Философ сегодня: личность и нравственный выбор (англ. яз)

  Kosichenko A.G.,

                                                                                              The main scientific employee of Institute of philosophy, 

                                                                                             political science and religious studies of the Ministry

 of Education and Science of Republic Kazakhstan,


                                                                                                             Doctor of Philosophy, Professor                     


          Тhe philosopher today: the person and a moral choice                                                                    


     The philosophy takes a special place in cultural space. It is not simply aspiration to wisdom, not only "science" about wisdom, not amorphous love of wisdom, but is wisdom as that. And wisdom in this case acts in unity of intellectual true and true behavior, act. The philosopher, thereby, shows a wise man arriving in the consent with true. Therefore the philosophy is the practical true shown by action, and the philosopher - the person, living a true life, wisely.

     Told concerning essence of philosophy and the philosopher is incomplete without the reference to philosopher personality and its moral preferences. It would be not superfluous to remind, that there are two basic concepts of an origin of morals: the first, asserting, that morals of the person has developed in historical process of its self-creativity and the second, seeing a source of morals of the person in the God, created the person in his own image. It is clear, that these concepts are essentially separated, and connected, generally speaking, with world outlook bases of life. Depending on acceptance of this or that concept of genesis and the maintenance moral maximums, the behavior of the person and all his life as a whole is differently estimated.

      The philosopher of the antiquity who has met danger, did not consider shameful to hide from it. So in that he radically differed from the antique hero accepting fate, as high inevitability. Therefore the philosophy, having only just allocated from a myth, began to invent at once, completely not heroic, representations about due, about a debt, about meaning of the life. Actually already then have been developed receptions of the justification of empty and insignificant life, small and primitive. People resort to this theoretical basis hitherto, without dependence from that, do they know something from philosophy or not, (elite philosophical reflections find thousand ways road to people, being vulgarized, of course, but reach there goal) having enriched this basis during history uncountable variety of practical ways to survive.

If look under this corner at stages of development of philosophy, it is possible to notice, that, for example, the German classics, meticulousness grind a logic system of thinking, generated a specific way of leaving from responsibility for a senseless life - absolutising logic, it eliminate the subject maintenance - human life. Consequently occurrence of a following stage of philosophy - «life philosophies», which has in turn thought up abstract approaches by this life, is quite defensible. And so - it is constant.

     So moral was developed on time, showed the forms and fixed in its natural-historical understanding. So there were morals «free from the God» person. Such "freedom" is not differs from slavery, and it is no wonder, that the philosophers remaining in horizon of such vision, didn't go further understanding of freedom as necessity overcoming, though to everyone it is clear, that from necessity not to deduce freedom as from harm not to make good. As freedom ontological, and, hence, is inherent to person initially, the person and in this paradigm is free, but his favorite thing is refusal of freedom and slavery acceptance. Don't think, that the mankind «ran through the labyrinth» and has been deprived «a free choice» to choose moral paradigms. Freedom thus was as much as necessary, nobody exhausted the person in this particular labyrinth, there was many labyrinths –just choose.

     The Christianity, firstly, has clearly declared necessity of return by a heroic life - lives in the God which is not smaller heroism, than antique, only is not called as heroism, and called as humility. But, as more Christianity spread, as more volume and in its structure there were the deformed doctrines entering the person in new forms of slavery.Freedom, in Christianity for the first time received an ontologic substantiation, is too high for a practical life of the average person, who avoid of unification with God, therefore flight from freedom has begun long before E.Fromma. And, however, that vision of morals which Christianity has brought, was not eliminate, the morals as the arch of practical norms of a life going back to were not possible, to the Sermon on the Mount precepts, releasing the person from slavery to a sin, now will accompany the person till the end of time.

     Here two understandings of freedom, and two systems of morals interfaced to them (the first, generated by the person during evolution, «in the course of a creative ascension to the essence» and the second, precept by the God), constantly, everywhere and simultaneously are present at any horizons of human life, provoking the person on an immemorial choice and for a life in the chosen moral measurements. Rare from people avoid a permanent situation of a choice, meaningly and fundamentally having defined on the relation of good and harm, freedom and responsibility, morals and its visibility. The constant choice is not freedom display as many think, on the contrary, necessity of a constant choice more correctly to consider as a certain version of damnation. On the contrary, freedom is the life according to true (and one God is true), such life does not put the person before a choice - he already has chosen all, having accepted true which, as is known, make the person free. But this happiness of the few, it is necessary not simply know but also to believe, that is the extremely difficult for overwhelming majority. Therefore more often we observe not life creation in the God, and continuous vanity which is called as a life.

     On this vital scene we see and our philosopher fussing more of others - anyhow: he should live his life and others to learn as it to live. We see Voltaire calling «to crush a reptile», but by the end of his life building cathedrals; we see the ingenious N.Berdjaeva knowing about a life almost everything, but afraid to live; we see the unchained Sartre, the master of the thoughts, admiring collection of Mao citations; we see the postmodernists admiring the ability to spread out a life to non-recoverable fragments. Sad picture. The heart-breaking show - as was used to say by burro Ia-ia from A.Milne's fairy tale "Winnie-the-Pooh".

     There is no vital strategy which would not let down as a result of its subject. Poorly some forms of ability to live of the person are worthy that them, it was possible to justify residing at them of all life. Very seldom the person lives an intelligent life. Only the affinity to the God justifies a human life. But the philosopher has not enough «to be in a shade» the God. In it his trouble. The philosopher feels a duty to broadcast, learn, invent, and represent something especial.Perhaps, for a long time ago, when the person was more complete, for the philosopher in it was though any sense, but today - to whom the reflexing egoist is necessary, incapable to live a responsible life. If you, the philosopher, are close to true, then live so that another people want to imitate you. Actually, it was a sense of ancient philosophical schools - where they today?

     There are some spheres of human activity, and philosophy among them for which the outlook of the subject of this activity is especially important the same as its personal and moral preferences is important. Strictly speaking, the person of the personality and its morals are important at any human activity if it to consider widely enough, including in it, and dialogue which the person in the course of this activity enters, and the further history of results of its activity. The person can be interesting, developed, deep out of communication with the private form of the activity, but, we will repeat, there are special spheres of activity which without fail, demand the developed person and moral responsibility. Such is philosophy. Because of that it disappears today (does not change, as by naivety it is represented for many people, but disappears), that for its deduction in the world as socially appreciable phenomenon, already there is no enough of moral philosophers. Imaginary philosophers and philosophers as profession while suffice, but internal erosion of philosophy has reached the sizes menacing to its existence. After all, as we remember, the philosophy is love of wisdom, and the consecutive love of wisdom leads to a wise life. Therefore philosophers cannot be much as there cannot be many wise men. But nevertheless, despite a rarity, there are wise men today, so can be, and the philosophy remains in public life?

     It is thought, the philosophy will disappear, anyway, will disappear from a spectrum of socially significant phenomena. In horizon of personal life, it, most likely, remains, but will return to the status which possessed till Middle Ages epoch. Till the designated epoch the philosophy was personal thing, and the philosopher personally was engaged in it, some significant social recognition at the philosopher was not, there were people understanding it, there were judges, there were followers and opponents. But there was not the public status for philosophers. The people appreciating philosophy, having intentions to introduce it in true really significant public ways of ability to live and possessing for this purpose the sufficient social status could "introduce" these truths, but it were already additional efforts which are falling outside the limits actually philosophy.

     The philosophy is elite inherently. After all it is impossible to make wise all society. There are the measurements of human life having essentially personal character. For example God - he addresses to the person, instead of to a society. Therefore the religion is area of personal "meeting" with God. Therefore so it is difficult to make religious a society - all can say, that they believe in God, but all cannot trust in Him. If all trusted, it would be necessary to all society to live in God - here the paradise. But is not paradise on the earth, and will not be. The few trust - «much called, but a little selected». Philosophy which - if clearly to speak - has gemmated from religion, wanted to prove that, in what it is possible to trust only, now, having broken away, all aspires to assimilate to the source - religions and consequently it is similar to religion and the elitism, the requirement of personal participation in philosophy. And realization of all these requirements (both in religion, and in philosophy) is possible only at sacrifice - fidelities, self-return.To endow yourself - so meaningly to limit yourself for the sake of something high concerning what it is not known, whether it is, whether it is not present - today, at general orientation to material success, to pantophagy of the person, many people cannot. Here and there is an elitism (in religion, in philosophy) - as sacrifice, instead of as high-flown.

     Therefore today ordered forms of philosophy break up, disappear.The philosophy, the further, the will become more business of the singles, ready to run risks to devote the life to goal which can turn back poverty, misunderstanding of associates, to become derelict. Such is a payment for attempt to come nearer to true, for aspiration to tell something new in sphere of a deep reflexion of the person over himself, over life and sense of this life. Such step can do only the developed person possessing morals personally. Here with all definiteness it is necessary to underline, that the person cannot be immoral. There are some people with the damaged morals - some maintenance of the personal beginning in them is available. Such people are the majority. Therefore it is impossible to tell, that only it is moral developed person (and the more so it is impossible to assert, that only the advanced person) is the person, "person" - wider concept, rather than «the moral person». And here the person without morals, deprived of the moral beginnings and obligations, is not the person. The moral beginnings here mean not a hint on them in the person, but their deep presence, it rootedness in the person. So deep, that for the person it is difficult to get rid of internal moral requirements, from «a conscience voice» as still speak. Conscience - criterion of morals, it, as a rule, convicts the person, reproaches him (reproaches because the person, making unworthy him, not due, perfectly knows, that does not that, but owing to "freedom" nevertheless does), says to it that it should do and that should not. So the person has very good "guide", but a choice also, a choice - here it a temptation with which it is very difficult to consult, and following to false understood freedom muffles a conscience voice. Muffles, and in vain as conscience is so important for the person, that all deep world outlook systems (not only religious) understand, that happiness to which people so aspire, is anything to others as a life in the consent with conscience. 

     And here we have a close connection: conscience (criterion of moral behavior) - morals as a condition of the person - the person as the subject of philosophy - philosophy as worthy the person business, capable to lead him to God.Therefore the philosopher is obliged to be conscientious, differently he tear all indirectness designated chain, losing possibility to be the philosopher.The moral solvency of the person generates the complete person, and the complete person is capable to be engaged in philosophy, therefore to be moral is not a wish to the philosopher, but the condition without which the person cannot be him.