by Bagration's detachment was an act of Kutuzov's will, rested on the moral law (the "whole" was saved by the sacrifice of the "part") and was opposed by Tolstoy to the arbitrariness of the decision to fight at Austerlitz. The outcome of the battle is decided by the general "spirit of the army", which is sensitively felt by Bagration. He perceives everything that happens as something foreseen by him. The failed personal "Tulon" of Bolkonsky is contrasted with the "general Toulon" of Tushin's battery, which determined the course of the battle, but was not noticed or appreciated by others.

Shengraben is just as important for the self-determination of Rostov. The incompatibility of inner motivation (ardor and determination) and the objective result (wound and stampede) plunges the hero into an abyss of questions that are terrible for him and again, as on the Ensky bridge (Tolstoy draws this parallel twice), makes Rostov think.

The decision on the battle of Austerlitz is made against the will of Kutuzov. It seemed that all possibilities, all conditions, all "slightest details" were foreseen (9, 303). Victory is presented not as "future", but already "past" (9, 303). Kutuzov is not inactive. However, his energy of resisting the speculative constructions of the participants in the military council on the eve of the battle, based on the feeling of the “moral world” of the army, its “general spirit” and the internal state of the enemy’s army, is paralyzed by the arbitrariness of others vested with greater power. Kutuzov foresees the inevitability of defeat, but is powerless to break the activity of a multitude of arbitrariness and therefore is so inert at the council preceding the battle.

Bolkonsky in front of Austerlitz - in a state of doubt, ambiguity and anxiety. It is generated by the "practical" knowledge acquired next to Kutuzov, the correctness of which has always been confirmed. But the power of speculative constructions, the power of the idea of ​​"triumph over all" translates doubt and anxiety into a feeling of the reliably coming "day of his Toulon", which should predetermine the general course of affairs.

Everything envisaged by the attack plan collapses at once, and collapses catastrophically. Napoleon's intentions turn out to be unpredictable (he does not avoid battle at all); erroneous - information about the location of his troops; unforeseen - his plan to invade the rear of the allied army; almost unnecessary - excellent knowledge of the area: even before the start of the battle in thick fog, commanders lose their regiments. The feeling of energy with which the soldiers moved towards the battlefield turns into "annoyance and anger" (9, 329).

The allied troops, who already saw themselves as attacking, were attacked, and in the most vulnerable place. The feat of Bolkonsky was accomplished, but did not change anything in the general course of the battle. At the same time, the Austerlitz disaster exposed for Prince Andrei the inconsistency between the constructions of the mind and the “revelations” of consciousness. Suffering and the “near expectation of death” revealed to his soul the incorruptibility of the general stream of life (the present), symbolized by the “eternal” sky for all people, and the transient significance of the individual, which the ongoing historical event makes the hero.

Nikolai Rostov is not a direct participant in the battle. Sent by courier, he acts as a spectator, involuntarily contemplating different periods and sections of the battle. That state of mental and spiritual tension, in the power of which Rostov found himself as a result of Shengraben, is beyond his power and cannot be long. His self-preservation instinct finds ground that guarantees safety from the intrusion of terrible and unnecessary questions. The "deification" of the emperor, who, from the point of view of Rostov, creates history, destroys the fear of death. The unreasoning readiness to die for the sovereign at any moment brings the question “why?” out of the hero’s consciousness, returns Rostov to the norm of “healthy narrow-mindedness” (48, 49), thereby predetermining his reasoning about the “duty” of obedience to the government in the epilogue of the novel.

The path of doubts, grave crises, revivals and new catastrophes for both Andrei and Pierre (in the period 1806 - early 1812) is the path of knowledge - and the path to other people. That understanding, without which, according to Tolstoy, there can be no question of “unity of people,” is not only a natural intuitive gift, but an ability and at the same time a need acquired by experience. For Drubetskoy and Berg, who in the period from Austerlitz to 1812 (i.e., during the period of “failures and defeats”) reached the maximum possible boundaries of their official and personal careers, there is no need for understanding. The life-giving element of Natasha at some point leads Drubetskoy away from Helen, but the world of human “dust”, which allows you to easily and quickly climb the steps of the perverted virtues, gains the upper hand. Nikolai Rostov, endowed with "sensitivity of the heart" (10, 45) and at the same time "common sense of mediocrity" (10, 238), carries the ability to understand the intuitive. That is why the question “why?” so often intrudes into his consciousness, why he feels the “blue glasses of the hostel” (10, 141), which determine the behavior of Boris Drubetskoy. This "understanding" of Rostov largely explains the possibility of Marya Bolkonskaya's love for him. However, Rostov's human mediocrity constantly makes him avoid questions, difficulties, ambiguities - everything that requires significant mental and emotional effort. Between Austerlitz and 1812, Rostov was either in the regiment or in Otradnoye. And it is always “quiet and calm” in the regiment, in Otradnoye - “it is difficult and confused.” The regiment for Rostov is a salvation from the "worldly confusion". Otradnoe is the "pool of life" (10, 238). In the regiment it is easy to be a “beautiful person”, in the “world” it is difficult (10, 125). And only twice - after a huge card loss to Dolokhov and at the moment of reflection on the peace between Russia and France concluded in Tilsit - the harmony of "healthy narrow-mindedness" collapses in Rostov. 30 Nikolai Rostov, within the "novel" limits, cannot acquire understanding related to the depth of knowledge of the particular and general patterns of human life.

A solitary (but active in its own way) life in the Bald Mountains and Bogucharov, state activity, love for Natasha - Bolkonsky's path from the Austerlitz disaster to 1812. This period for Bezukhov is his marriage to Helen, a duel with Dolokhov, a passion for Freemasonry, philanthropic endeavors and also love for Natasha. Despite the dissimilarity of natures, both Andrei and Pierre strive for a common goal: to discover the meaning and driving source of human life and humanity as a whole. Both of them are able to ask themselves the question - "...isn't everything that I think nonsense? .." (10, 169) or come to the thought: "not that" (10, 39).

Bolkonsky's strong, sober and skeptical mind, will and at the same time egocentrism keep him in a vicious circle of destructive denial. Only communication with Pierre and feeling for Natasha were able to “soften” his misanthropy and break the negative system of emotions with “lust for life” and a desire for “light” (10, 221). The collapse of ambitious thoughts in the fields of military and civil is connected with the fall (in the mind of the hero) of two idols who achieved "triumph over people" - Napoleon and Speransky. But if Napoleon was an “abstract idea” for Bolkonsky, Speransky is a living and constantly observed person. Speransky’s unshakable faith in the strength and legitimacy of the mind (which captivated Prince Andrei most of all) from the first meeting contrasts in the hero’s mind with Speransky’s “cold, mirror-like, not letting into his soul” (10, 168) gaze. Sharp rejection also causes Speransky's "too great contempt" for people. Formally, Speransky's activity was presented as "life for others", but in essence it was a "triumph over others" and entailed the inevitable "death of the soul."

The world of the “real” was connected by Bolkonsky already on the first pages of the novel with a “living person” (9, 36), opposing the “dead” light. The world of the "real" - communication with the "living soul" of Pierre and feeling for Natasha - destroyed Bolkonsky's desire to "leave" society (after Austerlitz) and withdraw into himself. This same force also reveals all the vanity, futility and idleness of various state reform committees, which bypassed everything “that concerned the essence of the matter” (9, 209).

That fullness of life, which Prince Andrei suddenly and for the first time acquires, is destroyed by him. The need for understanding is unlimited for him, but the ability to understand others is limited. The Austerlitz disaster has already shown Bolkonsky the effectiveness and dynamism of the "infinitely small moment." But the experience of the past and the depth of knowledge of life by no means destroyed the hero's egocentrism, and therefore the ability of his intuitive understanding, compared with the beginning of the novel, has hardly changed.

He thinks about the Rostov family: “... they are kind, nice people<…>of course, they do not understand a single hair of the treasure that they have in Natasha ”(10, 210). But his ability to understand the heroine is even less.

For Tolstoy (and his hero of the 1950s) every passing day is a fact of history, living history, a kind of "epoch" in the life of the soul. Bolkonsky does not have this sense of the significance of each passing day. The idea of ​​a person's movement at every "infinitely small moment", which is the basis of the philosophical concept of "War and Peace", and the year of separation, which Prince Andrei offers Natasha at the arbitrariness of his father, are clearly correlated in the novel. The law of the movement of personality in time, the power of which the hero has already experienced, is not transferred by him to another person. Freedom and necessity are considered by Bolkonsky only in relation to his own personality. The moral sense of Prince Andrei is isolated from the feeling of personal guilt.

Understanding comes to Bolkonsky on the verge of death. “There was something in this life that I didn’t understand and don’t understand” (11, 253) - this thought persistently invades the mind of Prince Andrei after being mortally wounded at Borodino and accompanies him in delirium, semi-consciousness and wakefulness. She naturally closes on the last tragic event of his personal life - love for Natasha and the catastrophe of breaking up with her. Only the renunciation of one's own fate and the experience of suffering give Prince Andrei that understanding of the soul of another person, with which comes a feeling of fullness of life.

The problem of personal guilt and the fear of "misunderstanding" of something important constantly accompany Pierre Bezukhov. And on the night after the duel, and at the station in Torzhok, where the logic of the absurd calls into question not only the expediency, but also the very possibility of life, and in the difficult “Masonic” period, Bezukhov is looking for the cause of evil, largely renouncing the interests of his personality. Dreams of becoming either a philosopher, or a "tactician", or Napoleon, or the winner of Napoleon - are crumbling. The desire to “regenerate” the vicious human race and bring oneself to the highest degree of perfection leads to severe bouts of hypochondria and longing, escape from the questions of the “terrible knot of life” and new returns to them. At the same time, liberation from illusions, overcoming naivety, the process of learning about life as a whole is accompanied by a relentless search for the “inner person” in the other (10, 183), recognition of the source of the movement of the individual - struggle and catastrophes. "The skeleton of life" - this is how Pierre calls the essence of his daily existence. Belief in the possibility of goodness and truth and the obvious picture of the evil and lies of reality, blocking the way to any activity, turn every passing day into a search for salvation from life. But at the same time, the tireless work of thought, freedom from skeptical one-sidedness and indifference to personal fate switch his consciousness to others and make the very ability of understanding a source of spiritual rebirth.

It is known that the dialogue in the artistic structure of "War and Peace" as a way to resolve the crisis psychological states of the characters, as a way out to the process of communication outside the narrow class and social boundaries is fundamentally important. 31 Unlike Turgenev's novels, where the dialogues of the characters turn into disputes, the main purpose of which is the assertion of ideological systems opposing each other, in the dialogues of the heroes of War and Peace it is of paramount importance to test their own concepts, to expose the true and the erroneous in them. In the movement of heroes towards the truth, the dialogue is active and fruitful, and most importantly, it is possible. In the 70s. the need for such a dialogue for the hero of Tolstoy will be just as significant. But the possibility of dialogue will become a problem, which will significantly affect the artistic structure of the novel "Anna Karenina".

Comprehension of the laws of history, or rather, the hope of comprehending them, is hidden, according to Tolstoy, in observing the infinitesimal moments of freedom of both an individual and humanity as a whole. The war of 1812 not only made obvious the internal motives for the actions of each person, but was that unique event in the life of Russia, which determined the "homogeneity of drives" (11, 266) of the vast majority of people. Understanding what is "good" and "bad" goes beyond the narrow confines of the individual. The fragility and fuzziness of the boundaries between "good" and "evil" is replaced by conscious knowledge, general knowledge, popular and constantly deepening. It was developed by the "life of the soul" - the most important, according to Tolstoy, source of the spiritual renewal of mankind.

The spirit of the army, the moral world of the army is nothing but the life of the collective soul of the people. The flight of the French troops from Moscow and the subsequent death of the Napoleonic army are considered by Tolstoy as a natural and necessary consequence of a collision with a spiritually strongest enemy. The soul of the people is always “in life” (that is why Tolstoy set out in such detail the prehistory of the rebellious peasants of Bogucharov). The year 1812 only liberates the creative self-consciousness of the people: it gains freedom of action and sweeps away all the "generally accepted conventions of war."

“A new force, unknown to anyone, is rising – the people. And the invasion perishes” (15, 202). The people in War and Peace are the living soul of the nation: Russian peasants are soldiers and partisans; townspeople who destroyed their property and left long-lived places; the nobility, who created militias; the population leaving Moscow and showing "by this negative action the full strength of their popular feelings." There were no problems whether it would be bad or good under the control of the French: “it was impossible to be under the control of the French: it was the worst of all” (11, 278).

Tolstoy repeatedly emphasizes the homogeneity and personal nature of the internal motives of the people. The common good (victory) is portrayed by the writer as a necessary (natural) result of the unidirectional interests of many people, always determined by one feeling - "the hidden warmth of patriotism." It is important that in "War and Peace" Tolstoy subjected to a close analysis of the way of serving the "common good". In its concrete manifestation, as the writer shows, these ways can turn out to be imaginary goodness, arbitrariness aimed at achieving purely personal goals. The stupid and inhumane activity of Rostopchin, the governor of Moscow abandoned by everyone, appears in the novel as a “personal sin”, an arbitrariness that puts on the mask of the “common good”. Every time the thought that calmed Rostopchin was the same. “Since the world has existed and people have been killing each other, not a single person has ever committed a crime against his own kind without reassuring himself with this very thought. This thought, writes Tolstoy, is le bien publique, 32 the supposed good of other people” (11, 348). Thus, a significant adjustment is made to the writer's own philosophical constructions of the late 40s - early 50s. Already much later than the "Confession", in the treatise of the 90s. “Christian teaching” (1894-1896), this perversely understood “common good” as a way of social deception, so convenient for the “ruling estate”, Tolstoy openly puts it in a number of “temptations” and calls it a trap into which a person is lured by “a semblance of good ".

Arbitrariness, putting on the mask of the "common good", is contrasted in "War and Peace" with "common life", with which Tolstoy's reflections on the "inner" man, opposed to the "outer" man, are also associated. The concepts of "inner man" and "outer man" are born in the mind of Pierre during the period of his disappointment in Freemasonry. The first of them is, according to Tolstoy's plan, "the soul in life." The second becomes the personification of the "mortality" and "ashes" of the soul. The artistic embodiment of the "inner man" in its most complete form is found in the collective image of the people and the image of Kutuzov, who carried the "people's feeling" in all its "purity and strength". The "outer man" is in Napoleon.

For Pierre "superfluous, diabolical<…>burden<…>external man" (11, 290) becomes especially painful on the field of Borodino. Through the perception of a “non-military”, “peaceful” person, Bezukhov is given the beginning and end of the Battle of Borodino. The hero is not interested in the battlefield. He is all in contemplation of the "life of the soul" of the people around him, in whose eyes and faces flashed "lightnings of hidden fire" that flared up during the battle. The moral world of the “family circle” of the Raevsky battery soldiers dying before Pierre’s eyes, who accepted this purely “non-military” person into their family and nicknamed him “our master”, that “common life”, the fullness and imperishability of which is suddenly revealed to Bezukhov, predetermine the swiftness of the hero's path to a moral crisis, as a result of which the "inner man" wins.

Having experienced the healing power of "common life", Pierre finds himself in the conditions of the destructive power of arbitrariness. The picture of the execution committed by people who did not want, but were forced to execute their own kind, destroys the hero’s faith both “in the human and in his soul” (12, 44). Doubts about the possibility, necessity and expediency of life had crept into his consciousness for a long time, but they had a source of personal guilt, and the healing power of rebirth was sought in himself. “But now he felt that it was not his fault that the world collapsed in his eyes, and only meaningless ruins remained. He felt that it was not in his power to return to faith in life” (12, 44).

However, the return to life and finding “consent with oneself” (which so struck Pierre in the soldiers of the Raevsky battery) is carried out precisely after the “horror of execution”, during a period of suffering and deprivation. Pierre's meeting with Platon Karataev largely contributes to going beyond the limits of a separate personal life and gaining the desired inner freedom. Karataev is not so much the personification of humility and humility as Tolstoy's ideal of "simplicity and truth", the ideal of complete dissolution in the "common life", destroying the fear of death and awakening all the power of human vitality. Karataev's life, “as he himself looked at it, had no meaning as a separate life. It made sense only as a particle of the whole, which he constantly felt” (12, 51). Hence - the manifestation in him of the "inner man" in its absolute form and the unique giftedness of "knowledge of the heart." It is during the period of communication with Pierre Karataev that “reasonable knowledge” is called into question, which did not give him agreement with himself in his past. “Ways of Thought” (12, 97) Tolstoy contrasts in “War and Peace” knowledge “unreasonable” (i.e., rationally inexplicable), the path of sensations, a moral feeling, fraught with the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and this precedes one of the main themes of "Anna Karenina" and the philosophical treatise "Confession".

The undoubted reality of the goodness of the “common life” became practically obvious to Pierre in the conditions of complete subordination to necessity (captivity). But involvement in the "common life" did not yet guarantee complete "dissolution" in it. With the acquisition of external freedom, Pierre’s “common life” passes into the area of ​​\u200b\u200bknowledge, which is stored as the most precious memory. The question - how to "enter this common life with the whole being", - which confronted Pierre after Borodin, was essentially the main one in the life of Tolstoy himself. The solution of this issue radically changed his life path on the verge of the 70-80s. and determined the nature of that moral doctrine, the struggle for which Tolstoy devoted his whole life after the publication of Confession (1882).

Complete inner freedom, according to Tolstoy, is unattainable in real life. Its possibility is eliminated by the action of multidirectional human wills, which predetermine the inevitability of spiritual catastrophes. But it is during these periods that the "life of the soul" goes beyond the usual framework of the "norm", the stereotypes of perception collapse, the intensity of the spiritual self-creation of the individual rapidly increases. “They say: misfortunes, suffering,” Pierre says, sorting through the memories of the past. - Yes, if now, this minute they told me: do you want to remain what you were before captivity, or first survive all this? For God's sake, once again captured and horse meat. We think that as soon as we are thrown out of the usual path, everything is lost: and here only the new, good begins ”(12, 222). The plot of the “catastrophe” as an inevitable consequence of the constant struggle between “good” and “evil”, “inner man” and “outer man” is interpreted in War and Peace as a “cleansing” beginning, leading the individual to a deeper understanding of life.

"Art<…>has laws,” Tolstoy wrote in drafts of War and Peace. - And if I am an artist, and if Kutuzov is depicted by me well, then this is not because I wanted to (I have nothing to do with it), but because this figure has artistic conditions, while others do not<…>Why are there many lovers of Napoleon, and not one poet has yet made an image of him; and never will" (15, 242). If for Kutuzov what is in the souls of others is paramount, then for Napoleon it is “what is in his soul” (11, 23). If for Kutuzov good and evil are in the opinion of the people, then for Napoleon it is in his own opinion: “... in his concept, everything that he did was good, not because it converged with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhat is good and bad, but because he did it” (11, 29). He could not renounce everything he had done, praised by half the world, and therefore he was forced to renounce truth and goodness. The “inner man” in Kutuzov is primarily concerned with giving the collective soul of the people the opportunity for maximum freedom of action, constantly feeling it and leading it, as far as it is in his power. The “outer man” in Napoleon, “destined by providence” for the sad, unfree role of the “executioner of peoples,” assures himself that the goal of his actions is the good of the people and that everything in the world depends only on his will.

Napoleon gave the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov accepted it. As a result of the battle, the Russians approached the "death" of Moscow, the French - to the "death" of the entire army. But at the same time, for the first time in the entire history of the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon's personal arbitrariness broke against the will of the people: the hand of the strongest enemy in spirit was laid on his army (11, 262). The “strangeness” of the Russian campaign, in which not a single battle was won in two months, neither banners, nor cannons, nor corps of troops were taken, began to be felt by Napoleon after the capture of Smolensk. In the battle of Borodino, they are given orders, as always. But they turn out to be either implemented or belated - and equally unnecessary. Years of military experience insistently tells Napoleon that a battle not won by the attackers within eight hours is lost. And for the first time on this day, the sight of the battlefield defeats his “spiritual strength”, in which he saw his greatness: his arbitrariness gave rise to mountains of corpses, but did not change the course of history. “With painful anguish, he awaited the end of the case in which he considered himself involved, but which he could not stop. Personal human feeling for a short moment prevailed over that artificial phantom of life, which he had served for so long" (11, 257).

Kutuzov's personal will is subject to that "common life", which is perceived by Pierre on the Raevsky battery as a kind of revelation and a gift of fate. Kutuzov agrees or disagrees with what is offered to him, peers into the expression of the people who informed him about the course of the battle, listens to the tone of their speech. The confidence growing in him in the moral victory of the Russian army is transferred to the army of many thousands, supports the spirit of the people - "the main nerve of the war" (11, 248) - and makes it possible to give an order for a future offensive.

The battle of Borodino denies arbitrariness as the driving force of history, but does not at all eliminate the significance of the individual, who sees the meaning of ongoing phenomena and adjusts his actions to them. After the moral victory of the Russian army at Borodino, by the will of Kutuzov, Moscow is left without a fight. The external illogicality of this decision causes the most active resistance of almost the entire military leadership, which did not break the will of Kutuzov. He saves the Russian army, and, allowing the French into the already empty Moscow, he wins a "bloodless" victory over the Napoleonic army, which in its mass turns into a huge crowd of marauders.

However, the insight of the “higher laws”, i.e., the understanding of the “common life” and the subordination of the personal will to it, a gift acquired at the cost of enormous mental costs, is felt by “weak” souls (and “indifferent force”) as an unacceptable deviation from the generally accepted norm. . “... It is more difficult to find another example in history where the goal set by a historical person would be so completely achieved as the goal towards which all Kutuzov’s activities were directed in the 12th year” (12, 183). And meanwhile: “In the 12th and 13th years,” Tolstoy emphasizes, “Kutuzov was directly accused of mistakes. The emperor was dissatisfied with him<…>Takova<…>the fate of those rare, always lonely people who, comprehending the will of Providence, subordinate their personal will to it. The hatred and contempt of the crowd punish these people for the enlightenment of higher laws” (12, 182-183).

Tolstoy's dispute in the interpretation of the historical role of Kutuzov with almost all Russian and European historiography was very sharp in nature. Such situations in Tolstoy's polemics happened more than once. So, for example, a fierce struggle arose between the writer and the official church in the 80s and 90s. The result of Tolstoy's active and intense study of theological literature and the teachings of the church was the recognition in Christ of an earthly personality, personifying the highest ideal of "common life" and "inner man" in all its purity and strength. The official church was, according to Tolstoy, a collective "outer man" that distorted the teachings of Christ and built a utilitarian kingdom of lack of spirituality on the blood of the "inner man" who saw through the highest moral laws.

In the epilogue of the novel, Pierre is shown as an active participant in the Decembrist movement. The understanding he had suffered and acquired led the hero to that practical activity, the expediency of which Tolstoy resolutely rejected, with all the unconditional justification by the writer of the ideological and moral aspirations of the Decembrists.

The Decembrists were always perceived by Tolstoy as people "who were ready to suffer and suffered themselves (without making anyone suffer) for the sake of fidelity to what they recognized as the truth" (36, 228). Their personalities and destinies, according to the writer, could greatly contribute to the education of "simple people", so sharply opposed by Tolstoy in the early 60s. "men of progress" - stillborn fruits of the liberal program of public education. In the writer’s repeated returns to the idea of ​​the novel about the Decembrists, which remained unfinished, his desire to resolve the contradiction between the morally justified goal and the political character unacceptable to Tolstoy, combined in the historical “phenomenon” of Decembristism, is obvious.

The source of the inner motives of Pierre's activity in the epilogue is the idea of ​​a true "common good", this idea is theoretically denied by Nikolai Rostov. However, in everyday life, his practical and ethical orientation towards the "man" is constantly increasing. Rostov's "common sense of mediocrity" in unity with the spirituality of Marya Bolkonskaya outlines in the novel the line that will become central in the work of Tolstoy in the 70s.

Self-determination of the writer on the positions of patriarchal peasant democracy will eliminate the "mediocrity" of the hero, remove the illusion of social harmony and determine the birth of Konstantin Levin, one of Tolstoy's most "autobiographical" heroes.

The subject of the writer's artistic depiction and research in "War and Peace" was the history of the Fatherland, the history of the life of the people who inhabit it, for, according to Tolstoy, history is "the common, swarming life of mankind." This gave an epic scope to the narrative in the work. The causes of the most important events that make up the common life of mankind were sometimes seen by Tolstoy as the coincidence of many individual causes, but more often they seemed to be predetermined in advance. Fatalism, as a general explanation of the causes of ongoing events, did not exclude, from the point of view of the writer, the active manifestation of the spiritual forces of each person and the people as a whole, did not remove complex issues but predestination, necessity and freedom of choice.

PROBLEMS OF WAR AND PEACE
IN VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS
AND HISTORICAL PERIODS

1. ANTIQUITY
The dream of peace accompanied man at all stages of civilization.
lization, starting from the very first steps of it. The ideal of life without
wars, when when in international relations would be respected
generally accepted norms of justice, goes back to ancient times
already in ancient philosophers one can see the ideas of the world, rights
yes, this question was considered only as a relationship problem
between the Greek states. Ancient philosophers sought
only to eliminate internecine wars. So, in terms of an ideal state
the state proposed by Plato, there are no internal military clashes
innovations, but honors are given to those who distinguished themselves in the "second century"
the worst form of war" - in a war with external enemies. Similar
point of view on this topic and Aristotle: the ancient Greeks saw in
foreigners of enemies and considered them and everything that belonged to them to be good
our prey, if only it could be captured. The reasons for this
lie, as it is believed, in the level of economic development of society
wah, its "productive forces", if you stick to the terminology
Marx. Hence the direct transition to the problem of slavery. For thinkers
of this era, slavery was a natural phenomenon and even a progress
sive. Aristotle, for example, considered it socially necessary
institution. The sources of slaves were prisoners of war, as well as free
the poor, who fell into slavery for debts (though their position was
easier), and children born as slaves. And if so, then he cannot approve -
all foreign policy aimed at capturing more and more new territories
riy and the enslavement of new millions of foreigners. Therefore, the prevailing
the vast majority of thinkers considered it legitimate to wage wars
against other peoples, because war was the main source
slave power, without which the slave-owning
some economy. Heraclitus, for example, argued that "war (true,
meaning the struggle of opposites) is the father and mother of everything;
one she determined to be gods, other people; some she made
lala slaves, others free." Aristotle wrote: "... if
the weaving shuttles themselves wove, and the plectrums themselves played the cithara
(the absurdity of such an assumption is implied), then
architects would not need workers, and the masters would not need
would be slaves."
An analogous attitude towards slavery was also in the Roman Empire.
rii: the Romans called barbarian everything that was not Roman, and go-
they said: "For the barbarians, chains or death." The call of the ancient Roman
thinker Cicero "Let the weapon give way to the toga", that is
let not military force decide, but civil power, in fact
not applied to barbarians.

2. PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

If we look at the question of a world without wars from the point of view of
Christian Church, then here you can see some dual
on the one hand, the fundamental commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
was the gravest sin of depriving a person of life. The Church
prevented internecine wars of the medieval period, which is good
reflected, for example, in the history of Russia. So, Prince Vladimir of Kiev
Monomakh persuaded the Russian princes not to spill the Christian
blood in Lent. Christianity was the initiator of the establishment
of the so-called Peace of God (Pax Treuga Dei) - days when
civil strife stopped. These days were associated with mythical
events from the life of Christ, with the most important religious holidays -
mi, hostilities were also not conducted on the days appointed by the church
kovyu for reflection and prayer during Christmas Eve and fasting.
Violation of the Peace of God was punishable by fines reaching the end
confiscation of property, excommunication from the church, and even bodily
testimonies. First of all, they fell under the protection of the World of God
churches, monasteries, chapels, travelers, women, as well as
meth needed for agriculture.
At the same time, the preaching of universal peace did not interfere with Christian
which church to consecrate numerous wars of conquest,
military campaigns against the "infidels", the suppression of peasant movements
ny. Thus, criticism of the war at that time was limited to these
calic ideas of Christian doctrine, and the ideal
world peace remained among the Christian peoples of Europe.

3. THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT. NEW APPROACHES

A new word about the world was said by young bourgeois humanism.
era was the time of the formation of capitalist relations
ny. The process of initial accumulation of capital with the blood of inscribed
went down in the history of not only Europe, but the whole planet.
tion among the broad masses of land and tools, colonial
robberies and seizures in America and Africa created the conditions for
the rise and development of the capitalist mode of production
twa. The power of arms was created and nation-states. Together
at the same time, the young bourgeoisie was to a certain extent interested in
on and in maintaining peace, in ending feudal strife, in different
development of domestic and international trade. She created a national
nal markets, began to bind all parts of the economy with economic ties
tee of the globe into one world market.
In the center of attention of the advanced thinkers of this era was the human
lovek, his liberation from the fetters of feudal dependence, from oppression
church and social injustice. The problem of understanding the conditions
viy harmonious development of personality, of course, led to human
nists to raise the question of eliminating the great
the worst evil - war. A remarkable feature of humanistic
teachings of the Enlightenment was the condemnation of war as the greatest
disasters for the peoples.
The birth of the idea of ​​eternal peace, no doubt, contributed to the
the expansion of the war into a great threat to the peoples of Europe.
the development of weapons, the creation of mass armies and military coalitions
tions, long-term wars that continued to tear apart European countries
us, on an even wider scale than before, forced thinkers
almost for the first time to think about the problem of mutual relations
between states and look for ways to normalize them, which, according to
in my opinion, is the first distinguishing feature of the approach to
problem of the world at that time. The second thing that first appeared then was
is the establishment of a link between politics and wars.
The ideologists of the Enlightenment raised the question of such a device
society, the cornerstone of which would be the political
freedom and civil equality, opposed the whole feo-
tao system with its system of class privileges. Outstanding
representatives of the Enlightenment advocated the possibility of establishing
eternal peace, but they expected it not so much from the creation of a special
lytic combination of states, how many from more and more
the growing spiritual unity of the entire civilized world and the
gifts of economic interests.
French Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in a treatise
"The Judgment of Eternal Peace" writes that wars, conquests and strengthening
despotism are mutually connected and mutually support each other, which in general
a society divided into the rich and the poor, into the ruling and the
impenetrable, private interests, that is, the interests of those in power, are opposed to
speak against the common interests, the interests of the people. He connected the idea of ​​​​everything
common peace with the armed overthrow of the power of the rulers, for they
not interested in preserving the world. The views of the other are analogous
French educator Denis Diderot. Voltaire was afraid
before the movement of the grassroots and shifts in public life thought in
in the form of a revolution from above carried out by an "enlightened" monarch in
the interests of the nation.
Even more significant are the views of representatives of the German classical
which school of philosophy. I. Kant was the first to conjecture about the object
tive regularity leading to the establishment of eternal peace, about
the inevitability of creating a union of peoples on a peaceful basis.Here
the same thing happens as with individuals who unite in
state in order to prevent mutual extermination.
darstva will be forced to "enter into an alliance of peoples, where each
any, even the smallest, state could expect its
security and rights not from their own strength, but exclusively
but from such a great union of peoples. "Problems of relationships
between independent states Kant considers in the treatise
"To eternal peace." Commenting on it, A.V. Gulyga writes: "My truck
tat Kant builds in the form of a contract, parodying the corresponding dip-
Lomatic papers. First preliminary papers, then
"final" and even one "secret". In the "final" articles
Kant's project is about ensuring the achieved mi-
ra. The civil system in every state must be
republican. The second "final" article of the treaty on eternal
the international world determines the basis on which the international
law, namely: the international union of states where
a device similar to civil society, in which
the rights of all its members. Union of Peoples, "federalism of the free
states" is not a world state; Kant unambiguously
blunts for the preservation of national sovereignty. The third "window-
The detailed" article limits "world citizenship" to only
the right to hospitality in a foreign country. Everyone should
be able to visit any corner of the earth and not expose-
while attacking and hostile actions. Every nation
has a right to the territory he occupies, he should not
threaten enslavement by the aliens.
the world is crowned with a "secret" article: "... states armed for
wars, must take into account the maxims of philosophers about the conditions
the possibilities of the common world."
Another representative of German classical philosophy I. Ger-
der believes that an agreement concluded in a hostile environment
relations between states cannot serve as a reliable guarantor
peace. To achieve eternal peace, moral
re-education of people. Herder puts forward a number of principles, with the help
which you can educate people in the spirit of justice and humane
features; among them aversion to war, less reverence for the military
fame: "More and more widely it is necessary to spread the conviction that
heroic spirit, manifested in wars of conquest, there is a vampire on
body of mankind and does not deserve that glory and honor
nia, which reward him according to the tradition coming from the Greeks, Romans and
barbarians." In addition, Herder refers to such principles the correct
but interpreted purified patriotism, a sense of justice to
other peoples. At the same time, Herder does not appeal to the government
you, but appeals to the peoples, to the broad masses, who are more
suffer most from the war. If the voice of the peoples will sound enough
but impressively, the rulers will be forced to listen to him and
obey.
Hegel's theory sounds here as a sharp dissonance. Absolutizing
the primacy of the universal over the individual, the genus over the individual, he considered
that the war carries out the historical sentence of the
ly people who are not connected with the absolute spirit. According to Hege-
lu, war is the engine of historical progress, "war saves
healthy morality of peoples in their indifference towards
to certainties, to their familiarity and rooting, like
how the movement of the wind keeps lakes from rotting, which
threatens them with a long lull, just as the peoples - a long
new, or even more so, eternal peace."

4. Clausewitz. "ABOUT WAR"

Very interesting, in my opinion, are the ideas put forward in the book "On
war" by Carl von Clausewitz. Brought up under the influence of a German
which school of philosophy, and especially Hegel, he developed the theory of
war and the impact of politics on it.
So what is "war" according to Clausewitz?
"We do not mean to come out with a heavy state-pra-
new definition of war; our guiding thread will be the
its element is martial arts. War is nothing but an extension
martial arts. If we want to embrace thought as one
the whole is the whole countless set of martial arts, of which
if it's war, it's best to imagine a fight between two fighters.
tsov.Each of them seeks with the help of physical violence
force another to do his will; his immediate goal is juice
destroy the enemy and thereby make him incapable of anything
to whom further resistance.
So, war is an act of violence, with the aim of forcing pro-
enemy to fulfill our will. Violence uses the inventions of
arts and discoveries of sciences, in order to resist violence.
scarcely worthy of mention are the limitations which it itself
imposes itself in the form of customs of international law, accompany
violence without actually weakening its effect."
In addition to martial arts, Clausewitz is characterized by another comparison
definition of war: "Combat in large and small operations represents something
the same thing as cash payment in bill transactions: no matter how
this reckoning is remote, no matter how rarely the moment of realization comes
tion, someday his hour will come."
Further, Clausewitz introduces two concepts that are necessary in his opinion -
for the analysis of war: "the political goal of the war" and "the goal of the military
actions".
"The political aim of the war, as the original motive, must
be a very significant factor: the less sacrifice we
demand from our enemy, the less resistance we can
we expect from him. But the more insignificant our demands, the weaker
our preparation will also be better. Further, the more insignificant our
political goal, the lower the price it has for us and the easier
refuse to achieve it, and therefore our efforts will be less
significant.
... The same political goal can have a very
unequal actions not only on different peoples, but also on one
and the same people in different eras. Between two peoples, two states
gifts may turn out to be such a strained relationship that
a completely insignificant political casus belli in itself
will cause a tension that far exceeds the significance of this
yes, and cause a genuine explosion.
Sometimes a political goal may coincide with a military one, for example
conquering known areas; sometimes the political goal is not bu-
children in itself are suitable to serve as an expression of the purpose of the military
actions. The political goal is all the more decisive
for the scale of the war, the more indifferent they are to the latter
masses and the less tense in other matters the relations between
both states."
Next, Clausewitz moves on to the connection between war and politics.
"War in human society is a war of entire peoples, and
volume of civilized peoples - always follows from the political
position and is caused only by political motives. War is
not only a political act, but also a genuine instrument of political
ki, the continuation of political relations, the implementation of their other
ways. What remains peculiar in it belongs to
only to the peculiarity of its means."
So, the connection between politics and war as violence is reflected sufficiently
but clearly.

5. MODERNITY

In the further course of history, the problems of the world continued to occupy
the minds of mankind; many prominent representatives of philosophy, activists
Do sciences and cultures know us for their views on these issues?
dew. So, Leo Tolstoy defended in his works the idea
"non-resistance to evil by violence." A.N. Radishchev rejected those provisions
theories of natural law, which recognized war as inevitable
noah, justified the right to war. In his opinion, the structure of society
on the basis of a democratic republic will forever deliver from
the worst evil - war. A.I. Herzen wrote: "We are not happy with the war, we
all kinds of murders are disgusting - in bulk and broken down ... War -
this is a mass execution, this is radical destruction."
The twentieth century, which brought to mankind two never-before-seen
on the scale of world wars, further exacerbated the significance
problems of war and peace. During this period, a pacifist
movement that originated in the United States and Great Britain after the Napoleonic
new wars. It rejects all violence and all wars, including
including defensive ones. Some modern representatives of pa-
cyphism believe that wars will disappear when the population is
the earth will become stable; others are developing such activities
tia, to which one could switch the "militant
"tinct" of a person. Such a "moral equivalent", in their opinion,
development of sports, especially competitions, related to
nyh at risk to life.
The well-known researcher J. Galtung tried to go beyond the narrow
framework of pacifism; its concept is expressed in "minimization of violence
liya and injustice in the world", then only the highest
life human values. A very interesting position is one
one of the most influential theorists of the Club of Rome A. Peccei, who
who argues that man-made scientific and technological
complex "deprived him of his bearings and balance, plunging him into chaos
the entire human system. "The main reason that undermines the foundations
world, he sees in the flaws of the psychology and morality of the individual - greed
ty, selfishness, propensity for evil, violence, etc. Therefore, the main
role in the implementation of the humanistic reorientation of human
quality, in his opinion, is played by "people changing their habits
check, morals, behavior. "" The question boils down to, - he writes, how
to convince people in various parts of the world that it is in modern
cultivating their human qualities lies the key to solving
problems."

6. CONCLUSION

Thinkers of different eras condemned wars, passionately dreamed of
eternal world and developed various aspects of the problem of universal
the current world. Some of them paid attention mainly to her
side. They believed that aggressive war is
the birth of immorality, that peace can only be achieved
as a result of the moral re-education of people in the spirit of mutual
understanding, tolerance for different religions, elimination
nationalistic survivals, educating people in the spirit of
pa "all people are brothers."
Others saw the main evil caused by wars in the economy.
devastation, in violation of the normal functioning of the entire
economic structure. As a result, they tried to persuade
humanity to the world, painting pictures of universal prosperity in the
a society without wars, in which priority will be given to development
science, technology, art, literature, not the improvement
means of destruction. They believed that peace between states
can be established as a result of a reasonable policy of enlightenment
puppy ruler.
Still others developed the legal aspects of the problem of peace, dos-
which they sought to avert by means of an agreement between the government
you, the creation of regional or world federations of state
gifts
The problem of peace, like the problem of war, attracts attention
political and social movements, scientists from many countries.
The successes of the peace-loving forces and all organizations, as well as
achievements of a number of schools and directions, scientific centers, special
based on the study of the problems of the world. An extensive
the sum of knowledge about the world as a goal, as a factor in development and survival
humanity, about the complex dialectic of the relationship between war and peace and
its features in the modern era, about possible ways and
parcels of progress towards a world without weapons and wars.
Another important conclusion from the foregoing is just as obvious:
analysis of the concepts of the world requires serious effort. Must be
built a fairly deep and consistent philosophy of
ra, the most important component of which should be dialectics
war and peace in their historical development. At the same time, the problem
the philosophy of the world should not be dissolved in a narrowed bess-
trusting academicism, unnecessarily focused on the controversy around the di-
definitions and relationships of individual concepts related to this
branches of research activity. Appeal to politics and
ideology (as shown above, the connection between war and politics is indistinct
jerky), from my point of view, is not only permissible, but also necessary
dimo in this analysis - of course, not to the detriment of its scientific
holding.
Universal, global commensuration of the problems of war and
world attaches particular relevance to the cooperation of Marxists and
pacifists, believers and atheists, social democrats and conservatives
tori, other parties, movements and currents. Pluralism of philosophy
whom interpretations of the world, ideological pluralism are inextricably linked with
political pluralism. Various components of the peace movement
are in a complex relationship with each other - from an ideological conf-
rotation to fruitful dialogue and joint action. V
this movement reproduces the global task - it is necessary
opportunity to find optimal forms of cooperation between different societies
military and political forces for the sake of achieving a common for human
whom the community targets. Peace is a universal value, and
it can be achieved only by the joint efforts of all peoples.

Bibliography:
1. Treatises on eternal peace
M., 1963.
2. A.V. Gulyga "German classical philosophy"
M., 1986
3. A.S. Bogomolov "Antique philosophy"
M., 1985
4. "K. Clausewitz about the war"
M., 1990
5. A.S.Kapto "Philosophy of the world"
M., 1990

Systematization and communications

History of philosophy

The day before yesterday I was at the conference “Days of Philosophy in St. Petersburg 2015” and asked professional philosophers how to save the world from war.

When a young father kills his two young children, a respected businessman shoots his official friends, when terrorists are bombed for the final victory over the "world evil", and the permanent war in the name of "eternal peace" continues - all this means that the WORLD is SICK.
Over the past five millennia, people have not fought for only 215 years. From 3600 BC to date, more than 15 thousand wars have claimed about 3.5 billion human lives. In the 80 years of the 20th century alone, 154 wars took place in the world, costing humanity over 100 million lives.
The philosopher Heraclitus believed that war is a constant phenomenon in people's lives, like love and death.
Why do people always fight each other? Is the reason for wars in social conditions or in the natural essence of a person - his aggressiveness, envy, greed?

This year, the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg University is 75 years old. On October 29, at the celebration in the assembly hall, I, unfortunately, did not see a single one of my acquaintances with whom I studied at the preparatory department. After the service, I unsuccessfully tried several times to enter the Faculty of Philosophy, until they told me that I was on the “black list”. Then I entered the Faculty of Law, having passed the entrance exams with all fives. But he did not change his love for philosophy.

Personally, I believe that philosophy should save the world from war, although this task is not up to it. The fact is that philosophy refers to the human mind, but man is largely ruled by instincts. Philosophers explain the world, try to instruct rulers, but they are guided not by eternal wisdom, but by opportunistic profit. If philosophers are guided by morality, then rulers by interest.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, two thousand years ago, proposed the idea of ​​the best form of government, when philosophers would govern the state. But this idea remained a utopia, and the Athenian democracy sentenced Plato's teacher, Socrates, to death.

In 278, the Roman emperor Probus forced almost all Germanic tribes to submit to Rome. “Soon,” he said, “the world will no longer be making weapons or supplying provisions; cattle will be kept for the plow, horses for peaceful purposes; there will be no more wars and prisoners of war; peace will reign everywhere, Roman laws will be observed everywhere, our officials will rule everywhere.

Gradually, the desire for world domination was replaced by the desire for world peace (at least in words).
The Duke of Sully, who proposed a plan for the creation of a confederation of the Christian peoples of Europe (1634), is considered the author of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"Eternal Peace".
Sully's ideas were developed by Abbé Saint-Pierre in his Project for the Establishment of Perpetual Peace in Europe (1713).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, summarizing the ideas of Saint-Pierre, in 1761 published "The Reduction of the Project of the Eternal Peace". In addition, Rousseau wrote "Judgment on the project of the Eternal Peace", in which he was skeptical about its practical feasibility (1781).
In the 18th century, Bentham and Kant proposed their projects of eternal peace.

Immanuel Kant, in his treatise Toward Perpetual Peace, expressed ideas that have not become obsolete.
“No peace treaty should be considered as such if, at its conclusion, the basis of a new war is secretly preserved.”
"Standing armies should eventually disappear entirely."
"Public debt should not be used for foreign policy purposes."
"No state should forcibly interfere in the political structure and administration of another state."
“Not a single independent state (large or small, it makes no difference) either by inheritance or as a result of an exchange, purchase or donation should be acquired by another state.”
“No state, in time of war with another, should resort to such hostile actions that would make mutual trust impossible in the future, in peacetime, such as sending secret assassins, poisoners, violation of the terms of surrender, incitement to treason in the state of the enemy etc."

“War is a sad, forced means in the state of nature ... to assert one's rights by force,” wrote Immanuel Kant. - ... It follows that a war of extermination, in which both sides can be destroyed, and with them all rights, would lead to eternal peace only in the giant cemetery of mankind. So, such a war, as well as the use of means that open the way to it, must be unconditionally prohibited.

“If ... to resolve the issue: to be a war or not to be? - the consent of the citizens is required, then ... they will think carefully before starting such a nasty game. After all, they will have to take on all the hardships of the war: they themselves will have to fight, pay military expenses from their own funds, restore the devastation caused by the war by the sweat of their brow, and, to top it all, incur another one that poisons the world itself - never (due to always possible new wars) a non-disappearing burden of debt.

Why do the rulers not listen to the opinion of the wise philosophers?

I remember fifty years ago they often showed the film "Beat first, Freddie." Many then took this film literally and did not know that it was just a parody of James Bond. However, the phrase "Beat first, Freddy" sunk into the soul of many.
Vladimir Putin frankly said at the Valdai forum: “I would like to know what to say. Even 50 years ago, a Leningrad street taught me one rule: if a fight is inevitable, you have to beat first.

Since September 30, 2015, the aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces has been delivering strikes in Syria against the objects of the organization "Islamic State" banned in Russia. The grouping of the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation includes over 50 aircraft and helicopters, including the latest Su-34 and Su-30SM fighters.
In just a month, our aircraft made 1,391 sorties, destroying 1,623 terrorist targets.

Many people ask themselves: how much does it cost?

According to RBC estimates, the operation in Syria costs the Ministry of Defense at least $2.5 million daily. If this pace is maintained until the end of the year, the campaign may cost about 18 billion rubles. This is comparable to how much was allocated in the 2016 budget for the development of a nuclear weapons complex or for the construction of the Kerch bridge.

According to the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov, all financing of the Russian military operation in Syria lies entirely with the Russian side. According to the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov, everything is being done within the budget of the Ministry of Defense (in 2015, defense spending amounted to 3.11 trillion rubles).

The war in Syria has been going on since 2011. During this time, according to the UN, more than a quarter of a million people died. Almost half of the population was forced to leave their homes. If two years ago the situation in Syria was reminiscent of the war in Spain (1936-1939), today it is reminiscent of 1940.

I served as a cryptographer on a submarine of the Northern Fleet. Our submarines went to combat service in the Mediterranean Sea, were repaired in the Syrian port of Tartus. And I don't need to explain why we need Syria as an ally.

What could be worse than war? - political scientists-propagandists ask a question, and they themselves answer their own question: the economic loss of a won war!

On one political talk show, the question was directly posed: can a military victory turn into an economic defeat?

Obviously, a peaceful solution, although more difficult, is more economically beneficial than war. War is costly. And for our economy in the conditions of the global crisis - ruinous!

Foreign policy should bring economic dividends, and not ruin the state. Economists recognize that a country's economic growth depends on foreign investment. But what kind of investments can be counted on in a war?

They suggest that in order to avoid a big war on our soil, start a preventive war on foreign territory. We are told that war is as natural a state of civilization as peace. Permanent war is the natural state of civilization. Peace is essentially only a phase of respite in war.

It was once hoped that wars would end with the disappearance of capitalism, then they thought that with communism the reasons for wars would disappear. It turned out that it was not a matter of "-isms".
It is already obvious to everyone that the causes of wars are not in social conditions, but in the aggressive nature of people. Man is a predator!

Someone believes that war is a biological self-regulation of the population of the planet. There is a hypothesis that too calm and comfortable existence adversely affects the population. People need difficulties in order to fight and thus develop.

According to psychoanalysis, along with the instinct of love, there is an instinct of death in a person. They mutually balance each other. The craving for love is as great as the craving for death. Destructive egoism and saving altruism are constantly fighting in man. The thirst for destruction is restrained by the thirst for creation. The thirst for death can only be resisted by the thirst for love. Therefore, LOVE TO CREATE A NECESSITY!

Experience shows that all issues can be resolved at the negotiating table. Reason is given to man not to subtly kill, but to create, to create love.
But if a war arises, then someone needs a war.

On the Internet, I found such an explanation. As if, with the help of the endless conflict in Syria, they do not want to let Middle Eastern gas into Europe before Russian. Europe hinders the construction of South Stream, but favors an alternative gas pipeline, refusing the services of Gazprom.

The previously advertised "South Stream" did not take place. Russia and Turkey have not signed an intergovernmental agreement. Pipes intended for the Southern Corridor will be transferred to Nord Stream 2. But pipes worth 18 billion rubles will remain buried in the ground.

To get out of the economic crisis, some say, a new arms race is needed. But, by "accelerating" the economy with the help of financing the military-industrial complex, we are making ourselves hostages of the coming war. By creating a weapon, we program ourselves that it will someday "shoot".

The fact that the arms race has the goal of economically ruining the enemy, I proved even on political information during my service in the navy.
The arms race is a means of warfare. In 1981, NATO decided to impose a "smart arms" race. The USSR could not stand it. Under Brezhnev, up to 30% of the budget was spent on the arms race. The war in Afghanistan (together with Western sanctions) ruined the Soviet Union. As a result, the USSR fell apart economically and then politically.

Today, too, our "partners" have dragged Russia into an arms race. Are we going to step on the rake again?!

Today, the goal of war is not the destruction of the enemy, but the redistribution of resources and influence. This goal can also be achieved by peaceful means. H. Kissinger in his book "The Great Break" admitted that "détente" was only a cover for ousting the USSR from the Near and Middle East.

How much does a war cost? And how much is the world worth?

Obviously, a peaceful settlement is always cheaper. It's just harder to get it. Everyone wants peace, but peace from a position of strength. For some reason, peacefulness is mistaken for weakness. They believe only in the power that can resist the power.

Peace cannot be achieved by useless means. A military victory does not yet mean a lasting peace. A worthy goal cannot be achieved by unworthy means.
Thomas Mann said: "War is just a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."

The third world war is in full swing, but it is not officially advertised, but beautifully called the "anti-terrorist operation." First they invented al-Qaeda to fight the "world evil", now here's a new bogey - ISIS ...

The world is ruled by her majesty Lie. WikiLeaks does its best to fight the lies of politicians, but to no avail. Everyone defends their interests and does not want to listen to the other.
Political talk shows are conducted on the principle of "the fool himself." No one listens to anyone - the question is who will shout whom. There is no reception against crowbar (microphone). You can say anything - "and Vaska listens, but eats ..."

In the conditions of the information war, everything can be said only presumably. Disinformation flooded the airwaves. It's hard to tell what's true and what's false. Political scientists compete with propagandists who will deceive public opinion faster and more successfully. We are taken for idiots who can be manipulated.
Lies and hypocrisy are rampant! No norms, no morality... Elementary propriety is not respected. Complete chaos!

The media only says what they are paid for, stimulating hatred and enmity. Personally, I have no hatred for either the Ukrainian or the American people. Even Stalin, after the war, thanked the American people for their help in the fight against fascism.

The rulers go to war supposedly in the interests of the majority. But ordinary people do not need war. If you hold a referendum and ask all citizens of any country if they want to fight, I'm sure 99% will answer in the negative.

War is wanted by the oligarchs who profit from military supplies. It is known that there is no such crime that capital would not commit with 300 percent profit. The oligarchs set ordinary people on fire, forcing them to kill each other for money.

War is a sign of intellectual impotence or cunning of rulers. Thus, they solve the problem of increasing their own rating at the expense of other people's lives.
War is a solution not only to foreign policy tasks, but also to internal political ones. During the war, the rating of rulers grows. The people rally before the fear of aggression and are ready for anything “if only there was no war”!

Since nuclear weapons are not formally prohibited, there are calls to hit the “global evil” with a nuclear missile in order to end it forever.

Personally, I have always been against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although this led to a quick surrender of Japan. Bombing may lead to victory, but not to peace. We have defeated Japan, but we have not yet concluded a peace treaty.

In general, I am against any kind of bombing in the name of peace. As you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Final victory does not mean eternal peace. It is impossible to defeat the many-headed hydra of terrorism, since terrorism arises as a reaction to the injustice of the state.

Any talk about the "fight against international terrorism" is nothing more than an information cover. "Your terrorist is a bad terrorist and our terrorist is a good rebel." So it was with al-Qaeda, and now with ISIS. Terrorists are used to overthrow unwanted regimes.
It's no longer a secret to anyone that all these "terrorists" (or "rebels"), armed with the most modern weapons, are just mercenaries who can fight against any authority for money.

One often hears: are you for “ours” or for “yours”?
I am for PEACE!
As Mother Teresa said: I will never go to a rally against war, but I will go to a rally for PEACE!

How to save the world from the war that the enemies of humanity want to kindle?!

It is necessary to fight for peace, otherwise we will all perish! In a war of all against all, there will be neither winners nor losers. Aggression is self-destruction. It is not the most aggressive that survives, but the friendliest.

War, like any use of force in resolving a conflict, testifies to narrow-mindedness and spiritual weakness. If we do not stop the war, we will end up losing our planet as a result. Therefore, speaking about the price of peace on earth, one must keep in mind the price of our civilization on the planet.

War in the current conditions is suicide! Only crazed politicians who make a career on the deaths of ordinary people want war.
Politicians are guided by selfishness and pragmatism. They don't even mention any morals. The place of morality was taken by pragmatism: what is beneficial to me is good, that is “good” for me. Based on this, war may not be "evil" if it meets the national interests - the end justifies the means!

International law has become a fig leaf. While diplomats are talking live on the need to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, politicians are sending military contingents at the same time to ensure the process of achieving peace.

There is no morality or justice in politics, only expediency. Behind the lies and tricks lies a purely animal struggle for existence. Now they are no longer talking about war or peace, but war in the name of peace.

If during the first "cold war" two social systems were arguing - which one is better - now (during the second "cold war") spiritual Russia is fighting with the pragmatic West.
This is not a war of people, this is a war of ideas!

Russia defends Christian values ​​and wages a "cultural, social, moral war" with the West, says Patrick Joseph Buchanan in an article for The American Conservative. According to the author, Russia is now opposed to "the replacement of Christian values ​​with Hollywood values." “In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin firmly puts the Russian flag on the side of traditional Christianity. "Russia is on the side of God", and "the West is Gomorrah".

Vladimir Putin at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club (this year it was held under the title "War and Peace: Man, State and the Threat of a Major Conflict in the 21st Century") said:
“You know, if you look at the arguments of our thinkers, philosophers, representatives of classical Russian literature, they see the reasons for disagreements between Russia and the West as a whole, in the broad sense of the word, in the difference in worldviews. And partly they are right. The basis of the Russian worldview is the idea of ​​good and evil, of higher powers, the divine principle. At the core of Western thinking - I don't want this to sound awkward, but it's all about interest, pragmatism, pragmatism."

“We, Russians, do not want to agree with the priority of the material over the spiritual, although we are not able to completely free ourselves from everyday problems. Survival like “I will do anything, but I will never starve!” alien to our culture, which preaches the value of self-sacrifice. Profit is not a distinctive feature of our national character. Pragmatism has never been and never will be a feature of the Russian soul. After all, the whole world lives by the mind, only we have only one grief from the mind - and all because the Russian lives with the heart!
(from my novel Alien Strange Incomprehensible Extraordinary Alien, 1998)

THE WORLD has no alternative! The price of peace is no more than the price of war!

How much do you think peace is worth?

Doing

2. The concept of "war" - definition, types./ based on articles in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the encyclopedic dictionary "Constitution of the Russian Federation", the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl /

2.1 Great Soviet Encyclopedia

a) War - definition

b) Historical types of wars.

c) Modern bourgeois theories of wars.

2.2 Dictionary of V. Dahl.

2.3 Encyclopedic reference book "Constitution of the Russian Federation"

3. From physical to psychological warfare. Evolution of forms of war in the process of development of civilization.

3.1 Physical (primitive) warfare .

3.2 Economic war.

3.3 Psychological warfare.

4. Warrior - or the problem of Man in the war.

4.1 Furor: the hero and his madness.

4.2 Man as prey

4.3Furor as a technology

4.4 The birth of abstract thinking from the spirit of military discipline

5. Psychological mechanisms of the emergence of community as a factor in the self-awareness of group belonging - the phenomenon of intergroup hostility / on the analysis of socio-psychological studies of the phenomenon of outgroup hostility presented in the reference book "Modern Psychology", ed. V.N. Druzhinina. M.; 1999/

6. War and Peace - a paradox or a dialectical unity?

6.1Private nature of war

6.2 Overcoming the rational mindset in understanding the nature of war

6.3 Non-peaceful nature of the world

6.4 War against war.

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

When choosing the topic of an essay on philosophy, I had no idea how fragile and illusory the concept of “peace” would be for me as a time period free from hostilities. Only now the saying of the bilious old man Heraclitus slowly but inexorably reaches me: “War is the father of everything ...”. But everything is in order.

What is war? What place does it occupy in the history of Mankind and Man. How is the worldview of peoples, nations, communities of homo sapiens represented by a force pushing to the destruction of their own kind. What are the roots of this phenomenon of humanity. It is humanity, since the ability to war is a feature that clearly distinguishes humanity from the spectrum of life forms on our planet but does not oppose it to them, but rather has a paradoxical character - combining both ancient instinctive manifestations and super-rational actions of a reasonable person.

The history of the existence of Mankind cannot be imagined without wars, and this gives the right to assert that war is an attribute of Mankind, presented and manifested in various aspects of its existence. This is such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that all currently known ideological models in one form or another include a system of assessments and relations associated with the war. So structure This essay reflects our attempt to consider the war through the selection of a specific subject for analysis for the general question "how is war possible":

1) how war is possible in relation to human nature, his nature

2) how is the evolution of forms of war possible

3) how is it possible for generality,

4) how it is possible for the state, how war is presented in everyday life.

Material used in writing this work is taken mainly from open Internet resources of electronic versions of popular science publications, as well as from educational, methodological and scientific literature on psychology, sociology and philosophy.

Relevance The abstract is defined as the problem of the historical stage in the development of technogenic civilization at the beginning of the 21st century - the war in Yugoslavia, the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, the aggravation of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis, the war in Iraq, and the problem of the socio-psychological stage in the development of human consciousness - the conflict between Western and Eastern cultures, civilizations, worldviews.

In 1933 Albert Einstein sent a formal inquiry to Sigmund Freud regarding the psychological principles that make up the phenomenon of war. He asks: “How does a ruling minority force the masses to strive for a goal whose realization brings them nothing but suffering and loss? Why do they allow themselves to be driven to the level of insanity and become a willing victim? Do hatred and destruction satisfy subconscious human impulses that are usually latent, but can easily be brought to such a level that they can give rise to mass psychosis? And, finally, is it possible to influence the development of the human psyche in such a way as to increase its resistance to such hateful and destructive psychoses?

I will place Z. Freud's answer in the final part of the abstract, so that it becomes possible to compare my own conclusions with the opinion of the master.

2. The concept of "war" - definition, types

2.1 Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Edited article by M.I. Galkin and P.I. Trifonenkov.

A ) Wars a - definition .

“As applied to wars,” V. I. Lenin pointed out, “the main tenet of dialectics ... is that “war is simply the continuation of politics by other” (namely, violent) “means”. Such is the formulation of Clausewitz... And this was precisely the point of view of Marx and Engels, who considered each war as a continuation of the policy of the given, interested powers - and different classes within them - at a given time ”(Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 26, p. 224). To achieve political goals in war, the armed forces are used as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological and other means of struggle.

Marxism-Leninism views war as a socio-political phenomenon inherent only in class socio-economic formations. Under the primitive communal system there was no private property, no division of society into classes, and there was no war in the modern sense of the word. Numerous armed clashes between clans and tribes, despite some of their outward resemblance to the war of a class society, differ in social content. The reasons for such clashes were rooted in a method of production based on the use of primitive tools and did not ensure the satisfaction of the minimum needs of people. This pushed some tribes to earn a livelihood by armed attack on other tribes in order to seize food, pastures, hunting and fishing grounds. An important role in relations between communities was played by the disunity and isolation of primitive clans and tribes, blood feuds based on blood kinship, etc. The origin of war as a product and a specific form of manifestation of social antagonism is inextricably linked with the emergence of private property and classes. During the period of decomposition of the primitive communal system and the transition to a class society, as F. Engels noted, “... the degeneration of the ancient war of tribe against tribe into systematic robbery on land and at sea in order to capture livestock, slaves and treasures, the transformation of this war into a regular fishing” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 108). With the emergence of the state, special detachments of armed people were created - the army, and later the navy. The class struggle between the oppressed and the ruling classes often develops into popular uprisings and civil wars.

The social essence of war, its class content, is determined by the nature of the policy in the name of which it is waged. Every war is inseparably connected with the political system from which it springs. The same policy, - wrote V. I. Lenin, - that a certain power, a certain class within this power conducted for a long time before the war, inevitably and inevitably this same class continues during the war, changing only the form of action "(Full. sobr. cit., 5th ed., vol. 32, p. 79). Politics plays a decisive role in developing the military doctrine of the state and in establishing the political goals of the war, which decisively influence its content and conduct. It exerts a guiding influence on war planning, determines the sequence and strength of strikes against the enemy, and measures necessary to strengthen allied relations within its own coalition. Through strategy, politics controls the course of the war and influences the development of military operations. With the help of the state apparatus, the policy determines the necessary measures for the mobilization of the human and material resources of the country.

The Marxist-Leninist theory of war considers the nature of each war depending on its political content: the system of contradictions of the given epoch, the political goals of the fighting classes and states; the dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the socio-economic and political system existing in the country, the material and military capabilities of the state, the level of development of science and technology; ideology and morale of the people. The history of wars testifies to the steady growth of the role of the economic factor and the masses of the people in war. Until the 19th century wars had a relatively narrow economic base and were, as a rule, fought by a few professional armies. From the 2nd half of the 19th century. and especially since the 20th century. Wars require enormous strain on the economies of the belligerents and draw the masses of the people into a protracted struggle. More than 70 million people took part in World War I of 1914–18, and 110 million in World War II of 1939–45. The masses of the people are drawn into the war both as direct participants in it and as creators of the material means of waging war. The growing role of the popular masses in modern warfare is due to their enormous role in material production, political maturity and organization.

Modern wars are associated with huge human and material losses, with unprecedented destruction and disasters. A study of the course and consequences of past wars shows the gigantic increase in human losses and material destruction that accompanies war. The losses in the war of European countries (killed and died from wounds and diseases) amounted to: in the 17th century. - 3.3 million people, in the 18th century. - 5.4, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. (before the 1st World War) - 5.7, in the 1st World War - over 9, in the 2nd World War (including those killed in the Nazi death camps) - over 50 million people.

Content
Introduction 2

I. The concept of war. Communication of military and political goals 3

1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war. The inevitability of hostilities 3

II. Views on the war in historical perspective 6

1. Antiquity 6

2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion 7

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem of war and peace

1. Age of Enlightenment 9

2. Modernity 12

Conclusion 15

References 17

Introduction

During its centuries-old history, our country has been repeatedly raided by the Mongolian nation, more than once rebuffed the Swedish and Lithuanian invaders, it was our ancestors who were able to stop and completely destroy the German invaders. These disasters did not pass without a trace for us, millions of our compatriots gave their lives for the good of the Motherland. Therefore, we must pay tribute to the memory, the soldiers and those who, tirelessly, worked in the rear, waiting for their fathers, sons and husbands to go home. Each of us can say with confidence that the Great Patriotic War did not bypass his family.

This great tragedy has long remained in the hearts of all the people of the planet, and we must strive to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again. Therefore, great attention in philosophy is paid to the study of the causes of war. These problems were considered not only by our contemporaries, but also by the great scientists of antiquity. I will try to consider and analyze their views and approaches to solving these phenomena in my abstract.

I. The concept of war. Relationship between military and political goals
1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war.

The inevitability of hostilities
Very interesting, in my opinion, are the ideas put forward in the book "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz. Brought up under the influence of the German school of philosophy, and especially Hegel, he developed a theory about war and the influence of politics on it.

Consider his definition of war. The philosopher wrote: “If we want to embrace in thought as a whole the whole countless number of martial arts that make up the war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two wrestlers. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance.”

So, war, according to Clausewitz, is an act of violence aimed at forcing the enemy to do our will. Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence. The imperceptible, barely worth mentioning, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually weakening its effect.

In addition to single combat, Clausewitz is characterized by another comparison of war: “Combat in large and small transactions is the same as cash payment in bill transactions: no matter how remote this retribution, no matter how rarely the moment of realization comes, someday its hour will come” .

Further, Clausewitz introduces two concepts that, in his opinion, are necessary for the analysis of war: "the political goal of war" and "the goal of military operations." The political aim of the war, as the original motive, must be a very significant factor: the less sacrifice we demand from our adversary, the less resistance we can expect from him. But the more insignificant our demands, the weaker will be our preparation. Further, the smaller our political goal, the lower the price it has for us and the easier it is to refuse to achieve it, and therefore our efforts will be less significant.

Indeed, one and the same political goal can have very different effects not only on different peoples, but also on the same people in different eras. Between two peoples, two states, relations can be so strained that a completely insignificant political pretext for war in itself will cause a tension that far exceeds the significance of this pretext, and will cause a genuine explosion.

Sometimes a political goal may coincide with a military one, such as the conquest of known areas; sometimes a political goal will not be in itself suitable to serve as an expression of the goal of military action. The political goal is all the more decisive for the scale of the war, the more indifferent they are to the last mass and the less strained in other matters the relations between the two states.

In his book, Clausewitz analyzes the connection between war and politics. He believes that war in human society - the war of entire peoples, and, moreover, civilized peoples - always follows from a political situation and is caused only by political motives. War, in his opinion, is not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their implementation in other ways. What remains original in it refers only to the originality of its means.

Thus, taking into account the validity and universal recognition of the connection between war and politics and summing up the above, it seems possible to draw the following conclusion: if war is, in essence, a continuation of politics, its last argument, then there are no inevitable wars, just as there is no single true political lines.

II. Views on the war in historical perspective
1. Antiquity
The dream of peace accompanied man at all stages of civilization, starting from his very first steps. The ideal of a life without wars, when universally recognized norms of justice would be observed in international relations, dates back to ancient times. Already among ancient philosophers one can see the ideas of the world, however, this issue was considered only as a problem of relations between the Greek states. Ancient philosophers sought only to eliminate internecine wars. So, in terms of the ideal state proposed by Plato, there are no internal military clashes, but honors are given to those who distinguished themselves in the "second greatest kind of war" - in the war with external enemies. Aristotle's point of view on this topic is similar: the ancient Greeks saw foreigners as enemies and considered them and everything that belonged to them to be good prey, if only it could be captured. The reasons for this lie, as it is believed, in the level of economic development of society. Hence a direct transition to the problem of slavery.

For the thinkers of this era, slavery was a natural and even progressive phenomenon. Aristotle, for example, considered it a socially necessary institution. The sources of slaves were prisoners of war, as well as freemen who fell into slavery for debts (although their situation was easier), and children born as slaves. And if so, then a foreign policy aimed at capturing more and more new territories and enslaving new millions of foreigners cannot be approved. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of thinkers considered it legitimate to wage wars against other peoples, because war was the main source of slave power, without which the slave economy could not exist. Heraclitus, for example, argued that “war is the father and mother of everything; some she determined to be gods, others people; some she made slaves, others free." Aristotle wrote: "... if the weaving shuttles themselves weaved, and the plectrums themselves played the cithara (the absurdity of such an assumption is implied), then the architects would not need workers, and the masters would not need slaves."

An analogous attitude towards slavery was also in the Roman Empire: the Romans called everything that was not Roman barbarian, and said: "For barbarians, chains or death." The call of the ancient Roman thinker Cicero “Let the weapon give way to the toga”, that is, let it be decided not by military force, but by civil power, was not actually applied to barbarians.
2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion
If you look at the question of a world without wars from the point of view of the Christian church, then you can see some duality here. On the one hand, the fundamental commandment “Thou shalt not kill” declared the deprivation of human life as the gravest sin. The Church prevented the internecine wars of the Middle Ages, which was well reflected, for example, in the history of Russia. So, the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh persuaded the Russian princes not to shed Christian blood during Lent. Christianity was the initiator of the establishment of the so-called Peace of God (Treuga Dei) - the days when internecine strife ceased. These days were associated with mythical events from the life of Christ, with the most important religious holidays, military operations were also not conducted on the days appointed by the church for reflection and prayer during Christmas Eve and fasting.

Violation of the Peace of God was punishable by fines, reaching the confiscation of property, excommunication from the church, and even corporal punishment. First of all, churches, monasteries, chapels, travelers, women, as well as items necessary for agriculture fell under the protection of the World of God.

At the same time, the preaching of universal peace did not prevent the Christian Church from consecrating numerous wars of conquest, crusades against the "infidels", and the suppression of peasant movements. Thus, criticism of the war at that time was limited to the ethical ideas of the Christian dogma, and peace among the Christian peoples of Europe remained the ideal of universal peace.

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem of war and peace
1. Age of Enlightenment
A new word about the world was said by young bourgeois humanism. His era was the time of the formation of capitalist relations. The process of the initial accumulation of capital with blood entered the history of not only Europe, but the entire planet. The expropriation of land and tools from the broad masses of the people, the colonial plunder and conquest in America and Africa created the conditions for the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production. Nation-states were also created by force of arms. At the same time, the young bourgeoisie, to a certain extent, was also interested in maintaining peace, in putting an end to feudal strife, and in developing domestic and international trade. It created national markets, began to link all parts of the globe with economic ties into one world market.

In the center of attention of the advanced thinkers of this era was a man, his liberation from the fetters of feudal dependence, from the oppression of the church and social injustice. The problem of comprehending the conditions for the harmonious development of the individual naturally led humanists to raise the question of eliminating the greatest evil from people's lives - war. A remarkable feature of the humanistic teachings of the Enlightenment was the condemnation of war as the greatest calamity for nations.

The birth of the idea of ​​eternal peace was undoubtedly facilitated by the transformation of war into an ever greater threat to the peoples of Europe. The improvement of weapons, the creation of massive armies and military coalitions, the long-term wars that continued to tear apart European countries on an even larger scale than before, forced thinkers, almost for the first time, to think about the problem of relations between states and look for ways to normalize them, which, in my opinion , opinion, is the first distinguishing feature of the approach to the problem of the world at that time. The second thing that first appeared then was the establishment of a connection between politics and wars.

The ideologists of the Enlightenment raised the question of such a structure of society, the cornerstone of which would be political freedom and civil equality, opposed the entire feudal system with its system of class privileges. Outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment defended the possibility of establishing eternal peace, but they expected it not so much from the creation of a special political combination of states, but from the ever-increasing spiritual unity of the entire civilized world and the solidarity of economic interests.

The French philosopher-enlightener Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes in his treatise "The Judgment of Eternal Peace" that wars, conquests and the strengthening of despotism are mutually connected and promote each other, that in a society divided into rich and poor, into dominant and oppressed, private interests, then there are interests of those in power, contrary to common interests - the interests of the people. He linked the idea of ​​universal peace with the armed overthrow of the power of the rulers, because they are not interested in maintaining peace. The views of another French educator Denis Diderot are similar. Voltaire, on the other hand, was afraid of the movement from below, and he thought of changes in public life in the form of a revolution from above, carried out by an “enlightened” monarch in the interests of the nation.

The views of representatives of the German classical school of philosophy are interesting. I. Kant for the first time expressed a conjecture about the objective regularity leading to the establishment of eternal peace, about the inevitability of creating a union of peoples on a peaceful basis. Here the same thing happens as with individuals uniting in a state in order to prevent mutual extermination. The states will be compelled "to enter into an alliance of peoples, where each, even the smallest, state could expect its security and rights not from its own forces, but exclusively from such a great alliance of peoples." Kant considers the problems of relations between independent states in the treatise "Towards Eternal Peace".

Kant builds his treatise in the form of a treaty, parodying the corresponding diplomatic documents. First preliminary articles, then "final" articles, and even one "secret" article. The "final" articles of the Kantian project deal with securing the achieved peace. The civil system in every state must be republican. The second “final” article of the treaty on perpetual peace defines the basis on which international law arises, namely: the international union of states, where a device similar to civil society is implemented, in which the rights of all its members are guaranteed. The union of peoples, the "federalism of free states" is not a world state; Kant unequivocally advocates the preservation of national sovereignty. The third "final" article limits "world citizenship" to the right to hospitality in a foreign country. Every person should be able to visit any corner of the earth and not be subjected to attacks and hostile actions. Every people has the right to the territory it occupies, it should not be threatened by enslavement by aliens. The treaty on perpetual peace is crowned with a "secret" article: "... states armed for war must take into account the maxims of philosophers on the conditions for the possibility of a common peace.

Another representative of German classical philosophy, I. Herder, believes that an agreement concluded in conditions of hostile relations between states cannot serve as a reliable guarantee of peace. To achieve eternal peace, the moral re-education of people is necessary. Herder puts forward a number of principles by which people can be educated in the spirit of justice and humanity; among them is disgust for war, less reverence for military glory: “It is necessary to spread the conviction that the heroic spirit manifested in wars of conquest is a vampire on the body of mankind and does not at all deserve the glory and reverence that is given to him by tradition, coming from the Greeks, Romans and barbarians." In addition, Herder refers correctly interpreted purified patriotism, a sense of justice to other peoples, to such principles. At the same time, Herder does not appeal to governments, but appeals to the peoples, to the broad masses, who suffer most from the war. If the voice of the peoples sounds impressive enough, the rulers will be forced to listen to him and obey.

Hegel's theory sounds like a sharp dissonance here. Absolutizing the primacy of the universal over the individual, the genus over the individual, he believed that war carried out the historical sentence on entire peoples who were not connected with the absolute spirit. According to Hegel, war is the engine of historical progress, “war preserves the healthy morality of peoples in their indifference to certainties, to their familiarity and rooting, just as the movement of the wind protects lakes from rotting, which threatens them during a long calm, just as nations - a lasting or even more eternal peace.
2. Modernity
In the further course of history, the problems of the world continued to occupy the minds of mankind; many prominent representatives of philosophy, scientists and culture are known to us for their views on these issues. So, Leo Tolstoy defended in his works the idea of ​​"non-resistance to evil by violence." A. N. Radishchev rejected those provisions of the theory of natural law that recognized war as inevitable and justified the right to war. In his opinion, the organization of society on the basis of a democratic republic will forever save us from the greatest evil - war. A. I. Herzen wrote: “We are not happy with the war, we are disgusted with all kinds of murders - wholesale and broken down ... War is an execution by a herd, this is a radical destruction.”

The 20th century, which brought to mankind two world wars unprecedented in scale before, further exacerbated the significance of the problem of war and peace. During this period, the pacifist movement developed, which originated in the USA and Great Britain after the Napoleonic wars. It rejects all violence and all wars, including defensive ones. Some modern representatives of pacifism believe that wars will disappear when the population of the earth becomes stable; others are developing such activities to which the "warrior instinct" of a person could be switched. Such a "moral equivalent", in their opinion, can be the development of sports, especially competitions associated with the risk to life.

The well-known researcher J. Galtung tried to go beyond the narrow limits of pacifism; his concept is expressed in "minimization of violence and injustice in the world", then only the highest human values ​​will be able to live. The position of one of the most influential theorists of the Club of Rome - A. Peccei, who claims that the scientific and technical complex created by man "deprived him of reference points and balance, plunged the entire human system into chaos" is very interesting. He sees the main reason that undermines the foundations of the world in the flaws in the psychology and morality of the individual - greed, selfishness, inclination to evil, violence, etc. Therefore, the main role in the implementation of the humanistic reorientation of mankind, in his opinion, is played by "people changing their habits, morals, behavior." “The question comes down to,” he writes, “how to convince people in various parts of the world that it is in the improvement of their human qualities that the key to solving problems lies”

Conclusion
Summing up, we can draw the following conclusion: thinkers of different eras condemned wars, passionately dreamed of eternal peace and developed various aspects of the problem of universal peace. Some of them paid attention mainly to its ethical side. They believed that an aggressive war is a product of immorality, that peace can only be achieved as a result of the moral re-education of people in the spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance for different religions, the elimination of nationalist vestiges, and the education of people in the spirit of the principle "all people are brothers."

Others saw the main evil caused by wars in economic ruin, in the disruption of the normal functioning of the entire economic structure. In this regard, they tried to persuade humanity towards peace, painting pictures of general prosperity in a society without wars, in which priority would be given to the development of science, technology, art, literature, and not to the improvement of the means of destruction. They believed that peace between states could be established as a result of a reasonable policy of an enlightened ruler.

Still others developed the legal aspects of the problem of peace, which they sought to achieve through an agreement between governments, the creation of regional or world federations of states.

The problem of peace, like the problem of war, attracts the attention of political and social movements, scientists of many countries. The successes of the peace-loving forces and all organizations are indisputable, as are the achievements of a number of schools and directions, scientific centers specializing in the study of peace problems. A vast amount of knowledge has been accumulated about peace as a goal, as a factor in the development and survival of mankind, about the complex dialectic of the relationship between war and peace and its features in the modern era, about possible ways and prerequisites for moving towards a world without weapons and wars.

Another important conclusion from the foregoing is just as obvious: the analysis of the concepts of the world requires serious efforts. A sufficiently deep and consistent philosophy of peace must be built, the most important component of which must be the dialectic of war and peace in their historical development. At the same time, the problem of the philosophy of the world should not be dissolved in narrowed dispassionate academicism, unnecessarily focused on the controversy around the definitions and relationships of individual concepts related to this branch of research activity. Turning to politics and ideology (as shown above, the connection between war and politics is inseparable), from my point of view, is not only permissible, but also necessary in this analysis - of course, not to the detriment of its scientific content.

The universal, global commensuration of the problems of war and peace gives special relevance to the cooperation of pacifists, believers and atheists, social democrats and conservatives, other parties, movements and trends. Pluralism of the philosophical interpretation of the world, ideological pluralism are inextricably linked with political pluralism. The various components of the peace movement are in complex relationships with each other - from ideological confrontation to fruitful dialogue and joint action. This movement reproduces a global task - the need to find optimal forms of cooperation between various social and political forces in order to achieve a common goal for the human community. Peace is a universal human value, and it can only be achieved through the joint efforts of all peoples.

Bibliography:

Bogomolov A.S. Antique Philosophy. M. 1985.

Gulyga A. V. German classical philosophy. M. 1986.

Kapto A.S. Philosophy of the world. M. 1990.

Clausewitz K. About the war. M. 1990.

Treatises on Eternal Peace. M. 1963.