About human nature

A stone called a magnet has the property that, leaving all other substances alone, it attracts only iron to itself. Something similar can be said about the word of God, for although very many and even almost all mortals hear it, only followers of faith cling to it. For this reason, the Apostle Paul says that “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved the power of God is” (1 Cor. 1:18). But that stone, by its own power of its nature, attracts iron to itself, and the grace of the divine word does not by itself attract some, but repels others from itself (for it opens its sources for everyone); but a person’s own will attracts those who thirst, and those who have no desire for it, distracts them from it. The physician of souls does not force the will of those who do not want to receive healing, for He, having created rational nature autocratic and self-effective, although through exhortations and laws turns it away from evil and calls it to better, nevertheless does not force it to go to perfection against its will, so as not to transgress the limits of nature. Therefore, He also calls through the prophets: “If you are willing, you will listen to Me, you will destroy the good land” (Is. 1:19), and again: “Come, children, listen to Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps. 33:12). “Who is a person who, even if he loves his life, sees good things?” (Ps. 33:13) Then, turning away from evil, he shows what should be done: “Keep your tongue from evil, and keep your lips from speaking flattering words. Turn away from evil and do good: seek peace and marriage” (Ps. 33: 14-15). Then he promises rewards to those who obey His commands: “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are attentive to their prayer” (Ps. 33:16). But, since students are not free from fear, He frightens the disobedient with threats: “But the face of the Lord is on those who do evil, to consume their memory from the earth” (Ps. 33:17). But the same One who spoke through the prophets and in the Divine Gospels, having already appeared in the flesh, says: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink” (John 7:37); and again: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Also in other places of the Gospel, as well as in the Acts of the Apostles, one can find very much that proves the free will of human nature. But we will begin to study how the Holy Scripture teaches about the nature of man, and how those teach who, with the beauty of speech and the grace of words and names, covered up the lies of their reasoning. What the poets say about this, we will omit in the present case, because they say that people were not only born from the earth, but also came out of the teeth of snakes, and let us compare only with the teaching of truth what philosophers and historians tell about this. First of all, it must be said about the dispute and disagreement that took place between them about the beginning of the human race. For some said that the nature of people is eternal and the earth has always been filled with the human race, others - that people were born first in Attica, others - in Arcadia, others - in Egypt. Likewise, some of the cities were vain of this. But at the same time, some called the person blessed, others, on the contrary, poor and unhappy. Homer called him weak and pitiable, and Solon, who gave the Athenians laws, according to Herodotus, said to King Croesus: “O Croesus! The whole person is a disaster." Pythagoras introduces a certain countless number of incorporeal souls and says that they, after falling into some sin and punishment, were cast into bodies. That is why Plato in Cratylus called the body a tomb, since the soul was buried in it. Philolaus the Pythagorean expressed something similar in the following words: “Ancient theologians and soothsayers testify that, as a punishment for certain crimes, the soul is united with the body and imprisoned in it, as in a tomb.” But Plato, forgetting what he himself said, in the third book of the Republic asserts something completely contrary to this. “We must take care of the body,” he says, “for the sake of the soul and the close connection between them, for we can live through the body, and even live correctly if we want to express the truth in clear words. But if the soul lives through the body, and lives correctly, then it means that it never existed before the body, and if it existed before the body, then it means that it lived, since its nature is immortal and reasonable. If she once existed, but lived incorrectly without a body, and, having passed into the body and having organized it herself in the best possible way, from that time began to lead a correct life, then it means that through the body she received some benefits that she did not have before. Can we now say that it is enclosed in the body, as in a tomb? From this it is clearly seen that those philosophers not only contradicted one another, but each contradicted himself on the same subject. But in order to see their disagreement even more, we will show what thoughts the most famous philosophers had about the soul and how the desire for vain glory led them into mutual quarrels. What, with the help of God, I intend to say about this, I will extract from the works of Plutarch, Porphyry and Aetius. So, Thales called the soul immovable nature; Alcman said that it moves by itself; Pythagoras argued that it is a number that moves itself; Xenocrates also agrees with this opinion. Plato said that it is a rational substance that has the cause of movement in itself. The Stagyrite claimed that it is the original “entelechy” of the natural and organic body, which is capable of receiving life, and by “entelechy” he meant action. Clearchus said that it is the harmony of the four elements. Anaximenes, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Archelaus called the nature of the soul air-like. The Stoics said that although she is spiritual, she has a lot of warmth on her. Parmenides, Hippasus and Heraclitus called it fiery, and Heraclides called it light-like; Epicurus, son of Neocles, by a mixture of certain four qualities, that is, fiery, airy and spiritual, and in addition a certain fourth, which has no name; Empedocles - a mixture of ethereal and airy substance, and Critias said that it consists of blood and liquid. Other philosophers have fallen into similar and similar contradictions. In the same way, a great dispute took place between them about the division of the soul. For Pythagoras, Plato and Democritus divide it into two parts, one of which is rational and the other unreasonable. And again this latter is cut into two parts, of which anger is placed in one, and lust in the other. But Xenocrates, although considered the third from Plato (for he was a student of Speusippus, the son of Plato’s sister), divided the soul according to the abilities of feeling and reason, and the son of Nicomacheus attributed to it five abilities, namely: to desire, to nourish, to feel, to move and to think. But the Stoics were not satisfied with this number and said that the soul consists of eight parts, that is, from the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, then comes the ability to make sounds, then the productive and, finally, the commanding one, under the control of which all the others act. But the successors of Pythagoras, arguing that the body consists of five elements (for they also added ether to four), attributed the same number of abilities to the soul, calling them mind, prudence, knowledge, opinion and feeling. But what disagreement there is between them in reasoning about the place of abode of the commanding force - the soul, can be easily seen. Hippocrates, for example, Democritus and Plato believed it to be in the brain. The physician Erasistratus found it near the brain membrane, Herophilus - in the ventricle of the brain, Parmenides and Epicurus - throughout the human chest. Empedocles, Aristotle and all the Stoics assigned the heart to its home, some - the very cavity of the heart, and others - blood; others looked for it in the outer coverings of the heart, while others looked for it in the abdominal barrier. Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Plato, Empedocles and Xenocrates called the soul true, but Democritus, Epicurus and Aristotle boldly said that souls, having separated from the body, return to the soul of the universe, as homogeneous and consubstantial with it. In addition, Pythagoras and Plato called the rational part of the soul incorruptible, and the unreasonable part corruptible. Plato also called plants animals, which have only the third ability of the soul, namely the desired one. But Aristotle did not agree to call plants animals and only that which has a sentient soul, he honored with the name animal, and in plants he allowed only a nourishing and productive soul. Zeno, the head of the Stoic sect, taught this about the soul: the male seed, moist and spiritualized, is the embryo of the soul, because it is something that is gathered together from all parts of the parent’s soul, and for this reason he called the soul perishable. But Pythagoras and Plato imagined the opposite to this, for they recognized the mind as a particle of the Divine. The son of Nicomacheus also agrees with them, although he called the soul perishable. Of the followers of Plato and Pythagoras, some called the mind an autocratic master who controls his passions as he wants, while others said that he is a slave of necessity and fate, controlled by the threads of the Park, and all his positions and actions depend on the state of the sky and the confluence of stars. But Plato in this regard presented a doctrine of the soul that was completely contrary to this. For he called the soul free and the mistress of the passions that disturb it, which, according to its own will, is drawn here or there and on whose will it depends whether to win or be defeated. He clearly shows this in the Laws. “To conquer oneself,” he says, “is the first and best of all victories, but to be defeated by oneself is a very shameful thing.” And a little later: “But we know that the passions in us, like nerves and threads innate to us, attract us and mutually distract us, as opposed to one another, to opposite actions. Where the limit is set between virtue and vice, there, they say, there should be the beginning of these inclinations - reason. He who follows it and never deviates from it always has the opportunity to reject each of these passions. Such control is left to the mind.” With these words, Plato clearly shows that we humans are not naturally evil and are not necessarily or forcibly drawn to sin; in the same way, it is not Park’s threads that control us, and it is not by the coincidence of the stars that we are disposed to this or that kind of action, but in our soul there is a struggle with itself, and it has the opportunity to defeat itself if it wants to lean towards the side of virtue. Love draws her to her side, and anger to hers, but to obey or not to obey depends on the arbitrariness of the mind. For the mind, like a charioteer, is appointed to govern and lead others, and not to be governed and led. Thus, the free will of the soul produces the fact that it inclines either one way or the other, so that constant exercise in one or the other finally turns into an insurmountable skill. Historians, philosophers and poets entered into such disputes and disagreements regarding the soul and the entire composition of mankind, when they affirmed one or another teaching, while others gave out opinions contrary to both. For it was not out of love for the truth, but out of a desire for empty glory that they became inventors of new dogmas. This is why they fell into many errors, especially when their successors began to distort the opinions of their predecessors. For Anaximander, after the death of Thales, immediately began to preach a doctrine that was contrary to him; Anaximenes did the same after the death of Anaximander, and then Anaxagoras. But Aristotle, even during Plato’s lifetime, clearly contradicted him and waged war against the Academy, showing no respect either for the teaching that he listened to with such thirst, or for the glory of the most famous man, and, not being afraid of the power of Plato’s eloquence, showed himself to be his daring opponent, and meanwhile he himself later accepted not the best of Plato’s, but the worst dogmas. For when he called the soul immortal, he called it mortal; when he taught that God embraces all things with His Providence, he said that God’s Providence does not extend to earth. Only to the moon, he said, does God’s rule extend, and everything else is subject to chance. But just as a lie is disgusting not only to the truth, but also to itself, so the truth always agrees with itself and only lies are disgusting to it. Therefore, the legislator Moses, the prophet David, the valiant Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a whole host of prophets, as well as Matthew, John, Luke and Mark, Peter and Paul, and a whole host of apostles taught people in exactly the same way about human nature. For not one of them claimed that these or other inhabitants of the earth were born by themselves, and did not call the human soul one mortal, and the other immortal, but they all unanimously said that the human body was formed from earth, water, and other elements, and the soul was not ready to be lowered into the body, but after the formation of the body it was created for it. “And God created man,” says Moses, “I took a finger from the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). It should be noted that breathing is not some kind of outpouring of air that comes from the mouth (for God is incorporeal, simple and uncomplicated), but the very nature of the soul, which is a Spirit endowed with reason. This is what Moses says about it in the story of the creation of the world. He says something similar in the laws, for, mentioning the non-idle woman, who will be delivered from a burden from a blow (Exodus 21:22), he says that the baby is first formed in the mother’s womb, and then receives a soul (Exodus 21:23), but not so that the soul is brought into the body from the outside, and not so that it is born from a seed, but according to what law God has put into humankind from the beginning nature, receives being. The valiant Job confesses the same thing before his Creator. “Remember that you created me into clay, but again you return me to the earth. Or didst thou not grind me like milk, but thou didst strew me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and sewed me together with bones and sinews. Thou hast laid down life and mercy with me: will Thy visitation preserve my spirit?” ( Job 10:9–12 ) With these words, Job pointed to marital copulation as a means of producing children and at the same time to how that little seed in the mother’s womb takes on countless forms; then, he says, the soul is created and united with the body, and when the baby comes into the world, divine care protects and governs it. Likewise, the God-speaking David cries out: “Thy hands make me and create me: give me understanding, and I will learn your commandment” (Ps. 119:73). According to this, all the prophets teach about human nature. But, lest anyone think that the Greeks originated in a different way, the Romans in a different way, the Egyptians in a different way, and that the Persians, Massagetae, Scythians and Sarmatians received a completely different nature, the writer of everyday life says that when the Creator formed one man from the earth and from his rib created him a wife, He, through their marriage, filled the entire universe with people, and the children and grandchildren who came from them, in in turn, served to reproduce the human race. For it means nothing to God to command that the whole earth and sea be filled with living things. But, so that no one would think that there are different breeds of people, He commanded countless tribes to arise from that one union. For this reason, He did not create the wife from anything else, but, taking substance from the same husband, formed her - and this so that she, having imagined that she had a different nature, would not become proud of her husband. Why does He prescribe the same laws to both husbands and wives? Because the difference between them is only in the composition of the body, and not in the soul. For the wife is just as endowed with reason as the husband, and is capable of understanding and acting; he also knows what he should run away from and what he should follow; Often she sees even better than her husband what is most useful, and becomes a good adviser to him. Therefore, not only husbands, but also wives must go to the churches of God, and the law, while allowing husbands to participate in the Divine Mysteries, does not prohibit wives from doing so, but also orders them to be instructed in faith and spiritual subjects, just like husbands. In the same way, rewards for virtue are offered to both, because they have common feats of virtue. Likewise, the difference of languages ​​does not refute the unity of human nature. For both Greeks and barbarians are equally capable of doing good and bad deeds, as the Greeks themselves confirm. For they themselves are surprised at Anacharsis, who was a Scythian, and not an Athenian, not a Corinthian, not a Tigeatian, not a Spartan; and they extol the Brahmans, who were of Indian origin, and not Dorians, not Aeoleans, not Ionians. Moreover, the Egyptians are praised for their wisdom, because the Greeks learned many sciences from them. Homer called the Hippomolgov, a Thracian people, the most truthful, and Cyrus, the king of Persia, who was a Persian on his father’s side and a Mede on his mother’s side, was extolled by Xenophon, son of Gryllus, for his prudence, abstinence, truth and courage. Thus, the Greeks themselves admit that barbarians also have some concern for virtue and the difference of languages ​​does not prevent them from having such an acquisition. And the very preachers of the truth - the prophets and apostles, although unskilled in Hellenic eloquence, but, as possessing true wisdom, brought divine teaching to everyone - both the Greek and barbarian peoples - and filled the entire earth and sea with writings about virtue and piety, so that now all mortals, leaving the ravings of philosophers, learn the truth from fishermen and tax collectors and respect the writings of the creator of the skin, and they don’t even know the names of the Italic, Ionian and Eleatic sects, because time has destroyed the memory of them, while the names of the prophets who lived more than a thousand and a half years before these philosophers are carried on their lips. In the same way, the fathers who preceded them, such as Abraham and his children, and those even more ancient than them - Abel, Enoch and Noah and others like them, were made famous everywhere by their illustrious life. And the names of those seven Greek sages who lived after the prophets and among people of Greek origin are hardly known today. But what am I saying about those who live today, when even among the ancients there was great doubt about them? For some include among them Periander of Corinth, others - Epimenides of Crete, others - Acusilaus of Argives, some - Anacharsis of Scythia, others - Pherecides of Syria, and Plato - Myson of Chin. So, even the ancients did not completely know them, but they know Matthew, Bartholomew and James, also Moses, David and Isaiah and other apostles and prophets as they know the names of their children. And the unscrupulous - the very names of these holy men are ridiculed as barbaric! But we mourn their madness. Seeing that people with a barbaric dialect surpassed the Hellenes in eloquence and exposed to everyone the absurdity of their embellished fables, that the fishermen's Sollecisms completely refuted their Attic syllogisms, they, however, do not blush at this and do not hide in the gorges, but shamelessly stand up for their lies, although there are so few of them that you almost know them all, and not that they were people, imbued with Greek eloquence, but, on the contrary, these are those who fall into barbarism with every word (a mistake against language), and meanwhile imagine themselves to be extremely learned and eloquent people when they insert into their speech: “I swear by the gods, I swear by the sun,” etc. If I am telling a lie, then tell me, honorable men, whom Xenophon of Colophon left as a follower of his sect, who is Parmenides of Eleates, who is Protagoras and Melissus, who is Pythagoras or Anaxagoras, who is Speusippus or Xenocrates, who is Anaximander or Anaximenes, who is Arcesilaus or Philolaus? Who is now in charge of the Stoic sect? Who defends the teachings of the Stagyrites? Where are states now governed according to the laws of Plato and the image of republican government prescribed by him followed? You cannot present to us a single defender of these dogmas and decrees. And we will clearly show you the power of the apostolic and prophetic teaching. The whole sunflower is filled with this teaching, and the Jewish scriptures have been translated into not only Greek, but also into Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythian, Sarmatian - in short, into all the languages ​​spoken by peoples today. And the wise Plato, who spoke a lot about the immortality of the soul, did not even convince his listener Aristotle to share this opinion with him, but our fishermen, tax collectors and scepters, not only the Greeks, but also the Romans and Egyptians and all peoples in general, convinced that the human soul is immortal, honorable by reason and capable of governing passions, that through its own imprudence, and not through coercion, it transgresses the divine laws and then again turns to the best, lags behind the previous error. At the same time, it must be said that our dogmas are contained not only by teachers of the Church, but also by shoemakers, blacksmiths, wool weavers and other artisans, and even women who not only know how to read and write, but also feed on the labor of their hands, and even slaves themselves. And not only city dwellers, but also farmers have information about these subjects, and you can find many gardeners, shepherds and gardeners who, no worse than others, talk about the Divine Trinity and the creation of all things and, perhaps, know human nature much better than Plato and Aristotle. Caring for virtue and avoiding vice, fearing threatening punishments and the onset of the righteous Judgment of God, philosophizing about immortal and eternal life, they use all their efforts to acquire the Kingdom of God. And they learned this from no one else, but from those whom you call barbarians, not paying attention to the words of Anacharsis, who said: “All Greeks seem to me to be Scythians.” This is completely in accordance with the words of our skin-maker: “If we do not understand the power of the voice, I will be a foreigner who speaks, and a foreigner who speaks to me” (1 Cor. 14:11). And indeed, just as among the Greeks the inhabitants of Illyricum, Paeon, Atintana and others are considered barbarians, in the same way those who do not understand the Greek language, the Attic, Doric, Aeolic and Ionic languages ​​seem barbaric. But every language has the same meaning, for all people have the same nature. So, venerable men, compare the simple teachings of fishermen with the ravings of philosophers and know the difference between them: going through your thousands of books, see how weak they are, for at the present time there has not yet been found anyone who would dare to follow the fables of poets and the opinions of philosophers. Realizing this, then marvel at the brevity and power of the Divine Scriptures and learn the truth of the dogmas they contain about the divine structure of the human body, about the immortality of the soul, in which the rational part controls the passions, making them useful and necessary for human nature. Learning this and similar things from the Divine Scripture, we too will exclaim with the prophet: “Your mind is amazed at me, strengthen yourself, I will not be able to do it!” (Ps. 139:6) And indeed, what language can sufficiently express both the harmonious structure of our body and the wisdom that we perceive in the soul?! True, Hippocrates and Galen, as well as Plato and Xenophon, and Aristotle, and Theophrastus, and many others left us a lot about this subject in their writings, but they omitted even more than they said, because the human mind cannot comprehend the works of the wisdom of God. Why did the prophet, having praised God for what was comprehensible to him, when he could not comprehend everything seen in us, clearly admitted himself defeated and considered such a consciousness to be sufficient for worthy and righteous praise of God. You might be interested in: