Philosophy of the name. The concept of "energy"

Florensky's closest opponent is Kant. To build an alternative system to Kant's, Florensky turns to the language of Greek philosophy. European philosophy, which learned primarily from the Latins, thinks in opposition to “substance” (“essence”) and “accident” (“appearance”).

The Greek pair of concepts “ousia” () and “energeia” () is not a complete analogue of the Latin pair (the Romans, who once adopted philosophy from the Greeks, were not able to “translate” everything into their language; Greek thought grasped reality more deeply). The Greek "ousia" is an essence, but "energeia" is not a synonym for "appearance". Florensky writes that more or less the meaning of this Greek concept is preserved in the natural science term “energy”.

The thing is not just indifferent shows herself, which is implied by the word “appearance” (“phenomenon”), she carries itself outward. The existence of a thing is bidirectional: 1) deep (essence) and 2) external (energy).

Only a dead, inanimate thing does not have its own energy, writes Florensky, only nothing carries itself outside. In this sense, everything speaks and everything that exists speaks with its entire being.

Cognition, according to Florensky, not contemplation(this would be the case if the thing were simply a phenomenon, and the cognizing subject was an observer), and the interaction of two energies(the knower and the known).

If the energies of the knower and the known interact, resonance occurs. Something third appears, which was not previously in either one or the other - "synergy".

This clot of energy is concentrated in word. The word, therefore, according to Florensky, is a kind of physical reality, and not just a sign marking a thing.

The word, Florensky writes, is the result of cognition, which is an act of interaction between two essences, their energies; like a child, it is neither father nor mother, but just like they are real. When I characterize a thing in an act of cognition with a word, this word for me carries the essence of the thing itself (the energy of a thing is not the same as its essence, but it carries this essence, it is not a phenomenon indifferent to the essence). When I express myself to another, this word for him is myself.

A word can kill, a word can save (this is normal). Florensky talks about the “magic of words.” The word has power (the word is a carrier of energy). The word in general. In particular Name. In particular - personal name.

Proper name in linguistic substance is no different from common noun, except that it is written with a capital letter. Or let's say: accents. When we call a thing a common noun, we mean a certain feature in it that we recognize as essential because we are going to use it for something (a common noun expresses a functional relationship to things (this is a chair, it interests me only insofar as it you can sit)).

When we call a thing by its proper name, the object of our attention is it itself in its uniqueness. And this selfhood, its individuality, we, according to Florensky, can express in a word (although, perhaps, the same word, written with a small letter, denotes a class of objects).

We can call it by name (so, of course, first of all, we address a person, but we can easily treat a person as a thing, as a function).

Florensky speaks about this, in particular, in his work “Imeslavie as a philosophical prerequisite.” People (even not just philosophers) are divided into two camps, into two different types of understanding of the world (“Imeslavtsy” and “Imebortsy”), depending on their attitude to the word.

If we believe that a thing carries itself outside and the essence of a thing is captured in words, then we claim that people can know something generally valid about things (this means that the world is knowable, the essence of things is one way or another open to man).

Otherwise, if we (like Kant, for example) consider that a thing gives itself only as a phenomenon, and a word is just a sign denoting a phenomenon. Then in this case, any human theory will be recognized by us as just a private opinion, it will be just one of the possible theories.

Florensky has a work called “Names”. Florensky describes the characteristic features of the bearer of each name (assuming that the name given at birth largely determines the essence of a person). A sort of “Orthodox horoscope”.

As the starting point for his reasoning, Florensky takes the theological dispute about the Name of God, which broke out on Mount Athos at the beginning of the 20th century (1912-1913). They argued about whether God himself was present in the Name of God. It is clear that, according to Florensky, it is present (with its energy). He defends the point of view of the Imeslavites. And it is also clear that for the philosopher Florensky this applies not only to such a “thing” as God, but also to any other thing.

Lecture seven.

From a letter from P.A. Florensky to his family from the Solovetsky camp from April 8-10, 1936.

The name itself does not make a person good or bad; it is only a musical form from which one can write a work, both good and bad. The name can be compared with hria, that is, the method of distribution and correlation of the main parts and elements of an essay, but it is not the name that creates the theme of the essay or its quality. And then, it is necessary to reason, starting from the specific conditions of time, place, environment, wishes, etc., and draw a conclusion about the suitability or unsuitability of the name to these conditions.

A positive name, that is, without internal breakdowns and complications, but also without inspiration, Andrey. A hot name, with temperament and some elementality, Peter. From short names, on the border with good simplicity, Ivan. Twisting and dialectical, with corresponding contradictions and dynamics, - Paul. Also complex in its own way, but with a bias towards pretentiousness and an artificial, bloodless approach to life, curling around random phenomena - Theodore. A fiery name if possible and very spiritual in nature, but in unsuitable conditions it can give heaviness and clumsiness (like a fish on dry land or, more precisely, like a wet bird) - Michael. Alexander- the most harmonious name, the name of great people, but it becomes a claim if there is no strength to fill it with proper content. Alexey- close to Ivan, but with a cunning, somewhat on his own mind. A pleasant name, but not one of the highest, Novel. Georgiy gives activity, at best, objectively aimed at higher goals, at worst - at organizing one’s own life affairs; Nikolai- also activity, but somewhat elementary directed; the name is good in relation to helping others, so to speak, helping the nearest. Sergey- the name is subtle, but several. fragile, without a core, and Sergei needs some kind of pairing, without this he cannot develop the fullness of his energies. Love the name Isaac, but for us it is associated with associations that complicate the path of life. It seems to me that one should not take Slavic Scandinavian names. They smell like something fictitious, some kind of masquerade as “truly Russian.” In addition, due to their youth, they are not sufficiently kneaded, are probably unstable and, in any case, are poorly studied and recognized - Vsevolod, Oleg, Igor, Svyatoslav, Yaroslav. I would prefer a name that is reliable, tried and true. There are very few female names at all. The best, of course, is Maria, the most feminine, balanced and internally harmonious, kind. In second place is Anna, also very good, but with imbalance, a predominance of emotions over the mind. Julia- the name is capricious and eccentric, it is very difficult to work with it. Elena- not bad, but with cunning. Anna corresponds to John. Natalia- an honest name, but life is difficult. Varvara- eccentric nobility, demonstrative generosity, exaggerated directness, Varvara’s life is difficult due to her own fault. Nina is a light name, feminine, slightly frivolous, that is, rather shallow. Pelagia- a meek name. IN Daria management, not entirely feminine. IN Valentina- masculine traits, very unsuitable for a woman. Praskovya- internal severity, the name is good, but rather monastic. Sofia- management, organization. abilities and, in connection with this, the habit of standing above others around. Faith- a tragic name, with impulses towards self-sacrifice, but usually unnecessary, invented from a heated imagination. Well, you can’t go through all the names<...>Yes, another of the male names is benign Adrian, a calm and solid name, without breaks, but shallow. When choosing, it is difficult to decide what to want: a relatively calm, smooth existence, but without inner brilliance, or to take risks in depth and possible strength, but with possible breakdowns and failures.

See also the fundamental work of Father Pavel Florensky “NAMES”:
http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/philos/florensk/floren03.htm

Priest Pavel Florensky. Names. Vol. 1. M., 1993. Preparation of the text by Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) and S. L. Kravets. After the publication of this book, the publication of excerpts from it began in various publications, for example: Name-destiny: A book for parents and godparents. M., 1993

12.01.2017. The coming 2017 is the year of the 100th anniversary of the Revolution. We understand perfectly well that this year we will face a wave of unbridled anti-revolutionary and anti-Bolshevik propaganda: the post-Soviet ruling classes, scoundrels and scoundrels who have criminally appropriated Soviet state property, for fear of losing this property will, using corrupt intellectuals, tell us fairy tales and legends about “terrible Bolsheviks”, about the “bloody revolution” and glorify the pre-revolutionary scoundrels and scoundrels who were rightly punished by the Revolution. We consider it our sacred duty to fight back against these lies.

Taking advantage of the fact that January of this year marks the 135th anniversary of the birth of Pavel Florensky, we - as the first salvo of our counter-propaganda campaign - are publishing materials exposing this figure, proclaimed by the sufferers of the “Russia that they lost” by the “Russian Leonardo”, “ a universal genius,” etc. Article by Michael Hagemeister “New Middle Ages” by Pavel Florensky convincingly shows that the “great philosopher” Florensky was a complete nonentity in philosophical terms, Florensky’s “original cosmology” is nothing more than mystical nonsense, he was proclaimed an “outstanding electrical engineer” because he wrote a banal textbook on electrical engineering (compiled, like all textbooks ), and ideologically Florensky was a direct predecessor of fascism. As an Appendix to this article, we publish materials showing the unsightly role of Florensky in inciting pogrom sentiments and “justifying” the blood libel against Jews during the “Beilis Affair” and later - a role that is all the more vile and vile because Florensky did it all secretly, on the sly, thereby exposing his friend Vasily Rozanov. And the article by Vladislav Lomanov Mathematical views of Father Pavel Florensky shows that the “great mathematician” Florensky was in fact a mathematical dummy who tried to replace science with mystical nonsense. We even refuse to refute the fantastic stories about how Florensky, in the Solovetsky camp in a Russian furnace, was the first in the world to make plastic, due to their obvious delusion.

We remind readers that we have already exposed another “ruler of thoughts” of sufferers in pre-revolutionary Russia - the fascist Ivan Ilyin - in the material of Ernst Henry Professional anti-communists and the Reichstag fire . And he exposes another icon of these sufferers - Alexander III - in his brilliant article “There is a chest of drawers on the ground...” Nikolai Troitsky.

And about what In fact there was pre-revolutionary Russia, we talked about it in the materials of Sergei Elpatievsky "Cursed City" , Alexandra Tarasova “Do you remember, comrade, how it all began?” , Agnessa Dombrovskaya, Georgy Petrov Leo Tolstoy's excommunication from the church , Vasily Babkina New materials about the class struggle of peasants in 1812. , Leonard Glebov-Lenzner

Systematization and connections

Natural philosophy

Philosophy of Science and Technology

Science and technology

The founder of the rectangular coordinate system and the foundations of analytical geometry, Rene Descartes /1596-1650/, once proved a remarkable theorem: “The number of positive roots of any algebraic equation of degree n is equal to (or an even number less than) the number of sign changes in the series of coefficients Aо, A1, . ..An equation".

In addition to this, Descartes indicates by what algebraic technique one can determine the number of negative roots of a polynomial of degree n.

In general, the total number of positive and negative roots of any polynomial of degree n (according to Descartes) can be equal to or less than n. Thus, Descartes completely justifiably denied imaginary and “complex” roots when solving algebraic equations, understanding that all these “imaginaries” and “complexities” inevitably come into conflict / as befits any mathematical casuist / with real human practice and the results of processing experimental data. data. This is despite the fact that Descartes already knew that both some of his contemporaries and predecessors: Ferro (1456 - 1526), ​​Tartaglia (1499-1557), Ferrari (1522-1565)/, had already given the number √-1 some kind of then a special mystical experience hidden from human consciousness and they used it under the symbol i (imagination) when solving algebraic equations of the 3rd and 4th degree.

And one of the world’s outstanding mathematicians, Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), two hundred years after Descartes, essentially distorted his theorem by allowing the possibility of the appearance of imaginaries (“complex roots”), thereby continuing, following Cauchy, the further diversion of mathematics from applied problems towards mysticism and fruitless mathematical games.

In this regard, our compatriot Pavel Florensky (1882-1943) in his work “Imaginaries in Geometry” (ed. “Pomorie”, M., 1922) wrote: “The discovery of Gauss - Cauchy gave a lot, they will probably say. Yes, but the discovery of Descartes and the theory of the real variable, which is related to it, gave even more. for the sake of Descartes and geometric conformity, exclusive loyalty to Cauchy?

Yes, in order to avoid escaping reality through the notorious imaginaries, it is possible to manipulate within certain boundaries with the original coordinate system (mainly by parallel translation of the original abscissa axis), but only in such a way that these manipulations do not change the geometric appearance of the function.

The resulting new analytical notation of the function is slightly different from the original one, but for a researcher who does not break with practice, the most important thing is to preserve the geometric form of the original functional relationship. Otherwise, an unacceptable distortion of the experimental results on the basis of which the real function was obtained is obtained.

"Equation" x² ± px +q = 0 at (p/2)² - q< 0 является неправомерным (нелегитимным), поскольку соответствующая параболическая функция y = x² ± px + q при (p/2)² - q < 0 для любых значений x (-∞, + ∞) принимает значения у >0. In other words, the parabola y = x² ± px + q lies above the x-axis.

Accordingly, the illegitimacy (falsity) of the “equation” x² ± px + q = 0 for (p/2)² - q< 0 аксиоматична, во-первых, ввиду того, что лингвистической и логическая суть слова "уравнение" на любом языке означает: то что лежит слева от знака "=", ничем не отличается от того, что лежит справа от этого знака. Здесь же левая часть никогда не равна 0, и справедливым является только неравенство x² ± px + q >0 for all x.

Secondly, the illegitimacy of such “quasi-equations” cannot be challenged by any “imaginist” unless he has forgotten the textbook mathematical truth: there is no place for imaginary and complex numbers on the number axis.

For example, consider a three-term parabola: y = x² + 4x + 8. This parabola lies entirely above the x-axis. Therefore it has no real roots. Its “imaginary roots” are: xm1 = -2, +2i; xm2 = -2i, -2i. If we replace i with -1 in these “roots”, we get xn1 = -4, xn2 = 0.

Now let's move the x-axis of the original coordinate system up 8 units, which only means moving the reference point when measuring y in some experiment. Thus, we obtain a parabola yn = x² + 4x, which in geometric shape does not differ from the original one, but gives two real roots xg1 = -4; xg2= 0, identical to the corresponding roots xn1, xn2, obtained as a result of the only correct interpretation: √-1 = -1.

However, directly replacing i with -1 gives the correct real roots in rare cases where the "complex roots" of the "quasi-equations" are not subradical, as in the example given.

And the Gaussite-Cauchists, having combined a function together with its argument into one awkward argument, subordinated this pair to a third far-fetched, perverted function. Thus, for example, a circle in their “complex coordinate system” turns into two pear-shaped figures connected by narrow necks, and in this way all these ugly “homoteties” (almost “homosexuals”) and other “curvatures of space-time” are born.

It was this fact that Pavel Florensky noted: “After all, in the theory of functions of a complex variable, the entire plane is occupied by the image of the independent variable (new - paired argument - L.Ch.), and therefore the dependent variable (new, mystical function - L.Ch.) does nothing There is no choice but to place ourselves on an independent plane, absolutely unconnected with the first one.”

Fornication with crafty imaginaries is not the only annoying mistake of Gauss in mathematics. He, one of the first among the “non-Euclideans,” began to become infected with the bacillus of denial of Euclidean geometry. However, this “virus” could not completely overcome Gauss, as it defeated Lobachevsky, so Gauss did not even dare to publish his rough sketches and calculations on this topic. At the same time, in 1817, in a letter to Olbers, Gauss wrote: “I am increasingly coming to the conviction that the necessity of our (?) geometry cannot be proven, at least by the human mind for the human mind.” This is, perhaps, the apotheosis of the unhealthy mysticism of a forty-year-old genius. But, as soon as someone believes this thesis is true in relation to the geometry of Euclid, which finds visible embodiment everywhere on the planet, then it is even more true for all pseudo-Euclidean geometries that existed only in the heads of their creators, and still exist only in the imaginations of rare adherents and successors of "pseudo-Euclideanism".

One of the most prolific creators of this science-science, Leonhard Euler /1707-1783/, made two similar Gaussian errors in mathematics a hundred years before Gauss.

The first was that he gave an incorrect analytical representation of Newton's second law of mechanics. Thanks to Euler’s unquestioned authority in the scientific world, this error has firmly taken root in physics and continues to reign there to this day, stubbornly challenging many experimental facts. Only one famous scientist, Wolfgang Pauli, while still a 20-year-old student, in his monograph “The Theory of Relativity,” suspected the Euler formula of dynamic force to be at odds with experiments and proposed that the real dynamic force be considered what was called “quantity of motion.” But, having become a famous scientist, Pauli succumbed to the general self-hypnosis of physicists on this issue and forgot about his youthful insight.

Euler's second mistake was that he significantly expanded the mathematical "mastery" of the theory of functions of a complex variable, formally expressing the functions sinŹ and cosZ through imaginaries. And this, in turn, gave false formulas in trigonometry, analytical and differential geometry, which entered into irreconcilable contradictions with the theories of a real variable and natural geometry based on Euclidean “Principles”.

These and similar “harmless”, unintentional mistakes of the geniuses of science turned into “legalized” absurdities and solipsism in physics and, accordingly, the reckoning of humanity with “accidental” human tragedies “for technical reasons”.

Literature

1. Pavel Florensky. Imaginaries in geometry, M., "Lazur", 1991

2. Filchakov P.F. Handbook of Higher Mathematics, "Naukova Dumka", Kyiv, 1973

3. Chulkov L.E. Numbers-anarchists, International Union of Public Associations "World Fund for Planet Earth", M., 2004.

“The deepest philosophers, especially at the heights of their reflections, have always gravitated toward speculation over numbers.”
P.A. Florensky

In Platonism, mathematics and, in particular, the problem of number have always been given a lot of attention. Russian religious philosophers, close to Platonism, inherit this tradition. The philosophy of mathematics is most strongly developed by P.A. Florensky and A.F. Loseva. Florensky, moreover, received a professional mathematical education. Florensky’s views on mathematics as a way of understanding the world make it possible to understand his ideas about scientific knowledge in general, and therefore to see the internal motivation of his natural science activities (especially in the 20-30s). This problem is discussed in the article by V.A. Shaposhnikov “The category of number in the concrete metaphysics of Pavel Florensky” (2009). Here are excerpts from the work:

"Philosophy of Fr. Pavel Florensky, representing a modern version of Platonism, naturally assigns a prominent role to NUMBER. Number occupied a special place in the ontological hierarchy already in Plato; This category is no less significant in the dialectical constructions of Plotinus and Proclus.
“Numbers,” writes Florensky in connection with the conversation about the dogma of the Trinity, “generally turn out to be irreducible from anything else, and all attempts at such deduction suffer a decisive collapse, and, at best, when they apparently lead to something, they suffer petitio principii. A number can only be derived from a number - not otherwise. And since the deepest characteristic of entities is connected precisely with numbers, the Pythagorean-Platonic conclusion naturally suggests itself that numbers are the basic, beyond-empirical roots of things, a kind of thing in itself. In this sense, the conclusion again suggests itself that things, in a certain sense, are phenomena of absolute, transcendental numbers”...

In 1923, Florensky planned to publish the book “Number as Form” (the publication did not take place), just as for “Imaginaries in Geometry” (1922) the cover for it was drawn by V. A. Favorsky. In the programmatic introduction “Pythagorean Numbers” (1922) written for this book, Fr. Paul says: “Completely unnoticed by itself, science returns to the Pythagorean idea of ​​​​the expressibility of everything by an integer and, therefore, of the essential characteristic of everything - the number inherent in it.”

Nevertheless, Fr. continues. Pavel, there is no clarity with the very concept of number. A number is not just a set of units; its integrity, its individual form is important to us. “Number is a certain prototype, an ideal scheme, a primary category of thinking and being. It is some intelligent primitive organism, qualitatively different from other similar organisms - numbers.” Florensky sees the most important advance towards such an understanding of number in the teaching of G. Cantor about “types of order” (= ideal numbers), which, like natural numbers, are understood as abstractions that arise as a result of abstraction from the nature of the elements of a set. A type of order is “a certain single organic whole, consisting of various units that maintain among themselves - in one or more respects - a certain mutual order.” This material is abstract units, subordinated to some form (establishing a certain order between them). Florensky’s summary of Cantor’s theory of ordinal types is as follows: “If the theory of multiple-extended types of order had been sufficiently developed, then a single number would express the most complex structure of natural objects, and a powerful tool would be forged for the knowledge of reality, as the kingdom of forms.”

Florensky speaks in this work about the structural nature of number. The simplest form of structuring a number is to write it according to a number system with one base or another. Florensky calls this “the image of a number.” If a number is understood as having a form, then it does not matter which system it is represented by. Some systems may be natural, some may not. If we have a fairly rich selection of bases, including variables, then this “allows us to express the internal rhythm and structure of the phenomenon under discussion with the numbers themselves.” “If the counting were actually done correctly, i.e. without distorting the structure of what is counted, and therefore according to the number system characteristic of a given phenomenon, then the number would really express the essence of the phenomenon - directly according to Pythagoras. This explains the deepest need to study numbers - specific, depicted numbers - as individuals, as primitive organisms, patterns and prototypes of everything structured and organized.”

Another question that interests Fr. Pavel, is a question about invariants when changing the base of the number system. In his work “Number as Form,” Florensky examines two simple algorithms that have already been used historically, but without justification, and sometimes unconsciously: reducing numbers and raising numbers. This, says Fr. Paul, the simplest of techniques “capturing the internal rhythm of number, its Pythagorean music.” So, mathematics appears in these arguments of Florensky as the science of NUMBER, and number-form as a universal subject of mathematics...

Platonism o. Paul appears as name-glorification, on the one hand, and Pythagoreanism, on the other. Everything for him has both internal (noumenal, spiritual) and external (phenomenal, material) sides. The manifestation of an idea is always antinomic: a single eidos appears both as a name and as a number, manifests itself both as a thing and as a person. Florensky's understanding of number is an attempt to demonstrate the correctness of the basic intuitions of the Pythagorean-Platonic approach to the nature of number. Thus, the conclusion reached by Oscar Becker that the Greek concept of “arhythmos” is not narrower, as is usually believed, but wider than our concept of “number”, finds diverse confirmation in Fr. Pavel. Number-network, number-structure turns out to be a universal subject of mathematics for Florensky: every holistic phenomenon must be characterized mathematically by an integral object - a “type of order”, a Pythagorean number-form. It is in this direction that he hopes for the development of mathematics.

Mathematics appears for Fr. Paul as the basis of “negative philosophy”, the philosophy of the possible, - without the proper development of which, without this knowledge of the “prototypes of all relationships between beings” it is impossible to build a positive philosophy, a philosophy of the real, concrete metaphysics. The schemes of pure mathematics - in themselves abstract, rigid, “dead” - captured by the dialectical movement of thought - “become concretized”, lose their rigidity, “come to life”, the bones become covered with flesh and begin to move and act. Dialectics deals with border phenomena, with what happens on the border - the mirror surface - the meeting and demarcation of internal and external, noumenal and phenomenal, spiritual and material, personality and thing, etc. What exists on the border is a symbol. It is here that the true meaning of mathematics is revealed - mathematical schemes, being placed on the border, reveal their meaning as symbols that live only at the point of meeting between the earthly and the upper.”