Assess the role of eros (erotic love) in the philosophy of Tolstoi AND/OR Solov’ev.
In order to assess the question to the fullest extent, we need to begin with definition of eros and we need to be able to understand the meaning that Tolstoi and Solovjev were emphasizing using the word. In its essence eros is one of the four words in Ancient Greek that describes love. In the philosophical context eros has a much wider and deeper meaning that can be referred to intimate love, romantic love, and in some sense it could be equal to ‘life energy’. Many great philosophers attempted to assess the role and the meaning of eros in their works. For example, Plato did not believe eros necessarily has to be a part of physical attraction ‘Love is therefore …show more content…
The Meaning of Love is a series of five articles written by Vladimir Solovjev, which were published in the journal between 1892 and 1893. Berdyaev believed that ‘The Meaning of love … the most remarkable thing that has been written about love’. In his work Losev writes ‘Vladimir Solovjev here as the only way of salvation for mankind preaches sexual love , which he , however, extremely inspires so remains in doubt even her whole physiology, as can be judged in the notes (VII, 22). According to Solovjev, that love has nothing to do with procreation , it is the overcoming of selfishness, loving and beloved merge into one indivisible whole ; it is, however, weak reproduction relationship of Christ and the Church ; it is the image of the eternal unity’. According to Losev, "the most important thing - it is to understand what Soloviev meant in this treatise using the term ‘sexual love’ in the right way. The problem is that in Russian "sex" sounds too naturalistic and prosaic. It is a term rather biological, physiological, psychological, even too shallow, rather everyday and commonplace. Solovjev himself believes this term is unfortunate for his theory and uses it, as he says, only for the lack of a more appropriate …show more content…
‘It is self-evident that so long as man reproduces himself like an animal, he also dies like an animal. But it is equally evident that mere abstention from the act of procreation does not in any way save one from death: persons who have preserved their virginity die, and so do eunuchs, and neither enjoy even particular longevity. This is quite understandable. Speaking generally, death is the disintegration, the falling apart of a creature’s constituent elements. But division into sexes, not reminded by their external and transitory union in the act of reproduction, the division between the masculine and the feminine elements of the human being, is in itself a state of disintegration and the beginning of death. To remain in sexual dividends means to remain on the path of death, and those who cannot or will not leave that path must from natural necessity tread it to the end. He who supports the root of death must necessarily taste its fruit. Only the whole man can be immortal, and if physiological union cannot reinstate the wholeness of the human being, it means that this false union must be replaced by a true union and certainly not by abstention from all union, i.e. not by a striving to retain in status quo the divided, disintegrated, and consequently mortal human nature.’ While Tolstoy believes that the reason for a man being weak is because he is dependent on others, Solovjev upholds the idea that
In order to assess the question to the fullest extent, we need to begin with definition of eros and we need to be able to understand the meaning that Tolstoi and Solovjev were emphasizing using the word. In its essence eros is one of the four words in Ancient Greek that describes love. In the philosophical context eros has a much wider and deeper meaning that can be referred to intimate love, romantic love, and in some sense it could be equal to ‘life energy’. Many great philosophers attempted to assess the role and the meaning of eros in their works. For example, Plato did not believe eros necessarily has to be a part of physical attraction ‘Love is therefore …show more content…
The Meaning of Love is a series of five articles written by Vladimir Solovjev, which were published in the journal between 1892 and 1893. Berdyaev believed that ‘The Meaning of love … the most remarkable thing that has been written about love’. In his work Losev writes ‘Vladimir Solovjev here as the only way of salvation for mankind preaches sexual love , which he , however, extremely inspires so remains in doubt even her whole physiology, as can be judged in the notes (VII, 22). According to Solovjev, that love has nothing to do with procreation , it is the overcoming of selfishness, loving and beloved merge into one indivisible whole ; it is, however, weak reproduction relationship of Christ and the Church ; it is the image of the eternal unity’. According to Losev, "the most important thing - it is to understand what Soloviev meant in this treatise using the term ‘sexual love’ in the right way. The problem is that in Russian "sex" sounds too naturalistic and prosaic. It is a term rather biological, physiological, psychological, even too shallow, rather everyday and commonplace. Solovjev himself believes this term is unfortunate for his theory and uses it, as he says, only for the lack of a more appropriate …show more content…
‘It is self-evident that so long as man reproduces himself like an animal, he also dies like an animal. But it is equally evident that mere abstention from the act of procreation does not in any way save one from death: persons who have preserved their virginity die, and so do eunuchs, and neither enjoy even particular longevity. This is quite understandable. Speaking generally, death is the disintegration, the falling apart of a creature’s constituent elements. But division into sexes, not reminded by their external and transitory union in the act of reproduction, the division between the masculine and the feminine elements of the human being, is in itself a state of disintegration and the beginning of death. To remain in sexual dividends means to remain on the path of death, and those who cannot or will not leave that path must from natural necessity tread it to the end. He who supports the root of death must necessarily taste its fruit. Only the whole man can be immortal, and if physiological union cannot reinstate the wholeness of the human being, it means that this false union must be replaced by a true union and certainly not by abstention from all union, i.e. not by a striving to retain in status quo the divided, disintegrated, and consequently mortal human nature.’ While Tolstoy believes that the reason for a man being weak is because he is dependent on others, Solovjev upholds the idea that