from the majority of those who left, not i personally hear, but i watch and read their statements, i have the feeling that not only do they completely disagree with the russian authorities, not only do they not approve of the special operation, in general it seems to them that russia this is some kind of country, well, if you like, serfs, uncivilized people, and the russian people are simply not worthy of these wonderful relocants, well , in general, to be honest, they always thought so when they lived here, this was a paradox, and to be honest , we understood, at least i understood in relation to many, that this is their position, this is what is called russophobia, it was here too, that is, they were russophobes back in the day, they were russophobes for a very long time, they were born that way, they were raised there, that’s another question.

special military operation and they are there as if protesting against this, therefore, therefore for me it is to a certain extent, i cannot say that i think that some people, people tend to make mistakes, and i repeat that - they can change , can change.

and of course, there are still many problems, and of course, we are faced with a serious challenge, including including due to the latest aid package for ukraine, but in general, it seems to me that it is obvious that russia has not only military, but amazing economic, and most importantly, human resources that allow one country to resist with dignity and effectively the entire collective. west, it

was a great game, we'll see you on air next week. kant's text is understandable if one overcomes the difficulties of one's own feeble-mindedness, which is common for any reader of kant's works; there are some philosophers whose reading causes the reader to falsely think that the reader is an obvious coritin. tsekanta belongs to this variety, but having overcome the difficulties of our dementia, we still understand the text. this is what the philosopher mirap mamardashvili spoke about kant about us in his lectures. hello, today we have gathered our thoughts about emmanuel

kant, his life, his philosophy. on april 22, the great philosopher turned 300 years old. today it’s easy for me, as they say now as a dream team, i can go from west to east. kant, as an event in the history of ideas, and what he created, it is a kind of work of art. a work of art requires some effort in order to understand it, and at the same time, any brilliant

work of art is open to the viewer. on the one hand, kant is very aphoristic, sometimes very simple and clear, sometimes so complex that thought stops and stumbles. but at the same time it gives pleasure, you need to go back and think again, so if you answer mamardashvili’s challenge briefly, it will turn out like this: kant is complexity that strives for understanding. great, asiballovich, what will moscow university say? well, reading any philosophical text, if it is real philosophy, requires some effort, overcoming screens. as the same mamardashvili said, when we step over both the incomprehensible and our own inertia, because we live in the world of feelings, and kant begins his criticism of pure reason with this, with transcendental aesthetics, that is, with

how the world appears to us in our feelings, in our feelings the world is not always genuine to us, yes, therefore, in order to move to the next step of understanding, you need to make some effort. like baron minhausen, who pulls himself out of the swamp by his hair, you need to pull yourself out of the swamp of the empire, from the swamp of pure experience, in fact, kant is a good example, for me the topic of differences between art and science immediately arises, science strives for the objective , art, this is all a subjective world, and philosophy is actually that. science as such is different in that it does not renounce the subjective, but this means that i have the right to say that kant is not my philosopher, or mine, yes, well, just like i can say, tolstoy is not my writer, yes, for example, if this is so, then how would you answer this question, not not with from the point of view of what

the situation obliges, from the point of view of the internal, personal, subjective, kant is your philosopher, i remember the first time i read the criticism of pure reason, it was in the ninety-first year, i was not very... long ago returned from the army after 2 years of service, and believe me, i sat on an island fishing in lake lazoč and read criticism of the pure mind, so i read it for 2 weeks, it’s already a picture, yes, i read it for 2 weeks and came to the conclusion that no, this is not my philosopher, why is that, when you call someone your philosopher, you know, it’s like a metaphysical judgment, you you share his philosophy as a whole, from beginning to end, i can’t say such a thing, of course, alexey pavlovich. well, one could write, like marina tsvetaeva, yes, my, my kant, just as she wrote my pushkin, yes, but it is not at all necessary that my kant means kant, my favorite philosopher, this is kant, like me i see him, kant for me, another name

comes to mind, walks with pushkin, yes, walks with kant, here in kaliningrad, in the former koeniksberg, where albertina was. university, which has now transformed into the baltic federal university, it is quite possible to take a walk through the places where kant lived or go to kant’s house, to the pastor’s house, not far from chernyakhovsk. but, probably, i agree with alexander alexandrovich that for a russian person the edging is somehow too narrow, that is, yes, a thing in itself, yes, well, it’s impossible to comprehend it, yes, remember the magazine yarolazh where it began, the nut of knowledge is hard, but still we are not used to retreating, it will help us to crack it, generally speaking, this is a neeralash. that is, this is goethe’s attitude to nature, that depth, the core, this

faustian depth that can be comprehended, yes, this is some other attitude that also comes to us from the 15th century, from romanticism, here is kant in a sense - this is the other side of the coin, that is, these are still boundaries, this is training, this is the discipline of the mind that indicates.

plato to kant, in general, from kant to the present day, which immediately, if this is so, tells us about the fundamental place of kant, philosophy, here aleksandrovich, are you ready to agree with this periodization and somehow explain it? in general, the point is this: in the history of ideas, events happen that are meta-temporal, that is, events of personal centers that attract the past and attract the future, you know, there is such a term in physics, a strange attractor, this is something thrown forward, which pulled together the whole tradition as a whole, this was a certain moment, this is the moment when we all know that kant existed at one time. a subject, yes, that means a professor at moscow university, that means a thinker of european

magnitude, that’s how it all came together, that all philosophy at some point came together in one specific place, in one specific mind, then everything went differently, a sea of ​​interpretation, a sea of ​​changes, unfinished, unfinished, half-thought out, rethought, and so on, but the influence that this concentration had on the history of ideas... not only european, the world as a whole, it is obvious, from this point of view we can, for example, look at one of the most pressing topics of today, this is the topic of artificial intelligence or even artificial intelligence, what’s the matter, here is a thing that can summarize the entire philosophy of kant, this will be a slightly provocative statement, but i’ll try, but this apriority of the subjective, here... the spark of god lives in us regardless of our desire, from someone’s will, yes, it exists, right

now, when we begin to reason what do you have some alternative appears in the form of artificial intelligence, this is fundamentally important for modern anthropology, this is a topic that was very clearly formulated by kant, very clearly, uh, that’s why, in my opinion, in 1818 he was the most cited philosopher in the world, here in 2018. cards, the copernican revolution in philosophy was not made by kant,

it was descartes who made it before him, that is, he put the world at the point of the ego, at the point of the subject, i think, therefore i exist, that is, now it is not the world with its laws, with its objects , exactly i, as a cognizing subject, is the center of philosophy; probably, without descartes, kant would have been impossible; kant himself is not an absolute self-born. he followed, on the one hand, the path of natural science from newton, and on the other hand , along the path of such spiritualistic philosophy, perhaps of the levenitzian kind.

to speak in the language of kant, the same father sergei , theologians unexpectedly began to bulgakov, or the same vladimir nikolaevich lossky, berzyaev, so in general everyone came out of kant, yes, therefore, of course, it is not only neo-kantians who refer to kant, not only those who chose kant for themselves as a teacher, as a founder.

i probably didn’t understand, but i also came across the interpretation that he meant himself , this is generally wonderful, let’s see, we should have the most famous portrait of kant, this is iagan gotlep becker, artist, kant is 44 years old here, like this he looked, again, they usually say in history and philosophy courses that there was nothing remarkable in kant’s life, it

was the life of a university professor, in fact, his philosophy is the most remarkable, although here...

the fourth dimension of time, this is now, here, now, present, yes, it was very important for him, by the way, we have this first edition, and... this is riga, yes, and then this was the russian empire, so on the question of the kanterus culture, there are continuous parallels, not only there for 4 and a half years, in my opinion, he

was a subject when, during the seven years' war, eastern prusia itself moved away, but to russia, well you see riga, that is, the first edition of the criticism of reason was published in russian empires and vanity, why not know. these are the finalists of the twelfth season of the voice project, among them, of course, there is a winner, voice, final, live broadcast, on saturday on the first. the grand opening of the twelfth film festival took place today. yuri nikolaevich, everything is clear, you rented a hotel room, come here. and you

get it, i was in the studio, dozens of people saw me. are you lying? why are you lumping everything together, huh? we’ll get used to living separately, we’ll break up anyway, well, understand, we don’t decide, but come up with something. so, gentlemen. a statement has been received from the nichaevs, known to you, that after death they want to be together. i officially declare that i, yuri nikolaevich nichaev, want to live in the next world together with my wife, nichaeva, elena mikhailovna. well, what kind of love can there be, what eternity, i’ll tell lenka right now that i’m leaving. after all, she won’t be the first to cry and calm down. where's the champagne? i drenched him with my hysterics, horoscopes, and suspicions. and i think he loves. he just doesn't want a wife to part with her, hello, lean, a frivolous conversation, are they sure that they truly love each other, what are you ready for, that’s all, life after life, the premiere

of a multi-part film, soon on the first one, today we gathered our thoughts about kant, his philosophy and life, alexander. alexandrovich fedorov, alexey pavlovich kozarev, i’m vladimir ligoida, we continue. you know, what amazed me was that a book was coming out from wedenburg, yes, if again, this is true, what i read, four copies of it are being sold, one gets to the edge, he not only reads it all, this huge book, but also writes, i don’t know, one might say, a devastating text on this matter, here is alexey pavlovich, but how does this characterize kant, what do you think, this action? well, swedenburg is a spiritual seer, for him, after all, religion is within the limits of reason alone, yes, that is, he tried to treat things, let’s say, related to

spiritual tradition, as a representative of the era of enlightenment, we must not forget that, after all, when we talk enlightenment is not only rosso, not only diderot, not only walter, but also emmanuel kant, he says what enlightenment is, from the famous text, it’s more mature. this is when a person from youth moved into adulthood learned to think with the help of his mind, to be responsible for his actions, in this regard, who to read, who to criticize, how to relate to the thoughts of another person, this is also not an order, but this is a manifestation of a certain intellectual honesty , yes, defending his convictions, defending his views, but at the same time we must not forget that... this is an educator, but he is not an atheist, kant was brought up in the christian tradition, he was raised in the pietist tradition. there is a remarkable

work by nikolai konstantinovich govryushin, a professor at the moscow theological academy, about kant’s discipleship, where he talks about those professors, pietists, yes, who gave him education, in this regard, when we come into contact with his moral teaching, with his categorical imperative, and with ...

then philosophy, on the one hand, you understand, it did not stand still, it was in motion, tried to avoid the question of god, to come into very close contact with it as a result leave it as a question, it was not closed to him until the moment of death, and i don’t think that he would categorically take any path of denial, no, in no case, but for him it comes to the fore, and this is the same actually talking to god. this is what i said, this is the apriority of the subjective, which is born from somewhere, who is the author of this birth, this was the main question for him, i understand correctly what we say if we look at kant’s teaching on morality , then religion will be a consequence of morality according to kant, whereas in fact it is such an idea that a religious view, it tells us about a different cause-and-effect relationship, although i don’t see any...

insoluble contradiction here, because there is a religious feeling, uh-huh, yes, but there is a form of organized religion, uh-huh, they, in general, they can be placed in different places in a cause-and-effect sense, or not, alexey palovich, well, religion is a consequence of upbringing and lifestyle, way of life, here are three famous questions, criticism of pure reason, what can i know, what do i gotta do what i can i hope this is the most interesting thing, and the third question. this is a question that opens up a completely religious perspective, kant says that i should act in such a way that if there is eternal life, then my actions should play so that in this eternal life i find bliss, yes, so that i am rewarded, which is here primary, ethics or religion? well , it’s clear that, probably, for kant, just as it may be in russia, for lev nikolayevich tolstoy, they come very close together, that

is... in essence, the field of religion covers the field of ethics, yes, for kant there are no sacraments, miracles, generally speaking, he is a protestant, this too should not be forgotten , but still this is not a reason to refuse, i apologize for saying that he confessional, a philosopher doesn’t work out either, that is, he is a protestant by upbringing, but he is not a protestant theologian, well, as we say, protestantism is a professorial religion.

and the attitude of this formulation of the categorical imperative and the so-called golden rule of morality, yes treat others the way you would like them to treat you, because these are different things, yeah, what’s the difference, because sometimes they say that kant actually reformulated the golden rule of morality, no, the most important question here is how and from where the categorical imperative came up, how did he come to it and how is the evidentiary system built, huh? it is very complex, that is, it is one of the - indeed, engineering components of kant's philosophy, which was thought out as much as possible, assembled into a very complex system, and is that it’s called his author’s card, how to take and display what seems to be already familiar, in a completely different way, under completely different conditions, and launch it in such a way that we are still repeating it, mind you, he didn’t just re-invent something, he considers that

he s... created anew, this whole thing is being built, we still won’t be able to explain it now, i won’t try to do it, i ’ll just point it out, we’ll hang it, so to speak, i’ll show, so to speak, the way , it is built on - syntheses of perception, which is given in the critique of pure reason in fact, the most important methodological mechanism, empirical synthesis, the transcendental unity of perception, don’t worry, i also stopped partially understanding anything, this is normal, the transcendental unity of perception, that’s all.

based on the fact that i have a mind, there is something in this mind, some, perhaps, innate ideas, even, this is how i can make a discovery, that’s when he formulates a categorical imperative, this is essentially a discovery that he does it himself, based on his mental laboratory, this is not hillel he was told not by some pastor, but by himself, as a philosopher, who came to the conclusion that it was necessary to do this, that is, this is a laboratory.

it’s not for a philosopher to know to understand about kant, i actually believe in this methodological construction, it consists of two parts: this is criticism, abilities, judgments and in general the whole triad of critics, as a method specifically, the second you are talking about three, i just in case for for our viewers, about the three main works of the three main works, criticism of pure reason, criticism of the critic's ability to serve practical reason yes. the second thing is pure rational schemes, that is , to put it very briefly, the first thing, which makes it possible in any circumstances to be ready to fight any type of fakes, and

the second thing, which makes it possible to work in design thinking, create a project and to bring it to completion, on the one hand, this requires a schematic effort.

connected with fakes with false sources of information, that is, this is such growth, criticism is like a mountain, it is built like an ascent, like an ascent on a cable car. we have gathered our thoughts about kant, his life and his philosophy, what would you recommend reading? certainly about kant, and if someone

takes a chance on kant himself, here’s where to start, i still recommend reading the article by vladimir solovyov, yes, let a professional konto specialist say that it is outdated, that it may be archaic, but it is magnificent, and as for the works of kant, where to start, start with a lecture on poetics, such a good funny thing, he is there... free, yes, he is interesting, there is a lot built around the concept of taste, but very this is not a bad thing, this is a small but beautiful lecture, from pedagogy, wonderful, wonderful, this will hook you, really, but if someone wants to immerse themselves in all this taken together, then, well, well, comrades, well, criticism pure reason, of course, alexey pavlovich, i remember the wonderful work.

yes, there are many, like this, let’s

come up with a term, contologists, yes, who are both researchers and followers, not one of them is completely followers and, well, to the end, sorry, of course, with everything respect to the researchers, they were ready to oppose russian thought, kant, non-kantianism, pseudo-kantianism, very... primitive to the point of impossibility, this whole gigantic mental construction of the russian

history of ideas, it is, in general, to a large extent an objection to kant’s position. alexey pavlovich, i remember only one work, yakov golosker, dastoevsky, this is an unusually important philosopher for dostoevsky, in a sense, maybe the black one does. yes, well, of course, dostoevsky is not a kantian, but dostoevsky a person who studied kantianism, studied kant, put his thoughts into it, including naming one character. nightmare of ivan fedorovich, but in general dostoevsky wanted to become a philosopher at first, he asked his brother to send him books to him in omsk after hard labor so that he could write his philosophical system; among these books there was a criticism of pure reason, but one can agree with such

a free one and maybe not quite a professional philosophical judgment that for both kand and dostoevsky the ultimate problem is the problem of freedom, and problem. man, the problems of human freedom, by the way, to say, to these three questions from the criticism of pure reason kanja then adds the fourth, what is, what is man, what is man, yes, in the ninety-second year he does this for the first time in a letter, then in logic, in 1800 this is fixed, and a person is at the same time an end, but not a means, and this , of course, is somehow related to the question of freedom, this is also relevant to the question. about the limits of freedom, which is why kant, no matter how they treat him, certainly a great thinker, fashion verdict show on channel one, i’m alexander rogov with you, over the last month she ordered black leather shorts, boldly, boldly, a red tracksuit, what a disgrace, i

don’t like the way my daughter dresses, especially lately , how she recovered, my mother is heavy, my mother really wants me... look, we can change the color, i should perform in this image, you need something , it seems, here’s something like that, something completely new, you are very beautiful, we love you today we will prove it. exhale, inhale, the image of your daughter, i didn’t expect such a result at all, this is a different person, lena, you are super, a fashion statement, a new season, tomorrow is the first one, you are irresistible, like in a prima ballet, all the beauties

of the world, from your heart, i took the keys, hold it, hold it! hold my hand, whatever you want, say, my mother said, you are strong without him , no better, unrequited, you did not expect such a cold wind at night, we will remember our forbidden paradise, it was for exactly that and know, if you leave, i will remain. let it not they will stop waiting for you, the russians are coming, the golden gramophone people's prize ceremony, premiere on april 29, at the first, there is another interesting topic, the edges of time,

the edges of the future, i know what you are doing, if my insight, so to speak, is correct. this problem, although in general you don’t hide it, yes, what can you say here, well, because the topic of the future, it is also, by the way, very relevant today, the image of the future, what the future is, well, this has always, in fact, worried thinkers, yes, and this is now one of the most important points of view, which modern philosophers and politicians occupy on kant, naturally, the center of attention, other things, is the treatise on eternal peace, and once again i want to emphasize that i do not consider it not kant’s main works, nor one that can be placed at the forefront in modern discussions about the future of humanity, i don’t think, however, this is

a very interesting judgment; in kant’s view, in general, the problematic of time is how it develops. the future is an unfinished topic, of course, for him, he thought about it, thought very interestingly in different ways, when he set himself the task of connecting all three modes of time, past, present, future, well , what was called the now moment naturally opened up before him, how good it is, heideger concentrated it all, actually for him you know, this is my deep conviction, at this moment, when he reached this point, there was nothing left but the future, and there was nothing left, remember the lecture on pedagogy, we raise children for the sake of the future, and not for the sake of today, and for him the theme of the future, although he and did not write a special one.

man relates to the future, it is connected, for example, with the fact that kant is one of the first to think about the fact that the world, with what he discovers in the world, electricity appears, yes, the phenomenon of electricity, with which it is not yet clear what to do, he is classified as the dark side of science, vicenschaft, yeah. the decanter is very afraid, he dies in 1804, if i’m not mistaken, he is very afraid, there

are some dangers associated with electricity that await humanity in the future. today we are talking about artificial intelligence, today we are talking about some digital technologies, in general we are continuing this line of kant’s expectation that the future will be the way that not only we want it to be, but technology, technology. it turns out that university courses in history and philosophy, they in general, are initially aimed not at teaching how

to philosophize, well, at least on formal grounds, but at learning philosophy, that is, how others philosophized, the question is not so simple , yes, what to choose from this, how do these relate to each other? two categories, to philosophize, to study philosophy, without trying to push you against kant, i still want to... ask you to answer this question at the end of our most interesting conversation: what is more important, if we use this quote: to study philosophy or to philosophize? certainly, but again this is my personal point of view, you need to learn to philosophize, each era understands this in its own way: once metaphysics, once pragmatism, once neorealism, once marxism, no, in this case one of the universal tools that we today they already named him,

khimnitsar, he has a metaphysician fable, there a man asks all the time, he fell into a hole, they throw a rope at him, he asks what kind of rope is a thing, yes so, well then they say, well, sit there in the hole, we won’t pull you out, but asking what kind of rope is needed, and in general we need to ask about the world, about the things that surround us, philosophy teaches us this, but you can’t start philosophizing if you don’t know anything about how it was done before you, exactly just as you are unlikely to be...

dean of the faculty of philosophy of moscow university alexander aleksandrovich fedorov, rector of the kant baltic state university, and regarding the philosophy and life of which we were gathering thoughts today, i am vladimir ligoida, thank you. greetings, this is the podcast chronicles of the end times, and i, evgeny dodolev, will tell you about how

the so-called security forces, that is, people from the special services, manipulated me and my colleagues. i, of course, must immediately stipulate that this is not some specific local phenomenon, this is generally happening on a global scale, has happened, and apparently, it will happen as long as my profession exists and the profession of intelligence and counterintelligence exists, before in the soviet union, well, in the pre-perestroika era, say, before i entered the profession in 1985, of course, to recruit people there. but they were recruited not in order to manipulate their pen, topics, publications, choice of stories, but simply like they recruited people from any other branch, industry, because journalists wrote what needed to be written, there was the line of the government party, the so-called there was a very powerful institute of hydroprop,

everything developed, in general, according to verified algorithms. therefore, there was no need for the people of slubyanka to recruit journalists specifically as journalists, they were recruited in an obvious way, simply so that they would inform about the conversations that their colleagues were having, but this was not directly related to the profession. i remember that my colleague, vladimir mukusev, who was issuing views and presenting. glance, when i was working on my memoirs, he brought me some declassified documents from the committee state security, because in ninety-three he was a deputy of the supreme council, in my opinion, that’s what it was called then, or it was already a duma, it doesn’t matter, that is, he was a parliamentarian, as a parliamentarian, so he raised

documents and papers related to ... there i included his direct speech in the manuscript, of course, but with the reservation that i actually voiced to him then, that in principle this is like a working moment, this is not a denunciation that this person did something like that , he needs to be punished there for this, this kind of cooperation is absolutely not what i'm going to talk about, but what i'm going to talk about is about

manipulation, when journalists... are manipulated into thinking that they are doing their job, and often highly professional work, the very in fact, they serve the interests of this or that service, this or that department, in order to somehow not focus exclusively on the late soviet union, i must talk about the christian story that became the basis of the film green zone, green zone, in my opinion. it's in our rental it was called a hollywood film, don't take it alive or something like that, there mat damon plays the main role, this film is based on a real story, it actually tells how the war in iraq began, the war in iraq began with the filing of the wall street journal in the famous degree, that is, from a number of publications in the most respectable overseas newspaper, i

’ll tell you this scheme, which is universal for... for any country and for any period, how does it work? employee of the department, either openly, introducing himself as such, or in the dark getting acquainted with a journalist, in that story it was a very famous journalist from the wall street journal, and she leaks this or that information, reliable information, not necessarily sensational, but certainly reliable, over a fairly long period of not weeks. not months, we are talking about years, during this period, trust in this source is formed, the editorial office knows that this journalist or this journalist has so-called sources, this is the rule that sources are never handed over, they are never they call it, but only if it comes to some kind of judicial showdown, and then in general there

are a number of reservations. they know that there is a source, that this source is, firstly, verified, and secondly, very useful, this is a very... long game, that is, they work with a journalist so that at one wonderful or terrible moment, throw in information that could change the course of history, as was the case with the wall street journal, it was information about the presence of saddam hussein, well , he personally, of course, and iraq, weapons mass destruction, then, in fact, it was decided that it was necessary to send troops there, that is, it began...

general of the kgb of the ussr oleg danilovich kolugin, there was such a general, a very famous figure in the perestroika era. firstly, he was the youngest general. system of the kgb, he became a general when he was 40 years old, neither before him nor after this structure a general was made so early in the soviet union, not to mention, i don’t know what it is about the fsb and about the current times, here’s at that time he was the youngest general, the most promising, he saw himself, as he told me, in the future as the head of the state... security committee, because in general everything turned out more than successfully in his biography, he went to america and recruited a man there named cook, that is, that

was his call sign, who obtained some useful information, by the way, to america, again he told me, he went completely by accident, because he was an arabist, that is , he studied arabic, planned to work in the middle east, but then when it came to distribution, senior comrade looked at me, said: well, what kind of arab are you, you are such a typical american, you will go to america, and he went to america, undercover as a journalist, he went as a journalist who accompanied nikita sergeevich khrushchev, the then leader of the country, on his visit overseas, and witnessed the famous demarche of khrushchevsky, about which songs are written, when i say songs are written, i don’t... in a figurative sense, but there , in reality, in reality, songs are written about it, as if on the podium of the organization of the united nations, the leader of the soviet union tapped the podium with his shoe and said that he would show you

kuska’s mother, as interpreted by western journalists, he allegedly threatened to bury everyone there, literally, that is, translation, in fact, the son of nikita sergeevich. khrushchev sergei nikitovich khrushchev, who, by the way, lives in america, said that his father did not take off this shoe, that he, uh, dropped this shoe when he walked to the podium, took it in his hand, somehow it was very uncomfortable, he such a smart, large man, it was awkward to somehow take that boot back out on the heel, so his shoes remained in his hand when he entered... here is the enemy, he began to knock on the podium. it was a very noisy story, we still remember it, not in the best way, it affected the image

of the country, not to mention the rest of us.