Detail príspevku/publikácie

Abstrakt

It is principally necessary to distinguish the gnoseological question of the independence of being from consciousness and the ontological question of the mode of being. We apprehend cognitively only the modes of being (esse specificum). The cognitive activity develps from practical impulses to take hold cognitively of concrete qualites of being, i. e. of ist concrete connections and contradictions. The mode of existence of every concrete object is expressed by mutual connections, operations and contradictions. If I take into consideration a very essential motional and dynamical aspect of the object, I say that the mode of existence of the object is expressed by its dialectial-štructural relations and connections. The objects and facts are junctures of mutual and contradictory operations of a qualitatively infinitely varied reality. From the point of view of the philosophical notion of matter all concrete reality is referred to as material being. This being, i. e. the being with definite ways of manifestation, is nowhere, not even in its deepest layers, homogenous and static. A definite concrete mode of being is already an objekt however rudimentary or with successive gradations of differentiation. Objectivization is the process of transition from being outside our consciousness into the forms or modes of empirical-practical objects. In the cognitive-practical activity we, by the intrinsic force of an active subject, annex or transform being into the concrete reality. Effective activity of people is conditioned by the dialectics of the change of the world and of a self-change. The mission of a positive activity of people is a striving for a change of the world that evokes new subjective forces as a source of further revolutionary changes of the existential conditions of people. The reception of objects of the concrete world is always conditioned allso by our practical experiences and erudition. We never can acquire the being beyond us in a desubjectivized form. Whant in the situation granted is presented in a definite, concrete way, determined also by the level of knowlege, apperars different in another historical situation. A complex recognition of history is at the same time a self-recognition of mankind, because it is just the historical human practice that determines the concrete formation of the stream of history. The deepest sense of historical development is the achieving of always more perfect negentropically realized states of social structure, the acquiring of always more effectively differentiated and organized social connections in the chain of dialectical-historical negations.