S. Chernov. Zero Philosophy

… Gives itself a senseless possibility of an extrasensory experience, directly contradicting itself (to represent the transcendent as immanent) and is  based   on   the   well-known  secret   school of thought called  mysticism, which  is the direct  opposite  to all philosophy…

[AA, VIII, S. 441] 

S. Chernov

S. Chernov

In  the  past  two  decades, the  mystical mood   in  Russia   has  spread  virtually unchecked,  leading people away  from  reality: people would see  what  is not  there  rather than  what  really  is. The state  of society,  the spiritual atmosphere is such  that  these  sentiments do not only master the “masses”, but scientists —  those   who  seek  to  know   the truth of being and  should help others  to dis- tinguish reality  from fantasy and  deception.

What   constitutes  the   problem  that   is most   interesting  philosophically? Where would we like to achieve  clarity? First of all, let’s  come  to  the  very  concept   of  “mysticism.” Mystic usually denotes something mysterious, incomprehensible, yet vital, therefore causing feelings  of reverence, awe or fear — in short,  something mysterious and significant. We are  talking about  something incomprehensible associated with  the  mystery of human  life. All  of us  in  varying de- grees, are aware that  the basis of our lives is a mystery. A vague idea  about  it  is either cast in mythological images  of supernatural beings,  or — at best  — leads  to the  idea  of the  immediate detection of the  will  of the  almighty and  incomprehensible God in a particular    situation  of   everyday  experience.

Man  wants to believe:  a mysterious and  powerful one is watching me, cares  for me,  takes  care  of me,  and  my  person is not  ignored. Ordinary mind  goes  far away  from  the  paradox of Kant’s  thought: faith  in God  should be so absolute, that  we never make  him bothered with  our  affairs. Moments of immediate contact with  the  mysterious power, of the  vivid  perception of its presence are defined, first of all, as mystic. From a philosophical point  of view,  these types  of “mystical experience” are not of a big interest. In this respect Kant made fairly  rough, but generally true  remark addressed to Swedenborg and  other  “visionaries”: “if hypochondriacal wind  should rage  in the  guts,  what  matters is what  direction it takes:  if downwards, then  the  result  is a f—, if upwards, an  apparition or  an heavenly inspiration“ [3, p. 328]. This popular form  of mysticism, probably will always exist  — not  only  because  we  will  always maintain a childish thirst  for protection and  care,  not  only  because   our  knowledge is  always limited (and imagination is boundless) and  we  are  always and  will  always be dependent on the  forces  unknown  to us, and  therefore have  to have  a lot of trust  and  a lot of hope,  but  also for the important reason  that  the “invisible  world” — as a matter of vital hopes,  as a matter of life and  death for many  people — has always been and  will remain the province of the revenue for those chosen  by “higher  powers” as their intermediaries between themselves and  ordinary people — for traders of exotic “occult”, “magical” or “esoteric” goods.

This regular mysticism is interesting philosophically, perhaps only  as a domestic form of manifestation of metaphysical inclinations of man,  his thirst  for the absolute. The world cultural history recognizes a mystic as an  ultimate human desire  for unity  — or rather merging with  God, to a complete “dissolution” of the soul  in the  Absolute, to the  disappearance of the distinction between “I” and  God. “But if I learn  Him  without mediation, I will become  Him  and  He will become me! This  is exactly  what  I understand. God  must  become  “I” and  “I” must  become God, so completely one, so that  He is the “I” become  one and  so would remain…  ” [5, p. 149—149]. This is the principle of true mysticism, mystery and  ordinary everyday mystique as well  as  religious one.  Let alone  and  developing freely,  it  leads  to  the  conclusion stated in  Upanishads: “Me and  God  — one unity»,  tat  twam asi — «Thou  art  That!” It is based  on  the  total  negation of the world (as well as of any  multiplicity  in general, of fragmentation, materiality, the overall  shape  of which  is space  and  time)  as untrue and  evil. The essence  of the mystical  aspirations is an attempt to transcend all specific, finite and  concrete.  “To transcend” not  in the sense  of aspiration to a higher, or the last limit, but  in the sense  of going  beyond all limits — towards nothing  and nowhere.  Hence  — the desire  to get  away  from  the  evil of worldly existence,  asceticism, austerity,  actions  to  put  out the  ordinary consciousness, burdened with  unreal world. Even one’s own  consciousness is a product of untrue finitude, is in essence  — evil! Indian  mystical tradition quite  consistently grades sleep  higher than  being  awake and  sleep  without dreams higher than  the  one  with  dreams. Hence,  the  high evaluation of unusual states of consciousness, their  interpretation as detecting falsity of everyday reality  and  manifestation of the other world, the pursuit of super- consciousness, ecstasy  — “going  out”  of  the  self  (“I”, finitude  in  general) and “opening up”  to infinity.  All cultures can  witness this  desire  to deny the  world (split into the “I” and  the “world”)  and  to empty the consciousness, the desire  to get rid  of one’s  own  separation from  the  absolute, desire  to  “return”  back  into  it, “drown” one’s own  individuality (along  with  all the problems and  suffering) in it. Mysticism conceals radical nihilism.

Mystics  of different times  and  peoples, choosing this  path,  took  on, according  to their  accounts (while  they  still retained consciousness and  a link  to this sinful  world), a special  kind  of experience, which,  in their  opinion, reveals  the true reality and  leads  to higher knowledge, far superior to anything that  we could gain from everyday life experience, science and  philosophy. How  can a scientist, a philosopher treat  such aspirations, statements and  claims? What  is the relation between this mystery and  philosophy or science?

What is important in philosophy and in a philosopher — the soul focused on the absolute, universal, divine,  or a passion aimed at thinking, reasoning, discus- sion, achieving clarity — including metaphysical aspirations of his own  soul? In its interest towards the  absolute, philosophy is akin  to religion, in its quest  for understanding,  reflection, explanation and  research it reminds science.  Philosophy  is the expansion of scientific passion for studying and  knowing into the area of the highest religious interest. Kant  here,  as always, recognized the core issue. There  is an ineradicable metaphysical bent in a man,  the one constituting the very being  of the  person, and  crucial  question for  the  future of the  philosophy  is whether the subject matter of this metaphysical passion can be known by the same experience,  reasoning,  reflection,  research  and   collaborative  discussion,  etc. which  gives  us the most  perfect,  reliable,  evidence-based, universally valid,  objective knowledge in science?

The problem of the mystical experience is seen as the most interesting in this context.  What  is the value  it has for philosophy? How  to treat  the words of mystics and  their  claims  to possess  higher knowledge? How  to assess  the position of physiologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, who  see  in  this  kind  of experience mainly pathological mental state, in the best case — the socalled  “altered states  of consciousness,” which,  in principle, do not differ  in cognitive value  from  dreams and  hallucinations? It is well known that  prominent manifestations of religiousness and  mystical visions  are often associated with  increased nervous irritability and  high  emotional state,  exaltation, imbalance, decreased intelligence. Among mystics  there  were  a lot  of people of psychopathic disposition: “St. Paul  was probably prone to epileptic seizures, George  Fox, without a doubt, was  the  hereditary degenerate; Carlyle  suffered from  self-poisoning of the body  caused by digestion disease, and  so it was with  many  other” [2, p. 27—28]. So does a different reality get open  in such a mystical  experience, or are we dealing here with  the same  “reality” that  we constantly “visit” in dreams or imagination? And  how  can a philosopher or scientist  discuss this issue  if he does  not have  such  experience, and  has to rely on a mystic  having his mysticism as a totally inner experience. So the  scientist  has  trust  a word which,  as a rule,  is incomprehensible: the  mystic himself  primarily emphasizes inexpressibleness of his visions.

I  got  “hooked”   by  the  title  (and  content) of  recently published  books  of E. Torchinov, a famous St. Petersburg orientalist and  religious researcher: “transcendent experience”, “knowledge of the beyond” [8; 9]. Both word combinations make  little  sense.  “The experience of the  beyond” — it is either  something else but  experience, or  it is not  “of the  beyond”, since  it is given  in  experience or knowledge is available.

In fact, what  is a mystical experience? How  is it different from other  kinds  of experience?  What    kind    of   experience  deserves   to   be   called    “mystical”? E. Torchinov explains that  in the  course  of psychopractice yogi  gradually eliminates his  consciousness, “replacing consciousness (necessarily requiring  a subject-object  dichotomy and  shaping it) with  non-dual, non-dichotomy (advaya) gnosis-knowledge (jnana)” [9, p. 39]. This is the core of the matter: the vast mystical literature of different cultures talks  about  one and  the same  issue,  of overcoming,  or  removing, the  subject-object relationship. In the  state  of mystical experience the  consciousness, actually, does  not  reveal  itself, because  it is fundamentally intentional,  and  its  essence  is contained in  a particular duality: being outside itself — it is always perceiving something, something that  is not consciousness itself,  but  something different to consciousness, being, or an  object. As the  mystical experience is non-dual, the  “higher  forms  of mystical experience (peak  ASC) are not the states  of consciousness in general”  [9, p. 353]! The abbreviation blurs  the  utter  nonsense: an  altered state of consciousness is not  a state of consciousness. And  why  is a state  — non-state of consciousness-unconsciousness is called  an  experience if the  experience as the  author says,  — that’s  all, “which has  become  appropriated by  consciousness” [9, p.  352]? It turns out  that  consciousness does not exist, but the experience does, though it is a zero experience! It may not hold something given. Pure experience. Experience as an experience and not  an experience of anything that  has  any  content. Empty  experience. Experience  of nothing. No  one’s  experience. Moreover, it appears that  in this  “experience” some  consciousness still holds,  but it is the consciousness without any intentionality, that  is, some  consciousness, but  consciousness without perceiving anything. Pure  consciousness. Consciousness as such  in general, which  does not process anything.  “The silent  consciousness,” according to  the  respected professor, “beyond perceptions and  processing.” No  representations, no  perceptions, no emotions, no thoughts, no conscious of any  object, though the consciousness itself is there.

It is not  surprising that  this  kind  of “experience” cannot  be  expressed and communicated to others,  has no objective meaning, is not intended for any  critical group  discussion, as  there   is  no  point   in  even  talking about   what  exactly  is known and  what  is learnt  in this experience.

Why  does  the  well-known researcher of religion nevertheless give  mystical testimonies quite  a high  significance? He thinks  it’s time  to find  a “new intellectual courage”  and  find a way to “return to the philosophy its dignity.” The call is attractive to follow, but in what  way? We should “try to find workarounds leading philosopher-smuggler beyond these  intellectual cordons” [9, p. 24—25]. This are the “cordons”  set by the philosophers themselves, the notorious “boundaries of knowledge.” Philosophers and  scientists distinguish between subjective and objective,  the  mind  and  the  object.  But  it’s  all  in  unity,  all  the  same,  in  other words, there  is something that  lies at the basis of subject  and  object, and  matter, and  spirit  — and  the  diversity and  all the  differences, therefore — it is simple, “non-dual”. The only  way  to it, the unity,  hidden behind all the diversity of the phenomena of  the  external world— the  way   “inside”  oneself   “from  within” through a “tunnel”  of self-consciousness — the inner essence  of the outside world, as Schopenhauer suggested, interpreting Kant’s  idea of the “thing in itself”. After all, my  essence  and  the  essence  of the  whole  world are  one  and  the  same,  and only in myself it is given  to me immediately. This means that  it is possible  “to perceive the  very  reality  that…  constitutes the  very  nature of pure  experience, just like the water forms  the nature of any wave…  And  I think  that  transpersonal  experience is the form  for such  knowledge” [9, p. 361], which  was  “pioneered” by the  ancient  Hindu mystics-yogis. This  knowledge can  be  defined as a “movement  from  a conceptualized (mentally constructed) world of phenomena to  a non-conceptualized knowledge of reality  as it is (tathata…) … what  it IS without the  distorting effects  of power of a conceptualizing mind”  [9, p.  364]. Anyone who  wants to know  the  true  reality  and  merge  with  the  unity  — “let him  stay deprived of concepts…”,  “hold  your  breath”  and  cease  the  “representative function of consciousness” [9, p. 364—365]! I knew  Eugeny Alexandrovich personally and  I always treated him  with  great  respect,  but  it is difficult  to  assess  these words differently rather than  as betrayal of science and  philosophy. The scientist writes  about  the  distorting power of the  mind!  Kant  was  aware of such  moods: “Sometimes the  error  of misology catches  the  ones  who  at first  devoted themselves  to sciences  with  great  diligence and  success,  but  finally  did  not  find  any satisfaction in its knowledge” [4, p. 334].

This path  does not return to the philosophy its dignity, but rather negates it; in the  best  case it brings  philosophy to its starting point.  People  who  have  not flirted  with  mysticism, but  stayed true  believers themselves and  underwent the path  of an ascetic practice,  understood it very  well. I call for St. Gregory Palama as a witness. Science for him  is the “external”  wisdom, barren and  vain,  neither knowledge nor  truth. It cheats  and  robs  the  soul,  gives  no knowledge of God, and  does  not  lead  to it, and  is therefore empty and  meaningless. It brings  the “greatest harm”  as the  “crown  of evil,  the  devil’s  cardinal sin,  pride — comes from  the  knowledge!” [7, p. 18]. To obtain  the  knowledge of proper truth, it is necessary to leave  the  abundant reading, to stop  “wandering mind”  and  take  a “monosyllabic  prayer”  to  ascend   to  God.  We  must   leave  any  arguments  and “make  the plank  of the soul smooth”,  so that  it may  become  suitable for imprin- ting  gifts of the Spirit.  Palama understands these  “gifts” as ineffable  mystical experience, contrasting it to the entire  scientific vanity. If you acknowledge the mystical experience as actual  experience, if you acknowledge that  it opens  the true  reality, if you  acknowledge that  it gives  superior knowledge, superior science  and logic then have the courage to take the conclusions it entails.  Go to the desert.

Let’s try to take the words of the mysterious energies and  blue mandala seri-

ously.  Can  we  even  talk  about  something that  is “higher  intelligence” and  “beyond  reason”?  After all, something that is “beyond reason”  uses the concept of reason! If there  is a mystical  experience, then,  like any  experience it is the result  of judgment, thinking. No  feeling,  perception, experience becomes  experience if it is not  understood, not  memorized, not  played back  again  by  imagination, if its moments  and  my conditions, replacing each other,  do not get connected by the activity  of mind and  the identity of the person in one. There  is no experience without  diversity of views.  There  is no experience without the unity  of the diversity. There is no unity  without identity of personality and  synthesis of reason. The socalled “mystical  experience” differs from other  kinds  of experience but not by the fact that  it goes “beyond the bounds of reason”  and  refers to what  reason  cannot have any idea about.  It may differ only in a way the mind  is used  or acts in an experiment. What  is the  relative  “proportion”, the  proportion of the  components which  necessarily make  up  any  human  experience? Should we  recognize the “mystical  state”  of consciousness as the  unit  of measure for assessing the  ordinary  and  scientific  experience, data  of sensory perception and  thoughts derived from “solid mind and  clear memory” — or consider everyday life experience and the experience of science the unit  of measure for evaluation of “mystical  experience”?

Let’s emphasize that  we  put  the  question in a state  of “normal  consciousness”, though for the  mystical experience the question itself does not exist. Such a condition bears  no questions. If we want  to solve this problem and  do it having some grounds, weighing the arguments, seeking  the truth, choosing from a variety of options, analyzing them  — we are already on the  basis  of a sober  mind, “normal  consciousness,” the  best  and  most  advanced form  of which  is represented by science. The question itself and  the intention already include the answer. Mystical  state  is not  looking  for  “reasons”;  it does  not  know  “arguments” and “considerations”. So if we ask the question, and  we want  an answer, we have already chosen a “normal”  consciousness and  scientific  research. It is a measure and criterion, and  mystical experience, or other  “altered states  of consciousness” become the object under study. This means that the ‘mystical experience’ exists only for the mind. It does  not exist for itself or on its own.  Altered states  of consciousness exist only for the normal state  of consciousness — the one in which  Socrates was  arguing about  Eros and  poetic  frenzy,  in which  Freud  was  thinking about the causes  of female hysteria and  subconscious instincts. The subconscious mind exists  only  for the mind. Spinoza  was  right  about  that:  the  truth is the  measure both for itself and  for the delusion. Mind is the measure both for itself and  mindlessness.  Mindlessness can not be the judge  of reason  for the simple  reason  that it does not judge at all.

Any criticism  of reason  is a matter of the mind  itself. A being  without judgment,  does  not criticize.  Limitations of man  are manifested in the lack of understanding of one’s own  limitations. Recognition of the limitations of the mind  is a manifestation of the  mind, rather than  feelings  or a “superlogical” wisdom. The mind  itself  restricts itself  from  the  “inside”.  Its limitation from  “outside”  is not possible, because  the very  “outside”  is the concept of reason. In all “outside” aspects it stays within. How  can we detect  in our experience the presence of a being infinitely  superior to  us  in  its mind?  “Higher  intelligence” is the  notion of our own mind.  The mystical experience cannot  “undermine the credibility of rational consciousness, based  only on reason  and  feelings” [2, p. 336], because  “authority” and  its “undermining” are  concepts of reason, as well  as “other  consciousness”, “possibility of truths of a different order”,  as  well  as  the  “world”  or  “another world” or “alternate reality”  etc. One can only wonder how  people with  enthusiasm  and  passion overwhelm the  mind  and  the  reason,  not  knowing that  all of their  destructive activities are  the  work  of this  very  mind.  It reminds me  of a fighting fish that  violently throws itself  at its own  reflection in the  glass  aqua- rium  as if it were  its opponent. Therefore, there  is no non-conceptualized experience. There  is only the experience which  is poorly conceptualized or conceptualized unconsciously and  implicitly, etc. If the experience remains in the memory, it is already “captured” by reason,  even  if it is difficult  for a person to express  it. The contradiction between the  non-descript and  the  desire  to tell others  is still somehow “solved” sometimes through an indication that the mystical experience is non-conceptualized, so to speak,  “in the process”,  but lends  itself to the expression  of hindsight, after  regaining normal consciousness. And  this  experience is conceptualized, mostly  through pointing at its non-conceptualized nature. Unfa- thomable gets  comprehension through its  incomprehensibility. Consequently, non-conceptualized nature of mystical experience all the same  “is not absolute,” as theorists slyly  admit, but  only  “to a certain  degree.”  It can be described, but through gradual “semantic destruction of language,” as D. Zilberman said.  To put  simply,  the way  to finding a new  intellectual courage and  returning to philosophy its dignity means to destroy the  language step  by step,  until  the  words become sounds that have no meaning, and  thus  disappear as unnecessary.

Everything said  above,  apparently, shows  one thing:  a mystical  experience, in its highest and  the  strictest sense,  is in cognitive respect a point of contact between  religion and  philosophy, the point  of transition from  religion to philosophy  (or philosophy to religion in the reverse movement of the semantic deconstruction). Pure  mysticism finishes religious development and  begins philosophical one (if, of course,  it ever begins).  It is a kind  of premonition of universal, absolute,  sensual and  emotional manifestation of mind,  philosophical interest in  the man.  Therefore, philosophy treats  mystical experience as only the first start,  motivation, which  must  find its own  development in the philosophical study. Thales’ simple  thesis  is superior in its cognitive, theoretical value  to the  whole  mystical tradition. The reality  is revealed only  in the  long  and  difficult  development  of science and  philosophy through joint, cooperative efforts.  And  the best thing  that everyone can do is to take part  in this work,  and  contribute to it.

To find  out  and  save  the  mystic  truth was  an intention of super-rationalist Hegel  who  built  his philosophy as an academic system. Truly  philosophical, that  is speculative (or “positive-wise”), thinking, he argued, was the same  as that  the one which  used  to be called  “mystical”  [1, p. 210—213]. Mystical  is really  “mysterious”, but only for the understanding, the higher principles of which  are the laws of formal  logic,  the  principle of contradiction, the  separation of opposites, the lack of understanding of their  unity  without seeing  the  difference in their  relationship. The principle of reason, or speculative-dialectical thinking is the concrete unity  of opposing definitions. Therefore, speculative thought “removes”  the  opposites of finite and infinite, “I” and  God, subjective and objective, “consciousness” and its “subject”. For a man  of common sense  speculative coincidence of opposites is either  meaningless or incomprehensible. And  if he is inclined to accept  the reality of the  mysterious and  does  not  consider mystical description of blinding darkness  a meaningless jumble  of words, he  calls  for  the  sake  of knowledge of a “higher”  truth to give  up  thinking, logic, science,  to limit  the  mind,  etc. Hegel, however, leaves  the mystical within science and  philosophy, expanding the concept of “thinking” and  “logic” and  differentiating between the understanding and reason,  which  is able to keep  opposites as “moments” of the absolute. Therefore, we should call all reasonable mystical because  it goes  beyond reason.  But it does not  go  beyond cognition, which  is always “in us”  and  makes  our own essence. “Usually  people think  that  an absolute must  be away  on the  other  side,  but  it’s just  absolutely tangible that  we  as thinking beings  always carry  it with  us” [1, p. 124—125]. Tat twam asi — «Thou art That!” Correcting and  cleansing the mystical tradition, Hegel  observes: “Since language is the product of thought, we cannot express  it through anything that  would not be universal… And  ineffable  feeling,  a sense  are  not  the  best,  the  true,  but  the least significant, most  untrue… ” (italics are mine.  — S. Ch.) [1, p. 114]. Untold mystical intuition is the initial ma- nifestation of philosophical ideas,  which  should expand the  free  movement  of thought through its rich and quite specific content in the philosophy of science.

Implacable foe of German speculative idealism, Friedrich Jacobi also saw the core  of true  philosophy and  true  religion in the  mystical experience of the mind. Where  is the  cause  for this  strange coincidence of opposites? It is in the  same frustration with  the  “intellect”,  with  its “abstract”  nature. Hegel  recognized the merit  of Jacobi in putting together with  Kant an end  to rational metaphysics — he showed that  it was  impossible to apply the reason  to learn  the universal, absolute, infinite.  The real “treasure” of the humanity Jacobi saw in the manifestation of reason in man,  that  is… in the  belief  in God,  freedom, and  virtue, which  the reason knows nothing about [10, p. 55]. This belief towers over  science  and  limits the notion of nature with  the concept  of freedom, sensory-perceptual with  extrasensory and  thus  makes up for what  the understanding alone,  i. e. science, fails to give [10, p. 57]. For such  a necessary fulfillment a person needs  to get out of the trail of understanding [11, S. 40]. To achieve  the ultimate and  primary goal sought by the soul  in the cognitive process,  it is vital  to make  a salto mortale — to leap over the endless chains  of cause  and  effect, and  touch  the unconditional, eternal, and  infinite  in the direct perception of reason in the depths of one’s  own  subjectivity.  Jacoby  saw  the  necessary addition to the  “abstractions” of understanding not in Hegel’s  speculative mind,  but in the ultimate truth of life, in the immediate perception of freedom and  the same  immediate perception of God. Beyond  the scope of  understanding lie  the  most  important things,   which  keep  this  paradoxical sense of transcendental. It is actually what  we call the reason. Thus,  Jacoby agrees with  his opponent, Hegel,  on the main  point:  the mystical knowledge is a mani- festation of the  reason of man.  One  finds  its fullest  realization in the  system of science, the other,  like Kant, in morality.

Mystics  “can  see  what  is  not  seen  by  any  other  healthy person, and  can communicate to creatures which  would not reveal  themselves to anyone else…” When  they  finally  wake  up  with  God’s  help,  that  is when they  open  their  eyes and  their  look  shows  that  they  can  already understand other  people, none  of them  will  see  clearly  anything that  convincingly and  in  the  light  of their  evidence  can become  evident to someone else” [3, p. 321]. The fact that  a mystic  in his passionate quest  for unity with  the absolute (or transcendental) retires, moves away  from  the  world and  other  people into  a secluded and  hidden from  other people space, into his own world is a sure sign of an illusory, subjective, personal nature of his visions.  Having summarized the large  amount of evidence, James pointed to the characteristics of mystical experience: 1) it is ineffable,  2) it is in- tuitive, 3) it has short  duration, 4) it is marked by inactive will [2, p. 303—304]. All these  features directly oppose the properties of academic excellence  and  scientific and  philosophical knowledge, which  are  based  on  the  purposeful activity, the  possibility of  multiple  objective  observations, testing   by  other  people, the primacy of thought  over  the  sensory perception (intuition), the  desire  for  certainty, accuracy, consistency, clear expression in the language, etc. Therefore, scientific  knowledge is initially  produced by  joint  efforts,  it becomes  public  domain,  gets  a versatile, universal value.  Thinking brings  people together (as well as bringing sensory variety into  holistic  image  of an object). Nothing separates us more  than  a mystical  desire  to dive  into  an infinite  point  inside  oneself.  The fact that  such a separation brings  the ultimate unity  is an illusion.  Only through thinking and  language, we live in one world. “Unspeakable” and  “unthinkable” is just sensual, inferior,  not  superior. Science is the most  perfect  expression of the ability to think  and  learn, to communicate, to comprehend the reality  that no one is given  “suddenly” and  “as a whole,”  as if by magic,  but which  image  is becoming deeper, more  precise,  more  perfect,  more  interesting thanks to centuries-old works  of the worldwide republic of philosophers and  scientists.


  1. Gegel’ G. V. F. Jenciklopedija filosofskih nauk. T. 1 : Nauka logiki. M., 1974.
  2. Dzhems V. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta. SPb., 1992.
  3. Kant I. Grezy  duhovidca, pojasnennye grezami metafiziki // Kant  I. Soch. : v 6 t. M., 1964. T. 2.
  4. Kant I. Logika. Posobie  k lekcijam // Kant I. Traktaty i pis’ma. M., 1980.
  5. Mejster Jekhart.  Duhovnye propovedi i rassuzhdenija. M., 1991.
  6. Nicshe F. Rozhdenie tragedii, ili Jellinstvo  i pessimizm // Nicshe  F. Soch : v 2 t. M., 1990. T. 1.
  7. Grigorij Palama. Triady  v zashhitu svjashhenno-bezmolvstvujushhih. SPb., 2004.
  8. Torchinov E. A. Religii mira: opyt zapredel’nogo. SPb., 2005.
  9. Torchinov E. A. Puti filosofii Vostoka  i Zapada: poznanie zapredel’nogo. SPb., 2005.
  10. Jacobi F. H. David  Hume über  den  Glauben, oder  Idealismus und  Realismus. Ein Gespräch // Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi’s Werke. Bd 2. Leipzig,  1815.
  11. Jacobi F.H. Über die Lehre  des Spinoza, in Briefen an Herrn Moses  Mendelssohn // Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi’s Werke.  Bd 4/1. Leipzig,  1819.

This article was firstly published in collected articles “Kantovsky Sbornik” (2013):
Chernov S. Zero philosophy// Kantovsky Sbornik. Selected articles. 2012: academic journal. 2013. P. 24 – 32 .