Types of knowledge (religious, scientific, philosophical, artistic, worldly, practical, social). Cognition (in philosophy)
The question of cognition, its possibilities, content, and limits is one of the most difficult problems that philosophy deals with, and, moreover, it has the peculiarity that the deeper you go into it, the more you begin to realize its importance, hardly noticed by the first philosophers. , in new philosophy he came to the fore. As it turned out from the historical development of philosophy itself, first of all, the question of knowledge must be clearly posed and resolved in one way or another, in order to then be able to proceed to the resolution of other philosophical questions. No new philosophical doctrine, which could count on its further development in the future, is now impossible without a theory of knowledge. In the latest scientific philosophy of our time, the theory of knowledge is required as a necessary introduction to philosophy.
No matter how much the opinions of philosophers differ regarding the possibility of the origin and development of knowledge, however, everyone is forced to admit that without logical thinking, the development of knowledge is impossible . Even absolute doubt, which does not allow any knowledge of the truth, even then tries to at least support this negative result with logical arguments. All philosophers are no less unanimous about the fact that thinking alone is not enough for the fact of knowledge to arise, but that thinking must have some content, which is given to him in one way or another. Even he who attributes to thought the power to develop all knowledge from a small number of initial ideas must assume at least this beginning to the data.
Only with the question of how given to thinking its original content, a dispute between different directions begins. Since thinking consists only in establishing connections between the various parts of the heterogeneous content of our external and internal experience, then empiricism recognizes as the source of all knowledge only experience .
one of the leading representatives of empirical philosophy
But since, on the other hand, all knowledge presupposes certainty, and the latter, in turn, subsuming what is known under certain obvious propositions, then, in contrast to empiricism, rationalism asserts that real knowledge can be developed by thinking only from a content that, independently of any experience, is as original and obvious as logical thinking itself.
Rene Descartes founder of modern European rationalism
The claims of these two directions are trying to refute skepticism , indicating that experience, due to the deception of the senses and the continuous change of phenomena, is devoid of certainty, and as for logical thinking, the latter can be conveniently used to prove positions that contradict each other. To these three philosophies joins, finally, criticism , who, as an impartial judge, tries to do justice to each of the mentioned directions. Empiricism, in his opinion, is right insofar as it reduces the content of knowledge to experience, rationalism insofar as it recognizes unconditional certainty only for those constituent parts of knowledge that cannot be derived from experience, and even skepticism is allowed by it, if only the latter is limited to a negative attitude towards all attempts at dogmatic assertions by rationalist or empiricist philosophers.
- the founder of criticism in the theory of knowledge
The main question of the theory of knowledge is the question of the relationship that exists between thought and reality, between a knowing being and a known object, or, as philosophers put it, between a subject and an object. The theory of knowledge, from which the modern scientific philosophy, lays in its basis the position of the inextricable connection that exists between the subject and the object. Our representations are originally objects themselves. In the original "representation-object" one cannot find either the concept of an object, or the concept of a thinking subject as such, but it is simultaneously both, thinkable and thinking. Only theoretical reflection destroys this unity and separates representation from object. But once this unity has been broken, once cognition has passed from a naive form, which does not yet know the difference between representation and object, to that reflective form of cognition which the object of representation opposes to representation itself, a return to naive understanding is no longer possible. However, two requirements can be placed on reflection, which should serve as the basis for all considerations about the relation of the thinking subject to the conceivable object. The first requirement is that we must always keep in mind that the distinction of concepts carried out by abstract thinking only proves the separateness of the objects of these concepts themselves if it is really possible to show the products of abstract distinction as being separated in immediate perception. The second requirement is to always be clearly aware motives, stimulating abstract thinking to its distinctions, and in order to borrow points of view exclusively from these motives, according to which we judge the real significance of the distinctions made. This last requirement shows us the way to follow when discussing the problem of knowledge in philosophy. First of all, the question arises about psychological motives , prompting abstract thinking to divide the initial “representation-object” into a represented object and a representing subject, and then, as a second task, the question of boolean value of these motives and of the consequences that, according to this, can be deduced from them for our understanding of reality.
Thus, the subject from which the general philosophical theory of knowledge , is a "representation-object" with all the properties that it directly possesses, hence also in particular with the property of being a real object. Trying to trace the correct sequence of motives arising in thinking and their effect on the development of concepts, we will have to, depending on the type and scope of the intellectual functions used in this case, to distinguish between certain stages of knowledge , which can be abbreviated as perceiving , rational and rational knowledge . The area of the first should include all those transformations to which the original "representations-objects" are subjected, if only these transformations are already carried out within the ordinary processes of perception, without auxiliary means and methods of the scientific formation of concepts. To rational knowledge , on the contrary, all those improvements and additions that are made to the content and connection of representations through methodical logical analysis. Finally, under the name intelligent knowledge one should understand all the efforts of thinking to link the individual results achieved by rational cognition into a single whole.
But in thus delimiting these various stages of cognition, one must beware of understanding them as specifically different forms of cognition, sharply separated in reality. One and the same integral spiritual activity operates at all these levels of cognition, and in accordance with this, the activities of perception and reason, reason and reason constantly pass into each other. It might also be said, in order to characterize these different stages of cognition, that perceiving cognition belongs to practical life , rational knowledge - areas individual sciences , and reasonable philosophy. But here, again, it should be remembered that such differences have a conditional meaning. Science is based on the experiences of practical life, and the acquisitions of science itself become, little by little, the solid property of practical life, which the latter constantly uses when judging one or another subject. Philosophy is sometimes forced to intervene in the work of individual sciences, in order to supplement and correct where necessary, to continue it further from its more general point of view, and as for individual sciences, the latter parts are forced to philosophize against their will, if they do not want to lose the best part of their results. That is why, as soon as this necessity of mutual complementation and assistance is recognized, there can be no question of a prolonged disagreement between philosophy and science, just as between the latter and practical life.
The problem of knowledge is one of the most important in philosophy.
How is knowledge of the world possible? Is it possible? What is truth? - those questions that were originally dictated by the love of knowledge (wisdom) and still form the essence of philosophical problems. These questions are philosophical because they are asked in general form(i.e. addressed to the world as a whole) and are only a generalized formulation of the problems that constantly confront a person.
The theory of knowledge (or epistemology) in general view can be defined as a branch of philosophy in which the nature of cognition, its possibilities and boundaries are studied, the relation of knowledge to reality, the subject to the object of cognition, the conditions for the reliability and truth of knowledge are revealed.
The term "gnoseology" comes from the Greek words "gnosis" - knowledge and "logos" - teaching, the word and means the doctrine of knowledge, despite the fact that the term "gnoseology" itself was introduced in philosophy relatively recently (by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrer in 1854 d.), the doctrine of knowledge began to be developed since the time of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle. In recent decades, the concept of “epistemology” adopted in English-speaking countries has often been used to refer to the theory of knowledge. This term comes from the Greek. "episteme" ("knowledge", "science"). AT ancient Greek philosophy this word emphasized the difference between knowledge and specific forms and types. But some special deep reasons for terminological changes in relation to the concepts of "epistemology".
Aristotle developed the problems of the theory of knowledge in a rather rigorous form, paying great attention to the analysis of inferential knowledge. The group of his logical works already in antiquity was united under the name "Organon", i.e. tool for gaining true knowledge.
In the era of the New Age, epistemological problems become a priority. The doctrine of knowledge began to be regarded as the original philosophical discipline. Often this process is called the epistemological (or epistemological) turn that took place in the philosophy of modern times, which was largely associated with the development of scientific knowledge and the weakening of theological oppression. At the origins of this process was F. Bacon with his work "New Organon", which is critical and constructive. The purpose of this essay is to develop a doctrine of the method of knowing the laws of nature. Bacon's aphorism "knowledge is power" did not lose its meaning in the following centuries.
I. Kant formulated general question, to which the theory of knowledge as a philosophical discipline must answer: "What can I know?". In the Critique of Pure Reason, he took a decisive step in the self-definition of epistemology as a doctrine of scientific knowledge. Kant made the so-called "Copernican revolution" in philosophy, shifting the emphasis in epistemological research from the object to the specifics of the cognizing subject. He also emphasized the inseparability of the theory of knowledge from the problems of philosophical anthropology and ethics, noting the paramount importance of "practical reason", which determines the goals of knowledge.
In the middle of the XIX century. a new direction in philosophy arises - dialectical materialism, within which many problems of the theory of knowledge, formulated in the course of the previous development of philosophy, were resolved. The epistemological concept of dialectical materialism goes beyond the framework of abstract theoretical thinking: the principle of practice is introduced into the basis of the theory of knowledge. Another important contribution to this area of philosophy is the development by the classics of Marxism of the dialectical doctrine of truth and its classification (objective, absolute and relative).
The development of epistemological ideas of the late XX - early XXI centuries. is determined by the fact that it takes place in the conditions of the information society and, in particular, is based on the data of the so-called "post-non-classical" science. This stage is characterized by: a change in the objects of study (they are increasingly becoming self-developing "human-sized" systems), the widespread dissemination of ideas and methods of synergetics - the science of such systems; methodological pluralism; overcoming the gap between the object and the subject of knowledge; connection of the objective world and the human world; the introduction of time into all sciences, their deep dialectization and historicization, etc.
Cognition is the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, which is primarily due to socio-historical practice. The basic concepts for designating different aspects of the cognitive process are knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge is an objective reality given in the mind of a person who, in his activity, reflects and ideally reproduces the objective regular connections of the real world. It is important to note that knowledge is an image of a thing or event that a person freely and consciously disposes of. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish knowledge from information and impressions (that is, everything that the subject captured). The animal can also unconsciously dispose of the latter. As they say, even the animal knows, but it does not know what it knows. The conscious nature of knowledge is possible only because knowledge exists only against the background of ignorance (any knowledge comes from ignorance). The form of expression of ignorance is a question. Only such imprinted information becomes knowledge (that is, what a person consciously has), which is the answer to the posed (even if implicitly posed) question. The difference and interrelation of knowledge and ignorance are at the basis of the difference between science (“scientific knowledge”) and philosophy (“scientific ignorance”). The conscious boundary between knowledge and ignorance is a problem. Thus, the identification and formulation of the problem is the identification of the field of ignorance.
If knowledge is the result of cognition, then the essence of cognition (more precisely, scientific research) is a method. It is the method of obtaining knowledge that makes them conscious. Method (from the Greek methodos - literal “way to something) - “way”, a way of knowing. The method determines the direction of the search, the research strategy. The question of the method arises immediately after the problem is posed (and, as a rule, after a hypothesis is put forward - a theoretical assumption about the essence of the object of knowledge), i.e. when the area of the unknown is outlined. Each method involves consistent (methodical) use of the main categories. Categories (Greek kategoria - statement, evidence) - a form of awareness in universal terms. Language is the primary way of categorizing the world.
Who? or what? (subject or entity), which one? (quality or property), how much? (number) where? (space) when? (time) why? (reason) why? (target), etc. are all questions of categorization. Strictly speaking, categories are not concepts. Categories represent and express stable distinctions of beings, relations between things. Concepts are a linguistic form of reflection of the essence of an object. Categories and concepts are important tools for cognition in general, and also for philosophical analysis.
Let us return to the understanding of the method as a way of cognition. Methods are distinguished from techniques, sometimes methods or procedures of cognition, which, although based on methods, are not directly related to the universal definitions of the entity (the object of cognition). These include measurement, comparison, idealization, etc. The boundary between the method and the procedure of cognition, of course, is mobile, and, moreover, depends on the worldview position of the scientist. (If he believes that ideas exist objectively, then idealization will act for him not as a procedure, but as a method). On the other hand, in cognition there are such guidelines that are not related to the subject itself, are outside of it - these are the principles of cognition. These include, for example, the requirements of rigor, evidence, objectivity, verifiability, etc. The means of scientific knowledge (tools) are inextricably linked with methods. Such means primarily include the language of science (language of description), instruments, experimental setups, etc.
It should be specially noted that knowledge becomes scientific only if the method of obtaining it is indicated. It is the presence of a method that distinguishes scientific knowledge from ordinary knowledge.
The most important categories in epistemology are the subject and object of knowledge. The subject (lat. - appropriate) is the source and carrier of an active relationship to the object. The subject is first of all a person - an individual, a collective, social group, society as a whole. Object (lat. - subject) - that which opposes the subject in his cognitive and practical activities (ie, material and spiritual phenomena); but the object of knowledge can be the person himself. The object must be distinguished from the object of knowledge. An object or “subject area” is that set of object properties that is singled out by cognitive or practical means. So, for example, a person is an object of study various sciences, but the subject of psychology is the human psyche, anatomy - various organs and their systems, anthropology - the problem of the origin of man, history - the process of development of human society, etc.
Subject and object are paired categories, like "cause" and "effect", "accident" and "necessity", etc. The subject always presupposes the object, and the object always presupposes the subject. An object in epistemology should be understood not simply as any fragment of objective (or subjective) reality, but only as one to which the attention of the subject is directed, which is involved in the activity of the subject and becomes the subject of his theoretical or practical activity.
As paired categories, subject and object express the unity of opposites. The resolution of constantly arising contradictions between the subject and the object occurs through the practical change of the object by the subject, through its subordination to the conscious will of the person. But in the course of their interaction, the goals of the subject change, which determine his will, and the contradiction is reproduced again.
The structure of cognitive activity and human cognitive abilities
Man comprehends the world around him in various ways. Even in the XVII-XVIII centuries. the subject of acute controversy was the problem of the relationship between the sensual and rational aspects of cognition and their significance in human cognitive activity. Depending on the solution of this issue, two opposite directions in epistemology were identified: sensationalism and rationalism.
Sensualism (lat. - sensation, feeling) is a direction in epistemology, which considers the data of the sense organs to be the main source of knowledge. Rationalism (lat. - reasonable) is a direction in epistemology, which considers the mind (thinking) as a fairly autonomous human ability to see the universal in single phenomena as the main source of knowledge.
In general, strictly speaking, there are two main types of cognition that are opposite to each other: rational and irrational.
The initial level of the first cognition is "sensory cognition" - active cognition of phenomena, included in practical activities. A person's ability to sensual reflection of reality is the ability to receive information about objects in the form of individual concrete-sensory images that arise in the human mind as a result of the activity of the sense organs and the central nervous system. Sensory reflection is carried out in the form of sensations, perceptions and ideas.
A sensation is an elementary sensory image, for example, a sound (which we hear), a color (which we see), etc. That is, sensation is a reflection in the mind of a person of individual properties of objects. Perception is a holistic sensory image that we receive from an object when several sensory organs are simultaneously affected. For example, the sensation of the taste of an apple and, on the other hand, the perception of the taste, shape, smell, color of an apple in their unity. Thus, perceptions correspond to the system of properties of the object. Perception is the result of an active, active attitude of the subject to the external environment, and sensations are a prerequisite for perception. Thus, sensations can exist outside of perception, for example, sensations of cold, darkness, but perceptions are impossible outside of sensations.
And, finally, the third form of sensory reflection - representation - a generalized sensory-visual image of objects and phenomena of reality, which arises in our minds in their absence (that is, without the direct impact of these objects and phenomena on the senses). An idea arises when we remember an object and, as it were, look through our memory of how it looks.
Sensations, perceptions and ideas lead to the accumulation of information, life experience and provide the possibility of sensory-figurative knowledge of the world. But many objective objects and phenomena (for example, atoms and elementary particles), moreover, the study of objects and phenomena at the essential level is not available to sensory cognition alone. The limitedness of sensory cognition is resolved at the level of abstract mental reflection (lat. - distraction).
Abstract thinking is a rational, logical knowledge that allows you to move from consideration outside parties phenomena to the study of their essence through the use of concepts and the construction of scientific theories. The main forms of abstract mental reflection are concepts, judgments and conclusions. At this level of knowledge, the analysis and synthesis of information, its comprehension, and the formation of generalizations are carried out. In thinking, we kind of cross the boundaries visible world. Thinking correlates the indications of the sense organs with all the knowledge already available to the individual and, moreover, with the total experience and knowledge of mankind to the extent that they have become the property of the given subject. As a result of the synthesis of the most essential features of objects and phenomena, abstraction, a concept is formed, which is fixed in the language as a generalizing word. The concept is the initial and leading form of abstract mental reflection of objects. "The concept as a form (kind) of thought, or as a mental formation is the result of a generalization of objects of a certain class and a mental selection of this class itself according to a certain set of features common to objects of this class." (Voitvillo E.K.). Concepts are fixed in definitions.
Along with concepts, the abstract-mental ability of a person includes such forms of rational assimilation of reality as judgments and conclusions. Judgment is a form of thought in which, through the connection of concepts, something is affirmed or denied about something. When making judgments, we are already using concepts. The latter are elements of judgments. On the basis of concepts and judgments, inferences are formed, which are reasoning, during which a new judgment (conclusion or conclusion) is logically derived.
We can distinguish the following distinctive features of the ability for abstract thinking in comparison with the sensual reflection of reality:
the ability to reflect the general in objects;
the ability to reflect the essential in objects;
the ability to design on the basis of knowledge of the essence of objects of concepts-ideas to be objectified;
mediated cognition of reality - both through sensitive (sensory) reflection, and with the help of reasoning, inference and through the use of instruments.
It should not be forgotten that the whole process of cognition as a reflection of reality in the mind of a person proceeds in the course of practice, the role of which in cognition we will talk below.
Another type of cognition - irrational - can not be singled out as separate from rational, offline view. As M. Heidegger noted, "irrationalism is only rationality that has not comprehended itself." At least, the possibility of partial rationalization of the irrational in the future is allowed.
According to the generally accepted interpretation, irrationalism is a direction in philosophy that denies or limits, on the one hand, the possibilities of reason in understanding the world, and on the other hand, rejects or reduces the degree of reasonableness of the world's orders. By limiting the cognitive abilities of the mind, irrational cognition in its place puts forward other forms of mastering the world (or the ability to know): faith, intuition, instinct, feelings, experience, etc.
And, indeed, the experience of cognitive activity indicates that ordinary logic in many cases is insufficient to solve problems. scientific problems. An important place in this process is occupied by intuition, which gives cognition a new impulse and direction of movement. Intuition (lat. - “look closely”) is the unconditional ability of a person to direct, direct understanding of meaning and knowledge, bypassing justification and evidence. The intuitive ability of a person is characterized by: 1) unexpectedness, suddenness of solving a problem; 2) unconsciousness of ways and means of its solution; 3) immediacy of comprehension of truth at the essential level of objects. In another way, we can say that intuition is a sudden insight. At the end of the XIX century. as a reaction to positivism, the philosophical current of intuitionism arose.
Philosophical understanding of truth
The immediate goal of knowledge in any form is truth, the path to which is usually complex, difficult and contradictory. The problem of truth is the leading one in epistemology. All problems of the philosophical theory of knowledge concern either the means and ways of achieving truth, or the forms of its existence (the concepts of fact, hypothesis, theory, etc.), implementation, the structure of cognitive relations, etc.
There are different understandings of truth. For example, "truth is the correspondence of knowledge to reality" (or knowledge corresponding to its subject, coinciding with it); “truth is experimental confirmation”; "truth is a property of self-consistency of knowledge"; "truth is agreement." The first position is classical. It was shared by Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx, and others. It follows from this provision that the question of whether a statement (judgment) corresponds to the actual state of things is a question of its truth. Since a person does not have absolute knowledge and truth, but strives for them, the main problem for him is the criterion of truth (correspondence criterion) of his theories, beliefs and judgments. True, this problem can be rejected by taking a radical position of agnosticism and skepticism.
In the history of philosophy, several concepts of the criterion of truth have been put forward:
- 1) Criterion of conformity of the judgment (theory) to the facts.
- 2) The criterion of logical completeness and consistency. If all judgments are connected in a logically necessary way, follow one from the other, do not contradict each other, do not contain semantic gaps (have completeness), then they are true.
- 3) The pragmatic criterion identifies the idea of truth with efficiency. “If it works effectively, then it is true.” There is no single truth, everyone has their own to the extent that the accepted belief system leads to the desired result. This criterion refers only to individual experience.
- 4) The criterion of practice proposes to establish a correspondence not between knowledge and reality, but between knowledge and collective practical experience. This experience is declared to be the reality of the world. If a person manages to define his knowledge in a particular work (for example, a technical device), if this work has become part of the real world (if it is effective), then it is in accordance with the laws of the universe, and therefore, the knowledge that gave rise to it is true.
The importance of practice for the cognitive process has been emphasized by many philosophers of various orientations.
The concept of "practice" was expressed through a wide range of terms: "action", "active life", "experience", "labor", etc. K. Popper pointed out the inadmissibility of destroying the unity of theory and practice or (as mysticism does) replacing it with the creation of myths. He emphasized that practice is not the enemy of theoretical knowledge, but "the most significant stimulus to it."
In the process of practice, a person creates a new reality - the world of material and spiritual culture, new conditions for his existence, which are not given to him by nature in finished form. The most important forms of practice are: material production - the transformation of the natural existence of people (nature); social action - the transformation of the social life of people; scientific experiment- active (as opposed to observation) activity, during which a person artificially creates conditions that allow him to explore the properties of the objective world that are of interest to him.
The main functions of practice, in addition to being a criterion of truth, include the following:
practice is the source of knowledge, since all knowledge is brought to life mainly by its needs;
practice acts as the basis of knowledge, its driving force;
practice is indirectly the goal of cognition, because it is carried out not for the sake of mere curiosity, but in order to direct and regulate people's activities in an appropriate way, to one degree or another. All our knowledge eventually returns back to practice and has an active influence on its development.
characteristics of truth. The main properties of truth are expressed using paired categories, for example: objectivity - subjectivity; absoluteness - relativity; generality - specificity. So true knowledge is objective, since it does not depend on the opinion of an individual or a finite group of people (ie, truth is objective in content). But at the same time it is subjective, because it is precisely human knowledge. A true judgment is absolute, since it has a content that cannot be corrected by the further development of knowledge, but at the same time it is relative, because there is no such knowledge that could not be clarified and supplemented. Thus, about absolute truth (the absolute in objective truth is stable, unchanging) we can say that it is an epistemological ideal that is unattainable, i.e. complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality is unattainable. Absolute knowledge can be represented by knowledge about certain aspects of objects, aspects of reality. True knowledge is concrete, since it always presupposes the conditions under which it corresponds to reality (if the conditions are not assumed, then this will be either delusion or stupidity), but at the same time it is universal in nature, since it presupposes that specific situation corresponds to the general order. And although we know that in true knowledge there are all these opposite definitions, we cannot precisely indicate the measure of the objective subjective, the absolute - the relative, the concrete - the universal. This is the problematic or paradoxical or undecidable nature of true knowledge. When knowledge forgets about its problematic nature, about the existence of a paradoxical boundary between its opposite definitions, it becomes a delusion, and even further - stupidity.
Error is “knowledge” that does not correspond to its subject, does not coincide with it. Delusion as an epistemological phenomenon should be distinguished from a lie - a deliberate distortion of the truth for selfish interests - and the related transfer of knowingly false knowledge - disinformation. Thus, delusions are characterized by the property of unintentionality. They play an ambiguous role, that is, on the one hand, they prevent the achievement of truth, but, on the other hand, they are part of the epistemological process: by putting forward hypotheses, the subject imposes on the area of the unknown a network of his preliminary ideas based on what is already known, which sometimes leads to delusions.
Misconceptions can create problematic situations. "All existing ideas in science have been resolved in a dramatic conflict between reality and our attempts to understand it." (A. Einstein).
Human knowledge becomes false not because it has nothing to do with reality, but because the boundaries of its reality are indicated incorrectly. The inability of a person to see at all the problematic nature of a situation or judgment is stupidity. Confidence distinguishes foolishness from error and delusion. Stupidity is always sure of something, because it does not see and does not know the problem. Hence the affinity of stupidity and self-satisfaction, the haunting companion of which is theatricality, in the future malice and madness ...
Scientific knowledge and its features
With the development of human society, the growth and development of productive forces and public division labor, the process of cognition became more complicated and the most important indicator This was the emergence of science - the highest form of cognitive activity. We observed the rudiments of scientific knowledge in the era of antiquity, but as a specific type of spiritual production and a social institution, science arises in modern times (in the 16th-17th centuries) - in the era of the formation of capitalist relations.
Science is a form of people's spiritual activity and a social institution within which collective activity is carried out to produce, store and transmit new knowledge. The essence of science is research. The immediate goal is the comprehension of truth and the discovery of objective laws based on a generalization of real facts in their interconnection. Science seeks to bring the acquired new knowledge into an integral system based on certain principles. Since its inception, science has been trying to fix its concepts and definitions as clearly as possible. The fundamental difference between scientific knowledge and all other forms of cognitive activity also lies in the fact that it goes beyond the boundaries of sensory perceptions and everyday experience and reproduces the object at the level of essence.
The main features of scientific knowledge, therefore, include the following:
focusing mainly on the general, essential properties of the object, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions;
objectivity, elimination, if possible, of subjectivist moments;
verifiability;
rigorous evidence, the validity of the results obtained, the reliability of the conclusions;
distinct expression (fixation) of concepts and definitions in the special language of science;
the use of special material means: devices, tools, the so-called "scientific equipment"
In scientific research, based on the logic of the movement of knowledge, from the nature of its organization, two main levels can be distinguished: empirical and theoretical. Empirical level: development of a scientific program, organization of observations, experiments, accumulation of facts and information, primary systematization of knowledge (in the form of tables, graphs, diagrams), etc.
Theoretical level: the synthesis of knowledge at the level of abstraction of high orders (in the form of concepts, categories, scientific theories, laws, etc.. Both these levels are interconnected and complement each other. The ND object at the empirical level is presented in the form of specific fragments of reality; at the theoretical level the ND object is an ideal model (abstraction).
The means of ND are various devices, a special scientific language, existing available knowledge.
The structure of scientific activity is classified by stages:
Stage I - identifying and posing a problem, putting forward a hypothesis.
Stage II - experiment (lat. - experience) - a specially organized and adapted experiment for certain conditions, when a theoretical position is verified.
Stage III - description and explanation of the facts obtained in the experiment, the creation of a theory. Theory (Greek - “consider”, “clearly see”, “speculation”) is the most developed form of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic display of the regular and essential connections of a certain area of reality. (for example, A. Einstein's theory of relativity).
Stage IV - Checking the acquired knowledge in the process of practical activities.
Scientific activity is realized through methods. The doctrine of the methods, principles, means and procedures of scientific knowledge is called methodology. This doctrine is generally philosophical in nature, although it uses the approaches of systems theory, logic, semantics, computer science, etc. The philosophical nature of the methodology is determined by the fact that no specific science, remaining within the framework of its cognitive tasks, can make the subject of knowledge those methods which it uses itself (for example, physics uses various kinds of measurements, but the measurement procedure cannot be the subject of physical knowledge).
Methods are classified according to the degree of generality:
- - private scientific methods used in a particular branch of science, corresponding to the main form of motion of matter (for example, methods of mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc.);
- - general scientific methods, acting as a kind of intermediate methodology between philosophy and the fundamental theoretical and methodological provisions of special sciences (for example, structural, probabilistic, systemic, etc.);
- - philosophical - generic methods, the most ancient of which are dialectics and metaphysics.
According to the levels of scientific research can be classified:
methods of empirical research, for example, observation, comparison, measurement, description, scientific experiment;
methods used at the empirical and more theoretical levels of research, such as: abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, modeling, use of instruments;
methods of purely theoretical research: ascent from the abstract to the concrete, idealization, formalization.
Definition and main problems of philosophical anthropology. Philosophical anthropology is usually called a branch of philosophy that studies the essence and nature of man. In a special context, this term is used to name a separate direction of philosophy of the 20th century, the founder of which the German philosopher Max Scheler (1874-1928) considered it necessary to combine all knowledge about a person within a separate science, which he called philosophical anthropology. Representatives of this trend, among whom the most famous, in addition to M. Scheler, G. Plesner (1892-1985), A. Gehlen (1904-1976), E. Rothhacker (1888-1965), believed that, ultimately, all philosophical problems can be reduced to one central question - what is a person. According to the program of M. Scheler, philosophical anthropology must combine a concrete scientific, subject study of various aspects and spheres of human nature with a holistic philosophical comprehension of it. Most of the problems studied by these philosophers are fundamental to anthropology as a branch of philosophy. This is, first of all:
the problem of the specifics of human nature: what signs are really important for determining the essence of a person?
the problem of the correlation of individual and social characteristics in the structure of personality: to what extent is a person determined by social factors?
The problem of defining and describing the spiritual nature of a person: what is spirituality and in what contexts of life does it manifest itself?
the problem of the meaning of life
The main stages in the development of anthropological problems in philosophy. The theme of man, starting from the era of antiquity, is the key to all philosophical problems. Ancient philosophers considered man as a prototype of the Cosmos, a microcosm, the smallest but necessary particle of the world whole, without which harmony and order are impossible. In the philosophy of Plato, for the first time, the idea of a person appears as a unity of the spiritual (the soul, related to the world of ideas) and the corporeal (the body, embodying the material principle). So, in the history of philosophy, the concept of man appears, which is based on the idea that his true essence has a spiritual and transpersonal nature.
Medieval philosophy is characterized by the understanding of man as a creation created by God in his own image and likeness, which consists primarily in the gift of freedom and creativity and, as a result, responsibility for one's own being. From the point of view of Christian anthropology, man is not an advanced ape, but a fallen God, a creature with a nature damaged by original sin. A cash person is a negative value on the moral scale. And a person cannot rise up, actualize his potential god-likeness on his own, without the help of God. But God cannot raise a person without his consent and active participation. Hence the absolute ban on ideological violence and coercion, the demand for unconditional respect for the freedom and spiritual autonomy of the individual, which the Christian religion professes.
In the Renaissance and New Ages, the idea of self-sufficiency and autonomy of human existence is formulated. This period is characterized by special attention to the study of human thinking and his cognitive abilities, because. It is believed that cognitive activity is the most important and meaning-forming aspect of human nature.
In the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, anthropological topics expand and become so diverse that it seems impossible to talk about any worldview unity in the interpretation of the problem of man. Irrationalistic concepts appear (voluntarism of A. Schopenhauer and F. Nietzsche, intuitionism of A. Bergson, psychoanalysis of Z. Freud, etc.), whose representatives believe that human nature is inexplicable, spontaneous, uncontrollable and can never be explained by the scientific method. Theories of historicity are being created (Hegel, Marx, Comte), insisting on the social conditioning of all individual personal characteristics, such philosophical trends as existentialism and philosophical anthropology are being formed, within which the theme of man determines the entire content of research,
The main approaches to the interpretation of the essence and nature of man. All the various options for solving the problem of man that exist in the history of philosophy, in a generalized form, can be reduced to such approaches as objectivism and subjectivism.
Objectivists tend to view a person as a part, a fragment of objective reality that exists autonomously and independently of the researcher. The objectivist approach is characterized by the idea of a person as a structural component of the world whole. Existing as part of this whole, a person obeys the laws of the world order, on the basis of which we are able to more or less accurately understand, explain and predict his behavior and activities. The main distinguishing feature of objectivist interpretations can be considered the explanatory principle "from the world to man." Most objectivist theories also adhere to the principle of social determinism - i.e. believe that the individual-personal characteristics of a person are strictly determined by socio-historical experience, upbringing, environment and other external circumstances. One way or another, the essence of man in objectivist theories is determined through its correlation with some absolute substance. The representatives of objectivist trends include such concepts as Hegelianism, Marxism, positivism, etc.
Subjectivist conceptions attribute the insufficiency of this approach to the fact that, considering a person as an object, we deliberately simplify the problem, digressing from the obvious fact that pure objectivity is impossible. In any study, a person is not only an object, but at the same time a subject of cognition, therefore, it is impossible to understand his essence and nature objectively ("from the outside"), guided by the principles of strict classical science, and knowledge built on such grounds will always be one-sided. In addition, the objectivist attitude impoverishes knowledge about a person also because it excludes the possibility of obtaining it by non-rational means. Representatives of subjectivism believe that the essence of a person is autonomous, self-sufficient and does not need to be defined through a relationship with something external. At the same time, the main argument in favor of subjectivist concepts is the thesis that only the reality of human consciousness can be considered absolutely reliable and undoubtedly existing, the whole world, called objective in this case, is deduced from consciousness as its phenomenon. For the knowledge of human reality, from the point of view of the subjectivist approach, irrational methods are more important: experience, empathy, perception, intuition, etc. The explanatory principle "from man to the world" is of particular value, as it allows the researcher to focus not on universal, but on the unique and inimitable characteristics of the individual. The representatives of subjectivism can be considered philosophers of the phenomenological direction, existentialists, post-structuralists, etc.
The main categories of philosophical anthropology. The problem of man in philosophy is formulated and solved by referring to the ultimate concepts that form the basis of our thinking and are called philosophical categories. In addition to general philosophical terms, such as being, consciousness, general, special, essence, phenomenon, etc., for anthropological problems, the key concepts are "personality", "individual", "individuality", in which one of the central problems is expressed philosophical anthropology - the problem of correlation of the individual, general and special in man. The variety of approaches to solving this problem is due to the difference in the conceptual and methodological foundations of philosophical schools and trends. The meanings given below fix the most generally significant context for the interpretation of concepts.
The concept of "individual" in the strict sense is not philosophical, but is borrowed from biology. This term denotes the individuality of a person as a separate living being, in contrast to the collective, society, group. Sometimes this concept is used as a synonym for "individuality", which does not seem quite correct, because. the word "individual" captures the individuality of a person as an individual in the biological sense, without emphasizing his specific and unique characteristics, while "individuality" is understood precisely as the uniqueness and originality of a person. Especially a lot of discussions in modern literature are devoted to the concept of "personality". Ultimately, ideas about what is meant by "personality" differ significantly among representatives of various philosophical schools and trends. Most of them believe that a characteristic feature of a person is ideological maturity, which manifests itself in a situation of responsibility for one's life choice and decision, as well as an ethical orientation towards the values of humanism and goodness. If the concept of individuality captures the uniqueness and originality of the external characteristics of a person, then to determine personality leading role play the characteristics of the inner world of a person, i.e. his spiritual essence. According to most philosophers, it is the spiritual and personal sphere that expresses the specifics of a person and gives meaning to his being. Personal characteristics, unlike individual ones, are not innate, but arise in the process of socialization. The formation of personality is influenced by various social institutions- family, state, education, army, etc. As a result of socialization, the experience of previous generations is transmitted and continuity in its development is ensured.
Codifier of content elements of the discipline "Philosophy"
Consciousness and cognition
main approaches to solving the problem of the origin of consciousness and its essence
structure of consciousness
connection of consciousness with language
relationship between consciousness and the unconscious
the role of consciousness and the unconscious in human life and activity
Essence and nature of knowledge
main approaches to solving the problem of the cognizability of the world
essence and nature of knowledge
correlation of understanding and explanation
The structure of cognitive activity
levels and forms of knowledge
relationship between knowledge and belief
The Problem of Truth
basic concepts of truth
relationship between truth and error
1. P.V. Alekseev, A.V. Panin. Philosophy: textbook. M., 2004
Consciousness and cognition
The theory of knowledge (or epistemology, philosophy of knowledge) is a branch of philosophy in which the nature of knowledge and its possibilities, the relationship of knowledge to reality are studied, the conditions for the reliability and truth of knowledge are revealed.
The term "epistemology" comes from the Greek words gnosis - knowledge and logos - concept, doctrine and means "the concept of knowledge", "the doctrine of knowledge". And although the term "theory of knowledge" was introduced into philosophy relatively recently by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrer (in 1854), the doctrine of knowledge began to be developed since the time of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle.
Gnoseology studies the universal characterizing human cognitive activity. In her competence is the second side of the main question of philosophy, most often expressed by the question "Do we know the world?". There are many other questions in epistemology, the disclosure of which is associated with other categories and concepts: “consciousness”, “truth”, “practice” and “knowledge”, “subject” and “object”, “material” and “ideal”, “human ” and “computer”, “sensual”, “rational”, “intuition”, “faith”, etc. Each of these concepts, expressing spiritual or material phenomena, is autonomous and is associated with a special worldview problem. However, in the theory of knowledge, all of them turn out to be united with each other through the concept of "truth", with which they are somehow related.
The problematic and subject-substantial specificity of the philosophical theory of knowledge becomes clear when it is compared with non-philosophical sciences that study cognitive activity. And the sciences that study cognition are becoming more and more. At present, cognitive activity is studied by psychology, the physiology of higher nervous activity of a person, cybernetics, formal logic, linguistics, semiotics, structural linguistics, the history of culture, the history of science, etc. Thus, a new direction has arisen in psychology - cognitive psychology (from Latin cognitio - knowledge, cognition). For her, analogies with a computer are important, and the primary goal is to trace the movement of the flow of information in the “system” (i.e., in the brain). Cognitive psychology studies cognitive activity associated, as W. Neisser notes, with the acquisition, organization and use of knowledge (see: "Cognition and Reality. Meaning and Principles of Cognitive Psychology", M., 1981, p. 23).
All these disciplines (or sections) of psychological science are aimed, as we see, at the study of human cognitive activity. They relate to the relationship of the individual (or collective) psyche of people with the external environment, the consideration of psychological phenomena as a result of the influence of external factors on the central nervous system, changes in the behavior or state of a person under the influence of diverse external and internal factors.
The philosophical theory of knowledge explores largely the same phenomena of cognitive activity, but from a different perspective in terms of the relationship of cognition to objective reality, to truth, to the process of achieving truth. The main category in epistemology is "truth". Sensations, concepts, intuition, doubt, etc. act for psychology as forms of the mental, associated with the behavior, life of an individual, and for epistemology they are means of achieving truth, cognitive abilities or forms of existence of knowledge associated with truth.
Along with questions about what the essence of the world is, whether the world is finite or infinite, whether it develops, and if it develops, then in what direction, what time, causality, etc. represent, an important place in philosophical problems is occupied by questions associated with the knowledge of objects surrounding a person (things, relationships, processes). "Do we know the world?" - such is the traditional question that arose in the ancient era, when philosophy took its first steps, striving to be a demonstrative, rationally justified worldview. But the traditional nature of just such a form of question can lead to the idea that there were philosophers who believed that the world is not cognizable at all.
In the history of philosophy, there have been two positions: cognitive-realistic and agnostic, and not always in the asset of the first was a sensitive capture of the real complexity of the problem.
The first historical form of agnosticism is skepticism. The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 490 - c. 420 BC) shared materialistic beliefs, doubted the existence of gods. The philosopher drew a conclusion about the impossibility of reliable, i.e., universally significant ("unambiguous") knowledge of the essence of the surrounding phenomena.
In the school of sophists, the goal was to justify any judgments, points of view, even resorting to logical overexposures and paradoxes (sophisms).
The founder of ancient skepticism, Pyrrho (c. 365 - 275 BC), considered sensory perceptions to be reliable (if something seems bitter or sweet, then the corresponding statement will be true); delusion arises when we try to move from a phenomenon to its basis, essence. Any assertion about an object (its essence) can be countered with equal right by an assertion that contradicts it. It was this train of thought that led to the position of abstaining from final judgments.
In modern times, on the basis of the progressive development of natural science, the ideas of D. Hume and I. Kant about the possibilities of knowledge were formed.
The English philosopher D. Hume (1711 - 1776) argued: “Nature keeps us at a respectful distance from its secrets and provides us with only knowledge of a few superficial qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles on which the actions of these objects entirely depend” (Hume D. Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1966. S. 35).
Without doubting, unlike D. Hume, in the existence of material “things in themselves” outside the consciousness, I. Kant, however, considered them to be unknowable in principle. Influencing a person, “things in themselves” evoke in him a variety of sensations, which turn out to be ordered through a priori forms of living contemplation. Thus, we cognize only the world of appearances; but things in themselves are not attained by knowledge, they are elusive. “About that,” Kant points out, “what they (things - P.A.) can be in themselves, we do not know anything, but we know only their phenomena, i.e. the representations they produce in us by acting on our senses.
The position of the so-called "physiological idealism", presented in the works of the German physiologist I. Müller (1801 - 1858), is close to the Kantian concept. I. Müller put forward a position about the existence of a specific energy of the sense organs, which plays a decisive role in the specification of sensations. He emphasized that "sensation is the result of excitation of energy innate for the sense organ", that color, for example, does not exist outside the sense organ; the external factor “triggers” the energy of the corresponding sense organ, which gives rise to the sensation of color in us. From all this, I. Müller concluded: “We do not know either the essence of external objects, or what we call light, we know only the essence of our feelings.” What I. Muller said is not some kind of naive mistake, if we remember that color is still considered to be the result of electromagnetic waves acting on the retina of the eye, which themselves are colorless. I. Muller came to the same idea, to the same scheme of the cognitive interaction of the subject with the object, as I. Kant; the only difference was that I. Muller tried to prove the legitimacy of this scheme with the help of physiology data.
The "theory of hieroglyphs", or "theory of symbols", by the German physicist and physiologist G. Helmholtz (1821 - 1894) is also based on the law, or principle, of the specific energy of the sense organs by I. Müller. The difference (from the concept of I. Muller) consists, firstly, in concretizing this principle, in establishing a connection between “specific energy” with individual subsystems of the sense organs, with nerve fibers (since G. Helmholtz believed that there are specific energies of different quality even in the same sense organ). Secondly, the theory of hieroglyphs gave more epistemologically generalized ideas about cognition than Muller's interpretation of it. G. Helmholtz considered both sensations and concepts to be signs. As for sensations, he wrote: “Sensations of feelings for us are only symbols of external objects, they correspond to them to the extent that a written word or sound corresponds to a given object. Sensations of the senses inform us about the features of the external world, but they do this no better than we can communicate to the blind through words the concept of colors ”(Gelmholtz G. “Popular science articles". SPb., 1866. Issue. I. p. 61). Sense impressions are only marks of the qualities of the external world, signs (symbols, hieroglyphs), the interpretation of which we must learn from experience. The main thesis of his concept is “the absence of the closest correspondence between the qualities of sensation and the qualities of an object” (ibid., p. 82).
At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. another form of agnosticism emerged conventionalism(from Latin conventio - contract, agreement) is defined as a philosophical concept, according to which scientific theories and concepts are not a reflection of the objective world, but the product of an agreement between scientists.
Its most prominent representative is the French mathematician and methodologist of science. A. Poincare(1854 - 1912). Analyzing the existence of a number of geometries in science - Euclidean, Lobachevsky, Riemann, A. Poincaré came to the conclusion that “geometric axioms are neither synthetic a priori judgments nor experimental facts. They are conventional propositions.... One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient” (Poincare A. “Science and Hypothesis”, Moscow, 1904, pp. 60 - 61). The pragmatic criterion, taken as the only guideline of reliability, led to doubts about the cognizability of the essence of material systems, the laws of natural reality; scientific laws, in his opinion, are conventions, symbols.
Conventionalism as a system of worldviews and principles of scientific knowledge has become widespread in recent decades in Western philosophy, as well as in the logic and methodology of science. With conventionalist attitudes were K. Popper, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and many other scientists. The founder of neorationalism, the French philosopher G. Bachelard (1884 - 1962), divided the world into "natural reality" and "technical reality". In practice, practical actions, he believed, the subject is included in the "natural reality", creates a new one according to the principles of reason through the objectification of ideas. In the process of transformative practice, however, the subject does not reveal any features of natural reality, but reveals "forms", "order", "programs" deployed in "technical reality". This world is knowable.
The modern philosophical theory of knowledge does not diverge from agnosticism in the question of the cognizability of phenomena (as phenomena, objects of sensory cognition). Nor do they differ in answering the question: is it possible to know the world as a whole in all its connections and mediations? (This is answered in the negative.)
The discrepancy in another - on the question of whether the essence of material systems is knowable. Differences - in the interpretation of the nature of the "phenomenon" - phenomena: are these phenomena directly related to the essence and is it possible to obtain reliable knowledge about the essence of material systems through phenomena?
On the question of the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about the essence of objects (or about the main thing in this essence), agnostics answer in the negative, albeit in different ways, depending on whether they generally recognize the existence of the essence or not, and if they do, then what connection they see essence with the phenomenon.
Thus, the following definition can be proposed as a starting point: agnosticism is a doctrine (or belief, attitude) that denies the possibility of reliable knowledge of the essence of material systems, the laws of nature and society.
Agnostic concepts are subdivided on many grounds. Exist materialistic and idealistic agnosticism, sensationalistic and rationalistic, Humean, Kantian, etc. agnosticism(if we take the names of the founders of the respective schools), agnosticism ethical, hieroglyphic, physiological, cybernetic etc. (according to the means, the nature of the argumentation).
Briefly and clearly about philosophy: the main and basic about philosophy and philosophers
Basic approaches to the problem of cognition
Gnoseology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, ways, sources and methods of knowledge, as well as the relationship between knowledge and reality.
There are two main approaches to the problem of knowledge.
1. Epistemological optimism, whose supporters admit that the world is cognizable, regardless of whether we can currently explain some phenomena or not.
All materialists and some of the consistent idealists adhere to this position, although their methods of cognition are different.
Cognition is based on the ability of consciousness to reproduce (reflect) to a certain degree of completeness and accuracy an object existing outside of it.
The main premises of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism are the following:
1) the source of our knowledge is outside of us, it is objective in relation to us;
2) there is no fundamental difference between the “appearance” and the “thing in itself”, but there is a difference between what is known and what is not yet known;
3) knowledge is a continuous process of deepening and even changing our knowledge based on the transformation of reality.
2. Gnoseological pessimism. Its essence is doubt about the possibility of the cognizability of the world.
Varieties of epistemological pessimism:
1) skepticism - a direction that questions the possibility of knowing objective reality (Diogenes, Sextus Empiricus). Philosophical skepticism turns doubt into a principle of knowledge (David Hume);
2) agnosticism - a trend that denies the possibility of reliable knowledge of the essence of the world (I. Kant). The source of knowledge is the external world, the essence of which is unknowable. Any object is a “thing in itself”. We cognize only phenomena with the help of innate a priori forms (space, time, categories of reason), and we organize our experience of sensation.
At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a kind of agnosticism was formed - conventionalism. This is the concept that scientific theories and concepts are not a reflection of the objective world, but the product of an agreement between scientists.
Human knowledge
Cognition is the interaction of the subject and the object with the active role of the subject itself, resulting in some kind of knowledge.
The subject of cognition can be both a separate individual and a collective, class, society as a whole.
The object of knowledge can be the whole of objective reality, and the object of knowledge can be only a part of it or an area directly included in the process of cognition itself.
Cognition is a specific type of human spiritual activity, the process of comprehending the surrounding world. It develops and improves in close connection with social practice.
Cognition is a movement, a transition from ignorance to knowledge, from less knowledge to more knowledge.
In cognitive activity, the concept of truth is central. Truth is the correspondence of our thoughts to objective reality. A lie is a discrepancy between our thoughts and reality. Establishing the truth is an act of transition from ignorance to knowledge, in a particular case, from delusion to knowledge. Knowledge is a thought corresponding to objective reality, adequately reflecting it. Misconception - a representation that does not correspond to reality, a false representation. This is ignorance, given out, taken for knowledge; false representation given out, accepted as true.
From millions of cognitive efforts of individuals, a socially significant process of cognition is formed. The process of transforming individual knowledge into a universally significant, recognized by society as the cultural heritage of mankind, is subject to complex socio-cultural patterns. Integration individual knowledge into the common human heritage is carried out through the communication of people, the critical assimilation and recognition of this knowledge by society. The transfer and translation of knowledge from generation to generation and the exchange of knowledge between contemporaries are possible due to the materialization of subjective images, their expression in language. Thus, knowledge is a socio-historical, cumulative process of obtaining and improving knowledge about the world in which a person lives.
Structure and forms of knowledge
The general direction of the process of cognition is expressed in the formula: "From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice."
There are stages in the learning process.
1. Sensory knowledge is based on sensory sensations that reflect reality. Through the senses, a person is in contact with the outside world. The main forms of sensory cognition are: sensation, perception and representation. Feeling is an elementary subjective image of objective reality. A specific feature of sensations is their homogeneity. Any sensation gives information about only one qualitative side of the object.
A person is able to significantly develop in himself the subtlety and sharpness of feelings, sensations.
Perception is a holistic reflection, an image of objects and events of the surrounding world.
Representation is a sensual recollection of an object that does not currently act on a person, but once acted on his senses. Because of this, the image of an object in representation, on the one hand, is of a poorer character than in sensations and perceptions, and on the other hand, the purposeful nature of human cognition is more strongly manifested in it.
2. Rational knowledge is based on logical thinking, which is carried out in three forms: concepts, judgments, conclusions.
A concept is an elementary form of thought in which objects are displayed in their general and essential properties and features. Concepts are objective in content and source. Allocate specific abstract concepts that differ in degrees of generality.
Judgments reflect the connections and relationships between things and their properties, operate with concepts; judgments deny or affirm something.
Inference is a process, as a result of which a new judgment is obtained with logical necessity from several judgments.
3. Intuitive knowledge is based on the fact that a sudden decision, the truth independently comes to a person at an unconscious level, without prior logical proof.
Features of everyday and scientific knowledge
Cognition differs in its depth, level of professionalism, use of sources and means. Ordinary and scientific knowledge are distinguished. The former are not the result professional activity and, in principle, are inherent in one way or another to any individual. The second type of knowledge arises as a result of a highly specialized, highly specialized activity called scientific knowledge.
Knowledge also differs in its subject matter. The knowledge of nature leads to the formation of physics, chemistry, geology, etc., which together constitute natural science. Knowledge of man and society determines the formation of the humanities and social disciplines. There is also artistic, religious knowledge.
Scientific knowledge as a professional type of social activity is carried out according to certain scientific canons adopted by the scientific community. It uses special methods research, as well as assessing the quality of the knowledge obtained on the basis of accepted scientific criteria. The process of scientific knowledge includes a number of mutually organized elements: an object, a subject, knowledge as a result and a research method.
The subject of cognition is the one who implements it, that is, the creative person who forms new knowledge. The object of knowledge is a fragment of reality that has become the focus of the researcher's attention. The object is mediated by the object of knowledge. If the object of science can exist independently of the cognitive goals and consciousness of the scientist, then this cannot be said about the subject of knowledge. The subject of knowledge is a certain vision and understanding of the object of study from a certain point of view, in a given theoretical-cognitive perspective.
The cognizing subject is not a passive contemplative being, mechanically reflecting nature, but an active, creative personality. In order to get an answer to the questions posed by the scientist about the essence of the object under study, the cognizing subject has to influence nature, invent complex research methods.
Philosophy of scientific knowledge
The theory of scientific knowledge (epistemology) is one of the areas of philosophical knowledge.
Science is a field of human activity, the essence of which is to obtain knowledge about natural and social phenomena, as well as about the person himself.
The driving forces of scientific knowledge are:
1) practical need for knowledge. Most of the sciences grew out of these needs, although some of them, especially in such areas as mathematics, theoretical physics, cosmology, were born not under the direct influence of practical need, but from the internal logic of the development of knowledge, from contradictions in this knowledge itself;
2) the curiosity of scientists. The task of a scientist is to ask nature questions through experiments and get answers to them. An incurious scientist is not a scientist;
3) the intellectual pleasure that a person experiences by discovering what no one knew before him (in educational process intellectual pleasure is also present as a student discovering new knowledge “for himself”).
The means of scientific knowledge are:
1) reason, logical thinking of a scientist, his intellectual and heuristic (creative) abilities;
2) sense organs, in unity with the data of which mental activity is carried out;
3) devices (appeared since the 17th century), which provide more accurate information about the properties of things.
The device is, as it were, one or another organ of the human body that has gone beyond its natural boundaries. The human body distinguishes degrees of temperature, mass, illumination, current strength, etc., but thermometers, scales, galvanometers, etc. do this much more accurately. With the invention of instruments, the cognitive possibilities of man have expanded incredibly; research became available not only at the level of short-range interactions, but also at long-range ones (phenomena in the microcosm, astrophysical processes in space). Science begins with measurement. Therefore, the motto of the scientist: "Measure what can be measured, and find a way to measure what cannot be measured yet."
Practice and its functions in the process of cognition
Practice and knowledge are closely related to each other: practice has a cognitive side, knowledge has a practical side. As a source of knowledge, practice provides initial information that is generalized and processed by thinking. Theory, in turn, acts as a generalization of practice. In practice and through practice, the subject learns the laws of reality, without practice there is no knowledge of the essence of objects.
Practice is also the driving force of knowledge. Impulses emanate from it, which largely determine the emergence of a new meaning and its transformation.
Practice determines the transition from the sensory reflection of objects to their rational reflection, from one research method to another, from one thinking to another, from empirical to theoretical thinking.
The purpose of knowledge is to achieve true meaning.
Practice is a specific way of mastering, in which the result of the activity is adequate to its purpose.
Practice is a set of all types of socially significant, transformative activities of people, the basis of which is production activity. This is the form in which the interaction between the object and the subject, society and nature is realized.
The importance of practice for the cognitive process, for the development and development of scientific and other forms of knowledge, was emphasized by many philosophers of different directions.
The main functions of practice in the process of learning:
1) practice is a source of knowledge because all knowledge is caused in life mainly by its needs;
2) practice acts as the basis of knowledge, its driving force. It permeates all sides, moments of knowledge from its beginning to its end;
3) practice is the direct goal of cognition, because it exists not for the sake of mere curiosity, but in order to direct them to correspond to images, to one degree or another regulate people's activities;
4) practice is a decisive criterion, that is, it allows you to separate true knowledge from delusions.
.....................................
8.1. Philosophy of knowledge
Two terms
"Philosophical theory of knowledge" translated into Greek is called epistemology or, which is almost the same, epistemology. The term "epistemology" in comparison with the term "epistemology" has a more pronounced scientific meaning, we are talking about scientific knowledge. Both terms are widely used in philosophical literature.
Sensual cognition "at the entrance", "in the middle" and "at the exit" of the psyche
I. Kant wrote: "Without a doubt, all our knowledge begins with experience ...". It means that knowledge begins with feelings. It's hard to disagree with this; Today, the vast majority of philosophers adhere to just such a point of view. Man has sense organs, sight, touch, hearing, taste, smell. Thanks to them, a person acquires feelings. Sensory cognition is carried out in three forms: sensations, perceptions, representations. Feeling is the most elementary form of feeling. Perception- this is a holistic feeling that contains several sensations (“this apple is round, yellow, sweet and sour, heavy”; the apple is given as a perception). Representation is a feeling that is remembered or imagined (for example, I imagine my friend entering the audience on a blue horse).
So knowledge begins with the senses. But what can I know through the senses? What is their role in the quest for knowledge? (Knowledge is a campaign for knowledge). It is clear to everyone that feelings connect us not only with the external world, but also with imaginary phenomena. Let us first consider the sensual connection of man with the external world. Cognition is a process, therefore it makes sense to analyze feelings in various stages of this process.
Feelings "at the entrance" of the psyche. When evaluating the cognitive content of feelings "at the entrance" of the psyche, various opinions were expressed, of which we present three main ones.
The most simple point vision is that the outside world is literally imprinted into our psyche. From here came the Russian "impression", which is translated into the main languages of the world without losing its original meaning. A feeling is a "trace" of an object (compare with the trace of a person's foot on wet sand).
A more complicated point of view: feelings are just approximate reflections of objects, a kind of "copies". Let's say someone tastes an unknown food product that causes a sensation of sweetness. It can be assumed with a high degree of probability that the product contains glucose.
An even more complicated point of view: feelings are signs items to be deciphered. Impressions, as they say, cannot be trusted - feelings "deceive". The simplest example in this regard: the refraction of a straight stick at the border of water and air. What about mirages? What about complex imagined and suggested feelings? Of course, they testify to something, but about what? Imaginary feelings are especially often complex signs.
The need to decipher, clarify the meaning, feelings shows that we should take a step "inside" the psyche. The original feelings do not contain the whole mystery of knowledge. Part of this mystery is contained in the fact that feelings are "meeted" at the "entrance" of the psyche. But what exactly do feelings meet at the entrance of the psyche? To this new question we again have the three most common answers, all of which are well known to us from history. philosophical ideas:
Locke: feelings fall into the power of a person’s ability to combine, connect, compare them;
Kant: the senses fall under the power of non-sensuous a priori principles;
Husserl: feelings meet with the ability of man (thanks to imagination, memory and fantasy) to build chains of phenomena.
Now it becomes clear what happens to the feelings "in the middle" of cognition:
on Locke: feelings are combined (complex feelings arise), compared (we get knowledge about relationships), the general (idea) stands out in them due to abstraction;
on Cantu: feelings are ordered on the basis of principles;
on Husserl feelings are drawn into a stream of imagination that leads to eidos - a much more complex feeling than its source material.
“At the exit” from the psyche we have:
on Locke: ideas;
on Cantu: feelings ordered on the basis of a priori principles;
on Husserl: eidos, i.e., an idea with a rich sensory content.
But let us not forget that sense cognition began with certain initial senses, which are signs, real or imagined events. And this means that the feelings received “at the exit” must be returned to the original sources of feelings, the original objects.
Through the process of sensory cognition, we have received:
according to Locke- the very knowledge that was contained in the original feelings, but was not clarified. Feelings give exhaustive knowledge about objects (this is sensationalism);
according to cantu,- new knowledge, which was contained in the original feelings and was obtained largely due to the principles of the psyche (this knowledge cannot be directly attributed to objects, but it allows us to successfully operate with them);
according to Husserl- new knowledge that allows you to interpret the initial feelings and correlate these “interpreted” feelings with objects (if they ask me, pointing to a specific apple: “What is this?”, I will not answer simply by pointing to the initial sensations - it is, they say, round, yellow, sweet and sour, but I’ll say: “This is an apple (i.e., a representative of the class of all apples) that has such and such a shape (the concept of form is used), causing such and such sensations (the concept of sensation is used))”.
Who is right: Locke, Kant or Husserl? There is no single answer to this direct question. We will express our opinion. In our opinion, in some cases they act according to Locke(when, for example, they highlight the common by comparing ideas), in others - by Cantu(when, for example, the principles are already known and they do not need to be deduced, proved), thirdly - by Husserl(when they strive to fully substantiate the rich sensual content of the psyche, not to be captured by faded, devoid of sensual reasoning). In terms of understanding the course of sensory cognition, the most detailed Husserl, and with him his supporters, the phenomenologists.
Sense cognition and various philosophies
We did not consider sensory knowledge in the light of ancient and medieval philosophy for a very simple reason: it is represented in these philosophies very poorly. The modern understanding of sensory cognition is analyzed by us in connection with the views Locke and Kant.
Of the latest philosophical trends, the phenomenological understanding of sensory cognition is considered. But what about hermeneutics, analysts, postmodernists?
Hermeneutics from the very beginning of entering the philosophical scene, they were not interested in sensory knowledge. Founder of hermeneutics Heidegger was a student Husserl, founder of modern phenomenology. It would seem that, Heidegger should have continued Husserl. But he abruptly departed from phenomenology. He was drawn to other landmarks.
Analysts also did not show any special attention to sensory cognition, they were mainly interested in words and facts, and not in the processing of feelings in the human psyche.
Postmodernists nor did they give any worthy mention of the theory of sense cognition. They are attracted primarily by texts and the fight against totalitarianism.
So, thanks to sensory knowledge, a person receives information about everything that is capable of evoking feelings. A person has a unique ability to empathize with the world, thanks to this, knowledge is possible. But empathy, as you know, is associated with a person thinking, explaining. Both are related to rational knowledge.
rational cognition
Rational knowledge is carried out in the form concepts, judgments and inferences.
For what follows, it is useful to distinguish between own and common name. A proper name means one object - this table, that book, Plato. The common name denotes a class of subjects - group A2 students, state employees, trees. Items in this class have common feature(property or relation). For example, students of group A2 is a common name, because they all have common feature- they study in a group with the conditional name A2. Until now, presumably, the reader has not had any particular misunderstandings about his own and common name, all clear. But now we must turn to the central problem of all rational knowledge. What is a concept?
Let's try to deal with this most difficult issue using the example of the analysis of the concept of "student" (we are not talking about the word "student", which is used in Russian, but about the concept, about what is denoted by the words "concept student"). Let's ask who is a student, a five-year-old girl who lives near a technical school, a rollicking teenager of 14 years old, a bank employee, an experienced teacher. Girl: "Students are young cheerful uncles and aunts, they still sometimes say bad words." Teenager: "Students love to have fun." Bank clerk: "A student is one who studies at a secondary or higher educational institution." Teacher: "A student is one who, while studying at a technical school or university, is responsible for his studies." We see how unequally evaluate the student different people. The concept is a special thought, not any, but the most effective, which will explain a lot. A concept is the main thought about something, a generalization, an interpretation. The teacher claims that the moral face of the student determines his attitude to learning, it depends on how much student in the student. Of course, the student is not only learning. He has a lot to do, a lot of fun, but in this he does not differ from other young people.
So, a concept is a thought-generalization that makes it possible to explain the meaning of a given class of things.
The true nature of concepts is clarified in science, where concepts in their explanatory power are given in the most effective form. The essence of all phenomena is explained on the basis of concepts. Concepts are also idealizations.
After the definition of what a concept is, the next step is judgment. Judgment is a thought that affirms or denies something. Let's compare two expressions: "Electrical conductivity of all metals" and "All metals conduct electric current." In the first expression there is neither affirmation nor negation, it is not a judgment. In the second expression it is claimed that metals conduct electricity. This is judgment. A judgment is expressed in declarative sentences.
inference is the conclusion of new knowledge. An inference would be, for example, the following reasoning:
All metals are conductors
Copper - metal
Copper - conductor
The conclusion should be carried out "cleanly", without errors. In this regard, use proof, in the process of which the legitimacy of the emergence of a new thought is justified with the help of other thoughts.
Three forms of rational knowledge - concept, judgment, conclusion - constitute the content reason, by which a person is guided by thinking. philosophical tradition after Kant is to distinguish reason and mind. Reason is the highest level of logical thinking. Reason is less flexible, less theoretical than reason.
Review: how the concept was searched
It is indisputable that rational knowledge expresses the nature of man with particular relief. It is in the realm of the rational that man knows no equal. It is clear, therefore, that from the very beginning of the emergence of philosophy, close attention was paid to rational knowledge. But it is difficult to unravel its mystery; to this day, there are heated debates. Consideration of the essence of these disputes will allow us to better orient ourselves in the field of rational knowledge. Note also that the science of rational knowledge is called logic.
AT philosophy of antiquity the most important logical significance was the concept of ideas Plato. Above, we discussed in detail how Plato man gets ideas. In fact Plato thought of concepts as ideas. He mistakenly believed that ideas exist somewhere in their own right. Aristotle is rightfully considered the creator of logic, he gave it a theoretical form. He understood two important circumstances: first, in logical judgments and inferences there should not be contradictions; and secondly, the most important function of judgments is truth or falsity. The nature of concepts was still a mystery to him.
AT philosophy of the middle ages a centuries-old controversy erupted universals(in fact, the dispute was about concepts). So called realists continued the line Plato and believed that universals are independent spiritual realities, they are inherent primarily in God, and secondarily in things and thoughts. For example, this is the position Thomas Aquinas. Nominalists believed that the general does not exist, one should not consider names (noumena) as some sort of invented universals. There are single things, people designate them by names, there is no need to invent some other entities (“Occam's razor”). Nominalists were accused of “shaking the air” conceptualists(for example, Abelard). It was meant, and rightly so, that nominalists consider concepts to be mere words and thereby do not reveal their nature. Conceptualists regarded universals as concepts - pre-experimental mental formations necessary for understanding the world. How a person receives concepts (universals), conceptualists could not explain (in the Middle Ages, sciences were extremely poorly developed).
AT philosophy of modern times along with the all-round increase in interest in science, attention to rational knowledge increased. There was an urgent desire to substantiate it, to clearly and clearly show how a person comes to concepts. In 1620 an Englishman's book was published Francis Bacon"New Organon". It offered new theory knowledge, which was based on the data of experiments and observations, i.e. sensations. bacon He argued that concepts are derived from sensations. This statement is much more consistent bacon spent Locke. His views have been discussed above.
Rationalists ( Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) considered the view of the derivation of concepts (the word “idea” is also used) from sensations to be false. They are the authors of the concept of innate ideas. Rationalist thought was moving in an interesting direction. They deduced others from some ideas (deduction) and only on final stage compared the resulting judgments with the feelings from which knowledge begins.
Of the four main philosophical directions - phenomenology, hermeneutics, analytical philosophy and postmodernism - the problems of rational knowledge are most productively dealt with by phenomenologists and analysts.
Phenomenologists they strive to derive concepts from feelings, to present the path to concepts as a movement along the river of feelings, which (there is a leap in thinking) lead to concepts and all the logical components of our psyche. Concepts are signs of feelings.
Analytical philosophers act in a manner that is foreign to phenomenologists. Most analysts are suspicious of reasoning about what goes on in a person's head, about combinations of feelings or thoughts. They consider the human head to be something like a black box, inside of which it is better not to climb. It is enough to confine ourselves to what is available "at the entrance" and "at the exit". We must compare with the facts words(not thoughts). No mysticism. Analysts tend to be excellent logicians. For them, philosophy is akin to logic, which in turn is close to mathematics - both logic and mathematics use formulas and all kinds of proofs.
Let us introduce the following definition: the word that denotes a concept is term. Analysts are primarily interested in terms. It is enough to talk about terms, there is no need to look for thoughts behind them. The terms themselves are understood as words-hypotheses, which, if they are true, correspond in content to the facts.
So, a concept is a thought, a thought-generalization, a thought-hypothesis, a thought-interpretation, which is denoted by terms and allows explaining the content of facts (both feelings and objects).
The unity of sensory and rational knowledge
Sensual and rational are interconnected with each other, many philosophers agree with this. Without the rational, the sensible will appear as a variety in which there is no unity. The rational without the sensuous becomes something dull, devoid of life. Cognition has a sensory-rational character.
Suppose we are interested in the mental image of "this apple", yellow, round, sweet. There are three concepts: the concept of color, the concept geometric shape and the concept of taste. The concept of color covers various colors, of which in this case there is only yellow. Accordingly, the concept of taste is represented in this case by the feeling "sweet". The mental image of an apple acts as the intersection of numerous concepts and their sensory indicators.
If concepts are depicted by lines, and sensual forms by points, then the mental image of any object acts as a kind of center of intersection of lines and points.
memory and imagination
Memory- this is the ability of a person to preserve and reproduce the sensual and rational forms mastered by him. Distinguish between short-term and long-term memory. Words and sounds are usually remembered for shorter periods of time than previously learned concepts. Computer data blocks serve as a wonderful help to human memory, the computer owner can always check the information contained in his database. And if you still connect to the Internet, then generally amazing opportunities open up. Computer owners, however, should keep in mind two unpleasant circumstances: firstly, the computer is not always at hand, secondly, and most importantly, the understanding of computer data depends on the level of sensory and rational development of the person himself. There are special methods of memory development, based, in particular, on the repetition of information and its generalization.
Imagination- this is the ability of the human psyche to bring to life feelings and thoughts that were either previously known to him or are new. Imagination, as a rule, always contains an element of novelty. If there is a lot of this novelty, then they talk about creative imagination. Fantasy and dream are also forms of the imagination.
Intuition
Intuition- this is direct unconsciously received knowledge. Intuitive knowledge can be both sensual and rational.
There are philosophical schools that are ranked among intuitionism. By Lossky, there is always coordination between a person and the world, this is intuition. Bergson objected to the refusal to perceive phenomena as a whole; breaking it into parts kills the "soul" of the whole. Nowadays, intuition is most often understood as an undifferentiated act of cognition and nothing unworthy is seen in subjecting this act to a thorough analysis; analysis highlights the structure of the whole. Intuition is trainable. It is very appropriate where you need to make a quick decision.
Creation. Talents and geniuses
"Creativity," emphasized ON. Berdyaev,“There is always growth, addition, creation of something new, not existing in the world.” Every person is a creative being. The psyche as an activity to develop something new is always creativity.
Every creative process has its stages. There are often four stages of creativity: preparation, maturation, insight, and verification. Creative success does not fall from the sky. This is hard work, various trials, unsuccessful attempts, disappointments, surprises, accidents, exhaustion and ... lo and behold! A stubborn and hardworking person who trusts his imagination, which “throws” him into something new, almost with iron necessity turns out to be a talented creator. If you want to be a creator, create. Not the gods burn the pots.
Of course, not everyone succeeds in creativity equally. This gives grounds to introduce scale creativity. Geniuses Those are the ones who get the best results. Talents inferior to geniuses, but superior to ordinary citizens. Of course, it is best to learn from geniuses. If they are not nearby, then talents, and if they are absent, then capable people, but never lazy and mediocrity.
The structure of the psyche: unconscious, conscious, supraconscious
The animal has a psyche, in this it is similar to a person, but does not have consciousness (except perhaps its most elementary forms). Let's say you have a faithful friend - a dog, she follows your commands, and many call her a smart dog. But even a smart dog is unlikely to reason like this: “I am a dog. And they are people. Dogs must follow the commands of people. The dog is not aware of himself as a dog, he is poorly oriented in the world. According to the observations of psychologists, small children only by the age of three begin to say “I” about themselves. Two-year-old Lenochka says: "Give Lenochka a candy." Only later will she say: "Give me candy." Now she has learned that she is an independent person, whose name is Lena, that adults love her and are unlikely to refuse to give her their favorite if they have candy. Consciousness is the human psyche, which has reached the stage of development at which he is aware of the processes taking place with him and around him. If this is not the case, then the psyche has not reached the stage of consciousness, it exists in the form of the unconscious (which is what Freudianism is so interested in). So there is the conscious and the subconscious. K.S. Stanislavsky introduced the concept of superconsciousness (superconsciousness), by which he understood the highest stage of the creative process, in which, along with conscious moments, there is a noble appendage associated with inspiration.
It is often said that the psyche (including consciousness) is a product of highly organized matter (the human brain). This statement cannot be taken lightly. The brain does not produce such a substance that could be called the psyche or consciousness. It's about something else. In relation to everything that exists, the neurophysiological mechanisms of the brain are or may be its sign. The human brain, which is made up of many nerve cells and fibers, has unique opportunities on the iconic reproduction of the wealth of the world, including one's own.
What is truth?
According to the Gospel of John on the eve of execution Jesus he had a conversation with the Roman governor in Judea Pontius Pilate. Jesus: “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth; everyone who is from the truth obeys my voice.” Pilate:"What is truth?" In the question Pilate bewilderment is also heard (at the hour of death a person does not ask, does not fawn, but speaks of the truth) and a certain contempt (what else is the truth, if it is unknown to me, the ruler). Meanwhile, we are talking about one of the most significant philosophical problems.
What is truth? Is it possible to achieve it? Or maybe she doesn't need it? What, strictly speaking, is the "nerve" of the problem of truth? Let us turn in this connection to the definition of truth. The classical understanding of it goes back to Plato:"... the one who speaks about things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, the same one who speaks about them differently, lies ...". So, truth is the correspondence of our words, feelings and thoughts to what they are signs of.
In words, feelings and thoughts we get the world directly on our side, the human side. Now another interest arises, an interest in the world as such. Do the planets really move in ellipses, the whale is a mammal, and firms maximize their profits? In order to navigate successfully in this world, a person must be able to foresee the course of processes, regardless of his interest in them. This means that he is drawn to the truth. Truth is needed by a person, therefore it represents for him value. But as a value, truth differs from beauty and goodness. Beauty and goodness are flashy values "for us", it's anything, directly on the side of man. Truth is also a value, but its addressee is not the person himself, but the correspondence of the human to what is represented in it. If beauty is the value of art, and goodness is the value of practice, then truth is the value of knowledge and science.
Three Concepts of Truth
AT modern philosophy three concepts of truth stand out particularly clearly: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism. Let's consider them.
According to the concept compliance, statements are true (and after them also feelings, thoughts, interpretations) that correspond reality. The statement "snow is white" is true if snow is really white; the statement "snow is white" is false if snow is not actually white. In doing so, we must explain what "snow is white" means. It is necessary to explain in such a way that even a color-blind person can check, for example, with instruments, whether the snow is white or not.
It turns out that the establishment of truth or error requires interpretation. Separate judgments acquire meaning only in a system of judgments. Where multi-link logical constructions are in use, one has to take into account the consistency, systemic nature of judgments. In this regard, they talk about coherent concept of truth. Under coherence understand the bond and consistency statements. The concept of truth coherence does not cancel, but enriches the concept of correspondence.
The concept, in which the criterion of truth is practice, is called pragmatic conception of truth(Greek word pragma means action). The meaning of the new concept of truth is very simple: it is necessary in practice, in action, to test judgments for truth and falsity, not to limit oneself to mere theoretical reasoning.
It seems very true the statement of the American philosopher N. Rescher, according to which the three concepts of truth do not cancel, but complement each other. Therefore, all three concepts of truth must be taken into account. But this, of course, does not mean their equivalence in all cases of life. For the mathematician, the coherent conception of truth comes first. It is important for him that his judgments are in harmony with each other. It is very important for a physicist that his judgments, together with their mathematical formulation, correspond to the world of physical phenomena. This means that he will often refer to the concept of correspondence. For a technician, practice is of great importance; one must assume that the pragmatic conception of truth will always be at the center of his attention.
Truth Scale
Everything in the world has its own quantitative gradations. Truth is no exception. Our knowledge, information as a set of information is constantly growing. As the process of cognition develops, the previously unknown becomes known. Let's introduce a scale of truth - from the extreme left point, corresponding to absolute error, to the extreme right point, corresponding to absolute truth. The growth of knowledge means that humanity is moving on the scale of truth from left to right (the opposite of truth is error; falsehood is the deliberate distortion of truth).
Theories replace each other, it is on their basis that we interpret the concept of truth. So, we have to admit that once again the absolute truth turned out to be unattainable. But under the conditions of the dominance of the former theory, it seemed that absolute truth had already been achieved. Neither in small things nor in big things does our spirit encounter an absolute boundary, everywhere it is on the way.
Overview: how did you search for truths?
In order to expand the horizons of our understanding of the problem of truth, we will consider various interpretations of this problem.
AT antiquity invented the concept of conformity. Truth was seen in the fact that existing things were interpreted as manifestations of an idea (according to Plato) or forms (according to Aristotle).
AT medieval christian philosophy the truth was seen in God, in his revelation.
AT new time as true knowledge considered the information contained in the senses (Bacon, Locke) as well as in clear ideas (Descartes, Leibniz).
In XX century analysts (neo-positivists) initially adhered to the concept of correspondence. Namely, they found out the correspondence of judgments and conclusions to the actual state of affairs, to the facts. Then they began to talk a lot about the mutual agreement of judgments (Carnap), i.e., the concept of correspondence was supplemented by the coherent concept of truth. Finally, some analysts, supporters of defining the meaning of a word as its use (according to Wittgenstein) actually develop a pragmatic conception of truth. Of modern philosophers, it is the analysts who deal with the problem of truth most thoroughly.
Phenomenologists eidos and concepts are constructed from the initial sensory impressions, and then the external world is evaluated on their basis. They hardly use the pragmatic concept of truth.
Hermeneutics consider the successful contact of a thing with a person to be true, the thing opens, and the horizons of the thing and the person merge. Analysts attribute a sign of truth to judgments, hermeneutics to things themselves (compare: a true friend).
Postmodernists treat the problem of truth without reverence. Any text has many meanings for them, and the meaning is understood as feelings, the meaning of the external world as a criterion of truth is actually refuted.
Empathy. Explanation. Understanding
The world is cognizable by virtue of its relationship with man and man's possession of unique abilities. A person operates with feelings, thoughts, performs actions, acts. Man knows the world through empathy. explanation, understanding. Already empathy gives a person extensive information: about cold, hot, fresh, sharp, dull. Even when communicating with another person, it is useful to feel into his situation, to imagine yourself in his place.
Explanation- this is an increase in information about something based on thoughts. Very often a deductive explanation is used: the facts are evaluated from the standpoint of the laws of the theory. When a student solves a problem in physics, electrical engineering, chemistry, he is required to bring the variables under the law. This is the explanation.
Understanding refers not to feelings and thoughts, but to practice.
The Multidimensionality of Truth
In the search for truth, the ideal is the comprehensiveness of the cognitive process. The famous dispute between the "physicists" with their focus on explanations and the "lyricists" with their focus on empathy cannot determine the winner. The same applies to the dispute between the so-called theoreticians and practitioners, each of whom is strong in one area, but weak in another area.
Truth is multidimensional, and sensual, and conceptual, and practical. “You need to learn to imagine objects,” wrote P.A. Florensky,- from all sides at once, as our consciousness knows. The truth, saturated with many dimensions, loses its one-sidedness, dryness, lifelessness.
So, as a conclusion to the whole philosophy of knowledge, we can state: truth is a versatile interpretation that provides us with information (knowledge) about the world.
