Attitude to life is a philosophical choice. The meaning of human life is philosophy. Reflections on the Guilty

Philosophy of life is one of the main directions of non-classical philosophy. It lays the foundation for that direction of non-classical philosophy, which concentrates its attention on the problem of human existence, the problem of personality. Of course, man has always, at least since the time of Socrates, been the focus of philosophy. But classical philosophy never placed man at the center of the world. Even for Socrates it is only a particle of the cosmos, a microcosm.

The philosophy of life emerges in the second half of the 19th century. At its origins are Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) and Oswald Spengler (1880-1936). But when we talk about the philosophy of life, we mean first of all F. Nietzsche. It is with the name of Nietzsche that both its enthusiastic perception, on the one hand, and indignant criticism, on the other, are associated. The name of Nietzsche and his ideas are also associated with the taboo that was imposed on the philosophy of life in Soviet times. Nietzsche's ideas were declared the philosophical basis of German National Socialism and fascism and therefore, at best, it was not customary to talk about them.

Criticism of previous philosophy and understanding of the subject of philosophy

Already in his early works, Nietzsche expresses a distrust of existing philosophy, which grows more and more over the years. This does not mean that the philosophy of life has no connection with previous philosophy. Nietzsche's work testifies to his deep knowledge of the history of philosophy. He was particularly influenced by ancient philosophy and the philosophy of Schopenhauer. As for ancient philosophy, it is there, and rightly so, that Nietzsche sees the origins of all European philosophy and turns to it everywhere. Regarding Schopenhauer, Nietzsche himself states that when he read his book “The World as Will and Idea,” he considered it entirely written for him. In Schopenhauer, Nietzsche is attracted to the “will to live,” which Schopenhauer puts in the place of the objective world. But Nietzsche’s attitude towards all previous philosophy is negative. The mature Nietzsche breaks even with Schopenhauer.

What doesn’t suit Nietzsche in existing philosophy?

First, Nietzsche declares, philosophy has made its main task the search for truth. Aristotle also distinguished philosophy from other sciences and placed it above other sciences because philosophy is interested only in truth for the sake of truth, Truth with a capital T, while other sciences proceed from the principle of benefit.

Secondly, reason is declared to be the source of truth, the means of achieving it. Feelings are a source of deception; they distort the true world, the essence. Only reason gives us an understanding of the true world.

Thirdly, which follows from the second, the world itself appears before us in this regard in two forms: in the form of this world, given to us in the senses and being a “moral-optical deception”, an apparent world, and in the form of a true world, the world of true existence, the idea of ​​which gives us reason in philosophy and science.

Fourthly, ancient philosophy, stating the presence in man of mind and body, Apollonian and Dionysian principles named after the two Olympian gods Apollo and Dionysus, personifying, respectively, the rational and bodily, sensual, instinctive principles in man, gives preference to the Apollonian principle and denies the bodily principle . The wisdom of the philosopher lies precisely in the fact that, in contrast to the crowd, he is freed from the deception of feelings regarding the true world and human desires. “To be a philosopher, to be a mummy, to portray monotonotheism with the mimicry of gravediggers! - And above all, away from the body, this regrettable idea of ​​feelings! obsessed with all the errors of logic that exist, refuted, even impossible, although it is brazen enough to pretend to be something real!..”

First of all, Nietzsche opposes the fact that the category of being should be placed at the center of philosophy, as a result of which the world bifurcates into true and untrue. “The grounds on which “this” world received the name apparent rather prove its reality - another type of reality is absolutely unprovable. ...Rave about a “other” world than this one makes no sense...” True existence is an empty fiction. The world in general is not something that has become, but a continuous becoming, and this process can never be stopped. In place of the category of being, Nietzsche puts the category of life. But what is life?

A few words should be said here about Nietzsche's language. Nietzsche is a great stylist, recognized in his youth by the philological community, who at the age of 24 received the position of professor of philology at the University of Basel without defending his doctoral dissertation. He himself, without undue modesty, considers himself the first among the Germans in style, in brevity and clarity of language, and puts himself on a par with Heine. Nietzsche speaks in aphorisms, metaphors, Aesopian language. His narrative is alien to a calm sequence of thought, the formulation of a problem and the construction of a network of arguments and evidence. His thought is bright, fragmentary, figurative, just figurative, more artistic than scientific. Therefore, we will not find definitions in him; his presentation is fragmentary, jumps from one subject to another, requires interpretation, and is difficult to perceive. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Nietzsche’s main work, “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” is called the Nietzschean Bible. And Nietzsche himself shared this assessment. Many researchers of Nietzsche’s work quite rightly associate this style of Nietzsche’s presentation with his headaches, which, according to Nietzsche himself, tormented him throughout his creative life. But this style of Nietzsche is also associated with his irrationalist attitude, which will be discussed below. Therefore, in Nietzsche it is difficult to find strict definitions, as a rule, inherent in both philosophy and science, and a consistent presentation of the problem. This is the case with the concept of “life” and with other concepts.

Life is natural as opposed to mechanical, artificial, an intuitively comprehended holistic reality that is not identical with either spirit or matter. “Life, as the form of existence most familiar to us, represents a specific will to the accumulation of power...”, life is the will to power. Nietzsche views life very broadly, meaning by life not only the organic world, but the world as a whole. He even proposes to replace the concept of “force” in physics with the concept of “will to power.” This interpretation of life follows from the understanding of the world as an eternal becoming, and not something that has become, completed, or defined. But at the same time, such an interpretation of being makes it possible for Nietzsche to focus his attention on the problem of man, since it is in man that life manifests itself most fully, and it is here that it becomes obvious that “... the deepest essence of being is the will to power.” .

Nietzsche does not agree with the very approach of classical philosophy to the problem of man. Starting with Socrates, the Apollonian approach to man prevailed in Greece. Man is a reasonable person. The Dionysian principle, instinct, the natural are now declared inferior, passions must be suppressed. This approach to man becomes dominant and later, thanks to Christianity, is further strengthened. Nobility, strength, health, exclusivity, nobility are declared forbidden, inferior to reason. But reason is calm and serenity, prudence and skepticism, Socratic dialectics, finally defeating exclusivity and courage with ingenious dialectical conclusions. Nietzsche opposes this approach, proclaims the priority of the Dionysian principle over the Apollonian, the priority of instinct, feeling over reason, the priority of Heraclitean fluid being, becoming over Parmenidean and Socratic absolute being, absolute virtue, goodness and justice.

It is on this basis that we should approach the problem of truth. According to Nietzsche, a true judgment is in no way preferable to a false one. A false judgment has the right to exist if it “promotes life, supports life.” Therefore, according to Nietzsche, making philosophy a theory of knowledge, a means of achieving true knowledge, is extremely incorrect. Scientific knowledge is not objective knowledge. Science, even physics, is only a means of interpreting and ordering the world, but not explaining it. The world itself is chaos. The laws of the world, cause-and-effect relationships are only fictions convenient for a person, which he invents for himself and which allow him to strengthen his confidence and establish himself in life. Therefore, reason is not omnipotent, as previous philosophy, especially the philosophy of enlightenment, believed, and it is not able to give us objective truth. And thinking itself is only a manifestation of instinct. “After long observations of philosophers and reading between the lines of their works,” writes Nietzsche, “I tell myself that most conscious thinking must still be attributed to the activity of instinct, and even in the case of philosophical thinking...”.

From Nietzsche’s point of view, reason is far from the main feature of a person and the cognitive function has a subordinate importance in human life. Knowledge is necessary for self-preservation, to strengthen the will to power. “Utility from the point of view of conservation, and not some abstract theoretical need not to be deceived, serves as a motive for the development of the organs of cognition... they develop in such a way that the results of their observations are sufficient for our preservation. In other words: the extent of the desire to know depends on the extent of the growth of the will to power in the said breed...” Based on this approach to knowledge, Nietzsche interprets truth. He rejects the classical understanding of truth as the correspondence of knowledge to reality. From his point of view, truth is a fiction convenient for humans. Science is an arbitrary creation of man, allowing him to navigate his surroundings. “Truth is that kind of error,” he writes, “without which a certain kind of living beings could not live. Value for life is the final basis." . Nietzsche's understanding of truth is close to its pragmatic understanding as useful knowledge. But there is one essential point in this understanding. Based on his concept of the superman, Nietzsche believes that the truth is not different for everyone (that is, he avoids consistent subjectivism), but it is the same for the superman and the man of the crowd. That is, there are two kinds of truth, as well as two types of value systems - truth for the majority, for the common people, and truth for the elite, for the superman. Nietzsche generally believes that reason, with its desire for analysis, certainty, and definitions, is not able to comprehend the dynamics of life. This can be done more by intuition than by reason. Moreover, Nietzsche’s intuition is different from Descartes’ intellectual intuition.

Intuition in Nietzsche’s understanding is more sensual than rational, since, as already emphasized, life is not the mind, but the body, nature, nature, and the mind is only a function of the body. Therefore, life in its dialectics, fluidity, impermanence is better accessible to the senses than to the mind. But in general Nietzsche does not pay much attention to this problem. This problem interests him only from the point of view of criticism of the classical understanding of science and the role of reason in cognition and in human life in general. Researchers Nietzsche - Dilthey and Spengler - paid closer attention to this problem.

Philosophy, in fact, was not so much a search for truth as a presentation of the philosopher’s experience, something like memoires, written by him against his will and unnoticed by himself. And the result of philosophical thinking each time was the system of values ​​proclaimed by the philosopher. Nietzsche states the fact that, starting with Socrates, any philosophical system ended with the interpretation of ethical problems, the proclamation of a certain moral system. The solution to the problem of being and the problem of truth was important insofar as it opened the way for a certain interpretation of good and evil, justice and injustice, and all other categories of morality. However, before Nietzsche, I. Kant had already proclaimed this, declaring that he undertook the criticism of pure reason in order to determine the possibilities and boundaries of practical reason. Based on this understanding of the function of philosophy, Nietzsche sets himself the task of criticizing the entire existing system of values ​​and creating a new system of values.

Philosophy of relationships applied to life

People sometimes ask how philosophy relates to their daily lives. Perhaps much more than they think.

Even if we have never studied philosophy or even heard of it, we still hold many philosophical beliefs. Take, for example, the belief that physical objects continue to exist even when no one perceives them. We all share this belief. However, this is precisely the philosophical belief that was once criticized by the eighteenth century philosopher George Berkeley.

It is not difficult to find other examples. The belief in an afterlife is philosophical, just like the belief that death means the end of everything. Most of us are convinced that morality is not a matter of subjective preference. We are convinced that killing a baby in the womb is evil, and not just evil-for-us, but good-for-those-who-think-differently. Again this is a philosophical faith. And, of course, so are atheism and belief in God.

It is clear that many of these beliefs influence our daily lives. Take for example a person who believes in reincarnation. He may behave slightly differently compared to someone who does not believe in it. For example, he may be less afraid of death. And an individual who is sincerely convinced that morality is determined by subjective preferences is often prone to theft and fraud when he hopes for impunity. Our philosophical attitudes play a fundamental role in the way we live.

Philosophy can also help us solve countless practical issues, such as questions about what we should and should not do. The chapters of the book provide specific examples. Is it possible to sacrifice the life of one of the twins to save the other? Is homosexuality morally acceptable? Is it possible to send children to religious schools? Is it moral to eat meat? You will see how a little philosophical reflection can help bring clarity to all these issues.

Even when philosophy does not seem to have direct relevance to everyday life, it retains its value.

For most of us, life is limited to a very narrow sphere of interests. We worry about how to pay the interest on the mortgage, whether to buy a new car, what to cook for dinner.

When we begin to think philosophically, we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We begin to question what we previously considered certain.
I think anyone who has never taken this step back and never tried to analyze his life is not only a superficial, but even a potentially dangerous person.

The great lesson that the twentieth century has taught us is that, no matter how "civilized" they are, people remain morally undeveloped. Without questioning or thinking, we tend to follow the moral principles imposed on us by our environment. From Nazi Germany to Rwanda, you will find many people blindly going with the flow.

The value of at least a modest philosophical training is that it stimulates the development of independent thinking skills and develops the ability to doubt what others seem to be absolutely true. It can help you strengthen your moral fiber.

As philosophy professor Jonathan Glover told the Guardian:
“If you look at the people who saved Jews from the Nazis, you can find a lot in common. They sought to receive a different upbringing from that which most people received, their behavior was not authoritarian, they were sympathetic to the people around them and tried to think before they act.”

Glover adds that “the ability to think critically and rationally can help people avoid being influenced by false ideologies.” Apparently, the desire to think critically does not guarantee that we will not fall into some kind of trap. However, along with Glover, I am convinced that the danger comes not from a society of independent and critically thinking people, but from a society of unreflective moral dullards.

You will also find that the skills acquired through accurate thinking about big issues prove useful in all other areas. Whether you're deciding whether or not to buy a used car or bathroom tiles, or considering who to vote for, being able to reason clearly and identify logical fallacies is helpful. In any case, it will protect you from the tricks and tricks of car salesmen, ministers of religious cults, medical charlatans and other scammers.

The reflective position and thinking skills developed by philosophy are not only important for our everyday affairs, but make our lives smarter and better.
Stephen Lowe, Philosophical Training. - M., 2007

On the topic in the series: “

A philosophical choice in a broad sense is a choice of attitude towards life and oneself. In a more specific sense, philosophical choice is the construction of a model of the inner world in which to live. To do this, you need to comprehend the elements of the inner world, what they should be, and what the relationships between these elements should be. This is not so much planning actions in the outside world as plans to restore order within oneself. To do this - no more, no less - you need to rethink your entire life in terms of perception of life events and attitude towards fellow citizens and towards yourself.

The philosophical choice of attitude towards life begins with the desire to change oneself for the better, then with understanding the essence of the change and choosing an attitude regarding what exactly should be changed. Thus, setting a specific change in one’s relationship to life and to oneself is a key moment of philosophical choice, preceding the order of further actions to improve oneself.

Examples of attitudes in philosophical choice can be different and depend on a person’s predispositions. As an illustration, I found in various sources examples of attitudes towards life and/or towards oneself.

“The wise man does not deny the realities of life, does not neglect human values, but philosophically questions the significance of small troubles and adversities.”

“A philosophical attitude towards life is the attitude of turning even severe stress into a task.”

“Success is a path from well-perceived failures.”

“You can approach life in different ways. The easiest way is to live as you live, and not think about the philosophical perception of problems. This is also a philosophical choice. But the simpler a person lives, the less prepared he is to face vital problems.”

“In essence, the philosophical attitude towards life is exhausted by the following position: “Since I have found myself in this world, I must figure it out and live in it.” Eliminate vanity, envy, greed and other negative emotions that distort the picture of reality that the philosopher sees. Then there is deliverance from these vices and is one of the goals of the philosophical choice of attitude towards life."

So, we live in two worlds: real and imaginary (models of the first). All our thoughts and experiences are life in the second world. The philosophical choice lies in the correct organization of this world. The imaginary world is not only a world of illusions, etc. It also has an important function - adaptation to the outside world. When a person does not directly encounter the external world, he comes into balance with his internal (imaginary) world.

The primary thing in philosophical choice is our choice of how we decide to relate to life and ourselves: in a more positive or more negative way. And the secondary thing is how we justify our choices to ourselves in different life circumstances, and the recipes that help us implement this choice.

The first step of philosophical choice is the decision itself to rethink your life in terms of the mentioned relationships to life and to yourself. Further steps relate to specific elements of building one’s inner world: what is in it, and what should be improved in it from the point of view of goals and global spiritual needs of a person - such as the desire for self-improvement, the desire for knowledge, etc.

Remembering my path in terms of philosophical choice, I would like to note the difference between “accept” and “apply” (use). “Accept” means making some means part of your “philosophy,” and without this it was rarely possible to fully “apply” something. This was a typical type of self-deception: it seemed like I wanted to “apply” something, but I didn’t want to “accept”, and as a result, in fact, I didn’t want to “apply” either. In other words, I might have been able to “apply” it, but I didn’t want to pay for it with my desires, changes in lifestyle, etc.

To this I will add that changing your views in the philosophical choice of relationships to life and to yourself does not at all mean the same thing as changing yourself. In the end, relationship patterns are a trifle, not the essence of a person, you just need to know why these relationships need to be changed.

In my old notes I found extracts (where they were taken from is not indicated) that were more or less close to the topic. “Of the subjective factors, the main one should be highlighted, which is a person’s feeling of the meaning of his own life. In a person’s soul there is a mainly unconscious system of values ​​that determines his attitude towards the phenomena of life and towards himself. This organization (structure) of values ​​creates in a person a feeling order in the soul. The need to establish this order is instinctive and constitutes the “law of meaning” - the fundamental principle to which all human life is subject.”

In other words, in a philosophical choice one must sacrifice some of one’s own needs in favor of other, global, needs that determine the basic meaning of life and which can no longer be sacrificed.

For me, for example, the novelty of knowledge is no longer a philosophical choice, but a necessary attribute of my existence, without which life loses its meaning. And within the framework of this understanding, what is important is not even what the novelty consists of, but that this NOVELTY SHOULD BE. And I do not have such a choice to have novelty or not to have it, if my main internal vector is directed along the component of the one who chose to live. That is, not according to the fear component, but according to the “having an interest in life” component. From the same point of view, it’s not even important what task I have now, but whether I can find something new in it.

With any philosophical choice of attitude towards life, the novelty must remain with me. This is not a need that I can replace with some other: “Where knowledge perishes,” everyone knows, “There the child of man perishes in darkness!” This is said in the Bhagavad Gita, which reflects the Indian wisdom of centuries.

A philosophical choice, as the need to change one’s attitude towards life, most often arises under the pressure of life circumstances that have changed for the worse. Here, in order to adapt to the changed current life, one must admit that it is the NORM, and not nonsense, collapse, etc. You have to force yourself to go through this.

And one more important point in the philosophical choice of attitude towards the phenomena of life: YOU MUST BE MORALLY PREPARED FOR DEFEAT. Otherwise, another failure or, to put it mildly, an unexpected obstacle on the path of self-improvement can turn into a disaster. The calculation, or rather the attitude, that circumstances must certainly turn out well (no one, for example, will randomly interfere with me), is my fundamental vice, which constantly unsettled me when trying to change my attitude towards life and myself.

When setting yourself up for a philosophical choice, you need to remind yourself again and again that the level of claims (to yourself, to everyone and in relation to everything you encounter or expect) is the root cause of most problems that generate negativity. The error of philosophical choice, perhaps, begins with the general idea that the world owes you something, owes you something, and you have the right to demand something from it. In fact, perhaps one should only understand that there is only a probability of certain events, resulting from the property of the world to do both evil and good. One should also accustom oneself to such, so to speak, informative attitude towards life and one’s place in the world, if psychological stability in life’s circumstances is the task of the philosophical choice being made.

As we age, we tend to view our negativity, e.g. negative perception of life as some kind of super value that cannot be changed. However, following the philosophical choice, we must take a different point of view: negativity is not a value, but only one of the states of a person in which he can remain, but is not obliged to remain.

A philosophical choice, for all its globality in relation to life, consists of some specific moments and steps: specific relationships regarding specific phenomena, etc. Each of us, apparently, would like to learn, when necessary, to do with pleasure what is unpleasant to you. You can do this (change the “philosophy of choice”), for example, by forcing yourself to do with pleasure what is unpleasant for you. Do it, sacrificing your displeasure, do it repeatedly, and the means for this is positive control of moments. Here you just need to remember that in reality our life consists of moments. At every moment we can pay attention to the current moment and at every moment we are able, for a brief moment, if we wish, to make this moment pleasant. Well, the general philosophical choice here is the readiness to establish such positive control in your life as a permanent tool.

I am very glad that in the lecture of the modern philosopher Alexei Tsurkan, I found for myself the answer to the question “How to live correctly the wise advice of ancient Greek philosophers on the philosophical attitude to life”? And now I will give you a set of these recommendations. They will help us develop a philosophical worldview, a correct attitude to life, help us live life relatively confidently, learn the secrets of a philosophical worldview and attitude to life, and, if possible, avoid making mistakes often made by people with an ordinary worldview.

For some reason people are more tend to look for the right solutions through trial and error. But a smart person will not put his palm against a hot stove to see if he really gets burned; he will use the knowledge of previous generations that hot objects should not be touched.

This is a banal but illustrative example, because the same knowledge as knowledge about a hot stove, there are (accumulated by previous generations) for absolutely all aspects of life. You just need to find the advice of wise men about life and use them.

We now live in a fast-paced and hectic world, we do not have time to contemplate and form new thoughts. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

One of the philosophers said: If a new thought comes into your head, know that it is not new and came before you to the darkness of those people who lived before you

From the 1st part of the lecture we learned what it is . Ordinary and philosophical consciousness are 2 different approaches to adaptation to the external environment called LIFE and to reduce pain from staying in it. Most people prefer to solve this problem in simple ways with the help of ORDINARY CONSCIOUSNESS. These methods were discussed in the 1st part of the article. In this article, we will learn about ways to solve the same problem with the help of PHILOSOPHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

PHILOSOPHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS is an effective alternative to ordinary consciousness.

In order to understand in what is the philosophical approach to life, it is necessary to return to the past, to the origins of philosophy.

Ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, who invented the term "philosophy""was a mystic and ascetic. He began teaching his students mathematics only after they had not eaten anything for 40 days.

Pythagoras divided all creatures living in space into 3 classes:

• Higher creatures (immortal Gods), who possess all the fullness of knowledge about the world;
• Lower creatures (Fools) who lack the need to seek the truth;
• Philosophers are an intermediate and evolutionary type of person who understands the limitations of human nature, because man is mortal. But he strives to get closer to the world of the Gods through the love of wisdom and the search for truth. Strives to modify and transform its nature.

Pythagoras and Plato believed that Man could become God. Man has every opportunity for this, since he contains an immortal soul.

Plato believed that before entering the human body, every immortal soul resided in the Valley of Truth, in the world of the Gods, where it directly contemplated the truth. But then she lost her initial knowledge and now the philosopher's task is precisely to remember them.

Plato's main thesis is anamnesis (Greek, recollection). He believed that true knowledge is the recollection of the knowledge that the human soul possessed in the divine world. Therefore, a philosopher is a person who is in constant transformation or transformation.

The theme of Christian transformation echoes Plato's theory. Therefore he is called a Christian before Christianity.

The Greeks believed that a person could achieve apotheosis (deification) in different ways:

• Through heroic over-effort, like Hercules, Alexander the Great,
• Through constant reflection, love for wisdom, like philosophers.

This is the key to understanding the philosophical attitude towards life, as an alternative to the everyday perception of life. The philosopher of Ancient Greece is a person who, through the comprehension of the highest truth, sought to establish an alternative to the ordinary type of perception of reality. If ordinary consciousness is built on stereotype and dogma, then philosophical consciousness is built on skepticism (doubt), irony and speculation.

2. Signs of a philosophical worldview. Skepticism (doubt), irony, lack of faith in dogma and authorities.

• Philosophy begins where a person has doubts. If a person does not doubt, then he is not a philosopher.
• A true philosopher does not worship anyone, and above all, he does not worship any of his own kind - none of the people, for he knows that there is no person on Earth who would possess the fullness of truth and wisdom. If a person believes in an idol, authority, dogma, then he is not a philosopher.

Since man constantly falls into error, trusting his judgment about anything and believing him was unacceptable for the philosophers of Greece. This would mean enslaving oneself to someone else's consciousness. But there is no more terrible slavery on Earth than when one person is a slave to the intellect of another.

The fact that in ancient Greek views we do not find such concepts as extremism, fanaticism, including religious, is explained by the fact that the Greek consciousness was a consciousness based healthy skepticism (doubt) and irony.

Doubt (skepticism) is very important, because it stimulates you to move on. Any thesis presupposes the presence of an antithesis. Therefore, by rejecting service to authority as an idol, Greek philosophers make their consciousness more free, and, therefore, more godlike. Because the Gods have all the completeness of freedom. But the Gods are also subordinate to a higher necessity, therefore the last secret of existence, the Greeks believed, is hidden from the Gods.

3. Practical recommendations of Greek philosophers for the right attitude towards life. How to live correctly, wise advice, philosophical worldview.

Greek philosophy reached such heights and was able to give practical recommendations for the correct attitude towards life thanks to its inherent doubt and irony.

So let's get started.

Advice #1 from the sages, ancient Greek philosophers.

If the consciousness of an ordinary person is involved in any process (the person is inside and does not see the whole picture), then the consciousness of a philosophical person is dissociated (not involved) in the process (he views the situation from the outside).

The basic principle of philosophical perception of reality is the parallelism of existence with the world. A philosopher must strive to build certain barriers separating him from the world. He must keep the world at arm's length in order to ensure a high degree of autonomy of his consciousness and independence of his judgment.

You can’t see a face face to face, you can only see a big one from a distance (Sergei Yesenin)

Here is the 1st advice of the Greek philosophers for us:Keep the world at arm's length, look at it as if from the outside!

Advice #2 from the sages, ancient Greek philosophers.

Socrates owns one of the brilliant discoveries of Greek philosophy of the 5th century BC:

A person does not fully convey in words the reality that he names.

You know that everyman constantly involved in the process of speaking and is terrified of silence, because silence is associated with nothingness and death. He produces so many words that his consciousness simply drowns. By Most of the time these words don't mean anything. (note by A. Kraev: I recognize myself). And even those words that name objects do not convey the fullness of their reality, because a word and an object are different things.

A person is involved in the process of speaking because in the process of speaking meanings are imitated and meanings are created. The process of speaking is the process of constructing sounds endowed with a certain meaning in written or spoken language. This process creates a kind of matrix for the average person to live in, in which he is both comfortable and sad at the same time. Because with a sixth sense he understands that speech does not replace life, but is only its more or less convincing analogue. All this looks like a giant Chinese sound cracker, which was invented by man in order to drown out the silence.

A good illustration of this idea is a phrase from Virginia Woolf's book Mrs. Dalloway: “Mrs. Dalloway always throws parties to drown out the silence!”

We all, more or less ordinary people, love to throw giant parties and make speeches to chatter the silence. But it was silence that the great philosophers considered the most perfect prayer on Earth, for only in silence is the mystery of the beginningless and infinite God revealed

Another bright illustration - Socratic dialogues. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates used this method to prove that words mean absolutely nothing. He went out into the streets of Athens, chose an interlocutor and asked him questions about what beauty, nobility and the like were. The interlocutor tried to define these abstract concepts, but had difficulty because in reality these concepts have no definition. When the interlocutor asked the wise Socrates what his answer was. Socrates replied: "I don't know. I only know one thing: that I don’t know anything!”

Thus, the Socratic discus, which begins with word extraction, ends with silence, and this is the great meaning and greatness of Greek philosophy in principle. Because it was Socrates who discovered the wisdom of silence.

Thus, the 2nd recommendation of the ancient Greek philosophers: It is always better to remain silent than to speak!

If something irritates you, causes a movement of the soul, most often of a negative nature, then silence and silence are best, because silence ultimately equalizes everything.

Tip #3 of the wise men, ancient Greek philosophers.

The 3rd recommendation, which should be taken into account, is called in Greek “ katastema" and essentially means “peace” . A person takes everything too close to his heart and often suffers as a result. A person is vulnerable, open to external shocks, which gives rise to psychosomatic changes in him. A person gets sick very often and dies very early due to the fact that he is very dependent on external influences.

That's why Epicurus, when his students asked him how to deal with the blows of fate, gave the answer, which would be the 3rd recommendation from the sages on our list.

3rd recommendation of the sages: Live unnoticed, avoid extremes, because lightning strikes the tallest trees, maintain calm, peace and harmony with yourself!

Whatever happens to you, try to maintain a state of inner harmony and peace with yourself. In order for this to be possible, you need to follow the following epicurean advice.

Advice #4 of the wise men, ancient Greek philosophers.

This advice in Greek is called “ataraxia” - this is avoidance of suffering, equanimity, calmness. In essence, it is a desire to reduce the pain caused by a person’s very presence in this world. Ataraxia is achieved by the fact that a person correctly distributes value systems, because the majority of physical and mental suffering causes a person not so much illness as the lack of what he wants.

And here it is very useful to recall the popular phrases of the outstanding English writer Aldous Huxley (1894-1963):

“The key to achieving happiness is very simple: you need to be happy with what you have and not desire what you cannot have!”

“Experience is not what happens to a person, but what a person does with what happens to him.”

This ultimately correlates very well with what Epicurus taught in the 4th century BC.

When a person correctly builds a value system, he can understand what he can get rid of, he begins to understand what values ​​are:

• Eat natural and natural values eg food and water.
• Eat natural values, but no longer completely natural e, they are dictated by a person’s sociality, exposure to stereotypes, and from these values ​​one can free yourself more or less.
• Eat values, both non-natural and non-natural. This is, for the most part, fame, wealth, success, respect for rank. These are words of praise from the outside, or condemnation from the outside if you do not meet the expectations of others. This could be over!

The basic principle of ataraxia is to minimize pain from external influences. And we are not talking about physical pain, but about emotional pain, which often appears due to the fact that a person is not accepted and understood, as he thinks.

Therefore, the 4th advice of ancient Greek philosophers will be very useful to modern people. It sounds like this: Don't ask God for anything.

You ask for a lot of money, a house, a wife, a husband, but you cannot know whether what you are asking will be good for you. In one of Chekhov's stories, a little boy asked God for dentures the same as his grandfather's. We also often ask for crutches, rather than something useful. Therefore, our ideas about good turn out to be something opposite when we receive it.

Therefore, philosophers say: Be afraid of your desires, for they may come true!

But man is weak and that is why he constantly asks. He asks from the people around him, from the state. And the man asks God. Ancient Greek philosophers advise not to ask for anything from the Gods, because the Gods themselves know what a person needs. This resonates with Christian views. Christ says to his disciples: Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them? In Christianity, it is not customary not to ask God for anything, but only to give thanks for what you have. And if a person asks, he says a prayer “Do your will, O Lord!”, i.e. “You yourself know what is best for me, give it to me.”

4th advice of ancient Greek philosophers (PART 2): Don't ask God for anything.Noh, if you decide to ask God for something, then ask so much that you can’t even imagine it in your imagination!

For, if you ask for little, what you have will be taken away(to teach you to love yourself, because you don’t know how to love yourself, how can you love your neighbor as yourself).

It is very important for a person who has decided to ask God for something, never doubt that you will receive what you ask for.

Advice #5 from wise men and ancient Greek philosophers.

This recommendation is the saddest for us, modern people, because we, unlike the ancient Greek philosophers, are afraid of death. A person is afraid of death because it is the unknown and, very possibly, punishment. The consciousness of the philosopher accepts death as the natural course of things, as a given, without which the world would not exist at all. Because every thesis must have an opposite antithesis, and in this world there is exactly as much creation as destruction.

And in the world, creation is possible only as destruction, and beauty is only possible as a manifestation of ugliness. A segment is only a special case of an infinite straight line, and the Law is only a special case of chance. For there is a law for a certain number of cases, but there is no Law for chance as such.

5th Council of Ancient Greek Philosophers. Understanding this dialectic leads Greek philosophers to the idea that death is a natural and good course of things. This is similar to how true Christians should approach death.

4. Summary.

In conclusion, there is a wonderful phrase from the English philosopher and writer Oscar Wilde, which reconciles the dialectically everyday attitude to life and the philosophical:

There are only two tragedies in the world: the first is not getting what you want, the second is getting it.

That is, no matter what approach to life we ​​choose, the ending for everyone will ultimately be the same. And we can only talk about issues of taste, style, behavior and nothing more. There is a fundamental ontological basis—a common denominator—that reconciles these two different attitudes toward life. And a person has no power to change these initial rules of the game, no matter how hard he tries to do so.

I think that during our lives at different periods we combine these two approaches to life in different ways - ordinary and philosophical.

Using a conventional approach we are trying to correspond to stereotypical values ​​in society, we want to HAVE more and LIVE longer. But over time we begin to reconsider your values. And today, in my opinion, the lecture of the modern philosopher Alexei Tsurkan helped us a lot in this.

Here are the invaluable tips from the philosophers of Ancient Greece on how to live correctly using a philosophical approach to life:

So, let's summarize. We reviewed in an abbreviated version Part 2 of the lecture “Ordinary and Philosophical: 2 Opposite Approaches to Life.” We learned what a philosophical worldview and a philosophical approach to life are. And we received the answer to our main question: “How to live correctly, the wise advice of ancient Greek philosophers on the philosophical attitude to life.”

I wish everyone not to give up, believe in themselves and in people!

Enjoy life, love all people and forgive them their weaknesses!

And those who love philosophy can watch the full version of the lecture by modern philosopher Alexei Tsurkan (30 minutes). PART 2 Lectures Ordinary and philosophical - 2 approaches to life:

The famous left-wing philosopher Andre Gortz and his wife were found dead in their home in the French town of Vauvon, AFP reports. According to doctors, the cause of death of the couple was suicide. But it still remains a mystery what circumstances led to such a tragic ending.

The first unwitting witness to the drama was Highlander's friend, who came to visit the philosopher on Monday morning. There was a sign on the door of the house asking to call the police. The bodies of the elderly couple, according to an eyewitness, lay next to each other on the bed. Letters addressed to friends and relatives were scattered around.

“You have turned 82. You are still beautiful, generous and desirable. We've been together for 58 years and I love you more than ever."

It is still difficult to say what prompted the spouses to take this action. Perhaps one of the decisive factors was the illness of her wife, Doreen Gortz, from which she had suffered for the past few years. As you know, older people find it difficult to bear separation from loved ones, especially if they have no one else to rely on. And Andre might not want to continue living without her.

The good relationship between the spouses can be judged by the note that Gorz made to Doreen a year ago: “You just turned 82. You are still beautiful, generous and desirable. We've been together for 58 years and I love you more than ever."

Gorz was born in Vienna into a Jewish family. His real name is Gerhard Hirsch, but he later changed his surname. After the capture of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938, he moved to Switzerland and studied at the Montana Institute school.

The young man refused to go to the USA, Palestine or the USSR, but chose to move to France in 1946. Here he published in left-wing newspapers and magazines, including under the pseudonym Michel Bosquet.

Andre became a favorite student of the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and continuously studied his philosophical system for 9 years.

In 1954, he received French citizenship, at the same time he became one of the founders of the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, in which his most famous philosophical works were published.

Fame came to Gortz in the mid-1960s after the publication of his books devoted to updating the strategies of the democratic movement. The philosopher is characterized by sharp turns in the movement of thought, a change in ideological orientation: in the 1960s he took a left-socialist position and tried to bridge the “gap” between “reform” and “revolution”; in the early 70s he came to an anarcho-libertarian denial of the values ​​of Western European civilization, and from the mid-70s - to more moderate liberal-libertarian attitudes.

At the same time, Gorz became increasingly disillusioned with the traditional working class and placed all his hopes on new social movements, especially environmental ones. “He sees it as an anti-capitalist protest against the onslaught of technocracy on society.

The global crisis of the entire industrial-capitalist civilization requires a solution to the long-term problems of humanity, but the state and capital cannot and do not want to solve them,” historian Damier Vadim wrote about him.

Gorz is considered one of the theorists of Western environmental thought. He is the author of such works as Ecology and Politics and Ecology and Freedom.

As a result of ideological wanderings, Gorz came to the conclusion that criticism of capitalist relations should be expanded to criticism of the entire “industrial” civilization. Gorz argued that the main problems of modernity are not material, but existential problems of “oppressed individuality.”

Gorets's developments are highly valued by supporters of new social movements and are popular in left-wing circles in Western Europe.

The writer's wife was born in Great Britain and was a year younger than the philosopher. They met and married in Paris in 1948. In the 1990s, Gorz retired and moved with his wife to the small town of Vauvon, southeast of Paris.

Even then, information appeared in the media about Doreen’s serious illness, all the worries about which fell on the shoulders of her husband.