Pride is good or bad. Why pride is good. Good and bad pride

Current page: 1 (book has 2 pages in total) [available reading passage: 1 pages]

Font:

100% +

Sociology textbook: modern problems of freedom and civil society
For undergraduate and graduate students
Andrey Myasnikov

© Andrey Myasnikov, 2017

ISBN 978-5-4485-4884-0

Created in the intellectual publishing system Ridero

Introduction

Modern sociological science is at the intersection of many social and human sciences, such as philosophy, cultural psychology, economics, statistics, anthropology, etc. The study of many social problems involves their interdisciplinary analysis, during which various complementary aspects are revealed.

In this tutorial, we will turn primarily to our own sociological research, which was conducted among residents of the city of Penza and the Penza region from 2011 to 2016. The results of these studies will be used for further socio-philosophical considerations and practical conclusions.

Chapter 1. Sociological analysis of modern values: between traditionalism and modernism

§1. Is money evil?

Attitude towards money is an important indicator of the level of rationality of any society. If a person agrees with the statement that money is evil, then he thereby shows his belonging to a traditional, patriarchal culture, in which money has a clearly negative moral and religious meaning, and is viewed through the prism of the rigid opposition of good or evil, good or bad. This negative attitude towards money persisted for a long time in many societies in which the majority of people were in an extremely poor state and constantly struggled for their physical survival.

During a recent pilot sociological survey of residents of our city and region, in which 360 people took part, they were asked to answer the question: “Do you think that money is evil?” Most of the responses received (about 60%) The answer is “yes” (money is evil). The following argument is usually given: Because of money, people often make deals with their conscience and violate divine and state laws. Indeed, life experience provides numerous examples of such human behavior. Particularly outrageous are examples of the dishonest enrichment of some people in conditions of mass poverty, lack of means of subsistence, as well as examples of betrayal and servility for money.

At the same time, fair moral condemnation of everyone who has succeeded and gotten rich dishonestly, illegally, often extends to honest, law-abiding people who are richer and more successful than the majority. Such a simplified (indiscriminate) condemnation of any wealth is, firstly, a way of protecting the traditional foundations of average poverty, and, secondly, a way of moral and psychological self-defense of the poor majority. In these ways, the low needs and weak life aspirations of members of traditional society are supported. Unpretentiousness, reaching the point of everyday asceticism, and complemented by personal dedication, sometimes seem to be the main virtues of pre-industrial, pre-bourgeois society.

Thus, the habit of the majority of the population to life's hardships is very characteristic of military societies of the imperial type, and they begin to abandon it only in the twentieth century in mass consumer societies. In our country, such a consumer society began to form only 25-30 years ago. Therefore, the predominance of a negative assessment in relation to money and consumerism associated with it is quite understandable.

In Russia, the very concept of “consumer society” or “consumer society” is still very much feared, and to some it generally seems like a community of egoists, debauchees and almost servants of Satan. As a detailed analysis of the sociological survey shows, almost 40% of respondents answer as follows: “Money is evil, but you can’t live without it”. Such answers reveal the deepest and insoluble contradiction in the assessment of money and its role in human life, which can be logically presented as follows: “That means you can’t live without evil.” And this conclusion already sounds like a real verdict with very serious ideological consequences:

“Evil is necessary in our lives. And since what is necessary for life is useful, then evil is useful. And since utility is the most important sign of good, then evil and good are, in fact, one and the same thing.”

Such a conclusion may at first be discouraging and cause dissatisfaction, but if we apply it to our question about money, it turns out that “money is both good and evil, so it’s impossible to live without it.” I like this conclusion because it leads out of a deep moral and practical contradiction that justified the necessity of evil and even its superiority over good. When we recognize money as both good and evil, we seem to again find ourselves faced with a contradiction, but before a completely different contradiction, which can be dealt with using simple analytical reasoning:

“Why is money both good and evil? It depends on the people who earn them, mine them, distribute them, and use them at their own discretion and desires. This means that the evilness or kindness of money depends specifically on people, and is not an internal property of the money itself.”

From here it is easy to come to the conclusion that “Money is just a means“, speaking in economic language, is the very universal equivalent that is necessary for the normal existence of human society; so that people can exchange their strengths, abilities, talents and make their lives interesting and happy. And speaking philosophically, money is real opportunity for the self-realization of a particular person and for the development of the entire society. And there are not so few of those who consider money only a means and at the same time want to live interestingly and happily in our city and region - (about 40% ), and these are the people of the modern era of rationality, freedom and universal peaceful cooperation.

Perhaps we can only state that it is beneficial for the majority of our fellow citizens to consider money “evil”, because easier to deal with with poverty and misery, and with their dependent, not free position in society. But such “lightness” often evokes sad thoughts, which are usually “drenched” in strong alcohol, and there it’s not far from the graveyard... Why did man live...? One can, of course, be consoled by the fact that “everything is God’s will,” but this does not add interest in life itself, nor does it awaken energy for creativity and self-realization. Religious consolation is intended to calm all worries, suffering and prepare a person for an eternal, no longer earthly life, in which money will not be needed.

But earthly life, and especially modern life, requires from a person constant efforts, strains, efforts that tie him to life itself, to its pleasures, joys, and, ultimately, to earthly happiness.

Do you need money to be happy? Of course we do. And for long-term happiness you need honestly earned money as a result of personal efforts and efforts. Then no one will throw them away, because honest money is very expensive

§2. About pride and arrogance (results of sociological analysis)

In 2014, I conducted a pilot (reconnaissance) sociological study among residents of the city of Penza and the region, related to the study of traditional values ​​and stereotypes of consciousness. About 350 people of three different generations took part in it: from 18 to 23, from 40 to 50 and from 60 to 80 years old.

One of the survey questions was: “Is it good to be a proud person?”

The preliminary results of the study surprised me very much.

About 40% of respondents of different ages believe that pride is a sin and a vice.

About 40% consider pride to be a useless and even harmful human quality that prevents people from achieving their goals.

About 20% consider pride a positive moral quality, thanks to which a person protects his dignity.

So, what do our contemporaries understand by pride?

From the analysis of the answers it follows that the first group confuses pride with arrogance, and, following their moral and religious convictions, considers it a sin, a deviation from the divine commandments. This confusion can be explained by the fact that even Patriarch Kirill often allows such confusion, and besides, modern controlled media also do not really care about distinguishing between pride and arrogance - after all, it is better, calmer, when there are fewer proud and independent people...

The second group of answers, speaking about the uselessness of this quality, shows the predominance of pragmatic life attitudes, which are confidently spreading in our society. It is no coincidence that the president and his ministers constantly convince their television viewers of the need to be successful and competitive. A pragmatic focus on benefit, success and material well-being have always been important motives of human behavior. But why does pride interfere with these goals? Perhaps because it prevents modern man from being a flexible, obedient, commanding creature; it pits a person against other members of society and harms both him and others. After all, pride presupposes integrity and self-esteem, but these qualities can be a hindrance in a “team game” without clear rules and a clear result. Yes, and in general, in the era of wild capitalism, being proud is a very expensive pleasure. Such is life, say both students and retirees.

The third group of answers, frankly speaking, pleased me. Despite the fact that traditionalists and pragmatists are a clear majority, there still remains 20% of uncompromising people who value their dignity and their beliefs. Maybe such independent proud people are no longer needed? But when you think that for only 20% it is important not to lose their personal dignity and remain honest with themselves, it becomes somehow depressing and sad. Thoughts immediately come to mind about the ineradicability of servility, mass theft and lies, hypocrisy, and widespread corruption, which turn out to be not shameful and morally acceptable means of survival for many.

What happens in the end? The answers show that pride is an extensible concept; wherever you want, you can stretch it there. Probably, many would like it that way, but the great Russian language and not only it gives a clear definition of pride, and you can’t escape this definite, stable meaning, you can’t evade it. This meaning is enshrined in the concept and has universal significance: “Pride is a sense of self-esteem, self-respect; positive feeling of self-satisfaction."

Of course, we can, in defiance of everyone and everything, talk about our Russian pride, which is not like others, or about our personal, subjective understanding of it, but if this clearly contradicts the stable and positive meaning of pride, then we will simply leave the universal space of reasonable meanings and values, and other people will no longer understand us and will not want to communicate with us. And if we persist in our opposition to everyone, then this will be nothing more than “pride,” i.e. that excessive and unfounded pride, which we ourselves must condemn.

The task of philosophy is to vigilantly preserve universal human meanings and not allow them to be “stretched” beyond recognition. Therefore, it is important to prevent arbitrary abuses in the broad and opportunistic interpretation of key moral and practical concepts, because the motives of human actions and the life decisions themselves depend on their meanings. Ultimately, it is whether we will all be well or not.

§3. The stereotype of “not freedom” among modern Russian youth: socio-philosophical analysis

Social fact: most Russian students are not free

The hopes of Russian reformers that new generations of Russians will have a different, non-totalitarian, democratic, free consciousness have not yet been confirmed either by public practice or by sociological surveys.

Thus, according to the results of sociological surveys of students at Penza State University, conducted from 2011 to 2014, in which about 1000 people took part, from 75 to 100% (in different groups) consider themselves not free people. And this is the generation born after 1993, in the new Russia. It is important to take into account that young Russians quite meaningfully consider themselves not free people, and give the following arguments:

We are economically dependent on our parents:

we must learn;

we must comply with moral and legal standards in order to live in society;

We depend on the rules and norms that our parents prescribe to us.

Eventually, we are not free, because we are dependent on a lot and cannot do what we would like.

These typical explanations of the reasons for one’s lack of freedom point to a characteristic Russian stereotype in the understanding of “freedom.” “Freedom” is thought of as complete (absolute) independence from anyone or anything.

The idea of ​​such absolute independence is essentially fantastic, i.e. idea-fix; it is a kind of protest of a person against any restraint on his desires, his will. Usually it matures under conditions of slavery, despotism, severe suppression of a person’s external and internal freedom, when one wants to break out of the “slave chains” and be left alone. Such a “school of slavery” for me, for example, was service in the Soviet Army. I remember with what joy I left there, almost as if I was freed from prison.

So, the idea of ​​freedom as absolute independence presupposes the opposition of a person’s personal self to all other volitional subjects and all circumstances that can have any coercive effect on a person’s will. It is likely that such absolute ease is rooted in the child’s consciousness, which is not yet bound by knowledge of norms, responsibility and feelings of guilt for violating them. But as soon as a person enters into social communication and is included in the system of interactions, his childhood egocentrism begins to collapse, and or turns into a beautiful dream of irresponsible permissiveness and the absence of any responsibilities, which remains a desirable dream for the unfree existence of a person, or under the influence of reason, it is significantly transformed into the practical concept of freedom, based on the coexistence of intelligent, active beings in the same living space.

We will be interested in the first alternative, when a person is aware of his unfree state and at the same time dreams of irresponsible permissiveness, of complete self-will. Its comprehension is an important task of modern practical philosophy.

I argue that the reproduction of the idea of ​​absolute freedom in the mass consciousness of modern Russians (including new generations) is a consequence of the preservation of the basic structure of socio-political and economic relations of Russian society or the Matrix of Russian traditional consciousness 1
See: Myasnikov A. G., “Russian Tsar” in the structure of the matrix of Russian traditional consciousness (an experience of philosophical reconstruction), CREDO new. Theoretical journal. St. Petersburg: 2012. No. 3.

Russian Matrix and “not freedom”

The “matrix of traditional consciousness” is often identified with the “cultural code”, “cultural core”, “national character”, “national mentality”, which determine the specifics of national consciousness and behavior. Most scientists focus their attention on the substantive aspects of traditional consciousness, on the sociocultural specifics of the people's mentality, of one or another national character, thereby emphasizing the originality and uniqueness of each ethnic group and people.

For our research, what is important is what is characteristic of all traditional cultures, i.e. their general structure of consciousness. This structure of traditional consciousness expresses the generic-mythological type of thinking that has developed among different peoples over a long period of their pre-industrial development and retains its influence in subsequent eras. As the domestic cultural historian S. Gavrov notes, “the culture of any ethnic group contains features common to all peoples, all of humanity, the so-called “anthropological universals,” which express universal human values ​​and unique, ethnospecific cultural traits.” 2
Gavrov S. N., Sociocultural tradition and modernization of Russian society, Moscow, 2002. P. 45.

Mythological thinking is characterized by a vertical structuring of the world, in which the fundamental opposition of “top” and “bottom”, “heaven” and earth”, the opposition of “male” and “female”, etc. is set. In this case, the structuring of the “vertical” occurs on three main levels : highest, middle and lowest.

First the level is usually called “heavenly” or religious-metaphysical.

Second the level can be called “imperious-administrative”; it is an intermediary between heaven and people.

Third we call the level “social-tribal”.

This view of the world is based on the religious idea of ​​​​the absolute dominion of “Heaven” over “earth” and people, and includes the mediating role of earthly Power in the relations between them. This mediating role is usually sacralized and associated with the activities of earthly rulers - pharaoh, king, emperor, leader, etc.

Thus, the connecting principle between these 3 levels will be the so-called “imperious”, “fatherly vertical” or vertical of coercion, going from the highest power of Heaven (the heavenly father) to a specific earthly ruler (the owner of his land) and then to the subordinate people, the fathers of the clan . It is she who ensures the hierarchy of subordination in traditional society.

At the beginning of my research, I believed that this power vertical is the only and main core of the traditional worldview. But in the course of further study of traditional consciousness, I came to the conclusion that there is another connecting vertical that performs a shock-absorbing and protective function. I called it the “maternal vertical” or the vertical of love. It protects the power vertical from dangerous shocks in the form of disbelief in the gods, in the holiness of the ruler or disrespect for the fatherland, and it also protects the entire system of traditional relations from any arbitrary changes. It is no coincidence that women are the strict guardians of folk customs and rituals, and reproduce them through the education of new generations.

1. “maternal” 2. “fatherly”

The stability of the Matrix of traditional consciousness is largely ensured due to the complementarity of these two verticals of love and coercion and their multidirectionality. The “maternal vertical” is directed from the bottom up: this uplifting and saving feeling begins from the love of one’s own mother and ends in the care of the mother of God. The “fatherly” (power) vertical as a vertical of coercion is directed from top to bottom and must justify the need to subordinate members of society to the established system of Power.

So, for example, in the Russian traditional consciousness it manifests itself in three main images:

On the highest level - Our Lady;

On the middle - Mother Earth (Motherland - Mother)

At the birthplace - birth mother

So we began to build the Russian Matrix of traditional consciousness, we will complete the Matrix. To do this, we introduce the basic concepts of the power or paternal vertical:

– God the Father

– Tsar Father

– native Father.

See the general diagram of the Russian Matrix of traditional consciousness

Our Lady of God – “King of all Kings”– 1 level

Mother Earth Russian Tsar - God's vicegerent on earth

(Motherland) (Fatherland)– Level 2

Natural mother ____ Natural father-breadwinner– Level 3

Thanks to this triple connection of the “maternal” and “fatherly” verticals, stability and structural orderliness of the entire social system is created. This sets the general structure of the traditional space.

In this mental structure of the traditional cosmos there is no personal freedom, understood as equality or the right to individual self-realization. This structure is dominated by the ability of imperious, strong-willed self-affirmation of certain higher persons on behalf of higher, common interests and the corresponding slavish subordination of all others. At the same time, the “unfree”, or rather slave state of the majority receives religious-metaphysical justification in Russian official Orthodoxy with the help of the stereotype “we are all servants of God.” Adherence to this religious-metaphysical stereotype neutralizes any rational arguments against the possibility of absolute freedom as permissiveness or omnipotence, and further strengthens the consciousness of one’s lack of freedom.

This structure of social relations is maintained as long as it is beneficial to the majority, who will be interested in their unfree state; at the same time, the personal interest of a particular individual in the consciousness of his lack of freedom is preserved due to the fact that it reduces (weakens) personal responsibility for his decisions and actions 3
Myasnikov, A. G., Modern transformations of traditional consciousness in Russia: collapse or renewal?, News of higher educational institutions. Volga region. Humanities, Penza, 2013, No. 3. pp. 44-56.

So, if I do not act freely, then I should not be responsible for all the consequences of my actions. This pragmatic reason can be very significant in harsh natural and climatic conditions and social conditions of limited external freedom of most people 4
See: Kirdina S.G., Alexandrov A.Yu., Types of mentality and institutional matrices: a multidisciplinary approach, SOCIS, No. 8, Moscow, 2012

At the same time, the Russian dream of permissiveness remains for many of our fellow citizens precisely a secret dream, which is restrained by the mind, fearing social punishment for manifested permissiveness; but as soon as the mind realizes the lack of “watching over itself” and possible impunity, it will not miss the chance to realize forbidden desires, i.e. to live in your own way, at least a little, but to “completely enjoy it.”

So, now I can give an initial definition: “unfreedom” is a set of dependencies that bind human arbitrariness and subordinate human behavior to need or other people’s demands.

Unfreedom will manifest itself differently on the three levels of the Matrix, subordinating the human mentality to traditional attitudes and stereotypes.

At level 1 Matrix (religious-metaphysical) unfreedom manifests itself as the consciousness of the dependence of human life on higher (heavenly, supernatural) forces. Awareness of this dependence presupposes the dependence of reason on faith. Reason finds itself “captured by faith,” while the boundaries between them are not yet established.

At level 2 Matrix (power coercion) lack of freedom appears in the form of lack of rights, forced suppression of self-will, autocracy, personal civil independence, i.e. including it appears as bondage.

At level 3(socio-clan) lack of freedom is expressed in material need, which forces a person to fight by all possible means for his survival and the continuation of his race.

The process of liberation of man (humanity) can be represented as a gradual progression from the lowest (3 levels of struggle for physical survival) to the middle level (equality, civil independence) and then to the highest level of moral autonomy based on the self-legislation of the human mind. This is the natural path of development of the individual and society “from the bottom up”: from animal satisfaction to rational self-determination of life.

In the course of this liberation, material and economic self-sufficiency is first achieved, and the material wealth associated with it, which allows one to think not only about physical survival, but also to have other interests, including socio-political ones.

These other interests (“wants”) require legal opportunities for their implementation, i.e. imply a system of mutual obligations and restrictions - the same civil legislation that will guarantee every citizen the realization of his private interests.

The further course of liberation of the individual usually quite naturally leads to the adoption of one’s own value system based on the moral autonomy of a person. The result of such development of the individual and society is the achievement of positive freedom.

During the transition from political and legal unfreedom to a free state, a struggle for power, for dominance, for the right to live in one’s own way inevitably occurs. But to win this struggle, it is necessary to free ourselves from traditional religious and metaphysical attitudes, which constitute the ideological and semantic framework of the traditional unfree state of man.

These include the following:

1) religious fatalism, which is based on the idea of ​​​​the divine predestination of life;

2) metaphysical dogmatism, based on the idea of ​​​​the immutability of the entire world order;

3) religious-metaphysical fanaticism and the idea of ​​messianism

It is possible to free yourself from these attitudes, first of all, with the help of secular education and a scientific, humanistic worldview. Overcoming an unfree state at the religious-metaphysical level is not easy, since this is the level of “faith”, i.e. personal and collective beliefs that are formed in a person from early childhood.

Let us give a brief analysis of the indicated ideological and semantic framework of traditional faith.

Belief in the predestination of life allows a person of a traditional society to relieve himself of responsibility for personal choice, or suggests not to choose at all, but to rely on some higher authoritative will (to transfer the right to choose to it) or to rely “at random”. By refusing to make a choice, a person relieves himself of responsibility for the consequences of his actions, considering them “fate” and resigning himself to them.

The idea of ​​the predestination of life has a special psychotherapeutic meaning in tragic periods of life, in conditions of a high degree of uncertainty and riskiness of life, for example, in war or in an emergency zone. There they usually say: “what is to be, cannot be avoided”, “to die once”, “everything is the will from above”, etc., thereby a person resigns himself to his dependent, unfree position and patiently awaits his fate.

In peaceful, safe living conditions, this idea ceases to play such a psychotherapeutic function, and therefore naturally weakens in the mass consciousness, and gives way to the idea of ​​free will and freedom of choice. Therefore, in modern peaceful and safe conditions of coexistence of the majority of people, this idea needs to be artificially “warmed up” by creating emergency conditions, mobilization regimes, or by unleashing military actions.

Some traditional actors are directly interested in this kind of “warming up” of public sentiment.

Metaphysical (worldview) dogmatism is closely connected with the idea of ​​predetermination, and is usually expressed in the recognition of the absolute predetermination of the world and the immutability of its order. It follows from this that social life must be subject to unchanging norms and rules (i.e., some “pre-established order”) by analogy with the laws of nature. A typical dogmatic principle would be the statement: “So it was, so it is and so it will be.”

Metaphysical fanaticism and the idea of ​​messianism are ideological additions to the basic traditional postulates. Dogmatism in thinking most often leads to fanaticism in behavior, since a person convinced of the absolute correctness of his ideas and principles will fanatically follow them in his behavior, without subjecting his beliefs to critical reflection and testing through comparison with the beliefs of other people.

In the conditions of a closed traditional society, such checks and comparisons were almost impossible, so collective beliefs did not change for a long time. But with the transition to an open world, to integration and universal communication, such collective beliefs require re-examination, thorough revision and re-evaluation.

The extreme form of a fanatical mentality is belief in one’s own messianism or the highest destiny of one’s people or community. This mentality can be very dangerous for an unstable, transitional society, and the most interesting thing is that it is actualized precisely during periods of such instability, social turbulence, and can capture marginalized sections of society. Its typical expressions are the following: “our people are God-bearers”, “our people are the liberator of humanity”, “we are the bearers of the only correct faith and morality”, “our truth is the most truthful”, etc.

The idea of ​​messianism is dangerous because, relying on unverifiable, sometimes fantastic ideas, it acquires a socio-practical orientation and begins to be an important guideline for the practical activities of people. For example, National Socialist or Bolshevik messianism, the messianism of Islamic or Christian fundamentalists.

The scientific and philosophical exposure of messianism encounters a number of significant obstacles, and above all, the personal fanatical conviction of the bearers of this ideological program, which will be protected by the right to freedom of thought and religion, and supported by the internal readiness of these bearers to give their lives for the sake of their mission.

Attention! This is an introductory fragment of the book.

If you liked the beginning of the book, then the full version can be purchased from our partner - the distributor of legal content, LitRes LLC.

Many literary works and moral teachings of famous people teach people to be proud. However, strangely enough, pride does not bring people happiness. There are certain reasons for this.

Why does pride have a bad effect on our lives? The fact is that we assign to her all the positive properties of dignity. But these are completely different concepts. Let's find out why.

Why pride has a bad effect on our lives

Pride implies high self-esteem, a reluctance to cross certain boundaries, because of which we can diminish our importance in our own eyes.

A proud person may be offended by something, openly demonstrating his reluctance to further communication. Often his pride makes him rise above others. At the same time, a person experiences positive feelings, believing that he is really better than others in something. If someone begins to encroach on this belief, challenge it, undermine authority, they will encounter strong indignation and opposition. What's wrong with that, you say?

I will list the main arguments in favor of the fact that pride (arrogance, arrogance) is bad, because it:

1. Does not accept compromises. It is very difficult to come to a common decision when a person constantly checks that his rights and freedoms are not infringed (this is how he understands any concessions).
2. Blinding. It is impossible to prove wrong, to point out mistakes. Any criticism is understood as an insult and is strictly suppressed.
3. Destroys relationships. Proud people become unpleasant in communication, demonstrating their confidence in their own superiority.
4. It deprives you of opportunities. Pride prevents full communication, networking, establishing useful contacts, and productive cooperation.
5. Makes a person unhappy. Constantly defending their right to be proud, such people unwittingly get drawn into conflicts. The offended suffer and accumulate grievances.
6. Cuts off the path to reconciliation. Even when he is the offender, the proud man never asks for forgiveness. After all, this is beneath his dignity.
7. As a result, it becomes the cause of loneliness (overt or hidden).

There are of course many other negative aspects of pride, but these are the most basic.

The opposite of the quality in question is self-esteem. Let me draw parallels on how it differs from pride:

1. A sense of self-worth does not depend on outside opinions. Self-esteem is based on understanding your strengths and accepting yourself. A person is confident in himself, he does not need to prove his importance to everyone. In fact, he doesn’t care much about what they say about him if he thinks he’s right.
2. Therefore, such people calmly accept criticism and derive a positive experience from it.
3. People themselves are drawn to someone who exudes dignity. Subconsciously it is difficult not to respect him. It becomes interesting, I want to get to know him better.
4. The ability to behave with dignity and show respect for others helps to establish useful connections and promotes long-term cooperation.
5. For someone who respects himself and knows his worth, it is not difficult to apologize if he is wrong. Even to be the first to reconcile when he is offended. His self-esteem does not suffer from this at all. This is how people get rid of grievances and resolve conflicts.
6. The result: a person is harmonious, happy, in demand.

Remember the beautiful biblical legend: the most beautiful angel became proud and wanted to be equal to God. For which he was expelled from heaven. His essence was destroyed by envy, anger, thirst for power and worship. Pride is the beginning of all sins and misfortunes.

Pride is one of the character traits that can manifest itself in both a positive and negative direction. Pride in a positive sense is a manifestation of joy or satisfaction for one’s own or others’ successes, talents, or virtues in something. For example, the coach of a hockey team was proud of his players for winning the city tournament.

Pride can also manifest itself in broader achievements, for example, when in 1961 Yuri Gagarin made his first flight into space, the entire Soviet people were incredibly proud of their compatriot, in their eyes he became a real hero, and is the pride of Russian space to this day day. Today we feel a sense of pride for the many exploits of the Soviet people. The most important thing still remains the victory in the Great Patriotic War. And even Russian citizens living in other countries go out into the streets on Victory Day, May 9, and proudly talk about their ancestors who fought at the front.

Pride in a negative sense is defined as the importance and arrogance of a person. When all these qualities go off scale, then pride becomes arrogance.

This negative character trait of a person usually manifests itself when, for example, a person does not accept sincere help from another, considering himself smarter and superior to others, and considering help an offensive handout. The theme of pride is touched upon in the work of Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”. The main character of the work, Grigory Pechorin, behaved extremely arrogantly towards others, even towards his loved ones, while showing them everything, his superiority over them. He put his own interests above all else, and caused pain not only to strangers, but also to his family, and his pride did not allow him to admit his mistakes. Left alone, he suffered from his actions. This is a very good example of pride and how a person should not act towards other people.

It is very important for a person living in society to correctly understand what the concept of “pride” means, and to always feel the boundary where pride ends and pride appears, to think not only about himself, but also about those around him, and also to always admit his mistakes.

Option 2

Pride is considered the root of every evil, the root of every sin, in contrast to humility, which is the path to grace. There are different forms of pride. The first form of pride refers to the belief that you are superior to others, or at least inclined to be equal to all people, and are in search of superiority.

Here's something very simple, but very powerful. Our tendency is to feel superior to others, or at least equal, but this also masks an attitude of superiority. This is a complex. When we are often tormented by thoughts, we feel embarrassed, the thought appears that someone has refused me something, that they have offended me or misunderstood me or are smarter than me or look better than me - and we begin to feel competition, jealousy or conflict . At the root of this problem lies our need to be better than others, higher, or at least to make sure that no one can be something better than us, something stronger than us. Something very simple that we don't understand. Rising, the proud man puts down his neighbor. Such exaltation actually has no value, since it is completely conditional. The very idea of ​​becoming better at the expense of another is simply absurd; such pride is actually insignificant.

This can only be overcome if there is room for love. If love is real and exists - this is clearly understood by how easily we overcome the attitude of winning over another to show that we are superior to him, not wanting to convince the other at any cost, not expecting him to necessarily identify with our opinion. If we do not have this attitude, we are not free, because we are slaves to the need to identify the other with our idea, our opinion, our theory. If we don't have this need, we are free.

Pride is a general concept, but when it comes to practical manifestations that affect us personally, we become irritated and stop seeing what is happening to us. We must respect everyone. Not everyone is equally capable by nature, character, everyone has different conditions. They are also relative, they change. Everyone is potentially ideal, just often far from this ideal. Therefore, pride simply does not make sense.

According to the famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, there is only one vice in human society that seems so disgusting in others and at the same time least noticeable in ourselves.

And this vice is pride.

The Holy Church Tradition, represented by many holy fathers, calls pride the mother and root of all sins: it was pride that caused the fall of the highest Angel - Dennitsa and turned him into the devil. Man followed Satan in a similar way. Thus, St. John Chrysostom writes: “The first man fell into sin from pride, desiring to be equal to God, and for this reason he did not keep even what he had.” Thus, we see that pride ultimately caused evil to appear in this world.

But let's return to the words with which we started. The more pride we have in ourselves, the more we hate its presence and manifestation in others. Each of us, together with St. John Chrysostom, can admit that pride is a sign of a low mind and lack of spiritual nobility. But none of us will probably be able to say this about ourselves in the first place, and this is the first sign of pride that we notice in everyone around us, but not in ourselves.

According to the very clear expression of St. Theophan the Recluse, a proud person is like wood shavings curled around his own emptiness. A person is a kind of vessel that must be filled from the outside with either good or evil. On our own, without God, we are worthless, but we are proud of our own emptiness. Every proud person is organically inherent in a certain spirit of competition, and this is understandable - after all, pride is not content with some kind of partial possession, partial power. My pride will be satisfied only when I have more of something, for example, money, power, fame, than my, so to speak, competitors. However, its main difference from greed is that the latter disappears when a certain level of saturation is reached, while pride is insatiable, it is like an unquenchable fire, which the more it consumes substances, the stronger it flares up. People are not proud of their wealth, beauty or intelligence, they are proud of the fact that THEY are richer, more beautiful or smarter than others. Pride requires comparison, because only the recognition that we are better than others brings us joy and satisfaction. And therefore, if there is at least one person who has more wealth or more power than me, he will inevitably be my rival and even enemy. But at the same time, we should not confuse pride with vanity. Vanity is, so to speak, only the surface of what we call pride. A vain person is dependent on the opinions of others. It is important for him to be praised, to have his work or some skill appreciated. It is a positive assessment from the outside, the recognition that he has brought some benefit to someone, that gives a vain person pleasure. But if the very assessment of others no longer means anything to me, if the opinions of others are no longer important to me and I am focused exclusively on narcissism, this means that I have already reached the bottom of pride from which it will be very difficult to get out.

Christianity has always asserted: it was pride that gave rise and gives rise to the main misfortunes, both in individuals and in all societies - family, state, people - as a whole. Some vices, such as drunkenness or gambling addiction, can unite people, because people are united by one passion in achieving a common goal. And only pride is an exclusively individual passion. It develops only hostility in a person: hostility towards others and even towards God Himself. And it is our pride that does not give God a chance to help us, because pride will never allow a person to say to the Creator: “Come and save me from my sins.” A proud person looks down on everything and everyone, and therefore he will never see the One who is above him. That is why it is said in the Epistle of the holy Apostle James that God opposes the proud and only gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). The Monk John Cassian the Roman interprets these words as follows: it is not God who punishes the proud man, but the proud man himself deprives himself of Divine grace. A proud person, even if he says that he believes in the True God, actually worships some imaginary god of his own creation, an idol. Christ spoke about this when he warned His disciples: “Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord! Lord!” He who does the will of My Father in Heaven will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Many will say to Me on that day: “Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name? And didn’t we cast out demons in Your name? And didn’t we do many miracles in Your name?” And then I will declare to them: “I NEVER KNEW YOU; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23). And therefore, if it seems to some of us that our faith, our prayer or our virtue makes us, at least a little, but still better than others, then we must be sure that this feeling came to us not from God, but from the devil.

As we have already said, the main danger of pride is that it prevents us from seeing God and getting closer to Him. The Savior warned in His Sermon on the Mount that only the pure in heart will be able to see God (see Matt. 5:8). The Monk Isaac the Syrian said: “If you are pure, then heaven is in you; then within yourself you will see the angels and the Lord of Angels.” Only humility, the desire to see our sins, can help us overcome our pride. The Lord sees our heart, even if we try with all our might to hide from Him. And if one day He sees in us a sincere desire to be reborn, to become spiritually better and purer, then we must be sure: He will immediately come to our aid and do everything to save us.

Andrey Muzolf

Pride! Is it bad? Proud man! Is this shameful? Proud look... Proud posture... Proud deed! All these and similar phrases used to evoke respect and even admiration rather than condemnation, when I was far from the Church and faith. And, I’m sure, it’s not just me.

If we started asking everyone we met whether pride is good or bad, I don't think most would answer, "Bad." Although many will probably make a reservation: “It depends on what pride”, “It depends on what you are proud of.” Everyone understands that this is not always good.

But it’s one thing – not always, and another – never. We Orthodox are inclined to say that pride never contains anything good, it always brings evil.

For us Christians, pride is the mother of all evils and vices. This is not an exaggeration. We know how evil appeared in the universe in the first place. The very first crime occurred when Dennitsa became proud and opposed himself to the Creator. All other evil that has happened and is happening in the world is a consequence.

This alone is enough to once and for all remove pride from the list of virtues and add it to the list of vices. Moreover, use it to open this list.

There is another reason: the famous biblical saying:

“God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). That is, the greatest values ​​- peace with God and the grace of God - are inaccessible to the proud and given to the humble.

Therefore, it is wrong to talk about pride without talking about humility. Pride and humility are two poles. Therefore, one is much better understood in comparison with the other.

Pride carries with it exaltation, arrogance, and self-esteem as better than others, when, in the words of Pushkin, “we consider everyone to be zeros, and ourselves to be ones.” This means that humility, on the contrary, is self-abasement, looking at oneself as the worst of the worst.

If we use the word “self-esteem”, then for a proud person it is greatly inflated, but for a humble person...? Is it really true that the lower it is, the more humble the person? Is it really possible that the worse I think about myself, the better? In this case, doesn’t Christianity offer man a very joyless and depressing path?

One of my acquaintances, who was trying to become a church member, began to read morning and evening prayers and after a while told me that many things confused him.

“Why should I always talk about myself, that I am “this and that, damned”, that I am such rubbish, and that I have nothing good? If I really am like this, then I should despise myself. How sad it is to live and despise yourself. And I want to respect myself. And I don’t think that’s bad.” “Respect yourself! – some may be indignant. “So this is already pride!”

I admit, I don’t think that self-respect is bad.

Perhaps my words will cause a storm of protests, but, in my opinion, there are two forms of humility. First: “I’m the worst of everyone.” Second: “everyone is better than me.” I much prefer the second one.

At first glance, aren't these the same thing? Isn’t this the “change of places of terms that does not change the sum?” No, not at all. In the first case, you can continue: everything is rubbish, and I am even more rubbish. In the second: I’m good, but others are better.

But is it good? In a sense, yes. I'll try to explain in what sense.

Self-love is often mentioned next to pride. Usually in the worldly lexicon this word carries a positive characteristic. Unlike selfishness. Selfishness is egoism.

What about self-esteem? Self-esteem. But isn’t the opposite norm for a Christian: a feeling of one’s own unworthiness?

So healthy self-esteem, in my opinion, is precisely the opposite of pride. Yes, don’t be surprised, in order not to be proud, you have to love yourself. But only love with the right love.

In general, a lot has been said and written about what it means to love a person. But I especially like this saying: “Loving a person means seeing him as he can be and doing everything to make him that way.”

Beautiful words! It is with the same love that one must love the person that I myself am.

See yourself as you can and should become and do everything for it. At the same time, of course, you must see yourself as you now are. And see the difference between what is and what can and should come out of you.

And if you see this difference, there will be no talk of any pride. What to be proud of when it’s so far from the goal! But there will be no place for despondency. After all, you believe that with God’s help you can become what you should be. And faith in this is an integral part of faith in God. He who believes in God believes in His love and that He will help you in any good deed. Isn’t striving for perfection a good thing?

Extreme degree of pride: “I am good, and everyone is bad.” The humble person thinks: “I may be good, but everyone else is better.” Of course, saying “good” about yourself doesn’t always get your tongue around. Compared to what it should become, it’s not even very good.

But if I still want to become good, if I believe that with God’s help I will become better, then I already have something to respect in myself, which means there is no room for despondency and self-contempt. And therefore, true humility is not sad, but joyful. Pride is not joyful.

An excellent example is given by Plutarch, talking about the morals of the Spartans: “When he was not enrolled in the squad of the “three hundred,” which was considered the most honorable in the Spartan army, Pedaret left, smiling cheerfully. The ephors called him back and asked him why he was laughing. “I rejoice,” he replied, “that there are three hundred citizens in the state better than me.”

What is it, pride or humility? Of course, humility, but what a joyful, bright, truly noble humility!

Where there is pride, there is no love, no joy, no peace. There, on the contrary, there is anger, despondency and hostility towards others.

How to deal with pride? How to develop humility in yourself? Anyone who has such a question, such a desire, the work has already begun. Seeing a problem in yourself is, if not half the battle, then still quite a lot.

Any struggle consists of a chain of defeats and victories. The main thing is not to justify yourself, to be honest with yourself, that is, to be able to give an honest assessment of what is happening in the heart.

And it is also very important to be able to see in every person something good that I don’t have, something that can be learned. Not the good that catches the eye and which cannot be ignored. We have to look closely, we have to search.

Confucius said that when he travels and meets a fellow traveler, he always finds in him something that he can learn from him. All of us - travelers and fellow travelers - change one by one. You can learn a lot if you don't look down on them. And also, don’t forget to thank both God and people. Pride and gratitude do not get along together.

In this regard, I’ll tell you about one more, I think, mistake. A person has done something good and rejoices at it. And he mistakes this joy for pride and reproaches himself for it and repents of it in confession. “Here, father, as soon as I do something good, I immediately feel joyful!” That’s pride!”

But it seems to me that why not rejoice! What then is there to be happy about, if not that you managed to do something well? It’s just that such joy must necessarily be combined with gratitude to the One without Whom “we cannot do anything.”

Just don’t give thanks like the Pharisee from the famous parable, arrogant and condemning those around him. Give thanks, remembering that any condemnation cancels out everything good. To give thanks and rejoice that the Lord sometimes makes me, among others, an instrument of His love.

Prepared by Oksana Golovko