ПОНИМАНИЕ БЫТИЯ И ИСТИНЫ В АНТИЧНОЙ ФИЛОСОФИИ
реклама
130.2 . . , , , 660041, . , . , 79, [email protected] » « » « , , , » « . ». « « , , « » ». , , , . , , . – , , . . : , , , , , , . PHILOSOPHICAL COMPREHENSION OF BEING AND TRUTH IN ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY Koptseva N. P. FSAI HPE Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk Svobodny, 79, Krasnoyarsk, Russia. [email protected] There has been carried out an examination of «Being» and «Truth» concepts in ancient philosophy, including Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. There has been found out a dissoluble logical connection between the contents of «Being» and «Truth» concepts. It has been proved that the core of «Being» concept entirely predetermines that one of «Truth» concept. It has also been proved by historical method, category analysis, and comparative historical and philosophical analysis that the epistemological concept of Truth, which has been dominating in Russian philosophical science for a long time, should be complemented by the ontological concept of Truth. The ontological concept of Truth means the point that philosophical attitude is not to specify Truth as a characteristics of human knowledge only. Truth is a character and feature of human existence, which may be true or may be untrue. The ancient philosophy gives the rise and sources for ontological Truth. Keywords: Being, Truth, Ancient Philosophy, Ontology, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle. . [ , , .: 2; 3; 4]. , . , . . . . . , . « , , , : ) ; ) , ; ) » [6, . 271]. »[ , . 273]. , . . , , [ .: 5], . , . , . . – . . , , , , . – , . , , , . , . , , . , », « « ». : 1) ; 2) , ». , , . « . » « , » , 100 . . . . , – . , , , – . , , . , . . , . , . . – . , , , , , , . . , , , .« – », , – – « – . – . , « – « , , » – ». – , , , . , , , . . ». – . « , » – , , . , , . . « . ». , . , , , . . – , . , . – . , , . . , , . . . , , . . – – . , . . – , , ? « » , . , , , , , . – . – : 1) , ; 2) . , 1) , ; 2) , , , , . , . – , . . , , . . , , . . , , , . , , ». . , . , « ». , . . ( , ), , , . , , . . . – , , . . « , , , , . , , … , , , , , , : , » [1, . 250-251]. . , « – – ». , . . . , , . , , , : . , , . . , . , . . – . , ( , ). , . , . . – ( – ( ). . , , , ), , , , . . . , , – ,« , 1. . . 2. . . 3. . .: 4 . .1. »[ .– .: .– . : 5, . 372] , 1976. – . 63-338. : . . , 2002. – 342 . . // .– 4. . « ». – .1. – ., . 3. – . 338-346. . // . ». – .2. – 5. . 1. – 2009. – . 31-55. . .– 6. . . – : ., . , 1969. . . .– : , 1993. – 412 . : , , , , . , , , . . . . , .
