Question:Are there people who always enjoy lying? Why? Is it an inferiority complex?

Answer: Nobody always lies. The so-called liars are those who have no moral barriers to lie when it is profitable for them. At the same time, they do not consider themselves inferior, but, on the contrary, consider themselves able to live. Why?
Because the absolute majority of people are liars - what kind of inferiority is there? As for the pleasure - it is not received for the process itself, but for the result of a lie. If the lie has failed, or is exposed - what is the pleasure here?

Вопрос:Есть ли люди, которым всегда нравится лгать? Почему? Это комплекс неполноценности?

Ответ: Никто не лжет всегда. Так называемые лжецы - это те, у кого нет моральных барьеров, чтобы лгать, когда им это выгодно. При этом они не считают себя неполноценными, а, наоборот, считают себя способными жить. Почему?
Потому что абсолютное большинство людей лжецы - о какой неполноценности может идти речь? Что касается удовольствия - его получают не за сам процесс, а за результат лжи. Если ложь провалилась или разоблачена - в чем здесь удовольствие?

.Question: Why are there two extremes in our world, and not three, for example?Cold and hot, plus and minus, light and dark, good and evil, etc. If there have been attempts to explain such a phenomenon, can you add literature to your answer?

Answer: This follows from the starting point of all reasoning - the presence of a person (subject) and nature (object), and their opposition - subjective and objective principles.

Question: “How to get rid of unreasonable fear and anxiety?"

Addition: I have been suffering from unreasonable fears for a year now, then they pass and may not appear for a month, then suddenly they start again in one day and can last for weeks. I don't see the reasons for these fears, but perhaps I don't notice them myself. Almost finished the course of "Afobazole". Before that, I drank Novo-Passit. The alarm still appeared. How to get rid of it?

Answer: There is no causeless fear, there is an unconscious one. Psychologists can help you to understand its causes, but only to help. That is, if you do not analyze your consciousness on your own, then no one can help you - they will only confuse the situation even more. In order for you to start introspection, you need to be able to enter a state of mental calmness, like the one you enter during meditation. Here, too, you should contact specialists to suggest how this is done. In a state of peace of mind, you should think about your self, about your life, its goals - how much it corresponds to your dreams and ideals. At some point, the state of calmness will begin to disappear, emotions will appear - this means that you are groping for the source of disharmony.

Question: How to stop harassing yourself with unnecessary thoughts?"


“Unnecessary” thoughts plague you when they do not lead to the desired result, but their cause does not disappear and, due to the absence of the desired result, constantly reproduces them. Thus, they become, as they say, intrusive and cause a lot of inconvenience, and if they also relate to events that are important for a person, then even suffering.

Their cause is different for mentally healthy and mentally ill people: for the former it is their specific life circumstances, for the latter it is deviations in the functioning of the brain. Accordingly, the solution for healthy people is to correctly resolve their life problems, and for sick people - in special treatment.

The very fact of the appearance of obsessive thoughts suggests that a person’s consciousness and his brain begin to function in a “gray” zone, that is, not yet to the detriment of oneself, but no longer to one’s advantage. Failure to overcome them for a long time will lead to disruption of the physical functioning of the brain and, as a result, to mental disorder - that is, social disharmony will lead to physiological disharmony.

The problem of the appearance of obsessive thoughts in a mentally healthy person is connected not only and not so much with a complex and insoluble situation at the moment of his life, but with his insufficient knowledge of the principles of the functioning of consciousness and the brain and, as a consequence, with the inability to manage them. And therefore, “unnecessary thoughts” can appear for a trivial reason and at the same time cause great harm.

In itself, a complex problem situation in a person’s life causes a strong defensive reaction of the body, including increased activity of consciousness and brain, aimed at resolving it. The brain, in turn, gives various options for resolving the problem, successful or unsuccessful, often stating the impossibility of coping on its own, and it does not always produce obsessive thoughts.

But if the connection between difficult life situations and obsessive thoughts can be somehow imagined, then the connection between them and seemingly minor events often causes bewilderment.

So what are they? For comparison, let's take the example of a person lost in the forest - as a rule, in an attempt to get out without special means or techniques, he walks in a circle, thinking that he is walking in a straight line. Likewise, in obsessive thoughts - their essence also lies in “walking in circles” - seemingly correct individual conclusions in their totality lead to the starting point of thinking. An attempt to convince him encounters an obstacle in the form of conviction in the correctness of his judgments and disagreement with the judgments of his opponent. Something similar happens when two people get lost in the forest, one of whom is confident that he is right and leads both of them in a circle.

At the same time, it is obvious that the way out of the vicious circle of obsessive thoughts is precisely to make changes in some part of them, and then their development would take a different path. Therefore, psychotherapists strive in individual sessions to encourage a person to critically approach his system of thoughts, to help him rethink the problematic situation from a different angle of vision. And they often succeed in this, especially when it comes to relieving psychological stress, “peak” mental stress. However, such local successes do not guarantee a repetition of the same or a similar problem situation, since they are precisely designed to resolve the issue “on the spot.”

A philosophical approach can help here as perhaps the only preventative remedy - to prevent thoughts from flowing in circles in principle. And for this it is enough just to grasp one simple idea of the Basic Method of Philosophy - thinking that seems impeccable from a logical point of view, from the so-called objective side, may not be correct from the point of view of the sensory side, or subjective. And this is where the philosophical technology lies: to divide the vicious circle of thoughts into two vicious circles - thoughts without feelings and feelings without thoughts. And look for the weak link in the second, when something is perceived not as it is, but as you want it to be. In discussions this is called “pulling a fact behind one’s ears.”

This violation of the perception of reality is the true cause of all obsessive thoughts! And if with the help of a psychologist in each specific case such a cause can be discovered and tried to be eliminated, then with philosophical help one can try to eliminate such reasons for the future - it is enough to learn to see the objective and subjective sides of any problem, and how they interact with each other, how one influences to another.

Although, it should be noted that such advice is reminiscent of the advice to do exercises in the morning: everyone understands its benefits, but few follow it.

Вопрос: «Как перестать изводить себя ненужными мыслями?»


"Ненужные" мысли изводят, когда они не приводят к нужному результату, а их причина не исчезает и ввиду отсутствия нужного результата их постоянно воспроизводит. Тем самым они становятся, как говорят, навязчивыми и доставляют множество неудобств, а если ещё и относятся к важным для человека событиям - то и страданий.
Их причина у психически здоровых и психически больных людей различная: у первых это их конкретные жизненные обстоятельства, у вторых - отклонения в функционировании головного мозга. Соответственно, решение для здоровых людей состоит в правильном разрешении их жизненных проблем, а для больных - в специальном лечении.
Сам факт появления навязчивых мыслей говорит о том, что сознание человека и его мозг начинают функционировать в "серой" зоне, то есть, ещё пока и не во вред самому себе, но уже и не в пользу. Их непреодоление длительное время приведёт к нарушению физического функционирования головного мозга и как следствие, к психическому расстройству - то есть, социальная дисгармония повлечёт дисгармонию физиологическую.
Проблема появления навязчивых мыслей у психически здорового человека связана не только и не столько со сложной и неразрешимой в данный момент его жизни ситуацией, сколько с недостаточным знанием им принципов работы сознания и мозга и, как следствие, с неумением ими управлять. А поэтому "ненужные мысли" могут появиться и по пустяковому поводу и при этом причинить большой вред.
Сама по себе сложная проблемная ситуация в жизни человека вызывает сильную защитную реакцию организма, в том числе повышенную активность сознания, мозга, направленную на её разрешение. Мозг, в свою очередь, выдаёт различные варианты разрешения проблемы, удачные или неудачные, нередко констатируя невозможность справиться самостоятельно и далеко не всегда он производит навязчивые мысли.
Но если связь между сложными жизненными ситуациями и навязчивыми мыслями можно хоть как-то себе представить, то связь между ними и казалось бы мелкими событиями нередко вызывает недоумение.
Так что же они есть такое? Для сравнения возьмём пример человека, заблудившегося в лесу - как правило, в попытке выбраться без особенных средств или приёмов, он ходит по кругу, думая что идёт по прямой. Так же и в навязчивых мыслях - их суть также заключается в "хождении по кругу" - кажущиеся правильными отдельные умозаключения в своей совокупности приводят к исходному пункту мышления. Попытка его переубедить наталкивается на препятствие в виде убеждения в верности своих суждений и несогласия с суждениями оппонента. Нечто подобное происходит и тогда, когда в лесу заблудились двое, один из которых уверен в своей правоте и водит обоих по кругу.
Вместе с тем, очевидно, что выход из порочного круга навязчивых мыслей состоит как раз в том, чтобы в какое-то их звено внести изменения и тогда бы их развитие пошло по иному пути. Поэтому психотерапевты стремятся в индивидуальных сеансах побудить человека критически подойти к своей системе мыслей, помочь ему переосмыслить проблемную ситуацию с иного угла видения. И нередко им эту удаётся, особенно, если речь идёт о снятии психологического стресса, "пикового" душевного перенапряжения. Однако, такие локальные успехи не гарантируют повторения - такой же или подобной - проблемной ситуации, поскольку как раз и рассчитаны на решение вопроса "в моменте".
Философский подход может здесь помочь как едва ли не единственное профилактическое средство - не допускать течения мысли по кругу в принципе. А для этого достаточно всего лишь усвоить одну простую идею Основного Метода Философии - мышление, которое кажется безупречным с логической точки зрения, с так называемой объективной стороны, может быть отнюдь не верным с точки зрения чувственной стороны, или субъективной. И в этом моменте и заключается философская технология: разделить порочный круг мыслей на два порочных круга - мыслей без чувств и чувств без мыслей. И искать слабое звено во втором, когда что-то воспринимается не таким как оно есть, а таким, как хочется, чтобы оно было. В дискуссиях это называется "притянуть факт за уши".
Вот это-то нарушение восприятия реальности и есть истинная причина всех навязчивых мыслей! И если с помощью психолога в каждом конкретном случае такую причину можно обнаружить и попытаться устранить, то с философской помощью можно попытаться устранить подобные причины на будущее - достаточно научиться видеть объективную и субъективную стороны любой проблемы, и то как они между собой взаимодействуют, как одна влияет на другую.
Хотя, надо отметить, что подобный совет напоминает совет делать по утрам зарядку: все понимают его пользу, но немногие им руководствуется.

Question: “The main task of philosophy"

Answer: Philosophy emerged as the art of separating the objective and the subjective. The objective concepts identified became the basis for the sciences, the subjective ones for art. At some point, philosophy applied its method to itself - and received a division into "idealism"
and "materialism". But later it became clear that the ideal and material is not yet subjective and objective.

Question: “What are the philosophical foundations of education"?

Answer: The objective side of education is to obtain the amount of knowledge necessary for a person’s normal life in his future - both professional and socio-cultural.
The subjective side of education is ideological and moral education, which allows us to form a person as an organic part of the state and society.
In the process of implementing both sides of education, which is carried out both by the state and by parents, two types (cycles) of interdependence and mutual transition of the parties arise:
Negative - when the state carries out education, instilling values that it itself does not possess - false values - planning to use the person who trusts it as a source of unlawful - at the expense and to the detriment of the individual - enrichment. And the individual, including as a measure to counter the state, receives education to use it, including to the detriment of the state, for personal enrichment, and using the state as his instrument.
Positive - when the state carries out education, instilling values that it itself possesses, true values, planning to use the person who trusts it as a source of mutual enrichment - for him and the person. And the individual, including as a measure of assistance to the state, receives education to use it not only for his own benefit, but also for the benefit of the state, using it as his tool.
In the process of education, in which millions of individuals participate, the two indicated cycles are present in various combinations and proportions - depending on the specific individual and the specific conditions of education. However, the most general pattern is the presence or absence in the state of a healthy and promising philosophy and, on its basis, a healthy and promising ideology, thanks to which the main cycle of education becomes either “Positive” or “Negative”.
It is clear that, in general, the effectiveness of education is higher when the positive cycle of education is predominantly carried out - but it, like all other parts of the state and society, depends on their condition as a whole, on the vector of their development or degradation.

Каковы философские основы образования?

Объективной стороной образования является получение объёма знаний, необходимого для нормальной жизни человека в его будущем - как профессиональной, так и общественно-культурной.

Субъективной стороной образования является идеологическое и нравственное воспитание, позволяющее сформировать человека как органическую часть государства и общества.

В процессе реализации обеих сторон образования, которое осуществляется как со стороны государства, так и со стороны родителей, возникают два типа (цикла) взаимозависимости и взаимоперехода сторон:

  1. Негативный - когда государство осуществляет образование, насаждая ценности, которыми оно само не обладает - фальшивые ценности - планируя использовать доверяющую ей личность как источник неправомерного - за счёт и в ущерб личности - обогащения. А личность, в том числе в качестве меры противодействия государству, получает образование для использования его в том числе и во вред государству, для личного обогащения, и используя государство как свой инструмент.
  2. Позитивный - когда государство осуществляет образование, насаждая ценности, которыми само обладает, истинные ценности, планируя использовать доверяющую ей личность как источник взаимного - его и личности - обогащения. А личность, в том числе в качестве меры содействия государству, получает образование для использования его не только в свою пользу, но и в пользу государству, используя его как свой инструмент.

В процессе образования, в котором участвуют миллионы личностей, два указанных цикла присутствуют в разнообразных сочетаниях и пропорциях - в зависимости от конкретной личности и конкретных условий образования. Однако, самой общей закономерностью является наличие или отсутствие в государстве здоровой и перспективной философии и на её основе - здоровой и перспективной идеологии, благодаря которым основным циклом образования становится либо "Позитивный" либо "Негативный".

Понятно, что в целом эффективность образования выше тогда, когда преимущественно осуществляется позитивный цикл образования - но и он, как и все остальные части государства и общества - зависит от их состояния в целом, от вектора их развития или деградации.

Главная ошибка философских теорий

Большинство философских теорий основаны на субъективных концепциях. Соответственно, они строят свои системы таким образом, что каждый, кто использует их как средство познания, вкладывает в их содержание свое индивидуальное понимание. Таким образом, использование этих теорий не приводит к единообразному объяснению явлений, известных с их помощью, и, следовательно, к объяснению в целом. Отсюда общие оценки философии, вроде этой: “Изначально философия разрабатывала идеи вселенной, но теперь она превратилась в ... болтовню о ценностных суждениях. Проще говоря, философия уступила место наукам и сама по себе стала этикой высказывания... и это все.”

The main mistake of philosophical theories

Most philosophical theories are based on subjective concepts. Accordingly, they build their systems in such a way that everyone who uses them as a means of knowledge puts their individual understanding into their content. Thus, the use of these theories does not lead to a uniform explanation of the phenomena known through them, and, therefore, to an explanation in general. Hence general assessments of philosophy, such as this: “Philosophy was originally an elaboration of the ideas of the universe, but now it has turned into ... chatter about value judgments. Simply put, philosophy gave way to the sciences and itself became an ethics of speech... and that’s all.”

Philosophy and Psychology

The philosophical method works well when considering citizens’ appeals to psychotherapists with psychological problems. The main difficulty in providing effective counseling to such citizens is how feasible the psychologist's recommendations are. For example, a psychologist advises to distance yourself from a person or change your attitude towards a problem - and then the citizen’s problem can be solved. Some people do this, but some don’t: some are not able to do as the psychologist advises. Why? One answer is that the psychologist works in the subjective space of a person, which has its own capabilities and limitations. Such restrictions are created by its objective space. And this is the competence of philosophy.

The Basic Method of Philosophy, separating the subjective side of the problem from the objective, allows you to better see the limitations of purely psychotherapeutic methods of solving the problem and supplement them with philosophical methods.

The impact of philosophical methods on a person is not so obvious, however, unlike psychotherapeutic ones, it is permanent and brings tangible benefits through the constant accumulation of positive effects. It is as if curing a disease involves leading a healthy lifestyle instead of taking medications.

Философия и психология

Философский метод хорошо работает при рассмотрении обращений граждан с психологическими проблемами к психотерапевтам. Основная трудность в предоставлении эффективной консультации таким гражданам заключается в том, насколько осуществимы рекомендации психолога. Например, психолог советует дистанцироваться от какого-либо человека или изменить свое отношение к какой-либо проблеме – и тогда проблема гражданина может быть решена. Кто-то это делает, а кто-то нет: кто-то не способен поступить так, как советует психолог. Почему? Один из ответов заключается в том, что психолог работает в субъективном пространстве человека, имеющем свои возможности и ограничения. Такие ограничения создаются его объективным пространством. И это компетенция философии.

Основной Метод Философии, разделяя субъективную сторону проблемы от объективной, позволяет лучше увидеть ограниченность чисто психотерапевтических методов решения проблемы и дополнять их философскими методами.

Воздействие философских методов на человека не так очевидно, однако, в отличие от психотерапевтических, оно имеет постоянный характер и приносит ощутимую пользу посредством постоянного накопления положительного эффекта. Как если бы для излечения болезни предлагалось вести здоровый образ жизни вместо того, чтобы принимать лекарства.
How can an overweight person overcome the psychological barrier to start running?

The psychological barrier is a consequence of a certain mental attitude, for example, such as: fat people look ridiculous when they run. Accordingly, in order to overcome it, it is necessary to extract this attitude from the subconscious and study it properly. The result of its study may be a conclusion about its inferiority, complete or partial. And in the part in which such a conclusion is made, it will be overcome and it will be possible to move on to overcoming its consequences - just start running.

What is the importance of the ability to distinguish the subjective and objective

For example, no matter what a person encounters, he will always feel it first, then comprehend it.

Feeling is its natural property, and thinking is social, feeling is individual and indescribable, and thinking is standard and communicative. The individual in opposition to the collective, the inexpressible in opposition to the communicative, is the subjective in opposition to the objective. Feeling in opposition to thought is subjective in opposition to objective.

But there is also a thought in the feeling, and a feeling in the thought, therefore, a feeling with a greater presence of thought will be more objective than a feeling with a lesser presence of thought.

And a thought with less presence of feeling will be more objective than a thought with more presence of feeling.

In the search for truth, two forms of consciousness are equal, each is responsible for its own field of work, and the purer each of them is from impurities, the deeper the subject will be comprehended.

Misconceptions about philosophy: what are their sources

It is amusing to observe how modern philosophers use the ancient definitions of philosophy taken from Pythagoras and Aristotle. Philosophy as the love of wisdom, philosophy as the art of differentiation (maximum generalization). Such archaic approaches in practice lead to the futility of supposedly philosophical reasoning. So, under the brand of love of wisdom, moral principles are issued, similar to those that were more than the ancients. The philosophical delineation hides schematic generalizations applied, to the displeasure of representatives of branch sciences, to the subjects of their consideration. All this garbage content - pseudo-wisdom and empty schemes - are trying to pass off to non-specialists in philosophy as special approaches that are understandable only to philosophers.

Философия: теория и практика, часть 1

Любую теорию можно назвать таковой, если она применима на практике - и философия здесь не исключение. Но есть особенности - любая практика уже занята конкретными науками, а философия, похоже, не имеет какой-то своей части. Отсюда и распространенное мнение, что философия - это не отдельная дисциплина, а особый способ мышления. Но даже в таком урезанном виде особый способ мышления должен проявляться в получении особых результатов на практике. Где может быть применен философский способ мышления?
Везде - если мы будем иметь в виду, что проблема разделения субъективного и объективного существует повсюду. Давайте проиллюстрируем это на примере хорошо известных способов мышления - анализа и синтеза: ход мышления здесь заключается в том, чтобы разбить целое на части, усовершенствовать части, а затем снова собрать это целое из частей. В конце этого действия целое не будет идентично тому, что было в начале - оно будет переосмыслено.
Теперь мы применяем метод разделения на субъективное и объективное и воссоединяем их - в этом случае исходный объект (целое) разделяется на две формы: сенсорную и ментальную, после чего ментальная форма уточняется стандартным аналитико-синтетическим способом мышления и затем воссоединяется с тем, что ранее было сенсорной формой. НО - это было "раньше", потому что теперь эта чувственная форма станет другой в результате помещения ее в новую ментальную оболочку. Такой образ мышления используется в народной практике, когда говорят "утро вечера мудренее", подразумевая под этим освобождение сознания от эмоциональных перегрузок.

Philosophy: theory and practice, part 2 (philosophical analysis on a concrete example)

Let's take an example of a philosophical analysis of such a phenomenon as corruption. On Yandex Q, a question was asked how philosophers understand corruption. The answers to it were divided into, relatively speaking, subjectivist and objectivist: the first ones based their arguments on theses about the natural depravity of man and its particular manifestation - corruption, after which they transferred the analysis of corruption to the plane of considering the forces of evil and the fight against it by the forces of good. The second - objectivists - proceeded from the thesis of the opposition (antagonism) of the whole and the part, by which society and man were meant, after which they concluded that it was fundamentally impossible to overcome corruption as a manifestation of the antagonism of the private and general, and as a consequence, to enter the irrational plane - religion and its means.
We cannot say that these arguments were wrong - we can say that they were unphilosophical. Why? Because the subjectivists did not take into account the objective, and the objectivists did not take into account the subjective.Thus, a conditional corrupt official was considered by subjectivists to be the forces of evil, and a fighter against him - to the forces of good. Those who have moved away from school and are familiar with life firsthand understand that this is not true: it is more likely to be true that a corrupt official and a fighter against corruption coexist in one person - depending on what he is doing now. On the other hand, the objectivists, proceeding supposedly from the "objectively existing" opposition of the particular and the general, did not take into account that the particular is not always in antagonism with the general, but in a constantly changing dynamic equilibrium - from close to unity to complete rupture. And that each particular is a unique particular, whereas the general is a single general - and each unique acts uniquely in relation to the general.
So the question of the philosophical understanding of corruption is waiting for its resolution!

Dangers for a novice philosopher, part 1

In Krylov's fable about the swan, crayfish and pike, as you know, the cart remained in place, despite the considerable efforts of the characters involved in its relocation. A young man, driven by the desire to study philosophy as a discipline of interest to him, finds himself in approximately the same situation: he is immediately surrounded by powerful forces and dragged in different directions. One of these forces is called the "ocean of philosophical literature" - coming to its shore, the neophyte is horrified by the boundlessness and huge raging waves. Another force is called the "mountains of classical philosophy", where each peak is some outstanding philosopher of the past. The third force is the citizens themselves-philosophers who form a State within a State, each of whom is in it with some position and with some title. And our daredevil, clasping his hands and taking a deep breath, goes to bow to an Influential Citizen who can help him build his boat and tell him how to row the oars correctly.
And for a long, very long time, an Influential Citizen teaches a young philosopher all the wisdom of this State, and in return asks only one thing - to entrust him with his soul. And now - the moment comes when the Mentor sends the Student on an independent voyage on a good ship. Only this ship was made by someone else... and there is no soul anymore.
Dangers for a novice philosopher, part 2

If we describe the main dangers of a novice philosopher in rational language, then there are two of them - the student's lack of a clear understanding of why he should go to philosophy and the lack of a clear understanding of what philosophy is for those who have been in it for a long time. In other disciplines, too, not everything is cloudless, but in philosophy the situation is much worse. And here's why. A real philosopher is a person who is completely independent of the world around him, like a Zen Buddhist, but unlike the latter, actively trying to change it, like Socrates. And here such a person is an enemy of the state and society, which do not exist according to philosophical laws, but rather according to the laws of the jungle, especially here in Russia. And not only their enemy, but also the enemy of a large army of pseudo-philosophers who are in the service of the state or large financial structures.
They clearly indicate to this army how to think and speak, so that the thoughts of the people coincide with their own thoughts about what the thoughts of the people should be. And for this they pay them money and give them positions. And a real philosopher, if he survives in this confrontation, it will only be guided by the instructions of Omar Khayyam:
You, who keep count of all earthly affairs,
Be wise among the ignorant, be dumb.
To save your eyes, tongue and ears,
Pretend to be dumb, blind, deaf here.
Figuratively, of course, the times are different. If you go into philosophy not as a fanatic, ready to sacrifice your life for ideas, but for any other reasons - you become an empty place for the Truth and for many years a slave to those who have been a slave for many years. Subsequently, of course, if you are lucky, you will become the master of such or the same unfortunate people as you once were yourself, and you will be able to try to take out your suffering on them because of the best years of your life fruitlessly lived. And until then, for many years you will dig like a worm in the philosophical septic tanks of modern pseudo-luminaries and the petrified corpses of geniuses of the past. In order, after decades, to get a book of a doctor of philosophy and to answer the simplest questions of students thoughtfully: there is no Hegel for this problem yet! Or just spit on everything you've been doing for so long and unsuccessfully - and go to the same place as everyone else...

Who is a philosopher?

A philosopher is someone who lives by philosophy, that is, who analyzes all life issues first of all with the help of philosophical means, and already in the second and third turn - with the help of other methods. To do this, the philosopher uses his philosophical paradigm, i.e. a set of basic philosophical concepts that allow evaluating any phenomenon. From this it can be seen that the presence of a philosophical paradigm and the primacy of its application before other ways of cognition is fundamental for a philosopher. The philosophical paradigm does not necessarily have to be part of some developed philosophical theory, its main property is to be philosophical, i.e. covering all spheres of being. Therefore, if a philosopher says that his philosophy does not apply to some areas of life, he is not a philosopher. For example, he says that his philosophy cannot evaluate delicious food or having sex. Another thing is that philosophy gives only general assessments, and special disciplines concretize them.
It follows from this that a philosopher from the point of view of psychology is a kind of fanatic of his work, since his philosophizing is his way of existence. It also follows that a philosopher cannot completely solve the issues that arise in life, but only give the right direction for their solution. Therefore, philosophers are often quite impractical, as it may seem from the outside, in their lives, however, they are not as susceptible to life's vicissitudes as other non-philosophers. Figuratively speaking, a philosopher is someone who has insured himself for all occasions - when it would be possible not to do it at all. On the other hand, having a special education, academic degrees, the status of a philosophy teacher or a personal conviction in one's own philosophical being are also not criteria for evaluating someone as a philosopher. Just as frequent church attendance or the presence of a priest are not signs of a true believer.
But for a false philosopher, external regalia are the most important element - like a poison injected into a victim for a tick.

The main varieties of false philosophers

False philosophers are divided into those who use philosophy to obtain so-called material benefits, most often for making money - false philosophers-merchants, and those who use it to gain superiority over others - false philosophers-manipulators. Both of them are not philosophers, despite all the ways and tricks they resort to in order to appear so: pseudo-philosophical reasoning, skillful juggling with special terminology and confusing thoughts, the presence of philosophical academic degrees and various philosophical positions - from the head of the department of philosophy or the editor of a philosophical journal to the director of a cultural center. Moreover, they also give them out - when they talk pretentiously about simple things or when they quote some classic instead of their opinion.
False philosophers-traders are people who are trying to sell their special "philosophical" knowledge as a particularly valuable commodity and get a good material benefit for it, acting according to the usual laws of the market. Considering all other people as their potential customers, they, on the one hand, are engaged in public self-promotion, as specialists capable of solving the most complex issues, on the other hand, they try to please customers by adjusting their pseudo-philosophical content to the individual wishes of the customer. Figuratively speaking, they act like healers and fortune tellers.
False manipulative philosophers act in the opposite direction, suggesting to their addressees that they are the guardians of some kind of "Truth" or "truly philosophical thinking" accessible only to units, and that their adherents need to spend many years of their lives to become as dedicated as they are. And for this purpose, they require obedience and work for themselves as their Teacher. And if false philosophers-merchants try in every possible way to win over their customer-buyer, then false philosophers-manipulators, on the contrary, try in one way or another to belittle another, and to elevate themselves by resorting to cheating and tricks. False philosophers-merchants filled the Internet space, while false philosophers-manipulators filled the space of higher educational institutions.

Philosophy and the State, part 1
(on the example of the Russian state)

Any modern state actively participates in the formation of the philosophical consciousness (worldview) of its citizens - through controlled educational institutions and mass media. The state of affairs in philosophy is therefore a reflection of the state of affairs in society. The Russian state is now in a transitional period after the end of the existence of the USSR, which used exclusively Marxist-Leninist philosophy. In this connection, together with the formation of the USSR, it turned from a philosophical theory into an ideological dogma designed to solve practical tasks assigned to it, the main one of which was to form a special kind of consciousness among citizens - socialist consciousness. What did this mean for philosophy in general?
The fact that the state in the USSR suppressed living philosophical thought, replacing it with dogmatic doctrine, and professional philosophy teachers were essentially false philosophers-manipulators who cared exclusively about their well-being and adjusted the solution of pressing philosophical issues to the instructions of the governing state bodies (in fact, the main leadership of the country was carried out by the so-called Communist Party). The main idea of philosophical propaganda in the USSR was the idea of citizens' participation in the construction of socialism and communism as an ideal world of the future and (especially!) the consequences arising from it in the form of the need for a citizen to sacrifice his personal interests, up to the sacrifice of his life, in favor of the state. It also implied that those who disagree with it are enemies of the people or unconscious citizens and are subject to either repression or the provision of lesser social benefits.
After the collapse of the USSR, a Russian state of transition was formed from a Soviet-type state to a certain type, the contours of which are just beginning to emerge. Having begun to be created according to the Western model, it soon acquired some features that Western states consider undemocratic, compared with their own, democratic. The Western model of the state turned out to be virtually impossible in Russia during the transition period, while the Russian authorities persistently assert the identity of Russian state-legal institutions with Western ones. The reason is obvious: the desire to maximize the development of the Russian economy by integrating it into the Western one. Indeed, despite the fact that outwardly the Russian state structure is similar to the Western one, any sane person can see that in its spirit it works in many ways differently. The fundamental difference is that in the West it is customary to call the Russian authoritarian regime. Russian officials are struggling with this label in the public space, which cannot but affect their regulation of the space of academic philosophy: a common place in Russian philosophy is the thesis about the democratic state structure of Russia.
All this has left its mark on Russian philosophy: Marxism-Leninism as the only true philosophy has sunk into oblivion, giving way to imitation, as in state-building, Western trends and theories. At the same time, attempts are being made to revive a special, Russian philosophy. However, it is not the absence of prohibitions on a different opinion that is now the main thing in the question of the influence of the state on philosophy - the state has abandoned the attempt of directive management of the worldview of citizens. The main thing is the reality in which the citizens of Russia live - the state barely moving away from the period of ruin and anarchy and the Russian society eagerly striving for material benefits, just beginning to move away from the spiritual devastation after the collapse of the USSR. How does this reality affect the state of affairs in philosophy?

Book design is the art of incorporating the content, style, format, design, and sequence of the various components of a book into a coherent whole. In the words of Jan Tschichold, "methods and rules upon which it is impossible to improve, have been developed over centuries. To produce perfect books, these rules have to be brought back to life and applied."
Front matter, or preliminaries, is the first section of a book and is usually the smallest section in terms of the number of pages. Each page is counted, but no folio or page number is expressed or printed, on either display pages or blank pages.
Is atheism the cause of the degradation of society?

Comment: The etymology of atheism means denying God, i.e. fighting with him. This means that the struggle is also going on with the commandments that establish the norms of morality.

Society is the reverse side of the state, so the degradation of society and the degradation of the state are interrelated. Conditionally, the primary is the degradation of the state as a form of organization of society, for example, during the collapse of the USSR. Failing to cope with its functions, the state forms voids that are filled with destructive principles suppressed by it in citizens, called sins in religion. Outwardly, this manifests itself as a degradation of society. So, to put it simply, the reason for the degradation of society is the degradation of the state (more precisely, a set of reasons leading to the degradation of a certain form of government).
It should also be noted that the denial of God is not a denial of moral norms, just as faith in him is not the cause of legal institutions.


How to distinguish fiction from reality?

Comment: “I constantly cling to some details in speech and start thinking that I am annoying the interlocutor / doing something wrong. for example, if I say hello and they ignore me, probably the person just didn't hear, but I may start to think that I am being avoided. this is the simplest example, but it's the same with everything, I absolutely can't distinguish where I'm inventing and where I'm really interfering with people”.

Answer: From a philosophical point of view, you are in a state of extreme subjectivity, which means an imbalance of consciousness - the absence of properly objectified mental activity, a culture of "objective thinking". As an emergency philosophical aid, I advise you to read a couple of books with aphorisms, for example, La Rochefoucauld, Jerzy Lez, "The Merry Tuning Fork", you can also scroll through the collection of cartoons by Herluf Bidstrup - I think you will immediately feel easier. If you want to explore this phenomenon more deeply, read the materials of the "Basic Method of Philosophy".

Philosophy and the State, part 2
(on the example of the Russian state)

Already during the collapse of the USSR, society was divided into two parts - one began to enrich itself, the other to become poorer. After the collapse, this process acquired a rapid character with one feature - the first part was enriched by not just impoverishment, but extreme impoverishment of the second. There was an avalanche-like process of looting and plundering state property and robbing their own people, with the active participation of the Western world, which played a major role in the collapse of the USSR. This process was conducted under the direction and control of State bodies that directly cooperated with organized crime, and in fact themselves represented a type of organized crime. As a result, a large part of the Russian population was below the poverty line. In such conditions, the state ideology was reduced to the fact that the process of impoverishment of the people is temporary, and as capitalist relations develop, the production and welfare of the people will increase. In fact, the impoverishment of the people turned into its extinction, which has not passed to the present. There were no forces in the state or in society that could effectively resist him: on the ideological side, the adherents of Western civilization acted, planting the cult of Western life in all public venues, on the other hand, the emerging nouveau riche with the support of terry criminality, suppressing dissenters.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which reigned supreme in the USSR and in its last years was in a state of senile dementia, rested in the bosom, freeing the field of popular consciousness for a new philosophy, which, for lack of a better one, was replaced by the philosophy of consumption. More precisely, pseudophilosophy of unlimited consumption. The most active supporters of it were not philosophy teachers who dragged out a miserable existence on the ruins of Marxism and tried to find at least some place under the sun in the new reality, but the most diverse layers of those who had the opportunity to rob and steal: they became masters of life and trendsetters. "You have to make money on everything", taking the most brazen deception and fraud for "earning" - this was their motto, "you have to pay for everything" - this was their motto for the people. Therefore, from all platforms and sides, a continuous stream of lies about the state of affairs in the state and a continuous stream of poison were coming to this people, depriving them of the ability to think independently, and for the most part, to think at all.
The state itself turned into a cynical fraudster and a liar, as it served this newly-born caste. In the new reality, philosophy simply did not exist. It came to the point that one famous writer claimed that he was, they say, the only philosopher in modern Russia. And those who remained at the philosophical washtub began to slowly adapt to everything that could be called a business: the beggarly state financing did not go away, and on occasion it turned out to be possible to earn extra money on the side - from those who had the capital.

Philosophy and the State, part 3.
Ending November 21, 2021
The Russian state, being in a transitional period, is trying to integrate into the Western economy, pretending in every possible way to be the same as the Western, a "democratic" state, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, is trying to find an adequate way to manage its own people, who have not yet departed from the shock therapy of perestroika. And here it shows its different, "authoritarian" side, because, as it turned out, the Western model leads to the collapse of the state. Such duality, which is completely understandable from the point of view of an objective observer, generates a protracted discussion between so-called statesmen and so-called liberals who criticize the state and each other from their positions.
This discussion, on the other hand, is the tip of the iceberg in the war that is being waged in the world by states, capitals, economies and armies. The philosophical problem here is that behind each side there are certain economic or political, external or internal forces acting in their own interests, i.e. each side thinks subjectively, and there is no Truth behind any side. Namely, the Truth is the real support of the Common man and citizen, who himself, in turn, is the support of the state, the army, and capital.
At the same time, each of the opposing sides has enormous power and contains armies of hired "philosophers" fighting with each other, who use the Common man in their interests, often incompatible not only with his worthy existence, but also with his very life. For those who need the truth, there are no forces behind them, except curiosity or love for the truth. And that's why these people can think objectively. But the truth, as you know, does not pay money to anyone. And that is why its supporters are few, scattered and for the most part amateurs, non-professionals, and their voices are not heard in this war.
And they have something to say - first of all to this Simple person. Namely, that neither the state nor its friends and enemies with their hired philosophers want and cannot give the Common man an objective idea of the world and its possibilities in it - if only because they have other goals and objectives.


If the thoughts and sensations of the body are observable objects, then who is the observer (subject) who observes them?

This question demonstrates the origin of the principle underlying the creation of the Modern Philosophy community. Namely, the subject, the observer, is at the same time the object of observation for himself - at the moment when he begins to "observe" his thought. And this means that a person studies the same phenomenon from two different sides - as a phenomenon cognizable by his thought about this phenomenon, and as a cognition of his thought about this phenomenon.

The subject and method of philosophy

Part one

Everyone knows that philosophy has a special character of reasoning - it is not for nothing that "philosophize" is used mainly in an ironic sense - to indulge in abstract reasoning, to be clever, to be wise. However, this irony also contains an indication that philosophizing, unlike ordinary reasoning, is a kind of reflection proceeding from general ideas about a person and the world around him - of such a nature that an attempt to apply it in a particular case, to solve a specific question of a particular person is evaluated by interlocutors as a kind of scheme detached from life. If it happens that such a scheme is recognized as successful, it will be evaluated as a wise saying, however, mostly such thoughts appear in the form of maxims for all occasions. From Aristotle it came to us to call such a nature of reasoning a generalization, therefore it is believed that the philosopher thinks in extremely general categories.
Hence the irony of philosophizing becomes clear - reasoning in general, you miss the particular - and in many cases this particular seems much more important than the general. So, for example, the explanation of treason by the fact that everyone changes is unlikely to be appreciated by one of the parties as a wise philosophical thought. In fact, generalization, as one of the forms of logical thinking, is not a distinctive feature of philosophizing, real philosophizing, and not caricature. Moreover, there is no complexity or "wisdom" in it, which means the depth of the problem and the corresponding depth of its resolution.
We know that the problem is called a problem because its solution does not lie on the surface, and in many cases it seems that it does not exist at all. This happens especially dramatically or even tragically with young people in matters of the heart, when sometimes despair reaches suicide. And how these problems seem trivial after a certain time, how it seems they could be easily solved! What prevented us from solving when a lot of energy and nerves had not yet been spent? And here's what - let's call it subjectivity, a special state of consciousness, the opposite of objectivity.
Consider an example: a young man is in love with a girl and suffers from an unrequited feeling. His suffering is an indicator of his subjectivity in assessing relationships. The transition to objectivity would imply a calm analysis of the relationship and a conclusion about their incompatibility - and this would be a philosophical approach. But the young man, not being a philosopher, goes to objectivity in a different way, for example, finds another girl and calms down: it turns out that the first one was worse. Yes? And what happened? But here's what: having found another one, the young man calmed down and found the opportunity to think without being a slave to feelings - and the conclusions turned out to be different. There are other options for his epiphany - with greater or lesser costs. However, philosophical insight has the advantage over everyone that it follows exclusively from the work of consciousness, which is able to find the objective in the subjective and transform one into another. And to save on expenses.

Analysis of the question: "What is the measure of Objectivity in subjective assessments - in Subjective?"

Consider an example: the saying "it's raining warm in May." For one of the observers it may be warm, for the other it may be cold, but for both it is raining, it is coming and it is May. Obviously, this statement contains both an objective (it's raining in May) and a subjective (warm) part. The reason for the sensations is the effect of water of a certain temperature on a person, that is, an objective process, the change of which will entail a change in sensations. Therefore, the basis of subjective assessments are objective processes that need to be established when analyzing subjective assessments.
An objective assessment in this regard gives us a certain range within which the subjective - warm water is located within the boundaries, for example, 36-40 degrees. The considered example is the simplest, more complex objective processes entail more complex subjective assessments, especially if these processes occur in the minds of other people.
Consider an example: a love marriage and a marriage of convenience, the first is a subjective assessment, a large proportion of feelings, a smaller proportion of objective factors, the second is the opposite. As a result (as an option), the first one decays quickly, while the second one exists for a long time. The reason is the lack of an analysis of objectivity in subjective assessments. (From this point of view, a marriage contract is a legal attempt to take into account objectivity in subjective relationships.) Since subjective assessments cause a conflict between feelings and rational thinking, a special quality of consciousness is required for their separation, and then a harmonious combination - the ability to philosophize.


If a person has a mind, then why can he be stupid?

Because different people have different mind, one of the properties of the mind is to compare similar items or properties. Comparing the mind of one with the mind of another, a man brought the concept stupid as having less than perfect intelligence, and intelligent, as possessing a more perfect intelligence. Developing your mind, the man from stupid turns to clever, although there will always be someone that people will feel stupid. Thus, the concept of "stupid" is the subjective assessment of objective correlation of mental abilities of different people.
On the subjective and objective in metamodernism

On the Subjective in Metamodernism, "Metamodernism: A Brief Introduction" (2015)"
...metamodernism itself is not a philosophical or creative movement until it defines and outlines a closed system of thinking, or dictates specific aesthetic values and methods ... ... the discourse of metamodernism has a descriptive rather than prescriptive character; the included means of formulating upcoming changes are associated with the structure of feeling, for which the terminology of postmodern criticism.
In other words, metamodernism ( in its subjective measurement ) is primarily a sensual negation of postmodernism, its subjective criticism.
About the objective in Metamodernism, "Manifesto of Metamodernism" (2011):
...oscillation is the natural order of the world… Movement must be carried out by oscillating between positions with diametrically opposed ideas, like the pulsating polarities of a huge electric machine, bringing the world into action. We have to go ahead and oscillate!
As can be seen, the objective in metamodernism, being secondary to the subjective, is a primitive attempt to explain universal processes through the term "oscillation". At the same time, how to go forward (based on such "hesitation") the objective part of metamodernism does not explain.
What are the (possible) reasons for the emergence of metamodernism?
The subjective reason is the emergence of a new generation of philosophers, hungry for fame and using "metamodernism" as a way to declare themselves in the wake of criticism of postmodernism. The objective reason is the emergence of new communication and information technologies and the need for their philosophical interpretation. Hence the presence of critics and supporters of metamodernism, or simply using its discourse as a way to get into the public mental space, or to stand out favorably ("hype").

Pravda (truth) and Istina (truth)

In Russian there is a concept of truth - "pravda" and the concept of truth - "Istina".
"Pravda" is a correspondence between what a person said and what he thought.
"Istina" is the correspondence between what a person said and what happened afterwards.
Two elements (two sides) of the pravda relate to each other as objective (what he thought) and subjective (what he said).
Two elements of istina relate to each other as objective (what happened) and subjective (what he said).
Thus, in pravda, the objective is primary, the subjective is secondary. And in istina, the subjective is primary, the objective is secondary. Therefore, pravda must precede istina - as a reliable support for the subjective side of istina.
On the other hand, the above division can be interpreted as two elements (two sides of truth) - subjective or honesty to oneself (pravda) and objective or honesty to nature (istina).

Strategic advantages and disadvantages of philosophy
(on the example of Russian reality)

Philosophy in the broad sense of the word, as a philosophical education, and philosophy in the narrow sense of the word, as the ability to philosophize, are united more by the name than by the essence. Philosophical education received under the auspices of the state blocks the philosophical part of consciousness, preparing it for pro-state propaganda as an antipode to anti-state propaganda coming from other directions. This direction copies the structure of all other state entities with their hierarchy and focus on the personal enrichment of superiors by the forces of inferiors at the expense of citizens - philosophy is not a goal, but only a means to increase the personal well-being of its bearers.
Such a philosophy prevents the formation of independent philosophical thinking of ordinary citizens - the state needs not philosophers, but soldiers. Let's call it pseudophilosophy. Pseudophilosophy is the main obstacle to the development of consciousness - it enslaves consciousness, clogging it with dogmas under the guise of philosophical knowledge.
The ability to philosophize, on the other hand, is the lot of a few and, with a successful development of events, expands the ability of their consciousness to a deep and extraordinary understanding of life and making philosophically elaborated decisions. The difficulty here is that the army of adherents of pseudophilosophy, like a malignant tumor, has the ability to occupy any free space and not let live philosophical thought into public platforms. In general, such an ability is historically justified - if it were not for it, the free space would be seized by anti-state propaganda of entities hostile to Russia. In such a situation, living philosophical knowledge should look for quiet and secluded harbors where the truly interested would have free access to them and would not attract excessive attention of pseudo-philosophical raiders.
The state itself is also interested in this, since, acting as apologists for its policy, pseudo-philosophers do not benefit as scientists investigating the patterns and possibilities of its development and the development of its citizens. And the latter is especially important at turning points in history, like the current one. Living philosophy has its own patterns of appearance and development and begins with an understanding of the philosophical method proper - the disclosure of the interpenetration of the objective and subjective and actions in accordance with their nature.
Knowledge of this method and the ability to use it will provide a strategic priority to a thinking person, because it is truly universal - it can be applied in any situation and in solving any issues.

Philosophical classification of types of consciousness

The pre-philosophical type of consciousness is a mixture (inseparability) of the subjective and objective, which as thought forms do not yet exist. The basic paradigm - "right or wrong" - as the correlation of the cognizable to the learned patterns.

The current philosophical one is the separation of the subjective and objective and the dependence (primacy) of the first from the second. The basic paradigm is that the objective is known through the subjective (the subjective "reflects" the objective) - what is objective is true, the subjective is relatively true.
The main method of philosophy is separation and mutual transition of objective and subjective. The basic paradigm is that objective and subjective are defined (known) and pass into each other. The truth is their mutual transition, which by definition is infinite and at each of its stages is a relative truth.
How it works: Consider a standard and common situation - a guy is in love with a girl, and she is indifferent to him.
The pre-philosophical type of consciousness evaluates this situation as:
a) the right one: "I'm doing everything right - so I will continue to achieve her." As an extreme option, I will steal her (practiced by backward peoples).
b) wrong: "I'm doing something wrong - so I'll change my tactics (learn how to do it right), continuing to achieve my goal, and maybe she will change her attitude towards me."
The modern philosophical type of consciousness evaluates as follows:
a) the girl doesn't like me, it doesn't depend on me (objectively) - so I have to accept this situation as a given (accept the state of things).
b) I may be mistaken about the fact that she does not like me - therefore, we need to be more persistent and show her that I am worthy of her, that is, continue to pursue her.
The basic method of philosophy:
a) the girl doesn't like me because I don't meet her objective criteria, according to which she also doesn't meet me - so I have to find them. Having identified these criteria, I must understand (imagine at the level of sensations) that our union with her (if it took place) would be devastating for both of us - so I have to stop courting her.
b) I may be mistaken in my conclusions about the objective criteria of incompatibility with her, therefore, over time she may change her feelings for me - therefore, we need to give her time, as well as me to determine my feelings.

Strategic Advantages of understanding the Basic Method of Philosophy

The method of philosophy - and this is the transition from the subjective to the objective and back - is not just knowledge or information, but also the main characteristic of the consciousness that implements it.
It must be remembered that consciousness, which includes thinking and feeling, is a function of a human organ - the brain - which, like other organs, has its limits for development. Including age-related ones - from a certain age, development stops and the brain freezes at the level it has reached until the age of its degradation comes.
Philosophizing (true philosophizing, not its false imitation) - that is, the application of the Basic Method of philosophy - is also the work of the organ - brain, its training and development. Work in a special mode that is not achievable in any of the other disciplines. Therefore, it is also an art, just as a trainer instructs a boxer to switch from attack to defense and back again - even if the boxer really does not want to.
The main beneficiaries - in the case of teaching them the Basic Method of Philosophy - are young people starting their ambitious projects - both because of age and because of vital necessity.

What is philosophy? In simple words and briefly, please.


Philosophy is a discipline that studies consciousness through cognition of the surrounding world, and studies the surrounding world through cognition of consciousness. The main feature that separates philosophy from other disciplines is its method - the separation of subjective and objective sides in the cognizable and the study of their mutual transition..

How does a real philosopher differ from a person who is well versed in philosophy?


A real philosopher is a person who: a) owns the philosophical method (personal skill), b) lives using the knowledge he has gained through the philosophical method (personal experience), c) improves the method and knowledge using personal experience (personal truth).


Is it possible to apply philosophy in real life, or is philosophy not needed as a subject?


It depends on what is meant by "philosophy" ...
If it is a philosophical method, then it is not only possible, but also necessary to apply it because it is the quintessence of life.
If textbooks on philosophy are only as dictionaries explaining the possible meanings of words.
If you read the ancients, then as a way to raise the cultural level, like listening to classical music.
If you read modern philosophers, it is best of all American, they are, as always, more pragmatic.
If you read Heidegger, it's only for falling asleep quickly.
If it's for seducing girls, then, of course, postmodern.
Yes, it is also possible - for students - to have fun at philosophy seminars by asking some question to the teacher.

Truth: Free Speech and the Philosophical Method

Of course, the truth is more important, but... not for everyone. Many do not need it, they are content with what satisfies their desires - flattery and lies. They pay for flattery and lies to those who produce them, which means that the producers of flattery and lies do not need the truth either. That's why truth is not produced, but everyone extracts it separately - like sifting sand through a sieve so that grains of gold remain.
The truth becomes necessary when everything became bad, when money, life and opportunities were spent, and the desired was not achieved - and the realization came that everything was in vain. And I want to know why, what was wrong? The truth is also needed by those who are interested in it in itself - as a special state of the brain and body, special neurons and hormones, special inspiration and excitement, special joy and happiness, special harmony of being, a special form of life.
Freedom of speech is what the state and society can help you on the way to comprehending the truth. Freedom to seek the Truth wherever you want and how you want, this is your opportunity. The philosophical method is what you can help yourself with. This is your sieve for sifting out the golden grains of Truth - this is your reality. So, free speech is the objective side of the knowledge of truth, and the philosophical method is its subjective side.

Illusion and reality

Illusion and reality are two sides of an outdated and therefore imperfect understanding of the relationship of the world around and inside a person. A person believes, hopes, makes plans, dreams - and this is not an illusion or reality, this is his subjectivity. A person thinks, makes calculations, consults with specialists, searches the Internet himself or asks the AI - and this is not reality, it is his objectivity.
All that a person faces is subjectivity or objectivity, which in a normal state should balance each other like two wings of an airplane. Such a phenomenon as deception, disinformation, which creates an "illusion" in relation to "reality" for its consumer, is only a kind of subjectivity, acting in the form of trust, faith in the word without objective confirmation. From this it can be seen that the "illusion-reality" pair is a kind of "subjective-objective" pair.
What benefits does understanding this bring? This opens a new path to the disclosure of the abilities of the human mind, consciousness, brain, intelligence! Whoever is the first to understand this and begin to put it into practice will receive significant intellectual and psychological advantages.
Do not miss your chance, dear friends!

How can the basic method of philosophy help to overcome alcohol addiction

Let's define alcohol addiction as a state of consciousness in which the state of intoxication is normal, and sobriety is abnormal.
Let's distinguish two sides - physiological (objective) and spiritual (subjective) dependence. (Once again, we emphasize that they are such only in relation to each other). Accordingly, the approach to each of these two elements will be different.
Physiological dependence needs to be treated with medication ("what is objective can only be eliminated by what is objective"). Further, we will not consider this side without having knowledge in medicine.
Consider spiritual dependence. We will also distinguish two sides in it - a decrease in the control of the mind over consciousness (objective) and an increase in the tone of consciousness (subjective).
Consider the increase in the tone of consciousness. We will also highlight two sides in it - an increase in biological energy (objective) and an increase in mental energy (subjective).
Consider the increase in mental energy. We will also highlight two sides in it - an increase in the level of controllability of reality, meaning the optimization of the wishful-possible ratio (objective side) and an increase in the positive level of self-perception (subjective side).
It is these two sides that are the ultimate goals of alcohol consumption, but at the same time alcohol dependence fixes consciousness at this stage, without returning it to its original state.
It is obvious that it is the lack of these components in ordinary life that pushes consciousness in an attempt to get stuck in them for as long as possible at the level of intoxication.
Hence follows the direction in which the "philosophical recipe" (which does not deny other - drug or psychotherapeutic methods) of alcoholism treatment can be applied - optimization of consciousness in the context of "increasing reality management" and as a consequence - increasing the positive level of self-perception.
On the other hand, ignoring these factors poses an insurmountable obstacle to the use of other methods, including drug treatments.

Question: How to learn to switch attention from perception to thinking and back?


Let's consider 2 possible options: a) switch attention from perception to thinking unrelated to perception, b) switch attention from perception to thinking related to perception.
Option a): this is a case when you "can't start thinking", the "environment" interferes with you - here, most likely, there is a mental disorder and you will need the help of a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Option b): this is a case of a collision of perception and thinking - the thinking phase turns on when the perception phase is incomplete. At the same time, they "interfere" with each other. This is already a philosophical question, and so deep that, with a certain formulation of it, it is the main question of philosophy.
If to answer it at the training level, then - "in the first phase, perception will (should) to feel saturated (tired) with information - and thinking is an overabundance of strength. When fatigue occurs, perception should be turned off by volitional effort, and thinking should be connected. In the second phase, thinking turns off when the result it receives corresponds to the information received." This is if extremely simplified.

Artificial intelligence and philosophy

The world is on the verge of an unprecedented leap - the creation of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence will change the relations of generations of philosophers - generations who have grown up in a system of strict subordination, who have power over new generations, and therefore oppress their creative independence, will be removed from philosophical administration.

Artificial intelligence will be able to easily find new ideas in philosophical works and even evaluate them, easily identify philosophical works that have no novelty and give an objective assessment to their authors (and we know that the vast majority of philosophical works have neither new ideas nor any value and are compilations). And then a lot of acting "prominent philosophers" will leave the stage, giving way to talented youth.

And also - and this may be the most important thing - any new philosophical idea can be immediately available to the whole world.
What is the fundamental difference between philosophy and psychology?

The difference lies both in the subject and in the method: in psychology, the subject determines the method: psychology (like any other science) studies the psyche, part of reality, hence the "scientific method" of psychology. In philosophy, the method defines the subject: the "philosophical method" is applicable both to reality as a whole and to any of its parts.

Consequently, the subject of philosophy is all (any) reality, but from a certain point of view: the dialectic of its subjective and objective sides.

Therefore, "philosophy is invisibly present in everything - in sciences, art, culture, business, in any human relations, in any human action."

And the funny thing is that those who deny philosophy, most of all like to philosophize)). Verified.


What is the essence of the concept of "I have the right" from a philosophical point of view?

From the position of the Main Method of Philosophy, this concept represents the unity and mutual transition of two sides, subjective and objective, namely:

The subjective side consists in the individual's idea of the possibility of some of his actions or inaction, based (supported) on the spiritual, intellectual or legal component (hereinafter referred to as the "three components") of the society of which he is a member.

The objective side consists in the existence of grounds and mechanisms (in the "three components" of society) capable of supporting an individual's action or inaction.

The objective in the subjective, or the transition of the objective into the subjective, lies in the fact that the source of an individual's idea of the possibility of some of his actions or inaction are his needs for normal existence, and hence his beliefs about the possibility of public support for his normal existence. Secondly, such a source of representation is his knowledge in the field of law, life experience or professional qualifications. Those people who are able to find the objective in the subjective will always have solid ground under their subjective ideas, even if there are no grounds and mechanisms in the "three components" from the objective side.

The absence of the objective in the subjective, even if there are grounds and mechanisms in the "three components", is a reason to discredit the subjective - for example, in law such phenomena are regarded as "abuse of law".

Briefly (in order to avoid an increase in the volume of the answer), the subjective in the objective is manifested, for example, in the fact that the application of grounds and mechanisms in law occurs through organized entities (law enforcement agencies, courts, etc.) in such a way that the objective side can potentially be implemented in various ways, including with the result, the opposite of the expected subject, "having the right".

Hence, anyone who wishes to declare "I have the right" with full responsibility is obliged to carry out a preliminary philosophical study of the issue.


Is it important to study philosophy in the departments of applied sciences, such as the art of costume?

Such a science as "the art of costume" is covered by the philosophical paradigm "meet by clothes - see off by mind". In it, clothing (your "suit") is one of the sides of a fundamental phenomenon - subjective, so to speak. The second, objective, is "reason". The "Basic Method of Philosophy" teaches how these two sides relate to and influence each other. Simply put, they help to understand how to sew a suit so that it gives a person the opportunity to show his mind (at its best).


The role of philosophical knowledge in the formation of self-consciousness of the individual?

Self-awareness can be divided into systemic and unsystematic. Systemic self-awareness can be divided into complete and incomplete. Complete systemic self-awareness can be divided into rational and irrational. Philosophy provides the tools for a complete systemic rational self-awareness.


How can I distinguish truth from falsehood and what should I believe? It seems to me that I'm going crazy, and my youth is passing by…

Explanation of the question

I'm 22 years old. I have a lot of anxiety disorders. All because I began to be interested in philosophy and the search for myself. Help! I have been living for several years, tormented by various philosophical questions – there are both downturns and mood swings. And I can't understand why and how to live if everything is predetermined – I began to be interested in these thoughts after I read about determinism and illusionism of consciousness. I converted to Buddhism, but even there I encountered a misunderstanding of some ideas – for example, some currents of Buddhism talk about the illusory "I" and that we are one – these thoughts began to frighten me too and I don't understand how to perceive them correctly. I want to understand how it is possible to distinguish truth from lies and what to believe in me. Please help me. It seems to me that I'm going crazy, and my youth is passing by…


Everything here is both very simple and very complicated, and at the same time)).
To begin with, it's simple: The truth is you). Clogging your consciousness with reading philosophical works, you are moving away from yourself - hence your disorders (your body signals this to you). I'll tell you a secret - most philosophical works are malicious content (why this is so - read in the "Basic Method of Philosophy" Community).
Now about the difficult thing: to understand philosophy and yourself, it will take a lot of time - a lifetime. However, if you strive for the Truth, you will live your life as interesting as possible. For people like you, I wrote a philosophical adventure novel - "Journey to the country T ...", the link to which is in my profile. Well, and many more (philosophical) rubai)). Good luck!


What should I do if time goes very fast?


I'm in shock, and I don't understand why (((you can not even get out of bed, go to bed in a minute, you have time to do a couple of things in a day. It used to be different.


Time is, on the one hand, a physical category, and on the other, a psychological one. Therefore, both physics and psychology consider this one-sidedly. Philosophy fully considers this, combining both sides of it. I will give a philosophical answer to your question with an example: imagine that you are standing in a store in a queue. Now tell me - when is the queue moving fast and when is it slow? So: your day is your "queue at the store", and you can change the speed of its passage within certain limits.


Using a Basic Philosophical Method, you can learn how to change the speed of your time in such a way that it is enough for all your goals and dreams.


If everything is predetermined (as a universal principle of development), then why is a person given free will and freedom of choice?


Everything is as predetermined as it is undefined. Freedom is given to a person to the same extent that it is not given, because two opposite principles operate. Wisdom lies in finding their harmony: the mutual transition of "free predestination" and "predetermined freedom". To do this, predestination must be understood as containing an element of freedom (subjective in the objective), and freedom as containing an element of predestination (objective in the subjective).

Who can give the best advice: a psychologist or a priest?


A good priest is also a good psychologist, and a good psychologist is also a little priest. The best advice will be given from these two by someone who is also a bit of a philosopher: he knows how to distinguish where it is better to apply one method and where the other method is.


Which people do not like and do not understand anecdotes?


People who recognize themselves in anecdotes. For example, not so long ago, in the community of psychologists on Yandex Q, someone published an anecdote about a psychologist who convinced a client for an hour that he owed nothing to anyone, and then it turned out that he owed a psychologist $ 100. One of the "eminent" psychologists wrote to this: "It's not true! Psychologists take an advance payment." The author of the post with an anecdote commented on the reaction of the majority of the "psychologists" who reacted as follows: "and psychologists take it seriously and are outraged."

Which philosophical question do you think is the most strange or frightening?


The most strange and/or frightening philosophical question seems to me like this:

Fool-philosopher or philosopher-fool?
Who is the worst of them, I do not understand in any way.
One talks about what he doesn't know,
The other one knows everything, but is dumb as an ass.


If the sciences of nature are based on measurement, then what are the sciences of society based on?


All sciences are based on discrimination, measurement is a special case of discrimination. The sciences of society are based on the distinction of society from other phenomena, and within society - the distinction of the processes taking place in it.


What is the main question of philosophy?


The main question of philosophy is the question of how to enter the starting point of philosophical cognition, i.e. the question: from what point does philosophizing begin?
From the position of the Main Method of Philosophy, two preparatory stages of philosophizing can be distinguished - finding the objective and subjective sides of the phenomenon and the actual beginning - finding their mutual transition.
Let's illustrate this with the following example. At what point does philosophizing about love begin? We describe (highlight) the subjective side - "love as the strongest attraction" (conditionally, the essence does not matter), etc. It will be - no matter how it is described - just a psychological component, but not a philosophical one. Further, we describe love as the objective side - "love as a condition for living together and having offspring" (conditionally). It will also not be philosophizing, but just a biological/ social component. And finally, we establish their mutual transition - how do love feelings affect the existence of a family and the upbringing of children (the transition of the subjective into the objective) and how do the existence of a family and the upbringing of children affect love feelings (the transition of the objective into the subjective)?
And this will already be philosophizing.


How to cool down to a person who doesn't need me?


Here's a philosophical approach for you: No way. Firstly, if you ask, it means that you can't do it yourself, but no one will do it for you. Secondly, you do not need to "cool down" if you do not go crazy at the same time, because at a temperature of up to 38.6 - nature gives you the temperature to develop immunity. If you artificially "cool down" - you will step on the same rake.


Why do terrible thoughts come?

Explanation to the question:
Why do I think that I might lose control of myself and kill someone or do something terrible. It doesn't matter who is next to me; close or unfamiliar. These thoughts worry me. Why such terrible thoughts?


The answer depends on who you are: a) a normal person, b) a person with emotional problems, c) a mentally ill person.
The philosophical analysis covers option a) and partially b).
Option a) - if you are a normal person, then your "terrible thoughts" are a consequence of receiving negative information from the outside and processing it by consciousness, in this case, by trying on criminal cases.
Option b) - if you have emotional problems (uncontrolled mental states) - Your "terrible thoughts" are a mental component of these problems - and then their resolution lies in a broader plane of assessment of your psychological state as a whole.
Option b) - we are not considering, because this is a pure medical case.


Which logic textbook would you recommend for self-study (not mathematical logic)?

Comment: If you have studied logic, tell me if it is difficult (it is clear that it is difficult, but is it possible to study it yourself?)


Logical thinking develops in two (joint) ways: reading books on logic (textbooks, etc.) and solving logical tasks.
Apart from a logic textbook (no matter which one), you still need to read something more serious. I recommend (studied as a student) Voishvillo's book "The Concept". Read about him on Wikipedia.
You can look for special collections for logic tasks, but it is better to add more to them (especially if you are a student). Take the topic of the term paper starting with the words "Logical analysis....", some relevant topic.
In addition, I note that few people can to think logically (among the humanities), this needs to be constantly trained in themselves.


How to tolerate bullying?


I study at the Faculty of Physics. I entered because I love natural sciences very much, although I have always been, as people say, a humanitarian. Therefore, whether out of "humanism", or out of ordinary stupidity or inattention, I often confuse the material or forget it. Classmates react to this extremely venomously: they mock, laugh, discuss in chats behind my back, refuse to take seriously. And I, thus, not keeping up with them, found myself on the sidelines, like an outcast. But I just love science :)
What to do about it, can you tell me? We need everything from advice to support. It is difficult to study, but I like it, and my heart aches very much when there are no results, then these results are simply devalued by the environment. After all, I can't dehumanize myself because of this attitude. The guys from the physics department know their stuff, and they are good guys in their own way, but they perceive me as an idiot.
Maybe science is not my thing at all? Well, there is progress. It's just that I'm the weakest of the whole group, I understand worse, I "give birth" slowly.

Philosophical advice

If you love science, then you should not care what others think about you - just as if you loved a girl and did not ask others how to love her. If it is important for your love of science that others think about you, then such love is self-deception, and it would be better for you to find something else.
Science is not a table of ranks, but a way of existence of intelligence.

Philosophy and split personality (the theoretical part is skipped)

"Professional philosophers" skillfully hide it, but philosophers from ordinary people see it very well - split personality.
One person is a lover of wisdom, the other is a lover of life. One lives in the Temple of Wisdom, the other in an ordinary apartment.
The one in the Temple creates amazing creations in harmony and thought. The one in the apartment is boiling with all human passions.
The one in the Temple is arguing with Plato or Hegel. The one in the apartment fawns over the fans and scolds the critics.
The one in the Temple carries the wisdom accumulated over decades to the beneficent masses. The one in the apartment also carries the accumulated decades of swearing or boasting.
One is tearing up - the other is writhing on the ground. No one will miss this cup - neither imposing doctors of philosophical sciences, nor exalted candidates. Neither pensioners who look like Roman legionnaires, nor bearded men of different kinds-tribes, nor handsome men or beauties hiding in avatars.
But there are two special varieties of "forked" - it was said about such:
Seeker of truth, I'll tell you the words:
Everything in this world is divided into two.
And what he does not want , he remains in the struggle
With himself, divided into two.
Some of them are akin to hermit monks of either Christianity or Buddhism: kneeling before the Aristotelian - Hegels, their great philosophical saints, they are in a special state of philosophical service. Being initiated into the mysteries by the great schemas and sworn to burn out any heresy with a verb, they struggle day and night with the weeds of their own thoughts in their heads, overworked by readings and vigils. And, tired, they indulge in spiritual rest, only beating the infidels.
Others, who have equaled the giants of thought with their discoveries and at the same time are in a state of philosophical enlightenment, struggle day and night with the weeds of doubt ("am I not a fool?") and tremble before an uncomplicated question: "What if I'm a genius?"
Believers look at them, mathematicians-physicists-chemists look at them and exclaim: "This is what the damned devils are doing!"
And only psychologists, these orderlies of the mental forest, nod understandingly and give their contacts. Just in case…


What could I do to prevent men from being sexually attracted to me?


It is some kind of psychological techniques that are needed. Do not advise, please, to get fat, go bald, wrap yourself in a burqa, do not wash, etc. Maybe you need to somehow change your body language (poses there, gestures, facial expressions) or walk with a certain facial expression, or you need some special behavior, or manner of speech, or character traits. But so that it scares away only men who may have sexual attraction to me, and not all people in general. If this is not possible, then it's okay, all people will do too.

Let's philosophize: sexual desire is useful and there is harmful. Why would you avoid useful things? Harmful sexual attraction occurs when it is the main thing in a relationship with you, and the attitude towards you as a cultural individual is secondary. So, your facial expression indicates your frivolity and a tendency to easy relationships. Therefore, in order for your facial expression to turn from frivolous to wise, you need to raise your cultural level (for example, philosophy) - so that the wise inside "shines through" through the exterior.


To what extent is the present time a subjective sensation or an objective reality?

If a person looks at the readings of a correctly running clock, then he believes that the clock shows the present time. All other events occurring simultaneously with these are also considered to be currently occurring. After some time, all these events will be considered to have occurred in the past (in past moments of time). Is the concept of the present tense related to a person's subjective feeling of the current moment in time, or does it reflect some objective reality that does not depend on the feelings of a particular person?

From the position of the Main Method of Philosophy, the question is posed incorrectly: subjective and objective are not alternative, but two complementary and interdependent angles of view of the phenomenon. At the same time, to begin with, they must be distinguished as different.
Take, for example, the concept of temperature - then the question posed by the author will have a completely simple and obvious answer - a subjective "warm-cold" and an objective "number of degrees".
Why does the question of time present difficulties? It is precisely because here, firstly, a mixture of subjective and objective characteristics is often allowed: for example, subjective "past and future" are interpreted from an objective position as "non-existent". And the present is declared "objective". The objective side of time, for example, such as the "change of states", is being explained through the subjective, for example, "the transition from one present to another."
Secondly, the concept of time has a higher level of universality and does not have such a clear definition in physics as, for example, temperature (I do not mean the formula, but the physical essence).
Within the framework of the "Basic Method of Philosophy", it is correct not to explain one through the other, but to find one in the other while distinguishing between both principles.
From this position, time is on the one hand "present, past, future" - as its subjective side and, for example, the synchronization of events as objective. Both sides are mutually present and complement each other. The subject of philosophical research here is the influence of one principle on another (in principle, it does not matter how we define each of them).
Returning to the example given by the author of the question: looking at the hand of the clock, you experience a sense of the present time - the current moment. After some time, you mark the completed events as past (being in the past), some lasting (being in the present) and some not yet occurred (being in the future). All this is the subjective side of time. The objective side of the subjective side is that, after some time, we can express in numbers the time of the beginning, action and end of an event.
Now the opposite is true: we find the subjective in the objective, for example, when we notice that, although the clock runs evenly, however figuratively speaking, "the time before lunch goes slower than after lunch."

How does the philosophical method differ from the scientific one?

Part one.

Science is a system of special knowledge and methods of thinking (scientific cognition) based on them. The peculiarity of scientific knowledge (scientific cognition) is that: a) they have a formalized character, that is, they are uniformly understood by all participants in the scientific process, b) they are of a design nature, that is, they allow you to model phenomena and on this basis: create their analogues and calculate their future states, c) they are subjected to special the procedure of correlation with reality -verification.
This characteristic of them follows from the fact that scientific knowledge and scientific cognition are activities in the field of the objective. For this reason, the main property (principle) of scientific knowledge and scientific cognition is their objectivity, that is, invariance with respect to the subject of cognition.
The opposite of scientific activity is art - in it the main principle is subjectivity, that is, awareness of reality not through standard forms, but through individual ones. Hence, in contrast to scientific, works of art have an intimate, individual character for each subject, and their purpose is not to typify forms of consciousness, but to reveal the potential of the individuality of each consciousness.
For all the fundamental differences between one area and another, each has elements of the opposite area. There are elements of art in science, and science is in art. Moreover, it is precisely thanks to this interpretation - the subjective into the objective and the objective into the subjective - that the qualitative development of both one and the other areas becomes possible.
The activity of understanding such interpretation is philosophizing.

How does the philosophical method differ from the scientific one?
Part two.

So, the prerogative of philosophizing is the activity of understanding the interpenetration of the subjective and objective. But what is the mechanism of such activity?
To begin with, we note that the philosophical method does not replace the scientific one, they have different tasks. The scientific method allows you to create a mechanism, that is, a sequence of events predetermined by a causal relationship - and this is its purpose. By acting on the elements of the mechanism created by the scientific method, we get the necessary result. But the very necessity of the result is not always (although it may be) a consequence of a scientific requirement, in other words, part of another mechanism. In real human life, emotions, feelings, passions determine the activity of people no less than reason, the logical mind - that is, one of the two engines of humanity not only defies explanation, but also controls the mind itself, this tool of the scientific method.
Hence, scientists themselves often become an instrument of passions and motives, troubles and crimes. As they say, a scientist creates a bomb, and a politician decides how to use it. But what does the politician himself proceed from? Or, to put the question more broadly, what is the source of the engine that does not obey strict scientific reasoning?
So we come to the problem of the interaction of the subjective and the objective - is it possible for a person to control his feelings, and if so, how? The answer to this question is in two planes - empirical and theoretical.
The empirical part is a set of rules, following which, as implicitly assumed, it is possible to live correctly. Such rules are called wisdom. It is assumed that wisdom itself is able to influence feelings, forming them in a certain mental space. The advantage of wisdom is their brevity and aphorism, i.e. accessibility to the widest possible circle of people and an obvious influence on sensuality. Its disadvantage is axiomatic and defragmented, that is, the lack of such a quality that the scientific method has - the ability to create a mechanism.
The theoretical part borrows from the empirical its property to influence sensuality, but adds an element of the scientific approach - reliance on scientific achievements and consistency - the relationship of the elements of the empirical part into a single whole. This is how philosophy appears.


What is free will? Is it possible to develop it? If possible, how?


Free will is the ability of the will to "control" the mind or desires, that is, to change them in the format you need. Controlling the mind, the will must be independent of the mind, but dependent on desires. Controlling desires, the will must be independent of them, but dependent on the mind.
From here follow three main rules on how to develop free will.
1. Train to turn off the mind and turn on desires.
2. Train to turn off desires and turn on the mind.
3. Train to bring reason and desires into a state of equilibrium as a basic state.

On the philosophical conduct of the discussion

In philosophical discussions on the platforms of Yandex Q, the disputing parties rarely adhere to the desired format, as a result of which the discussions are often of a household nature, i.e. used for a dispute in everyday issues: a) suppression of rationality by emotionality, b) desire to "play to the public", c) a large number of arguments as an argument of quality, d) "transition to personality", etc. From the position of the Main Method of Philosophy, here we see the suppression of the objective side by the subjective - a subjectivist, emotional approach.
On the other hand, cases of the opposite extreme are not uncommon: a) attempts to catch the opponent on inaccuracies in formulations, minor contradictions, b) appealing to ignorance of any philosophical "laws" or someone's famous "works", c) the opponent's lack of philosophical education or academic degree, etc. From the position of the Main Method of Philosophy here we see the suppression of the subjective side by the objective - an objectivist, formalistic approach.
The first, emotional, approach has the right to be (functional) in the field of art, where the main parameter is always the ability to "impress" the viewer - and in the absence of such, any evidence of the value of the work has no force.
The second, formalistic, has the right to be (functional) in the sciences, where the accuracy and volume of processed information are a guarantee of the quality and safety of the final result.
At the same time, art is incomplete, blind without thought, and science is lifeless without a soul, and their mutual complementarity is their full-fledged existence - as the complementarity of the main is secondary, but no less important.
In philosophy, both sides of consciousness are equally important and important, which, thanks to this unity and equality, acquire their true definition and meaning - as subjective and objective.
What does it mean to apply the Basic Method of Philosophy to the practice of conducting philosophical disputes and discussions? In order to remain within the framework of philosophical discourse, opponents need to observe the dialectic of the objective and subjective: discussing in an emotional and aphoristic format (that is, in the subjective field), subordinate the dispute to rational goals and arguments, and vice versa, embody their living human personality in any theoretical constructions.
A real philosophical dispute does not involve either feverish attacks or deaf defense - but a thoughtful and beautiful chess game in which the parties, although they remain without losing, but at the same time create something different from them, interesting and valuable.


Is only the scientific language of exposition possible for philosophy?


And then what about figurative language, given how widely philosophy uses it?


If we follow the Basic Method of Philosophy, then in philosophical discourse both types - dry scientific and figurative languages - should be in harmonious unity: "scientific", objective should be used to explain "figurative", subjective - and vice versa.
This, in fact, is the value, the functionality of philosophy.


How can philosophy help us better understand science and the world around us?


With the understanding that there is philosophy through the Basic Method of Philosophy, it turns out that every person uses it daily, to the extent that he chooses between several heterogeneous options for action, and a scientist when he decides to change some theoretical foundations of his research. Thus, philosophy not only helps to understand the world around us better, but is also an integral part of our consciousness.

Opinions about philosophy and the concept of philosophy

A diverse palette of opinions about philosophy is well classified by applying the Basic Method of Philosophy:
a) Subjectivist opinions or ideas - definitions of philosophy based on a subjective (value) attitude, for example: "love of wisdom", "the doctrine of truth", etc.
b) Objectivist opinions or ideas - definitions of philosophy coming from the philosophical functional, for example: "a means of forming a worldview", "a means of forming the foundations of sciences", "a special way of thinking", etc.
The proponent of each of these definitions has firm beliefs in the validity of his point of view on philosophy, based on a standard set of arguments and references to the works of his famous predecessors, so it is a thankless task to change his ideas.
Apart from this, there is a block of ideas about philosophy as a kind of useless occupation - chatter - against the background of various sciences and arts.
And I must say that all three of the above points of view have their own reasons to exist, since each of them partially reflects the situation that has developed in the philosophical space.
At the same time, all three groups of opinions are not concepts about philosophy, but only ideas about it for one reason - the concept is a guide to action, and the idea is only a stage on the way to it. In this regard, I recall the story of Plato, who gave so much "advice" to the tyrant of Syracuse that he gave him into slavery.
A concept is not only a representation, but also a step towards action that can entail serious consequences for its owner - both positive and dangerous for his life. That is why many authors of ideas about philosophy in practice turn out to be either reasoners, talkers, or propagandists, apologists: both of them do not bear serious responsibility for what has been said. Some - hiding behind general phrases, others - the authority of the current government. As they once said, some "agitate for communism" ("for everything good against everything bad"), others "waver along with the party line" ("whatever you want").
Those who scold philosophy also turn out to be pretty liars, since they themselves philosophize no less than patent philosophers.
The concept of philosophy - whatever it may be - should contain a description of the subject and method in a way that would allow not only to distinguish philosophy from something else, but would also contain its own individual labeling when solving specific problems - "solved philosophically."
And so that no one doubts that this was solved philosophically, just as there is no doubt that some problems are solved by legal or medical means.

How the Basic Philosophical Method can help in the correct understanding and translation of Lao Tzu


How to understand Lao Tzu's statement "truthful words are like their opposite"?


The entire context (78th chapter, "zhang") is translated (Yang Hing-shun) in approximately the following way:
Water is the softest and weakest creature in the world, but in overcoming the hard and strong, it is invincible, and there is no equal in the world for it. The weak defeat the strong, the soft overcomes the hard. Everyone knows this, but people can't do it. Therefore the wise one says: "Whoever has taken upon himself the humiliation of the country becomes a sovereign, and whoever has taken upon himself the misfortune of the country becomes a ruler." Truthful words are like their opposite.
The last sentence (zhang's 11th line) has always caused difficulty for translators and commentators of Lao Tzu, up to the denial of its unity (late postscript) with the rest of the text. And, accordingly, philosophical interpretations.
The most common interpretation in China is something like this:
Direct words are consistent with the Path, but contradict the opinions of the light. (Su Che)
If we apply the Basic Philosophical Method to the interpretation, we can say the following:
On the subjective side, the interpretation of ancient Chinese texts should take into account the multiple meanings of hieroglyphs and the uncertainty in understanding their historical context.
It follows from this that the subjective side - the variability of the translation and the direct interpretation resulting from it should be a secondary, auxiliary means. The primary one should be the context, the main idea of this zhang (as an example of the "action of the Path"):
The weak defeat the strong, the soft overcomes the hard
The philosophical metaphor - the objective side - here is that the action of "soft water" is similar to the action of "truthful words". It follows from this that the quote of the question "truthful words are like their opposite" is an incorrect translation of a person (translator, Yang Hin-shun) who does not have philosophical thinking.
The same translation by Su Che is much closer to the essence of this metaphor.


How can we understand, explain and predict the nature of reality?


The expression "the nature of reality" is logically incorrect. Nature is the objective side of reality, and consciousness is the subjective side of reality. Thus, reality is the general, and nature is its particular. According to BMP.
Correspondence of differences in the understanding of philosophy to differences in attitude to philosophy

Differences in the understanding of what philosophy is, as subjective differences, correspond to differences in the use of philosophy as objective differences.

There are several main uses of philosophy (types of philosophizing): a) as a tool, b) as a profession, c) as a hobby, d) as an investment, e) as a way of life, f) as a disease.

Philosophy as a tool occurs when the practical orientation of philosophical knowledge, for example in psychology, is of value. The definitions of philosophy as a science correspond to this.

Philosophy as a profession occurs when the main value is the opportunity to earn a living through philosophical education. For example, this applies to philosophy teachers who present philosophy as a "worldview constructor" in the interests of those who pay for their work. Most often it is "philosophy as ideology".

Philosophy as a hobby — when philosophy classes are a useful pastime outside the framework of the main job or in retirement. The definitions of philosophy as wisdom correspond to it. They are used mainly by amateur philosophers.

Philosophy as an investment — when philosophy increases the value of goods or services for sale. It is used by representatives of many areas: business, art, blogging. There is no clear definition, but there are indications of the innermost knowledge.

Philosophy as a way of life — when personal life is subject to a philosophical paradigm — corresponds to the definition of philosophy as a worldview. They are used by philosophers in the proper sense of the word.

Philosophy as a disease — when philosophizing is a self-reproducing painful state. Both as a disease and as a cure for it is actually a process of philosophizing. Super-valuable ideas and various unique definitions of philosophy are possible here.

What is the definition of philosophy? What is your opinion on philosophy as a subject? What should be its significance in education, if any?


Philosophy is (should become) the doctrine of the dialectic of the objective and subjective in nature and consciousness. The subject of philosophy can be any object of both nature and consciousness, since the dialectic of the objective and subjective is a general law of both nature and consciousness. For the same reason, understanding the philosophical method is the very first link in any educational process.
Philosophizing as a physiological process

The background of many disputes and disagreements of philosophers can be understood if we consider their activities not only from the subjective side, that is, trying to get to the principles of their systematization of philosophical concepts, revealing numerous logical and factual contradictions, but also from the objective, in this example, the physiological side - the work of consciousness as a brain function.

The brain is an intermediary between the human body and the world around it, and this mediation has many forms, among which philosophizing occupies a special place - because of the special method (the Main method of philosophy) - the identification and mutual transition of the objective and subjective - and the resulting universality of the concepts used.
In this regard, philosophizing as a physiological process of the brain is a basic physiological process that allows you to harmonize (coordinate with each other) all other physiological processes of the brain, since each of them is the unity of the physiological and mental sides.

Philosophical unity and harmony in the mental dimension promotes unity and harmony in physiological processes. Without going into details, we can note the most typical violations in the philosophical process, provoking violations in the physiological process.

One of the most striking and typical phenomena in the philosophical fields of Yandex Q is the sudden and seemingly inadequate aggressiveness of the participants in the discussions, figuratively expressed by the formula "You are a fool yourself", when philosophical disputes end and insults begin.

Another, no less typical phenomenon is the inadequacy of answers to philosophical questions: "they ask about one thing, but they answer about another." They are joined by situations when the opponent does not delve into the essence of what is written, but uses parts of the text to broadcast his views.

Another frequent phenomenon is both categorical and unsubstantiated definitions of philosophy, as well as the blurring of ideas about philosophy, which is given out for the depth of knowledge.

A common physiological process in these and other similar cases is the desire of the brain to protect its main function from external aggression - philosophical dispute, etc. - perceived by the brain as an attempt on its physiological integrity. And in this case, "the brain is no longer up to arguments" - it is necessary to save its existence.

As they say, all means are good in war.
Phenomenon of Kalniņa or empty spaces of philosophy

In philosophical disputes, there is often something that makes them boring and useless - the so-called subjective factor - the disposition of the parties to a quarrel, and not to search for the truth. But there are times when the disputants act more like natural phenomena than like people endowed with reason. Or, more precisely, when nature itself seems to speak through their mouths.

Not so long ago, a similar dispute took place, which I almost verbatim cited in the "Philosophical play" Thinker and Philosopher" - a dispute between an "ordinary person" ("Thinker") and a professional philosopher ("Philosopher"). A dispute about the necessity and benefits of studying philosophy.

The thinker's surname is Kalnin, and he argued that philosophy is not interesting, since reading philosophical works does not give anything new, most of them are self-promotion, and those few who are considered outstanding think the same way as he does.

If we assume that Kalnin lies, and for the purpose of self-promotion deliberately belittles professional philosophers, the situation becomes trivial - we have plenty of such wise men.
And if he does not lie and sincerely believes so? Then he is either conscientiously mistaken, or he is right. Both of these assumptions are similar in their consequences - "professional philosophy", that is, philosophy as an array of special knowledge, developed by many professionals, he does not need. All his needs - personal, family, professional - he satisfies without philosophy.

"I can't read philosophy books. There seems to be a repetition of the obvious for me or nonsense. Or I just see the psychotype of the author and understand that this is not philosophy, but simply his thoughts written down by him, in which his subjectivity is more than meanings ... ... I don’t really understand the point of reading philosophers, if you can just think".

And here also a very common phenomenon arises, when "philosophy is not needed, if you can just think." Subjectively not needed. What about objectively? If you believe Kalnin, then objectively it is not needed:

"Alexey Losev seems to be close in thought. The book" The Most Itself ". I leafed through, ran through. But I didn’t read it, simply because I think about the same way as he does. And from that there is no feeling of discovery. "

No feeling of opening! Here it is, the moment of objective truth! And if there is no "feeling of discovery", then what is philosophy for Kalnin, an educated and undoubtedly intelligent person? Maybe not the only one, but the obvious answer is this: philosophy for Kalnin is a scientific systematization of the life experience that he himself has and which exists in the form of a set of his own concepts and definitions.

“Since childhood, I have been constantly thinking about everything. I am always interested in the correlations of phenomena. And they are everywhere. And someone’s philosophy, it is not my own ... With Florensky and Losev, I would drink a glass of wine and chat. It’s nice, but there is no opening in this. And curiosity requires them... I don't consider myself a philosopher. This term is too overgrown with "great", turned brown and mired in fabrications. Therefore, with all my thoughts, I would not like to create any "new philosophy". I consider myself curious."

And Kalnin's own understanding of personal and worldly existence suits him more than someone else's "philosophical" one.

But what about philosophy? She has to come to terms with such smart kalnins who do not need her and even despise her.

And not only with them. There are not so many "Kalnins", maybe a few, or maybe he is the only one of his kind - a smart, outstanding, impudent enemy of philosophy. But there are very, very many "under-kalnins" - and they suffer both from the "Kalnin syndrome" and from their own underdevelopment, multiplied by what Kalnin was undoubtedly right about:

"That's why I'm looking for books that contain something interesting to me, but completely new or even not available. Cult, in quotation marks, books on philosophy are not among them".


What is the definition of subjectivity? How does this relate to the idea that anything can be true?


Subjectivity is one of the two sides of reality, the second is objectivity.

Subjectivity refers to objectivity as individualized to standardized.

Through the description of the subjective and objective sides, a complete description of reality takes place.

Philosophy studies their mutual transition, and this is an exceptional method of philosophy.
Philosophical knowledge and philosophical experience

In all areas of human activity, both knowledge and experience are necessary, but in each of them the ratio of one to the other is different: in the sciences, a greater proportion of knowledge (the ability to think), in the arts - experience (the ability to do).
And only in philosophy should knowledge and experience be of equal value and equal power. Why?

If the main method of philosophy is to identify and study the objective and subjective and their mutual transition, then in philosophy itself these are knowledge (subjective) and experience (objective). Knowledge that has been tested by experience (the transition of experience into knowledge) becomes objective knowledge, and knowledge that has passed into experience becomes subjective experience.

It follows from this that philosophical knowledge, not confirmed by experience, is not in the full sense of knowledge, but only speculative reasoning that requires its practical confirmation. Conversely, the experience gained outside the philosophical paradigm is not a philosophical experience, but only a reason for possible philosophizing.

Speculative arguments and disputes often arise that are unrelated to current human practice, as well as various wisdoms that are unrelated to the philosophical paradigm. Which to a large extent deprives such texts of reader interest and even any benefit. At the same time, the authors of such texts sincerely believe that they are "philosophizing" - quoting the classics in full or sprinkling pearls from their lives.

I would advise the first to try to solve at least one real human problem through their academic knowledge.
I would advise the second to point out every time where philosophy is hidden in their wisdom.
The Main Method of Philosophy and the "hard problem of consciousness"

Within all the diversity of opinions about the "hard problem of consciousness" (David Chalmers) there is its own "hard problem" - to take the first step. Such a step is easy to take within the framework of the Basic Method of Philosophy - and then most of the existing discussions will sink into oblivion.
I suggest everyone who is interested to try to do this.

The Philosophy of Alcohol, part 1

With the help of the Basic Method of Philosophy, the essence of alcohol is easily revealed - the transformation of consciousness, the first phase of which is the separation of the objective and subjective.
Therefore, the first phase of transformation is also a creative beginning - the subjective is freed from the weights of the objective and, temporarily gaining free existence, rushes to heaven - to the world of dreams and projects.
Creative people have new ideas and visions, uncreative people have hidden desires and intentions.
For creative people, the correct completion of the first phase is a return to a sober state and the realization of ideas obtained through alcohol.
For uncreative people, the correct completion of the first phase is a return to a sober state and gratitude to alcohol for the temporary relief of existence.

Fundamentals of the philosophy of art. Part one.

The question of the purpose of art:

"Should art reflect the darkness of reality and at the same time dramatize it or show an ideal to strive for? After all, it affects people and creates a mood and forms those very ideals, doesn't it? Aren't they showing us too much horror and disgusting sights? What's the use of it?"


On the subjective side, art is the transfer of feelings from the author to the viewer (in a special, figurative form - "artistry"), on the objective side, art is the process of reproducing the "cultural code" (cultural paradigm). Images evoke (pass into) sensory experiences of a situation interpreted through a cultural code. On the other hand, the substantial elaboration of the cultural code determines the depth of the artistic image.

It follows from this that the task of art criticism analysis of a work of art is to study its artistry (the technique of imagery and its effect on feelings) in its relation to the cultural code (how an artistic image is constructed and what cultural code it conveys). In other words, the identification of the objective, subjective and their relationship.

And the task of philosophical analysis of a work of art is to study how the cultural code affects artistry and how artistry affects the cultural code. That is, the mutual transition of objective and subjective.

It also shows the relationship between art criticism and philosophical analysis - the former is the prerequisite and raw material for the latter.

The second part will be devoted to the philosophical basis of the cultural code. The third part will be devoted to the philosophy of the artistic image.

How do I understand philosophy and think philosophically as a beginner?


To begin with, you should decide, at least hypothetically, what you will consider philosophy (otherwise you can confuse philosophical reasoning with reasoning on philosophical topics): namely, to form an idea of the subject and method of philosophy. After that, try to understand if you are interested in such a philosophy. If it is interesting, then you will gradually learn to understand philosophy and think philosophically as you accumulate knowledge and skills in the practical application of the philosophy method you understand.
Since the question of the subject and method of philosophy is one of the most controversial, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the publications in the space of the Basic Method of Philosophy on Quora.


Mass manipulation has always existed, but with the Internet and social networks it's taken on unprecedented proportions. Do you think that the principle of the personal and independent search for the truth is a good protection against it?


Manipulations of your consciousness, including mass manipulations, are part of the Truth. The second part of the Truth is that your consciousness is engaged in manipulations - both with yourself and with others. Many people like the state of consciousness "in manipulation" because it has its advantages - like the advantages of a herd animal. The opposite state is the ability to think independently, which is not the same as the independent search for Truth. The first step towards this is to understand the dialectics of the objective and the subjective.
Philosophy of Logic, part 1.

Philosophy of Logic, part 1.
Applying the Basic Method of philosophy to logic, we find two forms of it: a) "internal logic" and b) "external logic".
Internal logic is the first phase of logical thinking, which ends with a sense of understanding of the process and result of a mental act - the appearance of "inner thought".
External logic is the second phase of logical thinking, which ends with the verbal (informational) design of the process and the result - the transformation of internal thought into external.
Internal logic is an objective process, because it does not depend on the will of the subject and there is, as it were, the need of his organism for a certain decision, but it also has a subjective element, which consists in the fact that it is purely individual and in itself inexpressible - external logic is required for this.
External logic is a subjective process, which consists in the fact that the subject, by volitional efforts, gives internal logic the form of logically related information, that is, a form suitable for transmitting thoughts to third parties. At the same time, he can form not only the form, but also the content of the "inner thought", changing them within certain limits.
External logic also has an objective element in that it is governed by the rules of thinking accepted in the human community - both in everyday, everyday thinking, and in the rules of general logic or specialized logic, for example, legal or mathematical.
If internal logic determines external logic, we have the transition of the objective into the subjective from the point of view of the subject and the transition of the subjective into the objective from the point of view of third parties.
And vice versa, if the external logic determines the internal (changes the "inner thought"), we have a transition of the subjective into the objective for the subject and the objective into the subjective for the "external observer".
However, a pure transition is only an extreme, an abstraction - in most cases, these two sides mutually define each other, that is, they cross into each other.

Philosophical discussion. Objective barriers.

As you know, there are seven levels of philosophical competence:
First, "child" - "I don't know the question, I don't know the answer", Second, "schoolboy" - "I know the question and know the answer", Third, "student - "I know the question and I know the answer options", Fourth, "postgraduate" - "I know the question, I know the answer options and I can reason about them", Fifth, "PhD" - "I know the question, I know the answer options, I know the options for reasoning about them and I have my own opinion", Sixth, "Doctor of Philosophical Sciences" - " I know the question, I know the answers”, Seventh, “philosopher”, he is also a “child” - “I don’t know the question, I don’t know the answer.” Figuratively, of course.
Each of them evolves from the previous to the next - if, of course, its owner is capable of this. And this means that he is in a certain relationship with those who are one step higher or lower or on an equal footing with him: the one at the lower level is nourished by knowledge from the higher one, the higher one “teaches” him, and the equal ones enrich each other by teaching each other.
At the same time, philosophical discussion - in the full sense of the word, as a dispute of equals - is possible only between those who are on the same level. Those who are on adjacent levels argue in different ways: the lower ones try to climb to the higher step, therefore they "demonstrate" their competencies, the higher ones show them their "weak knowledge or weak thinking" - thereby demonstrating their "separation" from the previous step .
Those who are separated by more than one stage cannot objectively fully interact in an argument - their stages "do not interact."

Философская дискуссия. Объективные барьеры.

Как известно, есть семь ступеней философской компетенции:
Первая, "ребёнок" - "не знаю вопрос, не знаю ответ", Вторая, "школяр" - "знаю вопрос и знаю ответ", Третья, "студент - "знаю вопрос и знаю варианты ответа", Четвёртая, "аспирант" - "знаю вопрос, знаю варианты ответа и могу порассуждать о них", Пятая, "молодой философ" - "знаю вопрос, знаю варианты ответа, знаю варианты рассуждений о них и имею своё мнение", Шестая, "опытный философ" - "знаю вопрос, знаю ответы", Седьмая, "философ" - "не знаю вопрос, не знаю ответ". Образно, конечно.
Каждая из них эволюционизирует из предшествующей в последующую - если, конечно, к этому способен её обладатель. А это означает, что он находится в определённых отношениях с теми, кто находится выше-ниже на одну ступень или на равной с ним: находящийся на низшей ступени подпитывается знаниями от вышестоящего, вышестоящий его "учит", а равностоящие взаимообогащаются - обучают друг друга..
При этом, философская дискуссия - в полном смысле этого слова, как спор равных - возможна только между теми, кто находится на одной ступени. Те, кто находится на смежных ступенях, ведут спор по-разному: нижестоящие пытаются залезть на высшую ступеньку, поэтому "демонстрируют" свои компетенции, вышестоящие показывают им их "слабые знания или слабое мышление" - демонстрируя тем самым свой "отрыв" от предыдущей ступени.
Те, кого разделяют более одной ступени, не могут объективно полноценно взаимодействовать в споре - их ступени "не взаимодействуют".

Truth: Freedom of Speech and the Philosophical Method

Of course, the truth is more important, but... not for everyone. Many do not need it, they are content with what satisfies their desires - flattery and lies. They pay for flattery and lies to those who produce them, which means that the producers of flattery and lies also do not need the truth. That is why the truth is not extracted, but everyone extracts it separately - like sifting sand through a sieve so that grains of gold remain.

The truth is needed when everything is bad, when money, life and opportunities have been spent, but the desired has not been achieved - and the understanding has come that everything was in vain. And I want to know why, what was wrong?

The truth is also needed by those who are interested in it in itself - as a special state of the brain and body, special neurons and hormones, special inspiration and excitement, special joy and happiness, special harmony of being, a special form of life.

Freedom of speech is something in which the state and society can help you on the way to understanding the truth.

The freedom to seek the truth wherever you want and how you want is your opportunity. The philosophical method is something with which you can help yourself. This is your sieve for sifting out the golden grains of the truth of your reality.

So, freedom of speech is the objective side of the knowledge of truth, and the philosophical method is its subjective side.

Истина: свобода слова и философский метод

Конечно, истина важнее, но … не для всех. Многим она не нужна, они довольствуются тем, что удовлетворяет их желания - лестью и ложью. За лесть и ложь они платят тем, кто их производит, а значит, и производителям лести и лжи истина тоже не нужна. Вот почему истину не производят, но каждый добывает её по отдельности - как просеивают через сито песок, чтобы остались крупицы золота.

Истина нужна тогда, когда всё плохо, когда были потрачены деньги, жизнь и упущены возможности, а желаемое так и не достигнуто - и наступило понимание, что всё было напрасно. И хочется знать почему, что было не так?

Ещё истина нужна тем, кому она интересна сама по себе - как особенное состояние мозга и тела, особенные нейроны и гормоны, особенное воодушевление и возбуждение, особенная радость и счастье, особенная гармония бытия, особенная форма жизни.

Свобода слова - это то, чем может помочь тебе государство и общество на пути постижения истины.

Свобода искать истину там, где ты хочешь и как ты хочешь - это твоя возможность. Философский метод - это то, чем можешь помочь ты себе сам. Это твоё сито для отсеивания золотых крупиц истины твоей реальности.

Итак, свобода слова - это объективная сторона познания истины, а философский метод - её субъективная сторона.

Illusion and reality

Illusion and reality are two sides of an outdated and therefore imperfect understanding of the relationship of the world around and inside a person.

A person believes, hopes, makes plans, dreams - and this is not an illusion and not a reality, this is his subjectivity.

A person thinks, makes calculations, consults with specialists, searches the Internet himself or asks AI - and this is not reality, this is his objectivity.

All that a person encounters is subjectivity or objectivity, which, in a normal state, should balance each other, like two wings of an airplane.

Such a phenomenon as deceit, disinformation, which creates an "illusion" in relation to "reality" in its consumer, is only a kind of subjectivity, acting in the form of trust, faith in a word without objective confirmation. This shows that the "illusion-reality" pair is a variation of the "subjective-objective" pair.

What is the benefit of understanding this? This opens a new way to reveal the abilities of the human mind, consciousness, brain, intellect! The one who first understands this and begins to put it into practice will receive significant intellectual and psychological advantages.

Don't miss your chance, dear friends!

Иллюзия и реальность

Иллюзия и реальность это две стороны устаревшего и потому несовершенного понимания отношения мира вокруг и внутри человека.

Человек верит, надеется, строит планы, мечтает - и это не иллюзия и не реальность, это его субъективность.

Человек думает, строит расчеты, консультируется со специалистами, ищет в Интернете сам или спрашивает у ИИ - и это не реальность это его объективность.

Всё, с чем сталкивается человек, это субъективность или объективность, которые, в нормальном состоянии, должны уравновешивать друг друга, как два крыла самолёта.
Такое явление как обман, дезинформация, создающая у её потребителя "иллюзию" по отношению к "реальности", есть лишь разновидность субъективности, выступающей в форме доверия, веры на слово без объективного подтверждения. Отсюда видно, что пара "иллюзия-реальность" есть разновидность пары "субъективное-объективное".

Какую пользу приносит понимание этого? Это открывает новый путь к раскрытию способностей человеческого разума, сознания, мозга, интеллекта! Тот, кто первым это поймёт и начнет применять на практике, получит значительные интеллектуальные и психологические преимущества.

Не упустите, свой шанс, дорогие друзья!

Basic Method of Philosophy and dualism

Comment on the post "What are the benefits of recognizing that reality is subjectively imaginary?":
"The idea that there is a basic philosophical method sends up red flags everywhere. The flatout proclamation that objective/subjective dualism is undisputed is only true for those who cannot grasp the difficulties of the seemingly simple external world not actually so obvious as being real. Once past these problems of your answer, I found your answer to be very thought-provoking".

Reply to comment:

What the Basic Method of Philosophy is about, and "dualism" is similar only in form. If we talk about the essence, then the essence of cognition of any phenomenon, including philosophical, consists in a simple scheme of analysis-synthesis. Analysis is the division of the whole into parts. But for what reason? The BMP proposes as a first step in philosophical analysis a division into objective and subjective sides - and this division is not what is traditionally called dualism. This is the first division into two parts. Further, each of the two parts is in turn divided into two parts, and so on. In the end, the separated parts are subject to synthesis as a theoretical reconstruction in the concept of the phenomenon.

Основной Метод Философии и дуализм

Комментарий к посту «Какую пользу дает признание того, что реальность субъективно воображаема?»
"The idea that there is a basic philosophical method sends up red flags everywhere. The flatout proclamation that objective/subjective dualism is undisputed is only true for those who cannot grasp the difficulties of the seemingly simple external world not actually so obvious as being real. Once past these problems of your answer, I found your answer to be very thought-provoking".

Ответ на комментарий:

То, о чём Основной Метод Философии, и "дуализм" похоже лишь по форме. Если говорить о сути, то суть познания любого явления, включая философское, состоит в простой схеме анализа-синтеза. Анализ есть деление целого на части. Но по какому основанию? BMP предлагает в качестве первого шага философского анализа деление на объективную и субъективную стороны - и это деление не является тем, что традиционно называется дуализмом. Это первое деление на две части. Далее, каждая из двух частей, в свою очередь делится на две части и т.д. В конце, разделенные части подлежат синтезу как теоретическому воссозданию в понятии явления.
Lies as the other side of our lives, part 1.

.The lives of all people are saturated with information and feelings, and everyone wants to have reliable information and real feelings from others. At the same time, everyone lies to each other and pretends to each other.

Why? Because it is profitable to receive the truth yourself, while others lie and pretend. It is profitable to lie to women, men, children, students, citizens, customers, judges, the tax service, clients, the state. And for those who are lied to, it is not profitable.

There are no those who do not lie at all, there are those who lie often and those who lie rarely. There are those who enjoy lying and those who find it unpleasant or even disgusting. There are also those who are indifferent to lies. Those who lie rarely and who find it unpleasant are not so many, those who are disgusted - even less - and they internally resist lying. And they, as a rule, are in a less advantageous situation in society - compared to those who lie more often and without remorse. They consider themselves honest and value this quality in themselves. And those others consider themselves to know how to live and are proud of it.

These same people are divided into two other categories - gullible and suspicious. Liars live and prosper at the expense of the gullible - and they not only live, but also raise the gullible, just as they raise herds of animals and then slaughter them for meat. Trusting people are the basis of any state, any community of people, including a family, the main thing in which is trust in each other. And so - we see that liars cause harm to society, the state, and families, and yet they dominate. Of course, they try their best to present themselves as the most honest of citizens - but how do they do it?

Firstly, they expose the lies of other liars - and they look like honest fighters for the truth. Secondly, finding gullible people the reasons for their misfortunes and promising many benefits that can be obtained if these reasons are eliminated - and give gullible people hope for a better future. Thirdly, they bring their lies to perfection - both through their personal art of lying for a long time, and by hiring specially trained professionals - propagandists, lawyers, philosophers, artists. Fourthly, encouraging lies among the gullible themselves - so that other people's lies do not seem to them something unusual. Fifthly, removing honest people from your path, slandering them along the way.

And it has always been like this. Here's how Omar Khayyam wrote about it:

Oh heaven! You dote on scoundrels!
Palaces and mills and baths are in their hands.
And the honest one asks for a loan of a piece of stale flatbread,
Oh, heaven, I would spit on you in my heart!

But even among simple and gullible people, liars make up the majority - and this despite all their suffering from the lies of those in power or money.

Lies bring benefits. Especially those who are united in their lies and can easily suppress the honest - after all, the honest cannot unite in their honesty. Therefore, liars do not fight lies, which for them is a way of life. For honest people, being honest or, which is the same thing, fighting lies is a matter of survival - honesty requires constant work on oneself.

And in this work it is important to have philosophical knowledge - how to have solid ground under your feet. More about this in the second part of the article.

Ложь как обратная сторона нашей жизни, часть 1.

Жизнь всех людей пропитана информацией и чувствами, и все хотят иметь от других достоверную информацию и настоящие чувства. При этом все другу другу лгут и друг перед другом притворяются.

Почему? Потому что это выгодно - самому получать правду, а другим лгать и притворяться. Выгодно лгать женщинам, мужчинам, детям, студентам, гражданам, покупателям, судьям, налоговой службе, клиентам, государству. А тем, которым лгут - это не выгодно.

Тех, кто совсем не лжёт – нет, есть те, которые лгут часто и те, которые лгут редко. Есть те, которым лгать доставляет удовольствие и те, кому это неприятно или даже противно. Есть и те, кто относится к лжи безразлично. Тех, кто лжёт редко и кому это неприятно не так много, тех, кому противно – ещё меньше – и они внутренне сопротивляются лжи. И они, как правило, находятся в менее выгодной ситуации в социуме – сравнительно с теми, кто лжет чаще и без угрызений совести. Они считают себя честными и ценят в себе такое качество. А те, другие – считают себя умеющими жить и этим гордятся.

Эти же люди делятся и на две другие категории – доверчивых и подозрительных. Лжецы живут и благоденствуют за счёт доверчивых – и не просто живут, но и выращивают доверчивых как выращивают стада животных, чтобы потом резать их на мясо. Доверчивые люди – основа любого государства, любого сообщества людей, включая семью, главное в которой доверие друг к другу. И вот – мы видим, что лжецы наносят вред и обществу, и государству, и семьям и тем не менее они главенствуют. Конечно, они изо всех сил стараются представлять себя наичестнейшими из граждан – но как им это удаётся?

Во-первых, они разоблачают ложь других лжецов – и она их фоне выглядят честными борцами за правду. Во-вторых, находя доверчивым людям причины их несчастий и обещая много благ которые можно будет получить, если эти причины устранить – и дают доверчивым людям надежду на лучшее будущее. В-третьих, доводят свою ложь до совершенства – как своим личным искусством долгого вранья, так и нанимая специально обученных профессионалов – пропагандистов, адвокатов, философов, артистов. В-четвёртых, поощряя ложь среди самих доверчивых – чтобы чужая ложь не казалась им чем-то необычным. В-пятых, убирая со своего пути честных, попутно их оболгав.

И так было всегда. Вот как об этом написал Омар Хайям:

О, небо! Ты души не чаешь в подлецах!
Дворцы и мельницы, и бани – в их руках.
А честный просит в долг кусок лепёшки чёрствой,
О, небо, на тебя я плюнул бы в сердцах!

Но и среди простых и доверчивых людей лжецы составляют большую часть – и это несмотря на все их страдания от лжи власть или деньги имущих.

Ложь приносит блага. Особенно таким, которые объединились в своей лжи и могут легко подавлять честных – ведь честные не могут объединиться в своей честности. Поэтому лжецы и не борются с ложью, которая для них есть образ жизни. Для честных же быть честным или, что то же самое, бороться с ложью есть вопрос выживания – честность требует постоянной работы над собой.

И в этой работе важно обладать философскими знаниями – как иметь твёрдую почву под ногами. Об этом - во второй части статьи.

Lies as the other side of our lives, part 2.

What can philosophy say about lies?

According to the Basic Method of Philosophy, any phenomenon - including lies - has its own objective and subjective sides, which exist in the dynamics of mutual transition - mutual influence and mutual determination.

The objective side of a lie is the liar’s transmission of information to the recipient that does not correspond to reality, the subjective side is the expectation of a certain state from the consumer of this information.

Thus, lying is one of the ways to control a person in society - when the person being controlled acts subjectively independently, however, being misled, objectively obeying the will of others.

For the objective side of lies, the composition of the information is not important - from hiding part of the truthful information to complete absurdity - what is important is its influence on the consumer’s consciousness. Hence, a lie - unlike the truth - is mobile and inventive, adapting to the consciousness of the recipient.

Hence - no matter how paradoxical it may sound - a lie has the ability to seem more convincing than the truth and masquerade as the truth in such a way that in comparison with it it begins to look like a lie.

A lie, unlike the truth, is prudent and calculating - it invents more and more new ways of “exposing lies,” which only further divert consciousness from searching for ways to expose it.

The initial premise of lies - as the opposite of truth - is, according to the Basic Method of Philosophy, the dialectic of the objective and subjective sides of consciousness. Namely, the mutual transition of its phase states as states of brain functioning - from “natural”, when the brain “adapts to nature” to sensory – when the brain “adapts nature to itself”.

In the phase of adaptation to nature, the brain carries out work, tries to collect possible information about the phenomenon in order to then build a complete picture of it. However, in complex phenomena it is not always possible to construct an ideal picture, and then the brain either agrees with its imperfection or distorts the initial data to obtain the desired, “convenient” result.

The result of cognition is formalized in the sensory phase of “nature’s adaptation to itself,” when the phenomenon being studied, transformed into information, is integrated into consciousness and the brain as its element, which is subjectively perceived as “understanding.” Only in some cases it is integrated without distortion, and in others – with the distortion “needed” by the brain.

It follows that the perfection of consciousness, manifested in a deeper comprehension of nature, is achieved by increasing the separation of the natural and sensory phases of the brain, just as higher productivity and quality of work depend on the division of labor functions.

It also follows that, on the contrary, the imperfection of consciousness lies in the mixing or superimposition of these phases of the work of consciousness - when it “sees” phenomena the way it wants and adjusts nature to its convenient template.

It is such people - with imperfect consciousness - who are, first of all, liars to themselves, and are material for controlling other individuals who are more experienced in lies. Who do to them what they do to themselves - only more skillfully.

Therefore, the most profound - philosophical - way to combat lies is to develop one’s own consciousness - purity of thinking and purity of perception and feeling.

Ложь как обратная сторона нашей жизни, часть 2.

Что может сказать о лжи философия?

Согласно Основному Методу Философии любое явление – и ложь в том числе – имеет свою объективную и субъективную стороны, которые существуют в динамике взаимоперехода - взаимовлияния и взаимоопределения.

Объективной стороной лжи является передача лжецом информации получателю, не соответствующей действительности, субъективной стороной – ожидание от потребителя этой информации определённого состояния.

Таким образом, ложь является одним из способов управления человеком в социуме – когда управляемый действует субъективно самостоятельно, однако, будучи вводимым в заблуждение, объективно подчиняясь посторонней воле.

Для объективной стороны лжи неважен состав информации – от сокрытия части правдивой информации до полного абсурда – важно её влияние на сознание потребителя. Отсюда ложь – в отличие от истины – мобильна и изобретательна, подстраиваясь под сознание получателя.

Отсюда – как бы парадоксально это не звучало – ложь имеет способность казаться убедительнее истины и маскироваться под истину таким образом, что та в сравнении с ней начинает сама выглядеть как ложь.

Ложь, в отличие от истины, предусмотрительна и расчётлива – она изобретает всё новые и новые способы “изобличения лжи”, которые только ещё больше уводят сознание от поиска способов её разоблачения.

Исходной предпосылкой лжи – как противоположности правде – является, согласно Основному Методу Философии - диалектика объективной и субъективной сторон сознания. А именно, взаимопереход его фазовых состояний как состояний функционирования головного мозга – от “природного”, когда мозг “приспосабливается к природе” до чувственного – когда мозг “приспосабливает природу к себе”.

В фазе приспособления к природе мозг осуществляет работу, пытается собрать возможную информацию о явлении, чтобы потом построить его цельную картину. Однако в сложных явлениях идеальную его картинку удаётся сконструировать далеко не всегда и тогда мозг либо соглашается с её несовершенством либо искажает исходные данные для получения желаемого ему, “удобного” результата.

Результат познания оформляется в чувственной фазе “приспособления природы к себе”, когда изучаемое явление, преобразуясь в информацию, интегрируется в сознание и мозг как его элемент, что субъективно воспринимается как "понимание". Только в одних случаях оно интегрируется без искажения, а в других – с “нужным” мозгу искажением.

Отсюда следует, что совершенство сознания, проявляющееся в более глубоком постижении природы, достигается за счет усиления разделения природной и чувственной фаз работы мозга, наподобие того, как более высокая производительность и качество работы зависят от разделения трудовых функций.

Отсюда также следует, что, наоборот, несовершенство сознания заключается в смешении или наложении этих фаз работы сознания – когда оно “видит” явления так, как ему хочется и подстраивает природу под свой удобный шаблон.

Вот такие люди – с несовершенным сознанием – являясь в первую очередь лжецами самим себе, и являются материалом для управления другими, более искушёнными в лжи индивидами. Которые проделывают с ними то, что те делают сами с собой – только более квалифицированно.

Поэтому самым глубинным – философским - способом борьбы с ложью является развитие собственного сознания – чистоты мышления и чистоты восприятия и чувствования.
Made on