PLAN

1. The concept of being in philosophy 2

2. Dialectics of Being and Non-Residue 7

3. Genesis as "Pure Thought": beginning of ontology 9

References 12.

1. The concept of being in philosophy

In everyday speech, the word "being" means life, existence. In philosophy, the concept of being is attached the most generalized and universal character.

Instead, the concept of philosophers often use the concept of a universum, under which there is a single self-sufficient whole, which does not leave anything out of themselves. When they talk about being (universame), then you mean everything that is in the world as a reality, like cash. The philosopher is interested in the whole set of existing. These are things with their properties and relationships, and numerous phenomena of consciousness, mind, spirit. At the same time, all common and not common properties and characteristics of specific phenomena of material and spiritual reality, as it were, are taken for brackets of their consideration. About any thing, about any process, about any property and relationship, about any thoughts and experiences can be said that it (it, it) exists.

At the level of the maximum abstract concept of being, the opposite of material and spiritual is not allocated, as the thought, spirit, perfect is taken in unity with material things on the grounds, something and other are available, exist. And in this regard, consciousness, ideas are no less real than things. Reliability, for example, dental pain as a reality is the same as the reliability of the most sick tooth.

The concept of being is the most abstract and therefore the poorest content is, but in terms of volume - the richest, since it falls under it everything that exists in the universe, including the universe itself as separately taken by existence.

Being is not every one of the things available, but only in that in every thing it is universally and therefore performs only one side of any thing. Using the concept of being, a person seems to fix the presence of what is in its intelligence. Although this kind of fixation and statement is necessary, they themselves are not the ultimate goal of knowledge. By establishing the accuracy of any phenomenon, we make it known for yourself. However, "What is known, Hegel wrote, is not yet, so known. "Once a person did not know that it was necessary to include an electromagnetic field," black holes "(collapsary), quarks, etc. When the fact of their presence was set, began the main thing - the study of their nature. In this regard, the philosophical analysis of being cannot be reduced only to the generalized description of different types of cash reality - be - then non-fat nature from the micromyr to megamira, wildlife from the living cell to the biosphere, society in the system of all it component elements, man and noosphere, human knowledge in all its forms of manifestation.

In addition, the task of describing different types of reality and their recognition as a certain cash being can only be solved within the framework of individual sciences and arising from the generalization of their total data of the scientific picture of the world. In the center of the philosophical analysis of Being is the disclosure of its inner nature and universal connections of all its elements. And the first question is the question of the very concept of being as one of the universal abstractions of the human mind. From the first steps of the emerging philosophical thought, the idea of \u200b\u200bBeing was the logical means of representing the world as a holistic education. With its help, the first philosophers of antiquity were abstracting in their mind from the entire infinite diversity of things and processes for the means of mental fixation of their similarity that they all inherent in the status of an existing, reality. Thus, it was recognized that the world is one, since all its elements are identical on the sign of existence, cash. There is a general characteristic of the world inherent in everything that is included in its composition. Whatever happened in the world, he was, and will exist independently of the will and consciousness of people. Analysis of the philosophical concept of Genesis suggests, first of all, not to identify different types of valid being, which is based on the transition of thought from universal to private, and the disclosure of various aspects of the content of this concept. There are two such aspects: subject and dynamic; They are easily found in the semantic shades of the word "there". When they say "Rose is a plant", then under this understand, on the one hand, the fact that the rose is a plant, i.e. represents a certain substantive reality, and on the other, that the rose exists, i.e. lasts in time. The first semantic shade of the word "is" expresses the subject aspect of being, the second is dynamic. In the subject aspect, the concept of being is reflected in cash with a qualitative definality of everything that there is a dynamic aspect of being is that every being is not only some kind of subject, but also the existence of this subject as the process of changing its states and its implementation.

The concepts of "nothing" and "non-existence" in the history of philosophy were often identified and considered as abstractions denoting the absence of being at all. Such their definition seems clear, obvious and forgoing to such an extent that most people have no desire to clarify what the phrase "absence of being" means. When they ask about it, then in response, I am in response about the very possibility of misunderstanding of the fact that it is so clear, or bypassed by joking tautology: the absence of being is the absolute absence of any presence, the state when nothing.

We can present the absence of any private being. However, none of us can imagine the complete absence of being at all. Indeed, in this case, it is necessary to submit that is not a reality at all. Or maybe our idea to go beyond reality as such? If she succeeded, she would lose their subject matter and thus ceased to exist. If something is not given to us, we will never mind thinking about it.

There is no free thoughts and can not be. Already antique sophists realized this well and even used in the construction of the next sophism "lie - talk about what not. But about what is not, nothing can be said. Consequently, no one can lie. " In this paradoxical conclusion, the lie is incorrectly considered as a non-substantive statement. But it is true that any unprecedented judgment is in principle impossible, because it cannot be impreitated thinking.

From this it follows that even the concepts of our thinking, as "nothing" and "non-existence" cannot be impossible, in other words, cannot be removed, eliminated from the relationship to reality. Of course, it is not easy for them, no absence in general, and the absence of being, we are thereby indirectly associate their content with being. The absence of being is not a certain absolute emptiness, but is the process of denial of being, which represents nothing but it goes into another, becoming for themselves to others. The rational understanding of nothing and non-existence is only possible as a denial, which is the necessary moment of being.

As the transition to another negation in the very being is carried out either in the form of a relationship of one particular being (something) to another, or in the form of a change process, the transfer of cash of this being taken by itself. The first denial of philosophy is comprehended by means of the relationship between the concepts of "Being" (something) and "nothing", the second, through the relationship between the concepts of "being" and "non-existence". This serves as the basis for distinguishing the concepts of "nothing" and "non-existence." The opposite of nothing acts as a certain something, and the opposite of being is being as the process of knowledge, state change, changes. If, with the help of the concepts of "something" and nothing ", the negation at the level of the subject aspect of being, the mediation of the concepts" Genesis "and" non-existence "reflects the negation as the transition process to other at the level of the dynamic aspect of being. Consider the denial of being in the form of ratio something and something. At the level of the subject being, denial is implemented in the form of relations of differences and opposites. The world, understood as being at all, appears before us as a whole. At the same time, it is an endless plenty of private existence. The difference is one of the general characteristics of all things in the world.

Any thing taken in the aggregate of its properties is cash, i.e. Something with high quality and quantitative definiteness and autonomous being.

In the borders of his existence, the thing (something) is the self-reading and completely independent reality, deploying on parity principles with other things, so that its being cannot be borrowed or transferred by other things. After its occurrence, everything definitely, as it were, is doomed to Being in the appropriate limits. Genesis of any things in principle cannot be extended due to the addition of being taken from another thing. Each thing exists only within the borders of his being. So, a person can live only by his life. He does not have the opportunity to take at least a moment of being of another person and, at the expense of this, live more than him allotted. The expression "live the life of another" concludes another meaning in itself, namely: to reproduce the content of the other in the content of its consciousness and activity. In this regard, any person lives the life of their loved ones and acquaintances and the masses of other people whose life is wondering, regardless of whether they are his contemporaries or treat past generations. However, he, therefore, only reflects the life of other people in his life, while remaining completely within the borders of his individual existence, without adding anything and not having reduced from his being, because as a reality he remains the same. In contrast to the objects of the outside world, a person as a creature with consciousness and will may stop its human (social and biological) existence, however, it is unable to stop its physical being as objects of the material world.

With autonomous being, equality with itself and high-quality definiteness, any given thing (something) with respect to all other other than their denial is already due to only its difference from them. Spinosa expressed this idea in aphorism: "Every definition is denial." All that exists outside of the existence of this particular thing is another being. This is also something, but this, which acts other, and not the same, and therefore concludes the denying of the existence of this thing. There are absolutely identical things in the world. Since there is no other to be in Genesis of each given thing, since each given something is nothing else. Nothing in real reality is thus the fact of the existence of a relationship of differences between the finite and single something. When it is established that this thing is not quite something or not at all what is another thing, then the first in relation to the second is nothing last, and vice versa. Moreover, when considering the mutual relationship of things, each of them begins to perform at the same time as something and nothing: it is a certain cash and therefore and therefore there are no other things.

Being-for-other and in-know-being (it. SEIN-FUR-ANDERES and ANSICHSEIN) - categories of "science logic" of Hegel. Entered in the 2nd chapter of the 1st section. The categorical group in which these concepts includes, is denoted by the word "reality" (Realitsst). The connection of these categories of hegel is delineated as follows: First, the unity of pure being and nothing, the fixed category of formation, is found; Then the transition to Cash Being (DASEIN). "Cash Being as such is direct, irrelevant ...

Being-in-world

Being-in-world (IN-DER-WELT-SEIN) is the first existential, which analyzes Hydegger in "Genesis and Time" (section "Existential Analytics", § 12, stamping). It is necessary to start with the extremely general consciousness of how the world is a person, with the fact that a person finds himself in the world. The "world" in this sense shows itself in the very first, blurred and uncertain form as a place in which the person is "is". "Being-in-world" more initially than any knowledge, i.e.

Genesis in philosophy of the 20th century

Genesis In the philosophy of the 20th century, the revival of interest in the problem of being in the 20th century, as a rule, is accompanied by criticism of neocantianism and positivism. At the same time, the philosophy of life (Bergson, Dilites, Spengler, etc.), considering the principle of mediating the specifics of natural sciences and the science oriented on them (indirect knowledge deals only with attitude, but never - with the Being himself), appeals to direct knowledge, intuition - But not intellectual intuition of rationalism of the 17th century, and the intuition of the irrational, the firmity of artistic.

Genesis in the philosophy of the 19th century

Genesis in the 19th century philosophy. The principle of the identity of thinking and being, Hegel's panelogism caused a wide reaction in the 19th century philosophy. Late Shelling and Schopenhauer opposed Hegel Volunctarian concept of being. From the standpoint of realism, the criticism of German idealism was led by F. Trendelenburg, I.F. Herbart, B. Bolzano. In defense of the naturalistic interpretation of Being as a single natural individual, Feuerbach spoke. The existence of a separate person who is not conducive to mind, nor to the world of universal, opposed Hegel Kierkegra.

Genesis in philosophy of 17-18 centuries

Genesis in philosophy of 17-18 centuries. As in the 17th century philosophy, the Spirit, the mind loses its ontological status and acts as an antipolystic of being, the epistemological problem becomes dominant, and ontology develops into natural philosophy. In the 18th century, together with the criticism of rationalistic metaphysics, being is increasingly identified with nature (of which the principles of also social life are revealed), and ontology with natural science. So, Hobbes, considering the body of philosophy (natural bodies - products of nature and artificial, created by human will - state), excludes from conducting philosophy the whole sphere, which in antiquity was called "Being" as opposed to changeable formation ...

Genesis [Medieval Understanding]

The understanding of being in the Middle Ages was determined by two traditions: antique philosophy, on the one hand, and Christian revelation - on the other. In the Greeks, the concept of being, as well as perfection, is associated with the concepts of limit, one, indivisible and certain. Accordingly, infinite, unlimited is recognized as imperfection, non-existence. On the contrary, in the Old and New Testaments, the most perfect existence is God - there is a boundless omnipotence, and therefore here any restriction and certainty are perceived as a sign of limbs and imperfections.

Genesis as an ancient Greek philosophy

Being, existing as the concept of ancient Greek philosophy. In theoretically reflective form, the concept of being for the first time appears in Eleans. Being is there, but there is no nonsense, says Parmenid ("On Nature", B6), for it is impossible to know nor express non-existence - it is incomprehensible. "For to think - the same thing to be ... You can only speak and think that there is; Being is there, and nothing is ... "(Lebedev A.V.Fragments, Part 1, p. 296).

Genesis (NFE, 2010)

Genesis (Greek. Εἶναι, οὐσία; lat. ESE) - one of the central concepts of philosophy. "The question that has been raised since ancient times and is now constantly put and delivers difficulties, is the question of what is such a thing" (Aristotle, Metaphysics VII, 1). Ontology - the doctrine of being - is from the time of Aristotle the object of the so-called. "First Philosophy". Depending on how a thinker, school or direction interprets the question of being, his connection with knowledge, with nature (physics) and the meaning of human existence (ethics), determines the overall orientation of this direction.

Genesis (SFS, 2009)

Genesis (Greek. Einai, Ousia; Lat. Esse) is one of the central concepts of philosophy. The revival of interest in the problem of being in the 20th century, as a rule, is accompanied by criticism and . At the same time, the philosophy of life, considering the principle of mediating the specifics of natural sciences and oriented on them

In russian language

The first book of the Old Testament is called the Being. In the Church Slavonic translation in Word Being ( Sia Book G. Bet Heaven and Earth) It is called that in Synodal referred to origin (Greek. γενέσεως ; Lat. genergees.) (Gen.). The term Being is found in the wisdom of Solomon (Prem.) In the book of the Prophet Daniel (Dan.). In the philosopher, Gregory Frys Being is synonymous with the universe. Gregory Teplova is a Latin word ENS by Being.

Ancient Greek philosophy about being

Idealistic philosophy about being

Existentialism about being

Fundamental ontology Hydegger

• Being of things (tel), processes Includes being of things, processes, nature states; The Being of Nature as a whole and being of the "second nature", that is, things and processes made by man.
• Genesis of man - both in the world of things, and specifically human being.
• Being spiritual (perfect) It is divided into an individualized spiritual and objectified (out-perceptual) spiritual.
• Genesis is social It is divided into individual Being (the being of a separate person in society and in the process of history) and the Being of society.

Semantic definition

In the process of studying the semantic value of Genesis, the semantics traditionally refers to the oldest sign of the Umoboros - a snake that bite himself by the tail, which describes the cyclical nature of being or eternity. In mathematical logic, an infinity sign is sometimes used in this case, but in fact, due to the fact that the sign infinity describes quantitative changes, it is also inappropriate for use in the description of being. The theory of prototypes comes to the rescue. A variety of experiments conducted by the authors of cognitive psychology, in particular, show that, on the basis of general traits, some prototypes are formed, including the prototype of being. Many cultures describe a friend like a kind of line - a process that may have its origin - a birth, the middle - some existence event, or a series of events - the system and the end - death, and may also exist in the form of the smallest part of the time - the moment of being, or reflect All its length - from beginning to end - the period of being.

see also

Write a review about the article "Genesis"

Notes

Literature

• Badue A. Being and event. (L'Etre et L "Événement. - Paris: Seuil, Coll.l'Ordre Philosophique, 1988.)
• Gaydenko P. P. Beziva and Mind. // Questions of philosophy .1997.№ 7.
• Gaydenko P. P. // New Philosophical Encyclopedia /; Nat. societies. -cache. fund; Present. Scientifies. Council V. S. Stupin, Deputy Subs.: A. A. Guseynov, G. Yu. Semigin, uch. Secrets. A. P. Cucumbers. - 2nd ed., Act. and dopol. - m .: Thought, 2010. - ISBN 978-5-244-01115-9.
• Dobrochotov A. L. M.: Publishing House of Moscow University. M., 1986.
• Isaev A. A. The problem of the substantiation of categories "Genesis" and "existence" in the history of philosophy // Philosophical life of the Urals. Ekaterinburg, 1999. P. 200-2006.
• Sartre J.-P. Genesis and nothing: the experience of phenomenological ontology / per. With Fr., Preport., Note. V.I. Kololyko. - M.: Republic, 2000.
• Solodue N. M. Being and non-existence as the limiting foundation of the world // Questions of philosophy, No. 6, 2001.
• Heidegger M. Bezia and time. - M.: Ad Marginem, 1997. Translation from German V. V. Bibikhina.
• Tsyvelev V. R. Category of being in Russian philosophy: (from Vl. Solovyov to S. L. Rubinstein) // Scientific notes MHPI. - Murmansk, 2002. -M..1.- S. 64-72.

Excerpt

The sovereign immediately accepted the sent in his office, in the palace of the Stone Island. Misho, who never seen Moscow to campaign and who did not know in Russian, felt still touched when he appeared in front of Notre Tres Gracieux Souverain [our all-storeist lord] (as he wrote) with news about the fire of Moscow, Dont Les Flammes Eclairaient SA ROUTE [whose flame covered his way].
Although the source Chagrin [Grief] G on Misho and had to be another than the one from which the mountain of Russian people had flowed, Misho had such a sad face when he was introduced into the Cabinet of the Sovereign that the sovereign immediately asked him:
- M "Apportez Vous De Tristes Nouvelles, Colonel? [What news did you bring me? Dear, Colonel?]
"Bien Tristes, Sire," Misho answered, dropping her eyes, "L" Abandon de Moscou. [Very bad, Your Majesty, Leaving Moscow.]
- Aurait on LIVRE MON ANCIENNE CAPITALE SANS SE BATTRE? [Did you really betray my ancient capital without a battle?] - Suddenly, flashed, the sovereign spent quickly.
Misho respectfully gave the fact that he was ordered to transfer from Kutuzov - exactly the fact that there was no possibility to fight for Moscow and that, since one choice remained - to lose the army and Moscow or one Moscow, then Field Marshal was supposed to choose the latter.
The silence listened to silently, without looking at Misho.
- L "ENNEMI EST IL EN VILLE? [The enemy entered the city?] - he asked.
- OUI, SIRE, ET ELLE EST EN CENDRES A L "HEURE QU" IL EST. Je L "Ai Laissee Toute en flammes, [Yes, Your Majesty, and he has been facing a fius at the moment. I left him in the flame.] - Miso resolutely said; but, looking at the sovereign, Misho was horrified by what he did. The sovereign is hard and often began to breathe, the lower lip of it trembled, and beautiful blue eyes were instantly overwhelmed with tears.
But it lasted only one minute. The sovereign suddenly frowned, as if condemning himself for his weakness. And, lifting the head, a hard voice appealed to Misho.
- Je Vois, Colonel, Par Tout Ce Qui Nous Arrive, - He said, - Que La Providence Exige De Grands Sacrifices de Nous ... Je Suis Pet a Me Soumettre a Toutes Ses Volonts; Mais Dites Moi, Michaud, Comment Avez Vous Laisse L "Armee, En Voyant Ainsi, Sans Coup Ferir Abandonner Mon Ancienne Capitale? N" Avez Vous Pas Apercu du Decouragement? .. [I see a colonel, all over what happens that Providence requires big victims from us ... I am ready to submit his will; But tell me, Misho, how did you leave the army who left my ancient capital without the battle? Did you notice the decline of the Spirit?]
Having seen her tres Gracieux Souverain, Misho also calmed down, but on a direct essential question of the sovereign, demanding a direct response, he did not have time to prepare a response.
- SIRE, ME PERMETTREZ VOUS DE VOUS PARLER FRANCHEMENT EN LOYAL MILITAIRE? [Sovereign, will you allow me to speak frankly, how is it like this warrior?] - he said to win time.
- Colonel, Je L "Exige Toujours," said the sovereign. - NE ME CACHEZ RIEN, JE Veux Savoir Absolument CE QU "IL EN EST. [Colonel, I always demand it ... Do not hide anything, I certainly want to know all the truth.]
- SIRE! - Miso said with a thin, a little noticeable smile on his lips, having time to prepare his answer in the form of a lightweight and respectful Jeu De Mots [Word Games]. - SIRE! J "AI Laisse Toute L" Armee Depuis Les Chefs Jusqu "Au Dernier Soldat, Sans Exception, Dans Une Crainte Epouvantable, Effrayante ... [Sovereign! I left the whole army, starting with the bosses to the last soldier, without exception, in great, desperate Fear ...]
- Comment CA? - strictly frowning, interrupted the sovereign. - Mes Russes SE Laisseront Ils Abattre Par Le Malheur ... Jamais! .. [How so? My Russians can fall in spirit before failure ... Never! ..]
That was just waiting for Misho to insert his words to the game.
"Sire," he said with respectful playfulness of the expression, - Ils Craignent Seulement Que Votre Majeste Par Bonte De C? Ur Ne Se Laisse Persuader De Faire La Paix. ILS BRULENT DE COMBATTRE, - spoke of the authorized Russian people, - Et de Prouver a Votre Majeste Par Le Sacrifice de LEUR VIE, Combien Ils Lui Sont Devoues ... [Sovereign, they are afraid only that your Majesty for the kindness of the soul does not decide to conclude the world . They are impatient to fight again and prove to your majesty victim to your life, as far as they are committed ...]
- AH! - Soothed and with a gentle brilliance, the sovereign said, hitting Misho's shoulder. - Vous Me Tranquillisez, Colonel. [BUT! You calm me, colonel.]
Sovereign, dropping his head, was silent several times.
- Eh Bien, Retournez Al "Armee, [Well, so come back to the army.] - He said, straightening in full growth and with a gentle and magnificent gesture Turning to Misho, - Et Dites a Nos Braves, Dites a tous Mes Bons Sujets Partout Ou Vous Passerez, Que Quand Je N "Aurais Plus Aucun Soldat, Je Me Mettrai Moi Meme, A La Tete de Ma Chere Noblesse, De Mes Bons Paysans et j" Userai Ainsi Jusqu "A La Derniere Ressource De Mon Empire. IL M "EN OFFRE ENCORE PLUS QUE MES ENNEMIS NE PENSENT - said the sovereign, more and more encouraging. - Mais Si Jamais Il Fut Ecrit Dans Les Decrets De La Divine Providence, - He said, raising his beautiful, meek and shiny feeling Eyes to Sky, - Que Ma Dinastie Dut Cesser De Rogner Sur Le Trone de Mes Ancetres, Alors, APRES Avoir Epuise Touve Les Moyens Qui Sont EN Mon Pouvoir, Je Me Laisserai Croitre La Barbe Jusqu "ICI (Sovere showed hand on half of the chest) , Et J "Irai Manger des Pommes De Terre Avec Le Dernier de Mes Paysans Plutott, Que De Signer La Honte De Ma Patrie Et De Ma Chere Nation, Dont Je Sais AppRecier Les Sacrifices! .. [Tell the bravesties to our, tell me to all my subjects. , wherever you will pass that when I have no one soldier, I will be at the head of my kind nobility and good men and thus exhaust the last means of my state. They are more than thinking my enemies ... But if It was intended to be divine providence m so that our dynasty cease to reign on the throne of my ancestors, then, exhausting all the funds that in my hands, I will let the beard so far and rather I will go there there is one potato with the last of my peasants, rather than decide to sign my homeland's shame and my dear People, whose victims I can appreciate! ..] After saying these words with an agitated voice, the sovereign suddenly turned, as if wanting to hide the tears from Misho, and went deep into his office. After standing there for a few moments, he returned with big steps to Misho and a strong gesture squeezed his hand lowering the elbow. The beautiful, gentle face of the sovereign was painted, and the eyes burned with shine determination and anger.
- Colonel Michaud, N "Oubliez Pas Ce Que Je Vous DIS ICI; PEUT ETRE QU" UN JOUR NOUUS NOUUS LE RAPPELERONS AVEC Plaisir ... Napoleon Ou Moi, "said the sovereign, coming to the chest. - Nous Ne Pouvons Plus REGNER ENSEMBLE. J "Ai Appris a Le Connaitre, Il Ne Me Trompera Plus ... [Colonel Miso, do not forget that I told you here; Maybe we will ever remember this with pleasure ... Napoleon or I ... We can no longer reign together. I learned it now, and he will no longer deceive me ...] - And the sovereign, frowning, fell silent. Hearing these words, seeing the expression of a solid determination in the eyes of the sovereign, Miso - Quoique Etranger, Mais Russe de C? Ur et d "Ame - felt yourself in this solemn minute - Entouusiasme Par Tout CE QU "Il Venait D" Entendre [Although a foreigner, but Russian in the depths of the soul ... delighted with all what he heard] (as he said later), and he portrayed as his Feelings and feelings of the Russian people, whom he considered himself authorized.
- SIRE! - he said. - Votre Majeste Signe Dans Ce Moment La Gloire de La Nation Et Le Salut De L "Europe! [Sovereign! Your Majesty signs this minute the glory of the people and the salvation of Europe!]
The sovereign went to the head of the head Misho.

While Russia was up to half of the conquest, and the residents of Moscow fled to the distant provinces, and the militia for harsh climbed to defend the Fatherland, involuntarily seems to us who did not live at the time that all Russian people from Mala have been taken to great To sacrifice themselves, save fatherland or cry over his destruction. Stories, descriptions of that time, all without exception speak only about self-sacrifice, love for the Fatherland, despair, Mountain and Russian heroism. In fact, it was not so. It seems to us so only because we see from the past one common historical interest of that time and do not see all those personal, human interests that were in people of that time. Meanwhile, in fact, those personal interests of the present to such an extent are more common interests that they never feel about them (even noticeable is not at all). Most of the people of that time did not pay any attention to the general course of affairs, and only the personal interests of this. And these people were the most useful figures of that time.
The same who tried to understand the general course of affairs and with self-sacrifice and heroism wanted to participate in it, were the most useless members of society; They saw all the overall, and all that they did for good, turned out to be useless nonsense, like Pierre's shelves, Mamonov, who robbed Russian villages, like a korpio, pinched with ladies and never reach the wounded, etc. Even those who, Loving to wisely and express his feelings, interpreted about the present position of Russia, unwittingly worn in the speeches of their imprint or pretendation and lies, or useless condemnation and malice on people accused of what no one could be to blame. In historical events, it is obvious to the prohibition of tasking of the fetus of the Tree of knowledge. Only one unconscious activity brings fruit, and a person playing a role in a historical event never understands its meaning. If he is trying to understand him, he is amazed in infertility.

Genesis is a philosophical category denoting reality that exists objectively, regardless of the consciousness, will and human emotions, the philosophical category for the designation of the existing as it is thinking. Under being in the broadest sense of this word mean extremely general concept about the existence, about the judgment at all. Being is all that is - everything is visible and invisible.

The doctrine of being - ontology is one of the central problems of philosophy.

The problem of being occurs when this kind of universal, it would seem natural, the prerequisites become the subject of doubts and thought. And reasons for this more than enough. After all, the world surrounding, natural and social, now and the matter asks a person and humanity difficult questions, makes thinking over previously not clarified with the usual substances of real life. Like the Shakespiest Hamlet, people are most often concerned about the issue of being and nonsense when they feel that the connection between the time ...

After analyzing the problem of being, philosophy is repelled from the fact of the existence of the world and everything that in the world there is, but for her the initial postulate is not this fact itself, and its meaning.

The first aspect of the problem of being is and there is a long chain of thoughts about the existence, answers to questions that exist? - Peace. Where does exist? - Here and everywhere. How long? - Now and always: the world was, there will be. How long do individual things, organisms, people, their livelihoods?

The second aspect of the problem of being is determined by the fact that for nature, society, a person, his thoughts, there is something common, namely, the fact that the listed objects really exist. Due to its existence, they form a holistic unity of an infinite incredit world. The world as a misunderstanding unity is out of and to a certain extent, regardless of a person. Genesis is the background of the unity of the world.

As a third aspect, the problem of being may be put forward to the situation that the world is reality, which, since it exists, has the internal logic of existence and development. This logic precedes, as if preserving the birth of people and their consciousness, and for effective human activity it is necessary to know this logic, to investigate the laws of being.

Genesis is divided into two worlds: the world of physical things, processes, material reality and the world of the ideal, world of consciousness, the inner world of man, his mental states.

These two worlds have various ways of their existence. Physical, material, natural world exists objectively, regardless of the will and consciousness of people. The mental world - the world of human consciousness exists subjectively, as dependent on the will and desire of people, individual individuals. The question of how these two worlds relate is the main question of philosophy. The combination of these two basic forms of being allows you to allocate a few more types of forms of being.

A special place in these worlds is a person. He is a natural creature, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is endowed with consciousness, and therefore may exist not only physically, but also to argue about the life of the world and its own being. The human being embodies the dialectical unity of the objective and subjective and subjective, body and spirit. In itself, this phenomenon is unique. Material, natural acts in a person in a primary prerequisite of its existence. At the same time, many actions of a person are regulated by social, spiritual and moral motives. In the broadest sense, humanity is a community, which includes all individuals living or who lived earlier on Earth, as well as those who have to be born. It should be borne in mind that people exist before, out and regardless of the consciousness of each individual. A healthy, normally functioning body is a necessary prerequisite for mental activity, a healthy mind. This is also said to the People's Proverb: "In a healthy body - a healthy mind." True, faithful in its essence adoption allows for exceptions, since the human intelligence, his psyche is not always subordinated to a healthy body. But the Spirit, as you know, has, or rather, is able to have a huge positive impact on the vital activity of the human body.

Attention should also be paid to such a feature of human existence as the dependence of its bodily action from social motivation. While other natural things and bodies operate automatically, and it is possible with a sufficient certainty to predict their behavior on the nearest and long-distance perspective, this cannot be done relative to the human body. His manifestations and deeds are often regulated by non-biological instincts, but spiritual and moral and social motifs.

A peculiar way of existence characterizes and human society. In social life, material and perfect, nature and spirit are intertwined. Genesis of social is divided into the being of a separate person in society and in the process of history and being of society. We will analyze this form of being in sections dedicated to society.

The theme of the forms of being is of great importance to clarify the differences in philosophical views. The main difference usually concerns what form of being to consider the main and determining, initial, which forms of being of the derivatives. So, materialism considers the basic form of being Natural Being, the rest - derivatives dependent on the main form. And idealism considers the main form of ideal being.

Being is the broadest philosophical category, which is used to designate substantiality, as well as the integrity of the world. Genesis in philosophy originated in ancient Greece. The emergence of the teachings about it coincided with the advent of philosophical knowledge, as well as with the transition to theoretical and logical thinking.

The concept that the world is holistic, not immediately formed. Its appearance contributed to intermediate concepts and concepts. Those thinkers who lived during the antiquity period were very carefully considered all sorts of philosophical constructions, while relying on those knowledge that were obtained by their predecessors. They also relied on mythology, art and so on.

Over time, a completely new installation in the understanding of the surrounding world arises in the knowledge. It is that Greek natural philosophers considered reality as a kind of variety all the time changing objects, processes, phenomena, and their followers were asked about the basis of all these changes. This basis is being. Philosophy even in our time often refers to this category. Learning, many great philosophers were engaged in studying.

Genesis in philosophy

The word "being" itself is a combination of two other words: the first is to "be", the second is "there." Note that it denotes not only the very existence of something in this world, but guarantees that this existence is natural and quite real.

Being in philosophy makes it possible to feel the world as something holistic, uniform, not consisting of individual parts. Science, which studies being is called ontology - this is one of the most important knowledge.

What is the basis of being? It is based on the fact that a person perceives the world not only as existing here and now, but also as what is forever and remains real even where this person has never been and will not. The existence here is also proved by human experience, and the eternity and infinity of the world explains the intuitive activities of consciousness. The unity of the above described above and constitutes the structures of the concept of being.

Philosophers dealing with the issues of being sincerely believe that the world remains unshakable despite all the shocks that occur in nature and society. Nothing affects him, he always remains constant, holistic, unchanged. The unshakable world is a true being, the support that gives us a guarantee that reality will not disappear.

Reflections O. strong world are the core of the sense-forming human activity. It can be said that all sorts of concepts are imposed on intuition, which forms the meaning concluded in various

Ontology argues that the world that exists around us lives, and also develops according to its own laws. These laws never depend on and will not depend on any desire, nor from our will. They provide harmony, as well as the stability of our activity, although at the same time limit it. The ability to follow the laws of being largely simplifies the existence of a person and any other creature.

These include:

• category of things. Here we are talking about the essence of the things of nature, as well as things created by a person;
• the spiritual category. Here everything is based on the subjective, as well as on the objective spirit;
• human category. Here you can observe division on a person as the creatures of nature, as well as on a person as a creature of a specific, separated from this nature;
• It consists of the life of society and the Being of a separate person.

Genesis in philosophy is just one of the points of philosophical reasoning about a person and the surrounding world. Despite this, the significance of ontology is really great.