tried to despise her; but now he felt so sorry for her that there was no room for reproach in his soul. - He is here now, tell him... so that he just... forgives me. - She stopped and began to breathe even more often, but did not cry. “Yes... I’ll tell him,” Pierre said, “but...” He didn’t know what to say. Natasha, apparently, was frightened by the thought that could come to Pierre. “No, I know it’s over,” she said hastily. - No, this can never happen. I am tormented only by the evil that I did to him. Just tell him that I ask him to forgive, forgive, forgive me for everything... - She shook all over and sat down on a chair. A never-before-experienced feeling of pity filled Pierre’s soul. “Let’s say no more, my friend,” said Pierre. His meek, gentle, sincere voice suddenly seemed so strange to Natasha. He took and kissed her hand. “Stop it, stop it, your whole life is ahead of you,” he told her. - For me? No! “Everything is lost for me,” she said with shame and self-humiliation. - Is everything gone? - he repeated. - If I were not me, but the most beautiful, smartest and best man in the world and if I were free, I would be on my knees right now asking for your hand and love. For the first time after many days, Natasha cried with tears of gratitude and tenderness and, looking at Pierre, left the room. Answer the following questions: 1) how does Pierre Bezukhov feel about Natasha Rostova? 2) why would Bezukhov marry her? 2) what feelings are reflected in this fragment? please give me complete answers, I really need it...
Please help me answer questions about the novel War and Peace! 1) Why did Pierre Bezukhov and A. Bolkonsky look like strangers in Scherer’s living room?2) What are the living standards of young representatives High society?
3) The main events of the first volume.
4) What did Maria Dmitrievna give to Natasha for her birthday?
5) Who did N. Rostova dance with on her birthday?
6) From whom did M. Bolkonskaya first learn about A. Kuragin’s upcoming matchmaking?
7) What kind of injury did N. Rostov receive and in what battle?
8) Did Pierre propose to Helene to marry him?
9) Why didn’t Tushin and his battery retreat?
10) Why didn’t M. Bolkonskaya accept Kuragin’s offer?
11) How did the Battle of Austrerlitz end?
28 questions on volume 3 "War and Peace". Due by tomorrow, please answer!!! Need it by tomorrow, please answer!!!If you answer, please indicate the question number.
1. Where was Emperor Alexander when he received the news that Napoleon’s troops had crossed the border?
2. Why did Prince Andrey search for Anatoly Kuragin on all fronts?
3. Why does Andrei Bolkonsky decide to serve in the army rather than at headquarters?
4. How did Nikolai Rostov distinguish himself in the case at Ostrovny?
5. How did Natasha cope with her story with Anatole?
6. Why Petya Rostov asks to join military service?
7. Which of the novel’s heroes secretly made their way to Red Square to watch the Tsar’s arrival?
8. Why didn’t old Prince Bolkonsky allow his family to be taken away from
Bald Mountains?
9. Which of the heroes brings the news to Bald Mountains that Smolensk has been surrendered?
10. What two opposing circles were created in St. Petersburg at the beginning of the war?
11. Which of the heroes of the novel met Napoleon and easily talked with him, and then returned to the Russian camp?
12. How did old Prince Bolkonsky die?
13. Who helps Princess Marya out of a difficult situation when the peasants refused to take her to Moscow? How did this happen?
14. Why does Pierre, a purely civilian, go to the Battle of Borodino?
15. What did Pierre and Bolkonsky talk about on the eve of the Battle of Borodino?
16. What kind of person does Tolstoy show Napoleon in the scene with the portrait of his son?
17. How did Pierre show himself during the Battle of Borodino, while on the Raevsky battery?
18. How does Tolstoy show Napoleon and Kutuzov during the Battle of Borodino?
19. How was Prince Andrey wounded?
20. Who, according to the author of the novel, is driving force stories?
21. Through the eyes of which hero does Tolstoy show the military council in Fili?
22. Who is Helen going to marry?
23. For what purpose does Pierre remain in Moscow and disappear from his home?
24. How did it happen that the Rostov family gave their carts to the wounded?
25. Who gives the order to the crowd to kill Vereshchagin?
26. Why, according to the author, did a fire break out in Moscow, abandoned by Russian troops and occupied by the French?
27. Who told Natasha that the wounded Bolkonsky was traveling with them in the convoy?
28. How did Pierre get captured?
Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) is considered a forerunner of the Enlightenment. His main work is the Historical and Critical Dictionary, which became a bestseller of its time. In this dictionary, he tried to summarize the development of various Christian concepts, collected various approaches to the knowledge of God, His description and came to the conclusion: since these concepts themselves are contradictory and do not agree with each other, any person has the right to profess any form of Christianity. None of them has the right to force people to be only its supporters, since each of these faiths is equally reliable and provable. Bayle was one of the first philosophers to put forward the principle of freedom of conscience.
The very idea of the “Dictionary,” new for its time, was also based on the principle that the publication of all knowledge would somehow change people’s opinions on certain, in particular religious, truths and would help improve the moral climate in society. That is, the publication of the “Historical and Critical Dictionary” was based precisely on the educational idea.
Bayle put forward another idea for which he was highly regarded in courses on so-called scientific atheism: he was the first person in the history of philosophy to argue that a society of atheists was possible and would even be moral. Before Bayle, people always took it for granted that the denial of God leads to the denial of morality and that such a society, if built, would be self-destructive. Bayle, in his Dictionary, tried to prove that such a society was not only possible, but would also be much more moral than a society based on the principles of religious morality. In addition, there are natural mechanisms of morality: fear of shame, benefit, etc. “Fear of the deity and love of him are not always a more effective cause than anything else. The love of glory, the fear of shame, death or torture, the hope of obtaining a profitable position act on some people with greater force than the desire to please God and the fear of breaking his commandments,” writes P. Bayle in the Dictionary (1, vol. 2 , p. 143).
§ 2. Jean Meslier
Another forerunner of the Enlightenment is Jean Meslier (1664–1729). This was a rural priest who lived in the province of Champagne, although the parishioners did not know the true views of their pastor. After his death, notes were discovered that were published not without the participation of Voltaire, who gave them the name “Testament”, under which they went down in history.
From the “Testament” it follows that Meslier, it turns out, was an ardent atheist, materialist and revolutionary. Perhaps, of all the enlighteners, he was closest to Marxism. Neither the materialists Diderot and Holbach, nor the revolutionary Rousseau can compare with Meslier in this regard.
Meslier proceeded from the fact that the people were burdened with suffering. Evil reigns in the world; The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The culprits of the poverty of the poor are the rich, who rob and humiliate the people. Therefore, it is necessary to establish justice in the world on our own, without relying on God’s will, especially since, according to Meslier, God does not exist.
Since the basis of the origin of evil is property and political inequality, it is necessary to get rid of it, since people are equal by nature. To do this, people need to be enlightened, because they are dark and downtrodden, they believe in various fictions and superstitions and do not know that their happiness is in their own hands.
Among the superstitions, the Christian religion stands out primarily, invented by the rich to keep the people in obedience. Without any religion (and Christianity is best suited for this) it is difficult to keep the people in line. Therefore, it is necessary to fight against religion, especially Christianity. Christianity is a fiction, it is invented by people, therefore, through educational means, it is possible to ensure that people learn the truth about Christianity.
Meslier does not stop at educational reformism; he understands that the rich will hold on to their power, and considers the revolutionary struggle of the poor against their enslavers necessary.
Among the arguments against the existence of God, Meslier identifies the following. They say that God exists because the world is perfect and there is beauty in it. However, Meslier argues that beauty is a concept inherent in the material world and is its property, therefore it is absolutely not necessary to invent a certain source of this beauty. To the argument that if the world is perfect, then it was created by a perfect being, God, Meslier objects that this is untenable, since it presupposes an infinite chain: the perfection of God means the presence of a criterion of perfection to which God submits, therefore, if God is perfect, then He also demands his Creator, etc. It turns out to be an endless meaningless chain.
Meslier also rejects Thomas Aquinas's proof of the first impulse (for matter cannot have the principle of motion in itself): matter in itself has the beginning of motion, so there is no need to assume the existence of any motionless Prime Mover.
Regarding the soul as an immaterial entity directly given to us, which proves the existence of the immaterial world, Meslier argues that the soul is also material, it is simply subtle matter and dissipates with death. Therefore, nothing exists in the world except matter, everything else is just its properties.
The hero of L.N. Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace” (1863 1869). Prototypes of the image of P.B. served by the Decembrists who returned from Siberia, whose lives provided Tolstoy with material for his initial plan, which gradually transformed into an epic about... ... Literary heroes
Pierre- ah, m. Pierre. Gallicized Russian male name Peter. Pierre Bezukhov, hero of L. Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. It's such a relief, Pierre, to see you here with Tata. Borovskaya Nobles. daughter 314. And I don’t want to see his governor in my house... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- ... Wikipedia
Sergei Bondarchuk as Pierre Bezukhov Pyotr Kirillovich (Pierre) Bezukhov is one of central characters Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. Illegitimate son Count Kirill Vladimirovich Bezukhov (his prototype chancellor Russian Empire Count Bezborodko) ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see War and Peace (meanings). War and Peace ... Wikipedia
War and Peace ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see War and Peace (meanings). Opera War and Peace Composer Sergei Prokofiev Author(s) libretto Sergei Prokofiev, Mira Mendelson Prokofieva ... Wikipedia
A famous writer who achieved something unprecedented in history literature of the 19th century V. glory. In his face they powerfully united great artist with the great moralist. T.’s personal life, his stamina, tirelessness, responsiveness, animation in defending... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Tolstoy L. N. TOLSTOY Lev Nikolaevich (1828 1910). I. Biography. R. in Yasnaya Polyana, former Tula lips. Came from ancient noble family. T.’s grandfather, Count Ilya Andreevich (prototype of I. A. Rostov from “War and Peace”), went bankrupt towards the end of his life.… … Literary encyclopedia
Books
- , Daniel Rancourt-Laferriere. Daniel Rancourt-Laferriere is a modern American literary critic and Russian specialist. His book includes works dedicated to the most famous Russian writers: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Dostoevsky,...
- Russian literature and psychoanalysis, Rancourt-Laferriere D.. Daniel Rancourt-Laferriere - American literary critic, Russian specialist. His book includes works different years dedicated to our most famous classic writers: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol,...
Teilhard uses the term “metaphysical” in the sense of “striving for the knowledge of being with its principles, principles, causal mechanisms, etc.”, as opposed to “phenomenological”, that is, limited to descriptive tasks. The metaphysical approach, as Teilhard understands it, answers the question “why,” while the phenomenological approach answers the question “how.” Teilhard resorts to rejecting “metaphysics” (a technique borrowed from the positivists) in cases where he seeks to avoid discussing ontological issues. The choice of one or another ontology to suit the “phenomenalistic” picture of facts is left to the reader’s discretion (see note 15). At the same time, Teilhard also allows for anthropomorphization, going back to the medieval and Renaissance (Paracelsus) picture of the world, the parallelism between the “phenomenon of man” and the “phenomenon of space” as between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Back in 1931, Teilhard formulated his “long-discovered” principle that “only based on man can man decipher (dechiffrer) the world” (R. Teilhard de Chardin. Images et paroles. Paris, 1966, p. 98). While declaring the phenomenological nature of his method, Teilhard, nevertheless, in reality (as a natural scientist) cannot help but use causal explanations. Thus, he is by no means content with “describing” the fact that traces of fire and processed tools were found near the fossil remains of Sinanthropus, but draws conclusions about the reason for their appearance: the lifestyle and level of organization of Sinanthropus (rejecting at the same time alternative causal explanations: see . note 20). Another deviation from phenomenology is the frequent one in Teilhard, especially in last sections"human phenomena", causal explanations coming from the "innerness of things" and "radial energy". Thus, Marx’s remark (regarding Hegel’s phenomenology) is applicable to Teilhard’s “anti-metaphysical” approach that in phenomenology, as a possibility, “is already contained in a hidden form ... uncritical positivism and equally uncritical idealism” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 42, p. 157). - Here and further approx. translator
Teilhard's idea of the atomism of Epicurus (341–270 BC), the ancient Greek materialist philosopher, is inaccurate. Epicurus's atoms are indivisible, as is assumed by the etymology of the word "atom", and as is thought by all ancient materialists, but Epicurus does not consider his atoms to be inert. He introduced into the doctrine of atoms the thesis about the arbitrary deviation (“clinamen”) of atoms from moving in a straight line and based on this thesis the doctrine of the inevitability of the generation of countless worlds by atoms. Marx emphasized the dialectical nature of the idea of “deviation,” which expelled inertia from ideas about the atom thanks to this. that in this idea “... the contradiction inherent in the concept of the atom is realized” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 40, p. 176).
Teilhard alludes to the idea of the inexhaustibility of the atom, formulated by the French philosopher and naturalist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) in his posthumously published Pensées. Pascal takes the tick as “one of the smallest creatures known to people”, shows the most complex structure of its body despite its tiny size, identifies smaller and smaller parts in this organism, down to “drops of juices”, “gas bubbles” and atoms and, finally, he suggests: “Let a person imagine innumerable Universes in this atom, and each has its own firmament, and their planets, and their own Earth, and the same relationships as in the visible world. and on this Earth - its own animals and, finally, its own ticks, which again can be divided, without knowing rest and time, until your head is spinning from the second miracle, as amazing in its smallness as the first in its enormity" ( B. Pascal. Translated by E. Lipetskaya. In the book: B. Pascal. Thoughts. M., 122). here he means the infinite size of the Universe, in comparison with which a person and everything that he can embrace with his thought is only an “atom”.
Judging by the appeal in this section to ancient natural philosophy (cf. note 2), Teilhard is referring here to the vortices of Democritus (460–370 BC), resulting from the repulsion and collision of atoms. However, it is possible that Teilhard is also recalling here the doctrine of vortices of his compatriot R. Descartes (1596–1650), which was very popular (as the basis of mechanics) in France even in post-Newtonian times. The vortices in Descartes's view actually had a force or energy character and gave rise to planets, comets, the "sphere of fixed stars" and almost (using Teilhard's expression) "everything that has a form in the world."
About the “two abysses” of B. Pascal, i.e. about the infinity of the Universe and the infinite divisibility of matter, see above, note. 3.
Pari passu (lat.) in the same rhythm, in parallel, at the same time.
In this dispute, which arose over competition theme Paris Academy of Sciences in 1858 (“To experimentally illuminate the question of spontaneous generation with new data”), L. Pasteur (1822–1895), the founder of modern biochemistry and immunology, proved that whenever the possibility of penetration of bacteria, protozoa, etc. was eliminated . into a pre-sterilized plant or animal infusion, no organisms were born in it. In the experiment of Pasteur’s opponent, doctor and embryologist F.-A. Pouchet, sterilization was not completed, which explains the “positive” result he obtained in a number of cases, allegedly indicating spontaneous generation in modern conditions. In the course of his experiments, Pasteur not only refuted this result, but also developed a method for quantifying the comparative richness (in terms of the number of species and individuals) of the microfauna of different areas. Attempts have been made repeatedly to unfoundedly extend the data obtained by Pasteur to spontaneous generation in general.
Teilhard's assumption is unfounded. In a number of experiments undertaken during the controversy with Pouchet (see previous remark), Pasteur took special precautions against the “spoilage” (by sterilization) of the air samples taken.
This refers to the “paradox of transformism”, revealed by Teilhard several years earlier. how he began to write "The Phenomenon of Man". The beginning, the “petiole” of each phylum or evolutionary trunk is not yet its typical component and is usually merged in the perception of a paleontologist or evolutionist with the source phylum. or it generally escapes the attention of the researcher due to the scarcity of the material that has survived and has come down to us (R. Teilhard de Chardin. Le paradoxe transformiste. "Rev. Quest. Sci.". 1925, No. 7. p. 53–80).
Here Teilhard refers to the idea of the French phenomenological philosopher. mathematician and economist Angoine Augustin Cournot (1801–1877). set out in his “Essay on the foundations of our knowledge and the features philosophical criticism"("Essai sur les fondements de nos connaissance et sur les caracteres de la critique philosophique", Paris. 1851).
This refers to the evolutionary-paleontological direction created in the USA by Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857–1953), the author of many works on the phylogeny of mammals. The idea quoted in the text was expressed by Osborne in the 10-30s of the 20th century, when he moved away from the Lamarckism he initially defended and attempted to synthesize (to explain evolution) vitalistic and energetic concepts with elements of neo-Darwinism. Osborne's concept of "aristogenes" or "progress genes" served as one of the sources of Teilhard's doctrine of radial energy.
In his general scheme of evolution, Teilhard draws heavily on the work of early French geneticist Lucien Queneau (1866–1951). who developed the concept of pre-adaptation and “anti-randomness” in contrast to Darwin’s supposedly based only on the factor of “randomness” natural selection. Teilhard's scheme by Queneau was accepted by almost all French evolutionists as classical in the 30s and 40s and has the advantage over many other “phylogenetic trees” that it illustrates the multiplicity of directions in the development of land and air in various evolutionary trunks of the animal world. In § 2 “The rise of consciousness” Chapter III(“Mother Earth”) of this section, Teilhard uses Queneau’s concept of “anti-randomness” to separate two “zones of evolution - Darwinian, where regularity breaks through the mass of randomness, and Lamarckian, where it “perceptibly dominates.” Teilhard primarily attributes evolution to the second zone human: practically, the difference between the “zones” corresponds to the difference between biological and cultural evolution, following Queneau, Teilhard clearly underestimates the natural nature of evolution under the influence of natural selection.
The pattern characterizing “Darwinian” evolution has nothing in common with the “neo-Lamarckian anti-case”, including direct adaptation, inheritance of acquired characteristics and other speculative constructs. On the influence on Teilhard in this issue for the views of L. Queneau, see previous note.
See note. 11.
Here Teilhard approached the idea of the genesis of consciousness on the basis of early social structures, but failed due to the shortcomings of his methodology. He recognizes that the emergence of consciousness is somehow the result of increasing material complexity. but at the same time notes (“the paradox of man”) that the anatomical difference between man and other anthropoids is incomparably weaker than his “mental superiority.” Admitting the inter-individual origin of thought, Teilhard cannot take the decisive step towards clarifying this inter-individuality, since he does not have labor theory anthropogenesis. As a result, he is forced to abandon the analysis of the “deeper reasons that direct the whole game” and hide under the “phenomenalistic veil”: it seems sufficient for him to allow the reader to place any ontological structure of the world under the facts of the genesis of consciousness from interaction. "whichever he pleases." that is, both materialistic and idealistic (cf. note 1).
The term “germen” to designate “germinal” (French germe germ) or hereditary substance was borrowed by Teilhard from L. Queneau (see note 12).
This refers to the one published in 1883–1909. the three-volume work of the Austrian geologist Eduard-Friedrich Suess (1831–1914) “The Face of the Earth,” where the concept of the biosphere as a special shell of the Earth (along with the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere) was developed in detail. Previously, this concept was theoretically substantiated by Suess in his works late XIX century, for the first time it appears (under other terms) in the works of J.-B. Lamarck.
William King Gregory (1876–1952), American paleontologist, worked at the New York Museum of Natural History, 1907–1943. professor of paleontology at Columbia University (New York). Main works: on Eocene primates; on the morphology and evolution of the skull and locomotor system of mammals and other vertebrates; on the phylogeny of fish.
Heidelberg Man. Homo heidelbergensis, a species of fossil human, established on the basis of a single lower jaw, which was found in 1907 by the German anthropologist O. Schötensack at a depth of 24 m in the valley of the river. Elsenz near the village of Mauer near Heidelberg (now Germany, Baden-Württemberg). Later, in the same area, a number of flint fragments were found bearing traces of artificial processing. Its character and jaw structure make it possible to roughly bring Heidelberg man (who lived 400 thousand years ago, i.e. in the early Pleistocene) closer to Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus.
Marcellin-Pierre Boule (1861–1942), French geologist and anthropologist. professor of geology at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, and then (1902–1936) at the University of Paris National Museum natural history, where Teilhard worked under his leadership in the twenties. He was the first (in 1908) to reconstruct the entire skeleton of a Neanderthal. After the discovery of Sinanthropus, he put forward a hypothesis, which was subsequently not confirmed and criticized by Teilhard, that the tools, remains of fires and other traces of the life activity of Sinanthropus actually belonged not to him, but to another species of people, perhaps at a level of development closer to the Neanderthals.
The key moment of anthropogenesis, dating back to the Early Paleolithic, is covered by Teilhard briefly and clearly insufficiently. This moment, or more precisely, stage, was characterized by a qualitative transition from biological evolution to forms of socio-cultural progress as a phenomenon that was absent at all earlier stages. At this transitional stage, socio-cultural factors and, above all, labor also act as factors of anthropogenesis, which also includes biological (for example, anatomical, functional, etc.) improvement of the human body. It is at this stage that the hand, the structure of which was the primary stimulus for the separation of man from the animal world, is already, as F. Engels writes, “not only an organ of labor, it is also its product” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. , vol. 20, p. 488). Starting from this stage, a person becomes a being with a properly human and social (and not just biological, species, natural) history: “The first historical act of these individuals, thanks to which they differ from animals, is not that they think, but is that they begin to produce the means of life they need" (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 3, p. 19). Mainly in connection with this stage, the question of the formation of speech arises, which Teilhard does not touch upon. Meanwhile, only for a creature that has articulate speech, that is, for a person, does it become possible to develop the conceptual apparatus of thinking and a situation is created (revealed, for example, in the works of S. L. Rubinstein) when every single fact or set of circumstances contains a semantic meaning, and objects acquire independence from the context in which they are directly given.
Henri-Edouard-Prosper Breuil (1877–1961), French archaeologist, one of the pioneers of the study of Paleolithic art. Author of many monographs on cave and rock images of France, Spain, South and South-West Africa. In 1912 he described the Aurignacian culture, which existed about 20–35 thousand years ago and is currently recognized as one of the most important stages Late European Paleolithic. He was Teilhard's closest friend from the twenties until his death, and then one of the initiators posthumous edition Teilhard's collected works.
This refers to the geological works of the French naturalist Georges-Louis-Leclerc Buffon (1707–1788), including his “Theory of the Earth” (1749), geological sections of “Natural History” (vols. 1–36, 1749–1788 .) and especially "The Ages of Nature" (1778). The last of these works made an attempt to divide the history of the Earth into periods (seven eras), and the total age of the Earth was determined to be 75 thousand years, which was almost fantastically bold for that time.
ipso facto - thereby (lat.).
B. Pascal in his “Thoughts” proves the impossibility of confirming or disproving the existence of God with rational arguments and further proposes to resolve this issue by tossing a coin. "Let's weigh your possible gain or loss if you bet on the eagle, that is, on God. If you win, you gain everything, if you lose, you will not lose anything... Thus, if you cannot play, it is better to abandon reason in the name of life, it is better to take risks in their name endlessly big win, as possible as non-existence is possible" (B. Pascal. Thoughts. - In the book: F. La Rochefoucauld. Maxims. B. Pascal. Thoughts. J. La Bruyère. Characters. M., 1974, p. 155).
Leon Brunswick (1869–1944), French philosopher, representative of the school of "critical rationalism". Teilhard is referring to his works Introduction to the Life of the Spirit (1900) and The Progress of Consciousness in Western philosophy"(1927), where the thesis is stated that scientific knowledge and morality form a certain unity of a higher order, crowning the world evolutionary process.
"Eppur si muove!" (Italian) “But still she spins!” Words attributed by legend to Galileo and allegedly said by him when he left the court of the Inquisition after his forced renunciation of the principle of the Earth's rotation around the Sun (June 21, 1633).
This refers, first of all, to Plato’s dialogue “The Symposium”: “love is the thirst for integrity and the desire for it” (Plato, Works in three volumes. T. 2. M., 1970, p. 120). One of the participants in the dialogue, the doctor Eryximachus (historical figure), says that the god of love Eros is spread throughout nature: “... he lives not only in human soul and not only in her desire for wonderful people, but also in many of her other impulses, and indeed in many other things in the world - in the bodies of any animals, in plants, in everything, one might say, that exists, for he is a great, amazing and all-encompassing god, involved in all the affairs of people and gods " (Ibid., p. 112).
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), philosopher early Renaissance, sets out his theory of the connecting role of love, for example in the treatise “The Hunt for Wisdom”: “... love, the connection of unity and being, in highest degree natural It comes from unity and equality, in which its natural origin is: they breathe their connection, and in it they irresistibly long to unite. Nothing lacks this love, without which nothing lasting would exist; everything is permeated by the invisible spirit of connection, all parts of the world are internally preserved by its spirit, and each is connected by it with the world. This spirit binds the soul to the body, and it ceases to animate the body when it flies away. Intellectual nature can never lose the spirit of connection, since it is itself co-natural with this spirit; the unity and being of the intellectual nature is intellectual and is therefore held together by an intellectual connection, and this connection, intellectual love, can neither end nor weaken while the life of the intellect, understanding, is nourished by immortal wisdom. The natural connection in the intellectual nature, which gravitates towards wisdom, not only therefore preserves the intellectual nature in its existence, but also brings it closer to what it naturally loves, right up to union with it." (Nikolai Kuzansky. Works in two volumes. T. 2. M., 1980, pp. 386–387).
William Diller Matthew (1871–1930), American paleontologist. Major works on fossil vertebrates of the New World. Worked at the Museum of Natural History in New York; since 1927 professor of paleontology at the University of California. The idea cited by Teilhard was developed by Matthew in his works “Climate and Evolution” (1915) and “The Evolution of Mammals in the Eocene” (1927).
Alexis Carrel (1873–1944), French biologist and experimental surgeon. Laureate Nobel Prize in medicine for 1912 (for the development of new methods of treatment and wound healing). Since 1904 he worked in the USA (at the Physiological Institute in Chicago and then at the Rockefeller Center in New York). The phrase cited by Teilhard is the title of Carrel’s popular science work, published in 1935.