philosophical discussionsL.E. BalashovHow we think, so we live.Better thinking – better living.PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHYorSOPHOLOGY2010philosophical discussionsL.E. BalashovHow we think, so we live.Better thinking – better living.PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHYORSOPHOLOGY2nd edition improved and augmented^ МОСКВА 2007Philosophic discussions The discussion group is a small library of philosophic litterature concerning wide range of questions. It has been ment to a reader who is interested in philososphing alone. Such a reader may be also a professional philosopher and man of science, culture, learner, student, young faculty member.^ The books of this circle are related to a range of developing litterature and may serve as learning material for completing knowlwdge of philosophy. Balashov L.E.Practical philosophy or sophology -2nd ed. edited, changed, augmented 530 pTo the attention of readers is offered a book dedicated to practical philosophy (sophology). Practical philosophy is that part of philosophy, which renders immediate influence to the life of people, through philosophic texts and discussion, through living contact between philosophers and people. Texts are grouped by themes: questions about the world view life, death, immortality human happiness, love golden rule of behavior liberalism and freedom critique of socialism and communism humanism as the philosophy of mankind negative of life: anticulture and antiphilosophy about the danger of narcotics and the sweetness of life without them how do we think? common sense In the conlcluding part of the book the author settles down and elaborates the idea of introduction of an institution of practical philosophers, sophologs. According to his opinion, philosophers can and must work with people in the manner of psychologists, doctors, priests… The book can serve as textbook for education of practical philosophers (sophologs) and at their preparation for consulting and discussions. It is useful for all who appreciate thinking, who understand its meaning for life.Ó L.E. Balashov, 2010H E A D I N G S what is practical philosophy 4 (sophology)? 4 I. questions of world view 8 II. life, death, immortality 13 III. human happiness 113 IV. of love 118 V. creativity 140^ VI. HUMAN AMONG OTHER HUMANS (HOW TO BEHAVE IN A SOCIETY?) 141 VII. liberalism and freedom 245 VIII. critics of the ideas of socialism and communism 268 IX. negative of life: anticulture and antiphilosophy 275 X. on the danger of narcotics and the privileges of life without them 337 XI. how we think? 350^ XII. FOR PHILOSOPHERS - ABOUT PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY (SOPHOLOGY) 413 appendix 1. Open letter to all killers and customers of killers 452 appendix 2. Recommendations of various authors in spirit of practical philosophy 455 Index of names 460 Subject index 463 ^ what is practical philosophy (sophology)? Our life is, what we think of itMarcus AureliusThe meaning of practical philosophy emerges from the funcamental fact that thought may directly affect action: either awaken man to action or, on the contrary, deter, hinder him from action, turn him from it. The Purpose of practical philosophy is: through thinking entice man to correct, good action and turn away from erroneous, bad action. We must take into account that practical philosophy is not the same thing as the practical role of philosophy. Philosophy as a whole has a certain practical influence on the life of people. And to an great extent it materializes through science, inventiveness, politics, economics, arts, litterature. Practical philosophy is that part of philosophy which endeavours to influence directly to people’s life, through philosophic text and speech, through live intercourse of philosophers and people, through philosophical discussions of person to person. With practical philosophy in strict sense of the word were professionally engaged some sophists in Ancient Greece and some philosophers, who used philosophical argumentation in their individual and collective discussions for some practical purposes. In the broad sense of the word to the practical philosophy pertain texts and speeches of different authors, which contain philosophical argumentation, ideas of life, people, relations to the world, in their intercourse with all people and arousing activity or deterring them from it. These texts and speeches, in general, do not carry the character of research, but contain considerations, different thoughts and recommendations… In this second meaning practical philosophy has a rich history and tradition. Many earlier philosophers left behind texts that have practical philosophic ideas. And not only philosophers, but also other writers, poets, prosaists, scientists, historians, psycholgists, politicians etc. Unfortunately practical philosophy (in its basic sense as sophology) is still in its embryonic stage. The society is only now realizing that philosophy can directly (without various kind of intermediaries) work with people, that philosophers may influence matters and destinies of people, that philosopers may work with people, as do psychologists, psychoanlysts, doctors, priests. By practical philosophy is often understood that part of philosophy which is dedicated to human matters, that aim to achieving some good. So it was understood by many philosophers, among others Hegel (look below the paragraph ’Practical philosophy in the history of human thinking). From my point of view, it is not correct to name practical philosophy as thinking of attainment of good, of practical action. By and large practical philosophy is distinguished from general philosophy not only by its contents and aim but also its ability of immediately influencing the thinking and matters of people.^ This kind of philosophy may better be denominated by a special term. I suggest that it be denominated as sophology, and practical philosopher as sophologist.Of course people (non-philosophers) above all turn to those parts of philosophy, that they are interested in in their narrowly utilitarian practical everyday life. But this does not mean that they are completely uninterested in other parts of philosophy. For example, would they not be interested in questions concerning the vision of the world, and would not these questions, or better, the answers to those questions influence the behavior of the people? Certainly yes, and how much! And would it be them without difference, how they are thinking? Of course not. Whatever, even the most abstract (farthest away of some everyday issues) philosphic question may be interesting to a non-philosopher. As I already mentioned, in the exact meaning the practical philosophy is the philosophy which materializes the immediate link of philosophy with the life, the non-philosophy. And the sophologist, practical philosopher is a philosopher who is able and understands to establish a link with a non-philosopher, who by an understanding discussion may influence his thinking and matters. In the role of sophology, practical philosopher may be any philosopher, if he only once productively just as a philosopher discusses with the non-philosopher. Practical philosophy may become the profession of a practical philosopher, if the latter establishes constant living intercourse with non-philosophers and gains from it his living… In the light of all that is said above it becomes clear that practical and everyday philosophy are not the same thing. The latter is just a part of the former. Everyday philosophy is philosophy of everyday, usual life of people. And in this are its limitations. Sometimes instead of the word ’everyday’ the philosophers use the word ’living’. Living philosophy is the philosophy of the life as such. It may be very deep, concerning of fundamental questions of the vision of the world and of the human behavior.(Always more often recently the expression ’applied philosophy’ is used. In 1980’s in England the British Society of Applied Philosophy and its printed organ "The Journal of Applied Philosophy" were founded. The applied philosophy is usually confronted by basic problems of metaphysics as the speculation about problems of real life, as philosophy that has immediate linkage to solutions in life, above all in the fields of moral and political matters1. To the themes of applied philosophy are related such as: animal rights, lie and secret in social and private lives, euthanasy, sex problems, abort, feminism, what is decent and what is not etc. As to what is appropriate use of the expression ’applied philosophy’? Are we not to try to tie philosophy to certain divisions of science to theoretical-pure and applied-technical-experimental or to division of arts into pure and applied? Because philosophy as a special type of culture, that is not to be considered as science nor arts. I leave this question open. It is clear: the themes of so called applied philosophy are totally stacked in the channel of practical philosophy as its part).Thus, practical philosophy (sophology) is philosophy that has as its Purpose to influence people by the power of thinking, through words, persuasion in the process of living communication (consultation, discussion, negotiation, analysis of a conrete situation).^ I. questions of world view In front of everybody, sooner or later, emeerge questions, which can be described as pertainign world outlook, general ideology, in German Weltanschauung. What is world? What does it present in itself? How is it? Why is it this way and not something else? Does it exist for ever or is it created by god or gods?^ Of our relation to the world depends, how we see it, how we find ourselves. ’World is pitiful only for pitiful people, world is empty only for empty people’ said L. Feuerbach. The behavior of people is influenced by who or what determines their lives: god (gods), fate, destiny, something else, and to what extent. The conception that world has been created by god (gods) and is managed by him (them) has had and still has serious influence on many people’s behavior. Materialism and idealism, teism and ateism, fatalism and voluntarism, determinism and indeterminism, rationalism and irrationalism and mysticism, all these are standpoints that play an essential role in people’s lives. People always presented the question, what is world, and what can wwe expect of it? One of the earliest views of world is that of the Bible. In the first book of the Bible (Old Testament to be exact) Genesis a picture is given of how the world emerged. According to this picture the world was created by God, an almighty being, who however is thinking, speaking and acting like human. God according to Bible existed already before the emerging of the world. He created world in 6 days: at the beginning he created heaven and land, then light, then dry land and waters, then vegetative and animal worlds. In the sixth day he created man. This is how schematically the creation of the world is imagined. From the point of view of the modern science this picture of the emerging of the world does not stand any criticism. Creation of the manifoldness of the surrounding world is not possible. Some believers of god have suggested that 6 days b enot considered as calendary days, but very long historical periods. This proposition was not supported, because then it would be necessary to review the whole concept of bible. As a matter of fact, in the Bible they speak of six days of creation. God as some child or sculptor formed man by the name Adam from clay, and woman by the name Eve from the rib of Adam. It is announced also that in the seventh day God rested. It is clear that we are talking not of some long periods but of just days. This biblical picture of world is conserved to our days, and believers, willing or not must accept it. There was a time when believers completely seriously considered, that women must have one rib more than men. Their supposition was not confirmed, so in this respect it is not possible to pretend that woman be created from the rib of man. The biblic picture of the world is not the only religious picture of the world. A developed picture of the world exists also for instance in the hinduism. During the past centuries a scientific picture of the world was developed. It is based on observations of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and is presented usually as an antithesis of the religious picture of the world. Scientists as a result of their research work have explained the surrounding world. They have particularly determined that our Earth exists 4 billion years and our part of the universum has existed no less than 15-18 billion years, that the limits of the Metagalactics are distanced from us 15-18 billion light years. A light year is a distance gone by light in one year with the speed of 300 thousand kilometres per second. Physicians have established that on the basis of all processes, mutual functioning in our part of universum lay 4 basic interrelations of electromagnetic, gravitational, strong (nuclear) and weak forces. They have also established that the universum consists of molecules and atoms, atoms of the elementary particles of electrons, protons and neutrons, and they, in their turn, consist of quarks, sub elementary particles with minimal electric charges. The scientific picture of the world operates with the complete observations, experiments, calculations, which the scientists have performed during the past 2000-2500 years. It is based also on the knowledge of laws of nature: physical, chmical, biological. The totality of all these scientific knowledge gives in great general the scientific picture of the world. Science does not, however, give a complete, exhausting conception of the world. There are no scientists who would handle the world as a whole. Various sciences give only mosaical, fragmentary picture of the world. In reality, only philosophers can speak of the world as a whole. But philosophers, not scientists, they do not research the nature, but only are thinking what other people produce as knowledge, that is through the prism of scientific knowledge and philosophic conception of the world. If research workers think with the help of exploration, that is, with the help of kn owledge of laws of nature and phenomemons, so philosophers are thinking through the totality of scientific knowledge, through all historic and personal experience. All this knowledge they draw through their wit. The main instrument of philosophic scrutiny of the world is the philosophic concepts of categories. With other words, philosophers draw the picture of the world with the help of categories. Philosophic picture of the world is categorial picture of the world, and categories as like brush and colors for philosophers. We are speaking of such concepts as being, matter, motion, space, time, quality, quantity, possibility, reality, cause, effect, necessity, randomness, equality, controversy, contradiction… More than hundred philophical categories are counted. All people on the earth have got some kind of picture of the world, but some do recognize it, some do not. And those who recognize, have some concept of the world, particularly they consider themselves as materialists, idealists or in some other way they characterize their views. Varioius philosophers draw various categorial pictures of the world. Only philosophers take some one category as a basis. They understand the world as some monarchic state, conducted by one category monarch, or as a particular matryoshka, who contains inside many small matryoshkas, or one big category consequently contains in itself smaller categories. This way, Spinoza took as the basis of his picture of the world the category of substance and through a consequent division of this category to many constituing (attributes and moduses) draw the picture of the world. Spinoza’s substance had two attributes: thinking and expansion, and they, in turn, had different modes (changes in view). In Spinoza’s expansion such modes as motion in space, time, necessity, randomness, lawfulness, are presupposed… Russian philosopher V.S. Soloview originated as the main category explaining the world the category of general unity. These philosophers are denominated as monists, from the word monism. Other philosophers imagine the world as some totality, a republic of categories. They did not determine any one category as one main category. They are called pluralists. What is such a category? The most comprehensive definition is the following: category is a series, a class of something. If we speak of philosophic categories, it is a series, a class of a certain kind of concepts. In the real action there exist also certain categorial side phenomena that are considered as categorial definitions of the world. In other words there are certain side classes of some realities. For instance, when the world is seen in space and time, it is defined in two categorial facets: from the point of view of space and of time. When we define something as real or possible, then we scrutiny the world as facets of reality and of possibility. If we now take it with the help oif these concepts order and chaos, we think of the world either as orderly or as chaotic, or both together. Of which of these exists more in the world: order or chaos, is a fundamental problem of philosophy. According to some mythological conceptions, at the beginning there was chaos, of which then emerges order, that is, as if the world moves from chaos to order.The conception that ’order from chaos’ is of rather old origin. Many people have had a legend of original chaos, from which then later higher powers constructed a harmonious world. So, in one of the hymns of the oldest written monument the ’Rigweda’ they say that god ’developed an excellent world from a formless chaos, which was all that existed at that time.’1. Hesiodot in Theogony also writes: ’Before everything else there was chaos’. This notion of original chaos, writes A.N. Averyanov, ’is conserved to our days. Many cosmogonic hypotheses construct on the supposition of original chaotic existence of the universum.’ ’And their most vulnerable spot, he rightly concludes, is the explanation of transition from chaotic existence of the matter to the ordered.’2.The most fundamental level of categorial picture of the world is the natural system of objective categorial definitions of the world (categorial structure of the world). It is possible to construct different versions of existence of this natural system. Categorial definitions are not only some totalities, manifold of definitions, they are situated in a defined order. For instance, space we see as a binded bloc of time and movement. Categorial structure of the world conditions, gives birth to categorial structure of thinking (categorial structure, categorial logics of thinking). Categorial structure of thinking is a result of 1) emerging of living nature, living organism, highest living creatures, and 2) historic development of human beings, his cognition and practice. He describes the categorial structure of the world and describes to the extend, in which human being is able to solve practical problems. Not more, not less. This means that we cannot speak of a full correspondence of categorial structure of thinking and of categorial structure of the world. Categorial structure of thinking emerges in the human brain in a very complicated way: and on the basis of biological development and making, and on the basis of historic and of individual development and making. Our categorial thinking expresses itself above all in the form of questions, pronouns and pronominal parts of speaking. Questions of who?, what?, denominate object, thing, piece, organism, living being. Who denominates a living being, what a nonliving. This is the first categorial difference between living and nonliving. The question which? means of what quality, how much? expresses quantity, where? expresses space, when moment of time, whereto These questions show, that human being is thinking categorially. This kind of thinking gets its form already in chilhood. Categorial concepts is thought in later phase of the development and making of the human. Then also gets its form the categorial thinking. This way, we cannot think anything else than with the help of categories. Categorial thinking, which is recognized in the form of questions and concepts, is secondary categorial definition. Philosophic concepts and categories, developed in the process of historic development of philosophy, this is already a third order categorial definition. ^ II. life, death, immortality Life, death, immortality are magic words that mean infinitely much for each of us. People have thought about them as long as they appeared. Particularly philosophers try to work out them. And this is only natural. Philosophers are specialists in general poroblems of being an existence. For them life, death, immortality have not only personal, but also universally general meaning.^ 1. about life, idea and Purpose of life Emptiness of life, absence of meaningful matters in life, open dullness – here something that sometimes leads to criminal deeds, narcotics. Young person may be simply in confusion: what to do, why he is on this Earth. Spiritual confusion is an excellent source for all kinds of behavioral extravagancies, anomal deeds.In this situation it is very important to get into clear: in oneself, in life, what it is, of what moments this situation arises, what is the idea of life, is it necessary to put forward a Purpose for life etc.Below I present my view of these problems.^ what is life? Life is the means of existence of living creatures (organisms, animals, man), being expressed as a minimum of metabolism, process in which food is converted to provide energy and to produce and maintain cells and tissues, with surrounding environment and reproduction (recreation of race). In life there are its minima and maxima. Minimal life means presence of two phases of life cycle: metabolism (that of monocellular organisms) and reproduction (their simple division). Its maximum life reaches in the appearance of human being. In two phases of life cycle psyche is being built (in the one that is inherited from animals) and culture. In living organisms and creatures life is biologic form of action, in human beings it is biosocial form. For man life is activity in general, integral action, lifework in the deepest sense of this word. In the background of life human being actualizes special or specialized forms of activity, such as conversation, cognition, practical activity, work, rest etc. These forms of activity exist and develop only in general context of life, lifework of the subject. Three levels of human life or three lives of man exist: 1. Plant life is nutrition, division, growth, reproduction, adaptation. 2. Animal life is gathering, hunting, defence, sexual and other behavior, nursing and educating of children, orientative activity, playing activity. 3. Cultural life or life in culture is recognition, management, inventive finding, handicraft, sport, art, philosophy. This kind of division of life was already outlined by Aristotle (see ‘On soul’, 423a 21 and further 414а30-415а10 and further). These three lives are comparatively independent, equally important for man, they function mutually, influence each other and enable each other. As a result we have a rather versatile, rich, contradictory human life. The presence of the third level of life in human makes the life principially different of plants or animals and this difference increases by each step of the progress of culture. On the basis of what has been said the following definition may be given: human life is his life as living creature and life in culture.^ The purpose of life Fill every movement with reason Hours and days are in an immutable runR.Kipling. The condamnedThe problem of the sense of life is above all a question of whether human life has any sense, that is whether it is illuminated by reason, or whether it is without any sense, nonsense, that man is not managed by sense. The question of the sensibleness of life is also a question about its value, meaning for the man himself. Has life an idea, is it worth while?1 This question has still such a nuance: we speak of the sense of life, when life is considered as a whole, when such questions as “what is life?”, “for what purpose man lives?”, “why do I live?”, “what do I do in this world?”, when our life is thought of in context of all people, life in general on the Earth, the existence of worlda as a whole. It is necessary to distinguish clearly 2the sense of life” and ”the goal of life”. When a Purpose is in front of a man, for instance in front of a doctor, engineer, scientist, then in this is not yet an answer to the question that bothers him about the sensibility of life (in any case the answer exists only intuitively, in a purely emotionalonal sense). Man in his reasonings goes further: why he must become doctor, engineer, scientist? This way, if the Purpose is showing to what the man aims, so the sense of life tells, why he does this. Some people, among others some philosophers, assume that the sense of life is in seeking of this reason of existence. N.A. Berdyayev, for instance, wrote: “Be it that I do not know the sense of life, but the mere seeking of it gives already the sense of life, and I devote my life to this search for the sense of life” (‘Self confessions’, 3rd chapter). This kind of view on the sense of life is just a play of words, wiseckacking... Searching continuously, all life long is some kind of infantilism. Grown-up, mature man in one way or other finds the sense of life and puts it into effect, lives corresponding to it. Man searching for the sense of life, trying to find it, has not yet determined, is a man in formation, has not yet soved the tasks of life. Sense of life is like the goal of life. Before reaching the Purpose, moving from Purpose to result, man must set determine for himself the Purpose, set it. But setting the Purpose is only the first etap. Man fulfils function not for setting, defining the Purpose, but for reaching it. So with the sense of life. Looking for sense of life is only the first part of the problem. The second part is putting the sense of life into reality, to sensible rational life. Further, very important, on one hand, to search and find the sense of life, but on the other, not to overestimate the significance of this question, not to get into the circular track in looking for the sense of life. Life has partly sense, and partly not. Life has sense in the extent to which it is reasonable, reasonably limited, humanly significant. Life has no sense, that is, its sense is not well-placed in the extent that it is automatic and plantlike, in which case it is managed by instincts, regulated by organic needs. French expression ‘c’est la vie’ better than anything else defines its automatism, plantlikeness. Presence of this second side of life allows man not to jump too heavily to search ot the sense of life, not to hurry with the significant to life answers and decisions, that is, to some extent relax, let the stream of life convey, swim along the flow of it.In what is concretely the sense of life? Clearly everybody answers this question in his or her own way. On the other hand, there are common moments in it. This is love and creativity. In the overwhelming majority of cases people think and appreciate their life in the sphere of these two categories. Love supports, multiplies life, makes it harmonious, harmonizes. Creativity makes possible the progress in life.^ goal of life Blessed who chose the aim and way And sees in this the essence of lifeSchellingMan lives most that time when he searches somethingF.M. Dostoyevsky Life is a process of continuous choice. Every moment man has a choice: to get farther or toapproach the Purpose. Either movement to greater fear, horror, defence or choice of Purpose and increase of spiritual powers. To choose development in stead of fear ten times a day means ten times approach to self-fulfilment.^ A. MacloudPurpose ”gives” integrity to action. If this is the goal of life, so it determines the integrity of life. With man who has no goal of life, and life does not get fulfilled as an organic whole in biosocial, that is human sense. “Life without Purpose is man without head” sounds the popular piece of wisdom.Still in the adolescent years I defined for myself life guidelines expressed in following words: People often spend their lives in masses of small enjoyment, joys, not in the sense without thinking of life as a whole, the main goal of life. They are led by rules: “Live as long as you live”, “take of the present all that is to be taken and do not look for future” and so on. Although in mass your small joys make life comfortable, joyfunl, nevertheless they cannot really satisfy man. Either a man is not only a sum of situations, experiences. Man is a whole, collection of all his situations. He cannot be satisfied by small momentary pleasures. He needs joy that is all embracing. It does not appear as a simple sum of small joys. This big joy emerges in a stubborn fight that continues throughout the life.^ Setting a general goal of life, is strifing to this purpose with all powers of soul and finally to reach it, alas, there is the highest joy of life!Everybody does not set for himself a goal in life, but if he or she does, so this man supposes life as a purposeful activity. In general in real life a whole tree of goals exist. In addition to it subsidiary, temporary, or secondary goals exist. Subsidiary, temporary goals are goals the existence of which opens the road to main goal of life, approaches it. Subsidiary and temporary goals are goals that which give form to the whole “kitchen” of life, condition the fulvalued harmonious development of man. In its totality they are not less important, than the main goal of life (for instance, goal fortifies health by means of physical culture, constructs the house, different pastimes, hobbies). In some situations a conflict emerges between the main goal and the secondary goals. This conflict can be finished either by the prevalence of the main goal or by the prevalence of the subsidiary goals. Main goal of life is that goal the existence of which justifies the life of man as a whole, as subject, standing somewhere comparable to the society, being aware of his goals as goals of man in general or as goals of this or that community of people. In the main goal of life as a logical consequence of things, a unity of goals of the endeavors of man as individual with those of the society are joined. The problem of determination of goals of life in the same descendancy is the problem of choice of profession. In the formation of the goal of life “participate” as well a random occurrence as necessity or outer circumstances and inner incentives and motives. Usually under the goal of life is understood the goal that man sets in the framework of professional, creative activity, which guides him to the direction of creating new, earlier non-existent, new material or spiritual goods or values. As a matter of fact, if we start from the idea that the goal of life consists not only in creative activity, but also in love, the creation of life, man must set in front of himself at least two goals of life. One is the goal that considers the materialization of love, creation of life. It is unavoidable, that is, everybody independing of anything must set the goal of founding a family, the house of love, give birth to children and educate them. Without this there is no continuation of species, continuation of the human life. The other goal of life is professional, creative activity of man. Yes and in the creative activity it is usual that man does not stay in the choice of some one goal of life. Clear example: two lifes of A.P. Borodin as composer and scientist in chemistry. If goal is set, it becomes the law of activity, categoric imperative, necessity, under which man subordinates his will. In this way we see two sides of living activity: setting of goal (searching of goal, choice of goal) and orientation towards goal (consciousness of goal, movement to goal, better: from goal to result). Both sides are equally important for man. Understanding the importance of goal and the setting of goal and oritentation towards goal linked with it must not, however, be absolutized. Life in some sense is a totality of goal and being without goal, that is a unity of being organized and not being it, of work and leisure, tension and relaxation. Being without goal is realized above all in the fact that besides the main goal of life there is a multitude of subsidiary goals. Searching and realization of subsidiary goal (and along with it relaxation from the main goal) may be interpreted as being without goal. It is said that one must not work all time, think only one thing, that it is necessary to relax, step out, rest, leave tension aside, go over to different activity. It is not by chance that modern man gives ever more attention to subsidiary activities, hobbies, being intuitively conscious that the tension of work, main goal of life, may simply destroy him. Attention must also be paid to the fact that human life is not always running on the level of setting goal and realizing it. Man can fulfil rational action, without attention to goalsetting, just intuitively, impusively. For instance, necessity to rest, sleep may be ‘realized’ in the spirit of the goal (looking for place where to stay overnight etc.) or immediately – man falling asleep in metro. Or such an example: when man happens to touch a hot thing without noticing, he withdraws it quickly – here a completely rational action, but no goalsetting and without consciously striving to the goal. When does a necessity to set goal emerge? Most probably when between the necessity and satisfying it there is some obstacle (not very big, but alos not quite small) or for the satisfaction of the need complicated orientative action is needed. ^ Does the lifetime increase or diminish by aging? Life goes on as long as you are not satisfied with it.L.B. Lebedinskaya Life in certain sense may be compared with a glass of water. Different people appreciate it in different ways the fullness of the glass. Optimist says: the glass is half full, while pessimist constates: the glass is half empty. So is life. Does the life time increase or diminish along with years? Some people feel that along with aging life time increases, widens. And really, the word age (in Russian «возраст» means increase) shows that the life time increases. Some people are of the opinion that the life time decreases, as the magic skin of Chagrin (peau de Chagrin [in Balzac’s novel]). Because the farther we are of the birth, the closer is the death: the more we live, the less is left to live. Some people say: he is not old who is far from cradle, but he who is near the tomb. (from broadcast play). Some people think as A.S. Pushkin in a moment of grievance said: The days fly one after the other, and every hour takes away a piece of being.On one hand, every hour, really takes away a piece of being, if we think that every hour brings us closer to death, shortens our life like the magic skin. But from the other point of view every hour also adds a piece of life, increases life time, if we calculate beginning from the birth. Every hour of life enjoyed with pleasure, not only physically increases the life time, but also defeats death, is a step towards immortality. In the light of what has been said becomes understandable the saying of Biant, one of the seven wise of Greece: “^ Life must be measured so that both little and much of it remained” (Diogenes Laertius, p. 81). As a matter of fact, on one hand, we must hurry on to live, do things, remembering that there is a limit for life (and all things included). On the other, one must set and reach big, long lasting goals, and also do everything comprehensively, with feeling, rationally, orderly, as it is said, hurry without rushing.^ Ancient – are they young or old?Are we younger or older than the ancient ones? Are the ancient ones older or younger than we? Old world – was it younger or older as compared to ours? This question enlightens the problem: does there happen progress in life or degradation? If we look ancient as young and mature, and us as old and growing decrepit, it is clear that we are degrading and moving towards the end. If ancient are considered as young and us as grown-ups, matured, it means that we are stronger than the ancient. This question has such side of rationality: are ancient wiser than we or we wiser than ancient, know more than they? Believers, who consider Bible as a holy writing, willing, not willing occupy the position that ancient are wiser than se, know more than we etc.^ 2. on the problem of death and immortality Human life is expressed in its relation to ending and unending.I.A. BuninIn the living nature and in the human society the link between the ending and unending acquires the character of mutual enabling. This is seen plainly in the example of mutual relationships of mortality and immortality. Originally living creatures appeared rather coincidentally, in a transitional form of ending and unending than in their mutually enabling form. In the division of the simplest one cell organisms we see some inseparability, immediate transition from ending into the endless (ending not being yet differentiated clearly enough from the unending, and unending not from the ending, individual and family not being yet separated from each other sufficiently. Division of monocellular organism is simply its multiplication, copying, repeating). But already in the division certain features of proliferation appear, great conquer of life. We shall look for comparison chrystal pieces and monocellular organism. The former conserves itself only thanks to the strength of the chemical links between the ’parts’ of its body and the ’parts’ (atoms) themselves. Disturbing action of environment at once or gradually demolishes the chrystallic body, finishes, brings to the end its existence. The finality of chrystallic body, thus is not under the control of itself, outside it. If there is no disturbing action of environment, then such a body may exist infinitely long time, almost eternally. On the other side, it is completely defenceless in front of outside environment and its existence may stop at any moment. In the chrystallic body itself there is no program for its termination, self-destruction, transition to other body. Chemical link, thanks to which it exists, is ’directed’ only to conserving, to ’chemical immortality’. Ending and unending happen for being of the chrystallic body, although the parts are depending on each other, they are sufficiently indifferent as to each other as counterparts. Quite different things we see in living organisms. The program of termination is established in themselves. If the chemical link within the chrystallic body is only ’directed’ to not only conserving, but also to biochemical processes, which take place in the living organism and even in the death, that is destruction, disintegration in the case of multicellular organisms. The termination timepoint of life of living organism is programmed in itself: ending thus is present in the endless as its equipment. This is one side of mutual corresondence between ending and unending as applied to living existence. Another side consists of the fact that even if the living organism terminates itself, it however conserves all, immortalizes itself, makes itself immortal – thanks to its reproducing itself in form of alike. According to the expression of an American citologist D. Maezia ’thanks to multiplication of cells life succeeds in going around the finger of time and at the same time being a double winner: in stead of one cell it becomes two’1. A good expression: ’get around the finger of time’! With its multiplication the organism in a way anticipates the destroying action of time, effectuates a breakthrough to immortality. Chrystallic body is a toy in the ’hands’ of natural elements, its lifetime completely depends of the whims of the environment. Living organism, containing in itself ending, changeability, has obtained the possibility to accomodate itself to changing conditions of environment and in this way secure itself against them. It laid its own limits of existence, but so that its end coincides with the beginning of an organism alike it, being its daughter. The latter continues the ’business’ of adapting to the changing conditions of environment and thus until eternity. Living organism, this way, enjoys plasticity, which is completely inexistent with chrystallic body. Chrystallic body does not know how to reproduce itself and therefore it is inappropriate to speak of the immortality of the kind with it. Its ’life’ is completely limited by the ’individual’ existence. Life of the organism is indivisible of the life of the kind. Its caducity is in a way neutralized, taken away in the immortality of the kind. On the other hand the latter is possible only at the presence of separate organisms. Further, if the differences inside the living, it is possible to see that for monocellular organisms which multiply by biotic division, the conflict of finality and continuity of existence is not as clearly expressed as in case of multicellular organisms, which multiply by sexual way. (Above I already have spoken of the fact that originally living appeared in transitional form of ending and unending, which their mutual enabling which supposes a distinct expression of the one and the other as conflicting properties). One must never speak of the finality of existence of monocellular organisms as their mortality. In a corresponding way must not be spoken of their immortality in the wtrict sense of the word. Because immortality is the counterpart of mortality. One without the other does not exist. If there is no mortality, so there is no immortality either. We are not speaking of the destruction of chrystallic body as its death and not of an indetermined length of existence of the body as its immortality. Of course also monocellular organisms are demolished, if the environmental conditions are for them extremely inappropriate. But their demolition is not death in the exact meaning of the word. In themselves they have no ’mechanism’, no program for dying, for death, as it may be seen in the case of multicellular organisms. The latter are in any conditions of environment programmed for death. Monocellular organisms are programmed only for division, multiplication, and if they are demolished, it only happens at the inappropriate changes of environmental conditions. K. Lamont writes: ’Death is not necessary or general phenomenon; it appeared after the phase that the living creatures reached some progress in the process of evolution. There have existed and still exist various monocellular organisms, amaebas, mushrooms, searoses, who do not show any signs of aging or death; they are destroyed only as a consequence of outer occurrences, attacs by enemies or particularly inappropriate outer environment. These utterly small organisms multiply by division of body: one individual becomes two and after this process there is nothing that would correspond a dead body. Such a division may continue eternally’1. About this is writing V.M. Dilman: ’Theoretically some of the simplest monocellular organisms are immortal, because after ezch division of such organism emege two completely similar daughter siblings, that posess all properties of the original organism. In appropriate conditions the division may continue without limit… If this property is observed only at a certain simple or even at one branch, so also then this would be the basis of conviction that theoretically life exists without inner reason of death at the presence of certain favourable outer environment conditions’1. V.M. Dilman reminds about experimentally verified division with the extension of 8400 generations as testimony of unlimited process of subsequent divisions. But the life itself shows us at each step. At the present time on the Earth exist and florish numerous monocellular organisms, which started division, multiplying themselves billions of years ago. They practically do not know of death! They are divided prctically unlimited number of times, until the appropriate environmental conditions exist. In the light of what has been said I would like to pay specia attention to the necessity of strict definitons of the concepts of ’demolition’ and ’death’. Not everything that is demolished deserves the denomination of death, and vice versa, not everything that dies is demolished. Strictly speaking, death means termination of the living activities of multicellular organism as a result of united action of inner and outer factors of life (natural development of organism and inappropriate conditions of environment). Monocellular organisms dividing mitotially, do not die, because their natural development leads to division but not to death. If their living action is terminated, it is not a result of natural deveolopment, but a consequence of infavorable outer conditions. Therefore it is appropriate to denominate the termination of their living action as demolition. Demolition is the termination of something living (or connected to it) as a consequence of outer unfavorable action. Not only separate living organisms but also everything associated with them (suborganismic formations, populations, human civilzations, nations, states), also cultural phenomenons and so on, are demolished. This way the phenomenon of mortality appears only on the state of multicellular organisms, which are multiplied by sexual way. These organisms not only are demolished, but die. Their death is determined by outer accidental causes, so also by inner conditions of existence that give reason to look them as necessary moment of ending the life of multicellular organisms. ’Does it really deserve to show, writes V.M. Dilman, that the elimination of outer reasons of diseases does not save the higher organisms from death. For each kind of organisms there is a characteristically determined limit of the length of life. Rat does not live more than four years, elephant not more than 80, and nobody has ever observed that rat had lived longer than what is norm for elephant. The eliminationof the outer disfavourable conditions can only lead to the case that the length of life of an individual coincides with the specific limit of the kind. Thus, as the average human length of life is now 70 years, so the specific limit … is considered to be equal of 120 years. Up till now only some representatives of the majority of organisms reach the specific limits of life.’1. The programmed nature of death with the higher organisms intermittently shows this fact. Specific organisms with the power of some inherited anomalies go through the life cycle in an accelerated manner and die much earlier than those born at the same point of time. The Hungarina king Lájos II at the age of 14 years had such a mighty beard, and at 18 years it became gray. In 30 years of age Lájos died with all signs of deep old age. Medical annales know cases, where newly born have appeared as old persons. Individual development of multicellular organism leads him as a rule to death. Death as a programmed end is a result of evolution of life and it is not excluded that man changing in a corresponding way his genetic program, might abolish death. It undeniably brings in itself an embryo of change, reformulation, not only of death, but even more of demolition.2. The appearance of death as a phenomenon of terminating the life brought greater differentiation (greater contradictions) of ending and unending. Mortality of separate biologic individuals and immortality of kind are in a known sense striking contradictions. On one hand, a great differentiation of ending and unending of existence has been followed by deepening of their mutual enabling, enabling ties between them. Sexual multiplication plays a role in this enabling. It, on one hand, brings in contradiction the organism and the kind (ending and unending), and on the other, appears as a binding link between them. The contradictory role of the sexual multiplication consists of the fact that, firstly, it renders unnecessay the individual ’immortality’ of the organism, and secondly, with the sexual multiplication the organism does not completely replicate itself in the following generation, does not become exactly the same, consequently does not conserve itself completely. The finality, particularity, individuality of a certain organism appears in this case more distinctly, more sharply, more naked. The role of multiplication as uniting link consists of the fact that it makes then organism generally more apt to immortality and to a much greater extent than was the case with dividing organisms. Continuation of the kind is real biological immortality of higher organisms. In it we see a continuous transition of ending to unending, and unending to ending, and in such a way that neither ending nor unending does perish, but conserve as moments of this transition. In a purely ending existence there is no continuation of the kind, not more than there is no purely unending existence. ———————— In a human society a further deepening of mutual enabling of ending and unending proceeds. The problem of mortality and immortality is recognized and solved as one of the most difficult problems of human existence. K. Lamont writes about this as follows: ’’All people are mortal’ with these words begins the most famous syllogism, and continues as follows: ’Socrates is human’ and ’consequently Socrates is mortal’. A branch of philosophy, known by the name logics presented this syllogism as an example of complete reasoning, nonetheless philosophy, as a whole, waisted very much time and a mass of energy on researching what is the real and full meaning of this syllogism… The essence of the question is the following: how seriously we must relate to the saying that Socrates and people are mortal? For there exists a contrary saying that people and Socrates are immortal or at least immortal that what we call their personality or souls. As a matter of fact Socrates himself, if we believe in Plato’s Dialogue, was one of the first philosophers to present the hypothesis of immortality of the soul. We will present the question differently: when people die, which, as everybody must consent, really happens with us, do they really die, that is do they remain dead? Or, as it is formulated by Job: ’If a man dies, will he be again living?’ There can be no doubt that this problem of death or secret of death has been one of the first and main stimuli of philosophic research. Again particularly Socrates, according to Plato’s dialogue ’Phaedon’, called philosophy the speculation of death, that, more simply expressed, means thinking whether man is mortal or immortal’1. Many philosophers connect the problem of mortality and immortality to the problem of the idea of life. And this is justified, because the given problem puts people, willing or unwilling, to think life as a whole. Life, death, immortality are one continuity. And if life is the opposite of death, and death as that of immortality, then, consequently, life and immortality are the same essence. From this conclusion we can see, that immortality is not a category of other world beyond the life, but inherent to it. On the other hand, death (as we explained earlier) is not quite outside the life, although it is contrary to it. It is justified to say so: life constitues and allows the contradiction between mortality and immortality. In this formula there is a general solution of the problem of mortality and immortality. The point of view that puts mortality and immortality as opposites of each other, considers them as insubstitutable, impossible to be united, in the final account paralyzes the will and sense of people or leaves them in the stalemate. As a matter of fact, one who denies the mortality and believes in personal immortality (immortality of soul), at the same time denies teh value of real life, as if saying, the coexistence of soul and body. But one who considers that man is only mortal, endeavors to live one day, not considering of future, not considering of improving the life in general, because for him only the concept of his concrete, given life exists. I have taken extreme cases, but they barely show, to what may lead the contrapositioning of mortality and immortality, absolution of one of sides of this contradiction of life.^ 3. life versus death Free man thinks nothing as little as of death, his bravery consists of thinking not of death, but of life.B. Spinoza Ethicsdeath as absolute If we accept the position that man is only mortal, then this leads to different kind of absurd conclusions and dangerous decisions. It leads direct to double kind of egoism and selfisolation. But this is not yet the utmost consequence of thinking mortality.^ The logics of manslaughter (mental absolutization of death) If one thinks continuously of death (the brain is ticking in the thought of this), then one can at the beginning come to the idea of futility of life, and then to the idea of suicide and as a matter of fact one can kill himself. (So, by the way, also happens in some cases, when a man consciously takes the position of dying, accepts the idea of the unavoidability of death, does nothing to sustain his living. Man can even convince himself that he is dying and this conviction becomes with time so strong that the death really arrives. Cases have been descrived when in the USA a criminal sentenced to death died. At the time whe the criminal sat to the stool, the electric current was not connected because of a failure in the net, but the death came however!1) One may say that the thought of death is only a thought. Yes, of course, the idea of death and death are not the same thing. Notwithstanding it may, if the man concentrates on it, may turn out fatal for him. C.P. Korolenko and G.V. Frolova are writing: ”German psychiatrist, professor Wolf, for instance, has introduced the idea of ’psychogenic suicide’, when we speak of completely inexplainable death of physically healthy, but mentally depressed person, tired to fight with complicated psychologic situations… With a grown-up person, too concentrated to own misery and misfortune, can possess a chronically hard mood and chronical depression that some researchers describe as chronical suicide: thinking constantly of death, wishing it to come as a liberation of difficulties, man loses his appetite, taste of life, ceases to follow his condition of health. A condition emerges a woodoo like death, man suffers hunger, gets bored, suffers insomnia, is vomiting without reason, continuously all functions of body are oppressed, body organs one after the other get in malfunction… Man is striving towards death - and dies.’2. As a matter of fact the thought of mortality, of death does not lead to anything else but to real death Introduction to the rank of philosophic concepts the idea of mortality, frailty, finality of the human existence leads to the conception of irrationalism of life, to the vanity of all human effort. Characteristic in this respect is the biblical prophesy called Eclesiast: ’For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Екклесиаст 3, 19-20). This quote of Ecclesiast some preachers of christian religion accepted and interpreted it in the sense that the rapidly flowing human life on the Earth has no value in it and he must therefore aim to an eternal life beyond the grave. Rather illustrative is the teaching of orthodox actor V. Guryev, who has included in his book ’Teachings for the guidance of life of the blessed hermit Serafim’ (M. 1904). He writes: ’Contemplation of death is redeeming and useful’. Particularly important, according to him, are the four ’usefulnesses’: 1) ’Contemplation of death takes the human off the sins’. 2) ’This way man worships god’. 3) It teaches the man to look his earthen life as a life of temporary and rapidly vanishing, teaches to look at its blessing, as perishable and vain, body as a dungeon of soul. 4) ’He who all time prepares to death, learns the means to die successfully’... Further this theologian teaches: ’You will learn to live on the Earth, councels father to son. You will learn to die well, must counceled a Christian’. These teachings could be qualified as a primer to unequalled alienation of life, but above all in them there is more self deception and hypocricy, than honest hostility towards the life on earth.The orthodox theologian is not original. More than two thousand years before him Socrates according to Plato expressed similar thoughts. ’But to you, my judges, he said, I want now explain, why, according to my opinion, man who really dedicated life to philosophy, in front of death full of courage and hope to find beyond the tomb the greatest blessings. (…) Those who have authetically devoted themselves to philosphy, have occupied themselves with only one thing, dying and death. People, as a rule, do not pay notice on this, but if it were this way, it would be absurd to devote the whole life only to this, and then when it happens, not be able to it after so long waiting and training!’ (Faidon, 63e-64a). Elsewhere he explains: ’…honest philosophers abandon all wishes of body, restrain themselves and under no condition accept it, not fearing devastation and poverty differing from the majority which love themselves’ (82c). ’He who takes care of ones soul and does not groom the body, grows with all these desires’ (82d). ’To those who strive to knowledge, is well known this: when philosophy takes care of their soul, the soul is tightly connected to body and is sticking to it, being obliged to look at and penetrate vitally to oneself, and through the body, literally through the prison bars and get stained with the deepest barbarism…’ (82е)1And all people often, concentrating their thoughts to the unavoidableness of death, come to the unpromising conclusion about the vanity of their efforts, various pessimistic solutions. Even such a strong person and profound thinker as Lev Tolstoy, have experienced minutes of pessimism and weakmindedness attracted by these ideas. Here is what I.I. Mechnikow writes: ’When Tolstoy pursued by the fear of death asked himself, whether family love calms his soul, he at once saw, that this is a vain hope. Why, he asked himself, grow children, who soon find oneselves in the same position as their father?’ Further Mechnikow quotes Tolstoy: ’Why to live?’ Why should I love them, grow them and guard them? Why despair, which is in me or dullness? Loving them I cannot hide from them the truth, every step leads them to the knowledge of this truth. But the truth is death’. Mechnikow comments: ’It is understandable that some people having come to such pessimistic view, refrain from producing posterity’2. You see, how Tolstoy turned the question: ’death is truth’. A truly killing phrase! But this is exactly the issue, that death is not the whole truth, and consequently a half-lie. Bitter reasoning of Tolstoy and Mechnikow’s comments reveal still one important side of the question: pure thoughts of death, mortality of man are not incompatible with family love, producing of children, the first do not correspond reality. And still: production of posterity, continuation of the kind is, as I already said, a breakthrogh in immortality, this is real, factual unification of finality and enlessness of existence. Naturally, the idea of pure mortality (’only mortality’) of man resists that unification and in separate cases, as I.I. Mechnikow points out, actually interferes it. Therefore it is necessary to expell this idea away as harmful and dangerous for man. I.I. Mechnikow brings also the opinion of some actors about the vanity of scientific research and discoveries, because they do not find ’other final solution as offers of burial destruction’. He writes:’When in a dispute about its (of science – L.B.) bankruptcy Sh. Roshe presents well-doing medication for diphteria for specific whey for showing the power of scientific discoveries, Brunettier answers to him: ’Seroterapy does not prevent us dying, and furthermore, does not teach us why we die’. Always we will return to the question of death. Does it pay to medicate against diphteritis a child, doomed to become adult, in order to learn of unavoidaleness of death, which must fill him with fear?’ Further Mechnikow comments:’If science is powerless to solve the most important tasks, which torment humanity, if it refuses from it because of the lack of knowledge, if it does not findother final solution than proposing burial destruction, then it is easy to understand, that many even the most distinct brains turn away from it. Desire to find some consolation to the sufferings of our existence without defined Purposes redirects them to the embracing of religion and metaphysics. That is why for the modern humanity, undoubtedly, it is characteristic a strive back to religion. People sink to mysticism, thinking that i