Modern philosophy is based on concepts that have been formed over several millennia. Undoubtedly, some of them were recognized as archaic and ceased to be used in science in relation to phenomena. Others have undergone changes and rethinking, re-entering the philosophical lexicon.
The universe in history
Undoubtedly, since ancient times mankind has been thinking about the issues of causality of being, finiteness and creatureliness of matter. Despite their technical underdevelopment, ancient thinkers were able to speculatively comprehend the infinity of the universe and the limitations of human nature.
The philosophical lexicon includes a variety of terms that had different meanings in different historical epochs. The concept of the universe has been perceived in different ways. Of course, such an interpretation depended on the thinker and the place of application of the term in the philosophical concept.
Ancient atomists believed that the universe is a series of worlds that arise and collapse in the process of incessant movement. Socrates held similar views. Plato, in contrast to the atomists, assumed that the universe is the world of ideas, which can be identified with the real world. There was also such a founder of modern science as Leibniz. He assumed thatthe universe is a plurality of worlds, among which only one is real and is identified with our world.
The universe in modern philosophy
At the moment, a stable definition has been formed in philosophy, which gives the following interpretation: the universe is a concept that denotes the whole of reality with its inherent attributes, time and space. It is the ratio of all the above attributes that allows us to confidently assert the existence of reality, but this is where the main question lies. What is reality and how subjective is it? Is objective reality possible?
Perhaps the manifestation of "I" in the world has nothing to do with the universe, but is solely a set of instincts in relation to other realities that individuals have to face.
Problem of concept
The concept of "universe" in modern philosophy has several interpretations. This trend is directly related to the scope of the term. The materialist perceives the concept of "universe" as the absolute unity of the Universe and the microcosm, without drawing a definite distinction between them.
A realist will most likely assume that this term can be applied only when describing the process of contact between one's own "I" and the Universe. As a result, certain consequences arise.
The theologian perceives this term only as the creation of the universe. That is, God, who is outside of time,creates attributes of the Universe – time, matter, space. The only thing that unites all representatives of philosophy is the perception of the concept of "universum" as something close to the concepts of the Universe, the world, space, being.
Anthropology and the Universe
In the view of philosophers, both ancient and modern, man is a being that combines particles of macrocosm and microcosm. Undoubtedly, man is a perfect being who has the theoretical integrity of his being. There are various ways to explain that human nature has been violated. Even now, the individual is incapable of creating the integrity of his inner world, which is often torn from the contradictions that lie in the nature of the individual.
The concept of the universe and a person implies a state of integrity, a manifestation of one's own being in reality, actualization of one's own "I" in potential infinity.
World and universe
The term "peace" is a fundamental philosophical concept that has a fairly wide scope. Depending on the philosophical concept, it sometimes has completely opposite meanings. For example, consider the concept of atheism and the religious picture of the creation of the world.
The concept of "world" is used to describe two completely opposite phenomena in reality. The creation of reality is an act of a higher consciousness that has mind and will, while the process of emergence and development is a natural process, associated more with a happy accident.
An obvious difficulty arises, which consists in comparing the term "world" and the concept of "universe", which has various interpretations depending on the semantic load that the philosopher puts in.
Therefore, the most real variant of contact between the concepts of "world", "universe" is the possibility of identifying the Universe with the plurality of worlds that arise due to the existence of a variety of individuals. It is the plurality of personalities that gives rise to the plurality of worlds, which, proceeding from the subjective manifestation, form a plurality in relation to one reality.
Center of the Universe
The multiplicity of worlds arises due to the possibility of correlation of reality with the subjective perception of the world of an individual. The Universe, in contact with a finite number of individual subjects, leads to the emergence of various relationships with objective reality, forming a certain finite number of realities. If we assume that the center of the universe is attached to objective reality and arises during the interaction of the macrocosm and the microcosm, then it is indisputable that it is possible only when a person allows the existing reality into himself and then gives out the changed reality into the macrocosm. It is worth talking about some synergy between man and the Universe.
Infinite limb
The question is quite interesting, because the existence of the very concept of "universum" is possible only in conjunction with the concept of personal being. The universe is a set that directly depends on infinityhuman being in the universe. In other words, does the world exist beyond consciousness? Of course, it can be assumed that eventually the world will self-destruct or will be destroyed directly by man, then the result is obvious: the universe is a finite concept.
However, if we assume the existence of God, then it is in the contact of His personality and the Universe that the concept of the universe will have no boundaries, because His existence is recognized in theory as infinite. In this situation, it is necessary to try not to use concepts that are anthropomorphic and not applicable to the Deity. Indeed, assuming the possibility of relations that fit into the subjective manifestation of God to reality and the emergence of reality from here, it becomes possible to level the Supernature to just pantheism, which is denied by most philosophers.
