There are two crucial problems for those who would take existence to be a ‘real’ property. (1) The predication of such a property of a thing appears insufficient to distinguish cases where the thing exists, on the one hand, from those where it does not exist on the other. That is, the property of existence does not add anythingto the concept of a thing. (2) If non-existent things are capable of having properties and identity – which is necessary to avoid an objection made by A. J. Ayer – then the identity of all things with all other things appears to follow. However, if the concept of existence is explained as a primitive property manifest as resistance toontological contradiction then these problems can be solved. The pay-off for considering existence to be a first-order predicate is, therefore, an argument against existing ontological contradictions.

There is no absolute essence in world (esp. it refers to the cosmos of modern hunman beings) The origin of world is also indefinite, which existing everying is possible. When it comes to our modern humancosmos material and spirit of place not two have a cent, constituted the basic antinomy of this world. Material and spirit can’t be separated with each other. In the layer after layer negation of whole have delicate born. Material and spirit are different he essence of the material is an objective system, the essence of the spirit is freely objective; The system is The system is a collection of the unity of opposites of materials the freedom is opposite to he appearance of system. The dialectics is a theory which can be applied to explain everything in the world. However, we should consider itself dialectly, and evolve a multiple and stereoscopic but not flexible philopsophical theory.

There are three results in this study. First, redefinition of "Being". I've classified and redefined the concept of "being" into "Being", "Existence", "Reality" which have been used confusingly. And the definition of God has been also renewed. So we came to understand what "a triangle exists", "a sharp pencil exists", "the God exists" mean. Also I proved that the mean of "I will be who I will be" which is the name of God in Bible equals to the mean of almightiness. Second, trinitarianism. I proved that the essence of God does not belong to the "the world of idea" which the essence of triangle belongs to and also to the "the physical world" which the essence of sharp pencil belongs to. This is the same to physical rules like "E=mc²". And I refer to the world which includes "the God" and"physical rules" as "the world of causes". In this way, a view of world suggested in this study is not dualism but trinitarianism. Third, the new cosmological argument. I've suggested "the new cosmological argument" using modern science's imperfection which inferred from "Werner Karl Heisenberg's uncertainty principle". The conclusion of this proof is that a man who recognizes the reality of "physical rules" should recognize the reality of "God". In other word a rational man who believes causality should recognize the reality of "The cause which is cause of every causes but don't need any cause" "the God".

Ontology: An Ontological Interpretation to Baudrillard’s Consumption Society TheoryJean Baudrillard used “Consumption society” to describe a novel transformation of the contemporary life, “consumption society” has become to the symbol of contemporary ideology. From this we can say that reading Jean Baudrillard is very necessary. Compared with what Jean Baudrillard said, what we comprehended is more important, so it is very necessary to analyze Jean Baudrillard’s consumption society theory on the ontological viewpoint. To this, Iattach great important to the follow key issues: what kind of existent character Jean Baudrillard revealed? Hegel’s modern western philosophy participated in the foundation of the Capitalist civilization; Jean Baudrillard was unavoidably involved in, so what is the advancement in theory system? How to define the demarcation to Jean Baudrillard? He animadverted on Marx and appropriated his valuable thoughts.

In his later writings, Wittgenstein is generally taken as committed to anti-realism. In this paper, I argue that this is mistaken. Although he is committed to ontic anti-realism, this does not preclude his acceptance of epistemic realism. I argue that the possibility of using practices to fix meanings and to provide aframework for conceptual differentiation of our experiences rests upon a version of realism, which I call “praxial realism”, which does not presuppose anything like a Kantian noumenal world.

The paper «Situation as concrete entity» dedicated to ontological opposition of abstract being and concrete being. Main idea of this paper – situation as concrete being was rejected, ignored by philosophic and religious systems for thousands of years, because situation was associated with false being, being of things (Plato), life distress, illusion (Hinduism, Buddhism). But culture of XX century includes «reanimation» of situation as concrete being by existentialphilosophy and modern art, and now we can speak about new approach to problem of human being, practice and cognition – situative method. This approach has high humanitarian potential and wide perspectives of development.

Holism about thought content – especially coupled with a measure of semantic externalism – can provide us with an attractive account of how thinking relates to the world. It can help us to tell a neat story that starts out with the inseparable entanglement of truth and intelligibility: in order to understand thought, to confront it to the world and to give verdicts about that confrontation, we need to grasp a considerable amount of truths. A variety of positions that emerge under the influence of Davidson’s arguments (see, for instance, his 1974) deny the possibility of severing the connection between thought and facts of the world. However, this holisticunderstanding of thought seems less attractive when it is forced to account for our capacities to engage with singularities. A (roughly) Davidsonian conception of thought faces serious problems when it tries to answer questions regarding singular thoughts, de re attitudes and beliefs, and the nature of items of the world that cannot be described or referred to without the aid of demonstratives. This tension between thought and singularity is a well-known one and shows up in different traditions of philosophy. We aim at easing the tension without giving up the intuitions behind holism.

Essence is an interesting and deep concept of the ontology. This paper argues that the essence of object is composed of three connected and different parts. The first is the feature of noumenon contained in the object, such as the mathematical content of the quality and structure of object. By revealing the content, man is able to know some fundamental features of object, and then easily find the orient of the object in the physical world. The second is the inner nature of object, especially the cardinal nature. It, keeping with the traditional cognition, indicates that thought probes deeply into the inner nature of object, and then knows allkinds of mechanisms and functions. The third refers to the relationship between one thing and another. By comprehending the relationship on macro‐ and whole stand, man can recognize the core mechanism of things. Based on above processes, metaphysically the whole knowledge on the essence of object has been finished. In addition the dialectical relations between universality and individuality, absolute idea and relativity are in need of comprehending in practice referring to the essence of things.

The notion of creativeness is widely used in a number of sciences. The same time meaning of this word is not so obvious as it may seem at first sight. In most cases the notion definitions contain only one of it's meaning features unchangeable: creativeness is a kind of ability to create something new. There are several sometimes absolutely different points of view regarding to the following questions: who is a bearer of this ability, what are the main peculiarities of it’s appearance, not to mention its formation possibility and methods. We analyze these points of view to approach to the comprehension of the nature of creativeness. Demands of modern world to person increase. Creativeness is one of these aspects. Besides this one is foundation of human’s nature. Sodeciding this problem we make a base for solving many other problems. Probably the decision of this problem lies in dividing of creativeness types.

Профессор кафедры Философии для естественных факультетов Философского факультета Московского Государственного Университета им. М.В.Ломоносова, Россия 1. Представления о субъективном характере Власти «этого человека» «теперь-и-здесь», а тем более властных структурГосударства, являются Иллюзиями. К концу ХХ века, при стремлении «схватить» растворённое в субъективном объективное (и наоборот), возникает потребность переосмыслить Субъективно-Объективный характер «онтологической основы Власти», и, соответственно, понимание онтологичности Смерти как Объективно-Субъективного процесса, а также различное понимание сути и роли диапазона «от Рождения-Жизни к Смерти» для «этого человека» «теперь-и-здесь». 2. В XXI веке складывается ситуация, когда оказывается возможным как бы возврат кисторически предшествующему ходу мысли: «от Смерти к Жизни-Рождению». "Смерть как Жизнь", а не "Жизнь как Смерть". 3. В пределах противостояния идеологии христианства и радикального исламизма, в ХХI веке, возникла потребность в переосмысливании соотношения «Власти как онтологической основы Смерти» и «Смерти как онтологической основы Власти». В частности, о возможном как бы «превалировании», надостаточно больших этапов времени, одной из сторон или их относительной «паритетности».4. В рамках исламских конфессий появились течения, которые культивируют понимание Смерти как онтологической основы Власти» как бы «в перевернутом виде». Сознательно идущие на массовуюсмерть террористы, видят в ней средство позволяющее, в соответствии с предполагаемыми идеалами, подтолкнуть общество к установлению иной власти. Более резко проявилась исходная двойственность фанатической фаталистичности авраамических религиозных конфессий, особенно ислама. 5. На сегодняшний день лишь в теории Смерть могла бы перестать быть онтологической основой власти, если господствующейстала бы другая онтологическая основа Власти – «чисто духовная Идея». Мир прежней Власти в той или иной степени оказался бы против неё бессилен. XXI век даёт примеры соответствующих «больших флуктуаций», но изменить «онто» он не в состоянии. Источником глобальных изменений и катастроф является «этот человек» «теперь-и-здесь» как специфическая "искусственная природа", изменить искусственность которой нельзя, не уничтожив самого человека. XXI век требует переосмысление реальных интенций действий людей, оказавшихся "вывернутыми наизнанку", а также существенно преобразующихся «предмета Философии» и собственно «Философствования».

The author of the paper ascertains that in the treatment of material beginning of the world two opposed methods of approach had grown up: qualitative and quantitative ones. The first can be traced back to Miletus school. The other goes to Pythagorean philosophy. The qualitative treatment (Aristotelian one in the main) predominated from the fourth century B.C. to early XVII A.D. But from the second part of the XVII age and right up to our days the quantitative approach plays prevalent role not in philosophy only, but also in exact natural sciences. The author supposes that these two approaches don’t exclude, but compensate each other, and no one of them should dominate. Both methods can resolve own epistemological tasks. Unfortunately, from I.Newton, quantitative approach has prevailed in natural sciences. Ignoring qualitative method, scientists (especially of nowodays) try to resolve the epistemological problems of cognition natural phenomena with its help. As a result arbitrary formal mathematical theories come into existence. Such conceptions create only semblance of resolution theproblem. Among them the author reckons for example the Large Burst theory, based on the model of enlarging universe and also the theory of planetary model of atom.In the paper author refers to his own scholarly works, where he proposes by the way alternative conception evolution of universe.

A number of philosophers today endorse the view thatmaterial substances (ex. cats, stones, atoms) can be analyzed asbundles of “particular properties” or “tropes”. Among severaldevelopments, the theory that P. Simons proposed is seen as themost successful one. Simons’ theory seems to owe its high reputationto mainly two advantages which he claims for his theory: thecapacity for avoiding infinite regress, and the explanatory adequacyfor phenomenon of change. In this paper, however, I try to object tothis high appraisal, by showing that the two alleged advantagesindeed cannot be simultaneously secured by Simons’ position. Tothis aim, I proceed as follows: First, I present Simons’ theory andexplain its alleged two advantages. Next, I take up A. Denkel’scriticism and show that the explanatory adequacy will be lost unlessSimons admits a certain revision of his theory. Finally, I show that asa result of the revision needed, Simons’ position comes to lose thecapacity for avoiding regress in turn.

Even though many people have been looking for the origin of human beings, we still don’t know how human beings came into existence. So far, there are two major theories to explain human beings’ starting point – creationism and the theory of evolution. These theories are so abstract that it is hard to accept either one.This essay presents a new theory which explains how human beings and all beings come into existence and carries implications bearing on human conduct. The theory is called “The Principle of Human Essence,” and it was first proposed by Hungduk Bokyoung Son. He points out everything in the world was created by human beings, for nothing can be mentioned or described without them. Then he asks what the human being is, and defines it as a living thing which thinksand speaks. Next, he tries to determine where human consciousness came from, and shows that language is the source of consciousness. Finally, he explains that language can exist only where it is formed between at least two people, and that consciousness is the ability to discern words. Through his unique concept, summed up in the maxim “Words and Earth are simultaneous existence,” Hungduk shows that two living things become human beings through communication, that mind and body exist simultaneously, and that human beings and space exist at the same time. If words are the origin of thoughts, and none of us can possess language without communication with other people, it follows that no one can be a human being by himself or herself. For this reason, Hungduk claimseach person is the cause of each other’s being, so people exist as mutual causations at the same time. I think that, through his metaphysical principle, he offers clear reasons why we must trust each other, solve conflicts between people, and make a world where people live well together, so I hope to introduce his philosophy to other philosophers around the world.

From the beginning of human, human’s thinking about the nature object begun refers to the root basis of everything, the people in all the parts of the world , from the far far old time, begun their thinking. In old Greece, there are theory or understanding about the Onto produced by many famous person with big name such as THALES, ANAKSIMANDROS, PUTHAGORAS, HERAKLEITOS. By Herakleitos, the understanding of the onto in Greece got a very good step. While in China, almost at the same age as Herakleitos, China’s understanding about the onto, was standing at almost equivalent level with that in Greece. In China, this theory is called “Yin-Yang, Wu Hang”. “Yin-Yang” means the contrast mentioned by Herakleitos, the movement of the “Wu Hang" means the logic mentioned by Herakleitos. So, by time of Herakleitos, (about 5th. Century B.C.) Greece and China got almost same understanding level about the Onto. but, they are also different. China’s is the way of describe, imagery, while the greece’s is the explain and demonstrate by thinking, by logic. The way of imagery go around without development, but the way of logic could go on for the development. So, in China, theory of Onto stay at the imagery explain, in Greece and Europe latter, theory of Onto continue develop, gave birth to the Cognition, Science.

This paper begins with a discussion of the translations of the term “ontology” in Chinese language, and argues that its translation as “bentilun”(in Chinese PinYinorthography) can be supported by ample evidence from the history of doctrine and the tradition of Chinese culture. Therefore, It is necessary to keep this translation on condition that one distinguish strictly “ontology” as a branch of philosophy from “bentilun” as a special morphology of philosophical theory. Examining the history of metaphysics, this thesis draws a clear line of demarcation between “traditional ontology” and “modern ontology”, and reveals themain characteristics of traditional ontology. It holds that although the reformation of Marx’s Philosophy was realized through criticizing traditional ontology, his Philosophy did not abolish the concept of ontology as a branch of the discipline. The ontology of Marx’s philosophy is a theory that considers natural being, social being and human being as a unity. This theory emphasizes understanding the meaning of being from the perspective of a pattern. The main idea of ontology of Marx’s philosophy is that of a practical outlook and practical model of thinking. First, the concept of ontology and its translations would be reviewed. As regards itsderivation, we could find that Ontologie in German and in French both came from the word of Ontologia in Latin, which originated from the Greek. In the literal meaning of Greek,this word means the “logos” of “on”. In Greek, “on” corresponds to “being” in English. As to its signification, according to Heidegger, “on” has a twofold meaning that can signify both “being in general” and “the ground of being”. The former is close to essence while the latter to origin. From the angle ofhistory, Goclenius was the first one who used the term “Ontologia” in philosophy in 17th century. Since then this word was used and developed by subsequent philosophers. Although this term appeared in 17th century, yet its correlative questions had been studied from ancient Greece. The sticking point here is to pay attention to the demarcation between subject and theory. As a branch subject or as a universal noun, “Ontology” is counted in the historical tradition of western philosophy. Here all the problems discussed are public, but the concrete solutions and viewpoints are different. The former corresponds to the level of subject and the latter to the level of theory. These two levels must not be confused or substituted from one and other. That is, different ideas, schools and opinions could bebrought under the same problem. So it could be said that traditional ontology and modern ontology are two branches. Of course these two branches are very different in dealing with the problem of Ontology. This difference could be illustrated as following: (1) What to be→beings→substance —traditional ontology; (2) How to be→the mode of being→relation—modern ontology. Obviously both begin with the problem of being and end with Ontology, while their approaches are very different. The essential characteristic of traditional ontology is to seek the eternal substance, pursue the transcendent nature, establish the base of knowledge, and take the absolute truth as the ultimate telos. Traditional ontology ended with the critique of modern philosophy, Marxmade the crucial critique of traditional ontology in his remarks on Hegel’s philosophy. His critique of Hegel’s speculative method is actually the critique of traditional ontology although Marx himself never used the term of ontology explicitly in his new philosophy. Being in Marx’s philosophy is the real world of real beings. Concretely speaking, it is sensible world, objective world or human world that is integrated on the base of human praxis. The keystones here are natural being, social being and human being. There are some important similarities between Marx’s ontological approach and Heidegger’s ontology, that is, to understand the meaning of being through the mode and relation of being. In any case, the standpoint and thinking mode of praxis characterize the ontology of Marx’s philosophy.

The issue of existence - quiddity difference is one of the important issues that were put forward for the first time in Islamic philosophy without having any background in Greek philosophy. Aristotle's metaphysics which is the main source of the first philosophy contains only synonymous and verbal meaning ofexistence. The issue of existence - quiddity difference has no room in Aristotle's works. This issue was proposed first by Farabi and then was completed by Ibn sina. In Islamic philosophy when it is proved that existence in the mind is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it but differs with it and is excess of it, that is, when it is proved that existence occurs on quiddity, this question arises that how is their relation in the outside? Whether existence occurs on quiddity or existence and quiddity are identical in the external world? To this question the Islamic philosophers answer that existence and quiddity are identical in the outside and it isimpossible that they differ from each other in the external world. The importance of this issue is that it finally led to the origination of the doctrine of the principality of existence which is known as the culmination of Islamic philosophy. The main goal of this article is study this issue and its impact upon the origination of the doctrine of the principiality of existence.

Rethinking “philosophy” to-day, it is necessary to think first of all about ontological foundations of the modern scientific universe description and rethink them on the ground of modern scientific knowledge, because until now there is no any precise scientific conception of the structure of the universe, of reasons and movingforces of its permanent evolution. All of it create basis to propose various unscientific ideas of creationism. Until now most of philosophers associate the motion of Matter on the whole only with its motion in space and in time, mixing philosophical and physical aspects of these two principle categories. Generally speaking, the present-day ontological model of understanding the World, the Universe is constructed purely on the basis of only these two fundamental categories. However, a more deep reflection of the essence of Being, if to realize it on the basis of only these two global categories, brings us to the disappointing conclusion, that in this case we have nothing more except a mechanical motion, i.e. spatial displacement of a material point (or a system of points) relatively some point of counting off. To make it normal and logic we should add to the ontological model one more essential part – the motion in quality. So, in order to create the full and complete picture of the formation and evolution of the material World it is necessary to observe the motion of material forming in the three equivalentphilosophical categories: in space time quality. The ideas of the new conception of ontological model become actual supplementation of really scientific philosophical knowledge on the way of a more objective ontological comprehension of our Being, of the law of development of the human civilization and the Universe as a whole. This knowledge can be successfully used for the description of the realistic paradigm of Being, in explanations of the meaning of Life.