Vic Tor Conversations alive and dead Permanent int

Conversations alive and dead ( Permanent internet - spiritualistic symposium )

On behalf of the goddess of wisdom Athenes, sacred for our memory and in our present, whom all of us, fans of wisdom, should worship, I (Victor) call you, spirits of great ancestors, for continuation of discussion of questions, for the different reasons  left  by you without the permission.
Has passed time and problems have collected, - the mankind again demands their decision. Whether it is possible?
The main question today and always: how to the person to live on this ground? Than to be guided? Feelings attract in the different sides, religions gives instructions, frequently contradicting each other, politicians bluff. The reason of the person appears can not comprehend and reduce to any common denominator all this variety of shades. What you will tell today? There can be "gleam" of consciousness began a little bit more widely and it is already possible to see in it something wider, deep and clear?

Personnels (participants of conversations)
Aristotle, Bergson H., Berdiaev N., Buber Martin, Camus A., Decartes Rene, Empedokle, Engels F., Freud S., Hegel G.W.F., Heidegger Martin, Heraclite, Hesiod, Hobbes Т., Husserl E., Kant I., Kierkegard Soren, Leibniz G., Lessing G., Locke J.,Lucretius Car, Machiavelli N., Malraux A., Maritain J., Marx  К., Neitzshe F., Plato,  Plotin, Sartre Jean- Paul, Sedlmayr H., Schiller F., Soloviev V., St Augustine, Spinoza, Schelling F.W.J., Shelly P.B., Spengler O., Teilhard de Chardin P., Victor (author), Jaspers K., Jung C.   


Session 1. A theme: « About sense of human life »
( the first attempt of treatment)
Participate: Victor, Epicur, Locke J. , Decartes R. , Spinoza , Camus A. , St Augustine.

Session 2. A theme: « Love of the person »
( one more attempt of treatment of meaning of the life)
chelling F.W.J., Decartes Rene, _Victor, Freud S., St Augustine, Lucretius Car, Hesiod, Empedokle, Heraclite, Plato,  Aristotle, Teilhard de Chardin P., Neitzshe F., Plotin, Soloviev V., SLeibniz G., Hobbes Т., Machiavelli N., Marx К.

Session 3. A theme: "Beauty"
( for a way of search of "meaning of the life")
Participate: Victor, Plato,  Maritain J., Hegel G.W.F., Heidegger Martin, Buber Martin, Bergson H., Sartre Jean- Paul, Kant I., Schelling F.W.J., Sedlmayr H., Malraux A., Berdiaev N.    

Session 4. A theme: "Tragical"
( new motive in understanding of meaning of the life)
Participate: Victor, Neitzshe, Hegel, Sartre, Lessing.

Session 5. A theme: "Time"
( the necessary precondition for the analysis of a problem "meaning of the life")
Participate: Victor, Plato, St Augustine, Spengler , Kierkegard, Shelly, Kant, Schelling, Bergson, Berdiaev, Husserl , Heidegger, Jaspers.

Session 6. A theme: « Freedom and necessity »
( a final reasonings on a problem of "meaning of the life")
Participate: Victor, Epicur, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Decartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Lock, Leibniz, Kant, Schelling, Neitzshe, Marx, Engels, Freud, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Camus.
Victor: At a discussion of the given theme it is obviously a necessary to differentiate two questions: about a freedom of the person and about a freedom of his will, a freedom of his promptings, a displays of an activity. We shall consider, first of all, the second aspect of a problem, as philosophically more significant. As to the first aspect in this case all is represented much clearer for the question is, only, about a physical or a legal restrictions and interdictions for an activity or a divergence of the person, i.e. about the social and political moments.
Preliminary, besides, we shall note an importance of the precondition of a recognition or denying of an existence of the God. His denying automatically conducts to the statement that in the world operates only the so-called natural necessity causing an existence of a constant laws of an interaction of a material bodies and the phenomena, and accordingly, conducting, at first sight, to a recognition of a predictability of the future condition of the world.
Accordingly, ethics as an area of immutable instructions of a behaviour of the person, in this case it is necessary to build on the basis of these laws, aspiring only to an expansion and a deepening of a knowledge of a sphere of their action. But the problem is, as in this case it is necessary to recognize an infinite process of a knowledge by the person environmental him, infinite in breadth and deep into, the world to recognize an infinite a number and a fundamentality of a laws of this world and, thus, we again collide with an impossibility of a prediction of the future condition of the world and a construction, accordingly, any firm ethics.
The recognition of an existence of the God can, in my opinion, stories to a double conclusion.
1. The god on whom - that to unknown us to the reasons, creates a laws and gives a first push, and further all develops according to a considering afore position, - but only at first sight. A laws of a necessity operate, but they are from the God, and, accordingly, are limited by a quantity and a quality including in a sphere of a human activity, and in a sphere of an ethics, - a predictability of the world and a construction of an ethics are already possible, though and only for the period of a creation, and within the framework of the created world. But thus, naturally, it is impossible to approve a general universality and a firmness of any ethics constructed thus.
2. It is possible to try to prove any "pure" freedom of a will of the person as, for example, « the son of the God » (supposing thus a pure freedom of a will of the God), - then a predictability of the world and a behaviour of the person appears again essentially impossible. In a development of this position, also it is possible to recognize for the God as the creator, the right of a free change of a rules, the right of a search, - « the God plays, the God works miracles ». In this case it is possible to speak from the philosophical point of view about a relativism of an ethical establishments in the widest sense though within the framework of a concrete religious representations everyone relativism, as a rule, is rigidly limited and even it is excluded.
At the same time, irrespective of a recognition or non-recognition of an existence of the God, it is necessary to take into an account a possible pulses of an influence on the person (and on the God if he admits) from a first matter (as a certain hierarchy, a conglomerate of the worlds and a gods, - about what there will be still a speech more in a detail).
Thus the paradigm of an existence of an eternally firm natural or Divine necessity fatally determining a life and an activity of the person and a mankind, (though this existence also it is proved to us in a daily life by an action of its natural laws constantly) in any case appears capitally undermined, - the concept of a freedom of a will sees more acceptable. But as, on what bases to build in this case an ethics: - proceeding from a pragmatical principles of a realization of a human hostel, - having taken on a belief the certain Divine establishments what or concrete faith, - or on a basis of a interfaithional contracts, - or in general it to not build, to not care of it?
\\ The special term "teodiceja", - the justification of the God, the justification of a legitimacy of a belief in him, his assumptions in a scientific and a philosophical concepts, as is known, was entered Leibniz. At the same time there is an opinion, that a materialists do not require in "teodiceja ". They look at the world as though from below upwards and prove, that the supreme forms arise spontaneously and naturally from the lowest forms, instead of are created by any world reason.
And they do not have these sacramental questions: that determines all orientation of an evolution, - a necessity, a case or whose will, (a development goes cyclically and spontaneously on the basis of a certain fluctuations of a matter); whence has taken place the first push (it never was, a movement and a fluctuation are eternal); what has determined a becoming of a nature laws (they exist eternally).
But to a materialists is difficultly positive to not answer on the major question that undermines a bases of their argument and essentially it supplements, - why the god (including the God creating the worlds) can not appear as a result of an infinite evolution of a nature, that admits and affirms the same materialists. So, there is a certain discrepancy in a sights of a materialists. \\.
Epicur : The misfortune to live in a necessity but to live in a necessity at all is not a necessity, - the ways to a freedom everywhere are open. A freedom this is caused by a spontaneous, inexplicable deviation of an atoms. I laugh above a destiny and instead of it I assert, that other really occurs on inevitability, other - occasionally, but other - depends and on us.
Plato: With it is possible to agree, but only in a part. Above each of a parts of a universe the governor knowing the slightest displays of all conditions and actions (even over a particle of the person such governor supervises) is put and all this is directed to the certain ultimate goal: that blessed life, inherent in a life of the whole it was carried out and this life arises not for the sake of you, - on the contrary, you - for the sake of it.
There is also a Supreme governor who sees, that all our affairs are spiritualized and that much in them have a virtue, but it is a lot of in them and a defect. Seeing it, he has thought up a special places for an encouragement and a punishments of the person that the universe always won a virtue, and a defect would be defeated: if you will become worse, go after a death to a bad souls if it is better, - that to the best souls. A justice of the Supreme founders never and will let alone nobody, - everyone will incur the punishment appointed a gods or an encouragement.
Victor: It is obvious, that Plato develops an ideas of a divine creation and a management, so also a Divine necessity. Him a laws of an evolution though and from the God, admits but, simultaneously, and a certain freedom, not a controlness to the God of a will of the person affirm also, differently he could not be brought up. Thereof at it the idea of a requital, a punishment in the educational purposes sounds.
The same ideas Plato develops and at the analysis of a motivation of a behaviour of the person. On the one hand, he considers, that an alive essences -is « a wonderful dolls of the gods », made by them with unknown to us the purpose, but having some freedom of a choice (it is possible to assume, that, or it is made meaningly that, for example, « were more interesting for playing », or by a virtue of an inability to supervise a pulses of other worlds, from other gods, - those a beginnings of a reasonless).
On the other hand, he approves, that everyone should follow « a golden and sacred management of a reason », i. е., in his opinion, the reason is given to the person by the God, as a certain lantern in the world created by him. And, as it is seen, the sense of a human life affirms: for the sake of a realization of a life of a created the whole. But again there is a "damned" question on a sense of a creation of this whole.
Plato: Thus each of us is a single whole, but has in itself two unreasonable and opposite advisers - pleasure and suffering which the opinion concerning the future joins still, the general name to which – a hope. The expectation of a grief gives rise to a fear, expectation of a pleasure – a courage. And above all it there is a reason deciding, that from them to choose better, and that it is worse in each separate case.
Victor: So, the divine management through a reason on the one hand admits, through a laws of a nature, a feeling of a pleasure and a suffering (though are unreasonable, but nevertheless - an advisers), and with another - the question is and about a certain fundamental unreasoness in the person resulting not clear why (can be just from a first material). These ideas develops and Aristotle at which the idea on expediency of the device of a universe and the organization of all world process dominates, a teleologic views, as an universal cosmology principle are realized.
Asserting a socially significant virtues as the supreme ethical values, he, as a matter of fact, as well as Plato, sees meaning of the life of the individual person in a maintenance of the blessing of life created the whole, namely a societies. The unity of the purpose through an idea of the uniform God - a source and the reason of movement, is proved. But he denies also an absolutely conscious character of this expediency.
Aristotle: The nature carries out an expedient creativity unconsciously, automatically, through a laws of a material world, in the big degree.
Victor: The ideas of a divine creation and management, but also and a freedom of a choice of the person, his orientation to a goods or the harm why results, the appropriate definiteness of his ethical principles, develop further of Plotin and St Augustine. Later, in a Middle Ages, the christianity asserts an idea of the Divine Foresight which conducts us on this life, and leads up to the last limit an idea of an absolute predefiniteness and a necessary conditionality of all vital phenomena.
And only Makiavelli during the Renaissance revives again a concept of a freedom of a will of the person though does not open it’s a sources. His well-known concept Virtu is the will armed with mind, or the mind inspired with a will. A word Virtu at him means a bravery and an energy, and both in a virtue, and in a harm. It displays his indifference to a traditional moral estimations of the acts connected to a realization of an authority. The recommendations in the field of an ethics of a mutual relation between a people Makiavelli builds on the basis of a reflections about a parity of a necessity and a freedom in an activity of the person.
Makiavelli: The Destiny really disposes of a half of our acts but to operate other half or about that she  gives ourselves.
Victor: As a whole, his point of view is entered in the concept of philosophers – classics of the  antiquity.
And in New time a researches of a freedom of  the will of the person proceed. Decartes especially investigates a freedom of the will, including its a supreme property of the person making him with the owner of the acts for which the person, accordingly, deserves a praise or an abuse.
Decartes: A freedom of the will is inherent in us, at an own choice we can agree or not agree with what - or, - this a position is so clearly, that it should be attributed to our initial and most common congenital concepts.
Victor: At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize, that recognizing a freedom of the will of the person, Decartes nevertheless limits to it’s a power of the God. Freedom of the person admits as him only within the framework of the Divine predetermination, but from the further discussion of this question he evades.
Decartes: As we comprehend an immense power of the God, impiously to assume, as if we can make that he beforehand has not predetermined itself. It is not enough our understanding for the discretion of how he has left a free acts of the person not predetermined.
Victor: Hobbes to a concept of a free will opposes the concept of a considering which comes to an end the certain action.
Hobbes: Considering an intention, we reflect. A last pulse to a fulfilment or not fulfilment of an action refers to as a will, in the true sense this word. I think a will following for a last instruction of the reason. I recognize such freedom according to which I can do  something if I wish. But expression « I can wish, if I want » I think absurd.
Victor: Hobbes, thus, opens an inconsistency of a treatment of a concept of a freedom of the will, as bases any indeterminateness actions of the person.
Arguing on an inducing beginnings of the person, Spinoza also professes the point of view of an iron determinism. But he is more conservative in the judgements and completely denies a freedom of a human will.
Spinoza: In a soul there is no an absolute or a free will, but to this or that wantness the soul is defined by the reason which is defined by other reason and so on indefinitely... The will can not be named the reason free, but only  necessary (always there will be a reason which would define her to the action). The will is determined by a separate desires, each of which is determined by the certain reasons. The opinion on a freedom of  the  will arises only from an ignorance by a people of a chains of the reasons. A will and a reason – is same.
Victor: As a whole nevertheless it is possible to note, that a philosophers of the period of a New time do not have a  special contradictions with an antiquity, but they in the greater degree use the given of a sciences modern by him for a knowledge first of all driving reasons of objectively existing world, instead of a final last reasons. At the same time at John Lokk again appears and repeatedly the idea on a hierarchy of a conceiving essences in the universe repeats, that accordingly complicates up to a limit a problem of a treatment of a freedom and a necessity for an actions of the person.
Lokk: I name their a good and a bad angels who have an advantages and the abilities much more exceeding our a weak makings and a limited powers of a thinking. But to determine a limit of a force which each of them has, it would be too courageous for the person taking place in a darkness and establishing a limits to that who is on a distance of an infinity from his system and outside his understanding. From us in an impenetrable gloom almost the all intelligance  world disappears which it is doubtless more and more perfectly the world material. Between us and the great God there are different degrees of a spiritual essences. To ask, whether the human will is free, - as it is ridiculous as well as to ask, whether the virtue is square. The will of the person is always determined. But the will is an internal force and the limit can be put to it’s a displays whether or not. The question is correct not, whether the will is free, and a question - whether the person is free.
Victor: As a whole Lokk, as well as Hobbes, trusts to a reason of the person (given to him from the God) and gives it a priority in a management of a human actions, asserting, that a last instance to which the person resorts in a definition of the behaviour, is his  reason. A necessity and an opportunity to achieve an own happiness on the reasonable basis is, in his opinion, a basis of any freedom. A sights of Lokk develops Gotfrid Leibniz, though and in a rigid polemic with him, differentiating, first of all, a concepts of a freedom of the will and her determinism. A psychological researches of Leibniz basically coincide with his original philosophical sights in which basis his a vitalism and a monadology lays.
Leibniz: Everywhere bottle an active initial force which can be named the life. The life should be considered as the certain force non-uniformly allocated on a space, and the degree of a vital force is inherent in each corporal formation, - the principle of an individuality is observed.
Victor: The idea of a hierarchy of a reasonable essences in the universe again sounds. Thus affirms, that a basis everywhere same, - an alive atom, a monad. In it is a main principle of his  philosophy.
Leibniz: As the nature can vary a bases indefinitely there is no a so raised spirit above which would not be infinite set of others, towering above him. The main attribute of a monad – is an energy, a force. Thus if to count a matter capable also to sensation it is possible to think, that for her not it is impossible to make and a source of all forces, i.e. the God in an infinite evolution. I am not sure also, whether there are no nevertheless the reasonable essences worth below us. As a whole, apparently, we occupy in the universe rather a honourness place among a reasonable animals.
Victor: The idea of a hierarchy of a Gods again sounds: the god creates monads, but also itself is a product of an evolution of a monads. It is the major idea developing an ideas of an evolution and conducting as by me it was noticed, even a materialists to a recognition of the God. In opinion Leibniz, accordingly, and a freedom of the will (as a certain pure will) exists.
Leibniz: A freedom of a spirit, as opposed to a necessity, concerns to the pure will considered as against a reason. In this case speak about a freedom of a choice which consists that a stronger reasons or an impressions of mind do not prevent the act of a will to be casual and do not inform it an absolute necessity. In this sense speak, that the reason can determine a will, as though show to it the reasons, not forcing her (the last word always remains behind a will - " I want ") .
This display of a will is probably connected and to a passions, for a will and a reason are two various abilities of a soul. In this sense Aristotle has successfully noticed, that we name a free actions not what are spontaneous, but what in addition are considered. That is the person as though operates by a principle: I have considered all and have weighed, - but I want so even if it and contradicts a reason. These principles of a recognition of pure freedom of a will are taken by me from a reflections above a mathematical problems of an infinity, - infinitesimal and indefinitely big.
Victor: Leibniz notices, by the way, as the term "a necessary" demands the same cautious reference, as well as the term "a free". He connects that fact to a necessity, that a representations about a destiny in a various religious doctrines are treated differently.
Leibniz: The muslim fate - is completely blind (a necessity dominates and the person somehow is powerless to affect the destiny, - all is predetermined). The christian foresight assumes a certain opportunity for a person to influence the destiny through a divine worship. Thus a necessity should not be mixed with a determination in general. A connection and a determination in an ideas has not less, than in a movement though we not always realize it.
In this sense everyone even recognized a free act, basically is determined. Itself a casual though it is opposed a necessary, too it is determined, as nothing occurs without the basis, without some occasion, even when this process is considered as a crossing of a some causal lines of an interactions.
Victor: Thus a determinancy admits general though thus a freedom of a choice of the person is asserted also (it probably only through an acceptance of the concept of an infinite hierarchy of the worlds and the gods).
Leibniz: As a whole, really, the people are capable to want not only that is pleasant to them, or admits reasonable, but also a completely opposite thing for that only to show a freedom. (There is an old expression: " I see and I approve the best, and I follow the worse "). But it is necessary to mean, that the will itself can promote in the indirect image to that something was pleasant whether or not so finally the choice is determined by the most free will.
Victor: At Imanuiles Kant the idea of a dialectics of a freedom and a necessity, their indissoluble connection develops.
Kant: A freedom of the will is a property of a will to be for itself the law. Thus, the free will and the will subordinated to the moral law, is same. The obligation expressed by this imperative of the moral law, displays already a necessity, but a necessity of a completely special sort, for it’s a source, a reason as a display of an existence of a "transcendental object", essentially differs from the mind displaying a laws of the world of the phenomena.
Thus, an antinomia of a freedom and a necessities for much it appears imaginary, apparent, - a freedom and a necessity can be a joint characteristics of the same subject considered and as a "transcendental object" in the speculative  world, and as the phenomenon of the world empirical. It appears possible to think of an unity of a freedom and the necessity, displaying a presence of a two worlds, in each of which a specific laws of a causality operate.
Victor: So, a causality through a freedom it is necessary to search for, on Kant, outside of the sensual world - in the speculative world (the idea seems to the close a concept of a hierarchy of the worlds and the gods and a pulses from the first materia, but in this last case all determinism in general is washed away, relativeds). The radical question which interests him, - how a freedom of the one person can be coordinated with a freedom of an others if to accept, that a freedom of each person is born and is his inaliennable right, radicaling in the world of a "transcendental object". Thus, Kant up to a limit points a problem of an ethics.
Kant: Each person, realizing his freedom, has the right to appropriate to itself any subject. There is a contradiction and a struggle, it so. But simultaneously it is necessary to recognize, what exactly the contradiction is a condition of a historical progress: a means which is used with a nature for a development of all human talents, the antagonism, i.e. a  spiteful sociability of the people is.
Only with an occurrence of an antagonism are taken the first steps from an ignorance to a culture, - in a conditions of the perfect consent, a moderation and a mutual love all talents would remain hidden. The nature is cleverer than the person: the person wants the consent, and she gives a contentions, she wants, that he has left a condition of an inactive  content and carelessness and would be given to a work and a danger and, thus, has found a means of a reasonable disposal of them.
Victor: According to this view (the ideas Heraclites as a matter of fact develop) Kant has come to a conclusion, that the mankind develops, notwithstanding, and can be and consequently, mainly, that on the most essence - is malicious, spoiled (probably, this quality of the person just is determined by a recognized freedom of  the  will). The ethics are recommended to be built, proceeding from a recognition of an existence of the moral law in a soul of the person based on the statement of an existence of the God, a freedom of a human will and an immortality of a soul.
But as well as what it is possible to construct on these bases? Rather a foggy recommendations, in our opinion, which in what that to a measure can be accepted for the created terrestrial world, and that only within the framework of what or the certain faith, but completely dezavuatives in general the concept of a hierarchy of the worlds and the gods which is veiled contains in his definition of the moral law (here and a recognition of a desirability of the statement of " a gold rule of an ethics » in a concerning people, and a recognition, simultaneously, an evil and a perversity of a human nature, and antagonism, as a perpetuum mobile of a human history).
An extremely big value, in this plan, a researches of a dialectics of a freedom and a necessity for an activity of the person by one more classic of a  German philosophy, namely Fridrich Schelling have.
Schelling: Free it is possible to name only that operates according to a laws of own essence and it is not determined by anything more neither in itself, nor outside of itself. Such action, in conformity with an internal nature of essence, under the law of an identity and with an absolute necessity also is an absolute freedom. But what such an internal necessity of an essence? In this item a necessity and a freedom should be connected. This internal necessity also is a freedom, - the an essence of the person is essentially his own act. A necessity and a freedom are made in each other as an uniform essence. This necessity does not need to be mixed with an empirical, based on compulsion, necessity of the world of the phenomena.
Victor: As we see, the logic of his judgements while repeatsKant. But Schelling speaks also about a certain basis of an existence from which the God is born also. It also is a will, in his opinion, - an incomprehensible basis of a reality of the things, never a disappearing deposit, that never can be degeneration a reason, but eternally remains in a basis of a things. From it the reason is caused also. (I.e. the question is the certain basis produced, in our opinion, by an infinite hierarchy of the worlds and the gods!). At Kant the role of such basis, as a matter of fact, carries out a concept of a "transcendental object".
Schelling: On the one hand, owing to an eternal act of the God in the world all is a rule, the order and the form, - it is kind. However, on the other hand, in a basis of it something lays chaotic, malicious and it seems, that it when can escape outside. Without a previous gloom there is no reality of the creature, a darkness – is her necessary heritage. Any birth is a birth from a darkness on a light. As this essence is not that other as an eternal basis of an existence of the God, she should contain at the same time in herself his essence (a Divine essence) as is similar to a something spark of the life luminous in a deep gloom.
Therefore and the person contains all power of the dark beginning and all force of a light, the deepest chasm and the highest sky. The will of the person is, on the one hand, the germ of the God hidden in an eternal aspiration, the spark of a Divine life hidden in a depth. On the other hand, from that the person arises from a basis, he contains the beginning independent of the God, but it, remaining dark in the basis, nevertheless is changed to the public and in it arises the something supreme, - it is a spirit.
These both started, from the God and from a dark basis, exist in all things. And that unity which in the God unseparably, in the person is divided  also it is an opportunity of a creation of a goods or an evil. A parity of a wilfulness and a reason in each person – it is variously. The eminence of a wilfulness also is angrily, - there is a life in a lie, a generation of the anxiety and a destruction. Hence the basis of an evil is in something to a basis of an existence, - the supreme positive, available in a nature.
Victor: As we see, an ethical problems in his judgements are closed with an ontologic. Kindly from the God is treated by him, as certain, brought by him in the created world the form , a rule, the order (it is similar, and a reason of the person, accordingly, also). An opposite parameters are considered, as something opposite, - it is angry. But here there is an additional question: you see the God, it agrees the Old Testament, initially has forbidden to the person to taste a fruits of Tree of a knowledge, and the first sin of the person is connected just to an infringement of this interdiction (it turns out, that the God has forbidden a knowledge, i.e. the primary activity of a reason). Therefore and Schelling marks further, - as the person makes a decision to follow a goods or a harm in each concrete case still is completely shrouded in a gloom and demands, apparently, an additional research.
Schelling: So, the deepest connection in a dependences of a things, and also an essence of the God opens, which is before any existence (and the god) and consequently is terrible (it is not softened yet with the God). As a whole it is possible to draw a conclusion, that a true freedom is possible only in the consent with a sacred necessity when the spirit and the heart, submitting to the own law, voluntary assert that is necessary. It is shown in a religiousness when the God is a spiritual light in which only becomes clear an everything else.
And in whom this a knowledge is - it does not allow him to be inactive and immoral. It also is conscientiousness, that is the impossibility to act differently is determined not a human, physical or psychological reasons, and the Divine reasons. A religiousness does not suppose a doubts in a choice, and demands the supreme confidence that is correct and that is wrong. A conscientiousness can show long itself in a strict performance, to it severity can be peculiar. Mark Katon always acted fairly for differently act he could not.
Victor: So, an ontologic aspects of a mental are treated Schelling as follows: - a processes of an evolution are eternal (go and before an occurrence of the God of the certain level) and the God of this world appears as their result (a necessity operates); - further the God creates in turn a first beginning and the worlds (it is to some extent free), - but again they are  subject to a processes of an evolution (already within the framework of the created world) and so endlessly, - there are waves of an evolution and a creation in the universe. The infinite quantity of these waves, their fluctuation also gives a first materia, a basis, an aparon, - and the God creates at each certain stage, pawning thus and the certain moral law in a soul of the person. Therefore Schelling protests against the naked evolutionary theory, aspiring to deduce the person from an inorganic nature: it is impossible to present, he marks, that an insignificant gives an occasion to an occurrence great, - the last should exist initially, causing an evolution (i.e. the God creating, though and at the appropriate level, only affirms).
In a result there is a following picture. There is a world in which we live which we perceive how perceive, - in particular, as the world of the extending universe (according to a modern cosmology hypothesis). It also is our world, the world of our God or the God of this universe, or the appropriate hierarchy of a gods. In this world where the physical background is formed with a processes of an expansion of the universe, exists and the appropriate morals, as something deep in an essence of the person (from the God, - some consider, and Abelar, in particular, one of the first what exactly this morals is shown that we name conscience).
And it is possible, these principles are reflected, though also different words, and in a texts of the Bible, both in the Koran, and in other sacred books of mankind. There are between them divergences, but there is also something general, that promotes a survival of the person on this ground. On this deep basis the public morals is under construction and formed in various social groups. By means of an education and a training the certain morally moral orientations, a morally moral values are pawned in a soul of a people. And all would be fine, if the person followed these precepts, - there would be no today an ecological crisis, there would be no a violence and a wars. But!.. It is impossible so. Why? We shall try to answer.
On the one hand, the answer lays on a surface: a various religions give a various instructions, form a various installations (frequently mutually exclusive) by the major principles of an existence (for example, by a principle « not kill »). Again there is a question, why? On the other hand, as it was already repeatedly specified (we go more deeply), in the universe there is an infinite set of the manned worlds. And it, in the first can be the worlds of the extending universe in which our gods with their life-giving force correct, with their virtues in our understanding of a Goods, Light, Beauty, True. And it is possible, than more there will be an expansion of this universe, a displays of the life, a reason, an expansion of a consciousness especially will be intensive. In an infinity of the time - down to an occurrence of an indefinitely advanced New Space Reason or a Reason of the New God.
But, in the second, it is possible to assume an existence of the antiworlds (or a mirror reflections) where govern the antipodes of our gods at which in a honour other opposite virtues: an angrily, a darkness, a disgrace, a lie … It is possible to assume that somewhere where our running up Galaxies aspire, there is an opposite process of a narrowing of the universe (in this sense is possible to treat a narrowing as the second phase of a fluctuation at the common development of a space).
And in this world of the narrowed universe, or an antiworld, a processes of an evolution of the life and a morals can go and upside-down: not a life will struggle for the existence with an all destruction death, and, on the contrary, already the death will assert the positions in a struggle against all growing intensity of the life, - i.e. in this antiworld the death is treated as a certain constructive beginning, and a life as a destructive. (By the way, these processes of a fluctuation in a little bit other treatment, were in a detail described Plato, the opportunity of their occurrence in our world was predicted also by a Russian religious philosopher N.F.Feodorov).
An all macroevolution of the universe from these positions are an infinite fluctuations « expansion - narrowing », a concentric self-circuiting waves of a matter, energy, a substance with the appropriate consequences for an evolution of the life and a death in their vital displays which moral and immoral appear from a such global point of view as though equivalent, as well as correlation with them a concepts of a goods and evil, moral and immoral.
These opposite worlds interexist, interpenetrate into an infinity of a space and a time, as well as an influences against each other on the part of them demiurge.
As a whole a such views result to an idea that in a deep essence of a different people on miscellaneous that is shown, as is treated by us as kindly or angrily. This primary essence just also causes a character of the person, his mental nature, morals, - an influence of a Space (the worlds, a gods, their antipodes) is shown. The society can not change this deep orientation, but can canalization it in a socially significant direction (useful or harmful).
For this reason it appears the role of an education, a training, MM (mass media), forming a way of the life is so great. It is extremely important from a positions of a materialistic treatment of an evolution and self-organizing of the universe, but does not contradict also to an assumption of a transcendental persons, to their possible influence (under the Bible at a creation of the person a patrimonial quality of a freedom of the will and the responsibility for the acts is already given to him).
Plotin: Did not put the God to battle instead of those who does not want to battle … To receive a crop, it is necessary not only to pray but to cultivate a ground... If you neglect the health - you will be sick … If a malicious people are in a power, it occurs always from for a cowardice of their citizens. A validity is those and the opposite would be unfair.
Victor: Neitzshe, developing an ideas of Schelling, Schopengauer, Leibniz, a paramount value is given to a treatment of a concepts " a will to an authority ", "a will to a live", as a basic parts of his reasonings on an inducing and driving beginning of a human activity when our today's representations and a morals (christian, in particular) are completely ignored. It is conformable to a many previous reasonings.
Neitzshe: The life is a certain will to an authority, a display of this will.
Victor: Neitzshe emphasizes, that the not free will does not exist at all.
Neitzshe: Actually a speech can go only about a strong or about a weak, but always about a free will. At the same time the recognition of a freedom of a will does not cancel a principle of a determinism and a conditionality in the world which has a necessary and giving in to a calculation current not only because in it reign a laws but also because laws or absolutely are not present, or a certain law of a chaos, the law of a freedom of a displays of an individuals operates.
Victor: This statement suggests about an enlightenment him of a laws completely other order, can be a probable- statistical regularities (on a modern terminology). It is represented thus, that he argues within the framework of a research of that basis of an existence about which speaks and Schelling.
The idea of a freedom sounds and at early Karl Marks when he still considers the person somewhat and as a directly natural essence allocated a vital forces which exist in him as an inclinations and an abilities, as an inclinations and a passions. In a political economy as a fundamental driving passion he allocates, as was already marked, self-interest.
However, though Marks also uses a concept "human nature" for a designation of a quite concrete reality (a biological basis of any human existence, without a consideration of a consequences of a socialness) but, in the subsequent, he more and more affirms in an ideas, that this nature not is the characteristic of a truly human essence.
Marks: Everything, that is specifically human in socially advanced sense, there is a historical product, instead of a natural reality. The person does not cease to be a biologically determined essence, but the way of his  life appears first of all a social self-determination, - integrating in itself what the society in which he lives, enriches with him or impoverishs all, the individual and becomes the person.
Victor: An all told allows his brother-in-arms to formulate a substantive provision concerning a freedom of a will of the person.
Engels: A freedom is a knowledge of the necessity. Not a freedom consists in an imagined independence of a laws of a nature, - she is something formed on the basis of a knowledge of these laws, - thus the person aspires to an expansion and a deepening of a knowledge of a sphere of their action.
Victor: The position is reputable also for a recognition, but this scientific knowledge should be added, on an our sight, an inclusion of a religious installations, the account of an opportunity of the action of a secret mystical forces, i. е. a knowledge from other sections of a human knowledge, - though also rather original, not scientific, irrational.
Sigmund Freud, polemizing with Маrks, places the basic forces driving the person in an instinctive field of an activity, asserting as we already heard, that all actions of the person go basically a two basic instincts: an aspiration to a pleasure or to a satisfaction of a natural organic requirements (an instinct of a life) and an aspiration to an aggression, destruction, self-destruction (an instinct of a death). And  in it root a freedom of the will. Whether a freedom it?
The person we depend on an instinctive pulses, and they, in turn, also are determined, probably. But than? He does not speak about it. Except for that in a structure of the person Freud allocates an instance which names Super-Ego, considering, that she as though realizes a requirements of a morals, given to us from the God and started up so a deep roots. Here he as though develops the ideas, staying undeveloped at Neitzshe.
Freud: " Super-Ego” show the most strict moral requirements to Ego. In particular, our moral feeling of a fault is an expression of a pressure between Ego  and “Super-Ego ". The person always is between Scilla of a social repressiveness and Charibdta of a full unleashing of an instincts. And in it is the reason of an occurrence of a neurosises.
Victor: But at Freud nevertheless there are a certain fluctuations in a treatment Super-Ego, as or a moral (formed by a society) or a moral (from the God) formations.
Freud: We at all do not deny that a part of a psychological true which contains in the statement, that a conscience -is the Divine origin, but it demands an explanations. The small child as is known is immoral, - he does not have an internal brakes against an aspirations to the pleasure. The role which will undertake Super-Ego later, in the beginning is executed by an external force, a parental authority.
Victor: In this formulation he would speak like about a formed morals, but a doubts at the same time sound.
Freud: I am not quite satisfied with these reasonings, but an introduction Super-Ego can be described to some extent as an identification with a parental instance. Super-Ego am thus the carrier of an ideal with which Ego  as though commensurate myself and which goes back to a parents, a tutors in an ontogenes etc. But Super-Ego am under construction not simply on an example of a parents, and in turn on a parental Super-Ego and so on indefinitely. Thus the question is about Super-Ego of a primogenitors, it is the carrier of a tradition, all values kept in a time which exist in a generations.
Victor: The idea of an inheritance of the social and mental experience, formulated by the father of an evolutionary psychology G.Spenser as a matter of fact affirms. At the end of a life Freud mentions a question, whether it is possible to trust in an objective reality of the occult facts (a system of a superstitious representations about the mysterious supernatural facts, an understanding which is accessible only to the separate elected persons): a telepatia, a transfer of an ideas on a distance, a conditions of an excitation, a strong-willed promptings through a free spaces to other person. In it is possible to see a search of the bases and an instincts.
Freud: A psychoanalis can not answer directly, however the material revealed with its help impress at least favourably for the affirmative answer.
Victor: Thus Freud further does not analyze these ideas. Such analysis can be seen at Karl Jung who develops an ideas about an unconscious mental as to a motivational basis of an activity of the person, in the concept a collective unconscious.
Jung: More often, it is shown as property of the genius, - many artists, philosophers, scientific by the best ideas are obliged to an inspiration which is born from such sources. The same phenomenon is shown and in a dreams, - its symbols sometimes express an ideas which never before did not reach a threshold of a consciousness of this person. And, dealing with a dreams, it is necessary to remember, that they arise in a spirit which has not quite human character, and is faster a breath of a nature. It can be a spirit fine and noble, but can be and a spirit of a severe Deity.
To characterize this spirit, it is necessary to come nearer to the world of an ancient mythologies, a fairy tales of a primitive wood. The fact remains the fact, people do some things at all not knowing what for, - they are based on earlier generated and available instinctive system. In a mythology of an early times just these forces named "mana" or a spirits, demons, gods. And today they also are active, as before, - a demons and gods have not disappeared at all, - they have only found a new names.
Victor: Thus, at Jung the motive of the certain managing influence of these spirits, kind and malicious sounds, and they can be considered, as belonging both to the world of the Creator, and other worlds and gods in their infinite hierarchy.
Jung: The motto – “where is a will, there is a way”, - is a superstition of the modern person which is blind to that he is possessed by the forces which are taking place outside of his control. It, in particular, is shown in a psychological complexities, a neurosises, in an insatiable thirst of a food, alcohol, tobacco, drugs and so forth.
Victor: As a matter of fact, the treatment of a will as the mechanism of a reason is denied, and the opposite position of an irrational sight is asserted. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin also aspires think up to the end of an idea of an evolution. The infinity of an evolution allows to admit an opportunity of the existence any superlifes.
Teilhard de Chardin: In a channel of an evolutionary idea of an infinite development of the universam an occurrence of a "superlife" is possible: a life, having reached the conceiving step, should proceed, rising structurally all is higher. Therefore in what that to the form of us waits in the future not only a continuation of the life, but also a superlife, as a result of a megasynthesis. We should close an eyes to not see, that an evolution should achieve the culmination in what - that the supreme consciousness.
Victor: That the question is thus about what mysterious convergence of a persons, at least their spiritual components. The mysterious centre of a gravity is named him an Omega point which finds the face and heart of " any loving and a favourite essence », personified. From an Omega point proceed, in his opinion, the basic pulses managing the world, its evolution.
Alber Camus also considers a problem of a freedom of a choice of the person.
Camus: The person of an absurdity a face to face with a death (it is the most absurd evidence of the life) feels like released from everything, including from all requirements of a human morals. You see if the God is not present, - that is not present a morals and all is legal.
And still the rebel should aspire to put to a freedom a limit everywhere where she collides with the person. " The Reason is an ability to not finish that we think that we still had a belief in a reality ",  - speaks L.Bikel', asserting what exactly an irrational serves as a border of a rational, and that in turn allocates with its measure. The irrational sacrament of a life should not sacrifice: the realism, feeling of a measure in any morals should be inherent for both virtue is in the pure state fatal also a cynicism too is pernicious.
Victor: As to live? On the basis of all carried out analysis it is possible to recognize, as certainly existing, an influences on the person: from a first material (thus it is possible to speak about the concrete worlds and gods in this their infinite set, - a spindle Ananke?), from the God (in the world created by him ), from a socium of a various scale in which there is a person, from his organism. All these influences are plait in a soul of the person, forming a certain morally - a moral component of his ethical sights and actions, - and some pulses get crucial importance, depending on the circumstances.
The recognition of an existence of the God who has created our terrestrial world, is represented incontestable. Then it is really possible to count, as moral principles in us are incorporated by the Creator. But life shows, that these principles at each person - different. In what here put? Besides the set forth above points of view, it is possible to assume a creation of a people a different gods (explaining, for example, an origin of a various races and a presence of a various religious faiths). On what - that a stage (a conception, a birth, a development of the person etc.), probably, there is again a Divine intervention changing a primary program.
Also there is an impression, that each person in our world should operate, proceeding from own ethical installations what to build in this case an ethics it is possible and necessary, but only, proceeding from a principles of a realization of a human hostel, on a basis of  a knowing laws, aspiring to an expansion and a deepening of a knowledge of a sphere of their action, that in many cases and is done today.
But the scientific knowledge should be added, in my opinion, with a knowledge from other sections of a human knowledge, in particular, inclusion, certainly, proceeding from what - that of a consensus, a religious installations. Certainly, it is possible to count this conclusion trivial enough, but other, perhaps, and it is impossible to make while on the basis of an available knowledge. We shall go in this way, not excluding and expecting at the same time a helps and a corrections from the transcendental world, hoping and trusting.
In a summary I shall state the opinion on one important question. Today all ethics are under construction on the basis of a recognition of a presence in the person of a deep-rooted fear before a physical sufferings and, in particular, before a physical death. On this fear is found both a secular morals, and a religious moral installations (even at the description of beyond the grave existence the same are used a "fearing", - for example, the description of a hell at Dant).
But it is important to emphasize, that all these ethics of a terrestrial life will considerably be transformed, when as main installation of a belief in an immortality takes oppress, during her existence after a physical death of a body. An absence of a fear of a death only also allows to accept as  basic an ethics Nagornoy of the sermon of Jesus Christ.
It considerably other ethics supposing, as is known, a life according to an ideals of an amnesty and a comprehensive goods. By the way, today, as it seems, even a christians of a various directions are not confessor these ethics. Can be only at Buddhists of the certain sense exist a similar (and it is possible, even more comprehensive) precepts connected to a preservation of any life on the ground). (The author is not the expert-confessionist and consequently avoids in this case an exact definitions).
There is one more question why an ethics Nagornoy of the sermon do not find application in our life? The answer can be such, in my opinion: precepts Nagornoy of the sermon contradict the most terrestrial human life, - they as though depreciate   it. But it is impossible to forget, that this life is created by the God and there is the certain secret, not allowing it to depreciate. For this reason the majority of a religions rejects a suicide of the person.
At the same time a murder of the person by the person under the certain circumstances is supposed, within the framework of the laws established by a society. In particular, from a positions « противления to a harm », - the law «a life for a life” frequently operates, “an eye for an eye » (dekalog Moiseja), that in the greater degree as it seems, corresponds to an organization of a terrestrial life.
 So, again is a problem! Thus and nevertheless we would be desirable to hope for an expansion of a sphere of an action of an ethics Nagornoy of the sermon, as, probably, most humanization  when are breadthing an aura of the goods, grasping in the orbit, without a damage to an existence of the life the increasing number of a people (shall trust).

Used literature         
Aristotle, Metaphysik, Nicomachean Ethics, Peripsyches, Poethics.
Berdiaev N. (Бердяев Н .А. Смысл истории, Самопознание, Истоки и смысл русского коммунизма).
Bergson H. L,evolusion creatrice, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion, Le possible et le reel, Matiere et Memoire.
Biblia.
Buber, Martin, Zwei Glaubensweisen, I and Thou
Camus A. Le Mythe de Sisyphe, L,Homme revolte
Decartes, Rene, Metitations on First Philosophy, A Discourse of Method, La description du corps humain, Les passions de l,ame
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of eminent philosophers.
Fragmenta Early Greek Philosophiers
               Freud S. Vorlesungen zur Einfuhring in die Psychoanalyse . Und Neue Folge
               Hegel G.W.F., Sience of Logica, Asthetik
               Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time
               Hesiod, Teogonia
               Hobbes Т. Of Liberty and Necessity, Human nature, Leviathan
Husserl E., Die Krisis der Europaischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phenomenologie
Kant, I., Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Pure  Reason
Kierkegard Soren, Frygt oq Baeven
Leibniz G. Monadologie, De libertate, Confessio naturae contra atheistas, Nouveaux essays sur l,entendement humain, Essays de theodicee  Lessing G., Gesammelte Werke (Лессинг Г. Лаокоон).
Locke, J., An Essay Conserning Human Understanding, A discourse of miracles, Some Thoughts concerning Education, On the conduct of the understanding   
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things
Machiavelli N., The Prince
Malraux A. Les voix du silence, La metamorphose des Dieux
Maritain J
Marx  К., Gesamtausgabe
Miller H., Secsus
Neitzshe, F., Beyond Good and Evil, Die Geburt der Tragoedie aus dem Geiste der Musik, Zur Genealogie der moral
Plato,  The Republic, Laws
Plotin , Enneades
Sartre, Jean- Paul, Existencialism and Humanism , L,Etre et Neant, L,Imaginaire Psychologie phenomenologique de l,imaginations, Criticue de la raison dialectiques
Sedlmayr H. Verlust der Mitte, Kunst und Wahrheit, Der Tod des Lichtes
Schiller F., Schillers Werke. Nationalausgabe
Soloviev V. (Соловьев В. С. Лекции о Богочеловечестве).
St Augustine, The Basic Works of St Augustine
Spinoza, Ethics, Tractatus de intellectus emendatione
Schelling F.W.J. Philosophische Untersuchungen uber das Wesen der menschlichten Freiheit, Uber das Verhalthis der bildenden Kunste zu ber Natur 
Shelly P.B.
Spengler O., A critical estimate
Teilhard de Chardin P. Oeuvres
Engels F., Gesamtausgabe
Jung C. G. Bewuthtes und Unbewuthtes, Psychology and Religion, Das Seelenproblem des Moderhen Menschen
Jaspers K. Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, Der philosophische Glaude

Table of contents
 The introduction, personnels (participants of conversations) – p.
Session 1. A theme: « About sense of human life » - p.
( the first attempt of treatment)
Session 2. A theme: « Love of the person »                - p.
( one more attempt of treatment sense of the life)
 Session 3. A theme: "Beauty"           - p.
 ( for a way of search "sense of the life")      
 Session 4. A theme: "Tragical"                - p.
  ( new motive in understanding of sense of the life)
 Session 5. A theme: "Time"               
( the necessary precondition for the analysis of a problem
 "sense of the life")                -p.
     Session 6. A theme: « Freedom and necessity »                - p.
      ( a final reasonings on a problem of "sense of the life")