The mind, engaged in the search for truth, meets on its way three groups of problems that are traditionally classified as super-complex. Such, for example, are the mathematical problems of the Millennium, many of which have been waiting for their solution for more than one hundred years. A scientist who successfully coped with at least one of them will undoubtedly be recognized as a genius. There are situations that obviously cannot be unraveled logically at all. These are the so-called paradoxes that can convince a proud person that the complexity of the world fundamentally exceeds his analytical ability: "There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that the wise men here could not even dream of." And finally, there are philosophical collisions, traditionally called "eternal questions." The fact that some people still manage to cope with them forces us to distinguish between "eternal questions" and paradoxes. And the fact that the solution here does not require special knowledge and the genius of thinking gives reason to believe that the "eternal questions" cannot be attributed to the category of the most difficult tasks of science.

The specificity of most philosophical questions in general lies in the fact that they cannot be solved purely theoretically. Among philosophers, a professional anecdote about a beauty and her admirer is known, which makes it possible to understand the peculiarity of “eternal” problems: “The admirer struggles with embarrassment for a long time and, finally, asks: “Beauty, would you marry me?” “Sorry,” she replies coldly. “I don’t understand the meaning of this question as long as it is asked in the subjunctive mood.”

There is no coquetry here: the question of being is raised, moreover, from within the situation of being itself, which neither the girl nor her admirer can rise above. Put purely theoretically, this question becomes absurd, because it implies a certain conditional situation in which the beauty would not be herself, and her admirer would also be someone else. Actually, there is only one way to find out the will of a girl - to offer: “Marry me!” - that is, to ask a question in a practical way, to perform a question-act, suggesting the courage to bear responsibility for one's curiosity.

The "eternal" question, being one of those that are asked from within being, has the same feature: it is correctly asked and successfully resolved not so much through the theorizing mind, but through the act. This means that the "eternal" question does not require a clearly formulated and sufficiently substantiated answer. Solving it means taking a step that overcomes the problem of your being, the very one that painfully reflected in the mind in the form of four words: “what is the meaning of life?”

It is worth paying attention to the fact that two - a child and a saint - in the process of life do not ask themselves the question of its meaning. Their life is full and identical with joy. So asking about the meaning of life is like asking about the meaning of joy: it is an absolute value, over which there is nothing, and therefore it cannot be considered as a means, but it is logical to think of it as the final goal.

So a little boy, noticing how the workers started repairing the street, asks his father:
“Daddy, what are these people doing?”
“They want to put up curbs and put earth between them.
- What for?
- Then, to plant flowers and make a flower bed.
- Why do they want to make a flower bed?
- To be beautiful.

At this, the curious child falls silent. He intuitively understands that it is no longer possible to ask why beauty is needed. Not everything in the world can be considered as a means - there are things that are the ultimate goal, putting a limit to pragmatism. That is why Oscar Wilde concludes his aesthetic credo with the phrase: "All art is completely useless."

One who does not participate in joy, and therefore does not have the fullness of being, knows nothing about true life. That is why he is looking for something that could justify her. This is what an ignorant person does who, unable to see the beauty contained in a picture, seeks an economic use for its canvas.

“Eternal” questions do not have an answer precisely because they are asked incorrectly and are, rather, symptoms of an illness, indicating the existential incompleteness of the one who asks it. Any answer will be unsatisfactory, because the disease is cured by a medicine, not a prescription, hunger is saturated with dishes, and not stories about "tasty and healthy food."

So, in the Old Testament times “there was a man in the land of Uz, his name was Job; and this man was blameless, just and God-fearing and moved away from evil. He was very rich, "more famous than all the sons of the East." “His sons came together, making feasts each on their own day, and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them.” But one day Job lost everything, his sons perished. A terrible disease - leprosy - struck the righteous man from head to toe. Sitting in a heap of ashes outside the city, he asked his "eternal questions": Why does God create man and allow torment to the creation of his hands? If, however, not God, but man himself is guilty of his misfortunes, then why do the righteous suffer while the lawless happily avoid hardships and troubles? And in this case, is there any point in keeping oneself in the Law of God? Comrades who came to the sufferer, despite all their wisdom, turned out to be "bad comforters." Then God himself speaks to Job "out of the storm." At first glance, the Creator evades the answer - He simply talks about how he created the world. But in the picture unfolding in the course of the story, Job suddenly sees the Personality of the Artist. And this immediately removes all questions: “I spoke about what I did not understand, about things wonderful for me, which I did not know. Hear, I called, and I will speak, and what I will ask You, explain to me. I have heard about You by ear; now my eyes see you; therefore I renounce and repent in dust and ashes.”

Speaking approximately, one can characterize knowledge, in contrast to other types of our relationship to the world, as a set of judgments that simultaneously have a subjectively and objectively sufficient basis.

This means that knowledge is such judgments that are justified enough for a given subject so that he can consider them his beliefs, but they are also justified in such a way that they can be made acceptable to any rational being at all. In the 20th century, it is customary to say that knowledge is intersubjective. In the 17th and 18th centuries They said that knowledge is universal and necessary. This meant approximately the following: if any subject masters certain concepts and relations between them, then the truth of judgments, which are knowledge, will become obvious to him. This objective, intersubjective validity of knowledge distinguishes it from other kinds of judgments that describe the world, namely opinions and beliefs. An opinion is a judgment that is not justified either subjectively or objectively, the judgment is not yet defined. Faith, on the other hand, is a judgment that is subjectively justified, but does not have sufficient objective grounds. In other words, faith is a judgment that is sufficiently justified for a given person, a given subject, but which cannot have convincing grounds for any subject, any person.

Thus, knowledge is compulsory, and belief is free in the sense that each person can choose a belief that is more appropriate to him, since there can be no objective reasons forcing us to prefer one belief to another. There are reasons, of course, but they are subjective; associated with the special structure of the subject, with tradition, with relationships between people, etc.

Now we can refine the Kantian question, which will look like this:

About what can I express judgments that can be justified in a universal and necessary way, and what can I not?

Kant's answer to this question is: "... the mind sees only what it creates according to its own plan." Or, in other words, “he can have knowledge about something ... only if he attributes to a thing only what necessarily follows from what he himself has invested in it ...“.

This is one of the components of the revolution that Kant made in the philosophy of nature. It is not the mind, the subject, the man, who follows nature, randomly expecting knowledge from it - fruits, but the mind itself is arranged in such a way that it prescribes laws to nature and cognizes them in nature. Everything else in nature is accidental and cannot be known reliably. The mind in the field of the study of nature has the following task: “in accordance with the fact that the mind itself puts into nature, to seek (and not invent) in it what it must learn from it and what it would not know by itself.”

How can our mind prescribe its laws to nature, so that we can then know them? Here we come to the core of Kant's transcendental idealism, as he himself called his philosophy. Transcendental philosophy is based on the separation of things in themselves and phenomena. Things in themselves are reality as it exists independently of the knowing subject. All things and relations of things that we perceive are only the phenomena of these things in themselves - the product of the interaction of things in themselves with our mind through the forms of perception and contemplation - space and time. Thus, we are given in perception only phenomena and their relations (such as relations of cause and effect, simultaneity, etc.), but things in themselves are not given. We cannot know what they are, because they do not fit our forms of contemplation - space and time - and our categories of reason, by which we combine our contemplations and sensations into objects and in the totality of objects.

From this Kant concludes that things in themselves are unknowable. We cannot know them. We can only assume that there is some unknown source of our sensory impressions, called the thing-in-itself. This is all that we can say about them, remaining within the framework of the philosophy of nature and talking about the knowledge of nature with the help of science.

Thus, according to Kant, we can only know phenomena and their relations. Science is engaged precisely in discovering a priori (pre-experimental) and empirical laws of the structure of nature and, on the basis of them, predicts new phenomena and their relationships. Such, for example, for Kant was Newtonian physics and any other science that brings us knowledge of nature.

Now we know the answer to the question, what can I know. However, we have not yet answered the second part of this question: what can I not know? The first answer to this question is: I cannot know things in themselves. But about them I can not only know nothing at all, but I cannot even have subjective grounds for assuming anything about these things. This means that I cannot even have a certain faith about them. Thus, the thing-in-itself in the philosophy of nature (theoretical philosophy) is a completely indefinite and, rather, negative concept.

So far, however, we have been talking about nature, or as Kant calls it, the theoretical application of reason. But besides the theoretical application of reason, there is also a practical or moral one. The practical or moral use of reason is associated with freedom. Criticism of the theoretical application of reason shows that although we cannot know whether freedom exists or not, we can comprehend the possibility of freedom, and this, as Kant shows, is enough to consider freedom real in practical application, i.e. to believe on the basis of the arguments of reason in its existence. The same applies to such important things as God and the immortality of the soul. From this follows Kant's famous proposition: "Therefore I had to restrict knowledge in order to make room for faith."

Thus, we cannot know such important and traditional objects of philosophy, but we can believe in them. This is a very important proposition, if we remember that it was the existence of God, the freedom and immortality of the soul that were the traditional subjects of metaphysics (philosophy) before Kant. At the same time, these provisions of Kant are also important for our ordinary life. Indeed, if we could know anything about such an object as, for example, God, i.e. to know, for example, whether it exists or not, then, due to the fact that knowledge is universally valid and coercive, this belief could be imposed on another, i.e. we would have the right to force the belief in the existence of God or in his non-existence. What this leads to, we know from practice, for example, the Inquisition or scientific atheism. Kant invites us to take a more modest position on such questions. Our beliefs in this area are generated by acts of faith, which means that we cannot transfer them on objective grounds to another person. The other person is entitled to their own beliefs.

Turning to such subjects as God, the freedom and immortality of the soul brings us to Kant's second question.

What should I do?

The answer to the second question contains the practical philosophy of Kant, the core of which is the doctrine of morality or morality, otherwise called ethics, and the doctrine of law.

Morality is impossible without freedom. If we assume that a person is not free, if, for example, all his actions are determined by the will of God or the laws of nature, then we cannot speak of morality or morality, since then there is no place for moral responsibility. Therefore, human freedom is a necessary prerequisite for morality.

Kant believed that a person's actions in moral terms can be determined by three factors: duty, inclination and fear.

Duty is a requirement arising from reason that determines our duties towards ourselves and other people, as well as towards humanity as a whole.

A propensity is a need, the satisfaction of which brings us pleasure or benefit.

Fear is a feeling that tells us that the consequence of an ongoing event will be displeasure or harm.

Before Kant, philosophers offered various foundations of morality: feelings, divine will, the law of nature, the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of social order. Kant introduced a new understanding of morality - he believed that the mind is self-lawful (autonomous), and, therefore, in its practical application, it itself gives the laws of human actions.

Therefore, according to Kant, it is moral to obey the voice of reason, and this is duty: “Duty! You are an exalted, great word, there is nothing pleasant in you that would flatter people, you demand submission, although in order to awaken the will, you do not threaten with what would inspire natural disgust in the soul and frighten; you only establish a law that by itself penetrates the soul and even against the will can gain respect for itself (although not always execution); all inclinations fall silent before you, even if they secretly oppose you ... ”.

Kant gives a significant place in his ethics to the concept of duty, therefore his ethics is often called the ethics of duty.

Kant believed that moral actions are those performed only out of respect for duty. The word “only” plays an important role here. If an action is in accordance with duty, as Kant says, but also in accordance with our inclination, then this means that it is not moral. But such an act is not immoral either, since it corresponds to duty. Kant calls such an act his legal, i.e. conforming to the law, but having no moral content.

Does this understanding of morality correspond to our moral intuition? Consider two situations:

1. Imagine that someone X loves someone Y and does good to her. To do as much good as possible to others is a moral duty of man. Therefore, this is his action in accordance with duty. Of course, we will appreciate him for this.

2. Imagine now that X does not love Y. This Y is simply disgusting to him, but he still does her good, because it is his duty.

In what situation would we ascribe more moral merit to X's action? I think that almost everyone will say that in the second. This corresponds to our intuition that if we perform a duty in the absence of, or even more so in contradiction with, our inclination, then such an act should be attributed unconditional moral dignity.

Kant realized one important circumstance in ethics. Morality cannot be built on a feeling, no matter how attractive this feeling may seem to us. Ethics can only be built on reason and on the concept of duty arising from reason.

Our examples show that this understanding of morality corresponds to our moral intuition. Kant only accurately expresses it and transforms the relative degree of our intuition into an absolute command of moral duty.

However, what does moral duty tell us? According to Kant, "Duty is the necessity (of performing) an act out of respect for the law." What is this law?

Kant calls his moral law the categorical imperative. This is due to the fact that the law itself proceeds from the mind, but beings that also have sensuality are guided by it. Therefore, it does not act directly, as, for example, the laws of gravity or chemical reactions, but is a command (imperative) that prescribes to us the performance or non-performance of certain actions. However, he orders us categorically, i.e. undoubtedly. That is why Kant calls it the categorical imperative. There are also conditional imperatives, but we will not consider them.

In order to introduce the categorical imperative in its Kantian formulation, it is necessary to clarify the concept of a maxim. Kant calls a maxim a practical rule according to which an action is performed.

In the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, we find the following formulation of the categorical imperative: "...there is only one categorical imperative: act only according to such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time wish it to become a universal law."

All other imperatives of duty can be derived from this law. Kant himself considers the following example of the operation of his categorical imperative as applied to specific maxims - the rules of our actions.

Example. “Some need makes you borrow money. He knows well that he will not be able to pay them, but he also understands that he will not receive anything on loan unless he firmly promises to pay by a certain date. He has a great desire to make such a promise, but he has enough conscience to raise the question: is it not contrary to duty and is it permissible to get yourself out of trouble in this way? Suppose he still decided on this, then the maxim of his act would read: in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know that I will never pay it. It may very well be that this principle of self-love or self-interest can easily be reconciled with all my future well-being; however, the question now arises: is this correct? I therefore make the requirement of self-love a universal law, and put the question thus: how would things be if my maxim were a universal law? Here it becomes clear to me that it can never have the force of a universal law ... and be in agreement with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. Indeed, the universality of the law, which says that everyone, considering himself in need, can promise whatever comes to his mind, with the intention of not keeping the promise, would simply make this promise, and the goal that they want to achieve with it, simply impossible. how no one would believe that he was promised something, but would laugh at all such statements as an empty excuse.

We see that in this case, as in many others, the categorical imperative tells us which of our maxims is our moral obligation. Having formulated the categorical imperative, Kant gives us a means of substantiating the morality or non-morality (immorality) of the motives of our actions. We most often find it difficult in our ordinary life when we are asked why this or that act is moral. Kant gives us the means for such an argument.

The categorical imperative is not a direct principle of morality. It provides the form by which an infinite number of moral obligations can be generated, i.e. more specific moral laws that give us a moral guide in specific life situations.

However, Kant is not limited to such a formulation of the principle of morality. Every action we take has a purpose. These goals in turn serve to achieve other goals. However, there is such a goal that can no longer serve only as a means for other goals - this, according to Kant, is a rational being and, in particular, a person. From this follows what Kant calls the practical imperative, i.e. such a command of reason, which can already be applied directly in the practice of our behavior: “The practical imperative ... will be the following: act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as well as an end, but never treat to it only as a means.” Kant continues his example, which he gave in connection with the categorical imperative: “... he who intends to deceive others with a false promise will immediately understand that he wants to use the other person only as a means, as if the latter did not also contain an end, for the one whom I want to use for my own purposes by means of such a promise cannot in any way agree with my course of action in relation to him and, therefore, contain in himself the purpose of this act. Ethics of Kant, as it were, is a generalization and philosophical refining of Christian ethics. Practically all norms of Christian ethics can be derived from the categorical or practical imperatives, at least those norms that are based on reason.

Apparently, this character of Kant's ethics was also affected by his childhood upbringing in the pietistic tradition, which attached great importance to the strict observance of moral precepts on the basis of internal conscious motives.

However, ethics has traditionally, since Aristotle, talked not only about moral laws, but also about happiness. Kant, despite all his focus on the ethics of duty, also did not ignore this issue, however, he finds a kind of coverage in him: “... morality ... is a teaching not about how to make ourselves happy, but about how we should become worthy of happiness." Indeed, happiness and its achievement are not in the hands of the individual himself, or at least not directly related to his morality. Whether a person is happy or not depends on the play of random forces of nature (including social), practical skills and even cunning: “Happiness is such a state of a rational being in the world when everything in his existence happens according to his will and desire.” It is obvious that such a state is difficult to achieve. However, what is in the power of a person and what is directly related to his morality is to be worthy of happiness. To be worthy of happiness is a direct consequence of human morality. We sometimes say this about people: “He is worthy of happiness or he is not worthy of happiness,” meaning that a person’s lifestyle has a moral character, and such a person should be rewarded with happiness. Nevertheless, the worthiness to be happy, according to Kant, is the supreme good as the initial “condition of everything that may seem desirable to us, and therefore of all our searches for happiness.” However, people are usually not satisfied with this. He needs a more immediate connection between virtue and happiness. However, here we are already moving on to the consideration of the third question.

What can I hope for?

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant clarifies this question: "What can I hope for if I do what I should do?" In other words, what can I hope for if I am moral?

Kant insists that hope is not the foundation of morality. We should be moral only out of respect for the law dictated by reason. But a rational being has a need for happiness. In this regard, Kant notes: “To have a need for happiness, to be still worthy of it and yet not to be involved in it - this is incompatible with the perfect command of a rational being, which would also have the fullness of power ...”.

Hence Kant's concept of the highest good arises - the unity of morality and happiness. The highest good is what a rational being wants, strives for. The highest good in our world is happiness, distributed in exact proportion to morality as the dignity of the individual and its worthiness to be happy.

In the highest good, morality, the worthiness to be happy, is of paramount importance; it cannot flow from the pursuit of happiness. But the happiness of a person does not directly follow from morality either. So can a person hope for happiness? Moreover, for such happiness, which would be an integral part of the highest good?

According to Kant, the existence of God must be assumed as a basis for such a hope. Only God can provide the necessary link between morality and happiness, if not in this, then in another world. But this means that we must also recognize the immortality of the soul, because if the soul dies with the body, then all our experience shows that for most people during earthly life no happiness follows from a moral way of thinking. But, since God can give happiness only to those who deserve it, then there must be freedom as the basis of morality and worthiness to be happy. For if there were no freedom, what dignity would that be? It would just be a random fact of nature.

So, such ideas as the immortality of the soul, freedom, the existence of God, the reality, which, as we have already seen, cannot be proved theoretically, receive justification for their reality, as the inevitable practical consequences of the moral law and the aspirations of a rational being to happiness. Kant calls such statements about the reality of these ideas the postulates of practical reason, emphasizing that this does not prove their existence theoretically, but forces us to assume them as necessary conditions for the moral life of a rational being in our world.

The postulate of the immortality of the soul follows from the practically necessary condition for the proportionality of the duration of existence with the fullness in the fulfillment of the moral law; the postulate of freedom - from the need to admit the independence of a rational being from the sensual world, where everything is determined by physical causes, and from the possibility of determining one's will according to the laws of the world of ideas, which Kant calls the intelligible world. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of the highest good: “only if religion (morality) is added to it, there is a hope of someday achieving happiness to the extent that we took care not to be unworthy of it.”

From this follows the answer to Kant's third question: we dare to hope for happiness if we are worthy of it and there is a higher authority - God, who can guarantee us that sooner or later happiness will follow from the worthiness to be happy.

Religion characterizes our inner life and our hopes for the life of our spirit. However, are there any hopes for external life, and therefore for the progressive course of history? This is how the theme of the philosophy of history arises in Kant's philosophy. Kant quite clearly sees the relativity of the moral and cultural progress of mankind, here the influence of Rousseau is evident, who in his famous Discourse on the Sciences and Arts proved that the progress of culture is incompatible with the progress of morals. Therefore, Kant places the main hopes for progress in history on the organization of man's external freedom. And this organization involves two public institutions: the state and law. Law is actually a way of coordinating the external freedom of individuals, and "the state is an association of many people who are subject to legal laws." Kant in his "Metaphysical Principles of the Doctrine of Law" formulates the imperative of law: "Act externally in such a way that the free manifestation of your arbitrariness is compatible with the freedom of everyone, in accordance with the universal law." knowledge kant morality immortality

The organization of the external freedom of citizens presupposes what Kant calls the rule of law. In a state governed by the rule of law, the arbitrariness of individuals is limited, but at the same time, the arbitrariness of the state itself is also limited. Therefore, we can, continuing Kant's thought, say that the rule of law is a state in which the arbitrariness of both the individual and the state itself is limited by law.

According to Kant, history is a gradual progress towards the rule of law. However, in world history we also find relationships between states, and Kant notices that if within states there is a gradual movement towards the rule of law, with more or less success, with deviations, then natural law rules in relations between states, i.e. the right of the strongest. Therefore, another of their goals of history is the establishment of legal relations between states, which should lead to the gradual establishment of a world federation of states and eternal peace. However, the movement towards the rule of law and eternal peace is not an automatic, deterministic process.

In the realm of history, progress is ensured by what Kant calls "non-communicative communication", i.e. the fact that a person is simultaneously controlled by two aspirations: 1) for an independent egoistic existence at the expense of others and 2) for unification. These two opposing aspirations are the driving force behind history, culture, the development of law, and so on.

In the course of history, man improves himself. Without the conscious efforts of man to improve himself, history will not be able to move in a direction favorable to the human race. In general, such efforts are of a moral nature, but they can be concretized in different eras as different tasks. This is how the Kantian concept of enlightenment arises, which took shape within the framework of the discussions about this concept that erupted in the scientific circles of Germany.

Answering the question of the priest Zollner "What is enlightenment?", the well-known Berlin philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, about a month before the appearance of Kant's article on enlightenment, published an article "On the question: what does it mean to be enlightened?". In the article, he introduces three central concepts: education, culture, education, and argues that education and culture are different types of education. Enlightenment is theoretical education as opposed to culture as practical education. Emphasizing theory, Mendelssohn acted in the spirit of ordinary educational concepts, identifying enlightenment with the spread of science and knowledge in general. The subject of enlightenment, according to Mendelssohn, is the nation, he speaks everywhere about the enlightenment of the nation.

Kant gave a radically different solution. Enlightenment is not just an era and not just knowledge. The article “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?” begins in the best traditions of Kantian philosophy with the definition: "Enlightenment is a person's exit from the state of immaturity, in which he is through his own fault." Each concept here requires clarification. But what is already clear from this definition is that enlightenment is not so much an epoch of social life as a state of our own personality. The categories that are used in this definition - "minority", "guilt" - are emphatically personal. This means that each person in his personal development must go through this state. What does Kant mean by immaturity and guilt? “Immaturity is the inability to use one's mind without guidance from someone else. Immaturity due to one's own fault is one the cause of which lies not in a lack of reason, but in a lack of determination and courage to use it without the guidance of any other. From this follows the motto of enlightenment: “Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind!

Naturally, if we have accused a person of lack of courage, then in addition to the shade of moral condemnation of an unenlightened state, the question arises: what are the reasons that people who are able to control their own mind, nevertheless, do not do this, holding back their own development and the development of the whole society? “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of people whom nature has long freed from alien guidance, still willingly remain minors all their lives ...” . Again we see that Kant sees the reasons for the ignorance of people in their personal qualities. Enlightenment is an area of ​​personal responsibility of a person - this is the main position of Kant's concept. In order to remain in a state of ignorance, people invent many different tricks: “If I have a book that thinks for me, if I have a spiritual shepherd whose conscience can replace mine and a doctor who prescribes such and such a way of life for me, etc. then I have nothing to bother myself with. I don't need to think if I can pay."

It is precisely because of the unwillingness of some people to move into a state of enlightenment that other people appear who “arrogate to themselves the right to be their guardians.” Guardians strive so that their “flock” cannot take a single step without help, and then point out the danger that threatens them from walking independently.

Thus, a personal problem becomes a public one, as guardians easily organize themselves into organizations that support the minority of people. Enlightenment of each person individually is now difficult: "it is difficult for each individual person to get out of the state of immaturity, which has become almost natural for him." Personal enlightenment is possible, however, only for individuals with determination and courage: “That is why only a few have succeeded, thanks to the improvement of their spirit, to get out of the state of minority ...”.

Hence the main problem for Kant arises: what is the social mechanism that will allow achieving a state of personal enlightenment? And Kant's answer to this question is simple: "The public will enlighten itself if only it is given freedom." Then even among the guardians, people capable of enlightenment will appear. Of course, the reader will say, this is a simple recipe, but who will give freedom to the public just like that. People must fight for their rights, for example, through a revolution. This belief was spread by representatives of the French Enlightenment. To this Kant replies: "... No revolution can bring about a true reform of the way of thinking." Enlightenment requires "only freedom, and, moreover, the most harmless, namely the freedom in all cases to use one's own reason publicly."

This state of personality, in which a person dares to be guided by his own reason, is the goal of all pedagogical and educational efforts. Of course, the inner freedom achieved on this path requires external conditions - “harmless freedom of speech”, and must also be limited in its external manifestations by the freedom of other people. At the same time, the boundless inner freedom achieved on the path of enlightenment coincides with the moral law - the only law of freedom. The fact is that the free use of reason, according to Kant, will necessarily lead a person to follow the moral law, since this law is a necessary consequence of reason itself. In this position - the solution to the system of education proposed by Kant in the treatise "On Pedagogy". Genuine education is possible only when, protecting the child from the lethal consequences of contact with the natural and social environment and gradually accustoming him to reckon with traditional social institutions, we preserve in him a reserve of freedom sufficient to awaken the moral law in him. And the goal of spiritual education, firstly, is not to interfere with this freedom, and, secondly, to very carefully contribute to the awakening of the moral law, mostly with the help of unobtrusive examples. Only in this case will we be able to educate a truly free person and a useful member of society. All our moral instructions and teachings, as a rule, lead to the opposite result. Numerous restrictions, usually imposed by educators on the pupils, also lead to it. To paraphrase Kant's practical imperative, we can say that the motto of the educator is "act in such a way that in the face of the child you always see the goal as well, and never only a means (for yourself, the state, or even society)." It is in the light of these provisions that Kant's numerous recommendations on physical and practical education should be considered.

The problem of upholding the harmless freedom of speech as the driving force of human enlightenment is also devoted to the “Dispute of the Faculties”. The dispute of the faculties is about this. The philosophical - "lower" - faculty, on which all scientific disciplines were concentrated in the European university of the 18th century, was a representative of the mind that needed freedom. The restrictions on this freedom came from the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, represented at the university by the highest - the faculties of law and theology. The freedom of scientific reason, compatible with state and public institutions, on the one hand, and the truths of religion, on the other, is Kant's theme, encrypted by relations between faculties. As part of solving this problem, a new concept of the university is emerging, developed and practically implemented by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Humboldt's main idea was such an organization of education at the university, which is based on the highest achievements of modern science. This concept of the university as a scientific and educational complex has become the guiding principle of the organization of higher education in the modern world.

What is a person?

Anthropology provides the answer to this question. Kant devoted a special work to her, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798). Anthropology is the science of man, and anthropology “from a pragmatic point of view,” according to Kant, means that it speaks of man not from his physiological or, in general, natural side, but about man as a free being, about his character, which he does it himself.

Mankind has expended colossal efforts in order to develop a general concept of man. The Stoics in antiquity, the Christians at its decline and in the early Middle Ages, the Buddha destroyed the traditional ideas about the separation of mankind into incommensurable groups that are different by nature or by God's providence: Greeks and barbarians, the chosen people and the unchosen peoples, the faithful and the unfaithful, civilized and uncivilized, etc. aristocratic, hierarchical, nationalistic, racial, class and other theories have always opposed this desire to affirm the unity of the human race. All theories of the second kind have one common feature: some part of humanity, for one reason or another, is recognized in one respect or another as higher, better, more chosen than another. century, and even then with a certain shade of Eurocentrism, which so sadly affected the fate of European liberalism in the 20th century.

Anthropology is the science of man. Perhaps the connection with the changing human being makes Kant's "Anthropology" unsuitable for our time? To avoid lengthy discussions on this subject, I will simply refer to the fact that man in his being, as our everyday experience shows, changes very little. Thoughts and passions change little from epoch to epoch or from people to people. And if they do change, it gives additional interest to another era and people. But this interest is possible only with a common basis, the existence of which it proves. Even during great social upheavals, people change very little, which was noted, for example, by Mikhail Bulgakov in The Master and Margarita. Let us recall Woland's famous statement when he considered Muscovites in Variety: “Well… they are people like people. They love money, but it always has been. Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous ... well, well ... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts ... ordinary people ... In general, they resemble the former ones ... the housing problem only spoiled them ... ”.

Thus, based on the concept of freedom and enlightenment, anthropology belongs to the same historical era in which we live. In this sense, Kant's Anthropology is contemporary to us.

Kant's anthropology speaks of an ordinary person, but from the point of view of a deep philosophical worldview. Kant developed this world outlook in his famous works devoted to theoretical and practical philosophy, in the Critique of Pure Reason, in the Critique of Practical Reason, in the Critique of Judgment, and others. “Anthropology” is an applied work. In it, the abstract philosophical propositions that Kant worked out all his life are applied to this life itself, to one of the types of rational beings called people. "Anthropology" describes the actual life of people, observations of this life. But if these were mere observations, then we would have some genre of historical or fiction literature. Illumination of the philosophical worldview gives a dimension that is not characteristic of ordinary texts that interpret the life and actions of people, and at the same time gives universalism to the characteristics of a person. "Anthropology" harmonizes our ordinary human ("actual") life with a deep understanding of the place of man in the universe and the main regulators of human behavior. It seems to tell us that a person, with all his weaknesses and prejudices, can still be a rational and moral being, proves that he not only must be moral, but can be, and sometimes he is. According to Joachim Kopper, "Anthropology" is something like a bridge between the actual and conventional life of man and the unconditional philosophical understanding of man as "the last goal", which gives the correct perspective on the consideration of actual life. However, something else is also important to us. The applied nature of "Anthropology" makes it possible to understand Kant's system in action, through illustrative examples. This can help the reader, who is inexperienced in the subtleties of philosophical reflection and does not have a taste for abstract reasoning, to penetrate into the core of Kant's philosophy, to understand the system of soul abilities developed by him (cognitive ability, desire ability, feeling of pleasure or displeasure), to which the first part of the book is devoted - “ Anthropological didactics”, to find out his views on the key issues of the philosophy of man and society - about the personality and its types, about the characters and the way of thinking, about the people and nationality, and races and humanity as a whole. Kant judged European peoples very definitely, in Anthropology there are exact judgments about the British, French, Germans, but he tried not to judge where he did not have a sufficient stock of knowledge, for example, about Russians. There you can also meet interesting and unexpected statements by Kant about men and women, about fashion, which belongs to the “heading of vanity”

Our brain is an amazing tool for learning and a real gift for 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, in order for our brain to work effectively, it needs regular exercise, which means we need to give our brain difficult tasks from time to time. And it seems that this is not a problem, but what if you are just too lazy to solve problems and do not 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 excite many thinking people in our time.

Global questions 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 will happen 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?
• Is there absolute truth?

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 bring to your attention in addition to the promised 50 philosophy questions at the bottom of the article.

General questions of philosophy:

• 1. Should we be guided by the norms of behavior, which ones and why?
• 2. What is the difference between mind and brain, and is there a soul?
• 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 by 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 there is no free will, does punishment make sense?
• 11. Is there an order in the universe, or is everything in it random?
• 12. What moral principles can be common to all?
• 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 destiny?
• 19. Can ordinary people manage politics?
• 20. Is it possible to unite all peoples and countries?
• 21. Does it make sense to 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 does modern society need religion?
• 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. Can human nature be changed?
• 33. Can humanity do without leaders?
• 34. If people are so attracted to 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 man need consciousness in evolutionary terms?
• 39. If you could expand your abilities indefinitely, where would you stop?
• 40. Should children be responsible for their parents?

Questions for reflection:

• 1. Looking back, can you tell how much your life belonged to you?
• 2. Do you prefer doing things right or doing the right things?
• 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 were?
• 8. Which is worse, failing or not trying?
• 9. If the world were to end and you were 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 the average age of 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 there were supernatural abilities, what ability would you like to develop?
• 18. If you were a 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 say to yourself if you had the opportunity to convey a message to yourself while you were still in school?
• 21. What can be a world 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 the present?
• 27. Would you break the law trying to save 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 anything you are holding on to that you need to let go, and why haven't you done so yet?
• 34. If you had to leave your homeland, where would you go to live and why?
• 35. Imagine being rich and famous, how did you get there?
• 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 would life be like in a parallel world?
• 39. From everything said and done in your life, draw a conclusion, what do you have more, 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 birthdays of all your friends?
• 43. Is there absolute good and evil, and how is it expressed?
• 44. If you could live forever and be forever young, what would you do?
• 45. Is there something in 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 does what makes you happy not 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 infinitely grateful?
• 50. If you could forget everything that happened in the past, what would you be like?

By thinking about such questions, you will not only force your brain to think, but you may also find something new for yourself in the answers that come to your 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. Regular reflection on the questions presented here or your own invented will keep your brain in good shape and improve your creativity. 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 capable of imagining. I wish you success!

There are issues that are relevant today. Who will be the next president? Who will win the World Cup? Than fifth iPhone better than the fourth? And there are questions that are always relevant. Where did man come from? Is there life among the stars? Where does our universe end?

There are not so many “eternal questions”, but these are the questions that people have been asking and are asking themselves from the beginning of time to this day. The answers to them have changed from century to century. Only one thing remained unchanged: the smartest, most talented, most interesting people of their time were always looking for a clue to the secrets of the Universe.

It was these people that we asked to briefly outline modern ideas about the structure of the universe. These are the ten luminaries of modern science, whose current research forms the most relevant and most accurate picture of the world to date.

Are we alone in the universe?

Michael Mumma,
director of the NASA Goddard Astrobiological Center,
Senior Researcher, Department of Solar System Studies
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

As the "dissemination lecturer" from the once cult film "Carnival Night" said, "whether there is life on Mars, whether there is life on Mars - this is unknown to science." 66 years ago, when Eldar Ryazanov was filming his famous film, the Synod of Academicians would not have given a different answer. And what does today's science say, and not only about the Red Planet? To put the question point-blank, are there other abodes of life in the universe?

Let us first of all remember that our evolutionary tree is literally strewn with points of contact with other living beings who have passed on to us some of their hereditary information. Human DNA contains a great many fragments inherited from bacteria and viruses. In theory, it can be assumed that among them there are sections of the genomes of extraterrestrial organisms. Moreover, the possibility of such transportation has already been proven. We have at least thirty meteorites ejected from the surface of Mars in our collections. It is possible that in the past, Martian microorganisms could have got to Earth in this way, which not only survived, but also left a genetic memory of themselves in terrestrial organisms.

harsh school

Now different types of extremophile bacteria are known that do not die at high temperatures and pressures, do not need oxygen, and generally multiply safely in conditions that were considered absolutely unsuitable for life not so long ago. Say, about ten years ago in southern Africa, in rocks deep under the soil layer, microorganisms were discovered that use molecular hydrogen as an energy source. The colonies of these bacteria have been completely isolated from any contact with the earth's surface for at least 200 million years. In light of this discovery, the possibility of surviving space travel inside a meteorite does not seem unthinkable.

The probability of borrowing extraterrestrial genetic information is very small, but still different from zero. If one day it is confirmed, it will be possible to assume that in a certain sense the human species arose through symbiosis with alien life that did not originate on our planet, and perhaps not even in the solar system. Then it will turn out that the reception of information from extraterrestrial senders has already taken place - only at the genetic level.

signal from space

Our cosmic non-loneliness would be proved much more radically if we received signals from space that could be deciphered or at least recognized as artificially created events, and not just natural processes. Of course, they can only be transmitted across interstellar distances, since there is no intelligent life outside the Earth in the solar system. But for this it is necessary that at least one civilization at a comparable stage of technological development should arise not too far from us. I do not want to assert dogmatically that such a thing is impossible at all. However, from the point of view of our ideas about the pace and complexity of biological and social evolution and current knowledge of the intragalactic neighborhood of the Sun, the existence of even one such civilization seems extremely unlikely. And it is hardly necessary to specifically specify that we have never received any signals from extraterrestrial civilizations. I will not talk about flying saucers and other fabrications, this is from the realm of fantasy and superstition, not science.

Other stars

Of course, interstellar contacts are not the only way to demonstrate the existence of extraterrestrial life. No matter how the chances of the emergence of advanced civilizations in the depths of space are estimated, there is no doubt that the probability of the appearance of at least primitive living organisms will be much higher. Moreover, subsequent space expeditions will unequivocally answer the question of whether there is (or at least was) life on Mars. The same applies to the search for life on the satellites of the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn, although this is a matter of a more distant future. Extrasolar planets (exoplanets) are a different matter, because not only do we not plan to send at least automatic probes there, but we also do not have the technologies that would allow us to hope for the feasibility of such flights.

And yet the matter is not hopeless. We are already collecting information about the atmospheres of these planets, and in the future we will be able to obtain information about their surfaces. There are signs by which one can suspect the presence of life on a particular celestial body. Say, 2 billion years ago, the oxygen content in the earth's atmosphere increased dramatically due to the vital activity of photosynthetic bacteria. If a planet with an oxygen atmosphere is discovered, it can be considered a candidate for habitable world status. These suspicions will be strengthened if there are noticeable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in its air basin. There are other chemical markers that also indicate the possibility of biological processes. Finding them is an important part of exoplanet research.

Culture shock

Now suppose that we have more or less convincingly proved the existence of primitive life on Mars or even outside the solar system. It is interesting to think about how humanity will react to such a discovery. There are different points of view, but it seems to me that there will be no culture shock, the impact will be minimal. Such a discovery will surprise few people, since we are already accustomed to believing that sooner or later it will happen. Something of this sort already happened when the first extrasolar planets were discovered. This information was received with great interest, but without exaltation, since it had been expected for a long time. Similarly, the general public expects scientists to discover extraterrestrial life.

But the reverse situation can lead to more serious consequences. If within a few decades astronomers and astrobiologists do not find even a single potentially habitable planet, the public will probably experience great disappointment. Such an outcome could indeed be a culture shock. Humanity will feel its universal loneliness, and who knows what its reaction will be. However, let's not guess.

Are there parallel worlds?

Andrew Linde,
professor at Stanford University
one of the authors of inflationary cosmology

A two-dimensional creature crawling on a flat surface may suspect the presence of a vertical dimension, but is unlikely to have a chance to enter it. Is it possible by analogy to assume that next to us there are parallel worlds that we are also able to imagine or calculate, but are not yet able to feel?

What are parallel universes, everyone understands in their own way. In 1957, Princeton physicist Hugh Everett developed in his doctoral dissertation the ideas that later formed the basis of Bryce DeWitt's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. She argues that the Universe is stratified at the quantum level, and each act of measurement leads to the choice of one of an infinite number of such layers. This idea seems to me extremely fruitful and correct, although for most physicists it is pure esotericism.

The second possibility is that there are different universes somewhere that have nothing in common with each other. Here the question immediately arises, where to look for them, to which no one can really answer. In addition, many supporters of this hypothesis assume that these worlds exist simultaneously, which is rather meaningless. Indeed, if there is a way to put them at the same time, then they are somehow interconnected and therefore should be considered parts of the same universe. But in the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, no simultaneity is assumed, and there this hypothesis looks more convincing. It is no coincidence that many specialists in cosmology and quantum field theory have recently become interested in it.

Universe equation

There is also a more refined version associated with the ideas of Everett and DeWitt. In quantum cosmology, one can formally introduce the wave function of the universe, which makes it possible to calculate the probabilities of various states in which this universe can exist. Until the early 1980s, this idea was not very popular, because few people believed in its practical usefulness. By definition, there can be nothing larger than the universe, so what does quantum wave functions, invented to describe processes of immeasurably smaller scales, have to do with it? But then inflationary cosmology arose, and the situation changed. Inflationary models allow that our entire universe could have been born from less than a milligram of matter, and on this scale, quantum mechanics already works. Academician Zel'dovich realized this for the first time, but more on an intuitive level. Then Alexander Vilenkin did a wonderful job about the emergence of the universe literally from nothing. Similar results were obtained by Hartley and Hawking, who wrote the wave function of the Universe, named after them, and other scientists joined in. In the end, this research program was recognized, which strengthened the position of the views of Everett and DeWitt.

The multicolor of the universe

Let's get back to the inflationary mechanism that triggers the superfast growth of the universe from an almost point-like seed. Imagine this embryo in the form of a ball. If this ball, relatively speaking, is the same color throughout the entire volume, it can be assumed that it will retain the same color even after expansion. It is another matter if it is made from fragments of a wide variety of colors - they will stretch, but retain color diversity. As a result, the universe, at the end of inflation, will consist of many parts of gigantic proportions, each of which will be painted in its own color. Any of these parts will be so large that its intelligent inhabitants will not be able to get information about what is happening outside of it. Therefore, from their point of view, it will be a full-fledged universe, comprehensive and self-sufficient. Such a situation can be described as the coexistence of parallel universes that have a common beginning, but no longer interact with each other. Since it is natural to count their age from this beginning, it can be physically meaningful to assert that they exist at the same time.

Of course, coloring is a metaphor. In fact, we are talking about the birth of parallel universes with different physical laws, which in inflationary cosmology is not only possible, but simply necessary. And for this it is not at all required that our parent ball has a mosaic color. As I said, it seems natural to assume that a monochromatic germ will become an equally monochromatic universe as a result of inflation. Thirty years ago, I thought so - and, as it turned out, I was wrong. Later, it was possible to prove that inflation, using quantum phase transitions, generates regions with different colors, so that the initially monochrome universe becomes polychrome. Thus, she creates worlds with different physical laws on her own.

An endless series of worlds

This model has been given new life in superstring theory. Based on it, it was possible to show that the total number of ways to color the universe can be exponentially large, say 10,500! So the variety of different parallel worlds of inflationary origin is almost infinite.

One can go even further and assume that our world is embedded in another space with a large number of dimensions. If this is so, then truly parallel worlds may exist near us, separated by large or small distances in other dimensions. Ten years ago this hypothesis was very popular, but in recent years its credit has fallen somewhat. However, it still has actively working supporters.

And finally, now for the first time we are able to meaningfully discuss the chances of the birth of other worlds with different laws of physics. However, our existence is tied to our own universe and its physical structure. Therefore, by studying ourselves, we learn something about that part of the universe where we live. Based on this logic, it is possible to interpret many experimentally measured parameters of our world that could not be explained before. For example, organic life would be impossible if the difference between the masses of a neutron and a proton was only one percent higher than that which actually exists. Should we consider that God or nature deliberately disposed of quark-gluon interactions in our interests, so that the mass of these particles would be exactly this and no other? The concept of multiple worlds gives a much more reasonable answer: neutrons and protons, in principle, can have other masses, but only in universes unsuitable for our type of life. In this sense, it already has a large number of experimental confirmations.

Did man descend from apes?

Alexander Markov,
famous Russian evolutionary biologist and paleontologist,
Doctor of Biological Sciences,
author of more than 130 scientific articles and monographs.
Since 1987 he has been working at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

The closest ancestors of Homo sapiens were not monkeys, but other members of the genus Homo. Although, if you follow a strict zoological classification, man did not descend from monkeys at all. He is simply a real monkey.

The phrase “Man descended from apes” seems to have been first expressed by Thomas Huxley (Darwin did not say so) and is a somewhat vulgarized version of the real state of affairs, so it is better not to use it without explanations and reservations. First of all, both concepts - both "man" and "monkey" - are very vague, they are interpreted differently in the public consciousness, and for a start it is necessary to understand which of the definitions we will start from.

Definitely, none of the modern monkeys (chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan) is the ancestor of man, but we have common ancestors with them. Homo sapiens, unlike modern great apes, belongs to the genus Homo, and a number of extinct species also belonged to it, the evolution of which has been studied in sufficient detail. How does this genus differ from early hominids? There is no clear boundary, and in such cases anthropologists often use formal agreements. For example, a volitional decision makes a rule: all hominids with a brain volume of 600 cm 3 and above will belong to the genus Homo, and those with smaller brains belong to the genus Australopithecus. If we start from this rule and consider a person any representative of the genus Homo, then the answer to our question will be this: the ancestor of man were two-legged African monkeys belonging to the now extinct genus Australopithecus. It was a genus of unusual bipedal apes, which, however, are relatives of other large African great apes, most notably the gorilla and chimpanzee.

Man from man

If we include in the concept of "man" only Homo sapiens, modern man with all his unique features, primarily such as the development of culture, the accumulation of a huge amount of information in a series of generations, then a person comes from ... a person, or rather, from African populations of the so-called Heidelberg man (in the broad sense of this concept ). Representatives of this ancestral population 500-400 thousand years ago widely settled from Africa throughout the Old World. The part of the population that settled in Europe gave rise to the Neanderthals. Those who remained in Africa became the ancestors Homo sapiens, and those who went to Asia over the course of generations turned into Denisovans. The Denisovans are a recently discovered human population whose DNA has been analyzed from bone remains found in the Denisovskaya Cave in Altai.

Finally, if approached from the point of view of formal zoological classification, then according to scientific rules, man cannot be considered descended from apes, because he is an ape. The fact is that only monophyletic groups can be considered natural groups of species. A monophyletic group includes all the descendants of some known ancestor. It follows from this that the genus Homo cannot be singled out from the monkeys, since it branched off from the evolutionary tree much later than the divergence of the monkeys proper began, already from within the monkey “crown”. Thus, according to the zoological classification, man belongs to the order of primates, to monkeys, to narrow-nosed monkeys, to great apes, to great great apes, to great African great apes, and, finally, to representatives of the genus Homo.

Has the "missing link" been found?

As soon as Darwin put forward his hypothesis about the relationship between man and apes, science began to search for the so-called missing link connecting man with the animal world: after all, in those days, practically no paleoanthropological data had been accumulated. However, the discoveries of the last century, including very recent finds, removed the issue of the missing link from the agenda. Now, on the contrary, there is another problem: anthropologists often argue about which of the discovered forms is closer to man, and which is further. For example, many species of late gracile australopithecines are known that lived 2.5 million years ago in East Africa. And it is not entirely clear from which specific species the first Homo - Homo habilis.

Slow way of the mind

The most significant factor separating man from ape is the presence of reason. Many times, researchers have tried to identify leaps in anthropogenesis, qualitative changes that led to a sharp increase in the intellectual abilities of our ancestors. But the more data science receives, the more these “breaks” seem to be smoother and more gradual. Brain growth began about 2.5 million years ago in Homo habilis- the variability in brain size was already quite large - from 500 to 700 cm 3 (compared to 400 cm 3 in Australopithecus, which is comparable to the brain of a chimpanzee). The beginning of the manufacture of stone tools dates back to this time, which requires very precise coordination of movements, good control over the action of the hand and fingers. The brain of a chimpanzee is not adapted for this - a more developed mental apparatus is needed.

Image of a fang

The second period of rapid brain growth occurred 1.8–1.7 million years ago, shortly after habilis even more advanced people appeared in Africa - Homo erectus. The "erectus" invented a more sophisticated stone processing technology (Acheulean stone industry). The stones began to be given a pre-thought-out shape: bilateral symmetrical axes, reminiscent of the fang of an animal. It was then that the parts of the brain that were responsible for planning, creating an image of a future product began to develop. During this period, for several hundred thousand years, the brain grows to an average size of 900 cm 3 . After another million years, the brain grew almost to the modern level in the late "erectus" and Heidelberg people. And about 400,000 years ago, late Heidelberg man finally grew a brain virtually identical to ours. And 40,000 years ago, the first drawings and musical instruments (flutes) appeared, and, probably, it was at this moment that the mental and intellectual appearance of a person as a whole found its completion.

What exploded in the Big Bang?

Alexander Vilenkin,
director of the Cosmology Institute at Tufts University,
author of The World of Many Worlds. Physicists in search of other universes"

Where and how did the universe begin? Almost all religions, creeds and cults offer answers to this age-old question. But science has taken it seriously quite recently - only in the 20th century.

The simplest answer will also be the shortest - it all started with the Big Bang. This is evidenced by the solutions of all reasonable models of the evolution of the Universe, built on the basis of the general theory of relativity. If we scroll them back in time, we will inevitably hit the moment when the density and temperature of matter become infinite. And it is necessary to take it as the origin, the zero time point. It is impossible to continue solutions to the region of previous times: mathematics does not allow.

The only way out

Physicists never liked this situation. Ever since they learned how to rigorously calculate world models, the hope of getting rid of infinities and looking, so to speak, into the past of the Big Bang has not disappeared. But all attempts to find reasonable models of the "beginningless", in other words, the eternal Universe were unsuccessful. This state of affairs persisted after models of the inflationary expansion of the early Universe were developed in the early 1980s, based not only on general relativity, but also on the false vacuum hypothesis borrowed from quantum field theory.

Inflation is an ultra-fast expansion of the Universe at the very beginning of its existence. It arises due to the fact that the vacuum at this moment is in a state with a very large positive energy density, immeasurably exceeding its minimum value. Vacuum with the lowest energy density is called true, with a higher one - false. Any positive vacuum acts as anti-gravity, that is, it causes space to expand. A false vacuum with an extremely high energy density is also extremely unstable, it quickly decays, and its energy goes into the formation of radiation and particles heated to extremely high temperatures. This vacuum decay is what is called the Big Bang. It leaves behind ordinary space filled with gravitating matter, which expands at a moderate rate.

However, there is one scenario that allows you to overcome the impasse of mathematical infinities. According to this scenario, the Universe arose from nothing, more precisely, from a state where there is neither time, nor space, nor matter in the classical sense of these terms. This idea at first glance seems ridiculous - how can nothing give birth to something? Or, if we move from metaphors to physics, how can we get around the fundamental laws of conservation? For example, the law of conservation of energy, which is considered absolute. The energies of matter and radiation are always positive, so how could they arise from a state with zero energy?

About the benefits of isolation

Fortunately, this difficulty is completely solvable - however, not for any universes, but only for closed ones. It can be proved that the total energy of any closed universe is exactly zero. How can this be, since the universe is filled with matter and radiation? However, there is also the energy of gravity, which, as you know, is negative. It turns out that in a closed universe, the positive energy contribution of particles and electromagnetic fields is exactly offset by the equal and opposite contribution of the gravitational field, so that the total energy is always zero. This conclusion applies not only to energy, but also to electric charge. In a closed universe, any positive charge will inevitably be accompanied by the same charge with a minus sign, so that the total sum of all charges again turns out to be zero. The same can be said about other physical quantities that obey strict conservation laws.

What follows from this? If a closed universe arises from absolute emptiness, all conserved quantities, as they were, remain zero. It turns out that the fundamental conservation laws do not forbid such a birth at all. Now let us recall that any quantum-mechanical process that is not forbidden by these laws can occur, even if with a very small probability. So the birth of a closed universe from nothing is in principle possible. This is how quantum mechanics differs from classical mechanics, where emptiness by itself cannot give rise to anything.

By the beginning of time

The chances of spontaneous birth of various universes according to such a scenario can be calculated: physics has a mathematical apparatus for this. It is intuitively obvious that they fall as the size of the universe increases, and the equations confirm this: midget universes are more likely to occur than larger universes. At the same time, the size of the universe is related to the properties of the false vacuum that fills it: the higher its energy density, the smaller the universe. So, closed microuniverses stuffed with high-energy vacuum get the maximum chances for spontaneous birth.

Now suppose that probability worked in favor of this scenario and a closed universe was born out of nothing. A false vacuum creates negative gravity, which forces the newborn universe to expand rather than contract. As a result, it will evolve from the initial moment, which fixes its spontaneous birth. When approaching this moment from the side of the future, we do not run into infinity. But the question of what was before this moment does not make sense, since then neither time nor space existed.

Must have a start

Several years ago, together with two co-authors, I proved a theorem that is directly related to our problem. Roughly speaking, it states that any universe that expands on average necessarily has a beginning. The clarification “on average” has the meaning that at some stages the universe can contract, but throughout its entire existence it still mainly expands. And the conclusion about the existence of a beginning means that this universe has stories that, when continued into the past, break off, their world lines have certain starting points. On the contrary, any universe that exists forever cannot have such world lines, all its histories continuously recede into the past to an infinite depth. And since the universes that are born as a result of inflationary processes satisfy the conditions of the theorem, they must have a beginning.

It is also possible to mathematically model a closed universe, which was in a static state for an infinitely long time, and then began to expand. It is clear that our theorem does not apply to it, because the time-averaged rate of its expansion is zero. However, such a universe will always have a chance to collapse: this is required by quantum mechanics. The probability of collapse may be very small, but since the universe remains in a static state for an infinite time, it will certainly happen, and such a universe simply will not live to expand. So we again come to the conclusion that the expanding universe must have a beginning. Naturally, it applies to our own universe as well.

Will a person live 150 years?

Jan Wich,
Professor and Head of the Department of Genetics
New York Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
author of the book “Aging of the genome. The dual role of DNA in life and death
(Aging of the Genome, The dual role of DNA in life and death)

Since time immemorial, people have wanted to extend the period of their earthly existence, and these dreams were not at all groundless. Even at a time when few people lived to be fifty years old, individual individuals crossed the centennial milestone. Now the life expectancy of newborn Japanese girls exceeds 85 years, and, according to well-founded forecasts, by the middle of the 21st century, the same can be said for residents of all developed countries (regardless of gender). Does this mean that humanity is approaching the era of the Methuselahs?

What is aging? I would give the following definition: a gradual progressive accumulation of malfunctions in the functioning of tissues and organs, which increases the risk of developing pathological processes. For example, mutations can accumulate in certain cells with age, which eventually lead to their malignant transformation and transformation into the germs of cancerous tumors. Or, for example, the kidney tissue begins to cope worse and worse with cleaning the blood from urea and other toxins, which is also fraught with dangerous consequences for the body.

Aging and evolution

Death is absolutely necessary from the point of view of biological evolution, which without it could not work. Another thing is aging. Natural selection keeps life processes under control from birth until a sharp weakening of the ability to reproduce, and everything that happens after that no longer concerns it. Otherwise, the termination of the possibility of having offspring would automatically lead to a quick death. Evolution does not plant time bombs in us, tuned for the time of the death of reproductive functions, however, it does not protect us in old age. Natural selection does not create pressure to prolong life at this stage, and therefore does not favor the multiplication of centenarians.

Let us recall at least such pathologies as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases, which are much more common in old age than in young years. This is often due to genetic characteristics that contribute to reproductive success in the first half of life. And when these genes fulfill the requirements of natural selection, he loses interest in them.

Of course, evolution works differently for different species, and it is not surprising that elephants live much longer than mice. However, within each species, individual fluctuations in living age are not too great and are mainly determined by the conditions of existence of both individual individuals and populations.

Can old age be cured?

It should be noted that not everything is so simple with animals. Take dwarf mice, which differ from normal mice by only one gene mutation. On average, they live 30% longer than their ordinary relatives, but only if they are kept in greenhouse conditions. These mice are especially vulnerable in the first time after birth, when they can literally die for no apparent reason. Such mutations will never become a tool for prolonging human life.

The same with drugs. If you feed mice with rapamycin, you can increase their lifespan by an average of about one-fifth of the norm. However, this drug gives a number of dangerous complications - for example, it promotes the growth of cataracts and weakens the immune system. Obviously, it cannot be tested on humans.

True, it does not follow from this that life expectancy cannot be increased by therapeutic methods. For example, you can lower your cholesterol levels with statins and keep your blood pressure under control by taking beta-blockers. All these measures, coupled with a healthy lifestyle, rational nutrition and exercise, increase the chances of gaining a long and, no less important, a full life, not too burdened by age-related diseases. But there is no evidence that in this way it is possible to approach the age of long-livers-record holders, and even more so to surpass it. I am not sure that even multiple organ transplants will help here, especially since we consider it ethical to use it only for the treatment of fatal diseases, and by no means for overcoming senile decrepitude.

I would like to emphasize that aging is an extremely complex process that we are only just beginning to understand adequately. It is necessary to study a variety of factors and mechanisms of aging, and this is work for many decades. If it yields tangible results, there will be real hope for the creation of effective strategies for a significant extension of a fulfilling life.

Measured by evolution

During the 20th century, life expectancy has risen markedly throughout the world. The reasons for this trend are known - these are the successes of medicine, sanitary and hygienic progress and improved nutrition. Now the percentage of people over 90-100 years old in the world's population is higher than at any time in the history of mankind. However, we do not yet see super-long-livers. The maximum reliably documented age of death is 122 and a half years. So much lived the Frenchwoman Jeanne Louise Calment, who was born in February 1875 and died in August 1997. American Bess Cooper will be 116 years old at the end of August, two more this year turned 115. However, numerous stories that someone managed to live from 150 to 200 years are not based on anything. Therefore, many experts, including myself, consider 125 years of age to be the practical limit of human life. I admit that the successes of science can increase it, but perhaps for years, not decades. I don't think that in our century at least one person will live to be 140-150 years old, not to mention even longer periods.

This forecast may seem pessimistic, but it reflects our biological nature. The rate of aging of the human body depends on the coordinated work of a great many genes. The lifespan of worms, insects, and even mice can be seriously increased with the help of local mutations, but this will not work with humans, we are much more complicated. To radically extend life, we would need drugs or other means of influencing the body that can cause thousands of coordinated changes in the functioning of organs and at the same time do not give pathological side effects. I don't think this is practically possible in the foreseeable future. This task can only be handled by biological evolution, and even for it it takes hundreds of thousands and millions of years. In particular, you should not count on the imminent appearance of some miraculous pills for old age.

Is time travel possible?

Ken Olum,
professor of physics at Tufts University

Since H. G. Wells published his Time Machine, walks into the past or into the future with an indispensable return to one's own era have become firmly established in fantastic literature. But are they possible from the point of view of modern science, at least purely theoretically?

Together with a group of like-minded people, I am engaged in time travel in the context of the general theory of relativity with certain quantum corrections. Specifically, the problem is posed as follows: is it possible to construct a curved GR space-time containing closed world lines with the help of certain quantum fields? If the world line leaves a certain space-time point and returns to it, then the movement along this loop will just be a journey through time. For those who are familiar with the theory of relativity, I will clarify that the world line must be time-like. This means that no movement along it should exceed the speed of light.

Semi-classic

Our approach to posing the problem of temporal travel can be called semi-classical, since it is based on the unification of Einstein's classical theory of gravity with quantum field theory. Some people say that this travel problem should be studied on the basis of a purely quantum theory of gravity, but it has not yet been created and we do not know what it will look like.

Einstein's equations are symmetrical with respect to time, their solutions can be continued both in the future and in the past. Therefore, they do not imply the irreversibility of time, which would impose a ban on time travel. However, the geometric structure of space-time is determined by the properties of the matter that fills the space, its energy and pressure. So our main problem can be reformulated as follows: what kind of matter allows loops of world lines? It turns out that the matter familiar to us, consisting of particles and radiation, is in no way suitable for this. We need matter of a different kind, which has a negative mass, and therefore, if we recall the famous Einstein formula E \u003d mc 2, and negative energy (by the way, you should not confuse such matter with antiparticles - their masses and energies are positive). This has long been proven by several physicists, such as Stephen Hawking.

Casimir effect

Matter with negative mass and energy may seem absurd, but it has been worked out by theory and even confirmed by experiment. True, classical physics does not allow it, but from the point of view of quantum field theory, it is quite legitimate. This is evidenced by a physical effect named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir. If you take two polished metal plates and place them strictly parallel to each other at a distance of several micrometers, they will attract with a force that can be measured (which was first done 15 years ago). This attraction is explained precisely by the fact that the space between the plates has a negative energy.

Where does it come from? For simplicity, we will assume that the plates are located in an ideal vacuum. According to quantum theory, all kinds of fluctuations of quantum fields are born and disappear there all the time, for example, virtual photons. They all contribute to the average free vacuum energy, which is zero. For this to be possible, part of the fluctuations must have positive energy, and part must have negative energy.

But near physical bodies, this balance may not be observed. In particular, in the space between the plates, "minus" fluctuations dominate over "plus" ones. Therefore, the density of vacuum energy there is lower than the energy density of free vacuum, that is, less than zero. This density is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the gap width between the plates, while the volume of the interplate space is proportional to the width itself. So their product has a negative sign and is inversely proportional to the cube of the slit width. As a result, when the plates approach each other, the total vacuum energy of the interplate space falls below zero more and more, and therefore it is energetically favorable for them to attract each other.

time patrol

But back to time travel. Since ordinary matter has a positive mass, it is impossible to make a device from it that can travel in time. If this problem is solvable, then only with the help of some configurations of quantum fields that provide negative energy throughout the closed world line.

However, to create such a configuration, apparently, is simply impossible. This is prevented by a very important constraint called the averaged zero energy condition ( Averaged Null Energy Condition, ANEC for short). Mathematically, it is expressed by a rather complicated integral, and in simple common human language, it states that any contributions from negative energy along photon world lines must be exactly or even excessively compensated by additions of positive energy.

According to all available data, nature complies with ANEC without any exceptions. It can be shown that the Casimir effect also obeys this condition. For example, if two holes are made in the plates opposite each other and a light beam is passed through them from the outside through the interplate space, the total sum of energy changes along its world line will be positive.

How does this affect time travel? It can be proved that if a certain analogue of ANEC operates in the curved space of general relativity, then such travels turn out to be impossible.

In other words, this version of ANEC, which we have called achronal, prohibits any design of time machines made with negative mass matter.

Now I am working with my students on a mathematical proof of this version, and it seems to me that we have already achieved something.

If we succeed in constructing the desired proof, the fundamental impracticability of the time machine will be demonstrated - at least within the framework of the semiclassical approach. And since we do not yet have a complete quantum theory of gravity, this conclusion will have to be accepted at least before its creation.

What happens in the brain when a thought is born?

Konstantin Vladimirovich Anokhin,
Russian scientist, neurobiologist, professor, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.
Laureate of the Lenin Komsomol Prize, the De Wied Prize of the Netherlands Academy of Sciences, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences
and the National Award "Person of the Year" in the nomination "Potential and Prospect in Science"

In order to achieve a full understanding of the biological basis of consciousness, it will probably take several more centuries. But if only a couple of decades ago they did not even dare to start solving this problem, today scientific methods of research in this area have appeared.

In short, the answer is that science does not yet have a satisfactory explanation of this process. Satisfactory in the sense that Richard Feynman meant when he said, "What I cannot build, I cannot understand." We cannot yet create a device that thinks, and this is largely due not to technical difficulties, but to the fact that we are not yet able to understand how the brain works.

What is known now? We cannot say how a thought is born, but we already know a lot about what happens in the brain at its birth, what unique conditions for the brain to work are created when a thought arises. This is studied in special experiments, when they compare the presentation to the brain of some conscious situations (that give rise to a thought) and the same situations that it cannot realize. For example, if the event is too short: the visual and auditory components of what is happening enter the brain, but do not reach the level of consciousness. When scientists compare what happens in the brain during conscious and unconscious processing of information, it turns out that awareness is associated with several things.

What Happens When Realized:

Firstly When we become aware of something, significantly more neurons work in the cerebral cortex in those areas that were already involved in the processing of unconscious information.

Secondly, at the moment of awareness, those zones are activated that were not previously involved in the unconscious processing of sensory data. These are areas associated with the anterior areas of the brain.

third, between the zones that are activated at the moment of the appearance of consciousness (thought), and the zones that are associated with our perception of the world around us, fast cyclic interactions - reverberations begin to be established.

fourthly, only after the circulation of excitations through this network begins, there is a moment of awareness. We do not always understand this, but our consciousness is very far behind the moment the brain reacts to some events. If you know exactly at what millisecond a photograph or word is presented on the screen, you can be sure that awareness appears approximately half a second (200-400 milliseconds) after the display. And the reaction of brain regions that perceive information unconsciously (early reaction) occurs much earlier, that is, after 60-100 milliseconds. All these four components add up to the big picture. When we have a flash of consciousness, this is due to the fact that different areas of the brain - both those associated with mental stress, attention (anterior), and those associated with the perception of the external world - are synchronized together in special cycles of information circulation. . Synchronization is established at the late phases of the action of the external signal (in half a second), and at this moment consciousness appears.

Secrets of the Neural Code

We also know that the impact on different stages of these four components (sometimes they are observed in medicine, with injuries, in addition, they can be artificially caused by magnetic simulation) can destroy consciousness, and a person will end up in the subconscious or simply in a coma.

The brain is often compared to a computer, but this is a very crude and imprecise analogy. The neural code is very different from the Turing machine codes. The brain does not work on binary logic, it does not work as a clock processor, it functions as a massive parallel network, where the main element of the code is the moment of synchronization of different cells with their experience, as a result of which there is that subjective sensation, thought or action that takes place in this moment is the theater of consciousness, the field of our attention. This is the synchronization code of many elements, not the progress of step-by-step calculations.

Neurons and images

At the time of the formation of connections between cells, something similar to mental information is not transmitted. Between them, chemicals are transmitted that allow neurons to unite into one or another system. Each of these systems is unique because the cells are specialized. For example, these are cells that perceive the image of a blue sky, a white window frame, a face, etc. All together they give for some short time that conscious image that occupies our attention. Such “frames” can change very quickly, and in the next few tens of milliseconds, a different configuration of cells will appear in the brain, which is associated with a different set of neurons. And this is a constant flow, only a small part of which is realized through emerging synchronizations. There are a lot of things that work in parallel with the central link. They are unconscious and built on automated processes. I sit, balance, maintain body temperature, pressure, breathing. It's all controlled by a mass of functional systems that shouldn't be broadcast to the whole brain.

OS-controlled brain

However, despite the dissimilarity of the neural and binary codes, some parallels between the brain and the computer can still be drawn.

The brain has a semblance of an operating system, and there are several hypotheses on this score. In one of them - the theory of functional systems - there is the concept of the operational architectonics of the system. This is a kind of synthesis of sensory and motivational signals, extracts from memory, which involves all these components in a single workspace - where the goal is set and the decision is made. There is also a theory of consciousness as a global workspace. According to it, there is a certain operational architecture, which, like an operating system, is able to involve different cells in the processes of awareness. It involves the neurons of the anterior cortex, which have long projections to all other areas of the cortex, and when these neurons “ignite”, they begin to “twist” information in all other areas. This is a kind of central processing unit, and it turns on only when there is consciousness. In all other respects, the brain can work automatically. You can drive a car, and your mind will be busy with some internal issues, and the "processor" will work for them. And only at the moment when something unexpected happens (someone crosses the road, for example), the operating system starts working on the mode of the outside world.

When will the end of the world come?

Avi Loeb,
professor, head of the department of astronomy at Harvard University,
Director of the Institute for Theory and Computer Simulation of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

If there is one thing we know for sure about our universe, it is that it is not static, changing over time. And what awaits her in the future?

Today we have a standard cosmological model that describes well the history of the universe almost from the moment of its birth up to our time. Moreover, now there are no serious grounds to believe that this model cannot serve as a basis for predicting the subsequent evolution of our world. True, she has competitors who offer completely different scenarios for future events. However, we do not yet have observational data that would indicate a real need not only to revise the Standard Model, but even to seriously correct it.

Void or shreds

Now about the future. It follows from the Standard Model that in the very distant future, the role of gravity will practically come to naught and the rate of expansion of the Universe will increase exponentially. Outer space will empty, and faster and faster. However, this rate will always increase monotonically, from the present era until the end of time. The Standard Model excludes scenarios in which the vacuum loses stability and its energy density jumps to infinity in a finite time. In this case, the expansion rate of the Universe will also tend to infinity, which will lead to the rupture and disappearance of all material objects - from galaxies and stars to atoms and atomic nuclei. Some competitors of the Standard Model predict just such an outcome, but astronomers have no evidence to support these theories. Frankly, I myself do not take them seriously, they are based on very unusual physics. The Standard Model is in excellent agreement with the results of observations, and there is no point in abandoning it.

The accelerating expansion of the universe will only mean an increase in the rate of expansion of galaxies. Since the density of dark energy will not change, it will not be able to destroy galaxies and other gravitationally stable structures that it does not prevent from existing in the current era. Of course, this does not mean that the galaxies themselves will remain in the form in which they exist today. Over time, all stars will burn their fusion fuel and turn into white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes. The holes will grow, merging with each other and absorbing stellar remnants and interstellar gas. However, these and other destructive processes will take place without the participation of dark energy.

Local news

And what awaits our own Galaxy, the Milky Way? It is approaching the neighboring large spiral galaxy Andromeda - now at a speed of 110 km / s. After 6 billion years, both galaxies will merge and form a new star cluster, Milkomeda. The Sun will remain inside Milkomeda, only move to its periphery compared to its current position in the Milky Way. Coincidentally, that's when it will burn its hydrogen fuel and embark on a path of cataclysmic change that will end in its transformation into a white dwarf.

So far, we've been talking about the fairly near future. After stabilization, Milkomed will retain gravitational stability for gigantic periods, at least thousands of times longer than the current age of the Universe. But she will be alone much earlier. Somewhere in 100 billion years or a little later, all the distant galaxies that we can observe today will disappear from its sky. By then, the speed of their expansion, caused by the expansion of the universe, will exceed the speed of light, so that the photons emitted by them will never reach Milkomeda. In the language of cosmology, galaxies will irreversibly go beyond its event horizon. Their apparent brightness will decrease, and eventually they will all dim and go out. So observers at Milkomed will see only her own stars - of course, only those that by that time will still be emitting light. The lightest red dwarfs will remain active the longest, but after a maximum of 10 trillion years, they will also begin to die.

Standard Universe

The Standard Model states that in our time the Universe is changing under the influence of two main factors: the gravitation of ordinary and dark matter and the antigravitating effect of non-zero vacuum energy, which is commonly called dark energy.

In the early youth of the Universe, a serious contribution to its evolution was also made by the energy of electromagnetic radiation and neutrino fluxes. Now its role is very small, since the density of radiant energy is extremely small and, moreover, is constantly falling due to the expansion of outer space. At the same time, the density of dark energy, as it appears in the Standard Model, remains constant. It does not decrease as the Universe expands and even now it is three times higher than the monotonically decreasing density of ordinary and dark matter. Therefore, dark energy causes an accelerating expansion of the Universe, which cannot be contained by the weakening gravity of galaxies and the intergalactic medium.

Strategic plans

When the age of the universe reaches a trillion years, the wavelength of the cosmic microwave background will be equal to its size. Then, and even more so later, no detectors will be able to register these supercold photons. Therefore, any observers, no matter how perfect their instruments, will not be able to use the cosmic microwave background radiation as a source of astronomical information.

Now the peak of the spectrum of these photons lies in the microwave range, and they are easily detected by our equipment, providing the most important information about the early history of the universe. The very distant future goes beyond the standard cosmological model. We can reasonably assume that growing black holes will absorb a significant part of both baryonic and dark matter, but what will happen to its remnant scattered across the vast expanses of space?

Physics says that electrons are not subject to any form of decay, but there is no such certainty for protons. According to modern data, the half-life of a proton cannot be less than 10 34 years - this is a lot, but still not an eternity. We also do not know the long-term fate of dark matter particles, which have not yet been discovered at all. The most likely prediction of the ultra-distant future is that the universe will become extremely empty and cool to almost absolute zero.

How exactly this will happen is still unknown, here it is up to fundamental physics. However, the trillion-year future is quite predictable based on the standard model. Of course, if some new properties are discovered in the vacuum, this scenario will have to be revised, but this is already out of the realm of assumptions.

When will computers be able to think like humans?

David Ferrucci,
artificial intelligence specialist
Head of Semantic Analysis and Integration, IBM Thomas Watson Research Center,
Honorary Fellow of IBM, creator of the IBM supercomputer Watson

In fantasy novels of the 1960s, artificial intelligence appeared as a hero. In the books, computers not only communicated with people in ordinary natural language and made complex decisions, but also realized themselves as individuals. Will this remain an eternal dream, or will computers sooner or later be able to catch up with humans?

Will computers be able to think like humans? This is a fascinating and very interesting question, and the more we study it, the more we learn about ourselves and about our thought processes. Despite the uniqueness of human thinking, computers can greatly outperform humans in certain tasks. Few of us can mentally multiply two ten-digit numbers, beat a world champion at chess, or even chart the best route through a traffic-jammed city. But when it comes to human-computer interaction, things aren't nearly as brilliant. Not to mention issues that require human perception and intuition for their solution - here computers can be completely useless.

Ability to learn

Computers have enormous processing power, but they have no human feelings and emotions, no human sensibility. This is the main fundamental difference between a computer and a human. The difference is not at the level of the mind, but at the level of feelings and emotions, which determine exactly how and why we think. And this, in turn, gives us the opportunity to self-learn under the influence of some internal stimuli - in contrast to a computer, whose ability to learn is more or less strictly limited by software. A computer solves individual problems much more efficiently than a person, but a machine cannot think like a person.

One of the characteristic examples of reflection of our way of thinking is language. Almost any natural language often ambiguously defines different concepts, so for a computer, recognizing the meaning of even plain text is a serious problem. In order for a computer to process such information, one has to resort to "translation" - the formalization of speech, text, or any other information. But we cannot expect a computer to do this on its own. Of course, with the help of programs, he will be able to form an answer for us that will make sense and seem quite human. But in fact, this is an imitation, not real human thinking. The computer in this case is a common information processing tool.

Almost exact imitation

Modern software algorithms and computing power allow computers to imitate human behavior so accurately today that many media write seriously about “thinking”. Our IBM computer is widely known Watson who's in the quiz show Jeopardy(the Russian analogue is “Own game”) surpassed the human, and both the questions of the game and the answers of the computer were formulated in natural language. However Watson is not a model of the human brain, but is a specialized information processing system that parses natural language questions using algorithms and evaluates the probability of a particular answer from an extensive database based on accumulated statistics. And although Watson is currently the most advanced system capable of “understanding” and responding to natural language queries, but I assure you that you will not find a person inside our computer - in any sense of the word.

mechanistic way

To move from external imitation to a real simulation of human thinking requires solving a completely different problem. Creating a computer that will not only act within the framework of a given program, but actually think like a person, requires repeating the biological path that nature has already taken. In fact, it is necessary to build an analogue of the human brain and give the machine all those channels of communication with the outside world that a person has. Of course, all this is speculative, since the practical implementation of such a project is still impossible even to imagine. And not so much because of the imperfection of technology or lack of computing power, but because we still do not understand exactly how the human brain and our perception work.

Human perception is a huge mystery. So far, no one even has a rough idea of ​​how it works, in the scientific study of this issue (psychologists, biologists, and cybernetics are engaged in this) we are at the beginning of the path. Try to imagine the volumes of data that enter the brain: visual (with a huge resolution), audio data, tactile, temperature, taste, olfactory, emotional. All this information affects the emotional state, which affects the analysis, data processing and decision making. The brain processes this huge amount of information in parallel and in real time. Right now we don't even have any idea how to model such a circuit entirely in hardware (although, of course, individual elements are already being used in the development of new architectures).

Do we need a super brain

An important aspect of modeling is energy efficiency. The human brain weighing about 1.5 kg consumes about 30 watts. Modern supercomputers occupy entire buildings, and the power consumption is calculated in megawatts. This means that if we were able to build a mechanistic model of the human brain, it would be huge and would consume many orders of magnitude more energy than the original, not to mention cooling. However, technology does not stand still - both IBM and other companies are working on new processor architectures, on new semiconductor materials that will reduce the consumption and size of computers. In addition, the parallelization of computing processes will also help increase efficiency. Quantum computers are quite promising in this respect.

When it will be? If we set such a task for ourselves today and provide sufficient funding, it may take a hundred years (this is a rather optimistic forecast). But will such a goal be justified? Creating a model of the human brain will not provide something fundamentally new for solving everyday problems that traditional computers can handle. In addition, it will be necessary to face not only technological, but also ethical problems. However, they will arise in any case, because even ordinary computers penetrate into all new key areas of human activity. Let's say there is no doubt that soon computers will control cars, and here we enter the field of ethics - who will be responsible in the event of an accident? But I am not afraid of new technologies. After all, a computer is just a tool to help make the world more convenient for us humans.

State University - Higher School of Economics

Abstract on the topic:

Eternal questions of philosophy and answers to them in world religions

Performed:

1st year student

Semenova Anna

Group 154

checked

Teacher

Nosachev Pavel Georgievich

Moscow 2009

Introduction 3

Classification of eternal questions 5

Relationship between philosophy and religion 8

Eternal Questions in World Religions 10

Conclusion 13

List of used literature: 14

Introduction

What are eternal questions? Oddly enough, answering the question of eternal questions is much easier than answering the eternal questions themselves. These are questions that every person has asked himself at one time or another in his life. These questions never lose their relevance, in any historical period.

If you think about the very meaning of philosophy, then in a sense, philosophy can be characterized as a search for answers to these very eternal problems (questions). All great thinkers have spent their lives in an eternal search for answers. And, for that matter, we are all philosophers to some extent, because each of us at least once asked himself the question: who am I? Or why me? Where did I come from? Where will I go?

For example, the British thinker Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, defines the "eternal questions" of philosophy as: Is the world divided into spirit and matter? What is spirit and matter? Is the spirit subordinate to matter, or does it have independent abilities? Does the universe evolve towards a specific goal? Is there a way of life that is sublime, and if so, what is it and how can we comprehend it? It is not so easy to find answers to such questions, you will not find them in the laboratory. The problem of the unity of the world, the problem of humanity, the problem of freedom, the problem of life and death, and many other "eternal questions" receive their answers and solutions in every era, depending on the level of knowledge achieved.

The difference between ordinary people and philosopher-thinkers lies in the amount of time spent looking for answers. An ordinary person does not spend much time on this, thinking about these questions at his leisure in his youth, growing up, he asks everyday questions: where to work? How to buy an apartment, house, car? How to look good, presentable, representative in the eyes of others, etc. And they place the responsibility for finding answers to eternal questions on the shoulders of others, or they rely on the authority of religion. And they return to these questions only in extreme old age, when questions arise: what good have I done in this life? Or: what did I do wrong? Can I be proud of my life? What did I leave for posterity? Will they remember me?

Philosophers, on the other hand, spend almost their entire lives searching for answers, they are in constant search for answers, finding them, after some time they are convinced of the falsity of the latter, again searching, again dissatisfaction with the results, fighting the unknown, striving for truth becomes their life, everything. And with all this, they are well aware that they will never achieve perfection, because eternal questions are eternal, that they can never be given exhaustive, definitely correct and true answers. But this does not depress the sage-philosopher, he even finds pleasure in this constant search. The deeper and more voluminous the answer received, the more new questions it poses to philosophical consciousness. Unlike "ignorant fools", thinkers are at least aware of their "ignorance" and try to get at least a little closer to the truth, although they are well aware that absolute truth as such does not exist, there is only a path to it, consisting of reflections, various assumptions hypotheses, conjectures. Thinking, a person improves, expands his horizons, asserts himself, maybe .. Thinking, a person becomes a Man in the truest sense of the word.

Classification of eternal questions

Despite the fact that there are quite a lot of these questions, they can be divided into several main groups.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant reports his classification of eternal questions:

1) What can I know? (a question about the truth of life)

2) What should I do? (a question about the principles of life)

3) What can I hope for? (a question about the meaning of life)

There is also another, more extensive and capacious classification:

1) the problem of the beginning

2) the problem of material and ideal

3) the problem of soul and body

4) the problem of freedom and creativity of the individual

5) the problem of the meaning of life

6) the problem of truth

And yet, even this classification is not all questions.

But let's take a look at some of the above:

For example, the problem of material and spiritual right may be called the most interesting and most insoluble of questions. Because no one has yet been able to prove the primacy of matter or the primacy of spirit. Although attempts have been made by many of the greats more than once. For example, the great German scientist Hegel developed a theory in which the whole world and history as a process of self-determination of the Absolute idea. Yes, and all his teachings were basically based on the concept of absolute idealism. But just a few years later, other Germans Mark and Engels questioned this theory, stating that all the diversity and diversity of the earthly and mental world represents different levels of development of matter. Thus, the problem of the material and the ideal is still considered unresolved, because to this day scientists-philosophers recognize either one or the other theory, dividing depending on their beliefs into materialists and idealists.

The problem of the relationship between soul and body is no less ancient and important.

Even in ancient times, thinkers argued, putting in the first place either the soul or the body.

On the one hand, the body is fundamentally important, because the soul must be in something, right? It is the body that contains all the substances necessary for existence: muscles, energy, brain, in the end. Even consciousness, the most important human function, is also considered part of the body, because it is produced by the brain.

But the soul is no less important, because this is what distinguishes us from animals - we can love, we can create, learn, for us there is the concept of morality, the concept of evil and good.

Without a soul, a person would not be able to sympathize, but would be only a living being, like other animals.

Thus, it is also impossible to solve this problem.

The following problem is one of the most popular and frequently asked questions there questions about the meaning of life, about the meaning of human existence.

This is quite understandable, because these questions have been and are being asked by everyone, even by individuals who have nothing to do with philosophical science. Sooner or later, everyone starts asking why I appeared, how I appeared, what should I do to deserve this high title of “man”.

Despite all the complexity and practical impossibility of finding a single solution and answer to these questions, it is possible to get as close as possible to the absolute truth. You can find a compromise between two opposing opinions, create a kind of symbiosis, because each of the decisions has a piece of truth in it. The answer lies somewhere in the middle, between the two poles.

And the more human thought develops, the more philosophers are convinced that each of us must look for answers to questions himself, without using any hints, reference books, without relying on the truth of authority.

Relationship between philosophy and religion.

Like philosophy, religion offers humanity a system of values ​​- norms, ideals and goals, so that it can plan its behavior in the surrounding reality, evaluate itself, situations and others. Religion also has its own universal, picture of the world. Only unlike philosophy, it is based on an act of the divine principle, creativity. The value and universal nature of religion and religious worldview bring it closer to philosophy, although there are some very fundamental differences between them.

The differences lie in the fact that the ideas and values ​​of religion are accepted by an aspect of religious faith - by the heart, but not by the mind, by one's own and irrational experience, and not on the basis of any legitimate and rationally proven arguments, as happens with philosophy. The system of values ​​in religion is superhuman in nature, originating either from God (Christianity) or from his prophets (Judaism and Islam), or from holy ascetics who have achieved a special status of heavenly wisdom and holiness, as is customary in many religious systems in India. At the same time, a believer quite often may not realize and rationally justify his own worldview imposed by religion, which has a deplorable effect on his “inner philosopher”, because the process of logical substantiation and proof of his ideas and principles is necessary for a person as a whole and for his internal development. This can be attributed to the disadvantages of religion in comparison with philosophy.

But it is also possible the existence of a religious philosophy, free from the dogmas of the church, which claims to be able to have its own opinion, an attempt to build a holistic religious consciousness. However, one should separate religious philosophy from theology - the doctrine of theology, this science, unlike religious philosophy, although it can use the concepts, language, results and methods of philosophy, but still in its teachings it will never allow itself to deviate from those recognized by the church. dogmas.

The relationship between philosophy and religion has changed and is changing from era to era, being in a state of peaceful coexistence and almost existing as a single whole, as in early Buddhism, and being in a position of mutual unacceptability, as it was in Europe of the 18th century. Currently, there is a tendency to create a synthetic worldview based on scientific, philosophical and religious worldviews. Perhaps this will be the answer to the global and at the same time such private questions.

Let us return to the search for answers to the eternal questions of philosophy from the standpoint of religion.

For many people, the ultimate answer to all these questions, and questions about the meaning of life in particular, is faith. Faith is a kind of guide for those who are not particularly successful in finding solutions and answers to questions on their own. Or for those who need support, support, who need the opportunity to believe, hope is needed.

Different religions in one way or another are looking for answers. And depending on how good and authoritative the answers are, religion wins its followers, adherents.

Eternal Questions in World Religions

Buddhism

In order to understand the Buddha's attitude to eternal questions and the search for answers to them, it is enough to recall the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

The disciples came to the Buddha and told about wandering hermits and scientists who were constantly arguing about the finiteness and infinity of the world, about the mortality and immortality of the soul, and questions like these. The disciples asked the Buddha for his opinion of these scholars.

In response, the Buddha ordered to gather a few blind people, blind from birth, and bring them.

When they were brought in, they were asked to touch the elephant and say what it looked like. Each was given to touch a certain part of the body. One was given to touch the head, the second - the tusk, the third - the tail, the fourth - the leg, the fifth - the tassel on the tail, and so on.

The first said that the elephant is like a pot, the second that the elephant is a plowshare, the third that the elephant is like a snake, the fourth is like a post, the fifth is like a brush.

The blind men, having heard that their opinions differed, began to argue loudly, shouting, proving their point of view.

And the Buddha said: “In the same way, these righteous men and scholars preach different views, without seeing even blindly ... In their ignorance, they are quarrelsome, intractable and assert that reality is this or that.”

"Oh, how they quarrel and cling to those who demand
A worthy name for a preacher and a monk!
They cling to everyone, quarreling,
Such people see only one side of a thing."

The Buddha offers to find a state of eternal bliss here on earth, he denies the existence of the eternal Self, denies the existence of the world as such, arguing that everything is just our illusion, and the Soul is also an illusion invented by man, all we need is to get rid of everything what we ourselves came up with, to get rid of deceptive and false illusions, which in fact are the sources of our problems, our mental anxiety. When a person realizes all the insignificance and routine of the surrounding realities, he will achieve that desired state of eternal bliss, which is the meaning of our life according to Buddhism - to know this wisdom, to achieve nirvana.

Christianity

On the meaning of life:

God created man in His image and likeness, and gave him not only being, but also a goal: to become God-like, worthy of Divine glory and bliss.

But the man did not justify the gift and fell into sin, was expelled from Paradise, lost immortality, devastated the Soul.

And his whole subsequent life consists in trying to earn the right to return there, to become immortal and eternal again, observing all the rules of God on earth, leading a righteous life.

Actually, the questions of where I came from, why I am here, what I should do, where I will go, are also explained by Christianity.

You came from the first people created by the great Creator, you are here to atone for the original sin committed by the first people, you must lead a righteous life and observe the laws of God, and where you go depends only on you. Either in eternal bliss, or in eternal torment.

Islam

Basically, the answers to eternal questions in Islam are the same as in Christianity. With the exception of original sin as such.

That is, the same righteous life according to the laws of Allah, the inadmissibility of polytheism, faith in the finiteness of this world, Hell, Paradise with virgins, Judgment Day.

They are also convinced that everything that happens is set up by Allah to test their believers, and that in any situation a person has the right to choose.

Contrary to what Muslim extremist terrorists believe (holy war with infidels and going to heaven for it), the Quran calls for a merciful attitude towards non-believers:

“And if someone from non-Muslims asks you for asylum, then shelter him until he hears the word of God. Then take him to a safe place for him. This is because they are people who do not know [the Truth]” (Holy Quran, 9:6).

Conclusion:

It is practically impossible to give a general answer suitable for each individual to eternal questions. For some people, these questions never give rest, forcing them to be in a constant active search for answers, for some they occupy from time to time, in moments of enlightenment. Some, in desperation, turn to religions for answers, where concrete answers to the questions posed are presented.

In principle, religions generally do well with the function of "responder", although they have a couple of minuses in their harmonious theory.

The problem is that religion allows one and only one option, obliging a person to believe in him, thereby freeing him from the need to think independently, turning him into a simple slave, a hostage of thought. It is necessary to weaken the influence of their strict dogmas.

In the current situation, the way of integration seems to be more and more true: finding the golden mean between the philosophical, scientific and religious worldview. Such synthesized answers may be the most correct.

On the other hand, when the ANSWERS to eternal questions are finally found, the questions will cease to be ETERNAL, and what will be left for a person to eternal reflection? What will make him think when all the pressing problems are solved?

List of used literature:

"50 Golden Ideas of Philosophy" - Georgy Ogaryov

Man Without Borders magazine www.manwb.ru

"Buddhism and Christianity" Deacon Andrei Kuraev

www.buddhism.org.ru

http://www.umma.ru/

http://www.krugosvet.ru/ - online encyclopedia

I apologize if my conclusion is too ignorant, but this is because I understood the basic idea of ​​Buddhism.