Unusual philosophical questions. What philosophical question concerns you most? “No kind gesture, no matter how small, is ever wasted.”

24.11.2019

Why do you dream of finding large paper money?

Why do you dream of betrayal: interpretation from various dream books for men and women Why do you dream of a betrayed friend

What does a church seen in a dream mean?

How to arrange personal life, find the right man, solve relationship problems without conflicts and be happy in love? These and other eternal topics concern any woman. In every situation, it is important to understand the causes of the problems and find a good solution. effective advice. You will find the answer to any question in our selection.

Meeting

1. Loves or doesn’t love?

How can you tell if your boyfriend has serious feelings? He had not yet spoken words of love. Only admiring compliments and hot hints. What if he is an ordinary womanizer, and the novel is just another tick of personal victories for him? Answer to the question>>

2. What feminine qualities attract men?

The most beautiful qualities that need to be developed in order to surprise and immediately conquer any man. Answer to the question>>

3. First date. Continued story?

It depends on this meeting whether the relationship will develop further or will it all end before it even began? But how can you make a romantic story continue? Answer the question>>

4. The man of your dreams, or How to find a prince?

The most common male virtues according to women and their real embodiments. Answer to the question>>

5. First step. Is it possible to make it yourself?

Usually we all expect that “he will come, see, win.” But is it possible to force events yourself? Answer to the question>>

Marriage

1. Male fidelity: myth or reality?

Treason is a serious topic; behind this word there are sometimes real dramas and tragedies. Is it possible to insure against this problem? Answer to the question>>

2. Where can adults meet?

Due to their age and ease of life, boys and girls get to know each other easily. And anywhere. But where and how to do this for mature people? Answer to the question>>

3. Crises in the family. How to bypass and prevent?

Family relationships, like any form of life on earth, go through several stages of development. And crises are an integral part of this life. How to cope? Answer to the question>>

4. Why do men get married?

The overwhelming majority of women want to get married and clearly understand why. But why do men get married? Answer to the question>>

5. What will a man never forgive a woman?

There are things in life that you can close your eyes to. However, there are those who cannot be forgiven. For example, when a man humiliates you or, even worse, beats you, if we talk about ladies. And what the mighty of the world Can’t they forgive a woman for this? Answer to the question>>

Sex

1. How to bring sex back into the family?

The fact that over the years in a family the degree of sexual attractiveness of a partner decreases is an indisputable fact. Is it possible to increase it and how? Answer to the question>>

2. Sexual complexes: how to deal with them

Some women complain that they do not enjoy sex. Whatever the man and the situation, the joy of sex scenes is unknown to them. What to do about it? Answer to the question>>

3. Sexual attractiveness: 5 signs

External data, youth and self-care give only the initial result. Men look for sexual attractiveness in women, and women look for ways to become the most desirable in the world. Is it possible? Answer to the question>>

4. What games can diversify your sex life?

The couple's relationship is passing different stages. There are times when something new is needed, and experiments in bed will come in handy. What to try? Answer to the question>>

5. Rules of ideal sex: what do we dream about?

Women's fantasies about sex are primarily associated with dreams of happy love. And we get an idea about it from books and TV series. In reality, both are very different from the imagined images and pictures on the screen. What should ideal sex be like in life? Answer to the question>>

Parting

1. Why does love leave? Male gaze

When love is just born, at the very beginning of a relationship, as a rule, both lovers, unless, of course, they are the last cynics, are sure that this bright feeling has settled in their souls forever, or at least “until death do us part.” In fact, often bright feelings fade away quite quickly. Why is this happening? Answer to the question>>

2. Get back together after divorce: 4 ways to get your family back

One of the most unpleasant moments after a divorce is the uncertainty. Even after deciding to break up and going through multi-stage and complex legal procedures, we may still experience regret and a desire to restore the past for a long time. How reasonable is this desire and is it worth getting together after a divorce? Answer to the question>>

3. How to get over a breakup...

The ability to break up is a science, the same as the art of seduction, courtship and conquest. Women brilliantly mastered the technique of achieving victories. But how can you survive when love fails? Answer to the question>>

4. How to build a new relationship after divorce

Divorce in modern life has almost become the norm. But despite this, it is stressful for each individual family. There may be a feeling of the end of life and hopelessness. However, it is possible and necessary to build new relationships. How to continue your personal life? Answer to the question>>

5. Life after a breakup, or How to get rid of the painful why?

Have you noticed that quite often after breaking up with a man, we continue to follow his life. There are moments of weakness when suddenly an irresistible desire arises to find out: “How does he live... without me?” How to learn to let go?

The question of the beginning is one of critical issues philosophy, from which, in fact, this science begins. What underlies the world: material or spiritual? This question cannot be avoided by any developed philosophical system. The relationship between matter and consciousness is a universal philosophical principle that has found its most complete expression in the fundamental question of philosophy.

The main question of philosophy, the question of the relationship of thinking to being, was first clearly formulated by F. Engels, who pointed out its two sides. The first (ontological) side is the question of what is primary and determining: being (matter) or thinking (consciousness), in other words, nature or spirit? Material or ideal? The second (epistemological) side is the question of whether the world is knowable, whether thinking is capable of knowing the world as it really exists.

We have to recall these elementary truths of classical philosophy, since today one cannot read about them either in the “New Philosophical Encyclopedia” or in many dictionaries and university textbooks. And in works that in one way or another touch upon the main question of philosophy, Engels’ position is distorted, the struggle between materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy is denied and it is stated that each philosophy has its own “fundamental question” or even several. Thus the fundamental question of philosophy disappears because it is dissolved in infinite number other issues of this science. G. D. Levin bitterly states: “The revolutionary changes that have taken place in Russian philosophy reek of some kind of intellectual cowardice. From textbooks and reference books they silently, without any explanation, remove provisions that were once considered fundamental, cornerstone... The main question of philosophy has also disappeared from them - this “backbone” of dialectical materialism” [Levin 2004: 160]. Levin is against excluding the main question of philosophy from a philosophy course. “This outstanding scientific result of Engels,” he writes, “needs only to be thought through to the end and formulated at the modern level” [Ibid].

Indeed, philosophy, trying to give a holistic view of the world, cannot avoid the question of the relationship between the material and the spiritual, and depending on the answer to its ontological side, philosophical teachings take two fundamentally different positions. The existence of materialism and idealism as two opposite directions is an indisputable fact in the history of philosophy, which was registered long before the formulation of F. Engels. A. Schopenhauer, for example, wrote: “All systems hitherto began either with matter, which gave materialism, or with spirit, with the soul, which gave idealism or at least spiritualism” [Schopenhauer 2001: 55].

Attempts at reasoned criticism of the “main issue” in modern Russian philosophy were made by academician T. I. Oizerman and our famous philosopher A. L. Nikiforov. Nikiforov correctly notes that during the period of monopoly dominance of Marxist philosophy, some philosophers absolutized the main question of philosophy and considered it almost the only philosophical problem. For example, A.V. Potemkin wrote: “The question of the relationship of thinking to being is not one of many questions that stand on a par with them, and in this sense it is not the main question along with non-basic ones, but the essence of all questions. All philosophical questions are contained within its borders” [Potemkin 1973: 130].

Potemkin, of course, is wrong, but what does F. Engels have to do with it? Nikiforov interprets Engels precisely in the sense that the main question of philosophy “occupies a central place in every system” [Nikiforov 2001: 88]. But this is a clear distortion of Engels' position. Considering the main question of philosophy in the history of philosophy, Engels nowhere says that it occupies a central place or is the only question of any philosophy. He only emphasizes that, depending on his decision, philosophers are divided into materialists and idealists: “Philosophers were divided into two large camps according to how they answered this question. Those who maintained that spirit existed before nature, and who therefore ultimately accepted the creation of the world in one way or another... formed the idealist camp. Those who considered nature to be the main principle joined various schools of materialism. The expressions idealism and materialism originally do not mean anything else, and it is only in this sense that they are used here” [Marx, Engels 1961: 283].

Nikiforov believes: from the formulation given by Engels it follows that “from the very beginning of its emergence, philosophy had to deal with it” [Nikiforov 2001: 82]. But this is again a wrong interpretation of Engels. When Engels says that “the great fundamental question of all, especially modern, philosophy is the question of the relationship of thinking to being,” he uses the concept of “all” not in a divisive, but in a collective sense, that is, not every philosophy considers it, especially at the initial stage of its development. Engels wrote that this question has its roots, no less than any religion, in the limited and ignorant ideas of people of the period of savagery, “but it could be posed with all sharpness, could acquire all its significance only after the population of Europe awakened from a long time hibernation Christian Middle Ages" [Marx, Engels 1961: 283].

Referring to the fact that philosophical concepts, including “matter” and “consciousness,” acquire a specific meaning in different philosophical systems, Nikiforov writes: “By calling the question of the relationship of thinking to being the “fundamental question” of philosophy, we involuntarily assume that it retains the same meaning in all philosophical systems. However, the fact that the meanings of philosophical concepts have changed shows that this assumption is erroneous” [Nikiforov 2001: 85]. But if we agree with this thesis of A.L. Nikiforov, which denies the existence of a commonality in philosophical concepts, then in general it will be unclear how philosophers can understand each other. Fortunately, since Democritus and Plato, philosophers have been well aware of the differences between materialists and idealists.

Initially, the problem of the relationship between matter and consciousness was posed in a purely ontological sense, in terms of clarifying the place of the “soul” in common system material world. But Plato already clearly distinguishes and contrasts two types of philosophers. The first teach that everything happened thanks to nature and chance, “they look at fire, water, earth and air as the first principles of all things, and this is what they call nature. They later derive the soul from these principles” [Laws 891C]. Other philosophers argue that everything “that exists by nature, and nature itself... arose later from art and reason and is subject to them,” and that “the first principle is the soul, and not fire and air, for the soul is primary” [Ibid. : 892С]. If anything “exists by nature,” it is the soul, and the body is secondary to the soul. In the Laws, Plato directly connects idealism with theism, and materialism with atheism.

The denial of the main question of philosophy in its classical expression occurs, according to A. L. Nikiforov, on the basis that supposedly every philosopher is free to consider the main question for himself and for all philosophy to be the one that he studies. For F. Bacon, for example, the main question was about expanding power over nature through inventions; for J.-J. For Rousseau - the question of social inequality, for K. Helvetius - the question of ways to achieve happiness, for I. Kant - the question of the essence of man, for A. Camus - the problem of suicide.

One of the arguments that proves that the fundamental question of philosophy is present in any fundamental philosophical system is: “It does not matter that the philosopher subjectively does not recognize or consider this problem, objectively he still decides it, and his decision - even if not expressed explicitly by himself - has a latent but powerful influence on everything he does.” Considering this argument, Nikiforov writes that it “makes you laugh with its defiant incorrectness” and states: “It is better to rely on what the thinker himself said and wrote” [Nikiforov 2001: 88]. It turns out that if, for example, G. W. F. Hegel came to the conclusion that his philosophical system ends the development of world philosophy, then so it is, we must agree with this. Or another example. E. Mach, as you know, did not consider himself a philosopher; he constantly repeated: “There is no philosophy of Mach!” Nevertheless, in almost every textbook on the history of philosophy empirio-criticism, that is, Mach's philosophy, is devoted to either an entire chapter or several pages. Thus, the facts of the history of philosophy, which could be continued, indicate that it is not always possible to rely on what this or that thinker says about his philosophy.

A. L. Nikiforov believes that “any of the fundamental problems can act as the “fundamental question of philosophy,” and as an example he cites the problem of the relationship between the empirical and the theoretical. He comes to the conclusion that “every philosophical system has its own basic question (perhaps several), the solution of which influences the interpretation and solution of other questions discussed in the system. And these questions are for different systems will inevitably be different" (Nikiforov 2001: 86). But is it possible to equate different approaches to solving certain philosophical issues within the framework of one philosophy with the main philosophical directions?

Academician T. I. Oizerman takes a similar position regarding the main issue of philosophy. During the Soviet period, being one of the most famous researchers and propagandists of Marxist philosophy in general and the philosophy of dialectical materialism in particular, he wrote: “The antithesis of materialism and idealism is the result of a radical polarization of philosophical teachings into main, mutually exclusive directions. Eclecticism, that is, an attempt to “supplement” one of the main philosophical teachings with others in order to overcome their “one-sidedness,” is actually a combination of the incompatible. Therefore, eclecticism, as a rule, characterizes minor philosophical doctrines” [Oizerman 1983a: 107].

Today T. I. Oizerman has changed his views to the opposite; he already denies the main question of philosophy, speaks of the presence in philosophy of many questions, “which can and should be called basic, fundamental,” and denies the existence of a struggle between materialists and idealists in the history of philosophy. Materialists, according to him, expressed only critical remarks about idealists, and idealists considered it unnecessary to justify their views to materialists. " A striking example This,” he writes, “is French materialism of the 18th century, which wages a decisive struggle against religion and only in rare cases speaks out about idealism, briefly and, of course, negatively” [He 2005: 38].

But do religion and idealism solve the question of the relationship between the spiritual and the material differently? And isn't the fight against religion shape struggle against idealism? F. Engels says: “The question about the relationship of thinking to being, about what is primary: spirit or nature - this question, which, however, played a large role in medieval scholasticism, contrary to the church, took a more acute form: was the world created by God or has it existed from eternity? [Marx, Engels, vol. 21: 283]. Engels writes that only in the era of the collapse of the medieval worldview the fundamental question of philosophy “could be posed with all its sharpness.” And this can be seen, for example, from the polemics of T. Hobbes with Bishop Bramgall, D. Berkeley - with “Gilas” as a collective image of atheists and materialists, and P. A. Holbach - with secular and church idealists. The subjective idealist Berkeley is known to be the most implacable opponent and critic of materialism.

T. I. Oizerman, like A. L. Nikiforov, distorts Engels’ position and attributes to him the idea that the main question of philosophy is the only question that philosophy should deal with. He writes: “So, the thesis about a single “highest question of all philosophy” turned out to be a myth, debunked by the very development of philosophy. It is clear that if this question occupied the place indicated to him by Engels, then philosophy would not be worth pursuing,” especially since this is “a long-standing issue” [Oizerman 2005: 47].

Considering the question of the knowability of the world, Oizerman writes that “it is not at all the second side of what Engels called the highest question of philosophy. After all, Engels emphasizes that both materialists and idealists As a rule, they answer this question positively and recognize the fundamental knowability of the world. Consequently, this question in no way expresses the opposition between these directions. An attempt to logically derive the proposition about the knowability (or unknowability) of the world from alternative solution the question of the relationship between the spiritual and the material is clearly untenable” [Ibid: 39].

No one will argue with the thesis that the question of the knowability of the world is not directly related to the division of philosophers into materialists and idealists. As we see, F. Engels also agrees with this. Although, in general, consistent materialism is associated with the fundamental knowability of the world, and idealism taken to its logical end is associated with agnosticism. T. I. Oizerman himself spoke about this very convincingly at one time. It is not clear why he identifies the main question of philosophy with its first side. After all, the first side is the question of the primacy of matter or spirit, and the second side is the question of the knowability of the world; these are different sides of the main question of philosophy, the question of the relationship between matter and thinking.

Discussing the errors of the classics of Marxist philosophy, T. I. Oizerman believes that V. I. Lenin was mistaken when he called reflection a universal property of matter, related to sensation. “...It is logical to assume,” Lenin wrote, “that all matter has a property essentially related to sensation, the property of reflection” [Lenin, vol. 18: 31]. But even if we admit, says Oizerman, that reflection takes place at all levels of development of matter, “this does not mean at all that all matter has a property akin to sensation. The study of life shows that such a property related to sensation is irritability, which, of course, is not inherent in inorganic nature"[Oizerman 1999: 59].

A. L. Nikiforov also considers the same problem, trying to prove, using the example of the concept of P. Teilhard de Chardin, that the main question of philosophy does not work in practice. He states that Teilhard de Chardin, as a scientist, recognizes the primacy of matter in relation to spirit “in the sense that the origin of life and the subsequent emergence of the human mind is based on the complication of the structure of material forms” [Nikiforov 2001: 94]. Indeed, considering the evolution of the universe, passing through a series of increasingly complex forms from elementary particles before human society, Teilhard de Chardin suggests that even inorganic structures, “if we consider matter from the very bottom,” must be inherent in something from which consciousness will subsequently develop [Teilhard de Chardin 1985: 55]. Thus, Nikiforov concludes, “for Teilhard there is no question of what is primary – matter or consciousness, for in its most elementary manifestations matter carries within itself the germs of the subsequent psyche” [Nikiforov 2001: 95]. Discussing the concept of Teilhard de Chardin, Nikiforov cannot decide on his philosophical position: who is he - a materialist, an idealist or a dualist? He writes: “Teilhard’s place in the dichotomy “materialism - idealism” is very, very unclear” [Ibid: 94]. Based on this, he proposes to abandon belief in the “fundamental question of philosophy,” according to which we supposedly must “put every philosopher into the Procrustean bed of our primitive schematism” [Ibid: 95].

In reality there is no problem here. According to materialistic philosophy, thinking is an attributive property of matter, since it is one of the forms of reflection, its highest form. Even D. Diderot believed that matter has “sensitivity” as its general essential property. He argued that the difference between the psyche of humans and animals is due to differences in their bodily organization, but this does not contradict the idea that the ability to sense is a universal property of matter [Diderot 1941: 143]. From the standpoint of modern materialism (and here Lenin is certainly right) we cannot talk about matter that is devoid of, at least in embryo, an elementary mental principle. E.V. Ilyenkov in his work “Cosmology of Spirit” writes: “Without committing a crime against the axioms of dialectical materialism, we can say that matter constantly has thinking, constantly thinks of itself. This, of course, does not mean that in every part of it, at every moment, it has the ability to think and actually thinks. This is true in relation to it as a whole, as a substance infinite in time and space” [Ilyenkov 1991: 415].

As for Teilhard de Chardin's concept as a whole, it is truly contradictory. As is known, this philosopher sought to develop a worldview that would be both scientific and religious. As a scientist, he recognizes certain creative possibilities in matter and speaks of the primacy of matter in relation to spirit. Here he is a materialist. As a theologian, he believes that matter itself is involved in the flow of development by “spirit.” Postulating the existence of a single cosmic energy, psychic in nature, Teilhard de Chardin interprets the self-development of the material world in the spirit of the concept of “continuing divine creation.” Here he is an idealist. If one ignores the fundamental question of philosophy, then this concept would indeed be difficult to understand.

The main question of philosophy, as already noted, cannot be absolutized, since the content of the basic ideas of materialism and idealism is of a concrete historical nature. Materialism and idealism did not always constitute two mutually impenetrable “camps”; in solving some issues they came into contact and even crossed paths. Many philosophers, for example I. Kant or P. Teilhard de Chardin, solved some issues from the position of materialism, and others from the position of idealism. The classical system of objective idealism of G. W. F. Hegel, according to the characterization of F. Engels, “both in method and in content is only materialism idealistically put on its head” [Marx, Engels, vol. 21: 285].

In other words, it is possible to divide all philosophers into materialists and idealists only with a certain degree of convention, since their positions in resolving some issues may coincide. But still, it is not by chance that the question of the relationship between matter and consciousness is called the main one. The division of philosophers into materialists and idealists is quite legitimate, it cannot be removed from real story philosophy. It is necessary, firstly, because the very nature of philosophical theories and the solution of many other philosophical problems depend on one or another solution to the fundamental question of philosophy. Secondly, the main question of philosophy allows us to better understand the specificity and structure philosophical knowledge, continuity, similarities and differences in the development of philosophical schools in the history of philosophy and in its modern state.

Literature

Diderot D. Selected philosophical works. M., 1941.

Ilyenkov E.V. Cosmology of the spirit / E.V. Ilyenkov // Philosophy and culture. M., 1991. pp. 415–437.

Levin G. D. Experience of philosophical repentance // Questions of philosophy. 2004. No. 6. pp. 160–169.

Lenin V.I. Materialism and empirio-criticism / V.I. Lenin // Complete. collection Op. T. 18. P. 31.

Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. T. 21. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961.

Nikiforov A.L. The Nature of Philosophy. Fundamentals of philosophy. M., 2001.

Oizerman T. I. Hegel and materialist philosophy // Questions of philosophy. 1983a. No. 3.

Oizerman T. I. The main question of philosophy // Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1983b.

Oizerman T.I. Basic questions of philosophy // Questions of philosophy. 2005. No. 5. P. 37–48.

Oizerman T.I. Philosophy as the history of philosophy. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1999.

Potemkin A.V. On the specifics of philosophical knowledge. Rostov n/d., 1973.

Teilhard de Chardin P. The Phenomenon of Man. M., 1985.

Schopenhauer A. New Paralipomena / A. Schopenhauer // Collection. cit.: in 6 volumes. T. 6. From the handwritten heritage. M., 2001.

“The positive solution to this problem is fundamentally different in materialism and idealism. Materialists see in knowledge a reflection in human consciousness independent of its reality. Idealists oppose the theory of reflection and interpret cognitive activity either as a combination of sensory data, or as the construction of objects of knowledge through a priori categories, or as a purely logical process of obtaining new conclusions from existing axioms or assumptions” [Oizerman 1983b: 468].

The main question of philosophy: What comes first - consciousness or being? The essence of idealism and materialism, their varieties and representatives.

Each philosophical system has a core question, the disclosure of which constitutes its main content and essence. So for early Greek philosophers (natural philosophers or physicists) this is a question about the origins (substances) of everything that exists; for Socrates, it (the question) is associated with the principle “know yourself”; for philosophers of the New Age - how knowledge is possible; for modern positivism - what is the essence of the logic of scientific discovery. But there are general issues, which concern all philosophers and reveal the nature of philosophical thinking. And this, first of all, is the question: What comes first: spirit or matter, consciousness or being? JI. Feuerbach called it the main question of philosophy.

Taking into account the dependence of the resolution of this issue, such philosophical directions as materialism and idealism are distinguished. The division between materialism and idealism has existed since the very beginning of philosophy. German philosopher G.W. Leibniz (1646 - 1716) called Epicurus the greatest materialist, and Plato the greatest idealist. The classical definition of both directions was first given by the prominent German philosopher F. Schlegel (1772-1829): “Materialism,” he wrote, “explains everything from matter, accepts matter as something first, primordial, as the source of all things.” Idealism deduces everything from one spirit, explains the emergence of matter from spirit, or subordinates matter to it.

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

It should be noted that both of these directions are heterogeneous. So, based on historical development materialism, the following varieties can be distinguished:

‣‣‣ Materialism of the Ancient East and Ancient Greece- this is the original form of materialism, within which objects and the world are considered in themselves, independent of consciousness, and consisting of material formations and elements. Representatives: Thales. Democritus Leucippus. Heraclitus and others

‣‣‣ Metaphysical (mechanistic) materialism of the New Age. At its root lies the study of nature. At the same time, all the diversity of its properties and relationships is reduced to the mechanical form of the movement of matter. Representatives: G. Galileo. F. Bacon. J. Locke. J. Lametrie. K. Helvetius.

‣‣‣ Dialectical materialism, it presents materialism and dialectics in an organic unity. Representatives: K. Marx and F. Engels.

‣‣‣ Consistent materialism - within its framework, the principles of materialism apply to both nature and society. Representatives: K. Marx and F. Engels.

‣‣‣ Inconsistent materialism. There is no materialistic understanding of society and history here (L. Feuerbach). A specific form of inconsistent materialism is deism (from the Latin deus - God), whose representatives, although they recognized God, sharply belittled his functions, reducing them to the creation of matter and imparting to it the initial impulse - movement (F. Bacon, J. Toland. B . Franklin, M. Lomonosov).

‣‣‣ Scientific and vulgar materialism reduces the ideal to the material, consciousness is identified with matter. Representatives: K. Fokt. R. Moleschott. L. Buchner.

Like materialism, idealism also has varieties. There are two main forms:

‣‣‣ Objective idealism proclaims the independence of the idea, God, spirit - in general, the ideal principle, not only from matter, but also from human consciousness. Representatives: Plato, Thomas Aquinas. G. W. F. Hegel.

‣‣‣ Subjective idealism asserts dependence outside world, its properties and relationships from human consciousness (J. Berkeley). The extreme form of subjective idealism is solipsism (from the Latin solus - one, ipse - oneself), according to which one can speak with certainty only about the existence of my own “I” and my sensations.

Within the framework of these forms of idealism, there are different varieties. In particular, rationalism and irrationalism. According to idealistic rationalism, the basis of everything that exists and its knowledge is reason (ration). One of its most important directions is panlogism (from the Greek pan - everything, logos - mind). Here everything that is real is the embodiment of reason, and the laws of existence are determined by the laws of logic (Hegel).

Irrationalism (from the Latin irrationalis - unreasonable, unconscious) denies the possibility of rational and logical knowledge of reality. He recognizes instinct, faith, revelation, etc. as the main types of comprehension of everything that exists, and existence itself

considers it as irrational (S. Kierkegaard, A. Bergson, M. Heidegger). ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

A question about beginnings. Monism. Dualism. Pluralism

The question of first principles was the focus of such philosophical doctrines as monism, dualism, and pluralism.

Monism(from the Greek monos - one) - a philosophical concept according to which there is only one beginning. Such a beginning is a material or spiritual substance. It follows that monism should accordingly be of two types - materialistic and idealistic. The first derives the ideal from the material. His conclusions are based on natural science data. According to the second, the material is conditioned by the ideal. It solves the problem of proving the creation of the world by spirit (consciousness, idea, God). Representatives of monism: Plato, Hegel (idealistic monism), JI Feuerbach, K. Marx, F. Engels (materialistic monism).

Dualism(from Latin dualis - dual) - a philosophical doctrine that asserts the equality of two principles: matter and consciousness. So, for example, R. Descartes believed that in

the basis of being lies two equal substances: thinking (spirit) and extended (matter). Representatives: R. Descartes, T. A. Ribot, T. Lipps, W. Wundt.

Pluralism(from Latin pluralis - multiple) - suggests several or many initial bases. An example here are the theories of ancient thinkers who put forward such diverse principles as water, air, fire, etc. as the fundamental principles of everything that exists. Pluralism asserts the extreme importance of taking into account the plurality of factors that determine the development of the world, and therefore the plurality of points of view on this matter. Representatives: W. James, J. Dewey, C.S. Pearce et al.

The question of the knowability of the world. Skepticism. Agnosticism

Related to the question of the origins of existence is the question of the knowability of the world, or the identity of thinking and being?

Is it capable human cognition, incl. and scientific, lead to the truth? Philosophy cannot automatically answer these questions positively, since over the millennia of its existence many arguments have been formulated that express great doubts in this regard.

In ancient times, doubts about the reliability of knowledge were called skepticism. Most of all, the Sophists, the Stoic Pyrrho, and his student Timon distinguished themselves on this basis. Pyrrho's teaching is usually called Pyrrhonism. This name is meaningfully identified with skepticism, the founder of which is considered to be the ancient Greek physician and philosopher Sextus Empiricus (b. c. 200 - d. 250). His works “Pyrrhonian propositions” and “Against the mathematicians” are the main sources of ancient skepticism.

Skepticism- denies the possibility of an unambiguous answer to the question “is the world knowable?”, because there are known and unknown objects, there are “world riddles”, mysterious phenomena. This means that the world is knowable and unknowable, the skeptic concludes, although he doubts both. Representatives: Sextus Empiricus, D. Hume.

As arguments accumulate, around modern times, ancient skepticism turns into agnosticism, ᴛ.ᴇ. a philosophical position that denies the fundamental possibility of human knowledge of the surrounding world.

Agnosticism asserts: the world is unknowable, unknowable in its causes; unknowable in its essence.

Agnostics make the following arguments:

All information about the external world is obtained through sensations. The mind, as we know, is not directly connected with the outside world. But sensations are subjective, ᴛ.ᴇ. dependent on the nature and state of the subject of knowledge. Consequently, a person’s image of the external world is largely determined by him.

What is known (material object) and what is known (thought) are of a fundamentally different nature. The first is material, the second is ideal. There is nothing in common between them, ᴛ.ᴇ. none general properties they are not inherent. And if this is so, then there is no basis for comparing a material object and its ideal image. And, therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the image corresponds to the object. This means that the claims of our knowledge to truth are groundless.

Truths, as we know, are changeable. What was unanimously accepted as truth yesterday may turn out to be a fallacy today. The entire history of knowledge is an eloquent example of this.
Posted on ref.rf
It turns out that the so-called process of cognition is not a change from one truth to another, but, on the contrary, a continuous movement from one error to another. Truth is elusive. Representatives of agnosticism: I. Kant, D. Hume, E. Mach.

Representatives Gnosticism(Justin the Philosopher, Hippolytus of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Aurelius Augustine, John of Damascus, Tertullian, etc.) argued that the world is knowable.

The next question that interests philosophers is: how, in what way, using what methods can one understand the world?

Method- word Greek origin, V in a broad sense words - ʼʼpath to somethingʼʼ, a way of activity of the subject in any of its forms. A method is a set of rules, techniques of cognitive and practical activities, conditioned by the nature and laws of the object under study.

Concept methodology has two basic meanings: a) a system of certain methods and techniques used in any field (science, politics, art and

etc.); b) the doctrine of this system, the general theory of the method, the theory in action. ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

IN modern science The multi-level concept of methodological knowledge works quite successfully. All methods scientific knowledge are divided into the following main groups:

General scientific approaches and methods. They received widespread development and application in science in the 20th century. General scientific approaches include: systemic, structural-functional, probabilistic, modeling, formalization:.

‣‣‣ Systemic method. It is based on the consideration of research objects as systems. System (Greek - whole) is a general scientific concept that expresses a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other and with the environment, forming a certain integrity, unity.

‣‣‣ Structural-functional method. This method follows from the previous one. Any system consists of many different elements that have a structure (organization). Any system functions thanks to structure and organization.

‣‣‣ Probabilistic method. This method is based on taking into account the action of many random factors that are characterized by a stable frequency.

‣‣‣ Modeling is a practical or theoretical operation of an object, in which the subject being studied is replaced by some natural or artificial analogue, through the study of which we penetrate into the subject of knowledge. Model is a heuristic substitute for nature.

‣‣‣ Extrapolation - cognition of an object by transferring knowledge about it from one (studied) object to another, somewhat similar to the first.

‣‣‣ Formalization is a generalization of the forms of processes that differ in content, abstracting these forms from their content.

Private scientific methods- a set of methods, principles, research techniques and procedures used in any special science (methods of mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology, social and human sciences).

Disciplinary Methods- a system of techniques used in any scientific discipline, part of any branch of science or that arose at the intersection of sciences.

Methods interdisciplinary research - a set of a number of synthetic (from the word “synthesis”, and not “synthetics”), integrative methods. Οʜᴎ arose as a result of a combination of different levels of methodology at the intersection of scientific disciplines, for example, synergetics (from the Greek synereia - connection, cooperation, commonwealth).

Universal (universal) methods.Οʜᴎ suitable for all areas cognitive activity:

‣‣‣ Comparison and comparative-historical method. Even ancient thinkers argued: “comparison is the basis of knowledge.” The people aptly expressed this in proverbs: “If you don’t know grief, you won’t know joy”; “The well-fed is not a companion for the hungry,” etc. Everything is relative. Comparison is the establishment of differences and similarities between objects. Comparison is not an explanation, but it helps in understanding. The comparative historical method allows us to identify the genetic relationship of certain animals, languages, peoples, religious beliefs, artistic methods, patterns of development of social formations, etc.

‣‣‣ Anachysis and synthesis. The process of cognition is carried out in such a way that we first observe the general picture of the subject being studied, while the particulars remain in the shadows. To study particulars, we must dissect the subject being studied. Analysis is the mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts or sides. Each area of knowledge has, as it were, its own limit of division of an object.

When the particulars have been sufficiently studied through analysis, there comes next stage cognition - synthesis - mental unification into a single whole of elements dissected by analysis.

Analysis mainly captures what is specific that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals that essential commonality that connects the parts into a single whole.

‣‣‣ Abstraction and idealization. Initially, abstraction was expressed in the selection of some objects with hands, eyes, and tools and in their abstraction from others*.

‣‣‣ Abstraction- this is the mental isolation of an object in abstraction from its connections with other objects, some property of an object in abstraction from its other properties, some relationship of objects in abstraction from the objects themselves.

Idealization(a specific type of abstraction) - the mental formation of abstract objects as a result of abstraction from the fundamental impossibility of realizing them practically.

‣‣‣ Generalization and limitation. The task of all cognition is generalization - the process of mental transition from the individual to the general, from the less general to the more general (for example, from the concept of “triangle” to the concept of “polygon”; from the concept of “spruce” to the concept of “polygon”) conifer treeʼʼ; from the concept of “shame” to the concept of “moral feeling”, etc.). Restriction is a transition from more general to less general.

‣‣‣ Analogy- this is a plausible probable conclusion about the similarity of two objects in some characteristic based on their established similarity in other characteristics.

Philosophical methods also considered universal.

Philosophical methodology- a system of the most general (universal) techniques for the theoretical and practical development of reality, as well as the construction and justification of the system of philosophical knowledge itself.

Many philosophers are precisely in the discovery and justification universal method knowledge was seen as the main purpose of philosophy.

The sophists came up with their own special method knowledge and argumentation, which they called “sophistry”. Following the Sophists, Socrates develops his “dialectics” - a dialogue method of knowledge and communication. Both of these methods can be considered the eristic method. It was based on special techniques and techniques for conducting an argument, debate, dialogue, thanks to which the truth was revealed as final goal knowledge.

F. Bacon compared the method to a lamp illuminating the way for a traveler wandering in the dark, and created his famous induction method.

As a research method induction(Latin - guidance) - a logical method of research associated with generalizing the results of observations and experiments and the movement of thought from the individual to the general.

Usually there are two basic types induction: complete and incomplete.

Full induction- a conclusion is made that all representatives of the set under study belong to property P on the basis of information obtained during experimental research that each representative of the set under study belongs to property P. It is clear that the scope of application of such induction is limited to objects, the number of which is finite and practically foreseeable.

Incomplete induction- the conclusion is drawn that all representatives of the set under study belong to the property P on the basis that P belongs to some representatives of this set (for example, “some metals have the properties of electrical conductivity”, which means that “all metals” are electrically conductive). In practice, incomplete deduction is more often used.

R. Descartes illustrated the significance of the method with an analogy with the advantages of planned urban development over chaotic ones. He developed the method of deduction.

Deduction(Latin - inference) - a process of reasoning that goes from the general to the particular or less general.

In addition to the above, philosophical methods of cognition include: the method of historicism, objectivity, dialectics, metaphysics, eclecticism (ʼʼmixing different things in one thingʼʼ); as well as methods modern philosophy: analytical, intuitive, phenomenological, hermeneutic (from the word ʼʼunderstandingʼʼ).

Dialectics and metaphysics as philosophical directions and methods of cognition

The most fundamental methods Dialectics and metaphysics are considered philosophical knowledge.

Dialectics(from the Greek dialektike - the art of dialogue, argument) - the doctrine of the most general natural connections, the development of society, knowledge, and the philosophical method based on this doctrine of explaining and describing the universal laws of motion of nature, society and human consciousness.

In ancient Greek philosophy, dialectics was understood as the ability to conduct an argument or conversation. In the Middle Ages, in scholasticism dialectics began to be called formal logic, which was opposed to rhetoric (the art of eloquence). In the 19th century G. W. F. Hegel in his works “Phenomenology of Spirit” (1807), and “Science of Logic” (1812-1815) first gave the most complete, developed system of dialectics as a doctrine of connections, contradictions, development using the example of the movement of the “absolute idea”. According to Hegel, at the basis of all phenomena of nature and society lies the “absolute idea”.

Hegel derived and formulated the main categories and laws of dialectics:

1. The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones.

2. The law of interpenetration of opposites.

3. The law of negation of negation.

In modern materialist philosophy, dialectics is interpreted as a doctrine of universal, universal connections and development, which also acts as a dialectical method of cognition.

The concept of principle plays an important role in dialectics.

principle (word Latin origin) is a fundamental theoretical position that reflects the most essential characteristics of reality and is at the same time a way (method) of its knowledge.

In general, the totality of the principles of dialectics developed in the history of philosophy by Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Hegel, and Marx can be represented as follows: the universal interconnection of all phenomena; universality of movement and development; the source of development is the formation and resolution of contradictions; the relationship between quantitative and qualitative changes as a manifestation of the development mechanism; development through denial; negation of negation as a manifestation of the direction of development processes; the contradictory unity of the general and the individual, essence and phenomenon, form and content, extreme importance and chance, possibility and reality.

Metaphysics comes from the Greek. meta ta physika - after (above) physics. The essence of metaphysics as a philosophical method is one-sidedness. This is the absolutization of one aspect of the cognition process, any element of the whole.

The term “metaphysics” was introduced in the 1st century. BC. Andronikos of Rhodes. Systematizing the works of Aristotle, he placed “after physics” (knowledge of nature) those of them that dealt with the first kinds of things, about being in itself, ᴛ.ᴇ. those that were “first philosophy” - the science of first causes.

On modern stage In philosophical knowledge, three basic meanings of “metaphysics” can be distinguished:

1) Philosophy as the science of the universal, the first prototype of which was Aristotle’s teaching about the highest, inaccessible to the senses, only speculatively comprehended and unchangeable principles of all things, obligatory for all sciences. 2) A special philosophical science is ontology, the doctrine of being as such, regardless of its particular types and in abstraction from the problems of epistemology and logic. Spread in the 17th century. Representatives: R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. W. Leibniz. 3) A certain philosophical way of thinking (cognition), opposed to the dialectical method.

Metaphysics, in contrast to dialectics, considers objects, phenomena, and processes as autonomous, independent, and not related to each other. This is, firstly. Secondly, All changes and development are reduced only to quantitative changes (transformations), while qualitative ones are denied. Movement and development are perceived as decreases or increases, which makes it difficult scientific explanation variety of things, phenomena, processes. Thirdly, the presence of internal inconsistency of phenomena is not recognized. The source of self-propulsion is excluded, replaced by an external first impulse, therefore, the cause of development is placed outside the object. Contradictions are recognized as characteristic only of our thinking. Representatives of metaphysics: T. Hobbes. L. Feuerbach. P. A. Golbach.

Eclecticism- a worldview that believes that in the universe and in man there is both constant and changeable; both relative and absolute, so that something definite about the state of the object, phenomenon,

Each of us comes into this life to learn. Learn from events, meetings, even suffering. But we often refuse to see what exactly they want to convey to us, we become fixated on one lesson for a long time- and we waste years when we could have spent several months on it.

If we more often asked ourselves questions that make us think about life, perhaps we would learn much faster.

Children's philosophy

As children's book author Bernadette Russell says, children should ask their parents philosophical questions that will shape their worldview and help them grow up. And, of course, children's fairy tales and cartoons will help them formulate these questions. The mistake of many parents is that they do not decipher for their children the meaning of the cartoons they watched and the fairy tales they read. What questions do the tales of Saltykov, Pushkin and others make you think about? famous personalities? Saltykov in his fairy tales condemns the government and comically shows the intelligentsia, so such fairy tales, with a deeper reading, can be interesting even to adults.

Philosophical questions for children

Here are a few questions that make little fidgets think and that parents must answer.

1. How to treat animals?

Any living creature needs care and love, especially our little pets. Fostering love for smaller friends will help children learn kindness, fearless expression of love, and care.

2. How much do the best things in life cost?

We get all the best absolutely free - love for life and people, laughter, communication with friends, sleep, hugs. They are not bought, not because they are free, but because they are priceless.

3. What's good in life?

All life is good, no matter what troubles it brings us! In every day, even the darkest, there is a place sun rays- green traffic light on the way home, ice cream bought for dessert, warm weather. Teach your children to feel life and, of course, to believe in magic.

4.Can one person change the world?

We will not change the whole world, but we can change ourselves - and then the world around us will change for us. Our little personal world will become exactly the way we want it to be, because a person receives what he himself emits.

The most unusual questions

Below is a list of the most extraordinary questions that will make you think, but will initially leave you stumped. Probably, each of us will find our own answer to all of them.

1. Is it possible to lie to your interlocutor by remaining silent?

It all depends on how exactly the question was posed and what exactly it concerns. Usually silence cannot be called a lie, but there are cases when it can be regarded as such.

2. What would you choose: wealth and a wheelchair or health and poverty?

This question makes us think about the fact that the things we are chasing so hard, ruining our health and pushing aside our moral principles, are not at all worth the effort. After all, none of us will take money with us to the grave.

3. What advice would you give to a newborn for the future?

Each of us would probably answer this question differently. But, you must admit, it is the charming childish spontaneity that adults lack so much! And perhaps this is exactly what you should wish for - always and under any circumstances to remain yourself.

4. If you could change your future, would you change it?

Changing the future leads to changes in the present. In the past, which is preserved in your memory and heart, there were necessary lessons that you successfully completed. And if you renounce them, your future will no longer be securely girded by past experiences.

5. Knowing that tomorrow will be the last day of your life, what actions would you decide to take?

How much time we spend doubting and fearing. Knowing that life is so short, we consciously sacrifice our desires, aspirations, and dreams just because we are plagued by doubts. And then we regret it, because in practice, a seemingly long life turns out to be incredibly short.

Eternal questions about life in books

How many books have been written on philosophical topics! What big philosophical questions do these books make you think about? Not every person grows spiritually and intellectually into such books, but if you pick up one of them, you can be sure that you will take away something valuable for yourself from it. Almost all such texts carry a message to the reader that makes them think about their life and their worldview.

List of books with deep meaning

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess is a novel that unvarnishes the cruelty of the world around us. The metamorphoses that occur with the hero, who at first himself showed unprecedented cruelty, until he experienced it himself in prison, raise questions in readers that are worth thinking about - about how our society works, why there is so much cruelty in it. And the motto of the book says that life must be accepted as it is. Invaluable advice, isn't it?

"April Witchcraft" by Ray Bradbury - a short story about an unfortunate female love, which every girl has experienced at one point or another. Do we need something like this? life experience? Can we overcome suffering? Pain lives inside every person, like poisonous flower, and only we decide what to do with this flower - water it or pick it and throw it away.

What question does the book “A Happy Death” by Albert Camus make you think about? Each of us once asked ourselves: why was I born into this world, is happiness waiting for me? Albert Camus is looking for answers to these questions together with his hero. After all, the main meaning of life may not be in achievements or pleasures, but in feeling this happiness.

Have you ever thought about how dear your family and friends really are? What important role does family play in our lives? Marquez in his book “One Hundred Years of Solitude” talks about people who are happy to have guests, but are indifferent to each other.

How long have you been torn by your own conscience? Conscience is an individual choice for everyone, as the author of the novel “The French Lieutenant’s Mistress” claims. This book has two endings.

“We are responsible for those we have tamed”

What questions did Exupery’s “The Little Prince” make those who read this work think about? The work is easily divided into many quotes filled with childish wisdom. And although this story is perceived as a fairy tale, in fact, “The Little Prince” is recommended for adults to read. As you read, you will find many questions on a philosophical topic, the answers to which are also in the work. What is friendship really? Do we see beauty around us? Do we know how to be happy or do we lose this quality as we grow older?

Conclusion

Life is complex, multifaceted, and somewhat cruel. But she asks us questions that make us think. Love for her, sincere and not clouded by problems, makes us truly happy people. This should be the task of each of us - to understand that happiness does not depend on external factors, but on internal content.

Our brain is an amazing tool for learning and a true gift to those who know how to use it. This extremely powerful computer on our shoulders is capable of solving problems that many modern and powerful computers simply cannot do, especially when it comes to creativity. However, for our brain to work effectively, it needs regular exercise, which means we need to challenge our brain from time to time. And this doesn’t seem to be a problem, but what if you’re just too lazy to solve problems and don’t want to do anything? In this case, you can force your brain to think by asking yourself philosophical questions.

Perhaps we should start with the main questions that interested many philosophers of antiquity and continue to concern many thinking people in our time.

Announcement:

Global issues of philosophy:

Who I am?
Does God exist?
Why does everything exist?
How real is the world?
What comes first - consciousness or matter?
Does free will exist?
What happens after death?
What is life and death?
What is good and evil?
Does the world exist independently of me?
Does the Universe have boundaries and what lies beyond them?
Does absolute truth exist?

There are thousands of different questions you can think of to get your brain thinking, and you can do so based on the following 40 general philosophy questions that I offer in addition to the promised 50 philosophy questions that you will find at the bottom of the article.

General questions of philosophy:

1. Should we be guided by standards of behavior, what and why?
2. What is the difference between the mind and the brain, and does the soul exist?
3. Will a machine ever be able to think or love?
4. What is consciousness?
5. Do animals see the world the way we see it, only without thoughts?
6. Is reality limited to the material world?
7. If your consciousness were transferred to another body, how would you prove that you are you?
8. Can love exist without emotions and feelings?
9. What is the meaning of life?
10. If free will does not exist, does punishment make sense?
11. Is there order in the universe or is everything in it random?
12. What moral principles can be common to everyone?
13. How justified is an abortion?
14. What is art?
15. Does capitalism have a future?
16. Can anyone be anyone?
17. Are there questions that cannot be answered?
18. What is fate?
19. Can simple people manage politics?
20. Is it possible to unite all peoples and countries?
21. Does it make sense to necessarily donate organs in case of death?
22. How morally justified is euthanasia?
23. Should we be afraid of death?
24. What is time and why can’t it be reversed?
25. Is time travel possible?
26. Is it possible to change something in the past?
27. Why is religion needed in modern society?
28. Is there a cause for every effect?
29. How is it possible for an electron to exist simultaneously in two states and in several places?
30. Is it possible for a society to exist without lies?
31. What is more correct to give a person a fish or a fishing rod?
32. Is it possible to change human nature?
33. Can humanity survive without leaders?
34. If people are so attracted virtual worlds, maybe we are already in one of them?
35. Is it possible to know the world?
36. Can something come from nothing?
37. If all your past memories were erased, what would you be like?
38. Why does a person need consciousness in evolutionary terms?
39. If you could expand your abilities limitlessly, where would you stop?
40. Should children be responsible for their parents?

Questions to consider:

1. Looking back, can you determine how much of your life was yours?
2. What do you prefer: doing everything right, or doing the right thing?
3. Of all the habits you have, which one gives you the most trouble and why are you still with it?
4. If you could give your child one piece of advice, what would it be?
5. Can you imagine how big the universe is?
6. What would you do if you had a million rubles?
7. How much would you give yourself if you didn’t know how old you are?
8. What's worse, failure or not trying?
9. If the end of the world came and you were left alone in the whole world, what would you do?
10. Why, knowing that life is so short, do we strive to have so many things that we don’t even like?
11. If only average age a person was 30 years old, as it was in the Middle Ages, would you live your life differently?
12. If there was no money in the world, what would it be like?
13. If you could change one thing in this world, what would you change?
14. How much money do you need so that you never have to think about working for money?
15. What would you do if you had one year left to live?
16. Have your worst fears come true?
17. If supernatural abilities existed, what ability would you like to develop?
18. If you became superman, what would you do?
19. If you had a time machine, where would you go and what would you try to change?
20. What would you tell yourself if you had the opportunity to convey a message to yourself while you were still in school?
21. What could a world be like without wars?
22. What if there was no poverty in the world, how would people live?
23. Why do some people care about the opinions of others?
24. Where do you see yourself in ten years?
25. Imagine what life on earth could be like in 30 years?
26. How would you live if you never thought about the past and present?
27. Would you break the law in an attempt to preserve the life and dignity of a loved one?
28. How are you different from most other people?
29. What upset you five or ten years ago, does it matter now?
30. What is your happiest memory?
31. Why are there so many wars in the world?
32. Can all people on earth be happy, if not, why, and if so, how?
33. Is there something that you are holding on to that you need to let go of, and why haven't you done so yet?
34. If you had to leave your homeland, where would you go to live and why there?
35. Imagine you are rich and famous, how did you achieve this?
36. What do you have that no one can take away?
37. How do you think people will live in 100 years?
38. If there were many universes, what could life be like in a parallel world?
39. From everything said and done in your life, draw a conclusion: what do you have more of, words or deeds?
40. If you had the opportunity to live your life again, what would you change?
41. Who are you: your body, mind or soul?
42. Can you remember the birth dates of all your friends?
43. Is there absolute good and evil, and how is it expressed?
44. If you lived forever and were forever young, what would you do?
45. Is there something about you that you are one hundred percent sure of, without a single thought of doubt?
46. What does it mean to you to be alive?
47. Why doesn't what makes you happy necessarily make other people happy?
48. If there is something you really want to do but are doing, can you answer why?
49. Is there one thing in life for which you are eternally grateful?
50. If you forgot everything that happened in the past, what kind of person would you be?

By thinking about such questions, you will not only force your brain to think, but you may also find something new in the answers that come to mind. The important thing is that you don't have to work hard to find the answers, just use your imagination and try to imagine these answers in your head. Regularly reflecting on the questions presented here or on your own will keep your brain in good shape and improve your performance. Creative skills. The main thing is not to hold back your imagination, do not create unnecessary boundaries for it from your beliefs, because what can exist in our world very often goes beyond what we are generally able to imagine. I wish you success!