L, I. Shestov - philosophy of irrationalism and theocentrism. Shestov, Lev Spiritual quests of writers of the Silver Age

Berdyaev Nikolay

The main idea of Lev Shestov's philosophy

Several times already on the pages of “The Path” I have written about Lev Shestov. But now there is a need to talk about him differently and honor his memory. Lev Shestov was a philosopher who philosophized with his whole being, for whom philosophy was not an academic specialty, but a matter of life and death. He was one-minded. And his independence from the surrounding currents of time was amazing. He sought God, sought the liberation of man from the power of necessity. And this was his personal problem. His philosophy belonged to the type of existential philosophy, that is, it did not objectify the process of cognition, did not separate it from the subject of cognition, and connected it with the integral destiny of man. Existential philosophy means the memory of the existentiality of the philosophizing subject, who puts existential experience into his philosophy. This type of philosophy assumes that the mystery of existence is understandable only in human existence. For Lev Shestov, human tragedy, the horrors and suffering of human life, the experience of hopelessness were the source of philosophy. There is no need to exaggerate the novelty of what is now called existential philosophy, thanks to certain trends in modern German philosophy. All genuine and significant philosophers have had this element. Spinoza philosophized using the geometric method and his philosophy can give the impression of a cold, objective philosophy. But philosophical knowledge was for him a matter of salvation, and his amor Dei intellectualis does not at all belong to objective scientific truths. By the way, L. Shestov’s attitude towards Spinoza was very interesting. Spinoza was his enemy, with whom he fought all his life as if against temptation. Spinoza is the representative of human reason, the destroyer of revelation. And at the same time, L. Shestov loved Spinoza very much, constantly remembered him, and often quoted him. In recent years, L. Shestov had a very significant meeting with Kierkegaard. He had never read it before, knew it only by hearsay, and there can be no question of Kierkegaard’s influence on his thought. When he read it, he was deeply moved, shocked by Kierkegaard's closeness to the main theme of his life. And he counted Kierkegaard among his heroes. His heroes were Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Luther, Pascal and the heroes of the Bible - Abraham, Job, Isaiah. Like Kierkegaard, the theme of L. Shestov's philosophy was religious, like Kierkegaard, his main enemy was Hegel. He went from Nietzsche to the Bible. And he turned more and more to biblical revelation. The conflict between biblical revelation and Greek philosophy became the main theme of his thoughts.

L. Shestov subordinated everything he thought, said and wrote to the main theme of his life. He could look at the world, make assessments of the thoughts of others exclusively from within his theme, he related everything to it and divided the world in relation to this theme. He was shocked by this topic. How to formulate it? He was shocked by the power of necessity over human life, which gives rise to the horrors of life. He was not interested in the crude forms of necessity, but in the refined forms. The power of inevitable necessity was idealized by philosophers as reason and morality, as self-evident and universally binding truths. Necessity is generated by knowledge. L. Shestov is completely captivated by the idea that the Fall is connected with knowledge, with the knowledge of good and evil. Man stopped eating from the tree of life and began to eat from the tree of knowledge. And L. Shestov fights against the power of knowledge, which subordinates man to the law, in the name of liberating life. This is a passionate impulse towards paradise, towards a free heavenly life. But paradise is achieved through aggravation of conflict, through disharmony and hopelessness. L. Shestov, in essence, is not at all against scientific knowledge, nor against reason in everyday life. That wasn't his problem. He is against the claims of science and reason to resolve the question of God, of the liberation of man from the tragic horror of human fate, when reason and rational knowledge want to limit possibilities. God is, first of all, unlimited possibilities; this is the basic definition of God. God is not bound by any necessary truths. The human personality is a victim of necessary truths, the law of reason and morality, a victim of the universal and generally binding.

The kingdom of necessity, the kingdom of reason, is opposed by God. God is not bound by anything, not subject to anything, for God everything is possible. Here L. Shestov poses a problem that bothered scholastic medieval philosophy. Is God subject to reason, truth and goodness, or are truth and goodness only what God posits? The first point of view comes from Plato, St. stood on it. Thomas Aquinas. The second point of view was defended by Duns Scotus. The first point of view is associated with intellectualism, the second with voluntarism. L. Shestov is related to Duns Scotus, but he poses the problem much more radically. If there is a God, then all possibilities are revealed, then the truths of reason cease to be inevitable and the horrors of life are conquerable. Here we touch upon the most important thing in the Shestov theme. Connected with this is the deep shock that characterizes Shestov’s entire thought. Can God make things that were become non-existent? This is the most incomprehensible to the mind. It was very easy to misunderstand L. Shestov. The poisoned Socrates can be resurrected, Christians believe this. Kierkegaard may have his bride returned, Nietzsche may be cured of his terrible disease. This is not what L. Shestov wants to say at all. God can make sure that Socrates was not poisoned, Kierkegaard did not lose his bride, Nietzsche did not fall ill with a terrible disease. An absolute victory over the necessity that rational knowledge imposes on the past is possible. L. Shestov was tormented by the inevitability of the past, tormented by the horror of what had once been.

The contrast of Jerusalem and Athens, the contrast of Abraham and Job with Socrates and Aristotle is also connected with the same theme of the necessary coercive truth. When they tried to combine reason, discovered by Greek philosophy, with revelation, an apostasy from the faith occurred, and this was always done by theology. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was replaced by the God of theologians and philosophers. Philo was the first traitor. God was subordinate to reason, necessary, universally binding truths. Then Abraham, the hero of faith, died. L. Shestov is very close to Luther, Luther’s salvation by faith alone. Man's liberation cannot come from himself, but only from God. God is a liberator. What liberates is not reason, not morality, not human activity, but faith. Faith means a miracle for the necessary truths of reason. The mountains are moving. Faith requires madness. The Apostle Paul already says this. Faith affirms conflict, paradox, as Kierkegaard liked to say. L. Shestov expressed with great radicalism a truly existing and eternal problem. The paradoxical nature of thought and the irony that L. Shestov constantly resorted to in his manner of writing made it difficult to understand him. Sometimes he was misunderstood exactly the other way around. This happened, for example, with such a remarkable thinker as Unamuno, who greatly sympathized with L. Shestov.

The philosophical thought of L. Shestov encountered great difficulty in its expression, and this gave rise to many misunderstandings. The difficulty was in the inexpressibility in words of what L. Shestov thought about the main theme of his life, the inexpressibility of the main thing. He more often resorted to a negative form of expression, and this was more successful for him. It was clear what he was fighting against. The positive form of expression was more difficult. Human language is too rationalized, too adapted to the thought already generated by the Fall - the knowledge of good and evil. L. Shestov's thought, directed against universal obligatory nature, involuntarily itself took the form of universal obligatory nature. And this gave an easy weapon to critics. Here we are faced with a very deep and little-studied problem of the communication of creative thought to another. Are the most primary and the latest reported, or only the secondary and transitional? This problem is truly posed by existential philosophy. For her, this is the problem of transition from “I” to “you” in genuine communication. For philosophy, which considers itself rational, this problem does not seem troubling due to the assumption of universal reason. The same universal mind makes possible the adequate transmission of thought and knowledge from one to another. But in reality, the mind is of stages, of different qualities and depends on the nature of human existence, on existential experience. The will determines the character of the mind. Therefore, the question is raised about the possibility of transmitting philosophical thought not through a rational concept. And truly rational concepts do not establish messages from one to another. L. Shestov was not directly interested in this problem and did not write about it; he was completely absorbed in the relationship between man and God, and not in the relationship between man and man. But his philosophy raises this problem very sharply; he himself becomes the problem of philosophy. His contradiction was that he was a philosopher, i.e. a man of thought and knowledge, and recognized the tragedy of human existence, denying knowledge. He fought against the tyranny of reason, against the power of knowledge, which expelled man from paradise, on the territory of knowledge itself, resorting to the tools of reason itself. This is the difficulty of a philosophy that wants to be existential. In exacerbating this difficulty, I see the merit of L. Shestov.

L. Shestov fought for the individual, for the individually unique against the power of the common. His main enemy was Hegel and the Hegelian universal spirit. In this he is akin to Kierkegaard, akin in theme to Belinsky in his letters to Botkin and especially Dostoevsky. In this struggle there is truth in L. Shestov. In this struggle against the power of the universally binding, he was so radical that what was true and saving for one he considered not true and not obligatory for another. He essentially thought that every person has his own personal truth. But this raised the same problem of communication. Is communication between people possible on the basis of the truth of revelation, or is this communication possible only on the basis of the truths of reason, adapted to everyday life, on the basis of what L. Shestov, following Dostoevsky, called “everythingness”?

Until the last days of Lev Shestov’s life, he had a burning thought, excitement and tension. He showed the victory of the spirit over the weakness of the body. Perhaps his best books, “Kirkegaardt and Existential Philosophy” and “Athens and Jerusalem, the Experience of Religious Philosophy,” were written by him in the last period of his life. Now is not the time to criticize the philosophy of my old friend Lev Shestov. There is just one thing I would like to say. I very much sympathize with the problems of Lev Shestov and the motive of his struggle against the power of the “common” over human life is close to me. But I always disagreed with him in my assessment of knowledge; I do not see it as the source of the necessity that weighs on our lives. Only existential philosophy can explain what is going on here. L. Shestov's books help answer the basic question of human existence; they have existential significance.

Thank you for downloading the book from the free electronic library http://filosoff.org/ Enjoy reading!
http://lbuckshee.com/ Bakshi forum buckshee. Sports, auto, finance, real estate. Healthy lifestyle.
http://petimer.ru/ Online store, website Online clothing store Online shoe store Online store
http://worksites.ru/ Development of online stores. Creation of corporate websites. Integration, Hosting.
http://dostoevskiyfyodor.ru/ Happy reading!

Lev Shestov (pseudonym of Lev Isaakovich Shvartsman) (1866–1938) graduated from the Faculty of Law of Kyiv University. In his youth, he went through a fascination with left-wing ideas and seriously studied the problems of the economic and social situation of the Russian proletariat (his dissertation was devoted to these issues). Subsequently (at least already in the 90s), Shestov moved away from all politics into the world of literary criticism and philosophical essayism, and this choice turned out to be final. Most of the emigrant period of his life (in exile since 1919) passed in France.

Already in Shestov’s first major work as a writer, “Shakespeare and his critic Brandeis” (1898), the main themes of his work are outlined quite clearly: the fate of a separate, individual person in the indifferent and merciless world of natural and social necessity; science and the “scientific worldview,” which essentially justify and bless the complete hopelessness of human existence, depriving life of even its tragic meaning. Criticism of reason in general and philosophical speculation primarily become the essence and content of all of Shestov’s further work. In the name of what did he make this consistent and radical choice in favor of irrationalism? What prompted this subtle thinker, undoubtedly endowed with the gift of “clear thinking” and equally “clear presentation,” to spend all his spiritual strength on an endless and irreconcilable struggle with philosophical reason, in fact with the entire metaphysical tradition - from Plato to his friend E. Husserl?

Berdyaev was inclined to believe that Shestov’s “main idea” was the latter’s struggle “against the power of the universally binding” and in defending the meaning of “personal truth” that every person has. In general terms, this is, of course, true: existential experience (“personal truth”) meant immeasurably more for Shestov than any universal truths. But with such a view, Shestov’s position loses its originality and, in essence, is not much different from the position of Berdyaev himself, who defended with no less energy the importance of the spiritual experience of the individual. However, in reality the difference goes much deeper. Shestov disagreed with Berdyaev on the most important metaphysical question for the latter - the question of freedom. For Shestov, Berdyaev’s teaching about the spiritual overcoming of necessity and the spiritual creation of the “kingdom of freedom” is nothing more than ordinary idealism, and idealism in both the philosophical and everyday sense, that is, something sublime, but not vital, not powerful (“Nikolai Berdyaev. Gnosis and existential philosophy". Shestov contrasts Berdyaev’s “gnosis” of uncreated freedom with his own understanding of it. “Faith is freedom”, “freedom comes not from knowledge, but from faith”... - such statements are constantly present in Shestov’s later works.

It is the idea of faith - freedom that gives reason to consider Shestov as a religious thinker. Criticizing any attempts at a speculative attitude towards God (philosophical and theological in equal measure), Shestov contrasts them with an exclusively individual, vital (existential) and, it must be emphasized, free path of faith. Shestov's faith is free because it is faith contrary to logic and contrary to it, contrary to evidence, contrary to fate. But not only the “external” necessity of nature or rationality is alien to Shestov’s faith—freedom. No less alien to her is faith in the Providence of God, in Grace, in the possibility of Divine Love for this world, where children suffer and die, where Socrates is killed, where Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (the thinkers closest to Shestov himself) are tragically misunderstood, where there is not and cannot be the truth.

Shestov sincerely and deeply criticized the “faith of the philosophers” for its philosophical-Olympian calm, attacked, with his characteristic literary and intellectual brilliance, the famous formula of B. Spinoza: “Do not laugh, do not cry, do not curse, but understand.” But in Shestov’s own writings we are talking about faith, which is by no means alien to philosophy and is born from a deeply suffered, but no less deeply thought-out understanding of the impossibility of saving human freedom without the idea of God. In his radical irrationalism, he continues to stand firmly on cultural-historical and certainly philosophical grounds. Shestov never likened himself to the biblical Job (about whose faith he wrote vividly and soulfully), just as his philosophical “double” Kierkegaard never identified himself with the “knight of faith” Abraham. An existential philosopher does not prophesy or formulate a creed, or affirm dogma. He, even denying reason, speaks of what he considers true - no more, but no less. Shestov’s irrationalism had nothing in common with madness, nor with the ordinary, nor with the “sacred,” and there was undoubtedly logic in it, and not some kind of “own,” special, but the only possible, universal logic of human thought. Existential philosophy, Shestov argued, begins with tragedy, but this does not exclude, but, on the contrary, presupposes tension of thought. This philosophy is based on the assumption (or hope, to put it in more “existential” language) “that the unknown cannot have anything in common with the known, that even the known is not as known as is commonly thought...”.

The idea of a single history, of events occurring once and for all, triumphed, according to Shestov, in European thought. For him, the only meaning of history is that it can have a “subjunctive mood.” The idea of faith - freedom appears in Shestov’s works as the only possible “positive” answer to the question about the meaning of human existence. He could not rationally prove that “what was will become not what was,” that Socrates would not be killed, that the fate of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, all those whose lot in life refutes any attempts to harmonize the world, the desire to present it as “the best of worlds,” would be different. But at the same time, Shestov did not believe that such a thing was impossible: the factual reality of history and its “reasonable” justification meant too little to him.

By exposing rationalism in its claims to universality, Shestov “made room for faith”: only God can, not in thought, but in reality, “correct” history, make the past non-existent. What is absurd from the point of view of reason is possible for God, Shestov argued. “For God nothing is impossible” - this is the most cherished, the deepest, the only, I am ready to say, thought of Kierkegaard - and at the same time it is what fundamentally distinguishes existential philosophy from speculative philosophy. But faith presupposes going beyond the boundaries of any philosophy, even existential. For Shestov, existential faith is “belief in the Absurd,” in the fact that the impossible is possible, and, most importantly, in the fact that God desires this impossible. It must be assumed that Shestov’s thought, which did not recognize any limits, should have stopped at this last boundary: here, too, he could only believe and hope.

Metaphysical ideas played a significant role in the work of two major Russian medievalist historians: G. P. Fedotov and L. P. Karsavin.

Philosophy of irrationalism by Lev Shestov

Lev Shestov is the pseudonym of Lev Isaakovich Shvartsman (1866-1938). Like many other famous thinkers of Russia, he did not accept the October Revolution in 1919. emigrated to Europe.

Problems of philosophy. Shestov saw the task of philosophy as “teaching a person to live in the unknown.” He believed that a person is most afraid of the unknown and hides from it behind various dogmas. For this reason, philosophy should not reassure, but confuse people. A person needs it in order to find answers to “damned questions”. By these we mean questions of the meaning of life, the essence of death, the existence of God and being with God, “what is my purpose?”, “what is my destiny?” Philosophy and literature have accumulated many ready-made answers to such questions. But Shestov believed that the acceptance of any specific worldview-answer is the “dungeon of the seeking spirit.” Any system tries to explain the world so that everything in life becomes clear and understandable. Shestov doubted the usefulness of such explanations. He believed that there should be nothing clear and understandable. Everything is extraordinarily mysterious and mysterious in the world.

The reality of the incomprehensible. Shestov opposed traditional philosophy. There is only one reality - the reality of the incomprehensible, absurd, irrational, which does not fit into reason and knowledge, contradicts them, rebels against logic, against everything that makes up the familiar world.
Posted on ref.rf
Our world is idealized

Section VIII Russian philosophy

van us, and therefore ideas about him are false and deceptive. These illusions seem strong and stable to us. But at any moment, an unexpected reality can emerge. Because the reality we create is illusory, then the newly emerged reality can lead to a disaster in the usual life.

Shestov’s thoughts turned out to be prophetic: the suddenly emerging reality of the post-communist world on the ruins of the USSR turned out to be a real tragedy for many of its former citizens.

Shestov denied the truths of reason. He became disillusioned with reason because it does not give a person reconciliation with reality and knows nothing about such an eternal mystery as death. The mind tries to calm a person, but only by deceiving him, leading him away from reality. And yet, man prefers the “reliability” of reason to the mysterious and paradoxical freedom of faith. People do not need God, but guarantees. Whoever is able to create the illusion of these guarantees will become God for them.

Search for truth. Shestov believed that the entire history of philosophy is the history of the search for truth. At the same time, it is not enough for this or that thinker to simply have the truth; he absolutely needs it to be the truth “for everyone.” At the same time, Shestov was sure that true truth cannot be deduced using logic and, therefore, is opposite to the truths of science and human morality.

True doesn't belong to the world it is supramundane, akin to a miracle, and is located on the other side of reason. Truth is God. Miracle and mystery are fundamental qualities of being, and every being is already a miracle. Shestov believes that children are taught incorrectly from childhood, refuting the miracle: “What, for example, does a modern person understand in the words “natural development of the world”? Forget “school” for one minute, and immediately see that the development of the world is terribly unnatural: it would be natural if there was nothing - neither peace, nor development.

Existential philosophy of Shestov. Shestov developed existential philosophy in the later period of his work under the influence of the works of S. Kierkegaard. In Shestov’s view, life is creativity, unpredictability and freedom. Life is a miracle with unlimited possibilities. “Living” is true, real reality, everything that is opposite to peace.

Death has a direct bearing on human existence. It is necessary for "revival" life, because “for there to be great delight, great horror is needed.” Shestov considered impermanence to be one of the basic features of individual human existence, although it irritates those around the person (who, in essence, are also fickle). At the same time, the concepts are associated with it

Topic 28 Features of Russian philosophy of the late 19th century - mid-20th century

true life and freedom. Οʜᴎ allow a person to rebel against everyday life and extreme importance, allowing his creativity. Only in this case does a person truly begin.

Creativity, according to Shestov, is universal a characteristic of the true world, discontinuity, a leap, as a result of which the unprecedented, the unknown is born out of nothing. In creativity, human existence appears as a beginning that has no end.

The philosophy of irrationalism by Lev Shestov - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “Philosophy of Irrationalism by Lev Shestov” 2017, 2018.

Questions of philosophy. 2016. No. 1 1 .

V.N. Porus

The article substantiates the thesis that L. Shestov’s irrationalism is a form of protest against a culture that has subordinated individual existence to rational schemes and is indifferent to human tragedy. Shestov's philosophy is a warning about the catastrophe threatening humanity, to which the hypertrophy of rationalism as a cultural value leads.

KEY WORDS: rationalism, irrationalism, freedom, culture, existence.

PORUS Vladimir Natanovich - Doctor of Philosophy, full professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow.

Citation: Porus V.N.. About the so-called irrationalism of Lev Shestov// Questions of philosophy fii. 2016. No. 11.

Questions Filosofii. 2016. Vol. 11.

Vladimir N. Porus

In the article the thesis that L. Shestov’s irrationalism is the form of the protest against the indifferent to human tragic culture, which has subordinated individual existence to rational schemes, is proven. Philosophy of L. Shestov is a prevention of accident threatening to mankind to which the rationalism hypertrophy as a cultural value conducts.

KEYWORDS: rationalism, irrationalism, freedom, culture, existence.

PORUS Vladimir N. ‒ DSc in Philosophy, Professor in Ordinary of the National Research University ‒ Higher School of Economics, Moscow.

This e-mail is protected from spambots. To view it, your browser must have Javascript enabled

Citation: Porus V.N.About So-Called Irrationalism of L. Schestov// Questions Filosofii. 2016. Vol. 1 1 .

L. Shestov did not resist being called an “irrationalist.” On the contrary, he contributed to this by stopping at crossroads where his thought crossed the “trends” of world philosophy, as if in order to once again challenge the “rationalists.” It must be said that the challenge did not bother them much. Sincerity of feelings, elegance of style, originality of thought - this could not be overlooked in Shestov, but was not taken into account too much when the question of admitting him to the host of philosophers was raised.

Indeed, while rejecting the claims of reason to be the supreme judge in all human affairs, Shestov did not engage in epistemology. He saw in his contemporary theory of knowledge only an apologetics of science: “Is scientific knowledge really perfect or, perhaps, is it imperfect and, because of this, should give way to other knowledge that it now occupies the place of honor. This is, apparently, the most important question in the theory of knowledge, and it never poses this question. She wants to glorify existing science, it was, is and, probably, will continue to be apologetics for a long time...”[Shestov 1996 II, 286] . Such statements were not honored by most philosophers then, as indeed they are today. It is not surprising that this cast doubt on Shestov’s right to be considered a “true philosopher” who follows the principle of “free search for truth” [Levitsky 1996, 387].

But also L.N. Tolstoy, who had his own reason to be dissatisfied with Shestov, different from the “apologists,” did not recognize him as a philosopher either [Tolstoy 1934, 21]. Although he was sympathetic to the attacks against the conceit of scientists, he called the “Great Eves” “vain talk” and “decadence” [Bulgakov 1989, 104], perhaps becoming angry at the reproaches of his doublethink.L. Shestov more than once bullied the writer, allowing himself to “expose” the great whistleblower: “On the one hand, a prophet lives in him... ready to become close to madness, challenge common sense to mortal combat and neglect all the joys of life.< … > On the other hand, he frantically clings to reason and teaches people to hope that religion is precisely what helps us organize our lives” [Shestov 1996 II, 349].

S.N. Bulgakov considered Shestov a “peculiar thinker,” but not a philosopher, since he tried to look at philosophy “from the outside,” criticizing it from the position of “individualistic perception of the world and life” and not trusting its “universalist” justifications or justifications of reality [Bulgakov 1993, 522] . ON THE. Berdyaev expressed himself more intricately: “Being a philosopher, he fights against philosophy... and wants to philosophize like Dostoevsky’s “underground man.” According to him, Shestov is a man of one theme, “... which possessed him entirely and which he put into everything he wrote” [Berdyaev 1990, 251], and this theme is religious.

Shestov didn’t argue. Luther's sola fide “he put in the title of one of his works, which is not without reason considered the key to his philosophy. Faith pushes aside and displaces reason, which claims to rise above reality by climbing on metaphysical stilts. What is this faith? Berdyaev sees in it a trace of Judaism (“He represents Jerusalem, not Athens” [Ibid.]), but Shestov also found similarities in his thought with the religious quests of Luther, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. His personal search for God was painful and incomplete. Berdyaev, in fact, was right when he noted that Shestov “... was looking for faith, but he did not express faith itself” [Ibid.].

But be that as it may, it is “ sola fide Shestov opposed rationalism. His remarkable eloquence gave his arguments an exciting poignancy.

The main one is that the “monster of the mind” (according to Luther, “ bellua qua non occisa homo non potest vivere “, a monster, without killing which a person cannot live) [Shestov 1992, 59] not only captured the entire life world of a person, but turned him into a dummy, devoid of human experiences: compassion, love, hope, faith itself. They are repressed on the other side of “rational being” and declared dark, unknowable “irrational remnants” [Shestov 1993 I , 229]. Shestov called for taking up arms against this monster, speaking out against its philosophical defenders. Against Spinoza, whose main task “...was to uproot the old idea of God from the human soul” [Shestov 1993 I , 434]. Against Hegel, who did not find in himself “...neither the courage nor the desire to stop and ask himself why and where he has such trust in reason and knowledge” [Shestov 1993 I , 417]. Against Husserl, who proclaimed the “autonomy of reason” in relation to reality, without noticing that at the same time between them “... a certain irreconcilable antagonism opens up, a fierce struggle for the right to being” [Shestov 1993 I, 220].

He provoked the reader, offering him a choice: to join the subverters of reason, or to join the ranks of its defenders. The choice is absurd. From the fact that classical rationalism in the modern world is not capable of becoming the basis of a worldview, because reality rebels against it at each of the most important points and, moreover, exposes its internal contradictions, it does not follow that “rebellion against reason” is the path of revival human world. Hence the desire to “correct” Shestov, to point out the mistakes that he makes in his fierce rejection of rationalism (see:[Motroshilova 1989, 142]). But Shestov would not accept the amendments.

He did not fight against “reason,” although it was to it that he sent his invective. Behind “reason”, the target at which the “irrationalist” Shestov seems to be aiming, there is another, main goal hidden. To get into it, you must first break through the screen, and Shestov is trying to do this. He points to the real addressee of his “irrationalistic criticism”, for example, in his polemic with Husserl.“You were deeply right,” he turns to his opponent, “in announcing that the connection of times has disintegrated - the connection of times definitely disintegrates from any attempt to discern even the slightest crack in the foundation on which our knowledge rests. But is it necessary to preserve – no matter the cost – our knowledge? Is it necessary to reintroduce time into the rut from which it was thrown? Maybe it's the other way around? Maybe you need to push it again - so much so that it breaks into pieces?[Shestov 1989, 146].

That's the point. Shestov’s enemy is not reason, not knowledge, but “time,” in other words, culture that has become alien and even hostile to man. The fight with this enemy is tragically hopeless, because Shestov himself belongs to this culture. That is why his escapades sound so hysterical: he attacks the mind, feeling and maintaining his dependence on it. Not only because his critique of rationality strives to be rational, as researchers have noted more than once (see:[Zenkovsky 1991, 83]). Rejecting the soil on which the anti-humanly degenerate culture grows, he himself remains without soil, and this groundlessness reaches “apotheosis.” Shestov enters the battle, but he has to fight his enemy on the territory of his own inner world. Therefore, the tragic hero - the role he takes on - is doomed, but cannot and does not want to avoid his fate. The “philosophy of tragedy” turns into the “tragedy of philosophy,” and therefore the tragedy of the philosopher.

V.V. Lyutov notes that Shestov had the opportunity to penetrate into such “... depths tragedies of human thinking, human despair, powerlessness and fear, before which irrationalism itself - the rejection of logical knowledge - will seem only a light philosophical flair, a game of cat and mouse with academics, the mask that allows you to “philosophize about philosophy” and - never - about the depth of the author’s, private, human fascination - an echo, echo of a possible salvation or no less possible catastrophe" [Lyutov 1999 web ]. Shestov’s “irrationalism” is the armor in which the hero of a philosophical tragedy wears to fight the monster of culture, who hides his ugliness under the beautiful mask of “rationalism.”

This monster has not one head, but at least two. The first subordinates life to “eternal and unchangeable truths”, the other forces us to bow before “eternal and unchangeable good”, before the unshakable moral rules by which a person is forced to live and act. For the first, everything that does not correspond to “truths” or “laws” must be rejected and condemned. Even God does not dare to transgress these boundaries of his will, which means that man has nothing to love Him for: “But how can one love God, who is only the reason, who does what he does with the same necessity as any inanimate object?<...> I’ll ask again: if we judge God, the soul, human passions in the same way as we judge lines, planes and bodies, then what gives us the right to demand or at least advise a person to love God, and not a plane, a stone or a block of wood? And why do people ask for love, and not a line or a monkey? Nothing that exists in the world has the right to claim an exceptional position: after all, all “things” in the entire universe with equal necessity came from the eternal laws of nature” [Shestov 1996 I, 274].

And the second head of the monster: “Spinoza killed God those. taught people to think that there is no God, that there is only substance, that the mathematical method (that is, the method of indifferent, objective or scientific research) is the only true method of searching, that man does not constitute a state within a state, that the Bible, prophets and apostles are true did not discover, but brought to people only moral teachings, and that moral teachings and laws could well replace God...” [Shestov 1996 I , 275]. She condemns and rejects everything “human, too human” that violates these inexorable moral laws.

Sophisticated cruelty also lies in the fact that the culture’s judgment of a person is accompanied by a sermon addressed to the same person. Not only does the condemned person pay for his moral sins with his hopes, exile, even life itself, he is also crushed spiritually, prostrating himself before the court and not daring to turn to it with a plea for mercy.

Leo Tolstoy, “the tearer of all and every mask,” did not escape this temptation. In "Resurrection"An English preacher is trying to explain to the prisoners the meaning of Christ’s words about turning the other cheek to the offender who hit you. The answer was laughter. The prisoners do not believe the teaching conveyed to them by a “stranger” who looks at them “... as if they were wild, speaks to them as if they were wild; “That’s why they answer him like wild ones, they cannot answer otherwise...” [Merezhkovsky 1995, 237]. The hypocrisy that appears through the good looks of the missionary is transmitted to morality itself, and in it people see only false empty talk. It's like that. But doesn't Tolstoy himself resemble his caricature?

“U gr. Tolstoy's sermon is self-sufficient. It is not for the sake of the poor, hungry and humiliated that he calls for good. On the contrary, all these unfortunate people are remembered only for the sake of good” [ Shestov 1996 I, 315]. Good, having climbed like a hermit crab into its Idea, is alienated from man and becomes an idol demanding sacrifices. “God is deliberately replaced by good, and good by the brotherly love of people. Such a faith does not, generally speaking, exclude complete atheism, complete lack of faith, and necessarily leads to the desire to destroy, strangle, crush other people in the name of some principle that is presented as mandatory, although in itself it is more or less alien and unnecessary neither his defender nor the people" [ Shestov 1996 I, 265].

Culture is the kingdom of ideas. Shestov ironizes: “Ideas live a completely independent, free and autonomous life. It would be as if there were no people in the world at all. They come from unknown where, go unknown where, then return again if they please... Your anxiety is your well-deserved punishment: the wisest among you have long ago comprehended this great truth. If you want to get rid of torment, submit to ideas, turn into ideas yourself. In this and only in this is your salvation." Shestov 1993 II, 196].

The book "On the Scales of Job" was published in 1929 and aroused many critical responses. Of course, she can be criticized now - even more harshly than then. But one cannot help but be amazed at the prophetic feeling with which this imaginary a picture of a world populated by former people converted into ideas.

Almost at the same time Andrei Platonov makes this picture real. The inhabitants of Chevengur fulfilled Shestov’s ironic behest. They became bodily carriers of ideas. The idea of God became the idea of communism, and communism became the common body of the Chevengurs. In this community there is salvation from loneliness, from the disunity of human atoms, from anxiety about the meaning of one’s existence. Stepan Kopenkin feels the idea of communism “with a warm peace spread throughout his whole body” [Platonov 2011, 297]. And bodily fusion with her turns him into an instrument for the destruction of everything that is considered a threat to the “converted”. Ideas that have taken possession of people subjugate their thoughts, actions, and feelings. Love, hope, faith, happiness are not the feelings of living people, but the ideas that replaced them. If culture is the kingdom of ideas, then this is a kingdom spread out in space that was previously inhabited by people. The kingdom of melancholy.

But melancholy is still life, not an ideological dummy. Chevengur is showing signs of life.The power of ideas is held by the power of people who have identified themselves with the ideas. But this power is not absolute. In the depths of every person's soul, it encounters resistance from the fundamental foundations on which humanity rests. If the resistance had been broken, the Chevengur world would have become dead. A person who retained a living feeling would only have to leave this world. But life is not completely crushed by the oppression of ideas. This is precisely what the melancholy in the air of Chevengur testifies to: the disagreement of people to be duplicates of ideas, their mortal copies (see: [Porus 2014]).

Something similar sounds in Shestov’s philosophy. The thought of Kierkegaard is close to him: the despair that grips a person when he realizes that he cannot escape the chains of necessity that shackles his physical and spiritual existence is his only hope. It opens the way to God for him. Sola fide . Shestov repeats this like a spell. Not rational necessity, not the Kantian categorical imperative, not “brotherly love” between people, not one of these “idols of culture” - God is above all this, and the path to him is through despair to faith.

This is the hope of liberating from the pressure of a culture in which there is no place for respect for “the great misfortune, the great ugliness, the great failure” (Nietzsche). Philosophy must focus on the tragic fate of individual existence, otherwise it is not needed at all. Science can at least manage without philosophical exercises; there is no need for them in other spheres of mental and practical activity (Shestov is even ready to agree with the positivists on this). But the main and final subject of philosophy is man as he is, taken not in an “essential” abstraction, but in his inescapable individual suffering, in the tragic reality of his existence.

But rationalism, which became the basis of the “philosophy of everyday life,” cannot rise to such an understanding, i.e. the embodiment and deification of common sense. “Imperative moralism”, indifferent to human tragedy, is equally unsuitable. On these pillars stands a culture that does not deserve to be saved. Her crisis is obvious, “the ax is already at her roots,” but she doesn’t need to O should die. The person will repay her with the same indifference with which she rejects and abandons the “most unfortunate” to their fate. Therefore, attempts to update its foundations, give them human meaning, and build a new edifice of rationalism (Husserl) will be unsuccessful, being dubious from a moral point of view.

Will a new world “with a human face” be erected on the ruins of a collapsed culture? If a person must travel the path to God alone, is it possible for people to come to unity in cultural existence along the same path? "We must seek God"‒ Shestov insists. But the insistence of the refrain betrays his uncertainty. Will it not happen that, having become convinced of the hopelessness of the search, the masses of individuals, whose unity is only possible through direct or indirect violence (a culture with its morality or a civilization with its structures of power and subordination), will calm down on becoming a “human herd”, herded by disinterested people? "earthly gods"? Rebellion against the violence of reason over freedom, will it not turn into the most vulgar of unfreedoms - the subordination of man in the form of a “rational”, but ultimately petty and meaningless everyday vanity that absorbs human life, and the dreams of a pure and saving Faith - an ironic exchange of commonly used simulacra?

Shestov could not answer such questions. But he tried to prove that philosophy, if it still retains a significant place in life, should take the side of man in his dispute with culture, even if this dispute was obviously losing. Berdyaev noted: “Shestov is a warning for our entire culture, and it is not so easy to cope with him with the most sublime, but ordinary “ideas.” We need to accept the tragic experience that he tells us about, to survive it” [Berdyaev 1994, 246]. Otherwise, culture, blinded by its imaginary triumph over human nature, will approach the abyss, and philosophy will not be able to stop its fall, using the entire stock of its rationalistic arguments.

Shestov's irrationalism, in essence, is a warning about this danger. It should not be understood as an apologetics for the destructive elements pacified and suppressed by reason. On the contrary, the autocracy of rationalism, which claims total control over the entire space of human existence, inevitably leads to an explosion, opening the path of total destruction for the rebellious elements. The guarantee of the vitality of culture lies in the indispensable coexistence and struggle of opposite principles: the due and the existing, freedom and necessity, the universal and the particular - united in man.

Sources - Primary Sources

Berdyaev 1990 - Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. The main problems of Russian thought XIX century and the beginning of the twentieth century // About Russia and Russian philosophical culture. Philosophers Russian post-October abroad. M.: Nauka, 1990. P. . 43‒271 [Berdyaev N.A. T he Russian idea: The main problems of Russian thought of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Russian].

Berdyaev 1994 ‒ Berdyaev N.A. Tragedy and everyday life // Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of creativity, culture and art. IN 2 t. T . 2. M.: Art, 1994. With . 217‒246 .

Bulgakov 1989 - Bulgakov V.L.. L.N. Tolstoy in the last year of his life: Diary of Secretary L.N. Tolstoy. M.: Is it true , 1989 [Bulgakov V.L. Leo Tolstoy in the last year of his life: Diary of Leo Tolstoy’s secretary. In Russian].

Bulgakov 1993 ‒ Bulgakov S.N. Some features of L.I.’s religious worldview Shestova // Bulgakov S.N. Essays. IN 2 t. M.: Nauka, 1993. T. 1. C . 519‒537 [BulgakovS.N. Some features of the religious worldview of L.Schestov. In Russian].

Zenkovsky 1991 ‒ Zenkovsky V.V.. History of Russian philosophy. T. 2. Ch. 2. St. Petersburg: Ego , 1991 [Zenkovsky V.V. A History of Russian Philosophy . In Russian].

Levitsky 1996 - Levitsky S.A.. Essays on the history of Russian philosophy. M.: Canon +, 1996 [Levitsky S.A. Essays on the history of Russian philosophy. In Russian].

Merezhkovsky 1995 - Merezhkovsky D.S. L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky // Merezhkovsky D.S. L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Eternal companions. M.: Republic, 1995. P. 7 - 350 [ Merezhkovsky D. S. L. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. In Russian].

Platonov 2011 - Platonov A. Chevengur // Platonov A. Collected Works. T. 3. M.: Vremya, 2011. P. 11-409 [Platonov A. Chevengur. In Russian].

Tolstoy 1934 - Tolstoy L.N. Diaries and notebooks of 1910 // Tolstoy L.N. Full composition of writings. T. 58. M.; L.: Fiction , 1934 [Tolstoy L.N. The diaries and notebooks 1910. In Russian].

Shestov 1989 - Shestov L.I. In memory of the great philosopher (Edmund Husserl) // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 1. C . 144-160 [Schestov L. I.In memory of a great philosopher: Edmund Husserl. In Russian].

Shestov 1992 - Shestov L. Kierkegaard and existential philosophy. Voicecrying in the wilderness. M.: Progress - Gnosis, 1992 [ Shestov L. Kierkegaard and the ExistentialPhilosophy . Vox clamantis in deserto. In Russian].

Shestov 1993 - Shestov L. AND. Essays. In 2 vols. M.: Nauka, 1993 [ Shestov L.I. Works. In Russian].

Shestov 1996 - Shestov L.I. Essays. In 2 volumes. Tomsk: Aquarius, 1996 [Shestov L. I. Works . In Russian].

Lyutov 1999 web - Lyutov V.V.Kierkegaard in Lev Shestov's reading.URL: http://lyutov74.ucoz.ru/publ/zapiski_iz_dnevnika/begstvo_v_nichto_1999_kirgegard_v_prochtenii_lva_shestova_1/1-1-0-45.(Date of access: 06/06/2016).

Motroshilova 1989 - Motroshilova N.V. Parabola of Lev Shestov’s life destiny // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 1. P. 129‒143.

Porus 2014 - Porus V.N.. Being and longing: A.P. Chekhov and A.P. Platonov // Questions of philosophy. 2014. No. 1. P. 19‒33.

References

Lyutov V.V.Kierkegaard in reading of Leo Shestov. URL: http://lyutov 74. ucoz. ru / publ / zapiski _ iz _ dnevnika / begstvo _ v _ nichto _1999_ kirgegard _ v _ prochtenii _ lva _ shestova _1/1-1-0-45. (Date of access: 06/06/2016).

Motroshilova N.V. Parabola of Leo Shestov’s life fate // Questions Filosofii. 1989. No. 1. P. 129‒143.

Porus V.N.Being and melancholy: A.P. Chekhov and A.P. Platonov // Questions Filosofii. 2014. No. 1. P. 19‒33.

A set of test tasks in the discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” was compiled in accordance with the requirements of the State educational standard and work program of 2008, intended for third-year full-time students in the specialty 110301 Agricultural mechanization, 190604 Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and second-year students in the specialty 080110 Economics and accounting (by industry).

Test tasks are given on all topics of the program and can be used for current, midterm and final control for residual

Download:

Preview:

Explanatory note…………………………………………………………...4

1. General provisions……………………………………………………………...…5

1.1. Information on the number of test tasks……………………..……5

1.2. Evaluation criteria……………………………………………………………...….5

1.3. Instructions for completing test tasks…………………...…….5

1.4. List of literature for preparation for testing………………….6

2. Test tasks

2.1. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy, its meaning, functions and roles”..6

Keys………………………………………………………………………………….….6

2.2. Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages”…………………………………………………………………………………..7

Keys…………………………………………………………………………………..…7

2.3. Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy of modern and contemporary times”……………………………………………………………………………………….7

Keys………………………………………………………………………………….….9

2.4. Test assignments on the topic “Man as the main philosophical problem”………………………………………………………………………………….9

Keys…………………………………………………………………………………....10

2.5. Test tasks on the topic “The Problem of Consciousness”………………….....10

Keys………………………………………………………………………………10

2.6. Test tasks on the topic “The Doctrine of Cognition”…………………..…11

2.7. Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy and the scientific picture of the world”………………………………………………………………………………………....11

Keys………………………………………………………………………………11

2.8. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy and Religion”……………….....11

Keys………………………………………………………………………………12

2.9. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy and Art”…………..…12

2.10. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy and History”……………...…12

Keys…………………………………………………………………………………....12

2.11. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy and Culture”………………..12

2.12. Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy and global problems of our time”………………………………………………………………………………......13

Keys………………………………………………………………………………13

References…………………………………………………………………………………13

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Test tasks are given on all topics of the program and can be used for current, midterm and final control of residual knowledge.

The assignments are composed of questions that test students' knowledge of basic philosophical concepts, the teachings of various philosophers and philosophical problems. Test tasks are aimed at repeating the studied material, testing the ability to characterize philosophical concepts, and identifying the specifics of various philosophical teachings. The level of complexity of questions varies from elementary (knowledge of basic terminology) to those requiring systemic knowledge of the discipline.

All tasks are closed-type tests: they are given ready-made answer options, from which you need to choose the correct one and enter it in the answer form.

The set contains data on the number of test tasks for each topic, recommendations for students on how to complete them, a rating scale, and keys to the tests.

Working with a set of test tasks will give the student the opportunity to repeat previously studied material, test himself, and the teacher will be able to prepare first-year students for the test by organizing a final repetition.

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Information about the number of test tasks

Topic name (according to the work program)	Number of hours according to the curriculum	Serial numbers of tasks	General number of tasks
1. Philosophy, its meaning, functions and roles.
2. Philosophy of the ancient world and the Middle Ages.
3. Philosophy of new and contemporary times.
4. Man – as the main philosophical problem.
5. The problem of consciousness.
6. The doctrine of knowledge.
7. Philosophy and scientific picture of the world.
8. Philosophy and religion.
9. Philosophy and art.
10. Philosophy and history.
11. Philosophy and culture.
12. Philosophy and global problems of our time.
Total

Criteria for assessing test tasks

Instructions for completing test tasks

For each test task, four answer options are given, one of which is correct.

Read the test task carefully and analyze the answer options. Indicate the answer you have chosen in the answer form in accordance with the task number (1-b, 2-a, 3-c, etc.).

To save time when completing tasks, skip those that cause you difficulty. You can return to them after completing all the work, if there is time left.

List of literature for preparing for testing

Main:

Additional:

2. TEST TASKS

2.1. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy, its meaning, functions and roles”

Task No. 1

Question: The term “philosophy” translated from Greek means:

Possible answers:

a) ability to think;

b) accumulation of knowledge;

c) love of wisdom;

d) thoughts about life.

Keys

2.2. Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages”

Task No. 2

Question: Ancient Greek philosopher who first used the term “philosophy”:

Possible answers:

a) Pythagoras;

b) Plato;

c) Heraclitus;

d) Aristotle.

Task No. 3

Question: “I know that I know nothing” - the author of the aphorism, the ancient Greek philosopher:

Possible answers:

a) Epicurus;

b) Thales;

c) Socrates;

d) Diogenes.

Task No. 4

Question: Characteristic feature of medieval philosophy:

Possible answers:

a) relied on scientific knowledge;

b) allowed a synthesis of science and religion;

c) presented a religious picture of the world;

d) relied on mythological ideas.

Task No. 5

Question: Medieval philosophers believed that the root cause of everything is:

Possible answers:

a) fire;

b) God;

c) water;

d) air.

Keys

2.3. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy of modern and contemporary times”

Task No. 6

Question: The term "humanism" comes from the Latin humanus, which means:

Possible answers:

a) divine;

b) natural;

c) human;

d) animal.

Task No. 7

Question: The following were of decisive importance for the formation of the philosophy of the New Age:

Possible answers:

A) formation of sciences, primarily natural ones;

b) the development of Protestantism;

c) the formation of an absolute monarchy;

d) the rise of the revolutionary movement.

Task No. 8

Question: Reason is considered as an essential property of a person in philosophy:

Possible answers:

a) New times;

b) Renaissance;

c) Middle Ages;

d) Antiquity.

Task No. 9

Question: Direction in philosophy associated with the name of Freud:

Possible answers:

a) religious philosophy;

b) objective idealism;

c) psychoanalysis;

d) philosophy of life.

Task No. 10

Question: The direction of philosophy of the 20th century, which is materialistic:

Possible answers:

a) objective idealism;

b) existentialism;

c) Marxism;

d) psychoanalysis.

Task No. 11

Question: Founder of German classical philosophy:

Possible answers:

a) G. Hegel;

b) F. Nietzsche;

c) Z Freud;

d) I. Kant.

Keys

2.4. Test tasks on the topic “Man - as the main philosophical problem”

Task No. 12

Question: What does the concept of “anthropogenesis” mean?

Possible answers:

a) the process of emergence and formation of man;

b) section of philosophy about man;

c) a set of human genetic characteristics;

d) correspondence to the term “human gene”.

Task No. 13

Question: According to L. Shestov, man came from:

Possible answers:

a) God;

b) monkeys;

c) has alien roots;

d) some people are from the monkey, some are from Adam.

Task No. 14

Question: Recognition of the value and importance of a person is characteristic of:

Possible answers:

a) selfishness;

b) humanism;

c) liberalism;

d) eudaimonism.

Task No. 15

Question: The philosopher who developed the thesis that “man has evolved only to the state of a super chimpanzee”:

Possible answers:

a) L. Shestov;

b) L. Mumford;

c) F. Nietzsche;

d) I. Kant.

Task No. 16

Question: A distinctive feature of the philosophy of Freudianism (psychoanalysis) in the interpretation of human behavior can be called:

Possible answers:

a) emphasis on the economic factors of civilization;

b) studying the relationship between environmental stimuli and human reactions to them;

c) a person’s desire for cognitive activity;

G) attaching great importance to the sexual instinct.

Keys

2.5. Test tasks on the topic “The Problem of Consciousness”

Task No. 17

Question: In its essence consciousness is:

Possible answers:

a) ideal;

b) material;

c) transcendental;

d) biological.

Task No. 18

Question: A person’s awareness and assessment of himself as an individual - his moral character and interests, values, motives of behavior is called:

Possible answers:

a) memory;

b) attention;

c) psyche;

d) self-awareness.

Task No. 19

Question: One of the elements that S. Freud identified in the structure of the human psyche:

Possible answers:

a) supraconscious;

b) unconscious;

c) postconscious;

d) autoconscious.

Keys

2.6. Test tasks on the topic “The Doctrine of Cognition”

Task No. 20

Question: The first premise of sensationalism is that the only source of our knowledge is:

Possible answers:

a) imagination;

b) fantasy;

c) presentations;

d) sensation.

Task No. 21

Question: Objective truth is knowledge:

Possible answers:

a) reliable, independent of people’s opinions and predilections;

b) aimed at practical results;

c) shared by the majority of people;

d) revealing the meaning of life.

Keys

2.8. Test tasks on the topic “Philosophy and Religion”

Task No. 23

Question: The main question of religious philosophy:

Question: Part of the human environment created by people themselves:

Possible answers:

a) Universe;

b) Space;

c) biosphere;

d) culture.

Keys

Test assignments on the topic “Philosophy and global problems of our time”

Task No. 27

Question: The type of energy that is the most efficient and environmentally friendly for the survival and progress of mankind:

Possible answers:

A) non-renewable resources (coal, oil, gas, wood);

b) renewable resources (solar, wind energy);

V) hydroelectric power;

G) atomic Energy.

Task No. 28

Question: The problems of preserving peace, demography and ecology are called:

Possible answers:

a) local;

b) national;

c) continental;

d) global.

Keys

Bibliography

Main:

Gubin, V. D. Fundamentals of Philosophy [Text]: textbook / V. D. Gubin. – M.: FORUM: INFRA-M, 2004. – 288 p. (Professional education).
Kanke, V. A. Fundamentals of Philosophy [Text]: a textbook for students of secondary special educational institutions / V. A. Kanke. – M.: Logos, 2002. – 288 p.

Additional:

The world of philosophy: Initial philosophical problems, concepts and principles [Text]: a book for reading. In 2 parts. Part 1. – M.: Politizdat, 1991. – 672 p.
World of Philosophy. Human. Society. Culture [Text]: a book to read. Part 2. – M.: Politizdat, 1991. – 624 p.
Fundamentals of philosophy in questions and answers [Text] / ed. E. E. Nesmeyanova. – 2nd ed., revised. and additional – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2002. – 608 p.
Radugin, A. A. Philosophy [Text]: course of lectures / A. A. Radugin. – M.: Center, 1997. – 272 p.
Man: Thinkers of the past and present about life, death and immortality [Text] / editorial board: I. T. Frolov and others; compiled by P. S. Gurevich. – M.: Politizdat, 1991. – 464 p.