Classics and modernity are two eras in the development of European philosophy. Classics and non-classics: two eras in the development of European philosophy Marxism and its place in the historical and philosophical tradition
In the context of development European philosophy Two eras can be distinguished: classic(development of philosophy from ancient times to the middle of the 19th century) and postclassical(development of European philosophy from the middle of the 19th century to the present).
Classical philosophy is a European philosophical tradition from antiquity to G. Hegel inclusive. The term “postclassical” characterizes the state of philosophy “after the classics” and extends to both neoclassical, so on non-classical philosophical directions.
Neoclassical philosophy in new conditions continues to develop well-known classical teachings (for example, neo-Thomism, neo-Protestantism).
Non-classical philosophy reveals a break with the previous philosophical tradition, demonstrating not only problematic and thematic shifts, but also a new understanding of the essence and tasks of philosophy.
The two eras in the development of European philosophy differ significantly in many respects: their attitude to the previous philosophical tradition, the nature of philosophical knowledge, the relationship of philosophy with other types of knowledge, and the nature of the problem field.
Classical philosophy was distinguished by its commitment to metaphysical issues, objectivism, substantialism, presuppositionless philosophizing, recognition of the potential identity of being and thinking, thought and language.
Postclassical philosophy makes serious claims to reason, intensifies interest in “man-in-the-world,” reveals a desire to analyze various types of linguistic reality, and is characterized by significant fragmentation of the problem field.
The development of postclassical philosophy is carried out within the framework of three main strategies: social-critical, existential-phenomenological and analytical. Each of them overcomes the principles of classical philosophizing in its own way. Thus, the existential-phenomenological strategy rejects the objectivism of the previous philosophical tradition. Criticism of the substantialism of philosophical classics becomes relevant for the analytical strategy. The social-critical strategy focuses its efforts on overcoming the contemplativeness of classical philosophy.
The variety of philosophical schools belonging to these strategies largely marks the pluralism of modern philosophical thought. At the same time, various currents of post-classical philosophy, as well as philosophical classics, are united by reflexivity, which manifests itself in the fact that philosophy constantly identifies (explicates) and rethinks the most general ideas, ideas, forms of experience on which this or that specific culture or social historical life of people in general. Philosophical knowledge, even in the new historical era, acts as a special self-awareness of culture, actively influencing its development.
21. Criticism of philosophical classics and irrationalistic philosophy in the works of a. Schopenhauer
One of the most striking figures of irrationalism is Schopenhauer, who, like Feuerbach, was dissatisfied with the optimistic rationalism and dialectics of G. Hegel. But he did not accept Feuerbach’s concept either. Schopenhauer gravitated toward German romanticism and was fond of mysticism. He admired the philosophy of I. Kant and philosophical ideas East (in his office there was a bust of Kant and a bronze figurine of Buddha).
Schopenhauer not only reduced the role of reason at the expense of emotions and, most importantly, the will understood in an absolute way, he challenged the very concept of reason as an area of conscious mental activity of human consciousness, introducing unconsciously irrational aspects into it. This was no longer the unconscious in the Kantian understanding, when the unconscious acted “hand in hand” with reason and could be recognized by reason in its structure; it was already the unconscious as a universal irrational element, not subject to any rational methods of research.
The intellect, according to Schopenhauer, without realizing it, functions not according to its rational plan, but according to the instructions of the will, which is recognized as the single energetic basis of all personal wills and the objective world itself: for him, the intellect is only an instrument of the will to live, like claws and teeth beast. The intellect becomes tired, but the will is tireless.
Thus, Schopenhauer, on the one hand, strove, like Feuerbach, to expand our ideas about the world of the human psyche, which had previously been reduced primarily to the rational principle, and on the other hand, he remained in the position of Hegel’s objective idealism, replacing the first causes of the world in the “post” a rational absolute idea at the irrational moment of the human psyche - a metaphysical first will. Only one cosmically enormous will is real, which manifests itself in the entire course of events in the Universe: the world is only a mirror of this will, acting as a representation.
If the idea of a rational cause of the world was natural for European consciousness, then the idea of a volitional primary impulse, not subject to any rational, ethical and even aesthetic restrictions, was a foreign phenomenon for Europe. It is no coincidence that Schopenhauer himself admitted that among the sources that stimulated his thought, one of the first places was occupied by Buddhist ideas about Maya and Nirvana.
Defending the primacy of the will in relation to the mind, the philosopher expressed many subtle and original ideas regarding the characteristics of the volitional and emotional components of the human spiritual world and their vital significance. He criticized the erroneous position of supporters of extreme rationalism, according to which the will is a simple appendage of reason or is simply identified with it. According to Schopenhauer, will, i.e. wants, desires, motives for inducing a person to action, and the very processes of its implementation are specific: they largely determine the direction and nature of the implementation of the action and its result. However, Schopenhauer turned will into completely free will, i.e. he absolutized the will, turning it from a component of the spirit into a self-sufficient principle. Moreover, Schopenhauer viewed will as something akin to the “mysterious forces” of the universe, believing that “volitional impulses” are characteristic of everything that exists. The will for Schopenhauer is the absolute beginning, the root of everything that exists. He thought of the world as will and idea. Thus, voluntarism is the basic and universal principle of the thinker’s entire philosophy.
In contrast to Kant, Schopenhauer asserted the knowability of the “thing in itself.” He saw the first fact of consciousness in representation. Cognition is carried out either as intuitive, or as abstract, or reflective. Intuition is the first and most important type of knowledge. The whole world of reflection ultimately rests on intuition. According to Schopenhauer, truly perfect knowledge can only be contemplation, free from any relation to practice and to the interests of the will; scientific thinking is always conscious. It is aware of its principles and actions, but the artist’s activity, on the contrary, is unconscious, irrational: it is not able to understand its own essence.
Philosophy
From the book: Philosophy in modern world. M., 1972, p.28-94
INTRODUCTION
CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY
DECOMPOSITION OF TRADITIONAL FORMS OF SPIRITUAL PRODUCTION AND THE CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
ETHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OPTION OF SELF-AWARENESS
CRITICAL-REFLECTIVE OPTIONS FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION
Modern bourgeois philosophy is a complex, confusing, contradictory spiritual formation. Its constituent currents are deeply heterogeneous; in some cases they look fundamentally incomparable, in others - openly hostile to each other. And at the same time, this philosophy is internally unified - unified not only as an ideological phenomenon in the proper sense of the word, not only at the level of political and sociological reasoning. This unity also manifests itself in the style of analysis, in the way of posing problems, in the general culture of thinking.
In Marxist literature, attention has already been repeatedly drawn to the hidden, as if unconsciously established, “affinity” of such polemically opposed trends as, say, existentialism and neopositivism, phenomenology and psychoanalysis. To reveal the secret of this “affinity”, to find a common denominator for the diverse phenomena covered by the concept of “modern bourgeois philosophy”, it is not enough to compare its individual currents, taken, so to speak, in a “horizontal” time slice. It is also necessary to approach the matter genetically, and to choose as the object of analysis not just consciously carried out restructurings of philosophical knowledge and the history of this knowledge as such, but changes in the conditions and mechanisms of its production, only appearing in the history of philosophy, but directly belonging history of society itself.
Let's try to formulate these requirements.
1. To discover the hidden internal unity of the heterogeneous currents that make up modern bourgeois philosophy, it is important to correlate it with some other historically outlined whole, and one with which it is in fact genetically connected.
Modern Western thought itself points to the existence of such a whole and the internal dependence on it, albeit in a very paradoxical way. Almost every major representative of bourgeois philosophy of the 20th century specifically records his critical and polemical attitude towards the bourgeois philosophical culture of the classical period. A demonstrative rejection of philosophical classics while maintaining a hidden internal dependence on it (a phenomenon quite well known from the analysis of modernist movements in any sphere of culture) - this, in our opinion, is the initial attitude that allows us to understand what the historical, “meaning-time” consists of. integrity of modern bourgeois philosophy.
This article will therefore attempt to highlight and characterize two eras, two “spiritual formations” in the development of Western thought: classical and modern bourgeois philosophy.
It should be noted right away that we use these concepts in the sense of typological characteristics, and not generic definitions.
By “classical bourgeois philosophy” we understand a well-known general orientation and “ideological style” of thinking, characteristic of the 17th-19th centuries, [ 1 ] but realized only as a total tendency only through “non-realization” in each individual case, in each “example”. Of course, this period was characterized by an acute struggle between materialistic and idealistic concepts, which was systematically studied in Marxist historical and philosophical science. In line with our topic, it is important to emphasize another aspect: in a sense, both materialism and idealism of the classical era possess the features of a certain spiritual formation that sharply distinguish them from modern bourgeois philosophy. The totality of ideas and concepts, attitudes and mental skills developed by post-Renaissance philosophical culture, indeed, represented integrity, semantic unity. They were realized ("found expression") in Locke's sensationalism - as well as in Leibniz's rationalism, in Hegel's system - as well as in Comte's system, which is so different from Hegel's. However, not a single philosopher - neither Locke, nor Leibniz, nor Hegel, nor Comte - can be recognized as the only, “authorized representative”, embodiment and personification of this philosophical culture. Each of the classical philosophers suffered from at least partial “non-classical” views, not to mention the fact that in the 17th, 18th, and especially in the first half of the 19th centuries. there were thinkers who clearly fell outside the framework of the classical spiritual formation: it is enough to recall such contemporaries of Hegel as Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard or (though at the other pole) Fourier.
The same reservations must be made in relation to modern bourgeois philosophy, which is, by its design, an attempt to overcome classical structures philosophical thinking. The tendency to “challenge the classics” is equally characteristic of neopositivism, which declares traditional philosophy to be a set of pseudo-problems, and of “new metaphysics”, “new ontologies” of the phenomenological and existentialist persuasion, whose representatives accuse the classics of a narrow epistemological orientation. This tendency is typical for the philosophy of “analysis”, and the philosophy of “life”, and for representatives of new naturalism, and for movements that consider philosophy as the only consistent “science of the spirit”. At the same time, none of these directions brings critical calculations with classical philosophy to the end.
The general relationship between classical and modern bourgeois philosophy turns out to be quite complex and bizarre. Taken in its most abstract form, it can be characterized as "mutual disclosure" or "mutual clarification."
The main claim of classical philosophy was the claim to systematic integrity, completeness, monism, based on a deep sense of the natural orderliness of the world order, the presence of harmonies and orders in it (accessible to rational comprehension). Modern bourgeois philosophy is an objective revelation of the very expensive, and now impossible, “price” that had to be paid for the realization of this claim. Current philosophical trends, upon closer examination, turn out to be nothing more than a consistent and frank development of internal inconsistencies and substantive contradictions of classical thinking, which it could only avoid through significant coarsening and simplification, through very strict absolutizations and omissions. They, so to speak, tear off the mask of “classicity” from bourgeois philosophical classics, as if “reprimanding” with their content those reticences and hidden rationalizations that were the condition and internal support for achieving this classicism and integrity in the past.
The main claims of modern bourgeois philosophy are to overcome the mental culture that has developed in Europe over the past three centuries, and to create " new philosophy", corresponding modern era. However, a look at it from the point of view of the classical philosophical heritage reveals that modern bourgeois philosophy is captive of this culture, that under the guise of innovation it often presents complex inversions of classical ways of thinking. Objectively analyzed classics tear off the mask of innovation from modern bourgeois philosophy and reveal the apparent, illusory nature of its very “modernity.”
Modern bourgeois philosophy, in essence, is the result of the “transfer” of classical thinking skills into a completely new era, with its still unknown XVII-XIX centuries. social and scientific problems. The acute and dramatic sensation of these problems (the ability to fix them precisely as sensed, experienced) is in obvious contradiction with the traditional theoretical-conceptual apparatus that is used by modern bourgeois philosophy, with the means of rational conceptualization of ideological experiences, universally valid expression of intuitively realized meaning distinctions, etc. d.
Before us is a philosophy that is no longer classical in its receptivity, reflectivity, interpretation technique, wariness regarding the speculative nature of some theoretical constructions and the “uncritical positivism” of others, and at the same time deeply traditional in the forms of systemic-categorical thinking available to it (and accordingly - by the way of understanding the very cognitive activity of a thinking subject).
The relationship between “classical” and “modern” bourgeois philosophy is fundamentally different from the relationship that exists, for example, between “classical” and “non-classical” physics. In both cases, there are problematic shifts caused by changes in the sphere of practice, in the real relationship of a person with the outside world. But in philosophy, as it developed in the West, there was no corresponding shift in the way of rationally understanding new problems, no new system of thinking skills emerged similar to that which was developed, say, in the creation of the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. Where modern bourgeois philosophy has not yet completely renounced the rationalist tradition, its rationalism remains old, “classical,” only diluted with the water of purely verbal revisions.
Why did this happen? How can we explain such duality and ambivalence in the development of bourgeois philosophical thinking? Where lies the reason for the fundamental inconsistency of all the latest attempts to overcome the classics, to critically reckon with them?
2. The ultimate cause of the restructuring of bourgeois philosophical thinking that we are considering is changes in the structure of social organization. It is important, however, to fully take into account the complex nature of this determination and from the very beginning to abandon the attempt to consider general changes in the culture of philosophical thinking as a simple “ideological reflex” of the economic, class-social, political-organizational, etc. history of capitalism. To avoid the vulgar sociological reduction of the first to the second, it is necessary to find some kind of mediating link between the process of socio-economic changes, recorded as changes in social life and philosophical development, naturally analyzed in terms knowledge changes And consciousness. This link really exists, and attempts to isolate it as a special object of sociological analysis have been repeatedly made in Marxist literature. This is about social structure spiritual production, and more in a broad sense– about the role of knowledge and individual consciousness in general in the objective social relations of a certain historical era.
Modern Western philosophy is a very complex and multidimensional sociocultural phenomenon that integrates many different schools, trends, and concepts that reflect contradictory dynamics philosophical consciousness during the last third of the 19th – 20th centuries.
In the development of European philosophy, two eras can be distinguished: classics (the development of philosophy from ancient times to the mid-19th century) and postclassics (the development of European philosophy from the mid-19th century to the present day). By classical philosophy we mean the European philosophical tradition from the Greeks to Hegel inclusive.
The term “postclassical” characterizes the state of philosophy “after the classics” and applies to both neoclassical and non-classical philosophical movements. Neoclassical philosophy in new conditions continues to develop well-known classical teachings (for example, neo-Thomism). Non-classical philosophy reveals a break with the previous philosophical tradition, demonstrating not only problematic and thematic shifts, but also an understanding of the essence and tasks of philosophy.Classical philosophy was distinguished by: commitment to metaphysical issues, objectivism, substantialism, presuppositionless philosophizing, recognition of the potential identity of being and thinking, thought and language. The formation and development of post-classical Western philosophy was associated with an accentuated rejection of these fundamental principles of classical philosophizing and attempts to radically rethink them.
Postclassical philosophy critically evaluates the claims of reason, intensifies interest in man-in-the-world, reveals a desire to analyze various types of linguistic reality, and is characterized by significant fragmentation of the problem field.
Within the framework of postclassical philosophy, the following types of philosophizing are distinguished:
Scientistist (positivist tradition),
Irrationalistic (“philosophy of life”, existentialism),
Speculative-metaphysical (religious philosophy),
Mixed (psychoanalysis, phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernism).
On Tue. floor. XIX century Irrationalism emerges as a new philosophical direction, the fundamental foundations of which are laid in the works of S. Kierkegaard, A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche. Their ideas will subsequently be repeatedly in demand in various areas of philosophy of the 20th century.
see also
Global problems of our time
Global problems of humanity are understood as a complex of acute socio-natural contradictions affecting the world as a whole, and with it individual regions and countries. Global problems...
Philosophy of Marxism
The philosophy of Marxism is one of the most important trends, causing ambiguous assessment in the modern era, presented in various versions: classical Marxism, reflected in the work...
Science in the context of culture
In everything I want to get to the very essence. In work, in search of a path, In heartfelt turmoil, To the essence of the past days, To their cause. To the foundations, to the roots, to the core. Always gripping...
In the context of the development of European philosophy, two eras can be distinguished: classic (the development of philosophy from ancient times to the mid-19th century) and postclassic (the development of European philosophy from the mid-19th century to the present). Classical philosophy is a European philosophical tradition from antiquity to G. Hegel inclusive. The term “postclassical” characterizes the state of philosophy “after the classics” and applies to both neoclassical and non-classical philosophical movements. Neoclassical philosophy in new conditions continues to develop well-known classical teachings (for example, neo-Thomism, neo-Protestantism). Non-classical philosophy reveals a break with the previous philosophical tradition, demonstrating not only problematic and thematic shifts, but also a new understanding of the essence and tasks of philosophy.
The two eras in the development of European philosophy differ significantly in many respects: their attitude to the previous philosophical tradition, the nature of philosophical knowledge, the relationship of philosophy with other types of knowledge, and the nature of the problem field. Classical philosophy was distinguished by its commitment to metaphysical problems, objectivism, substantialism, presuppositionless philosophizing, recognition of the potential identity of being and thinking, thought and language.
Postclassical philosophy makes serious claims to reason, intensifies interest in “man-in-the-world,” reveals a desire to analyze various types of linguistic reality, and is characterized by significant fragmentation of the problem field.
The development of postclassical philosophy is carried out within the framework of three main strategies: social-critical, existential-phenomenological and analytical. Each of them overcomes the principles of classical philosophizing in its own way. Thus, the existential-phenomenological strategy rejects the objectivism of the previous philosophical tradition. Criticism of the substantialism of philosophical classics becomes relevant for the analytical strategy. The social-critical strategy focuses its efforts on overcoming the contemplativeness of classical philosophy.
The variety of philosophical schools belonging to these strategies largely marks the pluralism of modern philosophical thought. At the same time, various currents of post-classical philosophy, as well as philosophical classics, are united by reflexivity, which manifests itself in the fact that philosophy constantly identifies (explicates) and rethinks the most general ideas, ideas, forms of experience on which this or that specific culture or social historical life of people in general. Philosophical knowledge, even in the new historical era, acts as a special self-awareness of culture, actively influencing its development.
Classic.
Since the era of the Scientific Revolution, three main stages are usually distinguished
development of science: classical science of the 17th–19th centuries, non-classical science of the first
half and middle of the 20th century. and modern neo-classical science. However, it is more correct to call the period of the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment preclassical the era of science.
The system of cognitive orientations, rules and skills adopted by the classics was undoubtedly distinguished by unity and homogeneity. The research signatures of Galileo and Boyle, Hooke and Rumford, Newton and Huygens, Maxwell and Hertz, Gauss and Cantor, Thomson and Lorentz really mark something in common, which can very clearly be contrasted with something common, uniting, for example, the research styles of Bohr and Heisenberg, Bertalanffy and Wiener, Courant and Bourbaki, Schrödinger and Dirac, Brouwer and Gödel, etc.
A notable feature of the sciences of the pre-classical period is a strong idealization
reality.
Other features of the ideological appearance of science of that period are also closely related to this
style of thinking. This is, firstly, creationism, i.e. the belief that the world was created
God in an essentially unchanged form. And it is no coincidence that representatives of science have this
the belief at that time took the form deism: it was believed that God, having once created the world and
Having endowed it with laws, it no longer interferes with its functioning. Secondly, this
determinism– the belief that all phenomena are entirely determined by causality
force interaction of individual bodies (this is how the connection between Newtonian phenomena is interpreted
Mechanics). In the 17th century determinism was preached by T. Hobbes and B. Spinoza.
However, such a mechanical approach does not allow us to explain much as in existence
nature, and, especially, in the existence of man and society, and this gives rise to doubts about the power
knowledge. Only in the 19th century, and mainly in the second half, did
All fundamental natural sciences reach maturity.
In general, classical dialectics does not recognize the “principle of determinism”; it
only the principle is known universal connection, according to which the entire universe is ultimately
account, unified and holistic, i.e. its elements are interconnected and in addition to the causal
investigative relations. On the other hand, in the philosophy and science of this period
There is practically no ontological indeterminism that would recognize
the existence in nature of materially unfounded phenomena.
Non-classical.
Nominally, a revision of non-relativistic macroscopic science has been prepared
internal difficulties, by the beginning of the 20th century. in the form of two clouds appearing on the clear
the firmament of seemingly indestructible classics resting on their laurels. This -
negative result of Michelson's experiment and difficulties in explaining the spectrum
absolutely black body. Efforts to overcome these difficulties, in fact, gave rise to
something new in the cognitive sphere, which is called non-classics.
Internal logic of conceptualization of phenomena, speed
whose movements are comparable to the speed of light, led to the creation of relativistic
physics, using a significantly different network of concepts (replacing long-range action
short-range action, replacement of Galileo's principle of relativity with the principle of relativity
Einstein, relativization of space-time relations, etc.). Adequate
a model associated with the rejection of classical continuity and introducing the concept
batch (discrete) change in energy according to Planck’s radiation law, meant
the emergence of a fundamentally non-classical quantum mechanical description.
Whence it follows that the immediate turning points from classical to non-classical are
relativistic and quantum theories.
The transition from classics to non-classics is something immeasurably more than
inclusion in scientific circulation of constants “c” and “h”, delimiting the scales of nature
as subjects for mastering previous and subsequent knowledge. Non-classical from classic
separates an abyss, ideological, general cultural barrier, incompatibility of quality
At the stage of non-classical science, mental elaboration of phenomena is often
In modern science
“they try to guess the mathematical apparatus that operates with quantities about which or
about some of which it is not at all clear in advance what they mean.” To be fair
to say that the tactics of the method of mathematical hypothesis are not at all alien to the classics.
Thus, absolute precision and rigor is another classic
fiction; with its debunking, the collapse of the myth of thorough knowledge in non-classics
are satisfied with the signs of pragmatism, instrumentality, and efficiency.
For example, faith in the integrity of mathematical axioms (with deep doubts about
absolute infallibility of axiomatic systems of set theory Russell, Zermelo
etc.) is now supported by the conviction of the significance, and therefore the validity, of the theorems.
Overcoming the uncritical dogmas of the classics, non-classics, however, does not
breaks up with her completely. A direct, obvious connection between them is visible in
parts of the interpretation of the purpose of knowledge. Both classics and non-classics agree on one thing:
The task of science is to reveal the nature of being, to comprehend the truth. Justification for the allocation
and the isolation of the neo-nonclassical stage is, therefore, the value factor:
focusing on the issue of understanding not “what is” (the truth about the world), but “what
there must be” (necessary project of the world).
Marxism and its place in the historical and philosophical tradition.
Karl Marx(1818 - 1883) and Friedrich Engels(1820 - 1895) critically used German classical philosophy, Feuerbach's materialism and Hegel's dialectics.
In the philosophy of Marxism it was shown that social life is connected with human activity. Society is the processing of people by people. Society develops according to the laws of which man was the bearer. Being determines consciousness. Particular attention was paid to practice, practice is the criterion of truth, truth is the basis of knowledge. The central place is occupied by the problem of knowledge and the transformation of the world. An important merit is the development of dialectics, its combination with materialism. The worldview is based not on religious and mystical, but on the conclusions of modern natural science. Thinking began to be viewed not as a product of the development of nature, but as a result of complex historical social and labor activity, i.e. practices.
The world is material in nature, and consciousness is a property of the brain, a product of its activity. Consciousness (cognition) is a reflection of matter. The content of our knowledge is objective. Marx believes that people cannot be reduced only to a natural being. A person is not an abstract being, but a set of social relations in its actual essence.
Social Marx's philosophy is the doctrine of socio-economic formations. The highest level of development of society is communism. Economic basis and superstructure (social, political, legal consciousness, morality, science, art, etc.). Marx identifies the stages of society - it is differentiated (development - movement along the stages).
Metaphysics and ontology.
Ontology (new Latin ontologia from ancient Greek ὄν, gen. p. ὄντος - existing, that which exists and λόγος - teaching, science) is a branch of philosophy that studies being. “Ontology in its classical sense is knowledge about the extremely general”
The main subject of ontology is existence; being, which is defined as the completeness and unity of all types of reality: objective, physical, subjective, social and virtual.
Reality is traditionally associated with matter (material world) and spirit (spiritual world, including the concepts of God, souls) and is divided (by materialists) into inert, living and social matter (which gives rise to formalism and an attitude towards the individual as an impersonal person in general).
Being, as something that can be thought, is contrasted with the unthinkable nothingness (as well as the not-yet-being of possibility in the philosophy of Aristotelianism). In the 20th century, in existentialism, being is interpreted through the existence of man, since he has the ability to think and question about being. However, in classical metaphysics, being means God. Man, as a being, has freedom and will.
Metaphysics (other - a branch of philosophy that studies the original nature of reality, existence and the world as such. This philosophical doctrine about the primary foundations of all being or about the essence of the world. However, it should be borne in mind that this concept reproduced two main meanings in the philosophy of antiquity: existence as such and the internal essence of an object. This term was first used by the Neoplatonist Simplicius in the 5th century, and in the Middle Ages it became widespread, becoming synonymous with philosophy, considered as the doctrine of the principles of all things, which were considered unchangeable, spiritual and inaccessible to sensory experience.
Ontology as a separate science appeared in German classical idealism thanks to the division of metaphysics into two sections by Wolff, and subsequently by Kant: metaphysica generalis and metaphysica specialis. The first section was transformed into ontology, and the second section directly into metaphysics in the understanding that Immanuel Kant put into this concept, that is, into the totality of psychology, theology and cosmology.
Martin Heidegger also made the distinction between pure metaphysics and ontology. The origins of systematized metaphysical teachings are found already in the era of classical Hellenism, which can be considered a kind of starting point for European metaphysics. During this period of its formation, metaphysics was often identified with the doctrine of being, which received in the 17th century. name "Ontology". The subjects of metaphysics and ontology coincided due to the fundamental nature of the questions about what is existing, what is its nature, what is the world, what is the meaning of being, etc. In subsequent historical types of metaphysics, the fundamental structure of philosophizing, which in essence is its main task, was revealed in different ways. The subject of modern metaphysics, according to Heidegger, is the being of beings, which fundamentally distinguishes his position from the Marxist definition of beings as being in general. The historical fate of metaphysics seems complex and ambiguous, forcing us to often change the nature of philosophizing - either due to the author’s solutions to certain conceptual structures, or as a consequence of civilizational shifts that have affected philosophical knowledge in general.
