Mikhail Weller - Love and the meaning of life (collection). Love About the book "Love and Passion" Mikhail Weller

I listened to an audiobook, read the author. Where I downloaded, they wrote in the reviews that Weller was "overexcited" by voicing his text. They complained that there was no direct strength to listen to such a thing. IMHO, there is a little, but it does not interfere. I was more surprised that sometimes "ge" sounds in the southern and Ukrainian manner. Weller emphasizes many times that he studied at Leningrad University, it is strange that he did not get rid of his talk. But in general, there are no complaints about audio, it was fascinating for me.

The book is a collection of essays in which Mikhail Weller gives his interpretation of famous stories about love, from the Bible and antiquity to Soviet literature of the 70s. That is, "Love and Passion" is literary lectures, I would call the genre that way. Weller places emphasis on something like this: "This is the first time in literature that this and that ..." It turns out that Weller traces which of the writers managed to present the theme of love under an unexpected sauce or achieve an unprecedented psychologism (Shakespeare). From what I have not read, I was interested in the romanceros about Side Campeador and The Mall Flanders by Daniel Defoe (although I would rather watch the film adaptation, I’m unlikely to master the novel). In general, in my opinion, listening to "Love and Passion" is useful for those who, for some reason, are left without reading and are delaying the choice of the next book. After Weller's lectures, he will definitely be tempted to read something.

About Russian literature, in my opinion, is somehow blurry. For example, about "Anna Karenina": this book, as Weller says, is roughly speaking about the destructiveness of adultery, but at the same time, about the fact that it is dishonest to live in a completely false marriage, like Anna's with Alexei Karenin. Now, if I undertook to talk about "Anna Karenina" precisely from the position of what kind of love line is good there, I would be talking about Kitty and Levin.

I was touched by the chapters on American literature of the first half of the 20th century. The way Mikhail Weller presents it makes us look at the stories of London and O'Henry as surprisingly humane works, in which there is both love and fortitude.

It is strange that from Knut Hamsun's novels "Pan" and not "Fruits of the Earth" got into the review.

According to M. Weller, it has been 45-50 years since nothing has been written that will leave a mark in literature (he is talking about works about love and passion). Weller grumbles. Just like in the pop song about "I'm tired, I want love, and you want sex." However, I remembered, figured it out, and agree that now nothing is published on the level of Bunin's stories, or the books do not receive coverage at all, and we will not find out about them. On the other hand, Weller mentions Gone with the Wind. What kind of love story is this? Was it a novelty, and does anyone seriously take Scarlet as a romantic heroine? Despite the fact that she is absolutely unprincipled, and when you read, it is more likely to be remembered how she dug a carrot for herself, gnaws at her unwashed and promises herself that from now on she will always eat tightly, and not her love for Ashley or someone else. That is, I want to say that Weller's selection, as well as his conclusions about the crumbling of the love genre, is tasteful. Scarlet is romantic to him, so maybe something really outstanding came out, and he clicked. But all the same the collection is curious.

Current page: 1 (total of the book has 3 pages) [available passage for reading: 1 pages]

Annotation

"Love!! Excites blood !! Who else wants a commissioner's body ?!

What about divine passion? Where are the libraries of romance novels? And how good the “Love” sections are in the countless collections of aphorisms “In the world of wise thoughts”! I read it and I got rich. I thought it over, appreciated it ... And still I didn’t get any smarter. I understood, I understood, I understood a lot, and still didn't understand a damn thing ... "

Mikhail Weller

Mikhail Weller

Love

Love!! Excites blood !! Who else wants a commissioner's body ?!

Either it is there or it is not. This is in a specific case.

In general, everyone knows that it exists, and no one knows what it is. Or else: everyone knows what it is, but no one knows how to say it. One can say one thing, another, a third, a fifth, and all this will be true, but not complete. Not exhaustive. Not all-encompassing.

There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our sages often dream about, and awakening briefly from dreams, they endow us with formulations that the ways of merging hearts are incomprehensible.

Although practitioners are empiricists, professional seducers and polygamists, they walk along these paths like on the sidewalk near their own home. Easy and carefree. Knowing all the twists and turns by heart.

There is love for homeland, parents, money, fame, jewelry, risk taking, wine, work, fun, and nose-picking. We will not consider these types of love now. As well as the tender and fruitless passion of sexual minorities: we let them enjoy equality and modestly avert our eyes to the other side - to the boundless side, where normal people are piled on top of each other.

The love of a woman and a man interests us.

Amazing things happened forever because of her. The knights performed feats in the name of the Lady, and Anthony betrayed the army and lost half the world and his life. Jose killed Carmen and Romeo killed himself. Paris kidnapped Elena - and thus destroyed his state in the Trojan War.

The stronger the love, the more broken wood is. There are always some obstacles, always some kind of suffering, and the more tragic the suffering, the more beautiful and heartfelt songs the poets compose. The old man was injured, injured, the passengers said.

The concept of "love" is given some magical meaning. If a person has violated the national debt in his personal interests - who is he? Generally a traitor. He acted badly. And if, out of irresistible and great love, he broke it? Also, in fact, a traitor, but he had a good reason, you need to understand him, take pity on him, sympathize with him. This is the great saga of Tristan and Isolde.

That is: the attraction reaches such a strength that it turns into some other quality. And this can justify everything. In an extreme case, you can execute if he has done something terrible - but still, the strength of his feelings inspires respect, sympathy, pity, envy. Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk district.

1. At the heart of love is the sexual instinct. This is understandable and does not merit clarification.

2. Love usually looks like a cultural superstructure on the sexual instinct. Man is not a cat to just copulate. He has speech, customs, ideas about the world - and so he experiences, utters different words about his feelings, performs different actions, demonstrating the strength of his feelings. That is, it usually seems that a stupid and rude person, about whom it is sometimes said “yes, it’s just an animal,” is not capable of such a high and beautiful feeling as love - just to satisfy his lust. Love requires some kind of spiritual subtlety, spirituality, so to speak, which distinguishes a person from an animal (this is the traditional point of view).

3. Do animals have love? One partner can protect the other, help in obtaining food, take care of a wound or illness. This, suppose, can be attributed to the same simple sexual instinct - concern for the appearance and survival of offspring.

Do you think that love in parrots or cats does not exist? Yes? And here's an elementary budgie in a cage, yearning alone, poor fellow, does not bite seeds and loses feathers. The veterinarian makes a conclusion: he wants a woman. Go to the bird market for the female.

They put a female in a cage - but he doesn't want her. He is not friendly, does not cover. They change the female. The picky groom doesn't want this one either. And only the next one begins to correct the feathers, she nibbles the seeds and takes seductive poses in front of her. I liked it.

Likewise, not every cat will be tolerated by a cat meowing in heat. Yelling, rolling, not eating for a week - and a boyfriend with a clawed paw in the face! She needs a man - but she does not want any first one that comes along. Maybe you like the first one - or maybe get rid of the second one.

Is it love or not? No, the highly spiritual moralist will angrily answer. This speaks only of the selectivity of the sexual instinct. It is not with just anyone to give offspring, but with a suitable one - and as for the appropriateness, nature dictates and directs.

Without any possibility of choice, any pair of cat-cat will eventually, not the first time, reconcile and start making kittens. So it can be said about a couple of people. And there is a choice - they choose.

We have a selective action of instinct. This is also elementary for now.

4. Sexual instinct is the design of biological energy, it is aimed at the existence and reproduction of a species. It is perfectly appropriate.

Yes? Now! A lot of variants in the animal kingdom are well known, which look like a completely "humanized" manifestation of love - this is the death of an individual who has lost a partner. The widowed swan gains height, folds its wings and crashes on the ground. The dove can do the same, or it can wither and die of melancholy. A parrot in a cage will not commit suicide, but it can fall into such melancholy that it will also die. Here is a wolf separated from a friend in a zoo: refuses to eat, lies motionless, his eyes are extinguished and the fur crawls in tufts. And this applies to many animals.

What is the expediency here? According to the logic of expediency - you must immediately look for another partner, and if he is not there - at least keep yourself in the best physical shape: in case of meeting, thereby increasing the chance of reproduction, or at least preserve yourself as a full-fledged and viable individual of your species. The instinct of life must command this.

The reproductive instinct may contradict the instinct of individual life. That is: the instinct for preservation of the species can dominate over the instinct for self-preservation. The view is more important! Yes - but this is if you sacrifice yourself for the sake of the offspring.

We state such a dominant of the sexual instinct in the animal kingdom, which looks anti-expedient: to die without any sense instead of life and possible future reproduction.

How so?

5. There are also other "inappropriate" manifestations of the sexual instinct in animals. Let's say homosexuality of drakes or monkeys. Or a dog trying to copulate with a cushion or your leg. And most clearly - the masturbation of the higher monkeys.

The animal doesn't think too much. It wants. He needs sensations. In this case, the need for sexual satisfaction dominates.

Children will not be born from this. From the point of view of reproduction, this is impractical. But for an individual it is expedient from the point of view of satisfying an irresistible need for sensations.

6. Expediency of reproduction - through an individual it manifests itself as the expediency of obtaining sexual sensations.

An animal, in the absence of "rational thinking", strives for these sensations much more "directly" than a person. He has nothing to replace sex with, he does not engage in sports and business and does not go to the cinema.

And these sensations and the need for them are so strong that there is nowhere stronger. After all, they are based on the basic life instinct of the entire species.

7. Therefore, the need for a partner is stronger than the need to live, in general, in principle. To paraphrase an old Roman proverb: you need to reproduce, you don't need to live.

The presence of a partner, the constant possibility of possessing him - for an animal is the most important moment of life, more valuable than individual existence. This "main" and "value" live in the animal at the level of sensations: there is a partner - desirable, good, positive, there is no partner - undesirable, bad, negative.

The individual seeks to experience one thing and not experience the other.

And what is a pair of good-bad sensations? This is a stick and a carrot. "Good" - nature beckons to this sensation with a carrot. “Bad” - drives the whip from this sensation to the opposite, to “good”.

“Good-bad” is a dialectical pair, one is defined through the other and one does not exist without the other. How would you know this is good if you never experienced anything else.

The "goodness" of having sex corresponds to the "badness" of not having sex. The abilities for these sensations are inherent in the structure of the central nervous system. And - such a thing - they are mutually necessary!

No pain - how do you know when you need to be treated? The absence of the concept of "disease" entails the absence of the concept of "health" - one is defined through opposition to the other. No hunger - how do you know to be satiated? If you don't suffer from a lack of sex - how do you know when to copulate?

We need a whip... Understand and remember this well. Through the whip, we feel the need for the carrot. Through deliverance from suffering, we cognize pleasure and happiness.

Unwillingness, avoidance, fear of the stick - there is an eternal and obligatory half of the need for a carrot, where the second half is positive stimuli: desire, striving, joy.

Does the consciousness of an individual strive to ensure that there is no whip at all, so that it does not even suspect about the whip? Oh no! It precisely strives to ensure that the stick is there, that there is knowledge about the possibility of whipping up, so that the threat of the stick is always present, for through the degree of pain in the stick, the degree of sweetness of the carrot is comprehended. Equivalent equality and interdependence.

In short: the individual could not experience such joy from having a partner if he could not experience such grief from his absence.

This is a kind of "mirror" complex of "two-sensation". The more one half grows, the more and the other grows in the same way. As a force of action and reaction, as two equal weights on a rope thrown over a block.

In such a way, he inspires the animal with the reproductive instinct that a partner is more important to him than life. And when an animal withers and dies without a partner, expediency is not in the presence or absence of a mechanical possibility of reproduction. This expediency, we repeat once again, is inherent and manifests itself at the level of psychological incentives, at the level of positive and negative feelings. And negative sensations are necessary here, because without them positive are impossible.

And now - there is no partner. They took it away, shot it, and ate it by the wolves. The mouse is simple, it will be comforted quickly, everyone hawala it, it needs to reproduce at any cost. But everyone's brains, even small ones, are arranged in a slightly different way. And a small budgie, much less fertile than a mouse, may not be comforted at all, and one morning it will lie in a cage with its paws up. Not to mention the swan.

Attenuation of sensory dominant. It's scientific. And in a simple way - there is no need to live anymore. Gone is what was most dear in life, the most valuable, more precious than its own existence.

So much for the "selective sex instinct." It's not that simple.

The metaphor "not to live without a loved one" becomes a simple reality. The value of a partner was determined by the power of positive feelings. And at the same time - by the power of possible negative sensations from his absence... This power is such that it interferes with the normal functioning of the entire central nervous system. The death of the body.

The suicide of a swan is an extremely concrete case of this general pattern for many creatures.

8. Now let's return to people with their eternal puzzle of the "mystery" of love.

Is love a prerequisite for reproduction? By no means, everyone will say, and the first rows will consist of men.

Is love a prerequisite for the social institution of marriage and family? Also no, the echo will repeat, and this time the first rows will consist of women.

Who has not heard and does not know that a marriage of convenience is more stable and stronger than a marriage of love. That friendship, like love, is preferable for marriage, rather than love, like friendship. That "marriage for love is white nights and dark days."

A commonality of views and goals, a common value orientation, as sociopsychologists say, is the most important thing for a long and lasting union. When people are sensible and sober, rationally, assess and analyze the situation, they will rather create a stable family. After all, character, mind, habits, mental qualities - they remain forever in the person with whom you live. And passion - sparks fly, but it stops - and what will be there, how will it be? The lover does not look into the future with a ruler and calculator, he dreams, he dreams and believes, but everything will be arranged, somehow, the main thing is to be together.

Readers, critics, sociopsychologists have long begun to ask an idiotic problem: all love novels end in a wedding, and you describe their life in fifteen years - there is little money, he hangs around friends, she is slovenly and does not manage the house well, the first fire of love has cooled down, nothing enviable.

And their friends, who got married without such "ah-love", live no worse than them, but rather better: without scandals, without disappointment, and life is better organized, and a career is more successful.

Naturally: friends, entering into a marriage of convenience, thought about its convenience for creating their own home and having children, for material and career success. To get money from a dowry, to find family ties at the top, etc. You cannot write off the material base in any way. For those in love, chase paradise in a hut in a flash! And now the love passed, but the hut remained. And calculating friends in the palace.

And what's more, what's more! You can fall in love with a person who is not able to have children! How many childless couples in love, standing in a long-term queue for the adoption of someone else's child! And after all, the one of the two spouses who is not barren himself, but has long been aware of the infertility of the other, continues to love him, if the marriage was for love, pity, care, take care of. But he has the opportunity to divorce and enter into another marriage, where there will be children and money.

And the girls who love famous elders! And those who continue to courteous wives or husbands who have become hopeless cripples as a result of accidents or illness! ..

So, love is not only unnecessary for reproduction and marriage. Love can contradict its very foundation, its very biological essence, on which it is based - it can contradict childbirth.

9. Good. Love is a sensual beginning, not a rational one. And the feeling is not guided by a rational forecast of the desired results - by the mind to calculate the health of future children and the material well-being of the family. Feeling is guided by the sum of obvious signs, which are perceived as a guarantee that future children will be all right. Then - the basis is sex appeal ...

A woman should be slim, beautiful, with large breasts and wide hips. I am ready to fulfill qualitatively the mission of nature - to give birth to children. A man should be tall, muscular, with powerful shoulders and arms - a breadwinner and protector. He must be strong, brave, energetic, and also harmless to be smart - a male of the first grade, will succeed in life, and his children will be good. It is desirable for her to be meek, affectionate, loyal, economic, not to give to the first comer - a reliable keeper of the family hearth.

This is roughly how vulgar positivism considers the appropriateness of sexual characteristics and characteristics.

Indeed, there is an increased demand for such individuals, competition of applicants - it would seem, it would seem ... Then everyone should love the most beautiful, and no one should love the most ugly. And then what? The ugly will die out, and the beautiful will multiply, so much the better for humanity as a whole. But in fact, this does not happen.

The ugly also want to reproduce, and they do it successfully. Not only that: they also love each other, and no weaker than the beautiful ones. Moreover, and what is characteristic:

A beautiful couple is very rare. Usually only one of the two is good. And everyone gossip behind his back: "Such a man, but anyone will go for him, what he found in this mudra," or: "Yes, she could grab anyone for herself, what this deadhead gave up to her ..."

If a handsome man has the opportunity of any choice, why does he not unconditionally choose the most beautiful one as a partner? Do the other merits outweigh? And if there are no special advantages there - as often happens?

And why, finally, the beautiful are just as often (if not more often!) Unhappy in love as the ugly ones? ..

And then the sages shake their heads and talk about the inscrutability of love.

But let's wait to shake our heads so that it doesn't fall off. It is not for pumping it, it is for thinking with it.

10. Here is a premarital relationship: a woman loves a man, and he only allows himself to be loved, he is not bad with her, and nothing more. She is beautiful, sexy, smart, decent, this connection is pleasant and flattering to him, and he understands perfectly well that she will be a wonderful wife, well, in all respects, she is satisfied. But he does not love her, and that's it. And he doesn’t really want to. And time passes, and they part, and live happily in marriage with others, and now, years later, he remembers her and wonders: why didn't he love her? Why, she was the best woman in his life. And he understood this even then. But I didn’t want to ...

But I would be happy with her, she was beautiful in bed, and good to everyone. Yes, he clearly should have been better with her than with those who followed, and than with his current wife. Remembers, dreams and sighs. Ah, good. Eh, again. That's bad luck, I didn't want to.

In a similar way, women cast off worthy admirers, so that later sometimes they reflect on their own unluckiness and the vicissitudes of love.

Summary. In conditions of complete freedom of choice, a person chooses ("loves") not ideal and not the best (and in his own opinion not the best !!!) partner. And he says: "Not nice for good, but good for cute". And he suffers some physical and moral shortcomings of the chosen one, but the rejected one did not have these shortcomings.

11. The most common thing: she doesn’t love him, and there is nothing to reproach him for, and it’s as if she herself is ashamed that she rejects him, and in all sincerity she says: “You are very good, I don’t know anyone better than you, but … ”This“ but ”means: you are good to everyone, but I don’t love you. And I don't love anyone now. I need something wrong. Or the second option: but I love Vaska from the next house, he looks worse than you in everything, but people simply do not understand him, but in fact he is good, but I do not know how to explain it. And she is eager to marry him, and he will show her marital happiness, she will have a mistress on the side, and a black eye.

And with the stupid Vaska, she will occasionally be extremely happy, and more often she will sob and curse her fate. But he will live. And with you, so good, everything will be smooth, but it will be nauseated by your goodness, and there will be no such happiness.

What is the meaning of such love? Sages shrug their shoulders and pull their beards.

12. Do you think an attractive and very temperamental woman will opt for a man who in bed will provide her with a heaven in diamonds? If. More often, she will fall in love with someone with whom (oh, he has a lot of his own merits, of course!) She is more and more sexually dissatisfied. And she has neurosis. And she masturbates. And he instructs her husband's horns. And he lives and loves !! For the soul, for the money? If. As usual, it is not clear why. Either she considers him handsome, or dashing and brave, or noble and defenseless, in need of care and affection, or an unrecognized genius, she puts up with the flaws that are visible to her, and no one can see the advantages she sees except herself.

And on it such eagles were drying! Ay, love, where is your expediency? ..

13. Do you think a man will marry a woman close to his ideal as a result? See point 10. He will almost always arrange himself to be uncomfortable with the disadvantages of his wife compared to the desirable advantages of the woman he might have. And not in relaxed dreams it could be, but really easily and uncomplicated. Or already was. This can apply to both the physical and spiritual data of the chosen one.

Why didn’t you fall in love with another, you bastard, didn’t marry another? Of the two, one: either she didn’t like (after the fact, I liked it), or “love didn’t work out”. And there will always be reasons and explanations!

14. Let's summarize what we've got so far:

For reproduction, love is not necessary, but it can be harmful.

For marriage, love is optional, but sometimes harmful.

In love, the best possible partner is rarely chosen.

In love, they rarely get the happiness of life that they want.

15. Love is evil, you will fall in love with a goat. This folk wisdom wonderfully reflects the inexpediency of a love choice. On the other hand, humanists humanely assert that every person is worthy of love. They are also right, humanists - the experience of practice is on their side.

In a big city, there is a wide choice, and we can assume that your chosen one is one in a million. And in the village there is little choice. And you need to get married - family, household, how can you live without it. And the guys are all nine people. So, and there is no one to love? No, of course, if the chosen one seems to be the only one in the world, and the world consists of eight more competitors, then the size of this world does not matter.

You may not meet your love in Moscow, and find it in a geological party, say, where there are three women, and all three are worse than captured Romanians, in Moscow you would never have looked at them. Conditions, circumstances, cooperation, getting to know a person, etc., etc.

How many loves began on the beaches and on camping trips, at dances and parties. Well, the conditions are favorable. Wouldn't this beach have existed - and would never have fallen in love with anyone?

In whom does love live - in the lover or in the beloved? In a loving one, right? The point is in the subject of the feeling, not in the object. A million in the city or ten in the countryside - the choice is arbitrary.

How many cases have happened when a girl fell in love with someone in absentia, and then the wrong one was "substituted" for him, a mistake happened, waited on the square for the hero, and a crook stuck in - and bam! the rogue received the whole dose of love, at first intended not for him at all, but when love had already formed into a feeling for a certain object, it was too late to replace it, the original chosen one was late, the train left, the place was taken.

The object is random, the choice is arbitrary, the range of choice is very wide. Success in love in many ways falls under the universal recipe for success - in the right place at the right time. Choose from who is.

The ability to love, the ability to love - lies in the most loving. A person has a need for such a feeling, who does not know this. And the feeling is looking for the object of its application. It does not obey the mind, it has its own laws, it is difficult for him to wait for a "worthy" object in a "conserved" state. Unbearable! So the devil knows who sometimes turns up.

To multiply, you say, is it time? See point 14.

16. Love is rarely mutual. Look around, listen to friends, refer to the experience of world literature and history. What is there to prove, this is a fact, not an advertisement. This is how it works. The more we love a woman, the less she is to us, as the classic aptly put it.

... And mutual love is rarely happy and prosperous. Some obstacles, separations, moral norms and laws, insurmountable barriers, their own and other people's children and parents, orders of the authorities and state borders.

What's the matter???!!!

17. Now back to the white swans. And ask ourselves what love is.

Two want to be with each other, caress each other, sleep with each other, give birth and raise children together, make good, see the world and talk about everything in the world. This is Love? Not yet. All components are present, but love may not be here. Mutual attraction, sympathy, inclination, commonality of views, the natural need to have your own home and your family, children, a loved one. You can love a child and not love his father (or mother). Want to sleep, but you can sleep with the other. Want to talk, but you can talk to others.

And if they refuse you? Did not work out? Sadly, the world hasn't turned upside down. Is it possible to replace the candidate with another? It is possible, especially if the one is even better. In general, there are many good and interesting things in life.

It seems that love is - but (this is very important! In principle!) A person does not go beyond his individual, egoistic needs and desires. His feeling does not go beyond focusing on himself... His feeling serves the interests of his personality. It is rational: whatever he wants is natural, useful and pleasant. It is pleasant to take care of the other, and sacrificing some pleasures for the sake of another is not difficult, this is natural, it is part of the general structure of life.

Love is that degree of feeling when it reaches irrational power... A person's roof is going down. He is, as it were, in a state of constant passion. The focus of excitation of the central nervous system is so active that it becomes a permanent mental dominant. This is completely akin to what psychiatrists call "the syndrome of an overvalued idea" - a man invented some kind of nonsense, but he is excited as if he made a world discovery, sincerely thinks so and only for this reason he lives ... the poor fellow. A true lover is a paranoid, a maniac, what to take from him.

And the dominant of the central nervous system subjugates and extinguishes other foci. I don’t want to eat, I don’t want to drink, I don’t want to sleep. Nothing can be distracted by anything. Watching a movie is not interesting, traveling is not interesting, working and making money is not interesting, and all thoughts are only about your love and your beloved.

What to take from him? The court does not even execute a madman, send him to a cell for treatment, an unfortunate one.

Nobody can replace a loved one, you don't want anything with another. As noted long ago, "a lover is the most chaste man, he needs only one woman."

If everything is good and well, then love cannot be distinguished from just a successful mutually sympathetic union, without love there may even be more common attentiveness, affection and politeness. But if something is bad, then love is where sparks fly and walls shake. "If you never beat me, how will I know that you love me?" The Papuasca asked innocently. No, not a redneck-drunk who is always a redneck, but one who can fill up with flowers and blow off the specks of dust, and suddenly a quarrel - and a temperamental Italian hits the dishes on the floor, and his head against the wall, and the phlegmatic Udmurt goes to the barn to hang himself.

The most common characteristic of love: "I cannot live without him / her." And everything is immediately clear.

“- Can you jump off the bridge for me? - Yes! - Can you commit a crime for me? - Yes!" etc.

Would honest Jose have gone from a soldier to a robber if he had not loved Carmen? Would he have killed her if he had not loved? Yes, in figs, she would have surrendered to him, would have drunk any girl after the service and filled up in the meadow.

Suicide because of unhappy love is common. They hang themselves, shoot themselves, throw themselves off bridges and onto rails, drink sleeping pills, vinegar essence and rat poison. God!

Murder out of unhappy love, usually in a situation of jealousy - which is more common. On the street and in the kitchen, with a knife and dumbbells, deliberately and suddenly - volumes of criminal chronicles.

Is there anything rational in this? Is that the moment of deliverance from suffering.

And it does nothing with itself - it can fade away without any outside interference. Metabolism is disrupted, immunity is reduced, depression does not go away, a person becomes a prey of tuberculosis, pneumonia, a stomach ulcer develops and everything up to heart attacks.

The feeling becomes self-contained. A person from an egoist turns into a slave of his feelings, serves him, obeys him. Inexpressible bliss is his reward, terrible suffering up to death - punishment.

This is more than your selfish interests. It's bigger than yourself. Beloved for you is more significant and more important than yourself.

18. The degree of feeling can be difficult to determine through positive manifestations. Well, affection, a joint pastime, everything is good and excellent, but there are other joys and values. But through negative manifestations - through suffering, if it is impossible to be with a loved one, to share your feeling with him, to possess him - the degree of feeling is determined very clearly.

Without suffering, a person could not determine how much he loves, and whether he loves at all.

Everyone can give a lot of examples: when everything was good, he / she did not appreciate what was, it was not given special, overvalued importance, but how he lost, it became clear how much this feeling means to a person. Yeah.

19. In an effort to get rid of suffering, a person develops great mental efforts to make his love happy, shared, to be with and to have loved. The "whip" works. And here happiness is defined through its opposite, as deliverance from suffering. The greater the suffering, the greater the happiness of getting rid of it. (Therefore, the "pessimist" Schopenhauer considered happiness in general as a negative category: suffering is always ready as a stimulus for any action and for the fulfillment of any desire, and happiness is just getting rid of suffering.)

20. Therefore, many people often declare, or even really try to avoid love - so as not to expose themselves to possible suffering. “I don’t want to suffer anymore,” this is the usual argument of a girl who once burned herself with unhappy love.

But it depends very little on the person. And in the end, it doesn't depend at all. It is possible by a volitional effort to suppress in oneself the fragile shoots of just nascent love, not even love, but only its possibilities, which emerge from the first steps towards rapprochement. And cohabit with equal pleasure, without scandals and suffering. Time will pass - and another person, in a different situation, will make you feel this way. And for strong and strong-willed natures it will be even worse: suppressed emotions sooner or later will creep out with depression, nervous breakdown, physiological disorders, and suffering on a more abstract topic: the meaninglessness of life, the absence of a goal, the inability to saturate life with positive emotions - in short, in a person's life there is no turns out to be that very happiness.

And there is a partner, and money, and everything is all right, but a man rushes about inside himself, and everything is not good for him.

Did you not want happiness through suffering? So you get suffering without happiness. With this case, nature will not rust. Have you decided to deceive her? Balda.

21. Each thing is worth exactly as much as paid for it. A wonderful thesis. Like all commonplace truths, it has been confirmed for centuries.

Love and passion Mikhail Weller

(No ratings yet)

Title: Love and Passion

About the book "Love and Passion" Mikhail Weller

Love and passion through the eyes of a lumberjack, hunter-fisherman, cattle-driver, journalist and teacher. A native of Ukraine, Mikhail Weller, before becoming a professional writer, tried about 30 professions on himself.

Here are collected and deeply analyzed the loudest and most famous love dramas that have happened to people for thousands of years and sung by writers and poets of different times.

Why does a person fall in love? How does it suffer? How is it that the greatest feeling a person is capable of becomes for him the greatest tragedy? You can read about this in the work and draw your own conclusions. For example, Mikhail Weller believes that people are naturally prone to suffering - they, along with bliss, remain unchanged despite the era. So maybe it's not love at all, but the state of the soul?

An excellent book about what happens when two strong characters collide, about unpredictable turns of fate and fireworks of passions. The author describes various love stories, examining them through the prism of famous works of art. And all this with an ironic and sarcastic overtones and an easy storytelling style.

It's amazing that no one before the author has managed to make such an analysis! It turned out just great! The author puts on the shelves and in an accessible form all types of relationships between a man and a woman from the time of Adam and Eve to the present day. A kind of historical almanac of the world's most significant love works.

Most of the books touched upon are known to the reader. But there are some that you will hear about for the first time. Take note and read at your leisure. Mikhail Weller will not give bad advice.

The author seriously believes that there are no good works of love in modern literature. No, and it cannot be. And here the reader has the right to disagree. Maybe the author has not read all the books or his concept of love is specific. A matter of taste, as they say.

"Love and Passion" leaves a good impression. The reading will be useful to readers of all ages. For those who are older, it will cause nostalgia, for the young - as an excursion into the history of human relationships. The author encourages philosophical reflections and a reassessment of life values. Why not?

On our website about books lifeinbooks.net you can download for free without registration or read the online book "Love and Passion" by Mikhail Weller in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and real pleasure from reading. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, find out the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and advice, interesting articles, thanks to which you yourself can try your hand at literary skill.

Love!! Excites blood !! Who else wants a commissioner's body ?!

Either it is there or it is not. This is in a specific case.

The love of a woman and a man interests us.

1. At the heart of love is the sexual instinct. This is understandable and does not merit clarification.

That is, it usually seems that a stupid and rude person, about whom it is sometimes said “yes, it’s just an animal,” is not capable of such a high and beautiful feeling as love - just to satisfy his lust. Love requires some kind of spiritual subtlety, spirituality, so to speak, which distinguishes a person from an animal (this is the traditional point of view).

...

Here is an introductory snippet of the book.
Only part of the text is open for free reading (restriction of the copyright holder). If you liked the book, the full text can be obtained on the website of our partner.

Mikhail Weller

Love and the meaning of life

Three kinds of desirable faces

Love!! Excites blood !! Who else wants a commissioner's body ?!

Either it is there or it is not. This is in a specific case.

The love of a woman and a man interests us.

1. At the heart of love is the sexual instinct. This is understandable and does not merit clarification.

We have a selective action of instinct. This is also elementary for now.

4. Sexual instinct is the design of biological energy, it is aimed at the existence and reproduction of a species. It is perfectly appropriate.

We state such a dominant of the sexual instinct in the animal kingdom, which looks anti-expedient: to die without any sense instead of life and possible future reproduction.

How so?

The animal doesn't think too much. It wants. He needs sensations. In this case, the need for sexual satisfaction dominates.

6. Expediency of reproduction - through an individual it manifests itself as the expediency of obtaining sexual sensations.

And these sensations and the need for them are so strong that there is nowhere stronger. After all, they are based on the basic life instinct of the entire species.

7. Therefore, the need for a partner is stronger than the need to live, in general, in principle. To paraphrase an old Roman proverb: you need to reproduce, you don't need to live.

The individual seeks to experience one thing and not experience the other.

“Good-bad” is a dialectical pair, one is defined through the other and one does not exist without the other. How would you know this is good if you never experienced anything else.