Вступ

The book you hold in your hands did not cost me much effort, unless, of course, one considers the study of philosophy, logic, and the sorrows of life that led to it, a great effort. My sorrows were mostly exaggerated by myself. I am sure that no less grief has fallen to the lot of other people. The situation is somewhat worse with my awareness of general unpleasantnesses and my own melancholic character.

This book, not being widely known, has already received several critical reviews, but not because it contains viewpoints that have no right to exist, but because it mostly corresponds to the nature of pessimism and nihilism. Be that as it may, all these viewpoints, I am sure, are very practical; more than once, pessimism has confirmed its truth in practical life. In this book, I warn people who consider themselves optimists or idealists against mistakes that can be made in their lives. Every time I deviated from my ideas, I encountered exactly such mistakes.

The book is the fruit of objective critical self-analysis and logical conclusions based on induction, provided that the general is somehow already contained in the particular. This is the case, for example, with people, because what is contained in people is also contained in an individual as a representative of the human race. Conclusions about one person, after a little consideration, can become general conclusions, that is, true for other people as well. I never tried to fit facts to conclusions, as some philosophers did. I consider this unacceptable and leading to serious deceptions. I did not set out to prove what I liked more, or those old views that had been instilled in me by someone else; I simply drew conclusions and tried to be objective in all matters, as far as was possible.

I am confident that much of what I arrived at through my reasoning has also been reached by other philosophers, but all these views seemed to synthesize within me into some system of views, again, I would like to use the words "objective views." All philosophers who claim that their views are independent of the views of other philosophers exaggerate their capabilities. Every philosopher must have been influenced by another. Even when one philosopher contradicted another, it was an influence of the philosopher he contradicted. Complete independence of views is something that goes beyond the normal or possible and can well be considered something mystical.

I never intended to write a book; it spontaneously formed from my notes in notebooks and journals. I am generally pleased with this, as the intention to write a book often makes the text overly subjective and can even be fanatical. And I would attribute such characteristics to fiction, some fantasy or a novel, but certainly not to philosophy. Perhaps this is what Nietzsche wanted to say with the words: "I will no longer read an author if I notice that he deliberately wanted to write a book; I will only read those authors whose ideas spontaneously formed a book." Perhaps this is the only person who could truly appreciate this work. But for me, the main thing, as it should be for all philosophers, is not the evaluation of judgments, but their truth or falsity, especially since evaluation is always subjective in its form, and like any subjectivity, it is only possibly true.

New philosophy should not include discussions about physics; science has moved forward and now does not need philosophy. Philosophy's role here is only the question of the value of science itself and its truth in general. New philosophy should not contain metaphysical considerations, as in ancient Greece or the Middle Ages, not to mention ancient China. People have fantasized enough in the past, which generally provided a basis for rational considerations. Although the temptation to indulge in metaphysical considerations is very great, and it is known to every philosopher. As for rationality and logic, they must be present in philosophy as methods for achieving new philosophical truths. But the true modern face of philosophy is postmodernism, irrationalism, existentialism, and even nihilism, general questions about meaning, truth, value, necessity, and randomness. Perceiving and reasoning about the world and life using philosophical categories.

The initial task of this small book was simply to systematize some of my own views on life problems, so to speak, to define my worldview position at the level of universal ethical and life problems. Since these problems, due to their uncertainty, prevented me from moving on to more precise problems of logic and dialectics, I decided to finally resolve and strengthen my worldview at this stage with the help of this book. That is, it was meant to be a kind of reminder for myself. But then a new task appeared - the search for irrefutable truths, as is characteristic of all philosophical reflections. In addition, with my audacity, which consists in criticizing conventional views, I intend to provoke protests against myself, thereby forcing others to reflect on things that have long lost relevance in the era of the "money-sexual revolution." To further ignite the spirit of protest, I declare that I am the only true nihilist philosopher at this time. In turn, to the best of my intellectual abilities, together with historical rebel philosophers, I intend to shake generally accepted views. After all, reasoning becomes interesting precisely when you start cutting, dividing, gluing various kinds of ideas, testing thoughts for strength, and dogmatism is stagnation for the mind. I am not only talking about religious dogmas; moral, ethical, social, and other established dogmas fall into my field of vision. It is impossible to remain a dogmatist and accept everything that is presented to us as true. Sometimes these views cease to satisfy the inherent craving of free minds for higher rationality. The indignation at the unjustified nature of many imposed ideas about the world soon takes over. All this forces one to eventually leave the "public hall for brain ennoblement," slamming the door loudly. I did this too, by writing this book. I warn you in advance - it won't be easy, but if you choose the easier path, what merit is there in that?