This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Al exei Losev (1893-1988 A.D.) was translated in 1995 by Alexander Braun. Descartes - the founder of the new European rationalism and mechanism, and there fore also positivism. Not the kitchen talk of the XVIIIth century materialists, but Descartes is of course the original founder of philosophical positivism. And so it happens that a specific mythology underlies this positivism. Descartes be gins his philosophy with general doubt. He is doubting even regarding God, isn't He also misleading. And where does he finds support for his philosophy, its alr eady doubtless foundation? He finds it in the [I], in the subject, in thought, i n consciousness, in the [ego], in [cogito]1. Why is it so? Why things are less r eal? Why God is less real, even though Descartes himself says that it is the cle arest and most obvious, and simplest idea? Why is not something else, yet? Only because such is his own unconscious dogmatic doctrine, such is his own mythology , such is a whole individualistic and subjective mythology, which lays in the fo undation of new European culture and philosophy. Descartes - mythologist, even w ith all of his rationalism, mechanism, and positivism. More then that, these las t characteristics are only explained by his mythology; and feed upon it only11. Another example. Kant is absolutely right in his teachings, that in order to per ceive spacious things, one should approach them already in possession of represe ntation of space. Indeed, in a thing, we are finding different layers of its con cretise rendering: we have its real body, volume, weight, etc., we have its shap e, idea, sense. Logically, the idea is, of course, comes before matter, that is because first you have an idea and then you realise it on this or another materi al. Sense antecede appearance. Out of this completely primitive and absolutely t rue ascertainment, Plato and Hegel made a conclusion, that sense, understanding - are objective, that in the objective world order logically different moments o f idea and thing are interlaced into indissoluble real connection. So, what does Kant makes out of this? From this Kant concludes his doctrine about the subject ivity of all forms of cognition, space, time, categories. His arguments authoris ed him only to certify logical precedence of forms and senses - fluctuating thin gs. But in truth, any [formality], decoration, any attempt to find a purport (of ) and sense are certainly subjective for him. That is why turned out to be this, that was not in need of prove, and what was his initial dogmatic doctrine and m ythology. Rationally - subjectivistic and separately - individualistic mythology celebrating in Kants' philosophy, and well may be, its finest victory. So and e arly Fihte, the original union of any comprehension, before the division on prac tical and theoretical scientific studies, for some reason interpret not as a Who le, the way Plotin did, but as I111. Here is also mythology, which is not proved by anything, nothing can prove it, and doesn't have to be proved by anything. A nd nothing is surprising. And so it is always like this, that, what is possible to prove and conclude is based on what is impossible to prove and self - obvious ; and mythology only then a mythology, if it doesn't get proved, if it can't be and doesn't have to be proved - Thus, under these philosophical constructions, w hich in new philosophy were called upon to understand scientific experience, hid ing a quite defined mythology. Not less mythological is a science, not only [primitive], but any. Newton based his mechanics on the hypothesis of homogeneous and infinite space. World doesn't have limits, i.e. doesn't have a shape. For me this means, that world is - shap eless. World is an absolutely homogeneous space. For me this means, that world i s - absolutely flat, expressionless, and with no relief. Such world reflects imm ense boredom. Add to this picture an absolute darkness and an inhuman coldness o f the interplanetary space. What is it other than a black hole, not even a grave and not even a bath house with spiders, because both are nevertheless more inte resting and warmer, and nevertheless correspond with something human. It is clea r, that this is not conclusion of science, but of mythology, which science excep
all of this is uncomfortable somehow. infinitely divisible. that. that the world of their physics and astronomy i s a rather boring. either th ere is no atoms as particles of matter. But a cube has its side and diagonal of a certain length. -dev il-may-care. I can't convince myself. [ya je ne podvijetsya] 111. which is not materialistic. textbooks. still can't figure this out: how is it that th e Earth can be moving? I have read the course / manuals. Thus. which is divisible infinitely? This is not the at om. But I . Newtonian mechanics is based on mythology of nihilism. suddenly. with nought in its range. Some sa y that hole-makers still exist in a dense forests of Siberian wilderness1.manure and soil for the third epoch and etc. up to now. is moved aside farther and farther away. therefore. and that this other epoch doesn't have sense by itself. only possible thanks to the blind mythology of nihilism. but only as a preparation and fertilizer for another epoch. the a tom is divisible.First of all. cubical or circular3. scie nce. and not some invisible and almost not existing dust of go d knows what. But most importantly.. it doesn't exist as well. I even married an astronomer. no [ya je ne podvijetsya]2. that a tree is a tree. even swore in foul language afterwards. as well as of all possible epochs. no sky. into some kind of emptiness . 3.. and cruel. for example in half. and the dia gonal. someth ing about some parallaxes. But still. that such nonsense should be called the mythology of social nihili sm. nor science exist without m yth. Unconvincing. an optical illusion. that same hole. and. and that a stone is a stone. listening about the Universe. that no epoch has an independent sense and that the meaning of a certain epoch. some say. It is clear. is always mythological. then it has a shape and vo lume. [Here . One moment I was on Earth under the sky so dear and familiar to me. which we can also love and honor. science is always mythological. The side. and you are reeling some pendulums. one epoch has a sense not by itself. that also car ries within itself all the signs of mythologically . but all respected scientis ts seem not to mention the fact. let the Heaven forgive my sins. sometimes disgusting. To this quite corre sponds the specifically new European doctrine of infinite progress of the societ y and culture. To this we als o have to attribute the doctrine of universal social equalization. atomistical metaphysics was always popular in a new age up to the last days. If mythology-scientists want to bring mythology to science (prim . strictly speaking. consist s of atoms. This can only be explained by mythological dogma tic doctrine of new Western science and philosophy. Not only pupils. But what is atom? If it is materialistic. In Europe it was often preached. then it means. dust scattered and dispersed into infinity of matter. As a result. and in that case I refuse to unde rstand. no Earth. Thus: science doesn't come into being from the myth. and a circle has certain length radius. there is nothing. we say. but infinitely thin. But for all that. . spit and smear it all over!] Reading an astronomy textbook makes me feel that someone is driving me out of my own home with a stick and even ready to spit into my face.. If the atom is not divisibl e. what is this atom of matter. for wha t is the atom-<<indivisible>>. that is has no spacial form. for example. kind of evil. This doesn't mean. that the Earth is moving and no sky exists. some other time simply maddening mirage . Thus. and not some kind of mirage or fog of who knows what.where your motherland is.ts as a dogmatic doctrine and dogma. Here i s a question about the whole Earth. and the radius can be divided. But in the last case of the atom. in both cases atomism is a mistake. Quite myth ological is the theory of infinitely divisible matter. Something about some pendulums and some deviation of something somewhere. that science and mytholo gy . They drove everything out to Hell. but it is also ..identical. at some poin t I wanted to be an astronomer myself. or they are infinitely divisible. To any sensible person it is clear. Simply not very solid somehow. to the infinite times. The next moment. However here we have to eliminate two misunderstandings.social nihilism. and is not one's own intimate familiarity. But why?111 Thus. it turns out to be. Matter. no matter which [scientific] arguments it is surrounded with. and besides.
and because of this. b ut only about one specific space. and this is a world of the homogeneous space. when the goal and dream of any science had almost always been to overthrow mythology? To this I should give the following answer. But what is that science. They use them in such ways. And this is the dogmatic doctrine and the mythology. But real operation with Newtonian mechanics led to understand. This introduced an oportunity to think.e. and right here. science by itself. therefore inventing such equations. Before people believed in shape-shifting or. But how did science destroy shape-shifting? It did with help of mechanistic Weltanschauung and teaching about homogeneous space.is an abstract. . It never exists like this. These equations by themselves. since the provisions of this geometry don't say anything about the real space and forms of all other possible types of spaces. how the same body. into which shape-shif ting couldn't fit. In this lies the essence of the mythology of European (natural) scienc e. . again makes shape-shifting c onceivable as well as a miracle in general. nowhere applicable sci ence. laying in its base. The pure science has nothing to do with this. Thus. the science which is characteristic to one or another specific historical epoch. And we are submitted here under the exclusive control of myt hology. Our physics and mechanics operate with the different world. then this only means. if this is the only one. and it is unknown. when changing its place an d motion. Newtonian mechanics didn't want to mention anything about shape-shifting and wanted to kill it. But scientists by no means use onl y that one. any realistic science is mythological. . our physics and mechanics don't have such categories. that realistically the re is simply no other types of space exist. and are mechanically moving. If in rea . ancient teaching about space. by the famous Lorentz equation. someone can raise an objection to what I said: how is it that science can be mythological. this . and . But. Indeed . i. we can act one way or another. But now we are witnessing the resurrection of the new or. is also changing its shape. which is indeed not mythological? This .. bring science to mythology.of course. rather. . Re alistically existing science is one way or another mythological.itive). abstract science. Newtonian mechanics is not mythological if taken i n its pure form. and how is it that modern science can be based on the mytho logy. but only by means of its own mythology. Secondly. that the idea of homogeneous space. rather very old. that simple . which connects speed and volume. is already a mythology. In other words.Thus. then I would never. that simply leaves no space for the other forms of space and according mathematical e quations. we already deal with an application of pure. This . that one mythology is fighting with anot her mythology. abstractly speaking. I will repeat. mechanics and physics of new Europe stru ggled with old mythology. the <<sci ence>> triumphed its victory over shape-shifting. But a believe. Euclide an geometry is not mythological by itself.in the creed of one favorite space. and only incompetence in the subject and ignorance in science as whole can refuse the scientific value to at least m athematical side of this theory1. if it corresponds or not to any experience and so on. The science by itself is not mythological. are irrep roachable. By replacing shape-shifting with such mechanism. It is applic able to any mythology. Pure abstract s cience is . pure science. As soon as we start to talk about the realistic science. but the science by itself has no relation to mythology.had an exp erience of shape-shifting. whatever case shell be. [science] didn 't refute the myth. it always seemed t o him (the scientist).is s cience-in-itself. that it had [refuted] the shape-shifting. but only the new myth crushed the old mythology.is absolutely abstract science as a system of logical and numerical regularities. talking about heterogeneous space and building equations concernin g the transition from one type of space to another. in which there are mechanisms.nothing more. and in them there is no mythology.not mythological. and how (under the condition that the body is moving with the speed of light) the volume of such body comes to be equal to nil. as more or less private principle. When the [science] destr oying the [myth]. which could explain the shape-shifting. Then the [science] came alone and [destroyed] this be lieve in shape-shifting. which consists in these equations. The principle o f relativity. other then the space of Euclidean ge ometry. turned out to be the onl y significant idea.
Some want to scatter the universe into a cold and blac k monster. Thus. for example. On the islands of Nikobar. into immense and immeasurable nothing. that the natives live through it by enduring i t as an act of just punishment or wise leadershipcoming from the side of deity a nd that they not at all want to avoid this punishment. such as Levi-Brulu. it well may be. there is absolutely no scientific experience. A nd who realy knows what kind of meaning can have this rite. that their mythology doesn't have any scientific meaning. Science only realises and makes a certain rational. how by n o means scientific passions rose around the theory of relativity. The scientific functions of spiri t are too digressed to lay in the foundation of mythology. couldn't even dream about11. This . science as it is can not destroy myth. then the scientific enough theory of relativity would have been impossible. After sketching these short thoughts about the relationship of mythology and science. For a mythological co nsciousness. 'ne' is 'not' and 'po-dvijet -sya' is 'to be moving'. It can't be convinced of anything. It may possibly be. for example. But it is clear.This is a weird sentence that I neither could translate nor interpret. If even a minimum of [scientific] consciousness and [scientific] experience w ere functioning here.magical act can carry many other meanings. no matter which side it would take. Besides its [scientific] importance. And it was no coincidence. and every time this rite is performed. against which the rite of [tanangla] is performed by the natives.is a ce nturies old dispute of two mythologies. a wind originated illness occurs every year. and is not in any way <<science>> for them. who adduces this act as an example of the senselessness of mythology. * 3 . 4. we now see their complete antithesis. the others. like. nothing can convince this natives not to perform i t.References in the book. on the other hand. pyramid. th is rite might not have at all any utilitarian-medical goals. that t he choice between Einstein and Newton is a question of believe. which make them reason this and not the other way).l science could refute the myths related to shape-shifting. translating as 'I am so not to be moving'. <Photo 2><Photo 3><Photo 4><Photo 5><Photo 6><Photo 6> . cube. sphere (3D) and square. however I think t hat the word spherical would better reflect characteristics of shape and volume when compared with a cube. Ignoring the fac t of its obvious uselessness. Every ye ar this illness happens. The meaning of 'ya' is 'I am'. * 2 . with live and smart energies (though most of the time nei ther of them completely understand and realise their intimate intuitions. 'Ya je tebe skazal' is 'I told you so'."cubical or circular" . References: * 1. if to stand on the g rounds of real mythology? Researchers. which Levi-Brulu. that during t he last conference of physicists in Moscow1. logical or num erical plan. they came to the conclusion. circle (2D). and the science is always awfully good thing. That is why it is [scientifically] irrefutable. for whom the mytholog y is always awfully bad thing. this mythico .A. want to gather the universe into certain ultimate and expressive face with reli ef folds and features. And now we see. and. similar to [tanangla]. t riangle. 111 . For example. Losev uses word circular. wou ld never understand anything in rites. 11. but want to except it wit h worthy reverence.[yaje ne podvijetsya] . I am so not getting it. and not a scient ific knowledge by itself. 'je' means 'so' in this case. It is possible to imagine. then they would have soon realise the uselessness of this rite. that the North-East monsoon itself is not regarded as cruel and harmful commenc ement. that this rite has just such meaning.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.