Today I have been talking to my students about the methodical scepticism of Descartes � the founder of modern philosophy. I have been wondered if the concept of infinite perfection can be produced by the finite thinking subject. Finaly, I came to a conclusion that the French philosopher is simultaneously wrong and right. Providing that the world outside us exists, there is no problem in assuming that a man encountering the resistance of exterior objects gradually become aware of his own limitations. In other words: he do not need to have had any concept of infinite perfection to perceive his own imperfection. This concept is produced by him by simple negation. Yet on the other hand, providing that the world of objects do not exist and there is only our consciousness, one judge it necessary that both the concept of his own limitation and the concept of infinite perfection cannot be produced by the finite thinking subject.

Once upon a time discussing the basic problems of phenomenology Martin Heidegger paid attention to the fact that "the point is not to gain some knowledge about philosophy but to be able to philosophise." In his opinion "an introduction to the basic problems could lead to that end." The German philosopher added also that "such an understanding of the basic problems should yield insight into the degree to which philosophy as a science is necessarily demanded by them". Having taught philosophy for several years I must admit that Heidegger is absolutely right in that point. Correct undersanding of the basic meaning and value of any philosophy is indeed nothing more than ability to see what is problematic in it. Given kind of philosophy in only some answer for an important existential question. Every man knows that an answer always follows a question.

I am looking at my children as they are playing. The play as such seems to be the most inner sense of philosophy. Why? When you are playing you don't think about anything else. For that reason playing is similar to the contemplation in its purest form. For a typical adult person playing is something unserious and unimportant but the child thinks quite differently. He or she plays only for the simple pleasure. Thus the play appears to be the richest source of free and innocent creativity.

I am extremely disgusted by the concept of political correctness. In my opinion this is a distinct symptom of very dangerous totalitarian ideology. Political correctness and the twin concept of tolerance contribute considerably to the impoverishment of our Western culture. A person who - either deliberately or unintentionally - violates the rule of political correctness is automatically doomed to permanent absence in public life. It is said you are not allowed to offend anybody � neither actually nor potentially. You should still remember that you cannot to express your contempt. By what right? Did someone forget that the right to contempt is one of the inalienable human rights? Namely the absolute right to estimate and evaluate things.

As Martin Heidegger wrote "it is not the case that at all times and for everyone all beings and all specific domains of beings are accessible in the same way." Thus the German philosopher pointed to the fact that our experience of beings is always relative and historically restricted. This means that the ultimate and every-sided experience of being is quite uttainable. Every philosopher should realize both above-mentioned fact and the most important consequences that follow it. What are these consequences? There is neither any priviledged epoch in the history of human thought nor any priviledged thinker, for example. On the other hand, every time and every philosopher have their own truth.

There are some games you can never win. But it naturally does not mean you should not play them. If you gave up, you would be a vile and despicable man. Therefore in the Analects Confucius was described as "one who knows that he cannot succeed, yet keeps on trying to do it."

In one of the famous Platonic dialogues we can find a very interesting statement made by Socrates. The great Athenian thinker said about himself the following words: "For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unlesss we cen find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you [scil. with Crito]". These statement makes us realize that both an attidude of heroism and being a holy person are very simple things. Strictly speaking, they amount to some kind of consistency.

What is the deepest core of high self-esteem? Where from does come our innermost sense of personal dignity? Is it a simple effect of an act of recognition from the side of the other? I claim that in its purest form the quality of self-respect should be treated as something completely independent and self-contained. This means it does not depend on the relation to another person. The thought that I am worthy of esteem or respect can appear only as a result of repeated acts of self-overcoming.

Some days ago I asked my daughter what the father is for. She answered without any hesitation that he was to care for his family. Her spontaneus and unreflextive answer points that a concrete duty of looking after members of one's family sets the father as such. It makes me think of an ancient Confucian theory of the rectification of names. According to the mentioned theory every name in the social relationships implies certain responsibilities and duties.

I find that other people are generally disappointed with me. To tell the truth, I am generally disappointed with them as well. I am also disappointed with myself. But what does every disappointment mean? What are the preconditions of disappointment as such? In other words, why is disappointment as a specific attitude to reality possible? I think that to be disappointed one have to have expected that something would be better than it really is. Thus one's expectation is a strict measure of his or her disappointment. And what's more, to be disappointed you should be an optimist by nature.