|
|
|
|
|
For philosophers - about practical philosophy (sophology) |
||
|
About practical philosophy and necessity of founding an institute of practical philosophy (sophology)
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010001 |
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010002 |
![]()
![]() |
||
|
Why do we need practical philosophy? |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010101 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010102 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010103 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010104 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010105 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010106 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010107 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010108 |
A significant handicap of the modern etappe of development of philosophy in USSR is the absence of such ‘practical philosophy’, which would correspond the demand of everyday practice of man’ (F285). Already long ago no USSR, but the problem remains. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010109 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010110 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010111 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010112 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010113 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010114 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010115 |
![]()
![]() |
||
|
Goals for the work of practical philosopher (sophologist) |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010201 |
|
||
|
Methods and forms of working for practical philosopher |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010301 |
|
![]()
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010302 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010303 |
The following methods may be used:
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010304 |
These methods may be denominated methods of narration. Their goal is to give the possibility to speak out and confess or satisfy curiosity, liquidate the existing information hunger. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010305 |
Methods of narration are not so effective as methods of antithesis /alternatives /variants. Nevertheless they may be used if the discussant prefers the narrative style of discussions to reasoning /argumentation /analysis. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010306 |
Except the mentioned methods rather effective is also the method of questions and answers. Questions may be given by philosopher as well as by discussant. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010307 |
![]()
![]() |
||
|
Rules for sopholog in situations of consultation and negotiations |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010401 |
|
||
|
Themes for philosophic consultation, conversation and deliberation |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010501 |
General themes:
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010502 |
Special themes:
|
||
|
Effects of conversation with sophologist |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010601 |
1. Effect of onlooker. When man ‘is cooked in his own juice’, then he in a way cycles, goes around in circle and as a result is on blind alley, cannot decide. Discussion with philosopher allows man to look around his business and problems as from outside. In principle any companion in discussion may be useful in the given situation. In what is the advantage of professional philosopher? In the fact that the philosopher according to definition is a widely, universally thinking person and therefore a know-all (in good sense). His ‘look from outside’ is in a way more voluminous (more profound and complete). |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010602 |
2. Effect of ferment (catalyctic or inhibitory) Philosopher may be useful in discussion as a person helping discussant to speed up thinking process tuo necessary direction or contrarily brake, suppress this process, if it is undesirable. |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010603 |
3. Effect of benevolent listener, confessor. A person often simply wants to speak out, tell of himself, of his problems to benevolent and reasonable companion. When a person speaks of himself and of his problems, he begins actively thinking, reflecting, analyzing himself and his problems, look oneself as from outside. As a result activation of this process (self-reflection, self-observation, self-analysis) the answer opens or the solution to the person himself. |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010604 |
Sometimes it is enough to speak out, in order to get rid of emotional tension (superfluous concern, fear), in oder to clear for oneself some complicated questions. Here philosopher clearly fulfils the role of confessor. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010605 |
For a person being predisposed to negative self-valuation (valetudinarian), discussion with philosopher may play the role of stabilizator. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010606 |
The same effect may occur in the case of a person being inclined to increased self-valuation (big self-esteem, sef-conceit, arrogance etc.). A philosopher may tactically demonstrate this defect and at once help the person to correct his opinion of himself. | ||
|
Tasks of sophologist |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010701 |
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010702 |
1. Impel to think. Ask, give questions, suggest alternatives, variants, show contradictions, incompatibilities. To be a bumblebee, gadfly, ringing bell, alarm, awaken from mental dormancy, urge to reasoning. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010703 |
2. Assist in thinking. To be interlocutor. Ask and answer. Speak and listen. Give arguments and foundations. Be ferment and speeder of mental process. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010704 |
3. Assist people in formulating their thoughts in words and action. 3.1 Assist in formulation of thoughts to words. Teach the art of speech, presentation, letter. 3.2 Assist in transformation of ideas to action. The conditions of transformation of thoughts to action: 1) struggle with sluggishness of thoughts, 2) overcome indecision, inertness. |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010705 |
4. Help to become somewhat philosopher. 4.1. Learn to see problems as from above from the height of bird’s flying perspective. Learn to see ‘the forest behind the trees’ or ‘behind the forest the separate trees’. 4.2. Learn to see as from the outside. To be not only participant, but also an outside observer. Some externality. Objectivism in good sense. 4.3. Learn to see problems from different, from opposite sides, points of view, voluminously. 4.4. Elaborate the need in thinking and reasoning, analyzing. Minimizing impulsiveness in decisions and action. |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010706 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010707 |
If philosopher wants to influence on the behavior of a person, then he must do it not through council, but through invitation and incentive to thinking, through assistance to thinking process. | ![]()
![]() |
|
|
Organization of the work of practical philosophers (sophologists) |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010801 |
Practical philosophers, sophologs may work individually, as well as together with others, organizing for it centres of practical philosophy (sophology). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010802 |
Conditions of work of practical philosopher, sopholog may be most different: from receiving the client in offiinformal ce to interlocution in nonformal environment (on walking tour, visiting a museum, exhibition, on voyage, at dinner table etc.) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010803 |
In the perspective is formation of an association of practical philosophers (sophologs) and elaboration of rules for reception into association. Such association might fulfil the function, analoguous to functions of collegiums of lawyers. This is needed above all because a block must be formed for entering into practical philosophy (sophology) of swindlers and dilettants. Unconditionally, to the work of practical philosophers (sophologs) must be access only for philosophers with diplomas (college education in the speciality of philosophy or diplomas of candidates (doctors) of philosophy (sophology)). In ideal case practical philosophers (sophologs) must have special education, that is, in addition to general philosophic education also the education in practical philosophy (sophology). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010804 |
Centres of practical philosophy (sophology) are formed with the aim of organization of services of philosophic consultation and cooperation. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12010805 |
Directions of work of Centres:
|
||
|
Practical philosophy in the history of human thought |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020001 |
Above was said that practical philosophy has a rich literature history and tradition. Many philosophers of past left texts reflecting the experience of practical philosophizing or having practical philosophic idea. In the spirit of practical philosophy have speaken Confucius, antique philosophers, M. Montaigne, F. Bacon, B. Pascal, A. Schopenhauer, L. Tolstoy, W. James… To the works of practical philosophy can, in known sense, be included books of the American Dale Carnegie and our Vladimir Levi. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020002 |
We shall investigate some names and landmarks. |
||
|
Great philosophers of antiquity |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020101 |
Seven Wise Greek Men (7-6 centuries BC). Of them a whole collection of everyday wisdom in form of 128 short ideas and expressions has been obtained. Among them is one of the first formulations of the golden rule of behavior: ‘what disturbs you in your neighbor, that do not yourself’. According to the testimony of Platon, these wise getting together dedicated them as walking stick of wisdom to Apollon, in his temple in Delphi, scribing on its wall what all repeat (glorify): ‘Know thyself’ (Nosce te ipsum) and ‘Nothing too much’ [in excess]’ (Protagoras, 343 a). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020102 |
![]()
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020103 |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020104 |
[LB13]Socrates (469-399 BC) did not write down his thoughts, but went and discussed on the streets and squares of Athen. He had many students. The most famous of them is Plato. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020105 |
As also sophists, Socrates not only presented in the role of lecturer, teacher of wisdom, but also in the role of practical philosopher. Diogenes Laertius testimonies: Socrates ‘equally knew how to persuade, so also how to dissuade his interlocutor. So reasoning with Theotet about science, he, according to the words of Plato, left the interlocutor divinely inspired, but reasoning about the piety with Evtithron, being brought to court by his father for having killed a guest, he dissuaded him of the idea of this intention; also Lisia he directed to same high morality. It was so that he knew to draw conclusions from what had happened. He reconciled with the mother the son of Lamprocles, having got angry to her (as of it writes Ksenofon); when Glaukon, brother of Plato, got the idea of occupying with government business, Socrates dissuaded him, showing his inexperience (as writes Ksenofon), but Harmida, having to him natural inclination, he, contrarily, encouraged. Even to the strategist Ithikrat he added spirit, showing him, how fightin cocks of the barber Midias fly on the fighting cocks of Kallias’ (F228). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020106 |
His manner of philosophing was not that of teacher, not preaching, but dialog, discussion, conversation of equals. He did not so much teach the interlocutor, as together with him searche the truth. Here is what V.S. Nerseyants writes about this: | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020107 |
|
![]()
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020108 |
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020109 |
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020110 |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020111 |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020112 |
Plato (427-347 BC) has played a distinguished role in the establishment of practical philosophy and as the author of philosophic dialogs, and as the founder of the Academy. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020113 |
Above all as true pupil of Socrates he showed the insufficiency of philosophic texts and the necessity of live contact of the philosopher with non-philosopher. In the dialog ‘Phaedrus’ we read: ‘From this tale, of which young Athens will probably make fun, may be gathered the lesson that writing is inferior to speech. For it is like a picture, which can give no answer to a question, and has only a deceitful likeness of a living creature. It has no power of adaptation, but uses the same words for all. It is not a legitimate son of knowledge, but a bastard, and when an attack is made upon this bastard neither parent nor anyone else is there to defend it. The husbandman will not seriously incline to sow his seed in such a hot-bed or garden of Adonis; he will rather sow in the natural soil of the human soul which has depth of earth; and he will anticipate the inner growth of the mind, by writing only, if at all, as a remedy against old age. The natural process will be far nobler, and will bring forth fruit in the minds of others as well as in his own. | ![]()
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020114 |
What now, does not it appear to us that there is another composition, brother of the first, and how much it is of its nature better and stronger of the first? | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020115 |
(…) This is the composition, which according to the acquisition of knowledge is done in the spirit of learned; it is disposed to defend and at that can speak to whom it is ment, can also keep silence. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020116 |
— You are speaking of a live and animated speech of an understanding person, reflecting of which can justly be called speech in writing? | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020117 |
— Exactly so. (...) still better (writing of texts – L.B.), in my opinion, becomes such occupation, if the art of dialectics is used: the connection of suitable spirit, such person with knowledge on the matter implants and sows in it speech, suitable help for both himself and for the sower, because they are not fruitless, in them there is seed, which gives bith to new speeches in the spirit of other people, able to do this seed immortal for centuries, and its author happy to the extent he is human (my italics – L.B.)’ (274B-277?) |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020118 |
T.V. Vasileva comments: ’Product of litterature is detached from its author, presented to all and everybody, it cannot be defended from other reader and not a word cannot be added for the grateful but close reader: for him help would be needed to solve the born misunderstanding, but the text is only able to repeat again and again only what it already said. A live discussion is more complete – the discussant in front of you, you see him and can adapt to him, all misunderstandings may be solved during the discussion – what is learnt under the process of such independent work in live discussion that is firmly attached to memory, and the main thing is, starts to breed in the mind of listener the ability for the internal discussion with oneself – such is the idea of Socrates’ (F293). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020119 |
To what Vasilyeva has said, we will add that live discussion is important not only for the interlocutor of philosopher, but also to the philosopher himself (to what justly refers Plato). In it the philosopher draws new information, new thoughts and ideas, loads creative energy, as this happens with the artist, presenting in front of live auditory. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020120 |
It is also necessary to keep in mind that in dialogs of Plato discussions are fixed, devoted to most of his problems significant for life. ‘Some everyday problem, continues T.V. Vasilyeva, (everyday, means in Homerian sense live example, and not ordinary commonplace) is solved in every Platonian work; deliberately special denomination must not be explained neither their manifoldness nor their total sum’ (F294). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020121 |
And, finally, the child of Plato – Academia. It was originally not only an institution for learning and research, but also a kind of centre for practical philosophy. In it worked as well young as adult. W. Windelband has written: ‘Some went to Academy very young… Otherwise was the matter with mature people, belonging to Academy during more olr less long time. Among the latter commitment invites a significant number of people playing a visible political role in quality of tyrans or their adversaries, in quality of their legislators in their towns or leaders of parties, so in general there is no doubt, that the society of Plato, particularly while he self was the head of it, had clearly expressed political tendency and served as intellectual centre for all opponents of democracy; it saved in itself that position jus so that in the Athens itself in principle the practical politics was saved from any intervention. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020122 |
With such friends in the Academy, obviously, not only scientific, but also social and political questions and philosophical aspirations of the society were investigated and to them was given main part only to the extent to which they themselves wanted to gain some ecucation, in order to surround their political activity with its halo.’ (F295) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020123 |
Aristotle (384-322 BC). Big is his heritage as practical philosopher. Undoubtedly, half of this thinker’s works conserved for us are connected with questions of human conduct. He did not avoid the most applied themes and was open for conversation with everybody |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020124 |
In the Lyceum Aristotle had still one remarkable habit. He regularly ate dinner with friends, leading learned discussion. And dinners had, as everything with Aristotle, a systematic character, right up to it that once in ten days a new leader for them was elected, and Aristotle himself wrote for these learned dinners a special note with the name ‘Laws of presence’’. (F296) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020125 |
Cicero (106-43 BC) played a remarkable role in popularization of philosophy and acceptance of its practical meaning. G.G. Mayorov writes of this: ‘Another criterium for the evaluation of philosophic ideas of the Greek fo Cicero seves their ‘usefulness for the republic’, which in practice means their availability for the improvement of Roman ethos and for development of Roman enlightenment. Because philosophy according to conviction of Cicero is the science of healing the spirit’ (Tusc., III, 6) and the science of living worthly (Ibid., IV, 6). It is ‘the leader of spirits, researcher of virtues, persecutor of vices’, it has given birth to state, ‘united in society of people scattered around in the country’, ‘established laws’ (Ibid., V, 5). ‘But we are seeing little of what philosophy is receiving praise for its services to human life, the majority of people simply detest it, some even abuse it. Abusing philosophy, bearer of life, is all the same, that the killing of mother is attempted, but also with this people are catched, so thankless, that they scold one who should be honoured, even without understanding! But I think, that this is confusion, this shadow, wrapping of unenlightened souls, kept away in order to people not being able to look so much back to recognize philosophers as pioneers of this life.’ (Tusc., V, 6/Per. ?. Gasparova). Who of the thinkers of previous praised philosophy better than Cicero? Who more loved it and believed in its great cleaning and enlightening power? Who better recognized its humanistic mission?’ (F297) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020126 |
Seneca (5 BC-65 AC). In the series of practical philosophers accordiong to anciety to him belongs one of the first places. His thinking was directed not to philosophers, but to anybody, who thinks over the life, who is ready to accept wise word, to wise discussion. ‘Among good deeds, which a person may commit to another person, writes S Osherov, Seneca thinks that the greates is one: if wise or even one who has farther on the way of wisdom leads a noninitiated to philowophy and brings him after oneself to blissful life. ‘ Further S. Osherov makes it clear: ‘tutorship presented all antiquity with inalienable dutifulness of knower: still Hesiodotos devoted his didactic epos to the brother Pers, and Lucretius his philosophic poem to Memmia. The model of Socrates, not so much for teaching interlocutor, as together with him searching truth, defined a genre of philosophic dialog… With the beginning of Hellenic époque, when goal of philosophy was moral, when the search of cause and consequence of all existence changed to admonition to live according to some code of rules, the role of teaching occupied the impotant place. First and natural form of it was live discussion, it was even more impotant, when it presupposed the change of relationship, defined the place of man in civil community, outside the official ones… Oral philosophic discussion and preaching, diatribe, remained the living genre for the length of many centuries. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020127 |
… form, selected by Seneca - letter, beginning also everyday practice in alternation with immediate discussions, in litterature is considered its natural hypotase.’ (F298)[LB16] | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020128 |
Alkinoi (Albin). The textbook of Platonic philosophia (2nd century AC). In this textbook, really the first time is used the expression ‘practical philosophy’. Here is how it looks like: | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020129 |
’III.1 According to Plato, the philosopher zealously is occupied with three things: he contemplates and knows about the existence, he creates good and theoretically considers thought (logos) of the speeches. The knowledge of the essential is called theory, knowledge of how you must behave is practice, knowledge of the thought of speeches is dialectics. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020130 |
3. One aspect of practical philosophy is education of character, another housemanagement, third the government and its good. The first is called ethics, the second economics, the third politics.’ (F299) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020131 |
Boetius (’The consolation of philosophy’, 524) continued the work of Cicero and Seneca. He conserved for us truly valuable experience of healing and consolation of philosophy. ‘With Boetius as with Cicero, writes G.G. Mayorov, philosophy comforts and heals by enlightening. Its medicines are knowledge and ideas, and the only means of medication is logical reasoning, illustrated by poetic pictures. No mystic therapy, no occult means, no superreasonable suggestion. In ‘consolation’ Boetius does not at all use the way of revelation. This is astonishing, because the book is written at the beginning og middle age and makes to think how strong was the Roman rationalistic tradition, because inspite of the distance between Cicero and Boetius was half a millennium, their view on philosophy was common. Therefore it scarcely is true what P. Kursel does: considers ‘Consolation’ belonging to the tradition to which belongs also hermetic tractat ‘Poimander’. There the secret of existence is opened with prophetical language half god, here the truths of existence are shown in rational language of human philosophy. Boetius has the appearance not of goddess, but of mortal woman’ (F300) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020132 |
’Consolation’ is written in prison before execution. ‘Genre of consolation, considers G.G. Mayorov, is rather ancient. It was used once Krantor, the Platonist of the old Academy, afterwards Cicero, writing ‘consolation’ on the death of his daughter Tullia, then Seneca, writing ‘consolation’ to the mother of Helvin, to Polybio, to Marcius, existed other similar compositions. As in them as help to the consoled was usually called philosophy, this kind of composition had much in common with other ancient literature genre, with the genre of ‘protreptics’, that is ‘inducement’ or ‘invitation’, to philosophy. Classic of this genre in antiquity was considered Aristotle (his ‘Protreptics’ has not been saved); According to his example Cicero wrote his famous dialog of ‘Hortensia’, directing afterwards to philosophy the soul of the young Augustin. Aristotle was imitated by Jamvlih, also composing ‘Protreptics’. (p. 393-394)... | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020133 |
Boetius… with the greatest inheritance applies the method of diatribs, philosophic instructive discussion, where in the role of mentor is Mrs. Philosophy herself, and in the role of leaving this world, prisoner of this world is Boetius. The discussion has not only purely didactic, as therapeutic character. The development of the subject seems to be a consequent solution of some medical task: after establishment of diagnose of the illness in the first book, through phases of temporary at the beginning, then basic, radical medication in remaining books, to complete healing of the patient at the end of the work. During the therapy the healing Philosophy follows the changing condition of Boetius, being informed of his feeling, methodically alternates soft and weak heaing means with bitterer and stronger, encouraging and consolating the sick. And all this in composition of Boetius not at all similar to simple literary experiment, on play. His understanding of the mission of the philosophy as healing spirit is very serious and it has deep roots in antique culture, where philosophy long time was divided life creating and soulsaving function, almost completely then transferred to religion. In this genuinely practical function it was presented at Pythagorians, Socrates and Plato (‘Phaedon’,early dialogs), at Aristotle, at all Stoicians and Epicurians, in general to some extent at all philosophers of Hellenism. (my italics – L.B.). But nobody, not until, nor after him expressed this understanding of philosophy so clearly and strongly as it did Cicero; it is enough to mention his ‘Tusculan discussions’ and that we know of his ‘Hortensia’ and ‘Consolations’. And this is for us not of small significance, because Cicero is one of main sources of Boetius as in relationship to genre and style, so also in relationsip to ideas. But because Cicero painting philosophy in most bright artistic colours called it ‘science of healing the soul’ (Tusc., III, 3,6), and he still long time before Boetius in fact presented it in ‘Consolatio’ and in ‘Tusculans’ in the picture of ruling interlocutor, consolating in sorrow and healing spiritual ailments: ‘Matter is so: in order to get rid of misfortunes, the soul must be healed, and this is not possible without philosophy. Therefore seizing the matter, I dedicate myself to it in order to heal and, if so wished, we get healed’. (Цицерон. Тускуланские беседы (Cicero. Tusculan discussions), III, 6, 13)”. (p. 394-395) (F301). | ||
|
Renaissane time philosophers |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020201 |
Many thinkers of the epoque of Renaissance after centuries of scholastic, disregard of practical philosophy from the side of Christian philosophers tried to tried to release philosophy from heaven to the earth. They thought and reasoned as Guillaume Bude: ‘throw philosophy from heaven, put it in town of people, bring them home and have to answer on questions of life and moral and on good things and bad’ (Гильом Буде. Филология (Guillaume Bude: Philosophy). Paris. 1552) (F302). Is not this the program of practical philosophy! | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020202 |
With one word, philosophers finished their attention from scholastic problems and controversies on science, observation, art, invention, politics. They gradually got rid of the influence of religion, proclaiming the freethinking as one of the greatest values. In exchange of theocentrism (F303) antropocentrism was introduced. Human being and his problems are placed in the centre of attention. Antropocentrism proclaims man as the center of Universum (that around him everything turns, that God is not the main thing, but Man). On this ground was born the Antique tradition of humanism. Humanism originally is primordially against any norms of man depending on anything whatsoever. From him began the movement to cognition of people of themselves. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020203 |
Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) showed, from one hand, the incompleteness of man, from the other, the direction, to which he must move. In the famous ‘Speech on dignity of man’ he puts into the mouth of God, addressing to Adam, the following words: ‘I did not make you neither heavenly nor earthenly, neither mortal, nor immortal, in order that you yourself, free and glorious master, formulated yourself to the model, which you prefer. You may be reborn into lower, irreasonable creatures, but you may also be reborn according to wish of your soul to the divine heights’. Man is here placed in front of himself, being able to complete himself. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020204 |
Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) is the most famous humanist of the Renaissance époque. In his main work ‘Praise of folly’ he ridiculized the stupidity of man in most different features. He is one of the first to defend the tolerance of belief. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020205 |
Michel Montaigne (1533-1592) was the most productive and successful of all who have written on practical philosophy in the era of Renaissance. Up to now he is one of the most famous and most read philosophers and just thanks to his ‘Essays’ (1580). This somewhat voluminous book is a genuine encyclopedy of everyday wisdom. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020206 |
F. Bacon (1561-1626) is famous as philosopher, possessed by ideas of practical use and application of knowledge, popularization of science and philosophy. Everybody knows his device: “scientia est potentia” (knowledge is power). His works are written in the language, which is open and understood by practically anybody. He has a book, which is immediately dedicated to questions of everyday wisdom, practical philosophy. This is ‘Essays’ (1597—1625). F. Bacon himself wrote, that of all his works ’Essays’ ‘got the widest distribution’, because ‘it is the neares to practical things and feelings of people’ (F304). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020207 |
It is important to note that in ‘Essays’ Bacon actively used one of the basic methods of practical philosophy, the method of antithesis. He explained arguments pro and contra the thesis, presenting the final conclusion to the reader. ‘Indication on this method, writes J.P. Michalenko, we find in the ‘Examples of antithesis’. It is sufficient to compare arguments pro and contra innovation (V. 1. p. 391-392) with the ’experience’ ’About innovations’ (V. 2. p. 404-405). Y.P. Michalenko justly concludes: ‘This means of explaining is the source of nonweakening interest to ‘Essays’, because in every era they may be read in a new way.’ (F305) | ||
|
Kant, Hegel and other practical philosophers |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020301 |
I. Kant (1724-1804) excellently understood the meaning of the connection of philosophy with life. The lion’s share of his philosophic creation is directed to the solution of practical questions of life. But about the importance of the distribution of ideas, their popularization he has written: ‘In order to learn true popularity, ancient must be read, for instance, philosophic works of Cicero… Because true popularity requires vast practical knowledge of the world and people, their concepts, taste and inclination, to which attention must be directed constantly for explanation and even for the choice of appropriate expressions for popularization. Such degression to the level of understanding public and ordinary expressions, at which scholastic perfection is not forgotten… is also in fact great and rare completion, signifying great penetration to the science’ (F306). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020302 |
Significant is, that Kant got reproach of insufficient accessibility of his ‘Critique of pure reason’. ‘It is suitable for you, he wrote, to refer to insufficient popularity as to justified reproach, which may be produced against my work, because in reality every philosophic work must be made available, otherwise under the pretext of profoundness may be hidden absurdity.’ (F307) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020303 |
Above, in the first chapter, I have speaken of Kantian propensity to judgment’, that is, skill to apply general to private. In another context Kant has written on this: ‘I always, even in the normal life, watch for my listeners from the very beginning and to the end never getting just dry theory, but constantly comparing everyday experience with my remarks, so that they would find in it living and interesting for them employment. (F308) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020304 |
Hegel (1770-1831) did not only once speak of practicality, of practical meaning of philosophy. So, in ‘Lectures on the history of philosophy he has written: ‘General widespread prejudice assumes that philosophic science has matter only with abstractions, with hollow generalities, but contemplation, our empirical consciousness, our feeling, even I, feeling of life, is, on the contrary concrete in itself, defined in itself, rich. And as a matter of fact, philosophy stays on the area of thoughts and therefore has to do with generalities, but although its contents is abstract, it however, is such only by form, by its element; the idea itself is essentially concrete, because it is the unity of different definitions. [AJK18] If the truth is abstract the it is not truth. A sound human mind aspires to concrete; only intelligent reflection is abstract theory, it is not truth, it is correct only in head, and among others, also not practical; philosophy is more hostile to abstract and leads us back to the concrete’ (F310) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020305 |
If speaking concretely about practical philosophy as a part of philosophy, then it must be remarked that to it Hegel had a dualistic relationship. On one hand he appreciated highly the separate representatives of it (Socrates, for instance), understood its importance for people, on the other, he considerd it as the lowest form of philosophy, which either ‘adapts to all common conceptions of people’ (F310), or is a subordinated moment in relationship to theoretical, pure philosophy. ‘Socrates, he said, takes good only in private thoughts, in the practical sense, but instead it is only one form of the substantial ideas, more general is not only for me , but is also the pricipe of natural philosophy, as in itself and for itself a real goal, and in this higher sense it was understood by Plato and Aristotle. In old histories of philosophy in quality of characteristic features of Socrates his contribution to philosophy is put forward, as a new concept, ethics. at that time as earlier philosophy considered only nature. Diogenes Laertius also so speaks (III, 56), that Ionians invented the philosophy of nature, Socrates added ethics, and Plato dialectics… | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020306 |
As Socrates in this way gave the beginning of moral philosopy, so all following époques of moral talking and popular philosophy declared him as their patron and saint and made of him the cover justifying any nonphilosophic. Correct in any case that the means, he used in philosophy made him popular. To this still was added the circumstance, that his death gave to him amoving and for everybody understandable interesting link of an innocent sufferer. Cicero (Tusc. Quaest., V, 4), which on one side, directed his thinking on problems of present moment, on the other, sticked to the opinion that philosophy must be modest, so that he even did not find in it any special contents, praised Socrates (this often was repeated the after him), as characteristic and elevated by him feature, that he lowered philosophy from heaven to the surface of earth, introduced it to cabins and to everyday life of people, or as Diogenes Laertius (II, 21) expresses, brought it to the marketplace. This is just what we said. It appears so as if the best and truest philosophy would be only home tool or kitchen philosophy, which can be applied to all usual undertakings of people and in which we are seeing friends and people discussing among themselves on the theme of honesty, etc. and on all that may be recognized on the earth, not visiting the profoundness of heaven, or, more truthfully, in profoundness of consciousness, but this exactly is what Socrates, as the most popular philosophers think, dared as the first. Him also was not given the possibility to think from the beginning all speculations of philosophy of that time, in order to then have the possibility on the field of practical philosophy to plunge to the profoundness of deepest layers of thoughts. This is what we have to say of Socratean principles in general’ (F311) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020307 |
Pay attention: Hegel uses himself the expression ‘practical philosophy’. And this he does not only once (see for instance paragraphs in ‘Lessons on the history of philosophy’ about Kyrenian School, Aristotle, Epicurus and others). Examining the philosophy of Aristotle, Hegel relates the partition of practical philosophy to philosophy of spirit (together with psychology and logics). The practical philosophy itself (by Aristotle) he subdivides to ethics and politics. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020308 |
There is testimony about Hegel as a clever discussant, the converstion with whom was truly valuable. Here is what has written, for example, by Hölderlin: ‘Converstion with Hegel was for me very beneficial. I love the intellect of such calm people; they may serve as orientations in the cases, whe you do not know, how to define your relationship to the world.’ (Гёльдерлин. Соч. (Hölderlin: Collected works, M., 1969. p. 487). Significant are Hölderlin’s last words: they better than anybody characterize the significance of philosopher as a man helping people to handle the most important questions of life. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020309 |
But here is the testimony of L. Feuerbach. After listening the lectures of Hegel he wrote: ‘I understood, what I shoud desire and to what endeavor: Theology is for me not necessary, but philosophy. I need no fantasies and dreams, I need learning! I do not need belief, but thinking! Thanks to Hegel I realized myself, realized the world. He became my second father, and Berlin my spiritual fatherland.’ (F312). | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020310 |
A. Schopenhauer (1788-1860) has played a prominent role in the establishment of the ideas of practical (everyday) philosophy. He truly as the only one of the great philosophers of the last two centuries did not disdain the elaboration of themes of practical, or as he said, everyday philosophy. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020311 |
In the introductory article to ’Aphorisms of everyday wisdom’ A.A. Husseinov and A.P. Skripnik write: Of its genre the present work lies in the channel of very old ethic tradition, originating from the Seven Greek Wise Men, who laid the foundation of European civilization. Pittak, Biant, Khilon Lakedaimon etc. These half legendary thinkers gave the model of ethics as everyday wisdom, expressed partly bright, original aphorisms, partly trivial capital truths. Fundamental conception of the contents of that kind of wisdom gives the composition of Diogenes Laertius About the life, teachings and aphorisms of famous philosophers’. This tradition was reproduced during centuries so in the West as in the East (for example, Lao-Dze, Konfucius, Mo-Tszi in ancient China). Moral doctrinal compositions of Seneca and Cicero, Horatius and Plutarchos concentrated themselves to everyday wisdom of Rome. It was not, of course, was not of one birth. According to the observation of S.S. Averintsev, part of it was attached to passionate rigoristic moralization of Stoan type, another part (being personified in Plutarch) was characterized by peaceful curiosity of human matters and matters of life. In New Age the first of the mentioned tendencies strongest of all was expressed in intensive Pensées of B. Pascal and other Christian thinkers, and the second was imprinted in the splendid, sharp-minded sentences of Montaigne and LaRochefoucault, Chamfort and Lichtenberg, in the ‘Pocket oracle’ of the Spanish writer Balthasar Gracian, book which, by the way, was translated by Schopenhauer into German language. Bestsellers of Dale Carnegie show us, what evolution experienced this genre and this tendence in the modern culture. The aphorisms of Schopenhauer by teir pathos join, of course, to the peaceful moral description of, but not to the passionate moralization. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020312 |
In the Soviet culture the mentioned tradition had not a better lot to expect. Moreover, it was almost suppressed, to be more exact: pages torn, on the one hand, according to the hypocritic interpretation of the Moral code, the sharpmindedness of the moral writers and Stoian brilliance were stripped but instead the dull even for first class propagandists, and on the other hand the more attractive and entertaining but concerning the external side of the human behavior and litterature completely without philosophic foundation were according to the etiquette. Between these two stripes there was a vacuum… | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020313 |
‘Aphorisms of wveryday wisdom’ give a rich material for moral reflexion, for elaboration of own thinking and for critical relationship to life. Looking at human acts with eyes of a thinker not belonging to the number of enthusiastic admirers of human virtues are always very useful. But he who wanted to use the given version of everyday wisdom for automatic enlightening and reproduction would comprehend that with all visibility, serious disappointment. In the book there are many true remarks and fine observations, but far from all in it is self-evident, and something even very much are needed in careful and sober investigation.’ (F313) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020314 |
A.A. Huseinov and A.P. Skripnik have given here a short excurs of the development of practical philosophy. With all of it may be agreed, including the evaluation of ‘Aphorisms’ of Schopenhauer, except one: why do they evaluate as ethical the problematics of practical, everyday philosophy? Because this problematic is immeasurably wider than the authentically ethic. It concerns all aspects of the human life, not only ethical. For instance, life in general, death, health, beauty, development of mind. Not accidentally, as youy know, did Schopenhauer call his book ‘Aphorisms of everyday life’. The words ‘everyday’ and ‘wisdom’ do not have specifically ethical content. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020315 |
In the introduction to ’Aphorisms’ A. Schopehauer wrote: ‘The concept of everyday wisdom has here inherent meaning, - exactly, in the meaning of skill to conduct life as pleasantly and happily as possible, skill, the leading to which could also be mentioned as eudemonology: this will be, consequently, bringing to happy existence.’ (F314) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020316 |
We will cite a quotation of ‘Aphorisms’. In the very beginning ’ |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020317 |
1) What is an individual, that is personality in the widest sense of the word. To it relate accordingly health,power, beauty, temperament, ethical character, mind and its development. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020318 |
2) What the individual owns, that is all kinds of property and possession. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020319 |
3) What the individual presents. With this expresson, as it is known, is understood, how he presents himself to others, that is, actually as they present him. This way, here we have to do with their opinion of him, who is expressed in three forms, as honor, rank and fame.’ (Chapter 1. The basic parts. – Ibid p. 20) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020320 |
The second citate is dedicated to the theme of cheerfulness of the soul and health: | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020321 |
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020322 |
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020323 |
Dale Carnegie (1888-1955) began with the propaganda of oratorical skills, skill of public presentation, but ended with systematization of elements of everyday wisdom and its propaganda. Here is what of him and of his books write V.P. Zintshenk and J.M. Zhukov: ‘The reader may find in the text (of the books of Carnegie) much ideas, deserving thoughtful consideration, calling for sometimes agreement, sometimes doubt, but sometimes also non-acceptance (but maybe also finding nothing, depending how to search). This is also a good side of the text. And also what seems to be not acceptable, is difficult to throw away. Because everything aspires to be fundamental, leans on logics and facts, is mindful. The edict of home made wisdom, which often is suspending on Carnegie, does not stand.Dale Carnegie also does not pretend on building an own kind of philosophy of life. Sooner he tries to rely on centuries old wisdom of man, the wisdom of human race, preliminarily retouching it, packing it and furnishing it, wher only possible, with instructions for application this wisdom for solution of problems of private life. Everyday wisdom is a constructive part of general human culture, and, as also all other constituent parts of cultural heritage, it needs research, systematization and propaganda, but also further development. Works of Carnegie, collected under the cover of book in front of you, reader, are good models of the work in this direction, bright and durable at the same time. Here aphorisms of famous thinkers, proverbs, scientific data are paced abreast of common sense, are applied to solution of problems of today, are submitted to test of practice. And here recommended to the user’ (F316) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020324 |
D. Carnegie himself has written[AJK19]: ’The present book (How to Win Friends and Influence People’ – L.B.) was not written in the usual meaning of the word. It grew, as child grows. It was born and developed in this own kind of laboratory on the basis of experience of thousands of people. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020325 |
Many years ago we started our activity with elaborating a series of rules printed on cards of the size of a post card. Next year we published a card somewhat bigger, then a leaflet, and then a series of brochures, each of which invariably grew in size and volume of the material needed for it. And now, as a result of fifteen years of experimenting and researching, this book was published. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020326 |
The rules explained by us in this book, do not present in themselves the fruits of theoretical reasoning or spiritual guesses. They show magic effect. Perhaps this sounds improbable, but I have seen, how the application of them in a radical way has changed the life of many people. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020327 |
I will illustrate this with an example. Last yeat on our course came a man, at whom three hundred and fourteen people are working. Earlier he during a few years he continuously harassed and criticized and scolded continuously all his workers without difference. Good words, praise and approval never came out of his mouth. After examination of the principles, analyzed in this book this businessman sharply changed his philosophy of life. Now in his organization now a new atmosphere reigns, a new for it enthusiasm, not known until now spirit of collectivism. Threehundredandfourteen enemies turned to threehundredandfourteen friends. At one group exercise he proudly announced: ‘When I earlier went through my firm, nobody greeted me. My workers tried not to look at my direction, when they saw, that I approached them. Now they all are my friends, and even doorkeeper calls me by first name’. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020328 |
Now the income of this business man increased, he has more leisure time, and, what is infinitely more important, he feels himself much happier bot at work and in the family’ (F317) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020329 |
Curious case, told by D. Carnegie: ‘Speaking of suicide, I remembered a case, described by doctor Henry S. Link in his book ‘Second opening of man’. Dr Link is a vice president of Psychologic Corporation, and he discusses with a multitude of people, who suffer of anxiety and depression. In the chapter ‘On overcoming fear and anxiety’ he tells about a patient, who wanted to finish life by sucide. Dr Link knew that argumenting with a patient was useless, of it his condition becomes only worse. And he said to his patient: ‘If you, however, are going to finish life by suicide, you could at least behave heroically. Run around the quartal until you fall dead’. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020330 |
The patient tried to do this, and not once but some times, and every time he felt himself better, psychically if not physically. Third night it was so far that what dr Link mainly aimed at. The patient, as far as he physically was fatigued (also got physically weaker), so that he slept like a stock. Later he joined an athletic club and started to participate in sports competitions. Soon he felt himself so good, that he wanted to live eternally!’ (F318) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020331 |
This case speaks much and above all of how a potential committer of suicide needs not a psychiatre but a practical philodsopher, that is, a specialist evaluating the condition of a person as a whole, together psychically and physically. Because he was not psychically ill and, correspondingly, not necessarily needed to be patient of doctor or psychitre. Turning to a psychiatre sooner would worsen the situation. (Doctors ‘know’ sometimes ‘how to drive in illness’) Only desperate intuition of dr Link saved the situation. He abandoned to try by soulsaving discussions, but suggested to him to start running. It turns out, that the person’s balance between physical and psychical activity was disturbed: psychic activity clearly predominated physical. With the help of running he restored this balance and the depression was as if it had never been. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020332 |
Particularly interesting is the eighth chapter of the book by D. Carnegie ‘How to Stop Worrying and Start Living’, in which it is spoken about how people get rid of worrying and nervous tension by sound reasoning, operating on the law of big numbers’. This is already practical philosophy in pure form! This is the case, when cold, sound calculation helps cooling the hot head or remove anxiety, fear, nervousness. During thunder I was afraid that the lightning would strike me. When difficult times occurred, I was afraid, that we would not have anything to eat. I was afraid that after death I will end up in hell. I was afraid that Sam White, who was older than I, cuts away my big ears. Because he threatened to do this. I experienced fear that girls will laugh at me, if I try to court with them… Years went by and I showed that ninety nine per cent of my fears were false, and things that I so much was afraid of, never occurred… | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020333 |
Completely understandable that in the given case there is reason for concern, characteristic for youth. But many apprehensions of adult people are almost as absurd. You and me could eliminate nine tenth of our worries if we ceased to be worried on sufficiently lon run, in order to establish, whether our fears are justified according to the law of big numbers. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020334 |
The most famous insurance company in the world ‘Lloyd’ in London, made countless millions on the inclination of people to be worried of what happens very seldom. The London company of Lloyd bets against people who turn to them, that some misfortune which worries them, never goes by. The company, however, does not call this betting, but insurance. But as a matter of fact this is betting, arising from the law of big numbers… | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020335 |
If we get acquainted with the law of big numbers, then we often become astonished with facts, that are revealed. For instance, if I knew that during the five following years I must fight in such a bloody fight as the battle at Gettysbourgh, I would be terrified. I would write my will and organize all my earthly matters into order. I would think: with all probability I do not survive this battle, and therefore I must live remaining few years in the best way. However the facts speak, corresponding to the law of big numbers that attempting to live from the age of fifty to fifty five in peace time is as dangerous and as fraught with fatal outcome as fighting at Gettysbourgh. I mean the following: in peace time for each thousand people in the age of fifty to fifty five die as many as on thlousand among 163 000 soldiers, fighting at Gettysbourgh’ (F319) | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020336 |
In the ninth chapter of this same my book (‘Take into account the inevitable’) is given material on the theme, which could be characterized as: ‘consolation by philosophy’. Her one quotation: ‘I give you a wise piece of advice of one of my most favorite philosophers – William James. ‘Agree to accept what already is’ he said. – Reconciliation with what already happened, is the first step to overcoming the consequences of any misfortunes’. Elizabeth Conley was convinced to this on her bitter experience. Recently I got from her the following letter. ‘The day when all America celebrated the victory of our armed forces in Northern Africa, is said in the letter, I got a telegram from the secretary of war: my grandson, whom I loved more than anything in the world was missing unreachable by messages. Soon came another message telling about his death. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020337 |
I was struck by grief. To this point I had been satisfied with my life. I had a favourite work. I helped to educate my nephew. He was the incarnation of all excellent, that is characteristic to youth. I felt that my efforts were remunerated hundredfold!.. And suddenly this telegram. For me the whole world collapsed. I felt that life lost for me sense. I lost interest to the work, forgot my friends. Everything became for me indifferent. I became embittered. Why kill this dearest boy, in front of whom the whole world was open? I could not reconcile with this. My grief seized me to such an extent that I decided to leave my work, hide myself from people and lead the rest of lkife in tears and grief. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020339 |
I some times read this letter. It seemed to me, that he stands at my side and speaks to me. It seemed that he said: ‘Why you do not fulfil what you learned to me? Stand, whatever happened. Hide your worries, smile and stand.’ | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020340 |
I started to work again. I ceased to become irritated and complain life. I again and again said to me: ‘this happened. I cannot change anything. But I can and I will stand, as he advised me’. I completely dedicated myself to the work, putting into it all my moral and physical powers… I ceased to mourn the irrevocable past. Now I every day live with joy, as wanted of me my nephew. I reconciled with life. Now I live more joyful and fullvalued life than ever before…’ | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020341 |
It is evident, that the circumstances do not make us neither happy nor unhaööy. Important is how we react on them. Just exactly this determines our feelings. | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 12020342 |
All of us are suitable to endure misfortune and tragedy and stand victory over them, if we are obliged to do this. It may seem to us that we cannot, but we hold in our internal resources staggering powers, which may bring us all, if we only use them.’ (F320)”. | ||
Message to authors |
|||
|
|
|
|
F285See: Соколов А.В. Объективные трудности и пределы сближения философии с жизнью (Sokolov A.V. Objective difficul-ties and limits of approach of philosophy in life). — In Характер и способы связи философии с жизнью (тезисы к научной конференции) (Character and means of connection of philosophy and life [Thesises for scientific conference]). М., 1988. P. 61-61. F286See: coll. “Наука и нравственность” (Science and morality), М., 1971. P. 290-291. F287A significant Russian philosopher Losev A.F. in another occasion has written: ‘Philosophers and dialecticians, opening in many ways complicated logical structure of things, even if based on shown simple observations, very often have enjoyed these unprotrudable knots of thought to the extent, that in no simple positions there cannot be no word of themselves nor their readers. To object against complicatd-ness and thinness of dialectic thought are out of question: this compli-cation and thinness are really big. And there is no way of return and use of pejorative word ‘scholastics’. But however we have full right to require, that any complication and thinness dialectically responded to the simplest living experience, in order to in all its complications and thinnesses the thought had a direct and obvious connection with narrow-minded and everyday observations.’повседневными наблюдениями.» — Лосев А.Ф. Миф–Число–Сущность (Losev A.F. Myth-Figure-Essence). М., 1994. P. 409 («Самое само» [Self itself]). F288Гулыга А.. Кант (Gulyga A. Kant). М., 1977. P. 177. F289See on this later, p. [Practical philosophy in the history of human thought, Plato]. F290Рассел Б. История западной философии (Russell B. History of Western Philosophy). V. 1, Novosibirsk, 1994. P. 88-89. F228Диоген Лаэртский. О жизни, учениях и изречениях знаменитых философов (Diogenes Laertius. On life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers). М., 1986. p. 102 F291Нерсесянц В.С. Сократ (Nersesyants V.S. Socrat). М., 1984. P. 49. F292See: Лосев А.Ф., Тахо-Годи А.А. Платон. Аристотель (Losev A.F., Tajo-Godi A.A. Plato. Aristotle). М., 1993. P. 372-373. F293Васильева Т.В. Афинская школа философии (Vasileva T.V. Athenian school of philosophy). М., 1985. P. 109. F294Ibidem. P. 115. F295Виндельбанд В. Платон (Windelband W. Plato). Kiev, 1993. P. 34-35. F296Лосев А.Ф., Тахо-Годи А.А. Платон. Аристотель (Losev A.F., Tajo-Godi A.A. Plato. Aristoteles). М., 1993. P. 248. F297Майоров Г.Г. Цицерон как философ (Mayorov G.G. Cicero as philosopher). See: Цицерон. Философские трактаты (Cicero. Phi-losophic tractates). М., 1985. P. 16-17. F298See: Сенека. Нравственные письма к Луцилию (Seneca. Moral letters to Lucillus). P. 349-350. F299See: Платон. Собр. соч. в 4-х тт. (Plato. Coll. works in 4 v.) V. 4. М., 1994. P. 626. F300Quot. acc.: Боэций. Утешение Философией и другие трактаты (Boetius. Consolations of Philosophy and other tractates). М., 1990. P. 396. F301Quot. acc.: Ibidem. F302Quot. acc.: Гутер Р.С. , Полунов Ю.Л. . Джироламо Кардано (P.S. Guter, Y.L. Polunov. Girolamo Cardano). М., 1980. P. 136. F303Theocentrism is a conception, according to which God is the main object of attention and concern (respect, worship, mercy). World and man are secondary, creatures of God and are led by him. F304See: Кант И. Соч. в 2-х тт. (Kant I. Works in 2 v.) Т. 2. М., 1978. P. 353. F305Ю.П.Михаленко. Ф. Бэкон и его учение (Y.P. Mihalenko. F. Bacon and his teachings). М., 1975. P. 49. F306Кант И. Трактаты и письма (Kant I. Tractates and letters). М., 1980, p. 355. F307From letter “Кант — Гарве. 7 августа 1783 г. (Kant to Harvey 17830807)” — Quot. acc.: Кант И. Трактаты и письма (Kant I. Tractates and letters). М., 1980. F308From letter “Кант — Герцу. Конец 1773 г. (Kant to Herz, 1773 end)” — Ibidem. F309Гегель. Лекции по истории философии (Hegel. Lectures on his-tory of philosophy). Bk. 1, S.-Peterburg, 1993. P. 88. F310See: Гегель. Лекции по истории философии (Hegel. Lectures on history of philosophy). Bk. 2, S.Peterburg, 1994. P. 36. F311Гегель. Лекции по истории философии (Hegel. Lectures on his-tory of philosophy). Bk. 2, S.Peterburg, 1994. P. 35-37. F312Фейербах Л. История философии (Feuerbach L. History of philosophy). V. 3, М., 1967. P. 373. F313See: Шопенгауэр А. Афоризмы житейской мудрости (Schopenhauer A. Aphorisms on everyday wisdom). М., 1990. P. 1. P. 14. F314Шопенгауэр А. Афоризмы житейской мудрости (Schopenhauer A. Aphorisms on everyday wisdom). М., 1990. P. 1. P. 18. F315Шопенгауэр А. Афоризмы житейской мудрости (Schopenhauer A. Aphorisms on everyday wisdom). М., 1990. P. 1. P. 28-30. F316See preface of the book: Д. Карнеги. Как завоевывать друзей и оказывать влияние на людей (How to Win Friends and Influence People). Moscow, Baku, 1990. P. 7-8. F317Карнеги Д. Как приобретать друзей и оказывать влияние на людей (How to Win Friends and Influence People). Moscow, Baku, 1990. P. 38. F318Карнеги Д. Как перестать беспокоиться и начать жить (Carne-gie D. How to stop worrying and begin to live). (Ch. 27). — Карнеги Д. Как вырабатывать уверенность в себе и влиять на людей... (Carnegie D. How to elaborate the self-confidence and influence on people). Moskva-Baku, 1990. P. 439. F319Ibidem. P. 295-297. F320Ibidem. P. 303-304. |
Asko Korpela 20111116 (20111116) o AJK homepage o BalaPedia-page o Webmaster