Abstract: Research of specifics of Heidegger's approach to interpretation of fundamental categories of ontology is presented in the offered article: time, life and anything. Conceptual development of M. Heidegger is considered in the horizon of comparative research with the doctrine F. Nietzsche, and also – Zh. Bataille, G. Bashlyar, J.P. Sartre, Zh. Delez, Ge. Derrida. The main attention in article is paid to the analysis of nature of interaction in Heidegger's philosophy of ontologic prospects of a transtsendention and transgression. The dual relation of Heidegger to the classical and nonclassical philosophy is explicated. Along with traditional methodology in article the methodological arsenal of nonclassical philosophical thought is used: hermeneutics, semiotics and deconstruction. The methodological principles of comparative research of philosophical doctrines are applied. Situation locates in article that Heidegger's ontology is constituted mainly on the basis of the transtsendention horizon, but the transtsendention thus gains in its doctrine absolutely other semantic fullness, in comparison with classical tradition of the use of this concept. At Heidegger the transtsendention in character comes nearer to transgression, to disclosure and the statement of plurality and formation. In this plan Heidegger's doctrine comes nearer to F. Nietzsche's views. However at the same time Heidegger keeps primary orientation to life as that, on identity and unity. Plurality and heterogeneity (transgression) at it are subordinated to the dominating prospect of identity (transcendence).

Abstract: In article a philosophical opinion of Werner Karl Heisenberg is stated, the concept of the closed theory entered by him is interpreted, and also Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac's views of the nature of inter-theoretical communications are compared. Heisenberg's philosophy is interpreted as a pragmatism and not metaphysical realism of Wittgenstein's type. Unlike Aliza Bokulich preferring Dirac's position concerning the nature of communications between various physical theories the preference is given in article to Heisenberg's position. In article the answer to the questions raised by Erhard Shayboy concerning concept of the closed theory is also offered. Method of research is the philosophy of ordinary language of Ludwig Vittgenshtayn understood as a naturalistic pragmatism, and contextual Wittgenstein's approach of Zhoslin Benuast. Is established that the closed physical theory has the status of the Wittgenstein's rule / concept, or that is equivalent, "life forms". Its validity logical that is Wittgenstein's "philosophical grammar". It can be or applicable or isn't present, but can't be false. According to this interpretation and contrary to a position of the Popper criterion (closed) theory which settled scientific is its not falsifiability.

Abstract: The object of research of this article is the non similarity of approaches natural and the humanities in a knowledge question acts. It is supposed that representatives of these two camps differently look at the world and, therefore, see different regularities, the phenomena and subjects. Estestvenniki simplify reality, reducing it to abstractions that allows them to remove the equations and formulas concerning its nature. Humanists uvyazat in details, trying to embrace immense that does their works as less scientific. Thus we have two ways of development of science. As methods of this research personal experience of the author, the comparative-historical analysis, induction, supervision, a metaphor and analogy, separate cases from science history served Novelty of this work consists not so much in display of division between natural and the humanities, how many illumination of that its party which is usually not noticeable to neither scientific, nor ordinary people. The conclusion is served by the different nature of knowledge at two camps. Humanists unique seek to be Estestvenniki the first. But also that, and another in a wound of degree is necessary for science as that.

Abstract: The suffering subject in a postmodernism received the versatile characteristic. Differently to an occasion and Zh. Bataille, Zh. Bodriyyar, Zh. Delyoz, S. Zhizhek, Zh.-F. Liotar handled the different purposes to this problem. Philosophers sought to find sources of suffering, the reason of an inclusiveness of this feeling, to reveal social measurement of this experience, to compare masochism to a sadism. In article it is shown that the subject of a sadism received broad interpretation in connection with studying of a phenomenon of the power. Thinkers tried to find justification of love of power in works of classical philosophy and to give broad interpretation to violence. Love of power is all-embracing. All people are ready to subordinate themselves others. Nobody refuses the power voluntary. The victim dreams to become the executioner. Methods of the analysis are connected with philosophical anthropology. In article it is shown that the violence and humility express an essence of a human nature. In this sense between them there is an internal relationship. Besides, in article the historicism method is used. It allowed to compare concepts of postmodernists with classical philosophy. Novelty of article is caused by that the author explains the reasons of interest of postmodernists in a violence phenomenon. Therefore huge interest in the identity of the marquis de Sade came to light. After postmodernists the author compares Kant and de Sade's ethics. The sadism and masochism aren't separately existing phenomena. The victim finds cruel qualities, and the executioner looks for pleasures. The sadist differs in obsession, and the masochist in conciliation. In article the paradoxical logic of these characters is noted. The masochist looks for pleasures in suffering, and the sadist – in unrestrained power.

Abstract: The main question considered in article is the question of interaction in works of painting of three structural components: taste, measure and harmony. Building structure of a work of art on the basis of this triad, the author proves that art taste is not simply esthetic category, but such active structural component of art creativity which, being inherent initially in its carrier artist, subsequently finds itself in the finished work of art. This structural component, along with "measure" and "harmony" is, according to the author, one of the main (main) form-building structural components of a work of art. At the end of research, the author unexpectedly comes to a conclusion about similarity of a functional purpose of a measure and taste, but parts these categories by identification of the nature of their functioning.Methodological base of this research is the method of the structurally functional analysis; dialectic method; method of a germenevtichesky reduction; method of intellectual speculation, and also general scientific (general-logical) methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, modeling. As a result of the conducted research, the author comes to the following conclusions: 1. The great guess of I. Kant about social background of antinomy, remains an actual problem and today.  2. In art and creative process, the artist, creating a work of art, deals not with judgments of taste, and with an embodiment of the flavoring judgments in a work of art. And the conclusions about the acceptability and applicability of this or that flavoring preference (i.e. judgments) for concrete work separately, are taken out by reason of the artist. 3. The unity of a work of art, is approved by a triad: first of all – a sozdannost of a work of art, then presentation and an oshchushchayemost. This triad which is esthetic installation of the author, in turn, reveals through the following triad - a triad of structural characteristics of a work of art: measure, harmony, taste.4. The measure and taste, is more subjective structural components whereas harmony, having been born as a result of merge of the first of two, is objective education.5. As a result of existence at art of function not only esthetic, but also psychological, substantial, communicative and, is wider – world outlook – disharmony as an art composition method, is quite proved to put perhaps in one row with harmony. 6. The measure will be necessary until original, that is creative works of painting which, in turn, will depend on novelty of a context are created.