Existential Truth in Dialectical-symbolic Understanding

Fedorov Sergei Postgraduate, Department of Philosophy, Crimean Federal V. I. Vernadskiy University 644052, Russia, Omsk region, Omsk, ul. 24-Ya severnaya, 169, sq. 15 jettull@mail.ru Other publications by this author

         Within the framework of classical science (from the XVII century to the end of the XIX century), the understanding of truth as the correspondence of knowledge to objective reality dominated. In classical natural science, attention was centered on the object, and everything related to the subject, the means and operations of his activity, as a rule, was eliminated. The elimination of subjectivity was considered as the key to acquiring objectively true knowledge. The influence of culture on the scientist was reduced to "idols" that needed to be disposed of. The subject of cognition was reduced to a detached, dispassionate, objective observer. According to G.V.F. Hegel, the method of certainty dominated, in which "what is true for consciousness is something other than consciousness itself" ^{[1, 107]}. From the point of view of the "Phenomenology of Spirit", such a one-sided position sooner or later comes to self-denial.

         In non-classical science, the means and operations of cognitive activity begin to be taken into account in a significant way. An understanding is developing of the fact that the cognition of nature is determined not only by its structure, but also by methods, methods of cognitive activity ^{[2, 361]}. In quantum physics and in the theory of relativity, the idea of the inseparability of the subject of observation from the object is asserted. Classical determinism is replaced by the uncertainty principle of V. Heisenberg and the complementarity principle of N. Bohr. K. Goedel questions the principle of consistency.

         Reflection on the activity of the subject is deepening, the analysis of not only the means and operations of the activity, but also its value-target structures is becoming more and more relevant. The connections of intrascientific goals with the cultural basis, extra-scientific values and goals are revealed. V.S. Stepin calls the type of scientific rationality developing here already "postnonclassical" ^{[2, 368]}.

         In this regard, the concept of truth cannot remain the same. It should take into account the realities that cannot be reduced to the reflection and "photographing" of the object. It is necessary to take into account the transformation and development of a cognizable object by a scientist. On this basis, pragmatic, coherent theories of truth and conventional theory are developing. However, this is not enough. Real modern science is built on the basis of social, institutional tasks. In fact, the state and the economy determine the priority areas of research, distribute funds. Ultimately, science deals mainly with what is determined by society and culture. Therefore, cognition is no less subjective than objective. Society as a subject of cognition proceeds from some of its specific orientations, which are relevant in one culture and probably unthinkable in another.

         Thus, the concept of truth based on non-classical science should include the subject, operational, evaluative aspects of knowledge, its correctness, effectiveness and, ultimately, its cultural conditionality. D.V. Pivovarov suggests calling such a concept of truth "existential truth", distinguishing it from "epistemic truth". "Existential truth is a syncretic fusion of the removed objective (this makes it related to objective truth) and the subjective-personal in the world relation (this distinguishes it from epistemic truth)" ^{[3, 21]}. It takes into account the subjective-anthropic component present in the scientist's thought. Cognition is considered as an activity during which certain ideas and ideals are embodied, reality is transformed.

         Existential truth, unlike epistemic truth, does not correspond to the object itself, not only to the objective content of natural, mental, social processes, but to the subject-object unity, human being, which is the basis of human activity. The subject-object unity is a symbolic world of culture in which a person not only learns, but also experiences the embodiment, realization of certain ideas.

         So, in culture, an essential difference is fixed between what a person only knows at the level of an abstract idea and what he experiences. For example, you can know what courage and selfless heroism are, but not be able to put it into practice. Not every theorist is able to become a good practitioner here. However, it is quite possible to successfully combine theory and practice, in which theory becomes a real force that transforms the world. Existential truth is a correspondence to the subject–object unity, which does not remain an abstract theory, but turns out to be a force that changes the world. This is a coincidence, a correspondence not in isolated knowledge, but in life itself, in practice.

         Let's turn to the authors who wrote about the truth in a similar way. Many studies devoted to the phenomenon of existential truth and related topics can be found in existential philosophy. Already B. Pascal notes that science, epistemic truth cannot give a person answers to questions about the meaning of life, about freedom, about death, about God. He writes that "we know the truth not only with our minds, but also with our hearts. It is with our hearts that we learn the initial concepts, and in vain the mind, which is not involved in this, tries to challenge them" ^{[4, 104]}. So, for example, we have confidence in distinguishing between sleep and reality. According to Pascal, this confidence is based not on rational proof, but on some inner feeling. This same "heartfelt feeling" is the basis of religious faith. It is it that saves a person in the face of the terrifying abyss of the infinite universe. The "heart" is the core of the personality, the concentration of a person's moral life.

         The correlation of epistemic and existential truth can be found in S. Kierkegaard. In the "Final Unscientific Afterword to the Philosophical Crumbs", he devotes a separate chapter to "subjective truth". From Kierkegaard's point of view, the "epistemic" truth in idealistic philosophy is connected with "armchair" scholarship.  This is a kind of "wisdom", which "is something that Mr. Professor composed, about which he wrote books, but which he never tried to implement in life" ^{[5, 208]}. This is impersonal knowledge, something abstract, detached from life and practice, since the scientist abstracts from his own personality in it. This abstraction makes indifferent not only the subject, but also the truth itself, since interest is always subjective. On the one hand, the "objective way" of cognition gives reliability, protection from the vicissitudes of existence. But, on the other hand, the truth obtained in this way does not give a person solutions to life's meaningful problems. According to Kierkegaard, essential cognition proceeds from personal existence, namely, from passion, which is the "highest point of subjectivity" ^{[5, 217]}. "Subjective truth" is revealed through a person's involvement, his sincerity, passion. The knowledge of such truth is always a risky venture, it does not give any guarantees and reliability. It presupposes an inner deepening into oneself, the correlation of knowledge with the dramatic experience of human existence. It is subjective experience that reveals to a person the ethical foundations of his existence as a person. The fullness of personal responsibility is revealed in one's own act of freedom. No external knowledge can replace a person's knowledge of himself, his ethical, truly human foundations. Therefore, Kierkegaard concludes: "subjectivity, the inner, is the truth" ^{[5, 225]}. He puts the "subjective truth" associated with the ethical and religious foundations of the individual above the "objective truth".

         The theme of subjectivity and the existentiality of truth is being developed by other existentialists. Miguel de Unamuno writes about Don Quixote, who "by his madness gives us reason" ^{[6, 21]}. The madness of Don Quixote is the maturity of the spirit, his ability to practice faith in spite of the vital "wisdom" of common sense. Following his madness, his subjective truth, he defends the highest ideals and ethical principles. If common sense and everyday "wisdom" allow us to avoid experiencing "borderline situations", then Don Quixote's "subjectivism" constantly plunges him into deep states, in a situation of collision with life-meaning problems. Don Quixote constantly falls out of the ordinary and routine perception of life, from an impersonal existence. This "eccentricity" allows Don Quixote to some extent realize the highest ideals in life, inspire others with his example, assert human freedom in the world. In this regard, Unamuno proposes to revise the classical idea of truth. What should be recognized as true is what actually motivates a person to multiply life, gives strength to create, to create. "By their fruits you will know people and things. Every belief that promotes deeds that affirm the triumph of Life is truth; and a lie is every belief that promotes the triumph of Death. The criterion of truth is life, and not conformity to logic at all, it is just a criterion of reasonableness" ^{[6, 94]}. Instead of coherence to reason, Unamuno defends the value foundations of truth, its connection with will and faith.

         In the works of H. Ortega y Gasset, the idea of the vitality, the existentiality of truth plays an essential role ^{[7, 364]}. He sets the task of overcoming the Cartesian separation of subject and object, which leads to the separation of man from the world, to the appearance in philosophy of a "dehumanized" man and a "dehumanized" world. This division within the framework of classical science leads to the fact that "scientific truth" because of its depersonality does not leave the "plane of secondary problems", does not give answers to existential questions. However, in fact, "there is no truth if it is not thought of by the subject" ^{[8, 19]}. Moreover, this subject is quite specific, historical, which means that "truth is historical" ^{[8, 71]}. It is revealed in the unity of subject and object, which appears as a unique "perspective" for each individual. The very "disclosure" is the truth. "Truth is research, the search for truth, i.e. the search for naked reality under the clothes of falsehood that hide it" ^{[8, 245]}. Therefore, "'Truth' should be understood as something alive, experiencing the moment of its fulfillment, its birth; in a word, as an action" ^{[8, 245]}. In this regard, the "existential truth" for a person can only be what he himself discovered, comprehended, experienced as a kind of pioneer. It opens in the unique perspective of each individual, is a personal answer to the question of the meaning of life. A person cannot live without such an answer, therefore Ortega y Gasset writes that "truth is the constitutive necessity of man" ^{[7, 382]}. The truth is the "terrible nakedness" that hides behind the facade of traditional decency.

         The opposition of epistemic and existential truths can also be identified in the philosophy of L. Shestov. In the work "On the Scales of Job", in the chapter "What is truth?" Shestov emphasizes the irrationality, the unsystematic nature of existential truth. Shestov connects objectivism, reasonableness, necessity, determinism of epistemic truth with the mythologeme of "Athens", with ancient Greek philosophy. The mythologeme of "Jerusalem", based on the Old Testament tradition, is connected with existential truth, which reveals the irrationality, the boundless freedom of reality. According to Shestov, the mythologeme of "Athens" largely dominates the everyday life of a European person. Rationalism prevails here, asserting something averaged, refined, soulless, impersonal. It is on this basis that the emergence of "philosophical systems" is possible. However, real life sooner or later breaks the rational patterns of everyday life. A person is faced with the tragedy and irrationality of life. Only the "groundless" faith of "Jerusalem", revealed in personal experience, can serve as a support for him. Referring to Plotinus, Shestov concludes: "The truth lies on the other side of reason and thinking" ^{[9, 396]}. "The last truth, what philosophy is looking for, what is most important for living people, comes "suddenly". She herself knows no compulsion and does not force anyone to do anything" ^{[9, 402]}. Thus, Shestov emphasizes the irrational revelation of truth and the freedom of this revelation.

         N.A. Berdyaev develops the idea of the creative nature of truth. In the work "The Meaning of Creativity" he shows that truth is not a passive reflection of objective reality. It is the result of the free creative activity of the spirit. Truth is the correspondence of knowledge or being (in ontological truth) to the unity of subject and object. In this regard, what is imposed on the intellect, what is given in a situation of slavish oppression of the spirit, cannot be true. "Truth is not a duplication, a repetition of being in the knower. Truth is the comprehension and liberation of being, it presupposes the creative act of the knower in being" ^{[10, 281]}. However, classical science, as a rule, "does not see freedom in the world", does not take into account the creative activity of the subject. Existential truth is revealed through philosophy and religion. In addition, in the work "Philosophy of Freedom" N.A. Berdyaev insists that the knowledge of truth presupposes the autotransformation of the subject. Cognition is a spiritual feat involving overcoming one's own limitations. "Therefore, truth is the way and life. Therefore, to know the truth means to be true. The knowledge of the truth is rebirth, creative development, initiation into the universal life" ^{[10, 95]}.

         K. Jaspers pays great attention to the question of existential truth in his works "Reason and Existence" and "Philosophy of Existence". In the lecture "Truth as communicability", he identifies "three kinds of the meaning of truth": the pragmatic truth of practice, truth as evidence for consciousness and truth as a belief based on the idea of the spirit ^{[11, 79]}. However, all these kinds of truth are possible as a differentiation of the original essence of truth revealed in existence. According to Jaspers, the key specificity of human existence is communication. "Existence reveals itself to itself, and thereby acquires reality only if it comes to itself with another existence, thanks to it and simultaneously with it" ^{[11, 89]}. It is communication that generates the very human in a person. Therefore, the truth in its immanence to human existence is revealed through communication. And "if the truth is inextricably linked with communication, then the truth itself can only be an emerging truth, ... the truth, in its depth, is not dogmatic, but communicative" ^{[11, 94]}. If epistemic truth can be objectified, fixed, and objectified, then existential "communicative" truth cannot be presented as something present. It is always in becoming, in incompleteness. It is valid "only as communication and only through communication" ^{[11, 95]}. Jaspers concludes: "a radical chasm separates the dogmatic and communicative ways of knowing the truth" ^{[11, 96]}. Existential truth is known in the openness of a person, in the "total will to communicate." This openness implies risk, involvement in a "borderline situation", faith. The truth can cause pain, lead to despair. However, a person in his depth prefers this pain and risk to ready-made "technical recipes", epistemic truth. Genuine being is associated with a "total will to communicate", with participation that cannot be replaced by objectified ready-made results. Thus, Jaspers defends the idea of the impossibility of objectification of truth, its non-verbalizability, non-transferrability. Existential truth is always a process, becoming, generation here and now in a unique communication. Its criterion is the utmost openness of communication.

         The distinction between epistemic and existential truth can also be found in G. Marcel. He points out the ambiguity of the word "truth" and suggests separating the particular truths of science from the "philosophical Truth". The first truths are impersonal, they are "owned", they relate to "thinking in general". Existential truth is personal, incommensurable with them, transcendent in relation to particular truths. It is impossible to possess it, it is impossible to convey it, but it is possible to "be" in it ^{[12, 29]}. Marcel insists that the phenomenon of truth should not be reduced only to what can be verified using scientific criteria ^{[12, 285]}. The truth is connected with personal experience, in which it can be "witnessed". Finally, even scientific truths are the result of a certain scientific "asceticism", a lot of work, sometimes "heroic self-sacrifice". Misunderstanding of these personal conditions leads scientific truth to "degradation", to the loss of a personal approach ^{[13, 125]}.

         A. Camus in his work "The Rebellious Man" writes about "true life", which he opposes to the extremes of nihilism and conformism that arise in the face of the absurdity of life. True life is an opposition to the flow of history (and nihilistic absolutized historicism), which blurs all the fundamental meanings of human existence. He calls this confrontation a "riot." "The source of forms, the storehouse of true life, rebellion allows us to stay on our feet in the formless and furious flow of history" ^{[14, 355]}. The existential truth of "rebellion" is connected with the fact that it is a response to the cruel truth of life, there is no escape from reality in it. "Rebellion relies on reality in order to strive for an eternal struggle for the truth" ^{[14, 352]}. On the basis of a truthful "rebellion", "true art" arises, overcoming the extremes of "formalism" and "realism". So, although Camus did not write specifically about truth, his works deepen the understanding of existential truth in the aspect of its subjectivity, actively opposing, "rebelling" against the blurring of the human in nihilism and conformism. "Existentially true" is not just the result of a person's creative activity. It is the result of a "rebellious" struggle for meanings, which takes place in a situation of the absurdity of life.

         J.-P. Sartre develops an understanding of existential truth in its connection with freedom. He proceeds from the fact that "freedom lies at the foundation of truth" ^{[15, 214]}. Any search for truth is based on the fact that a person has autonomy, since he is "non-existence". Truth as a "certain type of transcendence" arises in the experience of a particular subject. "Pure cognition" is impossible, "cognition can only be an appearance involved in a point of view" ^{[16, 329]}. Cognition is always "engaged". At the same time, according to Sartre, knowledge is a modality of "possession". "Scientific research is nothing more than an effort and a desire for appropriation. The revealed truth, like a work of art, is my knowledge; it is the noema of thought, which is revealed only when I form a thought, and which therefore appears in a certain way, and I maintain its existence" ^{[16, 581]}. And this means that the scientist is the creator and "owner" of the truth. Ultimately, truth serves the "project of being", man's attempt to justify himself. At the same time, "in essence, there is a constant project for oneself to justify oneself as being and the constant defeat of this project" ^{[16, 620]}. There is always a gap between being and nothing. Finally, Sartre notes the practical "power" of truth. "As long as the movement of thought persists, everything is truth or the moment of truth; even delusions contain real knowledge… What is dead is false: our current ideas are false because they died before ourselves" ^{[15, 105]}.

         Let us conclude with a brief overview of the ideas related to existential truth by M. Heidegger's doctrine of truth. Reflecting on the "non-concealment" of truth, he suggests "rethinking the usual concept of truth in the spirit of the correctness of the statement and moving back to the non-comprehension of the discovery and disclosure of existence" ^{[17, 17]}. The essence of truth is revealed as "entering into the sphere of the discovery of existence." This entry is possible thanks to freedom. Since truth is understood as "non-concealment", it is opposed by "concealment", mystery. Truth arises from mystery. In this regard, the comprehension of the truth presupposes the preservation and vision of the mystery as its source. It is necessary to abandon the destruction of the mystery, from reducing it to something ordinary and profane. A person must "give himself to the openness of existence", turn to a situation of uncertainty, to the "crossroads" of many options of existence, preceding any choice. It is at this "crossroads", in contact with the mystery, that the revelation of truth is possible. Such an experience can be gained in the process of creativity. The artist, the poet creates a space in which the mystery of creation dominates and there is an opportunity to meet with the truth.

         So, in existential philosophy, one can identify a number of ideas related to attempts to identify a special existential truth that opposes the epistemic truth of classical science and scientism. B. Pascal writes about the knowledge of truth "not only with the mind, but also with the heart." S. Kierkegaard identifies "subjective truth" associated with inner experience, deep human passions. M. Unamuno suggests that the criterion of truth is not logic, but life, the affirmation of life and overcoming death. H. Ortega y Gasset writes about the comprehension of truth in its life fulfillment, which is revealed in a unique perspective for everyone. L. Shestov insists on the irrational revelation of truth, which comes "suddenly" in a situation of groundlessness. N.A. Berdyaev develops the idea of the creative nature of truth. K. Jaspers reveals the communicative processality of truth, emphasizes the impossibility of its objectification. G. Marcel writes about the personal foundations of philosophical truth, about the impossibility of its impersonal translation. A. Camus reflects on "true life" and "true art", based on a revolt against the extremes of nihilism and conformism. J.-P. Sartre proceeds from the fact that "freedom lies at the foundation of truth", truth is ultimately a viable project. M. Heidegger understands truth as "uncovered" arising from a mystery at the "crossroads" of many variants of existence.

         Thus, "cordiality", subjective passion, vitality, "perspectivism", irrationality, creative nature, communication, personality, "rebellion", freedom, "non-concealment" of existential truth come to the fore here. At the same time, many of these authors emphasize the impossibility of "objectification" of such a truth, its non-verbalizability, non-transferrability, the impossibility of possessing it as something available. In contrast to the extreme position of the objectivism of classical natural science, there is a tendency to the extreme of subjectivism. One can observe some approximation to the position that G. Hegel, distinguishing it from "consciousness" and "mind" ("spirit"), called "self-consciousness". For this point of view, "the true is consciousness itself" ^{[1, 107]}, which opposes the "negative subject of self-consciousness". It is crowned with a "doubling of self-consciousness" and a special experience of "unhappy consciousness" ^{[1, 126]}.

         From a dialectical point of view, such an understanding of truth is the same one-sided approach as the point of view of the "subject-fixated" consciousness, for which "the truth is something other than consciousness itself." According to Hegel, the truth is known by the mind (spirit), which removes consciousness and self-consciousness. Hegel insists that this withdrawal in its highest development comes to truth as a concept. Truth is conformity to a concept. However, one can hardly agree with Hegel that "everything real is reasonable", and the concept removes the irrational sides of truth. The enduring value of existential philosophy is that in it one can find convincing evidence of the irrationality of life and the truth itself. No matter how we mystify the Hegelian concept, it does not contain irrationality, personal and other aspects of truth indicated by existentialists. In this regard, it seems more promising to turn to the dialectic of A.F. Losev, who found a synthesis of rational and irrational in the nature of symbol and myth.

         Let's try to comprehend the ideas related to existential truth with the help of the dialectic of the Losev symbol. Dialectical comprehension involves the search for a dialectically-specific community that includes various aspects of the subject being studied. This is "such a general thing that did not reject objects in their integral reality, but contained them in itself, however, not in their gross separateness, but in the form of a law of the flow of this reality" ^{[18, 45-46]}. In search of such a commonality, we will correlate the ideas considered with Losev's philosophical system.

         What existential philosophers write about in truth is primarily connected with its immanent givenness to a living person. The "non-concealment" that arises on the basis of the "mystery" indicates some unknowable, "non-predicate" source of truth at its core. Truth is a "light" emanating from an ineffable mysterious source. Losev, relying on the Neoplatonists, points to this source as "the very self" ^{[19, 314]}. Man is not separated from this source, since the "I" itself has the same nature ^{[19, 315]}. The immanent givenness of the "light" of this source to a person presupposes the possibility of "directly intuitive" comprehension ^{[18, 149]}, and not only "thought-discursive" operations.

         The openness of a "non-predicate" source to a person presupposes a moment of communication. Losev interprets it as an expression and a name ^{[20, 829]}. The truth in its disclosure to a person does not remain a pure given, but always acquires an interpretive and communicative aspect ^{[19, 335]}.

         The communicative comprehension of the truth presupposes the participation of a living, concrete person in it, who, from the position of his unique "perspective", comprehends and passionately experiences many new "horizons" that the truth opens to her. The intense involvement of a person in the realization of many "variations" of truth in his personal being is experienced, according to Losev, as a "myth" perceived as a genuine reality ^{[21, 36]}.

         Truth becomes a real force that transforms the old and generates a new reality. The creative side of the truth is revealed ^{[18, 29]}. The truth appears as an "instrument of remaking reality" ^{[18, 15]}. In this transformation of reality, the freedom underlying it manifests itself.

         The freedom to reveal the truth is also manifested in the fact that this disclosure can be a kind of "miracle" ^{[21, 171]}, an irrational event that does not fit into the usual course of things. Truth as a "miracle" turns out to be a coincidence of a person's alienated existence with his true personal meaning ^{[21, 184]}.

         All these aspects of truth are somehow taken into account in existential philosophy. However, the "objectivity", "objectivity", "operationality", "functionality", "structurality", "generality" of truth are criticized or even completely denied here. However, it is hardly necessary to neglect these moments of truth. Losev insists in his works that knowledge is a reflection of reality, which "carries the power and might of reality itself" ^{[18, 47]}. It is a generalization, and not dead and empty, but one that "commands us to return to generalizable things, introducing a semantic regularity into them" ^{[18, 47]}. It should be noted that Losev understands "general" not as in "school logic", which teaches that the larger the scope of the concept, the poorer it is in content. The general, according to Losev, is "a principle for the construction of everything singular that falls under this general" ^{[18, 46]}. That is, the greater the generalization, "the more it contains the ability to recognize the concrete" ^{[18, 147]}. In the same way, truth reveals the internal structure of things, not isolated and isolated, but charged with "a finite or infinite series of corresponding individual manifestations of this structure" ^{[18, 48]}. The functional aspects of truth are related to the fact that cognition presupposes a certain system of operations. Truth finally reveals the principles of the construction of a thing and, therefore, is what generates a thing ^{[18, 47]}.

         What is such a community that communatively expresses the "non-predicate" "itself" in the "directly intuitive" datum in the sensually singular, which a person can interpret and passionately experience in his personal being as a genuine reality, which can freely become an "instrument of remaking reality" and at the same time irrationally appear as a "miracle", but, at the same time, which is a reflection of reality, a structure, a function that is the principle of constructing real things? Losev insists that such a community is a symbol. The symbol, like the concept, is a function of reality, a community, naturally decomposed into a number of separate singularities ^{[18, 46]}. However, in the symbol, this decomposition is given "directly-intuitively" ^{[18, 149]}. A symbol in its realization can become a myth ^{[18, 154]}, the central point of which is an intensely experienced personal irrational "miracle". This myth may be quite unconscious for the personality itself ^{[18, 41]}. The expanded symbol allows you to see the personal being in its entirety and, at the same time, to reveal a certain "task" that constructs this being. Losev gives examples of symbolic understanding of personality based on the material of F.M. Dostoevsky's novels. For example, "Raskolnikov's personality, together with all his behavior and experiences, is a symbol, that is, the main function that in the novel "Crime and punishment", mathematically speaking, decomposes into an infinite series of Raskolnikov's actions" ^{[18, 42]}.

         From the point of view of the concept of symbol, which Losev reveals in his works, existential truth can be understood as the correspondence of knowledge (or being in the case of ontological truth) to a dialectically concrete symbolic reflection of reality. The support for existential truth is not just reality, but the subject-object unity, reflection of the fundamental, stable sides of reality, penetration into its deep and natural basis, which at the same time can be a "directly intuitive" given in the immanent personal being, that is, a symbol. At the same time, the symbol becomes an instrument for transforming the more superficial, unstable sides of reality. Symbols of world-historical significance passing through many cultures have the greatest dialectical concreteness ^{[18, 250]}. The correlation of the experience of different cultures makes it possible to find a dialectically specific solution to a particular problem ^{[22, 12]}. To study the various dialectical concreteness of symbols, Losev's teaching on relative and absolute mythology can be used. In relative mythology (symbolic being), the reflection of certain aspects of reality is absolutized to the detriment of others. This leads to the fact that in relative mythology, other aspects of reality are always suppressed, displaced. At the same time, they manifest themselves again and again, and relative mythology is always in a struggle with them. Its symbol, in its logical and illogical unfolding, is constantly "carried away by particulars, disfiguring dialectics, i.e. the mind itself, in order to preserve its flawed and isolated existence" ^{[21, 216]}. In absolute mythology (symbolic being) "not one of its principles is belittled... all the moments of myth formation occupy exactly the place they deserve... no side drowns out any other side" ^{[21, 216]}. That is, dialectical unity is achieved in reflecting the different sides of reality. Such a symbol turns out to be the most stable in human activity, universal for various cultures ^{[23, 181]}. Existential truth can be understood as the correspondence of knowledge (or being) to such a fundamental symbol.