Suchergebnisse

Purpose. The purity of consciousness in European culture has practically been turned into an abstraction. Because of this, there are so many discrepancies in understanding its nature. For Heidegger, the question of the purity of human consciousness remains open. Our purpose is to study the purity of European consciousness in the work of M. Heidegger. Theoretical basis. We draw on the deep foundations of existential, phenomenological, hermeneutic, religious-philosophical and postmodern Western and Eastern thought. Originality. While the early Heidegger was thinking under the sign of Dasein, he did not hear the nature of the "pure consciousness" of human. Nevertheless, temporality for him was such a fundamental property that it determined the depth of understanding not only of being, but also of human consciousness itself (like Dasein). In this context, we begin to understand that the depth of consciousness in the concept of early Heidegger can be associated with its temporality. In fact, towards the end of "Being and Time", Heidegger, thinking more and more about the understanding of time from the horizon of being, begins to form similar ideas about understanding itself, that is, about human consciousness, in the sense that consciousness itself arises from the horizon of time (and being). What, then, is pure human consciousness the pure time? Does not this mean that the original meaning of consciousness is in its directed temporalizing. This temporalizing of consciousness of human (as a thinking being), which arises from the future, is perceived in three modes and reveals the fundamental nature of the consciousness itself (thinking is a stream of consciousness and, in such a context, directed understanding). Paraphrasing Heidegger, we say that the ontological meaning of pure human consciousness is revealed as temporality. Already after writing Being and Time, Heidegger thinks about the origins of the European consciousness, its comprehending from the depths (originality) of the being of European culture. Conclusions. The early Heidegger seeks the purity of being and, at the same time, strives more and more to understand the essence of the purity of human thinking. All of Heidegger's work is a consistent transition from human understanding of the purity of being (Dasein) to the purity of thinking of a human himself. In this sense, there is a transformation of M. Heidegger's consciousness from fundamental ontology (Dasein) in the early period to existential anthropology (human consciousness) in the late period.

Is the thought a gift or bloody hell of the person? Involving in a discourse of «another» is accompanied by forming of a field of own senses. Senses come, but they are not born by own «I». But «a science way» (connected with external language games) or a self-immersing way (connected with meditational practice's), actually, eliminated our own «I». The way (as would tell the Buddha, Moisej or the Christ, and presently M. Heidegger or M. Moss) is a gift. Such gift allows to reconstruct own human nature and to open «passes» (ways) to different measurement of existence of the person. All transitions between measurements connected systems of signs (or languages). In particular, the system of signs allows to transfer the Messiah gift to historical space by means of a myth or mythical and poetic text. Actually, those who put myths or established names, always occupied exclusive position in a society. Interpreters of Ancient Greek mythology asserted that the main gift of gods is fire; however, main gift of gods was the word and a name (language).In «Being and time» of M. Heidegger language is the house of being. The main thought consists that being is structured as language. According to the modern version of J. Lacan, unconscious is structured as language, and unconscious acts as hidden (unconscious) presence of another (or Another as higher Father-god), so language is found out as universal unity, the universal topos, connecting mental and, probably, spiritual space. Not only unconscious, but also spiritual (and mental) it is structured as language. S. Freud and J. Lacan have found out only private forms of a certain universal principle in which specifies creativity of structuralists and poststructuralists: all actively existing (living) is structured as language or is functional in the field of signs and symbols (in the field of language). Leaning Gegel's and Neohegelians creativity, it can be asserted that Spirit, generating the dialectic negation – a matter, does not disappear, it is not transformed, and continues process of naming, being in other measurement. But the spirit is structured as another in the creation-naming. The mono-spirit is not enough for a birth of the world, the act of naming means presence of another.In search of a nature bases of modern philosophy A. Badiou tried to find a way of realisation of patrimonial procedures in synchronous (adhered to the present) space of human thought and open the essence modern (postmodern) multiplane and polymorphic culture and thought. Proceeding from A. Badiou's creativity it is possible to conclude, errors in act of naming is very cost much to mankind.

Досліджується поворотний механізм свідомості у творчості М. Ґайдеґґера до першоджерела й споконвічності європейського мислення. Показується, що М. Ґайдеґґер не тільки творець і розробник екзистенціальної філософії, не тільки один з найвидатніших критиків європейської метафізичної культури мислення, але і один з тих європейських мислителів, який шукав шляхи подолання цих протиріч (насамперед метафізичності). Для цього аналізується, з одного боку, сам механізм зворотного руху Ґайдеґґера до першоджерел європейської думки (деструкція) і, з іншого боку – сутність його перевідкриття у сучасному просторі мислення такого споконвічного мислителя, як Геракліт. Хоча Ґайдеґґер до споконвічних мислителів відносить також Анаксімандра та Парменіда та перевідкриває їх для сучасної філософської думки, наше дослідження скоріше пов'язане із творчістю Геракліта, тому що, на наш погляд, саме в його творчості чітко прослідковуються поворотні механізми свідомості, тобто Геракліт повинен бути першопочатковим не тільки як «батько» логіки («логосності»), діалектики (способу мислення) і онтології (пошук буття природи), але й як «батько» феноменології (буття свідомості) і герменевтики (розуміння сутності буття природи).

Purpose. The purpose of research consists in that: having plunged into depths of primitive consciousness (using the recipe of many thinkers of non-classical philosophy), to reveal contradiction of the European thought (at its sources) in Ancient Greek thought and show resources of mythological thinking on the way of overcoming of these contradictions. Methodology. All methodological installations, using possibilities, borderlines and effects of non-classical consciousness, have appeared insufficiently effective for adequate understanding of essence of the person. The generalised method, which is used by us, leans on deep resources of high-energy consciousness and on decoding of possibilities of anthropological time that it presumes to open new horizons of human existence. Originality. Addressing to modern representations about the changed conditions of consciousness, we have tried to see the historically generated discursive practices of understanding reality by the consciousness (including the historical one). Thus, using the consistently conducted destruction we are aimed at reaching the first sources of consciousness and revealing the deep historical mechanisms of temporal consciousnesses formation (as far as it possible in the modern conditions). Conclusions. It is shown that the use of the basic ideas of Ancient Greek thought leads scientific consciousness to deadlocks of contradictions, which were consistently revealed during subsequent history of philosophy and culture. The analysis of ancient mythological texts allows concluding, that the Greek thought is not a source of modern scientific thought. That is to understand the scientific thought one should address to the more ancient archaic thinking. Thus, to overcome the contradictions of modern scientific and philosophical thought it is necessary to search new alternative (more ancient) sources of understanding of the historical reality, first of all, connected with deepening into ancient (mythological) thought.