THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONCEPTS OF MARRIAGE AND LOVE IN THE WORKS OF PHILOSOPHERS IN THE MIDDLE AGES TO MODERNISM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2024.1.32Keywords:
marriage, love, Augustine, Francis Bacon, Bonhoeffer, Emerson, MontaigneAbstract
The article examines the issues of the presence of love in marriage and vice versa, marriage present in love from the point of view of famous philosophers of different times, the importance of the presence of one in the other and, conversely, the leveling of one of the two. The possibilities of marriage without love, and its advantages, love without marriage – pluses and minuses and marriage with love and the consequences of these variations are highlighted and considered. The main sources were the works of such philosophers as Aurelius Augustine, Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Friedrich Engels, Francis Bacon, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Friedrich Schlegel, Nicolas de Chemfort, Jean de Labruyère, Georg William Friedrich. For the most part, researchers can be divided into the three categories that have been mentioned. During the Middle Ages, when the fundamental tone in family relationships was set by the church, the view of love, marriage was focused on the doctrinal aspect, where the place of love was not given much importance, but rather the expectations of marriage and its usefulness for society. Subsequently, with the emergence from the dark Middle Ages, there was a transformation in the vision of marriage and love in society. With the advent of chivalric love and romanticism, marriage fades into the background, and love rises to a new level of importance. With the approach to modernism there are compositions of views. Self-interest from marriage is considered as a social component, but not separate from the feeling of love. The first category prefers love that is not tied to the responsibilities of marriage, the other outlines the positive impact of marriage, without attachment to love, manifested both in the business-material aspect and in the socially building one. And the third category prefers one and the other aspect, when love is present in marriage and marriage is meant for love.
References
Августин, А. (1999). Сповідь. Пер. з латн. Ю. Мушка: післям. С. Здіорука. Київ: Основи. 319 с.
Бекон, Ф. (1972). Про шлюб і безшлюбність. Досвіди або настанови моральні і політичні. С. 365–367.
Бонхоффер, Д. (1943). Промова на випадок вінчання в тюремній камері. URL: https://fiercemarriage.com/awedding-sermon-from-a-1943-prison-cell-dietrich-bonhoeffer.
Гегель, Г.В. (1975). Філософія релігії в двох томах. Т.1. URL: https://ibib.ltd.ua/filosofiya-religii-dvuh-tomah.html.
Монтень, М. (2005). Проби. – Книга перша. Пер. з фр. Київ: Дух і літера, 2005. 365 с.
Енгельс, Ф. (1884). Походження сім’ї, приватної власності і держави. URL: https://vpered.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/engels-der-ursprung-der-familie/.
Еразм, Р. (1986). Філософські твори. Наука. 704 c.
Лебрюйєр, Ж. (1987). Роздуми французьких моралістів ХVI–XVII століть Філософія любові. 567 c.
Шамфор, Н.С. (1987). Роздуми французьких моралістів ХVI–XVII століть. Філософія любові. C. 466–469.
Шлегель, Ф. (1987). Естетика, філософія, критика. Мистецтво. 481 с.
