A PHILOSOPHY FOR EVERYONE

- As far as I know, you were going to become a historian after finishing school. How come that you found yourself at the Department of Philosophy?

- Quite by chance, judging by the events. I matriculated in the History Department of then Leningrad State University under the "non-resident students" quota in Baku. However, after I passed entrance exams, I was proposed to study at Kiev State University's Department of Philosophy, to which I agreed. Back then, I was interested in my future career, not philosophy. And this department was quite prestigious at that time.

It had been quite a while before I realized that philosophy was what the fate had in store for me.

- In fact, philosophy has existed for as long as humankind. During this time, a huge number of ideas have been expressed, a lot of theories have been proposed and many doctrines have been established. Is it possible to say something new in philosophy, to express an idea which has never been articulated?

- Yes, of course! Philosophy is life, not theory. Even if a lot of people lived before us, it does not mean that we cannot live our own life. Even if all the problems of philosophy have been solved by other philosophers, this does not mean that one cannot create one's own philosophy. Philosophy, as I see it, is not a theory in which nobody returns to an already solved problem. Philosophy is the life that every person lives anew.

- So, life is philosophy. Are they identical?

- Not really. True, philosophy has to do with life and experiences. More precisely, philosophy is an experience of interpreting a meaning, an experience of comprehending. In this context, I define philosophy as the study of meaning. This is my own definition.

- But every person comprehends meanings in their own way. It follows, in particular, that each philosopher has their own philosophy. Of course, one's own philosophy is of absolute value to its proponent. But what is the value of such a philosophy to others?

- It is an experience of comprehension! A philosophical text cannot be viewed as an exposition of ready-made ideas and provisions. It is no more than someone's particular experience of comprehending certain issues. However, people must answer questions facing them on their own! Nobody can solve the problem of the purpose of your life instead of you. This is a purely personal matter, just like all philosophical questions.

- What ideas developed by philosophy may, in your opinion, help an "outside" person, as the classic put it, in this lost world?

- I think we should be very serious about F. Dostoyevsky's prophecy that, in the 21st century, all external human problems will be solved, and they will move from the outside to the inside of the human being. Personally, I see a strong tendency towards this prophecy coming true. I imagine quite clearly how urgent problems of our life can be solved by using electronic technologies. Then a person will only have internal mental and spiritual problems. Everything is going to be good and comfortable on the outside, whereas inside us, not everything will be so smooth.

- What does it mean to have a philosophical attitude towards life? Based on what you said earlier, it looks like a philosophical attitude means a meaningful attitude. Is it so?

- Not only that. Comprehending is but one aspect of philosophy. Most philosophers were doing just that, namely, they sought to comprehend the meaning of meaninglessness, as existentialist philosophers say. However, we must also comprehend the meaninglessness of meaning! Only this combination can form a philosophical attitude towards the world and philosophical detachment on which wisdom is built.

Wisdom involves understanding. And if you really understand, nothing can surprise you. If a person thinks that he/she understands and still feels indignant, it means that he/she does not understand in fact. His/her mind is set on confrontation rather than harmony with the world. I minted a saying in the manner of Taoism: he who understands does not resent, he who resents does not understand.

- Interesting. So, the mind can create an obstacle to understanding...

- Mind is a tool for action, with the help of the mind a person decides what to do and how to act. Mind is not God, as is believed by many people including philosophers, but rather a tool that can be used for different purposes. With it, a person sets himself/herself in opposition to the world. As a rule, the mind is not set on understanding the world. Furthermore, the mind draws conclusions that create problems for human beings.

- How can we set ourselves up for understanding then?

- Proceed from the fact that nothing is unambiguous in the mind. I came to the conclusion that this is one of the most important ideas of philosophy, if not the most important one.

- Can we not think at all?

- It is impossible. Man is always thinking and cannot get rid of thoughts. Thoughts differ in their content and levels of thinking, but they are sure to accompany a person throughout his/her life. Only thoughts should not be absolutized. You can absolutize them and achieve success on this basis, but this will not bring you wisdom, understanding and peace of mind, whereas philosophy is the love of wisdom.

- So, does wisdom mean inaction?

- Certainly not. On the contrary, wisdom is a productive activity yielding effective results. Meanwhile, wisdom's productivity is ensured by inner peace and mental tranquillity that is based on an understanding of the limitations of our mind.

- Wisdom is often associated with aphorisms...

- It is natural. Aphorisms are the poetry of philosophy.

- Do you have your own aphorisms?

- I think that without them, the process of philosophizing is impossible.

- Can you give us examples?

- I will not insist that the following are aphorisms, but you can surely call them sayings. A fool perceives the world as a kaleidoscope of chances, a wise person, as harmony. You have to be strong so that others would reckon with your weaknesses. Man is humiliated by self-pity and dignified by pity for others. There is one basic truth for every man at all times: everything is perfect in the world; it is just I who is imperfect. Everything is simple in the world but it is hard to reach this simplicity.

- You argue and write a lot about freedom. You also dwelled on this subject in your doctoral thesis "Freedom as the Ideal of Spiritual Life within the System of Religious and Philosophical Beliefs". Can you tell us something about it what others have not said?

- Spinoza, Hegel and Marx traced freedom to cognized necessity. Immanuel Kant, an ingenious thinker, saw it in good will. He moved freedom's centre of gravity from the necessity to good will. Even at the level of everyday consciousness, freedom is associated with human desires. Prior to Kant, European philosophers denied this.

From my point of view, however, freedom involves not only the will, although it is inconceivable without the will, but also conscience. The only freedom a person can gain during his/her life is the freedom of conscience. In all other cases, what we usually have in mind is not freedom but liberty, and to be more precise, arbitrariness. To exercise freedom means no more than to live in accordance with one's own conscience liberated from captivity, which is repressed today by reason, science, practicability, benefits, rights, comforts, prosperity, wealth, pleasure, and other values for the sake of which a person is ready to justify the enslavement of his/her conscience.

- How is the freedom of conscience linked with the freedom of religion, which is enshrined in current constitutions and spoken about in political circles?

- In no way. This is like the national idea in philosophy and politics. In philosophy, it is the meaning and purpose of a nation in the historical process; in politics, it is nothing more than political ideology. In my opinion, freedom of conscience is one thing and freedom of religion is quite another. By the way, while freedom of religion can be guaranteed by a constitution, I cannot imagine how this is possible in relation to freedom of conscience. Can a constitution guarantee that a person will act and live according to one's conscience? Are there political and legal mechanisms for that? Conscience has actually been driven out of the social, political and legal life, and has already become an archaic concept. Today we are talking about the value of the rule-of-law state. Of course, it is preferable to a society where there is no law at all. But the value of the rule of law evidences the lack of conscience in public relations. If people would live in good conscience, there would be no need for law any longer.

- Can we say that conscience, as Kant put it, is the moral law inside me?

- Yes, exactly. Moreover, morality is not just setting our minds on good, but having a law that actually governs our entire life. Usually, we associate law with legislative acts, but legislative acts cannot even compare with the law of God. Legislative acts are relative, whereas the law of God is absolute. We can dodge the requirements of legislative acts but can never avoid the action of the law of God!

- Society is the epitome of reason. Hence, to live in a society is a temptation for a human being...

- I keep telling you that nothing is unambiguous. On the one hand, this is a great temptation, but on the other, it is a huge opportunity for development. Modern society has many evils, but it also has its advantages. Society has a deep spiritual and even religious meaning.

- What is the spiritual meaning of modern society?

- Society is a condition and an opportunity for spiritual development. Society is like a hospital: you can continue to be ill, you can even get infected with other diseases, but you can be cured, too.

- What about the nation?

- It is a form of existence of culture. After all, culture always bears national traits.

- What is tolerance, from your point of view?

- The right of others to be different from you.

- What do we need for this?

- Culture.

- In fact, all the problems of modern society can be reduced to this prerequisite.

- I completely agree. It does not change anything. Culture is the immediate content of public life. In the words of N. Berdyaev, the value and quality of social life is measured by the level of culture.

- Until recently, the common sign of the significance of a certain phenomenon was the phrase "for all people". Now another expression has been put into practice as a synonym for elitism - "not for all people". We talk about movies, books and many other things that are not for all people. Is philosophy for all or not for all people?

- Firstly, philosophy is not for all people, it is for each person. Because, one way or another, everyone has to comprehend one's own life and actions. Secondly, although philosophy is for everyone, not everyone is for philosophy.

OUR REFERENCE: 

Ibrahim Mustafa oglu Malikov was born in 1963. In 1985, he graduated from the Philosophy Department of T. Shevchenko Kiev State University, and in 1988, he completed a postgraduate course with M. Lomonosov Moscow State University. He defended his master's thesis that same year and took his PhD in 2005. In 2011, he was awarded the title of professor.

In 1989-2003, he was lecturing at various Moscow universities, and since 2003, he has been working at Russian State Social University.

He is the author of more than 150 works, such as scholarly papers, manuals on instruction methods and writings on current affairs, including the monographs "Freedom in Spiritual Life" (Moscow, 2002) and "Spiritual Existence of Freedom" (Moscow, 2013) and the textbook "Philosophy: The Spiritual Activity of Man" (Moscow, 1998).

His main area of research is the spiritual aspects of human existence.

- A fool perceives the world as a kaleidoscope of chances, a wise person, as harmony

- You have to be strong so that others would reckon with your weaknesses

- Man is humiliated by self-pity and dignified by pity for others

- Everything is perfect in the world; it is just I who is imperfect

- Everything is simple in the world but it is hard to reach this simplicity