Eternal questions of Russian literature. eternal questions

Composition.

Eternal questions of Russian literature.

The eternal questions of Russian literature are the questions of the relationship between good and evil, temporal and eternal, faith and truth, past and present. Why are they called eternal? Because they do not cease to excite mankind for centuries. But the main, I would say, the key questions of all Russian literature were the following: “What is the basis of the life of a Russian person? How to save your soul, not let it die in this far from perfect world?

L.N. helps us answer these questions. Tolstoy in his moralizing "folk" stories. One of them is “How people live”.

The hero of the story, the poor shoemaker Semyon, finds himself in a situation where it is necessary to make a moral choice: to pass by a strange, naked, freezing person or to help him? He wanted to pass, but the voice of conscience does not allow him to do so. And Simon brings him home. And there, Matryona's wife, dissatisfied, crushed by poverty, thinking only that "there was only a piece of bread left," attacked her husband with reproaches. However, after the words of Semyon: “Matryona, is there no God in you ?!” “Suddenly her heart sank.” She took pity on the wanderer who got into trouble, gave her last bread, trousers and her husband's shirt. The shoemaker and his wife not only helped the helpless man, but left him to live. The one saved by them turns out to be an angel whom God sent to earth to find answers to the questions: “What is in people? What are they not given? How are people alive? Observing the behavior of Semyon, Matryona, a woman who took in orphans, the angel comes to the conclusion: “... it seems only to people that they are alive by taking care of themselves, and that they are alive by love alone.”

And what is not given to people? We get an answer to this question when a gentleman appears on the pages of the story, who came to order boots, but received bare shoes, since “it is not given to any person to know - he needs boots for the living or bare shoes for the dead by evening”

He is alive for now. He behaves arrogantly, speaks rudely, emphasizing his wealth and significance. In his description, a detail attracts attention - a hint of spiritual death: "like a person from another world." Deprived of the feeling of love and compassion, the master is already dead during his lifetime. He did not save his soul, and by the evening his useless life ended.

According to Tolstoy, one must love "not in word or language, but in deed and truth." Semyon and Matryona, his heroes, live according to moral laws, which means they have a living soul. With their love, they save the life of a stranger to them, therefore, they save their soul, their life. I think that without kindness, mercy, compassion, there can be no love.

Let us also recall Yaroslavna from the Tale of Igor's Campaign. When she cries, she does not think about herself, she does not feel sorry for herself: she wants to be close to her husband and his warriors in order to heal their bloody wounds with her love.

Our literature has always paid great attention to the question of time. How are past and present connected? Why do people so often turn to the past? Maybe because it gives him the opportunity to deal with the problems of the present, to prepare himself for Eternity?

The theme of thoughts about life, uncontrollably leaving, took a prominent place in the lyrics of A.S. Pushkin. In his poem “I visited again ..” he speaks of the general law of life, when everything changes, the old leaves, and the new one takes its place. Let's pay attention to the words "on the border of the grandfather's possessions." The adjective "grandfather" evokes the thought of past generations. But at the end of the poem, speaking of the "young grove", the poet remarks: "But let my grandson hear your welcoming noise ...". This means that reflections on the course of life lead to thoughts about the change and connection of generations: grandfathers, fathers, grandchildren.

In this regard, the image of three pines is very significant, around which the “young grove” grew. The old men guard the young shoots crowding under their shadow. They may be sad that their time is running out, but they cannot but rejoice at the growing shift. That is why the words of the poet sound so truthful and natural: “Hello, young, unfamiliar tribe!” It seems that Pushkin is addressing us through the centuries.

A.P. also writes about the connection of times. Chekhov in his story "Student". The action in it begins on the eve of the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. A student of the Theological Academy Ivan Velikopolsky goes home. He is cold, painfully hungry. He thinks that severe poverty, ignorance, hunger, oppression are qualities inherent in Russian life both in the past and in the future, that from the fact that another thousand years will pass, life will not get better. Suddenly Ivan saw the fire of a fire and two women near it. He warms himself next to them and tells the gospel story: on the same cold, terrible night they led Jesus to the high priest for trial. The Apostle Peter, who loved him, waited and just warmed himself by the fire. And then he denied Jesus three times. And when he realized what he had done, he wept bitterly.

His story moved ordinary peasant women to tears. And Ivan suddenly realized that the event that took place 29 centuries ago is related to the present, to these women, to himself and to all people. The student comes to the conclusion that the past is connected with the present by an uninterrupted chain of events arising from one another. It seemed to him that he touched one end and trembled the other. And this means that not only the horrors of life, but also the truth, beauty has always existed. They continue to this day. I also understood something else: only truth, goodness and beauty direct human life. An inexpressibly sweet expectation of happiness seized him, and life now seemed wonderful and full of lofty meaning.

To the lyrical hero of the poem A.S. Pushkin and the hero of the story A.P. Chekhov "Student", Ivan Velikopolsky, revealed the involvement of their personal lives in everything that happened in the world of the past and the present. Glorious domestic names A.S. Pushkin, L.N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov are also links of a single continuous chain of time. They live here with us now and will live. We really need them in our difficult time, when people often put the material above the moral, when many have forgotten what love, compassion, and mercy are. Russian literature from ancient times reminds us of the commandments of our ancestors: love each other, help the suffering, do good and remember the past. This will help protect the soul from temptations and help keep it clean and bright. What could be more important in life? I think nothing.

Bogdanov Leonid, 11th grade student.

Gives answers to 13 "eternal" questions that tormented everyone.

13. What color is the mirror?

Answer: green.

Explanation: The human eye is able to distinguish about 10 million different colors, but it's hard to believe that the mirror is not "white" or "silver". In general, an ideal mirror should be "white" because it should ideally reflect the sun's rays. But since the ideal world does not exist, there is no ideal mirror either. A real mirror does not reflect as much light, and it is displayed in the 510 nanometer range. This corresponds to the green light spectrum.

12. What percentage of the brain do we use?

Answer: 100%.

Explanation: Albert Einstein claimed that we humans use no more than 10% of our brain capacity. This myth began in the 1890s. put psychologist William James. He noticed that not all areas of our brain maintain constant electrical activity.

But at the time of James, no one knew that different parts of the brain are used for different functions. Now that we know this, it becomes obvious that we use different parts of the brain to the fullest while performing different tasks.

From 1% to 16% of brain cells are responsible for conscious processes at different points in time. But most cells govern unconscious processes: breathing and heart rate, coordination in space, and so on.

The human brain consumes 20% of the body's energy, and in children this figure reaches 50-60%. Therefore, it is foolish to assume that we still have some hidden reserves.

11. Where do the files deleted from the PC go?

Answer: nowhere, they are still there

Explanation: The files that we "delete" on a computer are not physically gone. They continue to be stored on the hard disk, although the operating system does not see them. In fact, in order to erase data from the HDD, you need to overwrite it. Or use special utilities that delete files with ends.

Well, if special agents are chasing you, then you better not just throw away the hard drive, but destroy it.

10. What is the resolution of the human eye?

Answer: 576 megapixels.

Explanation: The human eye really works like a digital camera. True, he has a huge resolution. With good light and healthy eyes, a person is able to distinguish between two lines that are at an angle of 0.6 degrees to each other.

9. Sunlight - does it weigh anything?

Answer: yes.

Explanation: Sunlight is made up of photons that travel from the Sun to the Earth. The mass of the total light falling on the ground is 3.7 * 10 to the 24th power of kg. On a sunny day, the city of Chicago weighs 140 kg more than on an overcast day - and all because of the fact that so much light falls on it.

8. Where is the center of the universe?

Answer: everywhere.

Explanation: The universe began its existence with the "Big Bang", which happened about 13.7 billion years ago. Since then, it has been constantly expanding. The center of this matter is the whole world. No matter where you are in the universe, all objects in space will expand and move away from you at the same rate.

7. What came first: the egg or the chicken?

Answer: Egg

Explanation: animals reproduced with eggs long before the appearance of chickens as a species. When two animals of the same species mate, they pass on genes in the form of DNA to their offspring. But this copying is never 100% accurate. Therefore, the organisms of each new generation are different from the previous one. These tiny changes in DNA over thousands of generations create new animal species.

6. What would happen if all the people on Earth jumped at the same time?

Answer: nothing

Explanation: About 7 billion people live on Earth. Their total mass, according to statistics, supplies approximately 560 billion kg. But the mass of the Earth is incommensurably greater: 5.9 * 10 to the 24th power of kg. So the planet will not notice absolutely nothing.

5. Can guns be fired in space?

Answer: yes.

Explanation: Guns don't need oxygen. Vacuum will not be a problem for them. Gunpowder is an autonomous thing, and it does not need air to explode. That's just a bullet fired in space, will fly millions of light years in space. Until it hits a surface.

An interesting fact: if you fire a powerful gun on the surface of the moon and stay where you are, in a few minutes a bullet will hit you in the back of the head. The problem is that there is no atmosphere on the moon.

4. How much money is there in the world?

Answer: 75 trillion US dollars in equivalent

Explanation: The dollars themselves are only 5 trillion. Those. less than 10% of the total circulation of money in the world. So the next time you are told about the dominance of dollars in the world market, show him this article.

In addition, it is worth remembering that in cash on the planet there are only 25 trillion dollars in equivalent. The rest is electronic money.

3. How much is the Earth worth?

Answer: $4.67 to $6.85 quadrillion

Explanation: The formula for calculating the cost of the Earth came up with an astrophysicist from the University of California Greg Lugman. He took into account the age of the planet, the temperature, the mass of its surface, the mass of the living world, and a hundred other factors. Lugman is sure that the Earth is the most valuable planet in the Universe. For example, he estimated Mars at only $15,000, and Venus, he said, is not worth a penny.

By the way, History Channel specialists came to similar estimates. They calculated the cost of water resources of land, granite, timber and minerals at their current prices. It turned out 6.8 quadrillion dollars.

2. What if the Earth stops rotating?

Answer: nothing. You will die

Explanation: The earth rotates at a tremendous speed. If you are at the equator, then you are moving in the universe at a speed of 465 meters per second. If for some reason our planet stops rotating around its axis, the Earth will simply burn out. Like a piece of meat on a fire, if it is not turned over.

Plus, a giant tsunami will begin all over the planet. Half of the Earth will burn out, and the other half will freeze. The wind speed will be stronger than the shock wave from the explosion of an atomic bomb. The iron core at the center of the Earth will stop too. This will destroy our protective magnetic field. The radioactive rays of the Sun literally in a second will burn out everything that remains. The water will boil and evaporate.

1. Is time travel possible, at least in theory?

Answer: Yes, but you can "go" only to the future.

Explanation: Theoretically, we are already traveling in time - at the rate of one hour per hour. Can we speed up or go into the past? Nothing will come of the past, but we can go to the future - but only theoretically.

Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev has already undertaken such a journey. He spent 803 days, 8 hours and 39 minutes in Earth's orbit. All this time he was moving at a speed of 17.5 thousand miles per hour. Therefore, he experienced the effect of time dilation. Those. in fact, for a year of travel, he began to live in the future by 0.02 seconds.

Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that when our speed is comparable to the speed of light, then time for will begin to slow down.

And now the absolute theory. Imagine that you are a 10-year-old boy and you left the Earth moving away from it at 99.5% of the speed of light (this is currently impossible). If you return back to Earth in five years, then all your classmates will not be 15, but 60 years old. Because your five years of travel were the equivalent of 50 years on Earth.

Speaking approximately, one can characterize knowledge, in contrast to other types of our relationship to the world, as a set of judgments that simultaneously have a subjectively and objectively sufficient basis.

This means that knowledge is such judgments that are justified enough for a given subject so that he can consider them his beliefs, but they are also justified in such a way that they can be made acceptable to any rational being at all. In the 20th century, it is customary to say that knowledge is intersubjective. In the 17th and 18th centuries They said that knowledge is universal and necessary. This meant approximately the following: if any subject masters certain concepts and relations between them, then the truth of judgments, which are knowledge, will become obvious to him. This objective, intersubjective validity of knowledge distinguishes it from other kinds of judgments that describe the world, namely opinions and beliefs. An opinion is a judgment that is not justified either subjectively or objectively, the judgment is not yet defined. Faith, on the other hand, is a judgment that is subjectively justified, but does not have sufficient objective grounds. In other words, faith is a judgment that is sufficiently justified for a given person, a given subject, but which cannot have convincing grounds for any subject, any person.

Thus, knowledge is compulsory, and belief is free in the sense that each person can choose a belief that is more appropriate to him, since there can be no objective reasons forcing us to prefer one belief to another. There are reasons, of course, but they are subjective; associated with the special structure of the subject, with tradition, with relationships between people, etc.

Now we can refine the Kantian question, which will look like this:

About what can I express judgments that can be justified in a universal and necessary way, and what can I not?

Kant's answer to this question is: "... the mind sees only what it creates according to its own plan." Or, in other words, “he can have knowledge about something ... only if he attributes to the thing only what necessarily follows from what he himself has invested in it ...“.

This is one of the components of the revolution that Kant made in the philosophy of nature. It is not the mind, the subject, the person, who follows nature, randomly expecting knowledge from it - fruits, but the mind itself is arranged in such a way that it prescribes laws to nature and cognizes them in nature. Everything else in nature is accidental and cannot be known reliably. The mind in the field of the study of nature has the following task: “in accordance with the fact that the mind itself puts into nature, to seek (and not invent) in it what it must learn from it and what it would not know by itself.”

How can our mind prescribe its laws to nature, so that we can then know them? Here we come to the core of Kant's transcendental idealism, as he himself called his philosophy. Transcendental philosophy is based on the separation of things in themselves and phenomena. Things in themselves are reality as it exists independently of the knowing subject. All things and relations of things that we perceive are only the phenomena of these things in themselves - the product of the interaction of things in themselves with our mind through the forms of perception and contemplation - space and time. Thus, we are given in perception only phenomena and their relations (such as relations of cause and effect, simultaneity, etc.), but things in themselves are not given. We cannot know what they are, because they do not fit our forms of contemplation - space and time - and our categories of reason, by which we combine our contemplations and sensations into objects and in the totality of objects.

From this Kant concludes that things in themselves are unknowable. We cannot know them. We can only assume that there is some unknown source of our sensory impressions, called the thing-in-itself. This is all that we can say about them, remaining within the framework of the philosophy of nature and talking about the knowledge of nature with the help of science.

Thus, according to Kant, we can only know phenomena and their relations. Science is engaged precisely in discovering a priori (pre-experimental) and empirical laws of the structure of nature and, on the basis of them, predicts new phenomena and their relationships. Such, for example, for Kant was Newtonian physics and any other science that brings us knowledge of nature.

Now we know the answer to the question, what can I know. However, we have not yet answered the second part of this question: what can I not know? The first answer to this question is: I cannot know things in themselves. But about them I can not only know nothing at all, but I cannot even have subjective grounds for assuming anything about these things. This means that I cannot even have a certain faith about them. Thus, the thing-in-itself in the philosophy of nature (theoretical philosophy) is a completely indefinite and, rather, negative concept.

So far, however, we have been talking about nature, or as Kant calls it, the theoretical application of reason. But besides the theoretical application of reason, there is also a practical or moral one. The practical or moral use of reason is associated with freedom. Criticism of the theoretical application of reason shows that although we cannot know whether freedom exists or not, we can comprehend the possibility of freedom, and this, as Kant shows, is enough to consider freedom real in practical application, i.e. to believe on the basis of the arguments of reason in its existence. The same applies to such important things as God and the immortality of the soul. From this follows Kant's famous proposition: "Therefore I had to restrict knowledge in order to make room for faith."

Thus, we cannot know such important and traditional objects of philosophy, but we can believe in them. This is a very important proposition, if we remember that it was the existence of God, the freedom and immortality of the soul that were the traditional subjects of metaphysics (philosophy) before Kant. At the same time, these provisions of Kant are also important for our ordinary life. Indeed, if we could know anything about such an object as, for example, God, i.e. to know, for example, whether it exists or not, then, due to the fact that knowledge is universally valid and coercive, this belief could be imposed on another, i.e. we would have the right to force the belief in the existence of God or in his non-existence. What this leads to, we know from practice, for example, the Inquisition or scientific atheism. Kant invites us to take a more modest position on such questions. Our beliefs in this area are generated by acts of faith, which means that we cannot transfer them on objective grounds to another person. The other person is entitled to their own beliefs.

Turning to such subjects as God, the freedom and immortality of the soul brings us to Kant's second question.

What should I do?

The answer to the second question contains the practical philosophy of Kant, the core of which is the doctrine of morality or morality, otherwise called ethics, and the doctrine of law.

Morality is impossible without freedom. If we assume that a person is not free, if, for example, all his actions are determined by the will of God or the laws of nature, then we cannot speak of morality or morality, since then there is no place for moral responsibility. Therefore, human freedom is a necessary prerequisite for morality.

Kant believed that a person's actions in moral terms can be determined by three factors: duty, inclination and fear.

Duty is a requirement arising from reason that determines our duties towards ourselves and other people, as well as towards humanity as a whole.

A propensity is a need, the satisfaction of which brings us pleasure or benefit.

Fear is a feeling that tells us that the consequence of an ongoing event will be displeasure or harm.

Before Kant, philosophers offered various foundations of morality: feelings, divine will, the law of nature, the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of social order. Kant introduced a new understanding of morality - he believed that the mind is self-lawful (autonomous), and, therefore, in its practical application, it itself gives the laws of human actions.

Therefore, according to Kant, it is moral to obey the voice of reason, and this is duty: “Duty! You are an exalted, great word, there is nothing pleasant in you that would flatter people, you demand submission, although in order to awaken the will, you do not threaten with what would inspire natural disgust in the soul and frighten; you only establish a law that by itself penetrates the soul and even against the will can gain respect for itself (although not always execution); all inclinations fall silent before you, even if they secretly oppose you ... ”.

Kant gives a significant place in his ethics to the concept of duty, therefore his ethics is often called the ethics of duty.

Kant believed that moral actions are those performed only out of respect for duty. The word “only” plays an important role here. If an action is in accordance with duty, as Kant says, but also in accordance with our inclination, then this means that it is not moral. But such an act is not immoral either, since it corresponds to duty. Kant calls such an act his legal, i.e. conforming to the law, but having no moral content.

Does this understanding of morality correspond to our moral intuition? Consider two situations:

1. Imagine that someone X loves someone Y and does good to her. To do as much good as possible to others is a moral duty of man. Therefore, this is his action in accordance with duty. Of course, we will appreciate him for this.

2. Imagine now that X does not love Y. This Y is simply disgusting to him, but he still does her good, because it is his duty.

In what situation would we ascribe more moral merit to X's action? I think that almost everyone will say that in the second. This corresponds to our intuition that if we perform a duty in the absence of, or even more so in contradiction to, our inclination, then such an act should be attributed unconditional moral dignity.

Kant realized one important circumstance in ethics. Morality cannot be built on a feeling, no matter how attractive this feeling may seem to us. Ethics can only be built on reason and on the concept of duty arising from reason.

Our examples show that this understanding of morality corresponds to our moral intuition. Kant only accurately expresses it and transforms the relative degree of our intuition into an absolute command of moral duty.

However, what does moral duty tell us? According to Kant, "Duty is the necessity (of performing) an act out of respect for the law." What is this law?

Kant calls his moral law the categorical imperative. This is due to the fact that the law itself proceeds from the mind, but beings that also possess sensuality are guided by it. Therefore, it does not act directly, as, for example, the laws of gravity or chemical reactions, but is a command (imperative) that prescribes to us the performance or non-performance of certain actions. However, he orders us categorically, i.e. undoubtedly. That is why Kant calls it the categorical imperative. There are also conditional imperatives, but we will not consider them.

In order to introduce the categorical imperative in its Kantian formulation, it is necessary to clarify the concept of a maxim. Kant calls a maxim a practical rule according to which an action is performed.

In the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, we find the following formulation of the categorical imperative: "...there is only one categorical imperative: act only according to such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time wish that it become a universal law."

All other imperatives of duty can be derived from this law. Kant himself considers the following example of the operation of his categorical imperative as applied to specific maxims - the rules of our actions.

Example. “Some need makes you borrow money. He knows well that he will not be able to pay them, but he also understands that he will not receive anything on loan unless he firmly promises to pay by a certain date. He has a great desire to make such a promise, but he has enough conscience to raise the question: is it not contrary to duty and is it permissible to get yourself out of trouble in this way? Suppose he still decided on this, then the maxim of his act would read: in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know that I will never pay it. It may very well be that this principle of self-love or self-interest can easily be reconciled with all my future well-being; however, the question now arises: is this correct? I therefore make the requirement of self-love a universal law, and put the question thus: how would things be if my maxim were a universal law? Here it becomes clear to me that it can never have the force of a universal law ... and be in agreement with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. Indeed, the universality of the law, which says that everyone, considering himself in need, can promise whatever comes to his mind, with the intention of not keeping the promise, would simply make this promise, and the goal that they want to achieve with it, simply impossible. how no one would believe that he was promised something, but would laugh at all such statements as an empty excuse.

We see that in this case, as in many others, the categorical imperative tells us which of our maxims is our moral duty. Having formulated the categorical imperative, Kant gives us a means of substantiating the morality or non-morality (immorality) of the motives of our actions. We most often find it difficult in our ordinary life when we are asked why this or that act is moral. Kant gives us the means for such an argument.

The categorical imperative is not a direct principle of morality. It provides the form by which an infinite number of moral obligations can be generated, i.e. more specific moral laws that give us a moral guide in specific life situations.

However, Kant is not limited to such a formulation of the principle of morality. Every action we take has a purpose. These goals in turn serve to achieve other goals. However, there is such a goal that can no longer serve only as a means for other goals - this, according to Kant, is a rational being and, in particular, a person. From this follows what Kant calls the practical imperative, i.e. such a command of reason, which can already be applied directly in the practice of our behavior: “The practical imperative ... will be the following: act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, also as an end, but never treat to it only as a means.” Kant continues his example, which he gave in connection with the categorical imperative: “…one who intends to deceive others with a false promise will immediately understand that he wants to use the other person only as a means, as if the latter did not also contain an end, for the one whom I want to use for my purposes by means of such a promise cannot in any way agree with my course of action in relation to him and, therefore, contain in himself the purpose of this act. Ethics of Kant, as it were, is a generalization and philosophical refining of Christian ethics. Practically all norms of Christian ethics can be derived from the categorical or practical imperatives, at least those norms that are based on reason.

Apparently, this character of Kant's ethics was also affected by his childhood upbringing in the pietistic tradition, which attached great importance to the strict observance of moral precepts on the basis of internal conscious motives.

However, ethics has traditionally, since Aristotle, talked not only about moral laws, but also about happiness. Kant, despite all his focus on the ethics of duty, also did not ignore this issue, however, he finds a kind of coverage in him: “... morality ... is a teaching not about how to make ourselves happy, but about how we should become worthy of happiness." Indeed, happiness and its achievement are not in the hands of the individual himself, or at least not directly related to his morality. Whether a person is happy or not depends on the play of random forces of nature (including social), practical skills and even cunning: “Happiness is such a state of a rational being in the world when everything in his existence happens according to his will and desire.” It is obvious that such a state is difficult to achieve. However, what is in the power of a person and what is directly related to his morality is to be worthy of happiness. To be worthy of happiness is a direct consequence of human morality. We sometimes say this about people: “He is worthy of happiness or he is not worthy of happiness,” meaning that a person’s lifestyle has a moral character, and such a person should be rewarded with happiness. Nevertheless, the worthiness to be happy, according to Kant, is the supreme good as the initial “condition of everything that can only seem desirable to us, and therefore of all our searches for happiness.” However, people are usually not satisfied with this. He needs a more immediate connection between virtue and happiness. However, here we are already moving on to the consideration of the third question.

What can I hope for?

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant clarifies this question: "What can I hope for if I do what I should do?" In other words, what can I hope for if I am moral?

Kant insists that hope is not the foundation of morality. We should be moral only out of respect for the law dictated by reason. But a rational being has a need for happiness. In this regard, Kant remarks: “To have a need for happiness, to be still worthy of it and yet not to be involved in it - this is incompatible with the perfect command of a rational being, which would also have the fullness of power ...”.

Hence Kant's concept of the highest good arises - the unity of morality and happiness. The highest good is what a rational being wants, strives for. The highest good in our world is happiness, distributed in exact proportion to morality as the dignity of the individual and its worthiness to be happy.

In the highest good, morality, the worthiness to be happy, is of paramount importance; it cannot flow from the pursuit of happiness. But the happiness of a person does not directly follow from morality either. So can a person hope for happiness? Moreover, for such happiness, which would be an integral part of the highest good?

According to Kant, the existence of God must be assumed as a basis for such a hope. Only God can provide the necessary link between morality and happiness, if not in this, then in another world. But this means that we must also recognize the immortality of the soul, because if the soul dies with the body, then all our experience shows that for most people during earthly life no happiness follows from a moral way of thinking. But, since God can give happiness only to those who deserve it, then there must be freedom as the basis of morality and worthiness to be happy. For if there were no freedom, what dignity would that be? It would just be a random fact of nature.

So, such ideas as the immortality of the soul, freedom, the existence of God, the reality, which, as we have already seen, cannot be proved theoretically, receive a justification for their reality, as the inevitable practical consequences of the moral law and the aspirations of a rational being to happiness. Kant calls such statements about the reality of these ideas the postulates of practical reason, emphasizing that this does not prove their existence theoretically, but forces us to assume them as necessary conditions for the moral life of a rational being in our world.

The postulate of the immortality of the soul follows from the practically necessary condition for the proportionality of the duration of existence with the fullness in the fulfillment of the moral law; the postulate of freedom - from the need to admit the independence of a rational being from the sensual world, where everything is determined by physical causes, and from the possibility of determining one's will according to the laws of the world of ideas, which Kant calls the intelligible world. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of the highest good: “only if religion is added to it (morality), there is a hope of someday achieving happiness to the extent that we took care not to be unworthy of it.”

From this follows the answer to Kant's third question: we dare to hope for happiness if we are worthy of it and there is a higher authority - God, which can guarantee us that sooner or later happiness will follow from the worthiness to be happy.

Religion characterizes our inner life and our hopes for the life of our spirit. However, are there any hopes for external life, and therefore for the progressive course of history? This is how the theme of the philosophy of history arises in Kant's philosophy. Kant quite clearly sees the relativity of the moral and cultural progress of mankind, here the influence of Rousseau is evident, who in his famous Discourse on the Sciences and Arts proved that the progress of culture is incompatible with the progress of morals. Therefore, Kant places the main hopes for progress in history on the organization of man's external freedom. And this organization involves two public institutions: the state and law. Law is actually a way of coordinating the external freedom of individuals, and "the state is an association of many people who are subject to legal laws." Kant in his "Metaphysical Principles of the Doctrine of Law" formulates the imperative of law: "Act externally in such a way that the free manifestation of your arbitrariness is compatible with the freedom of everyone, in accordance with the universal law." knowledge kant morality immortality

The organization of the external freedom of citizens presupposes what Kant calls the rule of law. In a state governed by the rule of law, the arbitrariness of individuals is limited, but at the same time, the arbitrariness of the state itself is also limited. Therefore, we can, continuing Kant's thought, say that the rule of law is a state in which the arbitrariness of both the individual and the state itself is limited by law.

According to Kant, history is a gradual progress towards the rule of law. However, in world history we also find relationships between states, and Kant notes that if within states there is a gradual movement towards the rule of law, with more or less success, with deviations, then natural law rules in relations between states, i.e. the right of the strongest. Therefore, another of their goals of history is the establishment of legal relations between states, which should lead to the gradual establishment of a world federation of states and eternal peace. However, the movement towards the rule of law and eternal peace is not an automatic, deterministic process.

In the realm of history, progress is ensured by what Kant calls "non-communicative communication", i.e. the fact that a person is simultaneously controlled by two aspirations: 1) for an independent egoistic existence at the expense of others and 2) for unification. These two opposing aspirations are the driving force behind history, culture, the development of law, and so on.

In the course of history, man improves himself. Without the conscious efforts of man to improve himself, history will not be able to move in a direction favorable to the human race. In general, such efforts are of a moral nature, but they can be concretized in different eras as different tasks. This is how the Kantian concept of enlightenment arises, which took shape within the framework of the discussions about this concept that erupted in the scientific circles of Germany.

Answering the question of the priest Zollner "What is enlightenment?", the famous Berlin philosopher Moses Mendelssohn published an article "On the question: what does it mean to be enlightened?" about a month before the appearance of Kant's article on enlightenment. In the article, he introduces three central concepts: education, culture, education, and argues that education and culture are different types of education. Enlightenment is theoretical education as opposed to culture as practical education. Emphasizing theory, Mendelssohn acted in the spirit of ordinary educational concepts, identifying enlightenment with the spread of science and knowledge in general. The subject of enlightenment, according to Mendelssohn, is the nation, he speaks everywhere about the enlightenment of the nation.

Kant gave a radically different solution. Enlightenment is not just an era and not just knowledge. The article “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?” begins in the best traditions of Kantian philosophy with the definition: "Enlightenment is a person's exit from the state of minority, in which he is through his own fault." Each concept here requires clarification. But what is already clear from this definition is that enlightenment is not so much an epoch of social life as a state of our own personality. The categories that are used in this definition - "minority", "guilt" - are emphatically personal. This means that each person in his personal development must go through this state. What does Kant mean by immaturity and guilt? “Immaturity is the inability to use one's mind without guidance from someone else. Immaturity through one's own fault is one the cause of which lies not in a lack of reason, but in a lack of determination and courage to use it without the guidance of any other. From this follows the motto of enlightenment: “Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind!

Naturally, if we have accused a person of a lack of courage, then in addition to the shade of moral condemnation of an unenlightened state, the question arises: what are the reasons why people who are able to control their own mind, nevertheless, do not do this, holding back their own development and the development of the whole society? “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of people whom nature has long freed from alien guidance, still willingly remain minors all their lives ...” . Again we see that Kant sees the reasons for the ignorance of people in their personal qualities. Enlightenment is an area of ​​personal responsibility of a person - this is the main position of Kant's concept. In order to remain in a state of ignorance, people invent many different tricks: “If I have a book that thinks for me, if I have a spiritual shepherd whose conscience can replace mine and a doctor who prescribes such and such a way of life for me, etc. then I have nothing to bother myself with. I don't need to think if I can pay."

It is precisely because of the unwillingness of some people to move into a state of enlightenment that other people appear who “arrogate to themselves the right to be their guardians.” The guardians strive so that their “flock” cannot take a single step without help, and then point out the danger that threatens them from walking independently.

Thus, a personal problem becomes a public one, as guardians easily organize themselves into organizations that support the minority of people. Enlightenment of each person individually is now difficult: "it is difficult for each individual person to get out of the state of immaturity, which has become almost natural for him." Personal enlightenment is possible, however, only for individuals who have determination and courage: “That is why only a few managed to get out of the state of immaturity thanks to the improvement of their spirit ...”.

Hence the main problem for Kant arises: what is the social mechanism that will allow achieving a state of personal enlightenment? And Kant's answer to this question is simple: "The public will enlighten itself if only it is given freedom." Then even among the guardians, people capable of enlightenment will appear. Of course, the reader will say, this is a simple recipe, but who will give freedom to the public just like that. People must fight for their rights, for example, through a revolution. This belief was spread by representatives of the French Enlightenment. To this Kant replies: "... No revolution can bring about a true reform of the way of thinking." Enlightenment requires "only freedom, and, moreover, the most harmless, namely the freedom in all cases to use one's own reason publicly."

This state of personality, in which a person dares to be guided by his own reason, is the goal of all pedagogical and educational efforts. Of course, the inner freedom achieved on this path requires external conditions - “harmless freedom of speech”, and must also be limited in its external manifestations by the freedom of other people. At the same time, the boundless inner freedom achieved on the path of enlightenment coincides with the moral law - the only law of freedom. The fact is that the free use of reason, according to Kant, will necessarily lead a person to follow the moral law, since this law is a necessary consequence of reason itself. In this position - the solution to the system of education proposed by Kant in the treatise "On Pedagogy". Genuine education is possible only when we, protecting the child from the lethal consequences of contact with the natural and social environment and gradually accustoming him to reckon with traditional social institutions, preserve in him a reserve of freedom sufficient to awaken the moral law in him. And the goal of spiritual education, firstly, is not to interfere with this freedom, and, secondly, to very carefully contribute to the awakening of the moral law, mostly with the help of unobtrusive examples. Only in this case will we be able to educate a truly free person and a useful member of society. All our moral instructions and teachings, as a rule, lead to the opposite result. Numerous restrictions, usually imposed by educators on the pupils, also lead to it. To paraphrase Kant's practical imperative, we can say that the motto of the educator is "act in such a way that in the face of the child you always see the goal as well, and never only a means (for yourself, the state, or even society)." It is in the light of these provisions that Kant's numerous recommendations on physical and practical education should be considered.

The problem of upholding the harmless freedom of speech as the driving force of human enlightenment is also devoted to the “Dispute of the Faculties”. The dispute of the faculties is about this. The philosophical - "lower" - faculty, on which all scientific disciplines were concentrated in the European university of the 18th century, was a representative of the mind that needed freedom. The restrictions on this freedom came from the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, represented at the university by the highest - the faculties of law and theology. The freedom of scientific reason, compatible with state and public institutions, on the one hand, and the truths of religion, on the other, is Kant's theme, encrypted by relations between faculties. As part of solving this problem, a new concept of the university is emerging, developed and practically implemented by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Humboldt's main idea was such an organization of education at the university, which is based on the highest achievements of modern science. This concept of the university as a scientific and educational complex has become the guiding principle of the organization of higher education in the modern world.

What is a person?

Anthropology provides the answer to this question. Kant devoted a special work to her, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798). Anthropology is the science of man, and anthropology “from a pragmatic point of view,” according to Kant, means that it speaks of man not from his physiological or, in general, natural side, but about man as a free being, about his character, which he does it himself.

Mankind has expended colossal efforts in order to develop a general concept of man. The Stoics in antiquity, the Christians at its decline and in the early Middle Ages, the Buddha destroyed the traditional ideas about the separation of mankind into incommensurable groups that are different by nature or by God's providence: Greeks and barbarians, the chosen people and the unchosen peoples, the faithful and the unfaithful, civilized and uncivilized, etc. aristocratic, hierarchical, nationalistic, racial, class and other theories have always opposed this desire to affirm the unity of the human race. All theories of the second kind have one thing in common: some part of humanity, for one reason or another, is recognized in one respect or another as higher, better, more chosen than another. century, and even then with a certain shade of Eurocentrism, which had such a sad effect on the fate of European liberalism in the 20th century.

Anthropology is the science of man. Perhaps the connection with the changing human being makes Kant's "Anthropology" unsuitable for our time? To avoid lengthy discussions on this subject, I will simply refer to the fact that man in his being, as our everyday experience shows, changes very little. Thoughts and passions change little from epoch to epoch or from people to people. And if they do change, it gives additional interest to another era and people. But this interest is possible only with a common basis, the existence of which it proves. Even during great social upheavals, people change very little, which was noted, for example, by Mikhail Bulgakov in The Master and Margarita. Let us recall Woland's famous statement when he considered Muscovites in Variety: “Well… they are people like people. They love money, but it always has been. Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous ... well, well ... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts ... ordinary people ... In general, they resemble the former ones ... the housing problem only spoiled them ... ”.

Thus, based on the concept of freedom and enlightenment, anthropology belongs to the same historical era in which we live. In this sense, Kant's Anthropology is contemporary to us.

Kant's anthropology speaks of an ordinary person, but from the point of view of a deep philosophical worldview. Kant developed this world outlook in his famous works devoted to theoretical and practical philosophy, in the Critique of Pure Reason, in the Critique of Practical Reason, in the Critique of Judgment, and others. “Anthropology” is an applied work. In it, the abstract philosophical propositions that Kant worked out all his life are applied to this life itself, to one of the types of rational beings called people. "Anthropology" describes the actual life of people, observations of this life. But if these were mere observations, then we would have some genre of historical or fiction literature. Illumination of the philosophical worldview gives a dimension that is not characteristic of ordinary texts that interpret the life and actions of people, and at the same time gives universalism to the characteristics of a person. "Anthropology" harmonizes our ordinary human ("actual") life with a deep understanding of the place of man in the universe and the main regulators of human behavior. It seems to tell us that a person, with all his weaknesses and prejudices, can still be a rational and moral being, proves that he not only must be moral, but can be, and sometimes he is. According to Joachim Kopper, "Anthropology" is something like a bridge between the actual and conditional life of man and the unconditional philosophical understanding of man as "their last goal", which gives the correct perspective on the consideration of actual life. However, something else is also important to us. The applied nature of "Anthropology" makes it possible to understand Kant's system in action, through illustrative examples. This can help the reader, who is inexperienced in the subtleties of philosophical reflection and does not have a taste for abstract reasoning, to penetrate into the core of Kant's philosophy, to understand the system of soul abilities developed by him (cognitive ability, desire ability, feeling of pleasure or displeasure), to which the first part of the book is devoted - “ Anthropological didactics”, to find out his views on the key issues of the philosophy of man and society - about the personality and its types, about the characters and the way of thinking, about the people and nationality, and races and humanity as a whole. Kant judged European peoples very definitely, in Anthropology there are precise judgments about the British, French, Germans, but he tried not to judge where he did not have a sufficient stock of knowledge, for example, about Russians. There you can also meet interesting and unexpected statements by Kant about men and women, about fashion, which belongs to the “heading of vanity”

State University - Higher School of Economics

Abstract on the topic:

Eternal questions of philosophy and answers to them in world religions

Performed:

1st year student

Semenova Anna

Group 154

checked

Teacher

Nosachev Pavel Georgievich

Moscow 2009

Introduction 3

Classification of eternal questions 5

Relationship between philosophy and religion 8

Eternal Questions in World Religions 10

Conclusion 13

List of used literature: 14

Introduction

What are eternal questions? Oddly enough, answering the question of eternal questions is much easier than answering the eternal questions themselves. These are questions that every person has asked himself at one time or another in his life. These questions never lose their relevance, in any historical period.

If you think about the very meaning of philosophy, then in a sense, philosophy can be characterized as a search for answers to these very eternal problems (questions). All great thinkers have spent their lives in an eternal search for answers. And, for that matter, we are all philosophers to some extent, because each of us at least once asked himself the question: who am I? Or why me? Where did I come from? Where will I go?

For example, the British thinker Russell in his History of Western Philosophy defines the "eternal questions" of philosophy as: Is the world divided into spirit and matter? What is spirit and matter? Is the spirit subordinate to matter, or does it have independent abilities? Does the universe evolve towards a specific goal? Is there a way of life that is sublime, and if so, what is it and how can we comprehend it? It is not so easy to find answers to such questions, you will not find them in the laboratory. The problem of the unity of the world, the problem of humanity, the problem of freedom, the problem of life and death and many other "eternal questions" receive their answers and solutions in every era, depending on the level of knowledge achieved.

The difference between ordinary people and philosopher-thinkers lies in the amount of time spent looking for answers. An ordinary person does not spend much time on this, thinking about these questions at his leisure in his youth, growing up, he asks everyday questions: where to work? How to buy an apartment, house, car? How to look good, presentable, representative in the eyes of others, etc. And they place the responsibility for finding answers to eternal questions on the shoulders of others, or they rely on the authority of religion. And they return to these questions only in extreme old age, when questions arise: what good have I done in this life? Or: what did I do wrong? Can I be proud of my life? What did I leave for posterity? Will they remember me?

Philosophers, on the other hand, spend almost their whole lives searching for answers, they are in constant search for answers, finding them, after some time they are convinced of the falsity of the latter, again searching, again dissatisfaction with the results, fighting the unknown, striving for truth becomes their life, everything. And with all this, they are well aware that they will never achieve perfection, because eternal questions are eternal, that they can never be given exhaustive, definitely correct and true answers. But this does not depress the sage-philosopher, he even finds pleasure in this constant search. The deeper and more voluminous the answer received, the more new questions it poses to philosophical consciousness. Unlike "ignorant fools", thinkers are at least aware of their "ignorance" and try to get at least a little closer to the truth, although they perfectly understand that absolute truth as such does not exist, there is only a path to it, consisting of reflections, various assumptions hypotheses, conjectures. Thinking, a person improves, expands his horizons, asserts himself, maybe .. Thinking, a person becomes a Man in the truest sense of the word.

Classification of eternal questions

Despite the fact that there are quite a lot of these questions, they can be divided into several main groups.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant reports his classification of eternal questions:

What can I know? (a question about the truth of life)

What should I do? (a question about the principles of life)

What can I hope for? (a question about the meaning of life)

There is also another, more extensive and capacious classification:

1) the problem of the beginning

2) the problem of material and ideal

3) the problem of soul and body

4) the problem of freedom and creativity of the individual

5) the problem of the meaning of life

6) the problem of truth

And yet, even this classification is not all questions.

But let's take a look at some of the above:

Eg, the problem of material and spiritual right may be called the most interesting and most insoluble of questions. Because no one has yet been able to prove the primacy of matter or the primacy of spirit. Although attempts have been made by many of the greats more than once. For example, the great German scientist Hegel developed a theory in which the whole world and history as a process of self-determination of the Absolute idea. Yes, and all his teachings were basically based on the concept of absolute idealism. But just a few years later, other Germans Mark and Engels questioned this theory, stating that all the diversity and diversity of the earthly and mental world represents different levels of development of matter. Thus, the problem of the material and the ideal is still considered unresolved, because to this day scientists-philosophers recognize either one or the other theory, dividing depending on their beliefs into materialists and idealists.

The problem of the relationship between soul and body is no less ancient and important.

Even in ancient times, thinkers argued, putting in the first place either the soul or the body.

On the one hand, the body is fundamentally important, because the soul must be in something, right? It is the body that contains all the substances necessary for existence: muscles, energy, brain, in the end. Even consciousness, the most important human function, is also considered part of the body, because it is produced by the brain.

But the soul is no less important, because this is what distinguishes us from animals - we can love, we can create, learn, for us there is the concept of morality, the concept of evil and good.

Without a soul, a person would not be able to sympathize, but would be only a living being, like other animals.

Thus, it is also impossible to solve this problem.

The following problem is one of the most popular and frequently asked questions there questions about the meaning of life, about the meaning of human existence.

This is quite understandable, because these questions have been and are being asked by everyone, even by individuals who have nothing to do with philosophical science. Sooner or later, everyone starts asking why I appeared, how I appeared, what should I do to deserve this high title of “man”.

Despite all the complexity and practical impossibility of finding a single solution and answer to these questions, it is possible to get as close as possible to the absolute truth. You can find a compromise between two opposing opinions, create a kind of symbiosis, because each of the decisions has a piece of truth in it. The answer lies somewhere in the middle, between the two poles.

And the more human thought develops, the more philosophers are convinced that each of us must look for answers to questions himself, without using any hints, reference books, without relying on the truth of authority.

Relationship between philosophy and religion.

Like philosophy, religion offers humanity a system of values ​​- norms, ideals and goals, so that it can plan its behavior in the surrounding reality, evaluate itself, situations and others. Religion also has its own universal, picture of the world. Only unlike philosophy, it is based on an act of the divine principle, creativity. The value and universal nature of religion and religious worldview bring it closer to philosophy, although there are some very fundamental differences between them.

The differences lie in the fact that the ideas and values ​​of religion are accepted by an aspect of religious faith - by the heart, but not by the mind, by one's own and irrational experience, and not on the basis of any legitimate and rationally proven arguments, as happens with philosophy. The system of values ​​in religion is superhuman in nature, originating either from God (Christianity) or from his prophets (Judaism and Islam), or from holy ascetics who have achieved a special status of heavenly wisdom and holiness, as is customary in many religious systems in India. At the same time, a believer quite often may not realize and rationally justify his own worldview imposed by religion, which has a deplorable effect on his “inner philosopher”, because the process of logical substantiation and proof of his ideas and principles is necessary for a person as a whole and for his internal development. This can be attributed to the disadvantages of religion in comparison with philosophy.

But it is also possible the existence of a religious philosophy, free from the dogmas of the church, which claims to be able to have its own opinion, an attempt to build a holistic religious consciousness. However, one should separate religious philosophy from theology - the doctrine of theology, this science, unlike religious philosophy, although it can use the concepts, language, results and methods of philosophy, but still in its teachings it will never allow itself to deviate from those recognized by the church. dogmas.

The relationship between philosophy and religion has changed and is changing from era to era, either being in a state of peaceful coexistence and almost existing as a single whole, as in early Buddhism, and being in a position of mutual unacceptability, as it was in Europe in the 18th century. Currently, there is a tendency to create a synthetic worldview based on scientific, philosophical and religious worldviews. Perhaps this will be the answer to the global and at the same time such private questions.

Let us return to the search for answers to the eternal questions of philosophy from the standpoint of religion.

For many people, the ultimate answer to all these questions, and questions about the meaning of life in particular, is faith. Faith is a kind of guide for those who are not particularly successful in finding solutions and answers to questions on their own. Or for those who need support, support, who need the opportunity to believe, hope is needed.

Different religions in one way or another are looking for answers. And depending on how good and authoritative the answers are, religion wins its followers, adherents.

Eternal Questions in World Religions

Buddhism

In order to understand the Buddha's attitude to eternal questions and the search for answers to them, it is enough to recall the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

The disciples came to the Buddha and told about wandering hermits and scientists who were constantly arguing about the finiteness and infinity of the world, about the mortality and immortality of the soul, and questions like these. The disciples asked the Buddha for his opinion of these scholars.

In response, the Buddha ordered to gather a few blind people, blind from birth, and bring them.

When they were brought in, they were asked to touch the elephant and say what it looked like. Each was given to touch a certain part of the body. One was given to touch the head, the second - the tusk, the third - the tail, the fourth - the leg, the fifth - the tassel on the tail, and so on.

The first said that the elephant is like a pot, the second that the elephant is a plowshare, the third that the elephant is like a snake, the fourth is like a post, the fifth is like a brush.

The blind men, having heard that their opinions differed, began to argue loudly, shouting, proving their point of view.

And the Buddha said: “In the same way, these saints and scholars preach different views, without seeing and blindly ... In their ignorance, they are quarrelsome, intractable and claim that reality is this or that.”

"Oh, how they quarrel and cling to those who demand
A worthy name for a preacher and a monk!
They cling to everyone, quarreling,
Such people see only one side of a thing."

That is, apparently, the Buddha does not approve of the search for answers to questions, but in return he promises nirvana with sufficient effort.

The Buddha offers to find a state of eternal bliss here on earth, he denies the existence of the eternal Self, denies the existence of the world as such, arguing that everything is just our illusion, and the Soul is also an illusion invented by man, all we need is to get rid of everything what we ourselves came up with, to get rid of deceptive and false illusions, which in fact are the sources of our problems, our mental anxiety. When a person realizes all the insignificance and routine of the surrounding realities, he will achieve that desired state of eternal bliss, which is the meaning of our life according to Buddhism - to know this wisdom, to achieve nirvana.

Christianity

On the meaning of life:

God created man in His image and likeness, and gave him not only being, but also a goal: to become God-like, worthy of Divine glory and bliss.

But the man did not justify the gift and fell into sin, was expelled from Paradise, lost immortality, devastated the Soul.

And his whole subsequent life consists in trying to earn the right to return there, to become immortal and eternal again, observing all the rules of God on earth, leading a righteous life.

Actually, the questions of where I came from, why I am here, what I should do, where I will go, are also explained by Christianity.

You came from the first people created by the great Creator, you are here to atone for the original sin committed by the first people, you must lead a righteous life and observe the laws of God, and where you go depends only on you. Either in eternal bliss, or in eternal torment.

Islam

Basically, the answers to eternal questions in Islam are the same as in Christianity. With the exception of original sin as such.

That is, the same righteous life according to the laws of Allah, the inadmissibility of polytheism, faith in the finiteness of this world, Hell, Paradise with virgins, Judgment Day.

They are also convinced that everything that happens is set up by Allah to test their believers, and that in any situation a person has the right to choose.

Contrary to what Muslim extremist terrorists believe (holy war with infidels and going to heaven for it), the Quran calls for a merciful attitude towards non-believers:

“And if someone from non-Muslims asks you for asylum, then shelter him until he hears the word of God. Then take him to a safe place for him. This is because they are people who do not know [the Truth]” (Holy Quran, 9:6).

Conclusion:

It is practically impossible to give a general answer suitable for each individual to eternal questions. For some people, these questions never give rest, forcing them to be in a constant active search for answers, for some they occupy from time to time, in moments of enlightenment. Some, in desperation, turn to religions for answers, where concrete answers to the questions posed are presented.

In principle, religions generally do well with the function of "responder", although they have a couple of minuses in their harmonious theory.

The problem is that religion allows one and only one option, obliging a person to believe in him, thereby freeing him from the need to think independently, turning him into a simple slave, a hostage of thought. It is necessary to weaken the influence of their strict dogmas.

In the current situation, the way of integration seems to be more and more true: finding the golden mean between the philosophical, scientific and religious worldview. Such synthesized answers may be the most correct.

On the other hand, when the ANSWERS to eternal questions are finally found, the questions will cease to be ETERNAL, and what will be left for a person to eternal reflection? What will make him think when all the pressing problems are solved?Cheat sheet >> Philosophy

1) staging question; 2) task strategy questions and receiving answers on them; 3) correct... world philosophical culture; he is the subject of endless controversy in history philosophy, arts, sciences and religions...for her eternal life: soul eternal and immortal. ...

Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go when we die? What lies beyond And what lay before? Is anything certain in life? dream theater

If we think hard about the main co-existence of the life of each of us, then we will come to the conclusion that this is the existence of an individual Self and the existence of the World. There is only this bunch of I-World, there is nothing else.

We definitely have some ideas about the world, ideas about ourselves, and all our life we ​​only do what we try to settle these ideas, reconcile them with each other. If someone succeeds, then it is believed that this person lives "in harmony with himself and the world." All our sensations, feelings and thoughts completely fit into this framework between the Self and the World, hence any science follows. Here lies the beginning of philosophy.

Based on the object of study, it is easy to deduce the main sections of philosophy. I can ask the World some fundamental questions: “What are you?”, “How can I know you?”, “How should I think while doing this?”, “What values ​​should I rely on?” When trying to answer these questions, we get, respectively, ontology - the theory of things, epistemology - the theory of knowledge, logic - the theory of thinking and axiology - the theory of values. Thus we arrive at systematic philosophy, the study of which can dry oneself out of boredom, since it considers man only as one of the moments of being in ontology, otherwise referring us to anthropology and anatomy.

But, after all, one can think differently, starting from the other end, starting with the question “What am I?”. "Eternal" philosophical questions can be directly deduced from the Self. To do this, I propose to go outside.

There is something like a game or a philosophical test. You just need to stand somewhere in a crowded place and imagine that you are not there. Not only to think about it (“I am not there” - the thought is very simple, too short to somehow hurt us in the ordinary state), but to imagine it - in color, volume and with stereo sound. In fact, this is very difficult to do. To begin with, it is worth trying to imagine yourself standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the road - mirrored windows can help here. Then you can try to think about the fact that you stayed at home, and you are not on this street. So by successive deletion of oneself, one can reach complete self-destruction. In this way, one's own death is modeled (in much the same way, if you remember, Prince Andrei had fun with Tolstoy). I must say that the images in my head at this moment are the most life-affirming. Someone goes to Lazarevskoye and buys decalitres of homemade wine. Someone climbed onto the roof and sings songs. Someone continues to collect butterflies, someone in the library has taken an old-style ruble out of a book, someone has just been sent away, and someone is making coffee. Only you are not.

Of course, it is naive to believe that such visions will visit you at this moment for the first time. The main thing is that this time you are hurt more. If you are not a philosopher at all, then this game can be considered as a focus of determination: there is a high probability that on this day you will confess your love, or at least quit your tired job.

If you have a philosophical beginning, then you will try to solve the basic problem - the problem of the finiteness of our being. This question results in the construction of such a picture of the world in which mortality is somehow compensated. There are enough ready-made recipes here - many religions and various philosophical systems.

But the specificity of our time lies in the fact that it is difficult for a thinking person to make any ready-made decision - from Christianity with its classical dogma about the immortality of the soul to the latest esoteric teachings about the entry of a person into a certain cosmic matrix, subject to sufficient spiritual development. If you are a philosopher, then build your universe. The rest of the people, after thinking about this topic, as a rule, come to the conclusion that "if it all ended there, then it would be too stupid." In any case, even if a person does not claim to comprehend the meaning of the entire universe, then he is necessarily disturbed by the meaning of his own life, which is equally limited by death. So, the “most classic” of eternal problems is the problem of the meaning of life. (True, philologists at this phrase begin to rage and prove that only the text can have meaning. In the strict sense of the word, they are right. Then it is appropriate to talk about the purpose of life, and not about its meaning. In fact, there is no difference, only pathos is less) .

Since the question of the meaning of life arises from the problem of its limitations, the answer to this question necessarily hides the theme of immortality. For us it is achievable only in memory. Therefore, the general idea in this matter for most people is to "scratch the earth's crust" for centuries. The "personal" memory of each individual is limited, but, fortunately, humanity has a non-biological memory - culture. Nothing individual, unique in its novelty can disappear - it is automatically included in the culture. Moreover, the opinion is fundamentally erroneous that one can “get” there solely with the help of books, music, or something like that. Let's say Don Juan has entered culture throughout his life.

It is clear that if formally the meaning of life is the same for everyone - to remain in the cultural memory, then in terms of content it can be different. Two-thirds of humanity will tell you that if their life is full of love, then it makes sense. Thus, from the question of the meaning of life arises the question of the meaning of love. Again, in Russian philosophy, the idea is actively developing that only a person who has found true love can achieve immortality (the origin of this idea is the myth of androgynes - "whole" people whom an angry god divided into parts - men and women doomed to search for their only the missing half).

Thinking about love (it is not recommended for lovers to do this!), A person comes to the conclusion that objectively it can really be reduced to sexual attraction, everything else, subjective, is great, but everyone has their own, unique and the only thing worth cutting veins - there is myth-making and ibogenation (image creation). Love is the most breathtaking example of true creativity. This raises another eternal question - the meaning of creativity. Suffering from creative torments, a person, however, soon realizes that culture is not only the salvation of the individual, but also his curse. The artist’s head has an idea of ​​a New World, alternative to ours, but he is not able to create this world in its reality, and the creator’s sufferings turn into pages of books, canvases and melodies, not a new being.

The love and creativity that comes from the awareness of our mortality can be called the youth and maturity of man. There is also old age, which ends with death. Suppose life is successful - Love is found, the novel is written. At the end of his life, a person can distance himself from everything he has done, look at it all from the outside. The one who loves and creates is blind in many ways; it is not for nothing that these impulses are described by the word “passion”. In old age, it becomes possible to ask yourself the question, why did you do this, and not something else. Here we are dealing with the final question in the life of I - the question of what value was the main thing in your life.

It is rightly said that it is in old age that a person seriously thinks about God. God in this case acts as the top of the personal hierarchy of values; it also exists for the atheist, for whom "God" is the good old word for that central value to which all others are subordinated. And on this path, formally, there are ready-made answers: Good, Beauty, Truth. If you loved, then you were tormented by the question of what Good is. If you are a real artist, then you thought about what Beauty is. We philosophers are supposed to seek Truth.