2.
Much morality does not lead to moral actions
. This can look out pretty strange, but by the humans, who, in contrast with the animals, are far beyond the immediate needs in life, or have "jumped over" or overdone their necessities, if you like it better so, out of much morality often come to the exactly opposite of it. This isn't a new moment and all of you surely have heard the phrase that "The path to
hell
is strewn with good intentions", i.e. only with intentions one can reach nothing, but out of strong wishes for something people begin to impose their views on other people, who, however, don't like them and begin to oppose, but the first ones, thinking that they are doing something in interest of the others, especially if it goes about "eternity", i.e. about "the other world", i.e. on religious questions, continue to insist, and in their insisting they come to wars and bloodshed. I personally don't think that there exists religion, that can boast that
in the name
of religion it has not come to human victims, but as if with greatest "asset" in this regard is "famous" the Christian religion. More than this, it gives very bad example to relatively tolerant Eastern religions, to the Islam, for example, how to defend your own convictions.
This is really so, because earlier, before Christianity, and also roughly to the 5th century of new era, in the Levant, i.e. in the eastern part of Mediterranean, or in the Arab world, has existed quite good
tolerance
to the other religions, if not for other reason then because there were many and different religions and people were simply
compelled
to tolerate one another. But then begin the Christian crusades, and even much later, somewhere in 19th century, Turkey, as a sufficiently civilized Arab country, which eagerly wants to enter in Europe, and them to be like the Europeans, and introduces family names (for there was said before: Assas, son of Osman, son of Pishman, for example), decides once to conduct the "known" massacre of the Armenians — because that is how they proceed on the West (and now try to say that on the West they don't do so!). Also in Ancient Rome around the new era was teeming with various cults, but nobody has taken them seriously, until the Christians have come and have given their negative contribution to the development of morality.
But in the same way we can "spit" also on the understandings of the common man, who has not agreed that his bride has had other lovers before him, no matter that every man allows himself to do this when he cans (and has money, of course), but only not his wife. Now, look, there is one very good definition (in my view) of the liking, or the
love
to something and somebody, it is in this to think that the object of your feelings is ...
perfect
, what means that it is nothing that you can, either add, or take out from it or him (or her)! You just stay there and enjoy, ah? Yeah, but when two people love one another, and this genuine, I don't speak about cases of pretence, then the first thing which each one wants to do is to
change
the other one according to his or her own views, and this is
exactly the opposite
of proper love. What means that we again overdo the things, even without any religion, just by ourselves, because that is how we are.
We can continue in this spirit mentioning also the Catholicism, about which the author has no direct feelings, but he has read some books, and somewhere in 15th century in the Western countries people have proclaimed "Better to the Turks than with the Pope!" Because the Catholics intervened in personal life of people in many cases
worse than the communists
(and this of revolutionary times, not of 70ies and 80ies years of former 20th century). Well, nowadays the Pope may "flatter" all nations, saying "Glory to Jesus Christ" on all possible languages, and does no longer instigate wars (because it is not at all necessary to incite Americans, they are always ready to fight with everybody, especially when is necessary to defend their understandings of "democracy"), but in the times of Columbus, for example, he was not so peaceful.
So that we, all people in general, really take too close to heart every possible
delusions
, and are ready to fight for them, naively believing that if somebody is ready to defend with weapons his view then it maybe is right — and if he becomes victorious then it surely is right —, while if he does not want to fight then in this way he states the weakness of his thesis. And isn't it so even nowadays? Well, but if one scratches a bit his "mug" he may scratch out the thought that the truthfulness of a given thesis
has nothing in common
with the power that stands behind it or defends it! The power or strength proves only the power, not the truthfulness of this, what is the cause for fighting. But such is our morality. More than this, we think that the duel-fight is a good thing, this lays in the Latin, but we may use contemporary Italian where
bello
means nice, good, but
bellico
is military. As also all militarists, i.e. the military people are very ... dear people, etymologically (the root "mili-" or "meli-" is very old and it means something nice, sweet, like honey or mead; in Russian this is exactly "
miliy
", what isn't away from your "mild")!
Now listen, as an idea, and at least before the invention of gunpowder, in this view was some reason, because the important thing is the
du
el, which proves who of the
individuals
is stronger, this work for the selection of the fittest, so
