Sooner or later, every person begins to think about the question of why people live in this world. This problem accompanies humanity throughout its history. Over thousands of years, people have accumulated a sufficient amount of approaches to answering this question. Let's talk about the basic concepts of the meaning of life that have developed in religion, philosophy and psychology.

The problem of determining the meaning of life

The phrase “meaning of life” appears in philosophical usage only in the 19th century. But the question of why people live in the world arises several thousand years ago. This problem is central to any mature worldview; reflecting on the finitude of one’s existence, every person is confronted with this question and is looking for an appropriate answer. From the point of view of philosophers, the meaning of life is a personal characteristic that determines the attitude towards oneself, other people, and life in general. This is a person’s unique awareness of his place in the world, which affects life goals and priorities. However, this understanding of one’s place in life is not given to a person easily; it appears only through reflection, sometimes painful. The complexity of this problem lies in the fact that there is no single correct, generally accepted answer to the key question: why do people live in the world? The meaning of life is not equal to its purpose, and no uniquely verifiable argument in favor of one concept or another has yet been found. Therefore, over the centuries, different approaches to answering this question have existed and coexisted.

Religious approach

For the first time, a person thought about why people live in the world in ancient times. As a result of these searches, the very first answer to the question appears - religion, it provided universal justification for everything in the world, including man. All religious concepts are built on the idea of ​​an afterlife. But each denomination imagines the path of immortality differently, and therefore the meaning of life is different for them. Thus, for Judaism, the meaning lies in diligently serving God and fulfilling his commandments as set out in the Torah. For Christians, the main thing is the salvation of the soul. It is possible only through a righteous earthly life and knowledge of God. For Muslims, too, the meaning is submission to the will of God. Only those who lived devotedly to Allah will go to heaven, the rest are destined for hell. A significantly different approach can be seen in Hinduism. Here the meaning is salvation, eternal pleasure, but for this you need to go through the path of asceticism and suffering. Buddhism reflects in the same direction, where the main goal of life is understood as getting rid of suffering through renunciation of desires. One way or another, every religion sees the meaning of human existence in improving the spirit and limiting bodily needs.

Philosophers of Ancient Greece about the meaning of life

The ancient Greeks thought a lot about the beginnings of existence, the origins of all things. The problem of the meaning of life is perhaps the only one on which representatives of different schools of ancient philosophy agreed. They believed that the search for meaning is a difficult, daily work, a path that has no end. They assumed that every person on earth has his own, unique mission, the acquisition of which is the main task and meaning. Socrates assumed that finding meaning allows a person to achieve harmony between the body and spirit. This is the path to peace and success not only in earthly life, but also in the other world. Aristotle believed that the search for the purpose of life is an integral element of human self-awareness and with the growth of the soul, the purpose of existence, the awareness of a person’s purpose changes, and there is no single, universal answer to the eternal question of why we live in the world.

Arthur Schopenhauer's concept

The 19th century saw a surge in thinking about the purpose of human existence. Arthur Schopenhauer's irrational concept offers a new approach to solving this problem. The philosopher believes that the meaning of human life is just an illusion, with the help of which people are saved from the terrible thought of the purposelessness of their existence. In his opinion, the world is governed by absolute will, which is indifferent to the fate of individual people. A person acts under the pressure of circumstances and the will of others, so his existence is a real hell, a chain of continuous suffering, replaced by each other. And in search of meaning in this endless series of suffering, people come up with religion, philosophy, the meaning of life in order to justify their existence and make it at least relatively bearable.

Denial of the meaning of life

Following Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche explained the features of the inner world of man in the aspect of the nihilistic theory itself. He said that religion is slave morality, that it does not give, but rather takes away from people the meaning of life. Christianity is the greatest deception and it must be overcome, and only then will it be possible to understand the purpose of human existence. He believes that most people live to prepare the world for the emergence of a superman. The philosopher called for abandoning humility and relying on an external force that would bring salvation. A person must create his own life, following his nature, and this is the main meaning of existence.

Existential theory of the meaning of life

In the 20th century, philosophical discussions about the purposes of human existence became central in many directions, including existentialism. Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger reflect on the meaning of life and come to the conclusion that the main thing for a person is freedom. Everyone brings meaning into their lives, since the world around them is absurd and chaotic. Actions and, most importantly, choices, moral, life, are why people live in the world. Meaning can only be perceived subjectively; it does not exist objectively.

A pragmatic approach to determining the meaning of life

Reflecting on the purpose for which we come into this world, William James and his fellow pragmatists come to the conclusion that meaning and purpose are equal. The world is irrational, and it is futile to look for objective truths in it. Therefore, pragmatists believe that the meaning of life is commensurate only with a person’s success in life. Everything that leads to success has value and meaning. The presence of meaning in life can only be assessed and identified by applying the criterion of usefulness and profitability. Therefore, this concept often appears in a subsequent assessment of the life of another person.

Viktor Frankl's concept and psychology

The meaning of human life became a central category in the theory of psychologist and philosopher Viktor Frankl. He developed his concept while experiencing terrible suffering in a German concentration camp, and this gives special weight to his thoughts. He says that there is no abstract meaning of life that is common to everyone. Each person has their own, unique one. Moreover, meaning cannot be found once and for all; it is always a requirement of the moment. The main guide of a person in search of global goals of existence is conscience. It is she who helps to evaluate every action in the aspect of overall life meaning. On the path to its acquisition, a person, according to V. Frankl, can follow three paths: the path of creative values, attitude values ​​and experiential values. The loss of the meaning of life leads to inner emptiness, an existential vacuum.

Answering the question of why people are born, Frankl notes that it is to search for meaning and for oneself. More recent psychologists say that the search for meaning in life and its acquisition are the most important motivational mechanisms. A person who has found the answer to the main question lives a more productive and happy life.

No one has ever formulated an impeccable, timeless and universally accepted definition of philosophy. And this is quite natural, since with the development of society and knowledge the subject of interest of philosophers changes. Aristotle argued that philosophy is the doctrine of the first principles and principles of the universe and its knowledge. The 1994 Oxford Dictionary on page 256 states: “philosophy is the study of the most general abstract characteristics of the world and of the categories in terms of which we think.” Some contemporaries, imitating physicists, joke: philosophy is what philosophers do. Sometimes these are problems that border on the unknown, have no solution, or allow for alternative solutions that cannot be quantified or verified by experience. But as soon as a quantitative solution becomes possible, the problem generally ceases to be philosophical and becomes scientific. In this sense, philosophy is similar to King Lear, who gives away his kingdom to his daughters - the sciences - and is left with nothing.

Philosophy is NOT “the science of the most general laws development of the nature of society and thinking,” as they wrote in Soviet textbooks, for the simple reason that there are no such laws: Nature is studied by the natural sciences, society is a complex of social sciences, thinking is psychology, neurophysiology, cognition is epistemology, forms of thinking and problems of scientific knowledge studies logic and methodology of science...

Bypassing the naive everyday understanding of philosophy as a “conversation for life” in the absence of any professional knowledge,

bypassing meaningless shamanic incantations, such as the fact that philosophy is the desire for the Absolute and is associated “with the comprehension by speculation of the essence of the world”, bypassing clericalized “philosophers” who renounce rational knowledge and throw philosophy back to the times when philosophy was the handmaiden of the Church or the Central Committee of this or that other ideological authorities, we accept the following working definition:

Philosophy is a form of self-knowledge by humanity of its culture, problems of meaning and values ​​on the basis of understanding all the knowledge achieved by humanity, which allows it to seek answers to the challenges of history and form the prerequisites, theory and methodology of human knowledge.

No one can comprehend all the knowledge accumulated by humanity. And premises do not come to philosophy from the “realm of absolutes” or from the verbal discourses of mystics. They come from the real life of the species Homo sapiens, evolving in a certain physical and social environment, acquiring the status of pre-experimental, extra-empirical prerequisites.

Some philosophical categories are transcendental, organizing our knowledge, but not transcendental, supposedly leading beyond the limits of our limited experience to absolute ontological truths. It is with the help of transcendental categories that the subject of knowledge constitutes and organizes his experience and his perception of the world. These include the categories of Kant’s “pure reason”, for example space and time in their Newtonian understanding, and categories such as “things”, “properties” and “relations”, which were formed in the process of the evolution of human cognition and which have nothing to do with metaphysics . But based on the triad of these categories, as well as the operators “definite”, “indefinite” and “arbitrary”, the Soviet-Russian-Ukrainian philosopher Professor A.I. Uyomov (Odessa) and his students at the end of the 20th century created a parametric general theory systems (It should be noted that the world is not at all divided once into systems and non-systems, and any object or subject of research or interest can be represented in one way or another as a system).

It is known that the word “philosophy” consists of two Greek words: phileo - love and sophia - wisdom. Philosophy, love of wisdom. But there is no wisdom without specific knowledge, otherwise it will drown in the muddy swamp of ornate words. Immanuel Kant rightly said: “He who hates science for the sake of the love of wisdom alone is called a misologist. Misology... arises in the absence of scientific knowledge and, inevitably, a kind of vanity associated with this.”

Philosophy is often called reflective knowledge because it is a form of self-knowledge, knowledge about knowledge. A philosopher, according to Bertrand Russell, is like a man who, looking out of a window, tries to see himself passing along the street. And as a result of such increases - Philosophy influences the development of society, creating various systems of meaning. Under her influence, social reforms and revolutions, scientific and technological revolutions, epoch-making discoveries and fateful decisions were carried out.

The subject of modern philosophy is the entire range of philosophical research. This is an understanding of man, his consciousness and moral values, the development available methods knowledge, awareness of the results of knowledge and activity, ways of human development, spheres and boundaries of knowledge. How do advances in science affect the evolution of society, how do people, society and nature interact, what threatens the existence of humanity? All this is a field of philosophical research. And in this sense, philosophy is a science.

But there are aspects in which philosophy cannot claim the status of science. Philosophical problems can be raised both in fiction and journalism. That’s why they sometimes say that philosophy is not science, but literature: reflections through artistic images.

Philosophy has not been the handmaiden of religion for a long time, although some authors with medieval thinking are trying to make it such in Russia today. Philosophy cannot be the handmaiden of ideology or politics, but it can influence them. Only someone who is not familiar with philosophy can claim that entire layers of reliable philosophical knowledge have not been developed. Or that her subject has never changed, or that she is engaged in chatter and is trying to learn something beyond, as the workers of the “Department of Inaccessible Problems” from NIICHAVO (Research Institute of Witchcraft and Wizardry) did in a funny “fairy tale for scientists younger age"A. and B. Strugatsky "Monday begins on Saturday"

Philosophy evolves in the unity of 1. Ontology as a systemic and categorical understanding of reality, represented by various sciences, and not by mystical revelations about the “primary essences” of the universe, as they thought about it in ancient times,

2. G noseology, or modern epistemologyas the doctrine of the possibilities, forms and methods of evolution of our knowledge, and 3. Axiology - the doctrine of moral and aesthetic values , which were created and by which man is guided. Moreover, ontology is always epistemological, and epistemology is ontologized, and axiology has an evaluative influence on them.

Main sections of philosophy:

Logic, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics (as the history of the emergence and disappearance of attempts to go beyond the limits of human knowledge and experience), philosophy of religion (as the understanding of the social phenomenon of religion on the basis of knowledge obtained by secular science - religious studies. Not to be confused with religious philosophy, theology and theology). We can separately consider modern philosophy: pragmatism, instrumentalism, analytical philosophy from Russell to Wittgenstein, existentialism, postmodernism...

In ancient and classical philosophy, the main emphasis was on its self-determination as a special kind of knowledge: knowledge of the Universal, the One, the Absolute. Modern philosophy(in the horizon of its tasks) places emphasis on the process of philosophizing itself, considering this process as its own feature of the human mind or consciousness, corresponding transcendental(going beyond the limits of existence) human nature. Therefore, the question about the essence of philosophy coincides with the question about the essence of man. In Heidegger's formulation - philosophy is main event human presence, i.e. philosophizing, a person is at the essence of Being, “throws himself back to himself” (K. Jaspers).

Everyone philosophizes normal person, but unlike a professional philosopher, he does not philosophize in its “pure form.” This is why teaching philosophy, among other things, is intended and promotes the ability to philosophize more consistently, which means, according to Hegel, learning to be in the sphere of “pure thinking.”

As Aristotle noted: “philosophy begins with wonder.” "Position" marvelousness"of the world is expressed in asking special "children's" questions like: "Why does the sun shine?" These kinds of questions are only a naive form of the ultimate philosophical question: "Why is something there, and not the other way around?" (It is easy to understand that a child's question about the sun refers us to the world as a whole. In Kantian terms, it would sound like this: “How should the world be structured so that it contains the conditions of possibility for a luminous sun?”)

The understanding of philosophy as a universal modality (i.e. ability) of thinking generally corresponds to creative(i.e. creative) experience (experience of generating one’s own thoughts) of each person and the experience of modern professional philosophy. The further task of the definition will be to reveal the content of this modality.

Here are several typical modern “definitions” of philosophy and its tasks, which are characterized by the fact that they break with classical understanding philosophy as a kind of knowledge (or as a kind of science).

There is a philosophy:

questioning (M. Heidegger);

the process of philosophizing itself (K. Jaspers);

consciousness “out loud” (M. Mamardashvili);

search for the unity and integrity of the World (H. Ortega y Gasset);

longing to be at home everywhere (Novalis);

concrete reflection mediated by the entire universe of signs (P. Ricoeur);

philosophy is not one of the sciences, its goal is the logical clarification of thoughts (L. Wittgenstein), etc.

But in general - as many philosophers as there are so many formulations. In the range of limited and specific tasks of propaedeutics, a conditional choice can be made, which we will further understand as philosophy. This choice is dictated by how much this definition allows you to explicate (expand, logically consistently deduce) all philosophical problems.

In this course, we will test for the possibility of explication the understanding of philosophy as reflection (“deficient reflection”: the hyphen, which is often found in modern philosophical texts, acts as an operator indicating the need to delve into the semantic structure of a word in contrast to the objectivity or thingness that it denotes ). In other words, the idea of ​​"reflection" means unfolding of thought from itself.

If it is permissible to talk about an innovation, which the author wants to emphasize methodically rather than to introduce into the “definition” of philosophy (the latter has already been done without it), then it consists in a systematic substantiation of the fact that the entire philosophical culture consists in the development of the original ability of each person. It’s as if the ultimate goal of the course is not to introduce new knowledge, but to provide an opportunity to recognize or discover this feature of his mind. “My intention was not to express my thoughts, but to help you free from the fog of uncertainty what you yourself think.”. Bataille J. Theory of Religion. Minsk, 2000. - P. 109.

So, every person has, to a greater or lesser extent, the ability to reflection. The question now is this. Is there a logic to the development of thought from itself? And since a positive answer is assumed, this logic is the basis of the philosophical culture of thinking.

The ability to develop thought from itself is only an expressed ability human consciousness. This ability can be clearly expressed, but in the field of consciousness it never exists separately from other abilities. Thought always exists together with feeling, will and faith (the state of involvement in something). Every act of thought as such unfolds itself in a relationship to these other instances of consciousness. In relation to feeling, will and faith, thought plays a constructive role. She constructs consciousness of herself in relation to faith as part of some integrity (this is understanding); identifies the subject of consciousness (the Ego instance) in relation to feeling; constructively divides the integrity of the world into its component parts (things) in relation to the will.

Thus, the act of consciousness (thought) represents the unity of reasoning, experience (imagination), understanding and reflection. Each of these modes of thought has its own natural order: the order of judgment is determined by the structure of things (this is clearly seen when we are faced with the need to describe a thing); this order is guarded by such a discipline as formal logic, and positive science is an institutionalized expression of the human ability to judge (note that “judgment” comes from the word “to judge”). The order of experience has its own logic - the logic of feeling, which is institutionally represented in the sphere of art (we clearly encounter this logic when we are forced to express our experience in words or other symbols - namely express, rather than describe). Understanding - constitutes internal condition any communication, represents an intuitive consciousness of involvement in something. The logic of thinking is the own internal logic of thought or mind.

In mature ancient philosophy a hierarchy of cognitive abilities had already been established. Plato and Aristotle distinguished between the ability of cognition of intelligible objects - mind (Greek. Nus. It is worth noting that the words “mind”, “science”, “Teaching” have the same root “U”); reason (Greek) Dianoia)- the discursive ability to connect eidos-images according to logical rules. Reason is expressed in the ability to judge. In addition, we should highlight the vague comprehension of transitory things by opinion (Greek. Doxa) and “likening” is a representation. In general, the distinction between reason and understanding is mandatory for the entire European philosophical tradition. This distinction was especially strengthened by Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Judgment).

The logic of the development of thought from itself (from meaning) is based on the peculiarity of the rational vision of every thing. This feature (a feature of relatively non-reflective mental vision) is that we see not only the material fabric of an object (in Heidegger’s words, “the thinghood of a thing”), but we simultaneously understand the field of possibilities of a thing, its belonging to some kind of whole. In other words, we see rationally (consciously) if and only if we see not only what is, but also what can be (what this thing can be, how it can still be used). Thus, we certainly know, contemplating “this table”, that it is something more than “this”: it is also a representative of the class of tables (corresponds to a certain concept) and can be used in a variety of ways.

The ability to see a thing in the field of its possibilities (which are provided to it by belonging to some integral continuum of existence) also determines our freedom from the thing. After all, if a thing is perceived only as it is (at the level of sensory perception and only), then the individual finds himself dependent on his material environment, he is compared to an animal that does not know, nor What it knows nothing it knows.

At the same time, we understand the difference that exists between a thing (existence) and its possibilities, and it is this understanding, the focus on this difference as a problem, that constitutes the feature of modern episteme (i.e., the method of categorical division of the world, which is changing historically). In previous epistemes, the difference between being and the sphere of its possibilities did not have a clear reflexive expression, in other words, it was weakly thematized. The main categorical division took place in other “places”: between a thing and an idea, between a thing and an essence, between nature and spirit. In other words, where previously there was continuity, we see discontinuity. And we see these gaps, first of all, because we are forced to live in them.

We live in a gap between what is in nature and the changes that we can make to it (through innovation and involvement in economic turnover) - this is the essence of environmental issues; we live in the prospect of options for our own lives and the need for our own choices - something that traditional society almost did not allow. In general, we are in a situation where it is not so much need that forces us to act, but rather the future (in all its virtuality) that attracts us.

In an implicit form, a reasonable vision of a thing is bringing it to question: how is it possible? Questioning is indeed the original and main form of reflection. No other form of expression of thought so clearly relies on itself, does not grow from its own content (meaning). The real question is the paradoxical knowledge of ignorance and grows out of this reflexive ignorance. In questioning, thought most clearly unfolds from itself. This means that thought owes its birth not to the perceived object, but to the subject as the bearer of meaning.

The question is the main, but not the only figure of reflection. A more general form is the internal logic of the Language. Many philosophers have noted that philosophy is a special linguistic practice where statements are directed at themselves. In this way, philosophy is similar to poetry, which uses special techniques (rhythm and rhyme, for example) and focuses attention on the semantic structure of the word, on the play of its meanings.

Various forms of transfer of meaning (which is a formal condition for reflection) occur through the use of rhetorical figures or tropes: metaphors, synecdoche, catachresis, etc.

Thus, the use of language, questioning and tropes is a general but formal condition of reflection. The substantive side of the development of meaning is determined by the existential nature of Reason itself, by the methods it uses.

Does free will exist? Is it possible to break out of the framework imposed by your own horoscope? Or is a person obliged to go through those troubles and problems that are embedded in his natal chart? This is an incomplete list of questions that subscribers, friends and clients periodically ask. Everyone wants to know - do you need to fight fate or does fate require humility? I myself often wonder about free will. Sometimes it seems to me that someone puts certain thoughts and ideas into my head, and I just need to write them down. Every person must have time to do something while on Earth. Someone needs to open their own business, someone needs to treat people, and someone needs to start a blog. Everyone has their own mission. So this means we are no longer free to choose our own line of behavior? Or is the “corridor of free will” simply very narrow? Let's try to understand this issue.

For myself, I have conditionally identified 3 groups of factors that can limit a person’s free will:

1. Limitation of free will by the natal horoscope/relocation horoscope.
2. Limitation of free will by prognostic indicators.
3. Limitation of free will by the natal horoscopes of close people (relatives, lovers, friends, etc.).

I'll go through each point.

Limitation of free will by the natal horoscope/ relocation horoscope.

Something cannot happen in a person’s life that his natal chart does not indicate. So if there are no indications of widowhood in the chart, the person will not be widowed; if there are no indicators of worldwide fame, the native will not become mega popular, etc. Some indicators of the natal chart are corrected by moving, and in the natal it is usually clearly visible, moving will help, emigration will be realized on a certain topic or not.

But maybe we see the question of free will in black and white, excluding 50 shades of gray? In my opinion, a person has free will, just not everywhere and not in everything. For example, the house where Saturn stands is clearly an area in which the native's freedom is limited. But the Sun and Jupiter, on the contrary, point to the sphere where we are free to act as we want. Of course, you need to take everything into account - aspects to planets, cusps, and not just location by house or sign.

Some people initially have more freedom. These include those with planets in the First House, especially in the area of ​​the Ascendant. By and large, many areas of life are subject to them. But it is also worth assessing those planets that are in the abode of our First House Ruler. We are also able to influence the houses that these planets rule.

Accordingly, the accumulation of planets in the Twelfth House creates a strong feeling that nothing can be done, that the hand of karma is visible everywhere (if the sign in which the planet is located and the sign in which the Ascendant is located are different). There was a case when the owner of a cluster of planets in the Seventh House said that there is no free will. I suppose that in his case, this situation simply emphasized the strong influence of other people - they make decisions, thereby forcing the native to act in a certain way or not act, his career, level of income, etc. depend on them.

We also have freedom because each planet has several meanings. Neptune is not only drug addicts and mentally ill people, but also drug addiction specialists, tarot readers, musicians, and singers. If Neptune is in the Seventh House, then we are limited in choosing a satellite, but we are free to choose from what the planet represents. Don't want a relationship with a singer? Please, an actor on you!

It was as if we had come to a restaurant, say, Mediterranean cuisine. We can order grilled shrimp, pasta with mussels or crab puree soup. But we won't get borscht or chicken Kiev.

This principle of replacement (or rather similarity) underlies some methods of correcting/working out a horoscope. Tense aspects, the presence of weak planets in the chart will not go away, and turning a blind eye to them, pretending that they simply do not exist is wrong. It is necessary to select an adequate replacement for the horoscopic factor and then the problems will be much less.

Constraining free will by prognostic indicators.

Sometimes our freedom is limited not so much by natal aspects and planets, but by the indicators established in the forecast. Prognostic aspects form certain feelings, thoughts, desires in us, and they, in turn, influence what decisions we make.

A square from transit Uranus to the Moon, the Ruler of the Twelfth House, can affect a pregnant woman through stress, nervousness and, as a result, the need to be under the supervision of doctors in a hospital, due to which her freedom to move around the city will be limited.

Or the native hopes for a career advancement, but has become more active in the directorates natal square from Saturn to Jupiter - the Ruler of the Tenth House, and the man remained in the “flight”. Thoughts may arise that making a career is simply not destined. But the aspect will pass, a harmonious aspect will be formed from the directional Sun to the natal MC and the man will be able to not only climb the career ladder, but open his own company.

In other words, if it seems to you that fortune has turned its back on you, that with your natal you can’t achieve any heights, you can’t get married, you can’t buy an apartment, etc., then maybe you’re just going through a bad period, and after a while a favorable natal factor is activated.

Another point of view, also directly related to prognosis, is also appropriate here. According to it, a person is free, but at certain moments in life his will becomes limited, pressure is put on a person, which forces him to act only this way and not otherwise. At such moments, there is a feeling that there is no freedom, that some flow of energy is carrying someone unknown where and what it will all lead to is unclear. A person feels like a spring in a huge system.

The opposite is also true. If a person is initially limited in certain areas by his horoscope, then the influence of certain prognostic factors (planets, groups of aspects, etc.) leads to greater freedom. But the aspect passes, and so does the feeling of independence. The person returns to his usual framework again.

Limitation of free will by the natal horoscopes of loved ones.

According to our horoscope, we can assess the fate of people close to us, but also according to their natal charts you can do the same. Close relationships, whether friendly or romantic, are a sure sign that people fit into each other’s horoscopes.

For example, a woman has the Sun in the Tenth House in trine to Jupiter, Mars, Pluto in the Second House and her husband is a successful entrepreneur. But she could marry a wealthy man, or she could marry an ordinary hard worker who, after marriage, suddenly developed career. This hard worker’s chart initially contained indicators for success in business; he simply met the woman precisely when this specific factor in his horoscope became more active.

The opposite is also true. In the horoscope of a man, the Descendant is in Scorpio, intensely aspected Pluto is in the Sixth House in Virgo, and the exiled Moon is in the Eighth House. The fate of the wife is not written in the best way. Either the wife’s profession will be specific (surgeon, obstetrician, etc.), or she herself will be seriously ill. A woman who lives with such a man will definitely fall under the power of his natal horoscope. If previously a woman did not complain about life, then after several years life together she might get into trouble.

There is a phrase that I really love. It sounds like this: “if you want to change your life, change your environment.” This is a 100% true statement, but I would also add that you also need to choose your environment wisely.

1. THE LAW OF THE EMPTINITY. Everything starts from emptiness. The void must always be filled.

2. LAW OF THE BARRIER. Opportunities are not given in advance. A decision must be made to cross the barrier as a conditional obstacle. Opportunities are given after an internal decision. Our cherished desires are given to us along with the strength to realize them.

3. LAW OF NEUTRAL POSITION. To change, you have to stop. , and then change the direction of movement.

4. LAW OF PAYMENT. You need to pay for everything: for action and inaction. What will be more expensive? Sometimes the answer is obvious only at the end of life, on your deathbed - the price for inaction is higher. Avoiding failure does not make a person happy. “There have been many failures in my life, most of which never happened” - the words of the old man to his sons before his death.

5. LAW OF SIMILARITY. Like attracts like. There are no random people in our lives. We attract not the people we want to attract, but those who are similar to us.

6. LAW OF THINKING. The inner world of human thoughts is embodied in the outer world of things. One must not look for the causes of misfortune in the external world, but turn one’s gaze inward. Our outer world is the realized world of our inner thoughts.

7. LAW OF THE ROCKER ARM. When a person wants something, but it is unattainable, he must come up with another interest, equal in strength to the first.

8. LAW OF ATTRACTION. A person attracts to himself what he loves, fears or constantly expects, i.e. whatever is in his central, focused consciousness. Life gives us what we expect to get from it, not what we want.
“What you expect is what you will get.”

9. THE LAW OF REQUEST. If you don’t ask for anything from life, then you don’t get anything. If we ask fate for something unknown, then we receive something unknown. Our request attracts the corresponding reality.

10. LAW OF LIMITATIONS No. 1. It is impossible to foresee everything. Everyone sees and hears only what he understands, and therefore he cannot take into account all the circumstances. It all depends on our internal barriers, our own limitations. There are events that occur against our will, they cannot be foreseen, and we are not responsible for them. With all his desire, a person cannot control all the events of his life.

11. LAW OF REGULARITY. In life, events often occur beyond our control.

An event that occurs once can be considered an accident, an event that occurs twice is a coincidence, but an event that occurs three times is a pattern. 12. LAW OF LIMITATIONS No. 2.

A person cannot have everything. He often lacks something in life. The secret of happiness lies not in indulging your whims and desires, but in the ability to be content with what you have. It is not easy to be content with little, but the most difficult thing is to be content with much. You can lose happiness in search of wealth, which means losing everything. You can gain the whole world and lose your soul. If you want changes in your life, take power over your circumstances into your own hands. You cannot change your life without changing anything in it and without changing yourself. Because of his passivity, a person often misses the real chance provided by fate. Who sets priorities in your life - you or someone else? Maybe life itself arranges them, and you go with the flow? Become the master of your destiny. If you don't go anywhere, you won't arrive anywhere.

14. LAW OF DEVELOPMENT. Life forces a person to solve precisely those problems that he refuses to solve, that he is afraid to solve, and that he avoids.

But these tasks will still have to be solved at another, already at a new stage of your life. And the intensity of emotions and experiences will be more powerful, and the cost of the decision will be higher. What we are running from is what we will come to. 15. TAXI LAW.

If you are not a driver, if you are being driven, then the further they take you, the more expensive it will be for you. If you haven't booked a route, you could end up anywhere. The further you go down the wrong path, the more difficult it will be for you to return. 16. LAW OF CHOICE.

Our life consists of many choices. You always have a choice. Our choice may be that we make no choice. The world is full of possibilities. However, there are no acquisitions without losses. By accepting one thing, we thereby refuse something else. When we enter one door, we miss another. Everyone must decide for themselves what is more important to them. Gains can also be made from losses. 17. THE LAW OF HALF THE WAY.

In a relationship with another person, your zone is the halfway point. You cannot completely control the behavior of another person. Another may not move, you cannot go through the path for him and make the other person change.

18. THE LAW OF BUILDING NEW. No matter how much a person wants to change his life, his way of thinking, the stereotypes of his behavior will try to keep him in the old life that is familiar to him. But if a person manages to change something in his life, then the new, changed life will obey the Law of Balance. Changes usually occur slowly and painfully due to inertia in thoughts and behavior, one’s own internal resistance and the reactions of those around them.

20. LAW OF OPPOSITES. Our life is unthinkable without opposites; it contains birth and death, love and hate, friendship and rivalry, meeting and parting, joy and suffering, loss and gain. Man is also contradictory: on the one hand, he strives to ensure that his life is stable, but at the same time, a certain dissatisfaction drives him forward. In a world of opposites, a person strives to find the lost unity with himself, with other people and with life itself. Everything has a beginning and an end, this is the earthly cycle and the cycle of life. Things, having reached their limit, turn into their opposite. A pair of opposites maintains balance, and the transition from one extreme to another creates the diversity of life. Sometimes in order to understand something, you need to see, to know the opposite of it. One opposite cannot exist without the other - in order for there to be day, night is needed.

21. LAW OF HARMONY. A person seeks harmony in everything: in himself, in the world. You can achieve harmony with the world only by being in harmony with yourself. Good attitude to yourself, self-acceptance is the key to harmony with the world, people and your own soul.

Harmony does not mean the absence of difficulties and conflicts, which can be a stimulus for personal growth. Harmony between mind, feeling and action - maybe this is happiness? 22. THE LAW OF GOOD AND EVIL.

The world is not created just for pleasure. It does not always correspond to our ideas about it and our desires. Anyone who is not able to do a good deed himself will not appreciate the good from others. For those who are unable to see evil, evil does not exist. What irritates a person in others is in himself.

What a person does not want to hear from other people is what is most important for him to hear at this stage of life. Another person can serve as a mirror for us, helping us discover what we do not see or know about ourselves. If a person corrects what irritates him in others in himself, fate will have no need to send him such a mirror. By avoiding everything that is unpleasant for us, by avoiding people who evoke negative feelings in us, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to change our lives, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity for internal growth. 24. LAW OF COMPLETION.

We need people, events, sources of knowledge who can give us what we want to have, but have only in small quantities. We try to become involved in the potential of other people. We build ourselves up externally. Our desire to possess someone or something is non-recognition, denial of our own merits, disbelief that we have them. 25. LAW OF CHAIN ​​REACTION.

If you allow your negative feelings to play out, one unpleasant experience will lead to another. If you live indulging in dreams and daydreams, then reality will be squeezed out by the illusory world of fantasy. It can be difficult for a person to stop the flow of his negative and unproductive thoughts, because... he develops the habit of worrying, worrying, suffering, dreaming, i.e. to escape from reality, from actively solving problems. To what you give more energy, there will be more. The thought to which you give your time acts like a magnet, attracting its own kind. It’s easier to deal with one disturbing thought than a swarm of obsessive thoughts. In the process of our communication with other people, we tend to adopt their moods through emotional contagion.
26. LAW OF SUPPRESSION. What a person suppresses in his thoughts or actions, what he denies in himself, can burst out at the most inopportune moment. You need to accept your thoughts and feelings, and not suppress or accumulate them within yourself.

Accept yourself, accept what you don’t like about yourself, don’t criticize yourself. Life itself is neither bad nor good.

It is our perception that makes it good or bad. Life is what it is. You need to accept life, enjoy life, appreciate life. Trust life, trust the power of your mind and the dictates of your heart. “Everything will be as it should be, even if it’s different.”

28. THE LAW OF ASSESSING THE WORTH OF YOUR PERSONALITY. People around you almost always evaluate a person the way he evaluates himself. You need to accept and value yourself.

Do not create idols for yourself, or an unattainable, ideal image of yourself. Do not accept the opinions of others about you as truth, without subjecting them to criticism. Trying to earn the love of all people (which is impossible), you neglect your own needs, you can lose yourself, lose self-respect. It is impossible to be a perfect person in everything. You are worth exactly what you value yourself at, what your self-worth is. However, a dose of realism never hurts. 29. LAW OF ENERGY EXCHANGE.