on course "Philosophy"
"Philosophical and scientific picture of the world"
At the beginning of the XIX century. nature was represented as a natural course of events in space and time, in the description of which it was possible in one way or another (practically or theoretically) to abstract from the influence of man on the subject of knowledge. Therefore, Lenin had grounds in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1909) to insist that objective reality "is reflected by our sensations, existing independently of them."
However, the emphasis made by E. Mach and R. Avenarius on the relationship between matter and consciousness, despite the incorrectness of their conclusions, was by no means useless in methodological terms. Their increased attention to the interconnection of matter and consciousness, the object of cognition and cognitive efforts, as well as the means of research, did not remove the topic of the primacy of matter “from the agenda”. It only indicated the complexity of solving this problem in the process of cognition. From the essence of the scientific problems themselves, new requirements for scientific methodology followed at the beginning of the 20th century.
Recognition of the materiality of the world and the objective existence of objects and phenomena of reality, despite the difficulties in studying the microworld.
The need to determine the degree of independence of the subject of research from the subject of knowledge with an obvious relationship between both sides.
Accounting for the nature and extent of the subject's influence on the content of objective processes.
The representation of reality in the epistemological plane turned from one-dimensional into two- or even three-dimensional. The methodological orientation of the new science changed significantly. The scientific revolution has led to a methodological revolution.
Philosophical works of Lenin completed the first part of the work and were important in terms of worldview, but did not reach the methodological level of the problem, and did not set such a task.
Their main goal was to defend materialism. The next stage required a special methodological study, the conditions for which at the beginning of the 20th century. not yet ripe. But it was positivism, which proclaimed itself the "philosophy of science", that took over the baton of methodological searches in the field of natural sciences. Here, the "great" truths of materialism, fortified by Lenin, turned out to be insufficient (although necessary). The main question was no longer so much whether matter exists and whether it is primary. Something else has become relevant - how to prove the objectivity of the microworld, space-time relations, which turned out to be relative, depending on the position of the observer (the choice of the frame of reference)? How to confirm the objective existence of an unobservable electron, especially since it behaves in such a strange way: revealing the properties of either a particle or a wave?
Only 50 years after this exciting period in the history of science, physicists knew almost exactly "that the electron and the electromagnetic field are not just beautiful formulas, that the change in space and time depending on the speed of the body in relation to the observer, etc. - not ghostly phantoms of human perception of reality. All these are facts largely independent of the observer, more broadly - of the subject of knowledge. And yet we are forced to admit this reservation - almost knowing that the electron cannot be "caught", identified absolutely objectively, regardless of the device (and, consequently, the observer associated with it). In a word, physics has succeeded in establishing with greater or lesser certainty the objectivity of the existence of an electron, the objectivity of the space-time interval in the theory of relativity, etc. But how unsteady are these foundations of our knowledge, based on words like in the "ultimately" and "almost"... Even now. And then, at the beginning of the century?.. Then there were many more years ahead set aside by history to dispel doubts. What was absolutely clear, not subject to doubt to the philosopher Lenin, who managed to look into the future of the electron and other microparticles from the standpoint of materialism, seemed very problematic for physics.
Later, when this vague anticipation of the peculiarities of science of the 20th century, its difference from classical science became obvious, E. Schrödinger wrote about this: “Classical physics represents that kind of desire for knowledge of nature, in which we try to conclude about objective processes, essentially from our feelings; therefore, here we refuse to take into account the influences that all observations have on the observed object ... Quantum mechanics, on the contrary, buys the possibility of considering atomic processes by partially refusing to describe them in space and time and to objectify them.
Breaking with the traditions of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics opened a new era in the methodology of scientific knowledge. Quantum mechanics has really provided a new frame of reference for understanding all the events taking place in the world, including its very emergence in the form with which our life is connected. Reality could no longer be unconditionally independent of the observer. There is nothing surprising in the fact that this was interpreted as an obvious dependence of the system under study on the observer. Of course, there were some extremes, presenting the situation in such a way that “matter” dissolves in a new picture of the world, that mathematical abstractions finally replace it.
The notion that quantum mechanics deals with "observations" but not with objects as such is, it must be said, alive to this day. Many outstanding physicists are still convinced that the equations of motion in quantum mechanics (and even in classical) do not contain a description of reality, but are only means for calculating the probability of certain observation results.
The scientist, of course, must proceed from the fact that the object and its perception, even with the help of the most complex instruments, are inextricably linked. It is impossible to say for sure, before the complete completion of the study, what exactly is objective and what is subjective in the understanding of phenomena, what depends on consciousness and what does not depend on it. The reality that he encounters in a methodological context (that is, dealing not with ready-made, formed knowledge, but with the movement of knowledge towards a new one) is an inseparable connection, a unity of the objective and the subjective. The task of the scientist lies in the fact that in the course of further research, as far as possible, to separate the two sides of the process of cognition, to establish a more precise form of dependence between them.
What exactly does a person do when trying to verify the objective existence of an object? He is busy, speaking in methodological language, with the "elimination" of the subject from his knowledge and experience, i.e. the exclusion of everything that is subjective, that is subject to the influence of the personality of the cognizer or his influence on the subject by one means or another, tools or other knowledge or even prejudices that he has. In scientific terms, the procedure is quite simple: by changing one of the parameters of perception, one observes how the object changes and whether it changes. If it changes, then there is a dependence, if not, then there is no dependence. Let's not go into specifics now. Everyone, even from their everyday experience, can draw a lot of examples of such a procedure. It is important for us now to understand the main thing: that such elimination is, in principle, possible in many processes of real scientific knowledge. And if it is possible in principle, it means that it is actually feasible in spite of all the difficulties. If it is not realizable now, then there will be means and methods to implement it later. It is also important to understand that the implementation of this "operation" to separate the subjective from the objective is an important condition for the cognizability of the world. IN AND. Arshinov writes: “Noting the role of a scientific experiment in solving these problems, creating stable reproducible phenomena and processes in the experiment, constructing devices for detecting, fixing and measuring their objective characteristics, the researcher acquires a new quality of communicativeness of his cognitive activity. The development of the experiment opened up the possibility of contact with phenomena and processes that can no longer be directly perceived by the human senses.
In his everyday experience, each person instinctively goes through this procedure, one might say, hourly and even every minute, guided by his knowledge of the surrounding objects and controlling their adequacy, picking up objects of interest to him, examining them through a magnifying glass, hitting with a hammer, etc. In scientific research, the situation is, of course, much more complicated than in everyday life. The principle, however, is the same. The same question is being solved: what exactly depends (is connected, is conditioned) on consciousness and what does not depend (is not connected, is not conditioned) on the state of our consciousness? An independent party is recognized as objective, i.e. primary (material), dependent - subjective, secondary (ideal).
Experience is always contradictory. This contradiction is by no means in all cases possible to "remove" at the level of sensations. We can relatively easily verify that a spoon placed in a glass of water still does not bend, as our organs of vision testify; that the nightmare has nothing to do with reality; it is not difficult, if you do not believe your eyes, to be convinced by touch that the door exists as an objective reality. However, trusting only sense data, it is impossible to be sure, for example, that the earth is round or that light consists of rays of different colors. Fortunately, science over many centuries of its existence has developed such a means to answer such questions as theory and mathematical apparatus. Theoretical knowledge or mathematical formulas are considered by many as a purely subjective side of knowledge. Their participation in cognitive procedures is considered further evidence of the "presence of the subject" or common "universals". Meanwhile, theory, as well as mathematics, allows a person to go beyond the limits of experience, to reveal the independence of the content of knowledge from empirical data, which serves as proof of objectivity. Another theory reveals the limits of the first, and so on. It is the theory that allows us to "remove" the contradictions of empirical experience, to go beyond its limits with the help of such abstract concepts as gravity, force, acceleration, or mathematical quantities - wavelength, amount of mass, energy, etc.
In natural science, therefore, the conclusion about the objective existence of this or that phenomenon and object is possible only as a result of a long process of cognition due to a rather long chain of trial and error; ultimately only when the habitual, stable chain of data of experience or theoretical reasoning is broken. Only relatively recently ended (finally or not - the future will show) a long marathon of chasing quarks. About 30 years after the hypothesis was put forward, physicists struggled to ensure that it acquired concrete outlines and a more or less objective interpretation, when it became clear that many phenomena and processes in the microcosm (capture, weak interaction, etc.) could not be explained in within the "classical" theory of elementary particles.
Thus, it is not at all a logical conclusion from a theory or a generalization of observations that provides proof of the material existence of an object, on the contrary, the failure of the old theory, a misfire in experiments, etc. testify to the objective existence of some new phenomenon. Not conformity, but contradiction! Whatever scientific, experimental or practical means we use, since the only subject of knowledge is man, he himself cannot go beyond the limits of "consciousness in general". But be that as it may, humanity as a whole is capable of solving this problem in each individual case, and therefore in a global sense.
Over their centuries-old history, scientists have learned to separate consciousness, sensations, illusions and other manifestations of spiritual activity from the objective, independent of the existing world. And in this sense, we consider the world to be knowable. The weakness of positivism and some modern methodological concepts is that, rightly pointing to the inextricable relationship between matter and consciousness as the most important methodological problem, they either speak very negatively or are skeptical about the possibility of “going beyond” the limits of consciousness in general, and therefore doubt the legitimacy of the fundamental distinctions, and even more so opposition of matter and consciousness. A person cannot go beyond his consciousness in the absolute sense of the word, but he is able to prove the relative nature of this dependence, demonstrating in each individual case the existence of certain things, phenomena and their properties, “not programmed by consciousness”.
Knowing our picture, we know our basic motivations. And this allows us to build our lives in such a way that everything we do corresponds to our basic views on the world. Then whatever we undertake will have a better chance of success. After all when the head (consciousness) and heart (subconscious) work in unison, we are as effective as possible. For example, if a person believes in karma and justifies all difficult circumstances with it, then he is forced to endure and bear his cross. Having understood this to himself, he can consciously choose such a cross that will suit the innate nature of man. Then life will be happier, and perseverance in bearing the cross will eventually make it possible to achieve great success in the chosen field. And if in the picture of the human world the basic value is development, then any difficult life situation can be a task of self-development.
The picture of the world does not determine the way to solve life problems, but it answers the question "Why?". And the method is dictated by our nature, which is also worth realizing and taking into account. If we let everything take its course, then we act chaotically and often destroy our harmony with the Universe. Therefore, the foundations of your perception of the universe should be formed consciously.
Awareness of the internal model of the world will not bring relief and will not fulfill desires, but will show your illusions and delusions. And gradually, as you develop, you will be able to purify your picture of the world, while maintaining the integrity of your personality. And this will make life happier and more creative.
What happens when we are not aware of our picture of the world
Ever since I was a child, I have loved to invent projects for myself. And when he graduated from the institute, he began to try to create different businesses. One such project was the sale of Chinese tea in colorful cardboard packaging with fantasy pictures and Taoist quotes.
I found a printing house, made a box cutout, drew 6 different packages with quotes, ordered tea in China and put it all together. When I had a box of my already beautifully packaged teas in front of me in the room, it was time to sell them. I took a few packs and went to the nearest yoga studio to offer them my tea. It didn’t work out for me, they didn’t need tea, and I became thoughtful. There was an emptiness inside of me. A week ago, I was on fire with this project, enthusiastically inventing packaging, creating a website and studying competitors. But after the goods were ready, the project ceased to interest me. And this is not the first time this has happened!
Before tea, there were 13 other business projects in which I enthusiastically created a product, but stopped after the turn of the routine came. Similar things happened in childhood, so I had my own answer to this ... I thought that I liked working with information, exploring a new field of activity for myself. And when I received knowledge that was interesting to me, then there was nothing left in the project that could captivate me. But after I realized my picture of the world, I understood what was the matter ... and after realizing my nature, I understood it even deeper.
In my picture of the world, the meaning of life is to comprehend your Primordial nature and at the end completely merge with it, thus freeing yourself from the need to be reborn in this world. That is, my basic values are freedom and knowledge. That's what I like about the beginning of my projects - learning new things and creating new things freely. And when I was faced with the fact that I need to start doing some things that are routine for me, then interest in the project fades. My consciousness believed that money was needed for self-development, and the subconscious mind was sure that I needed freedom and knowledge. When I reached the stage in the project, after which new knowledge ended and lack of freedom began, my heart protested. I started to get lazy and felt empty, lacking energy to continue the project.
Now that I understand all this, I need to build my life so as not to deprive myself of the freedom of creativity, to show my nature, which strives for miracles, and not to limit my knowledge. That is, we need such projects and such methods (forms) of interaction with the world that will not give rise to a struggle between my consciousness and subconsciousness.
I must admit that I am still learning to organize my life according to my nature and picture of the world. This is very unusual and strongly at odds with the hackneyed truths that are promoted in books and society. Periodically, you need to overcome self-doubt, doubts and fears. I am still working on myself in this direction and I cannot yet be an example 🙂 But my mind and heart are now in greater harmony than before.
Awareness of one's death and overcoming fear
When we build our picture of the world, we face a number of questions:
- Where did the universe come from?
- What happened before she appeared?
- What will happen after the disappearance of the universe?
- Was I before birth in this Universe?
- What will happen after my death?
In essence, we begin to ask questions about the beginning of everything and the end of everything and about our personal beginning and end. In the Taoist picture of the world, we and the Universe are one. Therefore, all these questions are about the same thing 🙂 The complexity of self-knowledge is that we have a mortal part and an original one, this gives rise to duality. And the task of spiritual development is to restore unity within ourselves, and this, in turn, restores our unity with the Universe.
We are looking for something, and in the end, we are looking for God or something higher, original, omnipotent. From our answer to questions about death, depends on what our picture of the world will be. If a person does not want to answer these questions and drives thoughts about death, then his picture of the world remains unfinished. Such a person is always looking for something, feels vague anxiety and inner incompleteness. He does not know why he lives and constantly doubts his decisions. And if a person removes God or something original from the picture of the world, then he deprives himself of the beginning and end, deprives himself of the foundation and motive. Then, with aging, the burdensomeness of life increases, one feels inner emptiness. And going through personality crises, we complete or remake our model of the world in order to cope with thoughts of death. But it also happens that a person cannot cope with this and dies without finding his foundation (the foundation of the entire Universe).
And of course, comprehending the Universe and creating a picture of the world, we put our delusions into it. For example, many people believe that the meaning of their existence is development. Developing, we allegedly help God to know himself. A beautiful theory, but if we take into account that God is a perfect absolute, then he simply has nowhere to develop and nothing to know ... Since any knowledge implies that we do not know something (and then God is no longer an absolute). When I first came across this thought, I walked around in confusion for several days, as my picture of the world was destroyed. The foundation was knocked out from under my feet and I didn’t know why I live 🙂
In the Taoist picture of the world, Tao has no goals in relation to me. But there is a path along which we exit the wheel of rebirth and can either go to live in the spiritual non-material worlds, or even surpass all worlds and merge with Tao. Well, when there is a path, it is curious to go along it 🙂 Moreover, this is a very unusual and magical road!
How to understand your picture of the world
When a child comprehends the world by asking questions, a huge network of various concepts and connections between them is built in his mind. And, sooner or later, the child realizes that everyone is mortal. There are questions about the beginning and end of life. During this period, the basis of the built tree of the world (concepts and connections) begins to form. At the base lies something that is the beginning and the end. Therefore, in order to understand your picture of the world, it is important to realize precisely this foundation, since everything else follows from it.
The model of the world is always based on 3 concepts: I, the World and the Source of everything. All human decisions depend on the relationship between these basic concepts! Therefore, in order to understand your picture of the world, you need to ask yourself the following questions:
- Who am I? Why did I choose this answer and why is it convenient for me?
- Where I am? And who created all this or how did it all appear?
- What is my relationship with the world and the source of everything? Am I part of the world or part of the source? Is there some original purpose for me? If yes, what is it? If there is no intention, then do I have some obligations to the world or the source, obligations of the world to the source and the source to me and the world?
Answers should be born in the heart, that is, come to consciousness from the void, and not be generated through complex reflections! Our task at the first stage is to realize the picture of the world that already exists now. And then, we will deal with its restructuring and attunement with our nature. In the meantime, it is important not to come up with an answer, but simply to sincerely answer what arises in the mind. It's best to ask yourself the question out loud and write the answer down on paper so you don't forget anything.
After getting the answers, it is important to think about each of them ... why is this answer convenient for me? For example, if I consider myself an immortal soul, why is it convenient? Is there a conflict in my picture of the world? Or maybe my model of the world removes any conflicts from my life?
If the world was created, then what is the meaning of this creation? Is there a certain purpose for everything or certain promises and obligations of the participants?
What is embedded in your picture of the world is reality! This is important to understand and accept. Those relationships that are in the model between you, the world and the source of everything are reflected in all your relationships with other living beings! Everything in our life that does not fit into our picture of the world will be considered garbage. We value only what is considered valuable in our picture of the world. For example, if in the picture of the world our task is to help others, and we work in a company that spoils the environment, we will be unhappy, even getting huge money for our work! And for a long time, such a person may not even understand what is eating him, why he feels dissatisfied with life, despite all the generally accepted attributes of success.
You can understand a lot about yourself by reflecting on your picture of the world and why it is the way it is (that is, why it is convenient for you). After all, all the bricks of which it consists did not get there by chance! Each of the pieces was convenient for you at one time or another, explained life and promised hope, and therefore formed the basis of your worldview. By becoming aware of these nuances, you can see your illusions and fears, understand your basic motives and realize in what relationship you are now with yourself! Because our relationship with the source of everything and with the world is, in fact, our relationship with ourselves (since the world, we and Tao are one)!
Testing our understanding of the worldview
Since our values flow from the picture of the world, we can use them to test our sincerity. Our ego is constantly defending itself and we can lie to ourselves in order to appear better in our own eyes than we are. Therefore, it will not be superfluous if we check how accurately we have formulated our model of the world.
To test, take the following values and rank them in order of priority (most valuable to least valuable):
- Love relationship between a man and a woman (sexual partners).
- Family and close friends.
- Money and material well-being.
- Pleasure and relaxation.
- Self-realization (for example, in a career or business).
- Personal self-development (more mundane, skills, languages, personal effectiveness, etc.).
- Spiritual self-development (aimed at virtuous qualities).
- Health and sports.
- Freedom and inner harmony.
If the list lacks some values, then add them. It is important that you get a clear sequence of areas of life that are valuable to you.
Once the values are prioritized, look at the 3 most important values to you. They must be somehow reflected in your picture of the world! If this is not the case, for example, in the picture of the world, the idea of creating the world is for you to develop endlessly, and your values \u200b\u200bare in the first place family, pleasure and relationships, then somewhere you lied to yourself 🙂 And most likely, you distorted your picture of the world in order to seem more correct to themselves.
When I first took inventory of my values, I sincerely believed that in my picture of the world the main goal of life is spiritual development. But I was very surprised that the most valuable things for me were freedom, pleasure and self-realization. After such a reassessment, I was forced to admit that I was lying to myself about spiritual development. Yes, it is important to me, but not in the first place. And I corrected my picture of the world, in which the realization of my nature became the main goal of life, and spiritual development follows.
Theoretically, you can change your values, but not touch the picture of the world ... But this, it seems to me, will give rise to an internal struggle with oneself. When I reach a new stage in my development, my picture of the world will automatically change and affect values. In the meantime, it is important not to lie to yourself in order to realize what is.
After the picture of the world has cleared up at least a little, it's time to start interpreting it. That is, reflect on it and think about what it leads to. How to change your life to fit your model of the world. Such attunement will remove internal conflicts and bring harmony to your soul. But we will deal with this next time 🙂 In the meantime, good luck on your Path and good health!
Move on
To have full access to the materials, visit the site!
Collection of Manuscripts and Rare Books, Columbia University, New York.
Gift of Sofia Borisovna Pilenko, 1955
From the point of view of the democratically philistine, the modern picture of the world could be depicted in a very ordinary way: some kind of terrible dragon. As if a three-headed boa constrictor guards an innocent princess who has been captured by him. All three dragon heads guard her every move, staring into her eyes.
The power of the dragon is immeasurable: with one movement, he can destroy the princess, enchant her with his gaze, strangle her with the rings of his body, and sting her with his poisoned stings. The princess is innocent and powerless. She has no redeemers. She is under the control of the dragon. The dragon should cause horror and hatred, the princess sympathy and love. But no hatred can weaken the dragon, no love can save the princess. Unless she is a little re-educated according to the dragon's methods of education, she herself, so to speak, will be draped. Or perhaps the dragon heads will begin to devour one another, and so they will go out in enmity towards themselves, in a fit of self-destruction. This picture, undoubtedly, is similar to what surrounds us, that everyone can easily find out what are the names of these three heads and who is the princess. Public sympathy is divided between the dragon and the princess. Some bow before the power of the dragon and are convinced that only he alone can rule in the world, others sympathize with the princess and believe that sooner or later she will be freed from the dragon. But it seems to me necessary to sort out impartially the true essence of both the dragon and the princess, and it may be possible to pass a moral sentence on both of them.
In the violence and blood of the Great War, a previously unknown monster was born to the world. The idea of class struggle and class hatred was embodied in Russia in the terrible guise of Soviet power.
Its characterization is distinct, clear and beyond doubt. The denial of the human personality, the strangulation of freedom, the cult of strength, admiration for the leader, a single worldview binding on all, the struggle against all deviations from the general line of the party or, which is the same thing, the leader - whether it be a deviation in some petty topical economic issue, or in the most essential issues and views on the world, on human destiny, etc. Gradually, communism became not only a certain philosophical and economic system, but a peculiar, vulgar religion, trying to have its own opinion literally in relation to everything that exists in life. It would be easy to compose an exact dogma of communism, and indeed it is compiled in innumerable catechisms. It embraces everything - the attitude to the economy, to history, to questions of art, to the principles of being. True, for the approval of the dogmas of this religion, no councils are needed, the leader proclaims them and thereby makes them obligatory, and thus any deviation from them must be taken as an unacceptable heresy. The most remarkable thing is that the authors of these digressions, being condemned by the authoritative statement of the leader. They themselves admit their heresy, repent of it and beg for reunification with the infallible party. On the basis of this peculiar religious psychology, the most unlimited intolerance towards all dissidents and believers naturally grows.
Systematic religious persecution is flourishing, covering not just one religious denomination, but literally all. The camps are filled with representatives of all churches, all confessions, sects, trends, worldviews. The "new faith" realizes itself through blood, torture, torment. It is the only totalitarian truth, and the rest must be subjected to complete destruction.
The moral assessment of this state of affairs does not require any complex observations, the picture is clear and disgusting. A much more complicated question is where does Russian communism get its strength from, what does it internally feed on, what does it continue to grow on?
For a long time already, economists and politicians, almost from the first days of the existence of communism, predicted its quick and inglorious death. Neither its economic enterprises, nor the historical conditions of its existence, nor the historical situation - nothing made it possible to think that communism would firmly establish itself in Russia. However, for twenty years now these predictions about his death have been heard, but in fact he continues to exist and is not going to die. How to explain it?
It seems that, in contrast to all the opinions of various kinds of specialists, only the opinion of someone who approaches the issue from a religious point of view will be correct!
Communism is maintained only by giving (albeit strange) nourishment to man's thirst for a holistic, religious worldview. It is by his religious pathos that he is alive, because this pathos completely modifies the natural human forces, the natural tension of human muscles and human will, and human reason. He multiplies them tenfold, he informs them of the creative principle, which always, like some kind of miracle, transforms the laws of nature.
Communism lives on by this strange black miracle of its own, its terrible black religion, integrity, integral hatred, integral dissolution of the human personality in the collective, integral faith in the truth, which is prophesied by the lips of the leader - the superman, the prophet of the prophets, the black and terrible messiah, the black and terrible by his church. Yes, indeed, in the mind of an ordinary communist, Russia is now controlled by a superman, in whose power is the ability to change and cancel both the laws of history and the laws of nature. In Russia, a true Man-God has been revealed, whom Dostoevsky so recently predicted to us. And it is natural that this Man-God entered into a struggle with the God-man and his God-manhood—with Christ and with Christ's Church. What's this?
Perhaps my words sound too mystical for anyone, let's say not scientifically, do not correspond to modern data from economic and historical science? To this I will say that any scientific hypothesis is valuable only when life confirms the assumptions made by it. So, all the most scientific hypotheses of the most excellent specialists in the field of economics, politics, history, etc., all of them have been fundamentally refuted by life. Communism does not fall, and only! Although all deadlines have passed and new deadlines are passing. Thus, it is clear that these former scientific theories and hypotheses are now out of the question. But the mystical and vague theory, which sees in communism a new terrible faith, and in this finds an explanation for its supernatural creative power—this theory has not yet been refuted by life. And therefore it deserves not only the same as other theories, but much more attention than they do.
The Christian martyrs of modern Russia probably understand everything and are now fighting “not against blood and not against flesh, but against the spirits of evil in high places.” The Church found itself in the face not of some armchair doctrine of Marxism, let's say, but in the face of an anti-church, in the face of a certain organism of a spiritual nature, and therefore extremely powerful, capable of canceling and changing the laws of the material world.
This is the first head of the modern dragon.
In chronological order, the totalitarianism of fascism emerged second. It seems to me that ideologically and physically it is the weakest of all totalitarianisms. And there are quite a few reasons for this relative weakness. First of all, fascism did not arise outside of traditions, not outside of historical cults and charms. Mussolini raves about the statism of ancient Rome; he is as much an innovator as he is a restorer. And this is no longer suitable to have true power. What was being restored was destroyed in its time, in other words, there are forces that were stronger than the Roman Empire. It cannot be promoted as something indestructible from the ages. If it has been crushed once, then it can be crushed a second time. And we know that it won. First of all, of course, it was Christianity, which corroded, decomposed the core, the religious essence of the Roman Empire. It seems that the relative weakness of fascist statism is explained precisely by this once in the past history loss of the religious and creative pathos that surrounded the idol of the Roman Empire. Italy cannot forget this historical past, especially since before her eyes, in the very heart of modern pagan Rome, there is still the same ancient Vatican, which has already defeated the power of Rome once. And he is not silent, he is not dead. He is confident in his spiritual power, in his religious invincibility and infallibility.
But, leaving aside these specific features of fascism, we will define only those basic properties that tell us about its belonging to the same draconian body. We will see the same struggle against the human person, the same cult of the collective, hatred of freedom, the obligatory nature of the well-known standard worldview, the perception of the basic principles of fascism as purely dogmatic, without reasoning and with reverence. Finally, the attitude towards the leader is of the same nature as in Soviet Russia. The leader is just as infallible, he also dictates not only the basic principles of an obligatory worldview, but also directives for the fluid needs of every day. Force also replaces law, the beginning of violence is introduced into use. I will only make a reservation (again) that due to certain specific conditions and the type of the main idol of etatism, as well as the place where its cult develops, all the features common with communism seem somewhat paler, not so clearly expressed, shaded. But, in essence, there is no fundamental difference between them. We can say this: communism was built on a vast empty space, and therefore, at its own discretion, erected the walls of the erected building. For fascism, it was necessary to reckon with the ruins of the walls, among which he built new ones, and they somewhat modified his own plan.
Finally, the third totalitarianism is the religion of race, preached in modern Germany. In terms of the idea underlying this religion, it must be said that it is certainly poorer, more particular and even more provincial than the idea of communism. Communism can lay claim to a certain universalism, to the comprehensiveness of its basic principle. COMMUNISM can develop in different races and states, not competing with each other, but rather reinforcing and supporting each other. Everywhere there are huts declaring war on the palaces, the proletarians of all countries can unite, only benefiting from this connection. In racism, the situation is the opposite. A person who has accepted modern racism has two possibilities: either he accepts racism in its German version and, together with Hitler and Rosenberg, believes in the special “messianic” chosenness of the German race, to which all lower races, including his own, must submit. Or, having accepted the basic principle of the race, he creates his own chosen race, to which all the rest must submit. Both of these possibilities are easy to imagine, and they do exist in reality. But the first of them can hardly be widely disseminated and create genuine pathos, simply because it is unlikely that broad sections of any people will enthusiastically agree that they should be given into slavery to some other, especially “chosen” people. The second version of racism dooms it to spread within the narrow limits of one race, with eternal and insoluble rivalry with any other race. Here only a struggle of all against all is possible, and a struggle that has no hope of victory in the future. Unless in its process all opponents will be completely exterminated. This is the main ideological weakness of the racist concepts of totalitarianism. And in this, of course, he is much more provincial, more parochial than communism. But there are aspects to racism that make it stronger in many respects than communism. He appeals not only to the external interests of man. He appeals to his very nature, to his blood, to the deep, underlying instincts of the human soul, to some kind of half-forgotten calls of nature. It is more organic (oddly enough), I would say it is more materialistic than communism, which, in comparison with it, is a kind of brain fiction and is itself rationalistic, dry and not soiled.
Racism is the mysticism of biology, it is the religion of cosmic forces, a certain spirit released by an alchemist from a bottle and not wanting to return to this bottle. In racism, the hums and groans of the “demons of the deaf and dumb” are heard all the time. The ancient pan is resurrected, the magical power of blood subjugates the speechless humanity. And his magic is extremely strong, narcotic power poisons and excites. It can be said that as a material for the formation of a pagan religion, it is much richer than communism. And besides, he, in contrast to communism, openly recognizes this religious pagan character. And by this we can say that, as a religion, it is much more realized than communism, which still cannot get rid of the skepticism of the Enlightenment, although this skepticism is purely external, purely verbal, changing nothing in its true essence. Such is the mystical face of racism. How does he fulfill himself in the world? Here the similarity with his brothers in the religion of totalitarianism is especially striking. Blood, which is the basis of everything, is, of course, completely incompatible with the spiritual reality of the individual. The personality is controlled - (unless it is given the opportunity to exist in the person of the personality of the leader), but in fact he is not a person in our sense of the word, but he is a kind of hypostatic manifestation of the same impersonal sacred Germanic blood.
Personality is abolished - freedom is also abolished in the face of the highest value, which attracts its chosen ones of fate to dominance.
Just as in communism, the totalitarian worldview destroys the possibility of the existence of other views, deviations, disagreements, disagreements... A person must think in a way that is beneficial for the whole, and the benefit is determined by the infallible opinion of the leaders. Creativity is also canceled, because creativity is a product of freedom, and when it comes to fundamental and irreversible biological processes, then neither freedom nor creativity is needed - they will stand up for themselves. There is a struggle with other races, especially with the declared inferior race - Jews. This is logical from the point of view of racial selection. There is a struggle with other religions, because racism is declared a single religious truth, and the coexistence of two truths is impossible. If we combine what is common in the manifestations of these three types of new paganism, then it must still be said that they are characterized by enormous strength, genuine pathos, tension of faith, the sacrificial readiness of each member of their huge organism to give themselves to the good of the whole. Volitional need not only to destroy, but also to build, some biological and organic orientation.
All of them without prejudice, without much penchant for white gloves, they are all inspired butchers who want to shred the universe.
Speaking about their heroes, about their supermen, leaders, human-gods, and suddenly you feel some kind of rehashing of Nietzsche's motifs on the one hand, on the other hand Smerdyakovsky - "everything is allowed" and, finally, the magical cult of natural-human strength, whose representative was Rudolf Steiner. Yes! Spirits have long tried to release from the bottle. Now that it's done, you can't drive them back!
This is the foreground of the picture I painted at the beginning.
The dragon with three heads is named. His appearance is clearly visible and does not raise doubts.
But there is another creature in this picture - this is the most innocent princess, languishing under the threat of his gaze.
By it, I mean modern democracy, of course.
And here I want to say frankly and honestly: everyone - who in one way or another feels connected with democracy, everyone - who owes it something, everyone - who believes in its future revival to any extent - is simply obliged now without any hypocrisy, pity, looking back at friends and enemies, completely ruthlessly carry out their judgment on her. Our princess is bad and worth little, she herself is to blame for wandering without a path until she fell into the clutches of a dragon. Couldn't get in. And what’s more, he won’t get out of them if he remains the same, because there is nothing to oppose the dragon. She is in complete poverty.
We Russians have in our literature not only predictions concerning the appearance of modern human-like religions - in Dostoevsky in The Grand Inquisitor or in Shigalev, in Solovyov in the story of the Antichrist - but with the same far-sighted clarity, we are given the appearance of modern democracy, especially strongly and mercilessly at Herzen. She was exactly the same then as she is now. And it was not without reason that Herzen, a Westerner and democrat, turned away from her in horror, and it was not without reason that he began to speak of her with such boundless bitterness.
The most characteristic, it seems to me, in modern democracy is the fundamental rejection of any integral worldview. For a long time already, politics has become for it an impossibility for it to put some basic principles into practice, but only a play of practical interests, a concrete calculation of forces and a choice of compromises; long ago, the economy began to exist independently of politics, and political equality coexists with monstrous economic inequality. Especially typical now for democracy is a complete gap between word and deed: in words there is still a somewhat pompous declaration of the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity, but in deeds the undisguised power of interests reigns. Public morality (also pompously declared) is quite compatible with individual immorality. A person's private life may be in glaring contradiction with his public activities. World-conceptual integrity is simply not needed and does not exist. It is again successfully replaced by correctly understood, strictly taken into account interests.
Where does this strange dispersal of democracy come from, this fragmentation of each individual person, this rejection of any unifying principle?
Democracy has become a creature that does not remember kinship, it has renounced the principles that gave birth to it, from Christian culture, from Christian culture, from Christian morality, from the Christian attitude to the human person and freedom.
And put nothing else in their place. In the democratic worldview there is no root now, there is no center, it is formed, as it were, on subordinate clauses alone, and the main clause has been lost. And this looseness of the democratic image creates a certain type of person who, firstly, has no religious views, and secondly, social work is not based on any general and deep idea, and personal life exists on its own, not united with either religious or with a public calling. And just as each individual person in a democracy is a mechanical combination of random and often opposite principles, so the general body of democracy exists, as it were, without a backbone, without a backbone, and at the same time without clearly defined boundaries.
From here it is easy to understand that here according to Smerdyakovsky everything is allowed. True, for other reasons than in totalitarian worldviews, there the law is not written for me, because “I” am the law itself, “I” is the highest measure of things. Here in general there are no immutable laws, there is no measure of things, everything is relative, everything is unsteady, conditional, everything lends itself to only one criterion of fluid and rapidly changing interests. Everything is allowed, because everything is relative and not very important. Today an alliance is made - such are the interests of today, and tomorrow the ally is betrayed, because such are the interests of tomorrow. Today they preach economic equality, tomorrow they vote for the strengthening of capitalism. Today they are carried away by communist totalitarianism, and tomorrow by racist totalitarianism.
And everything is not solid, everything is fluid, everything does not have any solid outlines. It may even be quite natural that in this absence of any higher values, it turns out that the highest value is my little well-being. My little and rather harmless selfishness. After all, in the name of what should I give up my place under the sun to anyone and anything, if all these contenders for a place under the sun are extremely relative and ephemeral? In the name of what ideas should I sacrifice my well-being, if the relativity of any idea has long been recognized? "We are Kaluga!" - not the principle of communism, which in its totalitarianism swallows up any Kaluga, - it is the principle of a degenerate sick democracy, and now it is triumphing on an entire European scale. As an individual says, "My bank account is good, what's the matter?" - and the whole democratic states do not understand "what's the matter", since they somehow make ends meet.
Hence all the grandiose betrayals that we have witnessed in recent years are natural!
Hence the completely senile, physical helplessness and relaxation. Indeed, why be surprised? The body breaks up into component cells and it is natural that it cannot resist anything.
The worst thing about modern democracy is its fundamental lack of principle, lack of masculinity, lack of any creativity. Democracy has become synonymous with philistinism, philistinism, mediocrity!
If in totalitarian worldviews it is appropriate to talk about the birth of new religions, then in democracies it is necessary to state not only the complete absence of religion, but even the absence at the moment of the ability to perceive reality religiously. If dark demonic forces are put into play there, then only one complete multiplication table reigns. And this state of affairs results in the impossibility of creating any real passion - in the absence of pathos, in the absence of creativity.
If totalitarianisms are terrible, then democracy is simply boring. In the real historical arena, the demons are now fighting the philistinism. And it is more likely that the demons, not the philistines, will win. And their victory can be twofold: either the tradesman will be simply destroyed by them, or they will infect him with their demonic properties and he (the tradesman) will become a demon himself. So to speak second-class, to decide what to live with wolves like a wolf howl.
The only trouble is that the wolves have this howl of a real wolf, and their imitators cannot get a real howl, one ape, one parrot.
All the natural forces that are present in modern humanity, therefore, do not allow for any optimistic conclusions. The situation is really bad. The hour of struggle draws near. Its result is almost a foregone conclusion. It has never happened before that the religious principle of any direction, of any religious essence, did not defeat its own without a religious adversary. It has never happened that creativity in the name of which it would not be carried out. There was no stronger mediocrity. It has never happened that a hero, even the most cruel, bloodthirsty and inhuman, would not triumph over the tradesman. It has never happened before that the inclination towards personal self-sacrifice did not wipe out a little petty-bourgeois egoism to ashes. It never happened and never will, because it cannot be.
On the paths of a mighty stream of new terrible religions, the triumph of new bloodthirsty idols - democracy (in the form in which it exists) is not a dam. It can reconsider its real interests and redistribute party mandates in parliaments. She can imitate the leaders and apply their methods of work. She may not release her gold reserves abroad and build airplanes, invent some kind of suffocating gases .... in general, it can do whatever it pleases; the main thing is that on the modern paths of its existence it will not win. And it is most likely that it will be so, that events make her doomed. Spiritual emasculation is bearing fruit and...
Without religious humanity ingloriously perishes!
The demon seeing that the chamber was cleanly swept and empty. He comes and brings with him the strongest and inhabits it. After all, the chamber is really empty. Why can't he move in?
Considering everything, weighing everything that history teaches us, that we have known since the time of Herzen what is happening before our eyes and it seems that we cannot make a mistake in the diagnosis. Indeed, there is no place for any hopes in this natural world. In the stream of mutual betrayal, in the stream of small egoisms, today's world will crumble, disperse, disperse...
Tomorrow's world belongs to the Dragon.
And the only spark of hope that remains in the heart is the hope for some Miracle!
The accounting department tells us that they summed up the results accurately, there is no doubt. Well, maybe you can exist without accountants and without accounting, just burn her books, confuse all receipts and expenses. To believe that at the hour of death even the sky opens up to sinners, the most impenitent repent, the dumb begin to prophesy, and the blind see visions. It is only in the order of such a miracle that we can wait for the release now, and only hope for it. It is difficult for a human, tired heart to hope, and even for a miracle, for something unprecedented, not taken into account. We are too accustomed to the fact that even the most realistic hopes break off and go out, and here you need to hope for something almost illusory.
Yet there is hope. And there are some hints, only hints that maybe it is not in vain.
If godless, religious humanity (of three dimensions) understands that no real organism can live like this, if it really repents to its very last depths, if it returns to the Father’s house (from which it left cursing the Father!) if it again will understand that the religious path lies before him, that he is called to become GOD-MANKIND, if he surrenders himself to the will of the Creator, if he understands the insignificance of his small desires, well-being and selfishness, if he finally tells the coming trials that this is the scourge of God (as he was Atilla with the scourge of God) and that it is itself to blame for the need for this scourge — in a word, if humanity falls back to its Christian origins and is renewed or flourishes with new Christian creativity and ignites with new Christian fire, then one could say that Even until the very last minute, all is not lost!
There are subtle and barely visible signs that hope may not be in vain. There are, firstly, faint signs of a religious revival, which, it is true, cover only a small part of the cultural elite of democracy. Finally, there is the very loud and courageous voice of various churches defending their truth against the false truths of the new religions. There is a strange and paradoxical phenomenon that today Christianity is not persecuted only in democratic countries. There is a guarantee of rebirth - martyrdom, trials of confessors...
As before, so now - THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS - "SEED OF CHRISTIANITY". But these are only weak indications. Much, for example, the opposite sounds louder, the smile of some political figure, economist, historian, democrat, or fascist is much more convincing - it doesn't matter with which he reads these or similar lines. For him, this is a kind of mystical fog, from which he will turn away with annoyance. And he will not be embarrassed that there are no solutions at all outside this fog.
The question stands as follows: either through repentance and godless cleansing, humanity will return to the Father's house and the era of genuine Christian rebirth will shine, and it will feel like God-manhood, or for long centuries we are doomed to the power of the beast, the man-god, a new and terrible idolatrous religion.
The third is not given. But it is more likely that the second will come true.
Paris, 1937
Systematization and communications
Ontology
These are my beliefs and therefore I believe that my worldview is contrary to both skepticism (especially its extreme stage of agnosticism) and dogmatism, since I believe that every person is doomed to know the truth and at the same time this truth is always relative, i.e. is always within the narrow limits of its applicability and therefore borders on a delusion, since it always runs the risk of being exaggerated.
In this note, I would like not so much to write about my worldview as such, but to indicate what I do not agree with at this stage in the worldview of modern science, the influence of which on people today is higher than any other areas of human culture.
The concept of the emergence of the world
Of course, I mean the theory of the Big Bang, which claims that once there was no time, no matter, no space, and for no reason that supposedly does not fit into the framework of our logical perception, the whole Universe arose from nothing with its complex laws.
It should be noted that the very concept of the Big Bang is based on some scientific facts, but its philosophical generalization by some modern physicists (Hawking, etc.) is more than ugly.
Firstly, I am always alarmed by such a formulation of the question, when it is required to abandon logical principles due to the fact that they supposedly do not work in this area, because all this looks very much like religion.
Secondly, the grounds from which such a requirement follows always look insufficient, because they are just built on the logic from which it is proposed to abandon (the well-known systematization of physical facts into a theory requires the implementation of well-known logical principles).
Emergence from nothing
It should be understood that nothing this is a logical category of meaning which consists precisely in the fact that it is devoid of any qualities, due to which it is fundamentally unable to change. Even without going into a dialectical analysis of the necessary connection between nothing and being, one can see the absurdity of such a statement.
When we say that something has come into existence out of nothing, then the concept nothing loses its meaning as nothing and becomes something. So instead of the real nothing we get something with sign nothing, which lies in the absolute identity of itself.
The emergence of time
It is on this absurd proposition that the assertion of the origin of time is based. Indeed, if there is no time yet, then there is nothing that could change, and if something can change, then, accordingly, time already exists and cannot arise from it.
The emergence of space
The same applies to space, which allegedly appears only in the process of inflation of the Universe. Naturally, the question arises - if there is no space yet, then in what way is the Universe expanding? But there is an even more important question - if there is no space, then where was the original singularity?
Empty space
There is also an understanding of space as a kind of vessel in which matter is located. In general, it is not difficult to imagine such a thing, but on what is such an assertion based?
Absolute emptiness is stated by the fact that on a certain segment it is not possible to fix a specific form of matter known to us, which can be detected only through the interaction with it of special devices that a person uses in the process of research.
But is it possible to draw a conclusion about absolute emptiness only on the basis of the fact that we do not find anything known to us? No, such a conclusion is unjustified, since it is fundamentally impossible to foresee that something hitherto unknown to us will not be discovered there in the future.
Matter and motion
Another characteristic mistake is the attempt to deprive matter of its attributes. For example, real nonsense is the concept of pure energy, which supposedly exists without a material object to which it belongs, or pure time, which supposedly is some kind of external force acting on matter, etc.
In fact, there is and cannot be any movement outside the object, because nothing else moves but the object itself, not movement, energy changes the object, and another object acts on the body with its inherent movement, energy, i.e. bodies interact.
The same is true with time. It is not an external force that causes objects to change, but the very concept of time is abstracted from the observation of the movement of matter (change of objects). In other words, there is no absolute time, time is always relative to the object that changes, and the universal time of the Universe is nothing but an abstraction of the motion of matter.
Infinity
Our cognition is always limited by the known, so only the understanding of the need for an unlimited going beyond the limit can be infinite, i.e. such an understanding where there are no absolutes limiting our knowledge.
In other words, the infinite fundamentally cannot be a certain number that exhausts all that exists, and therefore the existent is infinite, but it is infinitely cognizable by us in deepening cognition.
Unfortunately, many scientists see infinity only as a bad infinity - as soon as we calculate everything known, bring it under a certain model of the world, free from contradictions, and we will get true infinity, we will know everything that exists.
Such a view is actually identical to those archaic ideas of people, according to which our planet and the firmament visible from it were declared the Universe.
Diagnosis
Of course, much more could be written, but the text came out already too long, and therefore unreadable.
In general, one can see a serious idealistic trend in science, which has not gone unnoticed by religion either, because it is not for nothing that it is increasingly trying to fit in with science (this is especially evident in the light of the fact that the Pope of Rome recently publicly recognized the theory of evolution).
But faith in the triumph of reason should not fade, since truth has always prevailed in the development of mankind over error, because otherwise we would always remain at the same level without seeing technical progress.
Nirvanus, 17 December, 2014 - 17:12Comments
In the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that since our knowledge is inexhaustible, it is impossible to exhaust the meaning of matter by a certain term. Therefore, matter should have purely epistemological attributes, i.e. it is an objective reality existing outside and independently of any consciousness.
Physically or ontologically, one can say that matter is corporeality, a special corporeal organization with an unlimited number of variations, due to which it is impossible to exhaust its meanings with a single concept, as already mentioned.
But its main significance lies in the fact that it is the bearer of all the attributes of objective reality, to which everything is inherent, because there is nothing else in the monistic understanding of the world.
The picture of the world is something that should naturally change in a thinking person, if not in connection with the rejection of his previous views, then at least due to the deepening of existing ones.
These are my beliefs
The picture of the world is something that naturally changes in a thinking person due to the deepening of existing views.
These are my beliefs
And what can change in a thinking person? Of course - a picture of the world. Thus, what changes is the picture of the world. A pot with soup (borscht) is not a picture of the world, because it does not change. True, no - a picture, because borscht changes - turns sour. But the pan - definitely not a picture - the borscht is sour - but at least something to the pan. But I think of this saucepan and borscht, which means there is a picture, but there is no saucepan in the picture of the world, because it does not change, but there is borscht, because it changes ... etc. A continuous change of thoughts with their deepening, therefore, there is a picture of the world, but without a saucepan.
Yes, Gorgipp has a point-blank question about matter.
A change in what is already available can also be included in deepening knowledge, but in this case something else was stipulated.
A person perceives the world in a narrow range of his feelings, strengthening this perception with technical devices, and due to this fact and the fact that, apart from this, not all perceptions are also completely meaningful, we cannot fundamentally say that our picture of the world is complete.
Finding new ways of interacting with the world, comprehending more and more, we expand the existing picture of the world, deepen our knowledge of matter.
17 December, 2014 - 23:02,
A person perceives the world in a narrow range of his feelings, strengthening this perception with technical devices, and due to this fact and the fact that, apart from this, not all perceptions are also completely meaningful, we cannot fundamentally say that our picture of the world is complete.
So, maybe start with this?
How to logically deduce from this situation:
17 December, 2014 - 22:21,
In the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that since our knowledge is inexhaustible,
The inexhaustibility of knowledge.
Or is the inexhaustibility of knowledge a priori an axiom? And from it (inexhaustibility) it is necessary to derive "perception of the world in a narrow range of feelings"?
The inexhaustibility of knowledge is not an axiom, but the result of an analysis of the practice of human knowledge in general, which is not exhausted by modern knowledge either.
A person can cognize the objective world and this is evidenced by the practice of his conquest of nature, but at the same time, whenever a person exaggerated the significance of the known, he fell into error, from which it follows that the truth is available, but it is always relative.
there is not a single fact of the conquest of nature by man.
Under the conquest of nature was meant the possibility of its transformation in accordance with the needs of man. There can be no other conquest.
Nature is not homogeneous. Of course, nature remains nature even after transformation, but it is already a different nature than what it was before. From this, after all, idealism is also taken - a person creates, creates matter with his mind, i.e. transforms its forms under itself. Of course, this does not mean at all that matter is created literally from nothing, although it can be said so, since from the standpoint of a form that did not exist before, but now it is, it turns out to be the emergence from nothing.
:-))) So you began to present individual excerpts from your general "picture of the world". I called my picture of the world "my model of being", Galiya "my worldview". By the way, it came closer than us to the commonly used term.
Both the "picture of the world" and the "model of being" are the term "worldview" used by everyone. And we object not to the whole worldview, but to "particulars", in which we see a contradiction to the general "picture"
This is how we contribute (together with millions of people like us) to the creation of a collective picture of the world and the birth of a supermind called Civilization. In you, I saw a personality that is most similar to my type of thinking and reasoning methods.
What about conclusions? They can never be exactly the same. For every object there is an infinite number of correct points of view, and half of them will always be diametrically opposed to the other half. :-)))
Absolute understanding, and even just understanding, between people is extremely unattainable; for understanding it is necessary to be at one point in time-space, but since we are always close by and given our different physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual levels, absolute understanding is impossible; but man found a way out of this impasse by inventing a system of contracts; but, unfortunately or fortunately, he reserved the right not to fulfill the treaties or even to destroy them.
I also don't like the "big bang theory" and I dedicated two studies to it (18 and 19) "The Big Bang and the Rain of Matter" and "A Star Called the Sun".
Will need to be read.
You explore some particular issues, I others. In the study of some we intersect and mutually complement each other or see errors and inaccuracies and correct each other, in other issues we intersect with other opinions.
Well, this is normal. In general, I think that it is very difficult for a person to look at things from all possible points of view, therefore constructive dialogue and lively communication are necessary, even when they sometimes lead us to disputes and opposition of opinions.
What about conclusions? They can never be exactly the same.
I agree with this. In general, I try to avoid everything absolute and especially absolutes.
For every object there is an infinite number of correct points of view, and half of them will always be diametrically opposed to the other half.
In general, this is a very important conclusion based on the understanding of the contextuality (embedding in a certain context) of any thought. At the same time, inflating the meaning of a certain truth beyond its narrow applicability, a person always falls into error. This understanding is important in order to distinguish between the interdependence of dialectical opposites and the eclectic combination of fundamentally incompatible sides.
Philosophical ontology is a picture of the world that is normative for a particular philosophical system. Ontology forms the context (from the ultimate foundations to the human model), in which subsequent philosophical constructions make sense.
The world outlook presented verbally by a particular person, perhaps, should also contain a description of the ultimate grounds accepted by this person and reach the accepted model of a person.
At the same time, physical - to physicists, mental - to psychologists. It looks strange (in the description of one's world outlook) to criticize the physical picture of the world based on logic, or rather, on everyday ("common sense") "I believe", "absurd".
It looks strange (in the description of one's world outlook) to criticize the physical picture of the world based on logic, or rather, on everyday ("common sense") "I believe", "absurd".
Here the principle of Caesar's Caesar's does not fit. Logic is the science of universal forms of thought, which is why it is a universal method of research, because it abstracts from specific content (physical, mental, etc.) and works with universal forms of thought, which are the same in all areas.
Rather, logic is not about the forms of thinking, but about the rules that must be observed in order to get the true result from the true premises of thinking. Yes, but logic is about thinking, not about the observed world. Here, if the scientific data do not correspond to the results of the logical conclusion obtained from your individually obvious premises, then you need to correct the individual premises. Although Hegel "corrected" the logic -;)
Logic is not sewn into thinking, but develops precisely on the basis of experience. If logic did not correspond to reality, then man would be at a dead end of evolution and would die out like many other species, since he would not be able to correctly determine his behavior under appropriate circumstances.
And yes, logic is just about the forms of thinking. Rules are an empty formality; the very material with which logic works is general forms of thinking, abstracted from specific content.
Any thinking is conceptual, and concepts always interact according to certain logical principles, regardless of which field of knowledge or science they belong to. Thus the content of the sciences cannot be equated one with the other, but the general principles of thought must always be respected.
If logic did not correspond to reality, then man would be at a dead end of evolution and would die out like many other species, since he would not be able to correctly determine his behavior under appropriate circumstances.
According to modern ideas about the work of the brain, as far as I know, behavior is directly controlled by brain processes that are not felt by a person, and are based not on logic, but on precedents and enumerations. Logic is demanded by a person only in the field of communication, to justify or justify his actions (already chosen before partners.
Penrose describes his grandson's ability to operate with integers as evidence that the concept of "natural numbers" came from somewhere above. Although, given the huge information capacity of the brain, one can (easierly) assume that the grandson uses separate images for each of the quantities encountered in his experience.
But the general principles of thinking must always be respected.
So I say: logic is a set of rules for thinking.
but I think that logic is a well-defined individual human ability to build one's thoughts in a certain sequence, depending on knowledge, skills, and on the place, time and specific conditions.
According to modern ideas about the work of the brain, as far as I know, behavior is directly controlled by brain processes that are not felt by a person, and are based not on logic, but on precedents and enumerations.
But do not forget that understanding this is rational, i.e. we are dealing here with thinking about thinking, and not with direct thinking. You can prove 300 times that thinking is irrational, but these proofs themselves will be purely rational, because we have no other argument.
In other words, to understand something means to understand it at a logically systematized level, and this especially concerns the transfer of this understanding to other people, since without a certain systematization there is and cannot be understanding.
The same with physics. In order to prove that certain processes in nature must occur, we must use a rationally justified statement of facts, otherwise such a system will look like incomprehensible nonsense to everyone, barely understandable even by its author himself.
Here you repeat the same confusion of the phenomena of the observed world (which is completely should not in every fact to be rationally justified) with a person's understanding of the observed phenomena, which I drew attention to in your original text
In general, in nature, at each level of organization, there are patterns specific to this level. Man has evolved in a kind of drop of the big world, perceiving only a small part of the world in a narrow range of all dimensions. When going beyond the boundaries of this drop ("the human world"), we are faced with phenomena that contradict the classical (and, in fact, everyday) worldview. It is bad practice to simply dismiss the paradoxical in the data of specific sciences.
By the way, there is a connection with the cognizability of the world, which you consider unlimited. After all, human knowledge is human-dimensional. And moving beyond the boundaries of the "human world" not only requires more and more resources, but also runs into an inevitable and excessive lengthening of the chain of concepts - from primary innate to new concepts. Niels Bohr imagined atomic particles in the form of balls. And how to imagine what is even deeper? Perhaps, the fundamental unlimitedness of the cognizability of the world will be limited to actually insurmountable limits.
When going beyond the boundaries of this drop ("the human world"), we are faced with phenomena that contradict the classical (and, in fact, everyday) worldview. It is bad practice to simply dismiss the paradoxical in the data of specific sciences.
But otherwise than through this so-called everyday understanding of the world, a person cannot notice the facts of being. A new level of knowledge may also require its own new logic, which will systematize it, but the fact of the matter is that this new logic does not exist, and the explanation is given at the level of some kind of miracle.
On the way to modern science. Scientific picture of the world
Worldview and natural science knowledge
Prudnikov V. N., Nedelko V. I., Khunjua A. G.
Worldview and natural science
"It is incomprehensible that God exists, it is incomprehensible that he does not exist; that we have a soul, that it does not exist; that the world is created, that it is not made by hands..."
Blaise Pascal.
The main questions for a person about the purpose and meaning of life are closely related to his worldview. A worldview is defined as a system of generalized views on the objective world and a person's place in it, on people's attitudes towards the surrounding reality and themselves, as well as their beliefs, ideals, principles of cognition and activity due to these views.
Despite the fact that a person's worldview is purely individual and it is hardly possible to find two people with identical views on all aspects of life, in the main it all comes down to two types of worldviews: theistic and atheistic. And this division is based on faith in God or on faith in his absence. The choice of the theological system of a person (including atheism) is laid in the first years of life, usually in the family, long before the beginning of his natural science education. Changes in this basis of worldview rarely occur, and if they do, it is not under the yoke of "scientific evidence", but rather as a result of life's upheavals.
In the same phenomena, people, depending on their worldview, can see different essences, as regards the interpretation of scientific data, for example, attitudes towards scientific hypotheses. Differences in the solution of the main worldview issues (about God, the Universe as a whole, the planet Earth and life on it) within the framework of the two worldviews can be easily seen in the atheistic and theistic formulation of the anthropic principle, which is worth dwelling on in more detail.
Anthropic principle
We live on the third of nine planets, orbiting in an almost circular orbit around our star, the Sun, at a distance of ~150x106 km from it. Of the planets of the Solar System, Pluto is the most distant from the Sun - the radius of its orbit is ~ 6x109 km. The nearest star to the Sun - Alpha Centauri is at a distance of 4 light years (a light year - the distance that light travels in one year is 9.5x1012 km). There are about 50 nearby stars within a radius of ~17 light years. The Sun and other ~ 1011 stars form the Galaxy - the Milky Way. The edge of the observable universe roughly corresponds to a distance of 109 light years.
Such figures amaze the imagination, and the question of our place in this World involuntarily arises. Is the Universe really our home, or did we come here by coincidence? When we see how many accidents work for us, then there is confidence that humanity itself is not accidental. Our presence is predetermined right here on Earth.
Let us consider in more detail what exactly causes amazement in the structure of the Universe, the Solar System, the Earth's biosphere, and then it is up to you to decide whether it all happened by chance and organized itself, or is based on the intelligent design of the Creator.
The ranges of science are enormous - cosmology, which operates with super-large distances and quantities, and elementary particle physics at the level of ultra-small masses and extensions, reveal the amazing structure of the Universe. Science says that the world in which we live, what we see around and what surrounds us - everything that exists, is determined by three types of interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak (the last two determine the laws of nuclear physics). These interactions determine the laws of micro- and macroworlds: from nuclear reactions and the structure of the atom to the structure of stars and galaxies. The intensity of these interactions is determined by the so-called coupling constants, or interaction constants, sometimes the term world constants is used. Theoretical physicists analyzed the possible consequences of changing the ratios between the coupling constants: it turned out that almost any change in the existing ratio destroys our world, and life on Earth becomes impossible. The universe is so fragile that small changes in the coupling constants have catastrophic consequences.
Nuclear interaction determines the stability of nuclei and processes in the interiors of stars and the Sun. If it were 2% weaker and there would be no stable bonds of neutrons and protons, i.e. no nuclei, no atoms, etc. If it is 0.3% stronger, then instead of the light elements of hydrogen and helium (the two main elements in the universe), heavy metals will prevail.
The gravitational interaction determines the movement of the planets in the solar system, the structure and, as a result, the temperature of the stars. The force of gravity that pulls us to the Earth is of a gravitational nature.
Electromagnetic interaction carries out the connection of electrons and the nucleus in atoms and the connection between atoms in molecules and crystals. Friction and elasticity forces have an electromagnetic nature.
Weak interaction - the rate of radioactive decay, if it were a little less - there would be no neutrons in the Universe, and it would consist exclusively of hydrogen, because. the nuclei of all other elements contain neutrons.
The ratio between the constants of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions cannot differ by more than one billionth part - otherwise stars will not be able to form.
The constants of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are no less accurately coordinated with each other. If their ratio were different, and if it deviated in one direction, only small stars would exist, and in the other - only large ones.
Life on Earth is unthinkable without water, and it turns out that water, a compound of H2O, has a number of unique properties, including anomalous ones, due to the influence of hydrogen bonds, without which life on Earth would be impossible. From the point of view of chemistry, water is a molecular hydride of oxygen (an element of group VI of the periodic system). Hydrides of other elements of group VI of sulfur, selenium and tellurium, H2S, H2Se, H2Te, unlike water, are poisonous and their melting and boiling points lie in the region of negative temperatures, in the range from -10 to -100 ° C.
Water is one of the few substances that expands when it freezes, resulting in ice floating on the water, protecting water bodies from freezing from above in the winter. Another anomalous property, which also protects water bodies from freezing, is that when the temperature rises from 0 to 4 ° C, the density of water increases (usually the density increases with increasing temperature). It is thanks to these anomalies, as well as the enormous heat capacity of water in reservoirs under ice, that life is preserved.
We should not forget that water is a universal solvent, due to which chemical reactions can take place in cells.
The optical properties of water vapor are adapted to the transmission of solar radiation, the maximum of which lies in the visible spectrum, and the absorption in the earth's atmosphere of the Earth's backward radiation flux (maximum in the infrared radiation region). As a result, the temperature regime of the Earth differs significantly from the regime of other planets in the solar system with huge daily temperature fluctuations.
The preservation of life on Earth is unthinkable without its anomalously large magnetic field, ionosphere, and ozone layer.
This list, concerning literally all aspects of human life, can go on and on, but the main conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the data presented. We formulate it as follows: the harmony of the world and its suitability for human existence in it can be traced at all levels: from the characteristics of elementary particles, atomic nuclei and atoms to the speed of the Earth's rotation around its axis, the structure of the solar system and the expansion of the universe.
These thoughts are reflected in the anthropic principle, which says: the Universe is such, because life is impossible in another. And further, the formulations of the anthropic principle diverge depending on the worldview, since either the reality of God and the uniqueness of our World, or the denial of God and the plurality of worlds follow from the anthropic principle; a blind chance, suggesting a myriad of worlds, or the Creator's plan and the only world of man - the Earth. That is why there are two formulations of the anthropic principle, which read:
The Creator of the World determined the fundamental laws of physics so that human life was possible on Earth;
There are many worlds, with a chaotic spread of parameters, and most of them are uninhabited. On Earth, conditions were accidentally created that are compatible with life.
It is clear that the abyss separates these formulations of the anthropic principle, and it is embedded in the worldview. The answers to all the most important questions of mankind are also determined by its worldview. Similarly, the answers to the question: what lies behind the observable Universe will also be alternative.
The Christian worldview asserts: behind matter there is a creative Mind, God, who is not an integral part of the Universe, but determines its laws and the path of development.
Atheistic worldview: there is nothing but moving matter, it is blind and devoid of purpose, while it has the ability to self-organize and develop, also not subject to any purpose. The diversity of nature and the world is the result of random processes of the development of matter.
Let's ask a more specific question, how did our world come into existence? And again we get two mutually exclusive answers:
Christian worldview: The Universe, the Solar system, the Earth are created in such a way in order to ensure the possibilities of life on Earth.
Atheistic worldview: matter itself arose as a result of the Big Bang and eventually formed the solar system with a system of planets, on one of which, in an incomprehensible way (scientifically inexplicable and not reproducible), organic life appeared as a result of spontaneous generation; as a result of evolution through mutations and natural selection (these mechanisms are also not controlled by anyone and have no ultimate goal), the current variety of forms of wildlife has arisen.
Which answer system to adhere to is a matter of free choice for each person, and it would not be worth talking about it so much if the atheistic worldview was not persistently imposed on us by the ideologies of communism and globalism. Unfortunately, the atheistic ideological views given here are declared part of the scientific picture of the world, although the postulates underlying them are the subject of faith, i.e. have little to do with science and should be taken out of its scope.
Scientific picture of the world
At all times, the awareness of the existence of patterns in nature and the possibility of its rational knowledge has led scientists and philosophers to attempt to paint a scientific picture of the world. At the same time, to explain everything in the world, people have always had enough of the available scientific knowledge that forms the core of the scientific picture of the world - the totality of the most stable hypotheses and theories in time, which are now the principles of thermodynamics, conservation laws, and the constancy of fundamental physical quantities. The replacement of the core of the scientific picture of the world is associated with a revolution in science, due to which the scientific picture of the world is stable, and theories that undermine it are met with fierce resistance, both from the scientific community and from near-scientific and far from science sections of society. For the latter, the dominant picture of the world has time to become an object of faith.
The scientific picture of the world is a model formed as a result of unlimited extrapolation of specific limited scientific knowledge beyond the limits of observations and experiments possible at a given time. The spontaneously scientific picture of the world extends to all conceivable reality. So it was at all times, and Newton, who created the first scientific picture of the world, was no exception.
Newton, as a theologian and thinker of the largest scale, could not help but think about the problems concerning the structure of the Universe. At the same time, following his own rules, he applied the method of induction by analyzing the consequences of the established laws. So, analyzing the consequences of the law of universal gravitation, in applying it to the entire universe (although at that time the law was confirmed by the motion of the planets only within the solar system), Newton came to the conclusion that the universe is infinite in space. The Universe must be infinite, since only in this case it could have equal centers of gravity and many space objects. In the finite Universe, all these objects would sooner or later merge into a single body (the center of the world). Therefore, the foundation of Newton's model of the Universe and many subsequent models (up to the creation of the general theory of relativity at the beginning of the 20th century) was the idea of infinite space and countless space objects. These objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity, which determines the nature of their movement.
The core of Newton's mechanistic picture of the world was the idea of the material unity of heaven and earth, that is, the world once created by God and existing according to the natural laws of nature. Mechanical movement was seen as the basis of all phenomena and processes, and gravitation was considered the most universal and main force in the Cosmos. The physical picture of the world was drawn in terms of absolute space and absolute time, existing independently of matter. The creation of matter itself was presented as a kind of distant overture to an endless performance, the action of which unfolds according to the natural laws of nature under the influence of gravitational forces.
Newton was also concerned with the question of the origin of the universe. He understood that, limited only by mechanical forces, it would not be possible to explain not only the origin of the Universe, but also the origin of the solar system. Therefore, in questions of origin, Newton resorted to an organizing force more powerful than gravity, which he thought of as God the Creator. The “divine hand” gave the planets the necessary initial impulse for their orbital movement, thanks to which they did not fall into the Sun. Then the motion of the planets was explained by a natural physical cause - the law of universal gravitation. However, there was no explanation for the steady nature of the planets' motions. Moreover, the mutual attraction of the planets must inevitably cause a perturbation in their motion and as a result of deviation from strictly elliptical trajectories. These deviations could have a secular character, growing with time, and Newton concluded that it was necessary from time to time to correct, through divine intervention, the mechanism of planetary motion, loosened by mutual disturbances, i.e. wind up the "world clock," as Leibniz aptly put it.
Phenomenological, but based on strict quantitative laws, Newton's physics determined the main features of a new, cosmophysical picture of the world, which for two centuries became the guiding and controlling factor in the development of natural science. But Newton's worldview ideas did not fully inspire the 18th century that would follow Newton's century - the century of enlightenment, the century of resurgent materialistic teachings. It took half a century of development not of science, but mainly of an atheistic worldview, for the idea of a divine "initial push" to be categorically rejected. Its place in natural science was taken by the forgotten idea of the natural evolution of matter in the Cosmos, the driving force of which this time was gravity.
The discovery by Newton of the basic laws of mechanics gave rise to the opinion of their universalism, and the understanding of these laws, as well as the discovery of new ones, is a guarantee of a complete understanding of nature and society and power over them. In such a world, subject to strict mathematical laws, according to atheists, there was no place for God. Science was called upon to explain the origin of the solar system - the founder of these ideas was the French scientist J. Buffon. According to Buffon, all the planets were formed from a jet of fire-breathing substance knocked out of the Sun when it collided with a comet (Newton himself pointed out the possibility of such a collision); further, planets, including the Earth, were formed from fragments of the jet.
The classic of German philosophy, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), went even further, not limiting himself to considering the solar system, but directing his thoughts to the expanses of the Universe. Having put forward the ideas of the evolution of the Universe, Kant developed in detail the cosmogony of the solar system, including the origin of the Sun, which later became known as the "nebular hypothesis". The main drawback of Kant's cosmogony is the assumption of the possibility of the rotational motion of the system as a result of the interaction of its constituent parts.
Many shortcomings of Kant's hypothesis were eliminated by the great French scientist P.S. Laplace (1749-1827). In 1796, Laplace, in his Exposition of the System of the World, suggested that the same gravitational forces that determine the motion of the planets can also be considered the cause of the emergence of the solar system and considered the possibility of its formation from an initially rotating rarefied nebula. Under the influence of gravitational forces, the cooling of the nebula was accompanied by compression, which led to the formation of a star in its center - the Sun and the simultaneous exfoliation of rings in the equatorial plane, from which, in the end, planets and their satellites were formed. Within a short time, Laplace's hypothesis became popular and seemed to prove the omnipotence of the rational approach to explaining nature. If Kant assigned the role of the creator of matter to God in his cosmogony, then the atheist Laplace rejected God altogether. It is known that when Napoleon Bonaparte, who showed an interest in the natural sciences and especially in mathematics, asked Laplace about the place of God in the system of the world, he arrogantly replied: "Sir, I do not need this hypothesis."
Thus, in less than a hundred years, Newton's scientific picture of the world, of which God the Creator and Provider was an integral part, first lost the Provider, and then, in Laplace's system, the Creator. And they are trying to convince us that this happened under the pressure of scientific facts. But in this case, such a turn would be final and irreversible, however, in later times there were scientists no less important than Laplace, who possessed a significantly larger amount of knowledge, who did not reject God and adhered to the Christian worldview. And in the 19th and early 20th centuries, such scientists were in the majority. So Ampere, Becquerel, Volta, Gauss, Dalton, Joule, Kelvin, Coulomb, Charles, Mayer, Maxwell, Ohm, Planck, Faraday adhered to the Christian worldview. Although Albert Einstein was not a Christian, he was not an atheist either.
Would it be correct to say that Christian scientists were not convinced by Laplace's hypothesis due to a number of its significant unremovable shortcomings, the most important of which is the discrepancy between the distribution of angular momentum between the Sun and the planets, the reverse rotation of Venus and Uranus? Unlikely. Let us ask one more question - how far has science advanced in the knowledge of nature since the time of Laplace? The successes of science in the material sphere are colossal; it is the basis of technical progress, which has embraced many aspects of human activity. Science paints a picture of the world with the colors of many branches of natural science, but it should be recognized that in matters of the origin of the Universe, the Solar System, and the Earth, new hypotheses are rather the fruit of a sophisticated mind, albeit equipped with the most modern mathematical delights, than a reflection of some new discoveries and laws of physics. No wonder the Laplace hypothesis, corrected and modified, for example, by O.Yu. Schmidt, and is still in use, although its shortcomings have not only not been eliminated, but have become even more obvious. The conclusion suggests itself - the basis of the scientific picture of the world is a worldview, which is not limited to the data of science. That is why atheists and Christians, using the same amount of scientific knowledge, manage to draw fundamentally different scientific pictures of the world.
Bibliography
For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.portal-slovo.ru/ were used.