Good afternoon!
(Applause)
I want to admit that I am also a victim of education
and now I’m 35 years old because I’m a victim,
and, so to speak, the same thing happens in education,
about what it was said before.
I quite agree with the fact that we,
unfortunately, in childhood we lose what is given to us from God or from nature,
and I understand perfectly well that education kills in us,
that in childhood we call the “why”.
Why? How? What?
We ask these questions boldly, when we are not at school yet.
But when we come to school, we can not ask these questions,
because that’s all, as the teacher says, is in the textbook.
That’s why I’m a victim of this education.
These fears choked me when I went to university,
and began such a boring, boring and, it seemed, for my mind
an incomprehensible subject is philosophy.
When the professor comes in and says “trans-cent-denital”
I not only can not understand, I can not pronounce.
Oh my God! The phobia simply overwhelms my mind.
I think: “Lord, this is all for those celibates,
who can master this discipline.
I will never be able to achieve all this. “
Time passes, of course, I graduate from university,
because there is, good, a textbook,
on which you can answer the teacher on the questions asked,
and, in general, you feel more or less comfortable.
But another time comes when you come to the audience
and you understand that what you refer to the textbook,
absolutely no one is interested.
And when you see such boredom and indifference on the faces of the audience,
as a teacher, I had to think, of course,
what and how it should be with philosophy.
So, first I must love it myself.
How did it begin?
Since I left the methodical textbooks and textbooks – I came to the texts,
that is, to philosophy itself.
The most boring genre of the book is textbooks.
In this I am convinced absolutely.
Even if you love literature, even if you love something,
as soon as you open the textbook, you stop loving it.
I should have loved it myself first,
otherwise I can not convey this to the audience.
I start to read all the texts.
Confusion in my head, fears increase,
what to do?
And we had to do something else.
Start with what is most scandalous in philosophy.
This is the identity of Nietzsche.
I read Nietzsche – and my God! –
every product of it, like, contradicts the thought,
but have to read again,
because I have to come and tell the students something interesting.
I myself must love it.
And I understand perfectly well that Nietzsche’s texts are a provocation.
The provocation that is needed,
in order that we have something appeared
as an insight or as a criticism,
and the most interesting,
that Nietzsche himself and his philosophy is a provocative philosophy,
it was used by everyone from fascists to modern post-modernists.
He does not speak of truth,
everyone is looking for this truth in his texts.
And everyone, in the measure of the state of his soul, the state of his mind, finds his own.
This is the message that allowed me to finally make sure that philosophy,
as Nietzsche himself said, is a merry science.
Terrific.
This boredom turns into some kind of fun.
Why is it fun?
Because this idea is provoked,
and I begin in myself to seek something close to this,
or what I can fearlessly put in question.
I open myself.
As Socrates once said: “Know thyself.”
That is, through the philosophical text I begin to know myself.
And this thought leads me to another:
it turns out, knowing itself,
we must know another,
be together with another,
it does not matter whether it’s a book, whether it’s a work of art,
be it the person in this work,
but in this work reflected the thought of man.
And as one great philosopher said,
“A knowledgeable person is a person with a person.”
And this, naturally, brought me to the philosophy of dialogue.
It is clear that philosophy could not arise from scratch.
Even Socrates did not write anything, it is already mentioned today.
He walked, walked around the squares, through the bazaars and broadcast all his ideas,
which, unfortunately, were not accepted by society.
By the way, any philosopher, a wonderful philosopher –
it is always a tragic fate.
And why? Because his thoughts are always untimely.
How, again, he called it Nietzsche, and one of his works is so called.
So it turns out that Socrates to us is known thanks to Plato’s “Dialogues”.
Further, if we take the subsequent philosophy,
and look at the works of famous philosophers,
well, say, the same Descartes,
who said: “I think, and therefore I exist,
that today is questioned.
A person should be not only reasonable, but spiritual.
So here is the most interesting thing, that for his time Descartes
spoke about the subject of the rational, about the reasonable man,
and from the point of view of his spirituality,
because it was not limited only to the knowledge of academic disciplines.
I perceive the world not only by reason, I perceive the world as a whole person.
There was a well-known philosopher Merab Mamardashvili in Soviet times –
Soviet ideologues blocked all opportunities for him to speak publicly
and even publish his work.
I was at one of his lectures, closed, at Moscow State University, where students stood one after another
and listened to his wonderful lectures, which later, in our time
came out as “Cartesian reflections,” where he continued this idea of Descartes.
The most important thing that was relevant for that time,
and that for today’s time is relevant for Mamardashvili, –
this is what we, it turns out, live in a world of prepared ideas.
We live in a world of prepared thoughts: do not bother your brains –
easier to retell, easier to read,
and it is easier to live in that society,
where there is a ready-made text.
It is clear why the Soviet ideology Mamardashvili did not allow,
especially in the youth environment.
He urged everyone to think.
That is, the idea is born only then,
when you enter into a mental dialogue.
Then the question arises: what if we speak different languages?
Can a full dialogue be held?
I think yes.
Language is not an obstacle,
so that a person enters into a dialogue with another person.
Because, as has already been demonstrated,
we live, in a broad sense, in a cultural space,
where there is a language of images, where the language of music,
where the language, in the end, gives us the opportunity to understand,
if we want it.
This philosophy of dialogue was realized by me and my colleague,
when in the early 90’s, in a situation – do you remember – the collapse of the Soviet Union,
merged here is this so-called market economy,
began “prihvatizatsiya”, as it was then called,
and we realized that the dialogues are torn apart, especially the intellectual dialogues.
There were no intellectual journals.
Nobody was interested in what is written in Moscow, that in Leningrad,
that in Kiev and so on.
Not to mention what is written here.
And it was decided – by us two – to create a magazine of culture and ecology,
a magazine that was conceptually based on the philosophy of dialogue.
It was very important to maintain or create a platform for dialogue by that time.
I believe that it was a certain victory – to go against the current.
With great difficulties, without money, uninitiated for dinner teachers of the university
tried to create this intellectual platform for dialogue.
I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that philosophy as a science,
maybe we do not need everyone.
I speak of philosophy as that state of thought and soul,
which is asking to the world.
Once the oriental wise man in conversation with his disciple asked him:
“Can you answer, what is the essence of this fruit?”
The student answered: “Teacher, I have long wanted to ask this question,
but I was afraid, but now I will try. “
Takes this fruit, cuts it in half.
Naturally, the two halves do not give an answer, what is the essence of this fruit.
With an inquiry he turned to his teacher: “I did not find the essence.”
Then the teacher said: “You were looking for her not there.”
Philosophy is not where we find prepared answers,
and this is what gives us the opportunity,
or, at least, provokes asking
and look for questions and answers to these questions.
Philosophy should not be read as an academic discipline,
and each discipline should be built like a philosophy.
There is a philosophy of the body, the philosophy of dance, the philosophy of sound.
At the core of all lies a certain message of that,
which is the essence.
When Heidegger said: “What is the essence of the cup?”,
differently possible to respond.
But I was struck by his consideration,
that the “cup” of the cup consists in offering.
In the cup – as in a container – we present something that can be drunk.
But look, as far as the philosopher has turned the notion that,
that is the essence of this or that phenomenon.
Before me, the speakers were just talking about the inertia of our thinking,
about the inertia of our consciousness,
about the inertness of our culture, which lives on the prepared,
digestible stereotypes and ideas, digestible images,
entertaining our body, spirit, vision and so on.
Recently my grandson watched the cartoon and asked me:
“What are people?”
And how to answer? How to search?
This once again confirms that the child has no fears,
he is not afraid to be absurd, he is not afraid to be ignorant,
Do not be afraid to ask questions.
We must fight these fears ourselves, realizing that the truths in the last instance
in this world, no one said.
We all go with our ideas and thoughts to the truth.
Thank you.
(Applause)
”
Be First to Comment