What is a philosophical question. The main question of philosophy briefly (ontology of being)

Philosophy as an established system of knowledge has a number of issues that it is designed to solve. Each philosophical system has its own core, main question, the disclosure of which is its content and essence. But there are general questions that reveal the nature of philosophical thinking as such. First of all, the question of relationship between the world and man. This question follows from the very subject of philosophy, so it is customary to call it "The Fundamental Question of Philosophy". Since matter and consciousness (spirit) are two inextricably linked, but at the same time opposite characteristics of being, the main question of philosophy has two sides, two aspects - ontological and epistemological:

What comes first, spirit or matter, ideal or material?

do we know the world? What is primary in the process of cognition?

The solution of this issue depends on the general understanding of being and cognition, as well as the construction of the entire system of knowledge about the world around us and the place of man in it. Depending on the solution of the first aspect of the Main Question, major philosophical trends are distinguished - idealism and materialism. A number of categories and principles are formulated that contribute to the disclosure of philosophy as a general methodology of knowledge.

The division into idealism and materialism has existed for a long time. Deutsch philosopher XVII– 18th century G.V. Leibniz called Epicurus the greatest materialist, and Plato- the greatest idealist. The classical definition of both directions was first formulated by the prominent German philosopher F. Schlegel. F. Engels also proposed his own formulation.

The advantages of materialism are reliance on science, on common human common sense, as well as the logical and practical, experimental provability of many provisions. The weak side of materialism is an insufficient and unconvincing explanation of the essence and origin of consciousness, as well as many other phenomena that modern science cannot explain. The strength of idealism is the analysis of many mechanisms and forms of consciousness and thinking. A weak feature of idealism is the absence of a reliable (logical) explanation for the very existence of “pure ideas” and the transformation of a “pure idea” into a concrete thing, i.e. the mechanism of the emergence and interaction of matter and ideas.

The question of the origins of being is also connected with the question of the organization of being and, accordingly, of approaches to its study. There are three main positions here.

Monism - this is philosophical concept according to which the world has only one beginning. Such a beginning can be either material or spiritual substance.

Dualism - this is philosophy, asserting the complete equality of the two principles: matter and consciousness, physical and mental (R. Descartes).

Pluralism - This is a philosophical doctrine that affirms the plurality of bases and principles of being (the theory of the four elements - fire, water, earth and air).

In epistemological terms (the second side of the main question of philosophy), philosophers single out epistemological optimism and agnosticism. Representatives epistemological optimism(as a rule, materialists) believe that the world is cognizable, and the possibilities of cognition are unlimited. The opposite point of view is held agnostics(I. Kant, Protagoras), who believed that the world is in principle unknowable, and the possibilities of cognition are essentially limited by the possibilities of the human mind.

In methodological terms, the second side of the Basic Question of Philosophy involves the division of thinkers into empiricists and rationalists. Empiricism(F. Bacon, D. Locke) proceeds from the fact that knowledge can be based only on experience and sensory sensations. Rationalism(Pythagoras, Democritus, Descartes) believes that reliable knowledge can be derived directly from the mind and does not depend on sensory experience.

Thus, the main question of philosophy determines the general principles of world perception, the process of cognition of the world, as well as the principles of human activity in relation to objective reality.

3. Structure and functions f. knowledge.

Philosophy can be predefined as the doctrine of the general principles of being, cognition and thinking. In contrast to mythology and religion, philosophy acts as a rational worldview. This rationality means:

philosophy acts as thinking in generalizing concepts, and not in images;

philosophy is looking for a reasonable order in the world;

philosophical thinking is logical and orderly;

philosophers logically prove and substantiate their views and positions;

philosophical thinking is critical and self-critical.

Despite the high level of rationality, philosophy differs significantly from science, scientific knowledge. Firstly, philosophy introduces into its subject of comprehension of the world not “factual data”, like other sciences, but already received and processed information about the objects and processes of the world. It is a universal intellectual and humanitarian discipline that seeks to systematically comprehend the knowledge gained and, on this basis, to explain being in a comprehensive, generalized and holistic way.

Secondly, the philosopher relies not only on facts and logic, like a scientist, but also on intuition. Each philosopher is initially inspired by some great idea that has illuminated him, by one deep moral experience that tells not only his mind, but also his heart where, on what path to seek the truth. The mind only revealed, deduced the consequences that flowed from the accepted system of relations and values.

Thirdly, value-oriented, spiritual and practical , i.e. essentially a worldview type of philosophical consciousness. Scientific knowledge in itself is indifferent to the meanings, goals, values ​​and interests of a person. Against, philosophical knowledge- this is knowledge about the place and role of man in the world. Such knowledge is deeply personal and imperative; obliges to a certain way of life and action. Philosophical truth is objective, but it is experienced by each person in his own way, in accordance with personal life and moral experience. Only in this way does knowledge become a conviction, which a person will defend and defend to the end, even at the cost of his own life.

Fourth, the focus of philosophy per person . The philosopher is not satisfied with an objective picture of the world. He necessarily "inscribes" a person in it. Man's relation to the world is an eternal subject of philosophy. And if science develops the means and methods of human activity, then philosophy formulates the goals of this activity. Exactly goal setting function and value-semantic evaluation most fundamentally distinguishes philosophy from science.

And finally, fifthly, the presence self-reflection , i.e. conversion philosophical thought on itself, the desire to critically comprehend the origins and nature of philosophizing. Only philosophy as one of the main problems of its analysis can raise the question "What is philosophy?".

Now, on the basis of the brief analysis done, it has become possible to formulate the specifics of philosophical knowledge. The specifics of philosophy is that it:

is extremely abstract, generalized knowledge;

studies its objects as a whole ( human problem, being, etc.);

acts as a theoretical worldview with its own special conceptual and categorical apparatus;

acts as a methodological basis for all other sciences;

is a set of objectified knowledge and values, moral ideals of its time;

has the function of goal-setting and search for the meaning of life;

studies not only the subject of knowledge, but also the mechanism of knowledge itself;

self-criticism and reflexivity;

inexhaustible in its essence, has insoluble, "eternal" problems (the essence and origin of being, the origin of life, the presence of God).

Philosophy- this is a specific ideological science about the most general connections and relations in the world, primarily between the world and man.

The structure of philosophical knowledge:

ontology - the doctrine of being;

epistemology - the doctrine of knowledge;

dialectics - the doctrine of development;

anthropology - the study of man;

social philosophy - the doctrine of society;

axiology - the doctrine of values

ethics - the doctrine of due;

logic - the doctrine of the laws of correct thinking;

Philosophical disciplines are not mechanical parts of the whole, which can be separated from it and considered independently of its other parts. Here another image is more suitable: a precious crystal and its facets. With each turn of the crystal, more and more of its facets are highlighted, although the crystal itself remains the same.

It is customary to single out the following main functions of philosophy: cognitive (epistemological); explanatory; worldview; reflective; integrative (synthetic); goal-setting function; methodological; heuristic; social; appraisal; educational; prognostic.

Philosophy cannot save society from wars, conflicts, hunger, despotism of power and other negative phenomena. But it can and must protect the system of ethical values ​​of society, the system of principles and norms of social life and behavior from the penetration into it of false and still unverified, ethically vicious and adventurous, primitive and extremist.

Agnosticism - Philosophical doctrine, which denies the finally resolved question of the cognizability of the world, the attainability of truth, limits the role of science only to the cognizability of phenomena (Protagoras, Kant, J. Berkeley, Hume).

Axiology - Philosophical doctrine of the nature of values.

Anthropocentrism - The view that man is the center and the highest goal of the universe.

In Marxist philosophy, it is believed that the relations of production are:

defining relationship between people.

According to the pragmatic concept of truth:

Truth is that which is useful and helps to solve unresolved problems.

In the structure of personality, Freud distinguishes:

It, over I, I

In Plato's Philosophy, the idea of ​​a horse differs from a real live horse in that:

The idea is primary, the horse is secondary.

In Kant's Philosophy "thing in itself":

That which causes sensations in us but cannot itself be known .

"The war of all against all is a natural state":

Will as the main principle of life considered:

Schopenhauer

Time - A set of relations expressing the coordination of states that change each other, their sequence and duration. Time is one-dimensional, irreversible, homogeneous.

The highest form of motion of matter:

social movement.

Identification of the causes of hereditary relationships, summing up single phenomena under a general law is typical for:

Explanations.

Hegel: " Phenomenology of Spirit”, “Science of Logic”, “Philosophy of History”.

Marx considers the main thing in society:

Mode of production

Global problems:

Problems on the solution of which the survival of mankind depends.

War and peace, demography, ecology.

Gnoseology - Philosophical doctrine of knowledge. Founder J. Locke.

Deism - Religious-philosophical doctrine that recognizes God as the world mind, which designed the expedient "machine" of nature and gave it laws and movement, but rejects the further intervention of God in the self-movement of nature (i.e., "God's providence", miracles, etc.) and does not allow other ways to the knowledge of God, except for reason. It became widespread among the thinkers of the Enlightenment and played a significant role in the development of freethinking in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Traffic - Any change, interaction, unfolding in space and time. It is absolute and relative.

Dialectic - A system of universal principles, but prescriptions that guide the cognitive and practical activities of people. The idea of ​​mutually exclusive and at the same time presupposing each other opposites.

"Reliable knowledge of the world is impossible," states:

Skepticism.

Dualistic philosophy is characteristic of:

Rene Descartes.

If in the prediction the theory of the empirical consequence does not reveal in practice, then one speaks of:

Falsification of knowledge.

The laws of dialectics were first formulated by: Hegel.

The law of dialectics, answering the question about the source of development:

The law of dialectics revealing the source of self-movement and development:

The law of unity and struggle of opposites.

The law of dialectics concealing the most general mechanism of development:

The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones.

The law of dialectics characterizing the direction, form and result:

Negation of negation.

Idealism - The direction of philosophy, which solves the main question of philosophy in favor of the primacy of the spirit, consciousness, subjectivity.

The main forms of idealism are objective and subjective.

The first asserts the existence of a spiritual principle outside and independently of human consciousness, the second either denies the existence of any reality outside the consciousness of the subject, or considers it as something completely determined by his activity.

The largest representatives objective idealism: in ancient philosophy- Plato, Plotinus, Proclus; in modern times - G. W. Leibniz, F. W. Schelling, G. W. F. Hegel.

Subjective idealism is most clearly expressed in the teachings of J. Berkeley, D. Hume, and the early J. G. Fichte (18th century). In common usage, "idealist" (from the word "ideal") often means an unselfish person striving for lofty goals.

The ideological head of the Slavophiles is:

Individualism - Becoming your own interests above the interests of society .

Individual consciousness fatalism

Irrationalism - Reduces the role of the mind.

Kant wrote: Moral duty"

Collectivism - The formation of the interests of society above their own.

The concept ... characteristic of V. Solovyov:

Unity.

Who first used the term "philosophy"?

"LOGOS" in the philosophical doctrine of Heraclitus means:

A universal law to which everyone in the world is subject.

Marx " Capital"

Materialism - The direction of philosophy that decides the basic question of philosophy in favor of primary matter, nature, being objective. The term "materialism" has been used since the 17th century. mainly in the sense of physical ideas about matter, and from the beginning. 18th century in philosophical sense to contrast materialism with idealism. historical forms materialism: ancient materialism (Democritus, Epicurus), Renaissance materialism (B. Telesio, G. Bruno), metaphysical (mechanistic) materialism of the 17th-18th centuries. (G. Galileo, F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, P. Gassendi, J. Locke, B. Spinoza; French materialism of the 18th century - J. La Mettrie, C. Helvetius, P. Holbach, D. Diderot), anthropological materialism (L. Feuerbach), dialectical materialism(K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin).

Metaphysics - Philosophical doctrine of the ultimate, superexperienced principles and principles of being.

Milesian school - Conventional designation of the first ancient Greek natural philosophers and naturalists who lived in the 6th century. BC e. in Miletus (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes).

The thought whose name is associated with the discovery of the unconscious:

The thinker who believes that man is driven by sexual instincts:

Naturalistic approach to society:

In it, society is considered as the highest creation of nature, as a natural continuation of cosmic laws.

Impossible to fake:

The existence of God.

Social economic philosophy: Marx

Restriction or suppression of sensual desires, voluntary transfer of sensual will:

Asceticism.

Ontology- philosophical doctrine of being. Francis Bacon, founder of the doctrine of ontology.

Founder of idealism:

Plato (objective idealism).

Founder of materialism:

Democritus.

The main idea of ​​the philosophy of the French Enlightenment:

The priority of reason as the highest authority in solving the problems of human society.

The basic principle of ancient philosophy:

Cosmocentrism.

The main idea of ​​Westernism is:

Russia is developing along the European path.

The main claim of empiricism is:

All human knowledge is based on experience.

Falsified hypotheses are being filed about:

The existence of life on earth

According to Kant, before the formation of man as a moral being, the following is of fundamental importance:

Moral debt.

They posed the problem of being in antiquity:

“Act in such a way that the maximum of your will can at the same time become the principle of universal legislation”:

Pragmatism - Western philosophy.

Representative of medieval philosophy:

Thomas Aquinas.

Representatives of German philosophy:

Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach .

The reason for the disparity in human society Rousseau believed:

Own.

Progress -

Simple indivisible substance according to Leibniz:

Space - A set of relations expressing the coordination of existing objects, from the location relative to each other and the relative size. The space is three-dimensional, homogeneous, isotropic.

A work about a man of his mortality and death:

The method developed by Freud is called:

Psychoanalysis.

Growing interdependence of different regions of the world:

Globalization.

Revolution - Profound qualitative changes in the development of any phenomena of nature, society or cognition (for example, a social revolution, as well as a geological, industrial, scientific, technological, cultural revolution, a revolution in physics, in philosophy, etc.).

Regress - Type of development, which is characterized by a transition from higher to lower, processes of degradation, lowering the level of organization, loss of the ability to perform certain functions; also includes moments of stagnation, a return to obsolete forms and structures. The opposite of progress.

The representative would agree with the statement “thinking is the same product of brain activity as bile is a product of activity”:

Vulgar materialism.

The secular ideological position of the Renaissance opposing scholasticism and the spiritual dominance of the church:

Humanism.

The originality of my philosophical type is primarily in the fact that I put not being, but freedom, as the basis of philosophy:

N. Berdyaev.

Sensationalism - The direction in the theory of knowledge, according to which sensations, perceptions are the basis and main form of reliable knowledge. Opposes rationalism.

Sobornost in the Philosophy of the Slavophils:

Free unity of people in Christ.

The set of religious doctrines and teachings about the essence and action of God:

Theology

Solovyov: "The meaning of love", "beauty in nature", "justification of good".

According to the sociology of Marxism, the main driving force development of society is:

Class struggle

Medieval Philosophy: God

The essence of Socrates' ethical rationalism:

"Virtue is the result of knowing what is good, while the absence of virtue is the result of knowledge."

The essence of the ethical teaching of Epicurus is that:

You have to enjoy life.

The essence of the problem of biology and sociology in man is:

The interaction and correlation of genes about education.

Scholasticism - type of religious philosophy, characterized by a combination of theological and dogmatic premises with a rationalistic methodology and an interest in formal logical problems.

The systematizer of scholasticism is Thomas Aquinas.

The thesis belonging to Thales:

"Know thyself".

Hegel's theory of development, which is based on the unity and struggle of opposites:

Dialectics.

Theory scientific knowledge is called:

Epistimology.

Fatalism - The idea of ​​the inevitable predetermination of events in the world; belief in an impersonal fate (ancient stoicism), in an unchanging divine predestination (especially characteristic of Islam), etc.

Philosophy from Greek:

Love for Wisdom .

The philosopher who considered logic the main tool of knowledge:

Aristotle

Philosophical direction, recognizing the mind as the basis of knowledge and behavior:

Rationalism.

A characteristic feature of medieval philosophers:

Theocentrism.

Central philosophical problem D. Huma:

Cognition

"Man is the measure of all things":

Protagoras

What is a worldview?

Worldview - a set of the most general views on the world and the place of man in it.

The era of restoration of the ideals of antiquity in Europe:

Renaissance (Renaissance).

Eschatology - The doctrine of the final fate of the world and man.

The main object of study of the Renaissance:

Schopenhauer - Representative of the philosophy of life.

Evolution - Irreversible historical development of living nature.

Existentialism - Philosophy of existence, existence (human existence); the main modes (manifestations) of human existence - care, fear, determination, conscience; a person sees existence as the root of his being in borderline situations (struggle, suffering, death). Comprehending himself as an existence, a person acquires freedom, which is the choice of himself, his essence, imposing responsibility for everything that happens in the world on him.

Philosophy works where science is powerless. Philosophers are allowed to think about everything from metaphysics to morality, which means that they can shed light on the basic questions of existence. What is the bad news? There are questions that even philosophers are unable to answer.

Here are eight mysteries of philosophy that we may never solve.

1. Why the universe arose from nothing

Our presence in the universe is difficult to explain. The insecurity of our daily lives makes us take our existence for granted, but there are times when we sink into a deep state of existential consciousness and ask ourselves. Why does all this exist in the universe, and why does everything obey exact laws? Why should anything exist? We live in a universe that has spiral galaxies, northern lights, and SpongeBob SquarePants. If you worship him, then you urgently need drug treatment, and not sit and talk about the philosophy of a cartoon character with a square ass.

And as Sean Carroll noted, “Physics cannot explain why these laws act in the universe and not others, although physicists sometimes try to refute this. And they could have avoided that mistake if they had taken philosophers seriously." And as for philosophers, the best they can come up with is the anthropic principle, which is that everything in our universe is exactly the way it is, and not otherwise, due to our presence in it as observers, but something in this explanation looks like a tautology.

2. Is our universe real?

This is the classic question of the Cartesians, the followers of Descartes. They ask, how can we know that what we see around us is real, and not a huge illusion created by an invisible force (which René Descartes called the "evil demon")? Not so long ago, this question was associated with the problem of the so-called "brain in a flask", a kind of thought experiments illustrating the dependence of a person in understanding reality on his subjective sensations.

Moreover, it may very well be that in fact we are not who we think we are. Assuming that the people taking part in the simulation are not really who they are, on the contrary, they suppress their true selves for the role that they need to play in the simulation. These philosophical reflections also make us think about what the word "real" actually means. Realists claim that if the universe around us seems rational to us (compared to the fabulous, incomprehensible and devoid of any rules), then we accept it as real and true. Or, as Sifer said after a piece of "computer" steak in The Matrix: "Ignorance is good."

3. Does free will exist?

(Atoms and particles move randomly, but our brains are made up of particles and atoms?
How then can free will exist?)

Also called the determinism dilemma, we don't know if our actions are controlled by a chain of events that have happened (or some other external mechanism), or if we are free artists who create our own life at will. Philosophers (as well as some scientists) have been arguing over this dilemma for a long time, and the debate seems to be endless. If the decisions we make depend on our past, then determinism exists and we are not really free to choose. But if in fact everything is otherwise, which is called indeterminism, then all our actions should be considered random, but again, this is not free will. At the same time, libertarians (not to be confused with a political party) adhere to the idea of ​​compatibilism, which implies the idea that free will can exist along with deterministic views of the world. Neuroscience research exacerbates the problem because they figured out that our brains make decisions before we even think about them. But if we don't have free will, then why do we think, instead of becoming like a zombie brain. Quantum mechanics makes this question even more confusing by suggesting that we live in a probabilistic world and determinism of any kind is impossible. And as Linas Vepstas said, “Consciousness should be closely connected with the perception of time, namely with the fact that the past cannot be changed, and the future is unknown. This suits us, because. if the future were predetermined, we certainly wouldn't have free will, and there would be no point in taking part in the flow of time."

4. Does God exist?

We cannot say for sure if God is or not. Both believers and atheists are wrong about something, agnostics are right. True agnostics adhere to the point of view of the Cartesians, followers of the philosophy of Descartes, accepting the existence of inexplicable concepts and the limitations of human knowledge. We do not know enough about the internal processes of the universe, so we cannot make categorical statements about the emergence of reality, and whether there is someone in charge at its foundation. Many people rely on the opinion of naturalists: they assume that the universe moves according to autonomous laws, while not excluding the existence of a great designer who created these laws (which is called deism). As mentioned earlier, perhaps we are living in a simulation where we are controlled by the gods. Or maybe the Gnostics are right that the powers that be exist in another reality that we don't know about. These are not necessarily omniscient and omnipotent gods, perhaps they are simply powerful creatures. Once again, these are not scientific questions, but rather thought experiments that make us think about the limitations of human experience and knowledge.

5. Is there life after death?

I hasten to warn you that here you will not know whether we will end our lives plucking harp strings on a fluffy cloud or forever unloading coal in the mines of hell. Just because we cannot ask the dead if there is something on the other side of life, we can only guess what awaits us. Materialists assume that there is no life after death, but this is just an assumption that we can neither prove nor disprove. Examining the machinations of the universe in detail through the prism of Newton/Einstein theory or taking into account the filters of quantum mechanics, there is nothing that would make us believe that our life is limited only to our stay on earth. This is a matter of metaphysics, and the possibility that the cosmos is spinning in such a way that our lives repeat themselves. Hans Moravec, in his reflections on the quantum Many-Worlds Interpretation, said that it is impossible not to observe the universe, we must always remain alive and observe the universe in one way or another. This topic is extremely controversial, but like the question of the existence of God, scientists are not yet able to solve this problem, leaving it to philosophers.

6. Can we perceive the world objectively?

There is a difference between an objective understanding of the world (or at least an attempt to do so) and the perception of the world as it is, not allowing the brain to change it. Everything that you know, what you touched, what you saw, smelled - all this is filtered through many physiological and cognitive processes. Therefore, your subjective experience in this life is unique. Using our classic example, we can show that people perceive red differently. It is impossible to know for sure that you perceive the world in the same way as someone else, with our level of technical and scientific development it is impossible to do so. Only artificial intelligence can perceive reality objectively. But assuming that the machine will think logically and will have some knowledge, can we assume that its objective reality is actually objective? It is worth noting that much of Buddhist philosophy is based on this fundamental limitation (what they call emptiness), and the exact opposite of Plato's idealism.

7. What is morally right?

Obviously, we will never be able to say one hundred percent what is right and what is wrong. At various times in history, philosophers, theologians, and politicians claim to have figured out how to judge the rightness of human actions and set rules for behavior. But everything is not so simple. Life is too complex to be limited by universal morality and ethics. The golden rule is a great idea (treat people the way you want them to treat you), but it nonetheless denies moral autonomy and leaves no metaphor for punishing crimes committed (like jail time for criminals), and can even justify oppression (Emmanuel Kant was one of the most vocal critics). Moreover, this oversimplified rule does not allow for the development of more complex scenarios. For example, is it possible to sacrifice people for money? who is more important from a moral point of view - a newborn baby or an adult monkey? As neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only part of our upbringing, it is part of our psychology. As a result, we can say that morality is always there, only the understanding of what is good and what is bad changes over time.

8. What do the numbers mean?

We use numbers every day, but let's ask ourselves a question. What do the numbers mean, why and why do they help us explain how the universe works (like, for example, Newton's laws)? Mathematical formulas can be made up of numbers, sets, groups, and dots - but are they real objects, or do they just explain the relationships that exist in all of these structures? Plato claimed that numbers are real (it doesn't matter that we can't see them), while the Formalists argued that numbers are abstract, they just explain mathematical relationships. This is a truly ontological problem that brings us back to the nature of the universe, namely which aspects of it are concrete and which are abstract.

Copyright site © - Elena Semashko - translation of the article from io9.com

P.S. My name is Alexander. This is my personal, independent project. I am very glad if you liked the article. Want to help the site? Just look below for an ad for what you've recently been looking for.

Copyright site © - This news belongs to the site, and are the intellectual property of the blog, protected by copyright law and cannot be used anywhere without an active link to the source. Read more - "About Authorship"

Are you looking for this? Perhaps this is what you could not find for so long?

Bitorez Mendez

1. Where is the rationale for Plato's judgment that numbers or figures, no matter how they are called, are real?
2. Where is the rationale for the Formalists' judgment that numbers or figures, no matter how they are called, are abstract?
3. Why quoting catchphrase: “treat people the way you want them to treat you.” There's a huge difference between "treat people the way you want to be treated." and "treat people the way you want them to treat you."!
4. A person perceives information about objects, through feelings, with his consciousness. With my "I". Based on simple logic, if you ride a train, at a speed of, say, 60 km / h, looking out the window you notice movement of relatively stationary objects. If a train goes on a parallel track, in the same direction at the same speed, the feeling of movement will disappear. Similarly, if it is known that our consciousness notices how our physical and mental fluctuations change, then it has a different nature and is outside of time and therefore outside of space, and since all matter moves in time, then the human I, this is not the brain. or the body, but something else that is beyond the limits of objectivism and subjectivism, which means that it definitely cannot be objective in any way. It is in the absolute state. But "I", concentrating the flow of itself, from the absolute, into objective reality - receiving information about objects through the senses - such perception is objective, since the environment is completely objective. It cannot be subjective, because it would not be stable and would be completely destroyed.
5. Free will does not exist. Only because this is not the correct formulation of the question, because of not knowing the meanings of the terms "Will" and "Freedom". No one had and cannot have any freedom, in the sense of the word that we now know. In fact, the term "freedom" is complete nonsense. "Free will", even more nonsense. As you know, freedom is the state of an individual in which he is the determining cause of his actions, that is, he is not directly conditioned by other factors, including natural, social, interpersonal-communicative and individually generic. What then is will? Exactly the same. How is it that two different words have the same meaning? It's like playing cards with 5 kings in a deck. Therefore, it turns out that there is a complete confusion, when asked: "Does free will exist?". And it all started with the fact that, for unknown reasons, the term "freedom" was assigned the interpretation of the term "will". Toli because of brainlessness, or because of simple ignorance. And freedom is - With the WILL to butt. Only and everything. In other words, to recognize oneself as weak-willed, flawed, weak, etc.
6. Neither physicists nor philosophers will ever be able to explain why everything in the world obeys one or another specific laws. The only thing they can do is to observe and describe them. And all this is only because physicists study nature only from a material point of view, ignoring the metaphysical and spiritual component because of their CSF, because supposedly no one has ever seen, touched, or heard it. And philosophers do not have a single concept in their philosophy. Everyone explains everything in his own way, and in philosophical disputes with other philosophers, they do not want to find truth in a dispute, but self-affirmation. And every coin has both sides. And if you want to get all the information about a coin, then looking at it from only one side, the chances that you can reliably study the coin are zero.

We continue our series of articles in questions and answers about Love.

If you want to know whether it is worth fighting for your Love, when to understand that the time has come for separation, whether it is necessary to be jealous and how to stop being jealous, and also if you are interested in many other wise answers to interesting and philosophical, rhetorical and funny, beautiful and complex questions about Love, then you are welcome to the world of Questions and Answers about Love.

An interesting question about Love: Is it worth fighting for your love? Or silently leave the battlefield without a fight? Many women, and men too, often make the same mistake - at some point they begin to fight for their love with other women and men, with friends and relatives of a loved one. But what is the meaning of such a struggle for love? Is love a casting of beauty, strength, cunning, dexterity and opportunity? Love is not a podium, and feelings are valuable when they are not for show. Very often, people who fight fiercely for love are like little children playing the same children's game. Remember such a game from childhood, when children have to run around the chairs in order to be the first to sit on them, and there are always fewer chairs than children, and it is known that someone will lose, and therefore a struggle for a chair between several children will inevitably begin? So, fighting for love is just as stupid and pointless as playing this children's game: take a step to the side, distract yourself from the rules of the game you invented, and sit on any chair you like on the sidelines, against the wall where they are empty, beautiful, comfortable and unoccupied stands a great many. Stop playing already, enough, I said, play childish games. If your beloved man allows you to fight for him, beloved, then this is already too much. A man who truly loves and deserves your Love will never allow you to be so humiliated, sinking to the level of fighting for his love with other rival contestants for his love. Love does not tolerate competition - it either exists, or, excuse me, it's time to look around and sit on the neck of a free man, quietly standing on the sidelines and dreaming that someone will finally notice and appreciate him. Love is not a casting or a fighting ring.

Difficult question about love: How to understand that the time has come for Separation? When you no longer want to spoil your loved one, do nice things for him, please him with small unexpected surprises, then it's time for Separation ...

Philosophical question about falling in love and Love: How to understand what kind of feeling it is - Love or falling in love? To understand yourself and understand what you are experiencing - true Love or another love, take a mini-test and honestly answer two questions "Yes" or "No".

1 question from the test about Love and falling in love. Remember your first meeting, your first date. Do you remember what you were wearing when you met? Do you remember what you said when he approached you? Do you remember what you told him about, what jokes you laughed at? Do you remember it very well?

2 question from the test about Love and falling in love. Do you remember in detail what he was wearing on the first date, during your first meeting? Do you remember well what he said, what he laughed at? So, if you remember better the details of what you were wearing, what you did and said, then this is love. And if you remember what he was wearing, how he looked, what he said and what he did - this is Love. Draw your own conclusions. But the test is 500% accurate.

An interesting and beautiful, philosophical and rhetorical, but very difficult question about Love: How to forget the past, former Love? How to get Love out of your head if it sits in your heart? To forget the former Love, it must be compared with last year's snow: this Love will not be repeated either, it has actually melted in your soul, like last year's snow, but its melt waters still stir your heart. If it hurts, if you feel bad, then just repeat to yourself "Last year's snow, last year's snow." Treat your Love like last year's snow: seasons, like human life, change, and the snow melts in the summer, and there’s nothing to be done, probably, the time has come for you to let go of your Love and let it melt calmly - you can’t hide real Love, like real snow, in the refrigerator. Of course, now, when you are very ill, when you are suffering from your former love, it’s very hard for you to believe, and yet - very soon new, fresh, fluffy snow will fall, which will wrap your soul with its snow-white veil and let in a new, fresh stream of new Love ... You just wait for the first new snowfall ... In the meantime waiting and still suffering, just sing to yourself - "It's last year's snow, last year's snow, and all my feelings are just laughter ..."

Philosophical, rhetorical question about Love: To be jealous or not to be jealous - that is the main question of Love! If you are jealous of a man for every first women's skirt you meet, then this does not mean at all that you love this man to the point of losing momentum. You're just afraid of losing him. Therefore, it makes no sense to be jealous of the man who is faithful to you - so you can only eventually push him away from you and he will simply live up to your worst expectations in order to begin to live up to your worst ideas about him. And there is no point in jealousy if a man is unfaithful to you: with your jealousy you will not change the situation, but you will only tear your soul, your hair will turn gray from experiences, wrinkles will appear on your face. If a man is unfaithful to you, and you know about it, then be jealous, do not be jealous, but you cannot cancel the fact of his betrayal. Here you must either leave silently and with your head held high if you cannot put up with his infidelity, or grit your teeth to endure this state of affairs further, since it suits you because of money, power, children or other considerations. In general, jealousy is such a seasoning for love relationships, which is good when a little bit and in moderation. And if there is too much jealousy, then such a seasoning already turns into poison. And another wise truth about Love: loving person will try never to give you a reason for jealousy.

Complex and interest Ask about Love: How to tell a man that you are not interested in him as a man, and you just want to "remain friends"? Even if now this guy does not care about you as a man, this does not mean at all that in a few years the situation will not change dramatically. This time. Second - if you really want to keep a friend by refusing him as a lover, offer him to remain friends in a very soft, delicate way, in no case mentioning that you are not interested in him as a man (keep and pity his sense of dignity), but by doing the emphasis on how you respect him too much as a friend to risk your friendship for a love affair. After all, it is not known what kind of lovers and lovers you will turn out to be - Love is always a game of roulette, but friends - you are the best. So why risk real friendship for the sake of some unknown love adventures? No wonder they say that real love rare, and true friendship even rarer.

An interesting and philosophical question about Love: How to part with a former beloved man with friends without offending him and without offending his dignity at the same time? How to save a relationship after you had Love and Separation? The most important rule for a friendly parting with a once beloved man is not to sort things out, not to climb the wall, not to blame and not to swear. Thank your ex-man for the fact that he was in your life, tell him thanks for all the good things (list these events) that you had in your life together and Love. At parting, during separation, just tell him: “Now I am able to love you from a distance” or “I no longer need your presence to continue to love you.” After such a farewell, after such a gentle separation, a man will not be offended by you, will not hate your past Love. And then - it will be easier for him to come to terms with the idea that you are no longer together, then you will be able to communicate normally, like real friends, without holding in your hearts a black, hidden nasty snake, resentment and bitterness from an ugly separation.

Philosophical, interesting and beautiful, by no means rhetorical question about Love: What to do if He doesn't call, doesn't write, doesn't come, doesn't come? What should I do if after sex or at some point He just disappeared, I can’t contact him, chat? If your man, your beloved boyfriend, immediately after the first sex or after some time of communication disappeared from your life, if he does not call you, does not come to you, although everything seemed to be fine with you, then what to do? What happened? Why doesn’t he call, doesn’t come, doesn’t announce himself, doesn’t get in touch? What to do? Maybe you need to call him or come to him to talk and find out the reason for his sudden disappearance? The wisest decision in such a situation is in no case to call, write letters, do not come to his house, do not seek meetings, do not impose yourself. Indeed, in your soul you know the answer to your question: he does not call you, does not write, does not come simply because he does not want to. Have the courage to admit it to yourself. If a beloved man does not call you, it means that he is fine without you and he simply does not want to call you. It's cruel, but it's true. It will be much worse if you impose on him so much that he will tell you all this to your face. If a man does not come to you, does not write letters, does not seek meetings with you, then this is only for one reason - he does not want to communicate with you. Face the truth and accept this fact. It is very important to understand that if a man really loves a woman and is truly interested in her, then he will never just disappear anywhere without warning. And there is no need to come up with excuses and explanations for his loss. “Loss” will always find you, will visit you every day, call you every hour, meet you from work and see you home, guard at the entrance and “accidentally” meet you at the store ... Unless, of course, the man is interested in you and in love into you, he will always find himself, call, come, and even if he is wounded, he will crawl on his knees and bruised. If a man does not appear for a long time, play a commemoration in the shower for him. After all, if a man does not want to, a woman will not jump on him. It's clear? If for some reason a man is uncomfortable with you, feels bad, or in another place “he is better fed”, then no force, no persuasion and conversation, persuasion, you will lure him to you. Unless you run into an outright deceit, you hear a pure lie about how busy he is at work, what important things he does, how many problems, deeds and worries he has. Of course, more important than you. Therefore, do not ask a man why he doesn’t call you, don’t call him yourself, don’t come to his house, don’t impose on a man, don’t hang on his neck if you don’t want to hear the truth, why he doesn’t call you, doesn’t write and doesn’t look for meetings with you. You know this answer: since a man doesn’t do something, it means he doesn’t want to. It's simple. But this is hard to believe.

From the moment a person begins to think, he strives to understand the world and my own existence. He tried to explain it with the help of myths, superstitions and religions on the one hand and with the help of science and philosophy on the other.

Religion offers answers to many of these questions, but it is based on divine intervention, which the church considers "authoritative", and is expressed by dogmatic, irrational faith. Science and philosophy abandon dogmas and try to answer these questions with the help of reason, logic and experience.

Philosophy is quite extensive and complex concept, but its essence can be reduced to finding answers to the 10 questions below.

1. What is the nature of the universe?

Where did she come from? When did she start to exist? Why did she appear? What influences its change? Does it develop or collapse? Does it function on its own, or does it need some kind of deliberate control to keep it from turning into chaos?

2. Is there any Supreme Being?

If so, what is His nature? Did he create the universe? Does He control her, and if so, at what level? What is His relationship with man? Can He interfere in the affairs of man? Is He good? If He is so good and all-powerful, then why does evil exist?

3. What is the place of man in the Universe?

Is man the highest form of development in the universe, or is he just an insignificant grain of sand in infinite space? is it human spirit a product of some higher spiritual forces or did it evolve from matter? How is the Universe set up in relation to a person: friendly, indifferent or completely hostile?

4. What is reality?

What is consciousness, and what is thought? Are the thoughts real? What is more important: consciousness or matter? Did consciousness create matter, or did matter evolve into consciousness? Where do ideas come from? Do thoughts have any effect on our lives or are they just fantasies? What is Truth? Is there a universal Truth that is always true for all people, or is it individual for everyone?

5. What determines the fate of each person?

Is a person the creator and driving force of his life, or does he live under the influence of a force over which he has no control? Is there free will or is our life determined by external factors, and if so, what are these factors? Is there any high power that can interfere with our lives? Or is everything predetermined from the beginning of time? Or is our life a random set of events, phenomena and cases? Is there some other life control mechanism that we don't know about?

6. What is good and evil?

What is morality? What is ethics? Who accepted the boundaries of good and bad, right and wrong? By what principle? Is there an absolute standard for determining good or bad regardless of personal opinion? What to do if the decisions of other people (society, authorities), which determine the scope of good and bad, contradict personal beliefs? Should we obey others or follow our own conscience? If, as an answer to the fifth question, we assume that we do not have free will, then what difference does it make how we act in life, good or bad? If we have no choice, will something change from what we will be, good or evil?

7. Why is our life the way it is?

What should be the ideal life? What would a utopian society or heaven on earth look like? Is it even possible to create a utopia? If so, how? Will utopia provide personal freedom? What will have to be done with those who will be against the utopian system? If you start to control or punish them, will it remain a utopia?

8. What is the ideal relationship between the individual and the state?

When does the individual serve the state or when does the state serve the individual? What is the ideal form of government? When does a person have the right not to obey the dictatorship of the state? What is the maximum allowable degree of state influence? In what case will a person who protests against the established order turn out to be right?

9. What is education?

What is important for young people to know and what is not? Who should control education: parents, the student himself, society or the state? Should a person be educated in order to be free and live according to his own interests? Or should he subordinate his desires to the service of other people or the state?

10. What happens after death?

Is death the end of everything, or is there a soul in man that continues to exist after death? If there is a soul, is it immortal, or will it eventually cease to exist as well? If the soul continues to exist after death, what does that existence look like? If existence after death is possible, will those who behaved "good" be rewarded, and will those who behave "bad" be punished? If so, how can you reconcile this with the predetermination of fate?