Specifics and methods of philosophical thinking. Features of philosophical thinking

81. ART AS A SUBJECT OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATION Art is called professional look an activity in which aesthetic consciousness turns from an accompanying element into the main goal. In art, aesthetic consciousness becomes the main thing. Aesthetic -

1. Nature as a subject of philosophical understanding The concept of “nature” is one of the most important philosophical concepts. It is impossible to understand the essence of many fundamental philosophical concepts, for example, society, culture, spirit, the essence of man and others, without considering them in relation

1. Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis Orientation in the world always presupposes adequate reproduction and reflection of reality. This reproduction is the essence of the cognitive attitude towards the world. A person’s cognitive attitude to reality

c. Separation of philosophical knowledge from popular philosophy Of the two spheres related to philosophy, as we established above, one, the private sciences, cannot, from our point of view, be classified as philosophy, since it has the disadvantage that, as an independent introduction and

Towards a synthesis of socio-philosophical knowledge Concluding short review the main currents of modern social philosophy, we can confidently say that none of them has the right to claim the absolute truth in the last instance. The very names of these currents, widely

10. Address on the subject of a philosophical course to Hugo Vermeeren Nancy, October 20, 1984 Judging by the prospectus of the conference “School and Philosophy”, which your father gave me, we were asked to consider the topic of philosophical education of students, based on the fact that “learning and teaching

As a result of studying the material in this chapter, the student should:

know

• content, structure and forms of thinking, processes of understanding, interpretation, explanation;
• forms of manifestation of faith in human existence;
• principles and rules of correct thinking;

be able to

• comprehend the content of the processes of understanding and interpretation;
• formulate personal worldviews based on the principles of correct thinking;
• correlate, compare faith and scientific knowledge in the professional activities of a lawyer;
• analyze the contradictions of the spiritual existence of man and communities;

have skills

• resolving social contradictions through correct thinking;
• using the relationship between faith and knowledge in assessing delinquency;
• applying the provisions of interpretation and explanation in everyday life and professional activities;
• using the laws of correct thinking to justify one’s position or social attitude;
• reasoned, logically consistent substantiation of conclusions and results of knowledge.

Logic as the science of correct thinking

Thinking is the most important distinguishing feature that distinguishes a person from a family of the highest level of development of the animal world. At the same time it is very complex socio-psychological education , which was formed in a person in the process animal evolution , and labor And interactions (communication) of representatives of the human race.

Thinking as a phenomenon expressing the functioning of human consciousness, realizing the knowledge of the objective world on theoretical level, is a traditional subject of philosophizing and has existed as such since the emergence of philosophy as such. Knowledge about thinking as a special form of human cognitive activity arose within the framework of very early philosophical views and led to its isolation from the general totality of mental processes.

Already in ancient philosophy there was a separation of thinking from sensory knowledge. Thus, Parmenides and Heraclitus distinguished in the results of thinking between opinion as an expression of everyday consciousness and truth as comprehension of the universal laws of the universe, independent of human characteristics. Democritus argued that the genuine atomic device things are possible comprehend only through thinking.

Socrates, in the context of the motto “know thyself,” came to the conclusion that thinking is a means that allows a person to move from vague and uncertain ideas about reality to achieving solid, reliable knowledge. Believing that truth is acquired in dialogue between people, Socrates substantiated the idea that thinking is directly related to communication.

Anaxagoras made an attempt to comprehend thinking, considering it as substance. This idea of ​​substantiality was continued by Plato, who shared world to intelligible and moral. According to R. Descartes, the world consists of two substances: thinking And matter.

Aristotle first turned to thinking from the standpoint of his formalization. This is how his analytics, topics and metaphysics were formed.

After Aristotle, it became possible to talk about correct And wrong thinking, about right and wrong in thinking itself. Before Aristotle, only the result of a thought or conclusion could be declared right or wrong by contrasting another result or conclusion.

Subsequently, the problems of right and wrong both in thinking and in thinking were reflected in the processes of inventing new forms of evidence, in the construction of other, non-Aristotelian logics, for example, the creation of new sciences by G. Galileo, the writing of the “New Organon” by F. Bacon, the justification of research methods R. Descartes, critical views of I. Kant, formulation of inductive, dialectical, mathematical and other types of logics.

Finally, in philosophy there arose a need to present thinking as an object of research, to formulate a fundamentally new view of thinking from the standpoint of “metathinking.” In this context, thinking was seen as directed recycling process signals, information in cognitive, i.e. coded, semantic system of living beings. In its content, thinking began to be identified with the totality acts of sign manipulation , images , subject to a certain internal logic-strategy and leading to the emergence new ideal images or iconic designs.

Thinking is the highest form of active reflection of objective reality, consisting in the subject’s purposeful, mediated and generalized cognition of essential connections and relationships of objects and phenomena, in the creative creation of new ideas, in predicting events and actions through the abstract process of operating with signs and images, subject to a certain logic - strategies.

The biological substrate of thinking is high level development of the brain, historically formed in the process of formation of man, human society, material and spiritual culture. Thinking, going beyond sensations and perception, always remains inextricably linked with the sensory reflection of reality.

Exploring the world, a person generalizes the results of sensory experience and reflects the general properties of things. To understand the world around us, it is not enough to just notice the connection between phenomena; it is necessary to establish that this connection is a common property of things. This allows us to make thinking that provides answers to many other questions of human existence and society.

Mechanism of thinking of a person is hidden, silent inner speech. It is characterized by the articulation of words, invisible to humans, and micromovements of the speech organs, which are associated with excitations in the speech motor zone of the cerebral cortex. A feature of internal speech is its abbreviation, conciseness, and condensation. However, when mental difficulties arise, internal speech takes on an expanded form and often turns into whispered or loud speech. This allows you to better analyze and consolidate the abstract speech process.

The "tool" of thinking is meaning of the word. Language is a means abstraction , abstraction of essential features of objects, recording and storing knowledge, transferring it to other people. It is only thanks to language that the socio-historical experience of all humanity becomes the property of the individual.

Thinking socially conditioned and arises only in the social conditions of human existence, i.e. within the framework of the socio-historical existence of the latter. A child born outside of society will never, at any age, be able to think.

If thinking is aimed at real objects, then it is called specific. Outside of real objects, thinking will abstract, those. distracted. Concrete and abstract types of thinking are not separated in reality. Each of us easily moves from a concrete subject to an abstraction. At the same time, using concepts, we also refer to specific objects, real objects.

Philosophy is interested in the main property of thinking - the ability to create ideal-logical portrait existence, human life and through human activity to transform the world and oneself. At the same time, for different subjects participating in various types of activities, the issues of identifying people’s cognition and the ability to use the results of cognition of some researchers by others remain important. Therefore, there is a clear need to focus on forms of thinking , which are not invented by each person individually, but are used by him, transmitted, and also correct and direct his directly individual experience and understanding of existence.

It is also important to form among the majority of members of society right thinking , allowing us to consider individual results not only as a process of self-determination of individuals, but also as an important medium-

quality, which is realized in the activities of society, “uses” it as a force for its reproduction and development.

To solve all these problems, a necessary component of the process of forming correct thinking in everyone is logics. At the same time, she does not delve into the content of thoughts, since it is obvious that the thoughts of a mathematician differ from the thoughts of a biologist, a musician thinks about something completely different from a judge, a scientist uses concepts and terms in research that are not at all used in everyday thinking and language.

Logic, studying the structure of thoughts in abstraction from their specific content, establishes laws and rules of reasoning that lead from one true statement to another. Main types forms , in which thoughts are expressed, are concept, judgment , theory , model and etc.

The leading forms in which the development of knowledge occurs are inference , hypothesis , solution , version , task , problem and etc.

The main purpose of logic is to study the specific laws of thinking, to develop not only the rules for achieving true inferential knowledge, but also to determine the ways, means and forms of carrying out this process.

Logic (from Greek. logike - word, concept, reasoning, reason, thought) - the science of generally valid forms and means of thought necessary for rational cognition in any field of knowledge, of rational methods of reasoning, which cover both the analysis of the rules of deduction and the study of the degree of confirmation of probabilistic or plausible conclusions ( hypotheses, versions, assumptions).

The effective role of logic in the formation of correct thinking in a person is revealed in its laws, reflecting the internal, stable connection between concepts and judgments. They contain the necessary conditions that determine the consistency of the thought process, thinking with reality.

The laws of logic are not only the laws of “pure” thought, but also a generalized reflection of the laws of the world, transformed into human head and which became general principles of cognitive thinking. These laws were formed not only in human consciousness, although they do not exist outside of it. They are reflections of the objective in the subjective consciousness of man. In them reflected sustainable features internal structure thought process , entrenched centuries-old experience practical activity of a social person.

Compliance with the laws of logic is an important and indispensable point in the complex of conditions that determine the truth of our inferential knowledge, since correct thinking manages to effectively cognize the reality around us and ensure the receipt of true knowledge.

For example, law of identity requires that in the process of reasoning any thought be precisely formulated and have a certain stable content. This law directs any person to ensure that in the process of a certain reasoning, every thought is identical

to myself. It demands that different thoughts should never be identified, that identical thoughts should never be mistaken for non-identical. Without complying with the requirements of this law, thoughts expressed by different people about the same subject cannot be identical. There are objective and subjective conditions for this, and there are reasons for this.

For example, we have different life experiences. Moreover, our statements are determined by professional and ideological characteristics. We do not always skillfully and unambiguously reflect phenomena and processes with the necessary concepts; sometimes we talk about a subject that is significant for our life without delving into its essence. That is why, in the formation of correct thinking in each person, the law of identity acts as a normative rule, the meaning of which is to exclude, in the course of logical inference, an arbitrary change in the subject of reasoning, substitution or confusion of one concept, judgment with others.

For example, guided in life by the rule “all information requires verification,” you need to clearly define for yourself and your opponent the essence of the concepts “information” and “verification” and unambiguously not only interpret them, but also use them. Otherwise, it will be possible to observe situations where two people argue about something, without noticing that one of them uses some polysemantic word in a different meaning than the other. Such a dispute can continue endlessly if the disputants do not think of clarifying the meaning of the words used.

One more example. Often, depending on your personal position and interests, you can find yourself in a situation where a teacher’s congratulations can be interpreted as both a bribe and a gift. The first is punishable, the second is recognition of merit and honor for the deed.

It is necessary to take into account the fact that with the help of thinking, objects and phenomena reflect the main, essential, relatively stable, which characterizes their fundamental qualitative certainty. In this regard, in the process of thinking, we cannot operate with vague, unstable, indefinite concepts about objects. While an object is in a certain qualitative state, until in the process of development it has not changed its basic properties and characteristics, we must think about this particular object with all its inherent properties. Otherwise, our thinking will become vague, indefinite, logically incorrect and therefore will not have cognitive significance and will not lead us to the truth.

In accordance with these provisions, in order to avoid errors in cognitive and practical activities, lawyers, and all people, are obliged to comply with the following rules, which follow from the essence of the law of identity.

Firstly, it is forbidden admit substitution of concepts and judgments , which can be conscious or unconscious. This does not mean that concepts are immutable. The changeability of concepts is associated not only with changes in objects, but also with the fact that in the process of labor and mental activity a person enriches his worldview and means of cognitive activity. The changeability of concepts is associated with the requirements for the thinking process, the discipline of thought: on the one hand, it is necessary to use flexible, mobile concepts in connection with the objective course of development of the real world and knowledge, on the other hand, social practice requires unambiguity, certainty and accuracy in the expression of thoughts and the handling of concepts .

Secondly, it is impossible invest at the same time concept or judgment different meaning. There are plenty of examples of using this technique. I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is also unacceptable in the activities of lawyers. For a clear, unambiguous use of concepts, a person needs not only knowledge, but also a strong will, especially now, when norms whose meaning is not well defined are quickly and often with insufficient scientific elaboration.

In cognition we use the concepts of both “method” and “way”. Etymologically, a method is a way. However, the linguistic coincidence and content of these concepts are different. Way in the context of the study - this is still option a combination of techniques, rules and forms of cognitive activity of the subject, which, in accordance with his experience, allows him to achieve his intended goal most effectively and at the lowest cost. This regulation is largely determined by the capabilities of the subject of cognition. Method to a greater extent objective means knowledge. It can be interpreted as law-like subsequence operations And actions , which allows the subject of cognition to achieve the goal if he goes to it from a certain cultural potential, i.e. the method “requires” a certain preparedness from the subject who intends to use it in cognition.

In progress knowledge when used wrong thinking , possible occurrence formal-logical contradictions. For example, when studying an object such as mercury, we may arrive at two contradictory statements: “Mercury is a liquid” and “Mercury is a metal.”

What recommendations do subjects of knowledge need to follow in order to resolve these contradictions? The answer is: “It is necessary to follow the statement that if an object is qualitatively determined, then the properties inherent in it cannot belong and not belong to it at the same time, in the same respect.” In other words, it should be remembered: “It is impossible to affirm and deny something at the same time.”

At the same time, contradictions will not arise if the following are present in thinking: properties thoughts.

• 1. There is a statement of belonging to the subject one sign, but at the same time the denial of belonging to the same object another sign. For example, there is no contradiction between the statements “all athletes who have used doping, which is confirmed by an examination, are subject to disqualification” and “no athlete can be disqualified if doping has not been proven.”
• 2. In a statement reflected various items thoughts. This can be seen, for example, from the following statements: “Disciplinary responsibility is

lies the athlete who violated the rules of the competition,” and “Athletes who violated traffic rules are brought to administrative responsibility.”

• 3. B statement something denied and at the same time the same approved in relation to some subject, but in different conditions, in different time. For example, considering the results of a subject’s knowledge of the boiling point of water at different heights relative to sea level, we formulate the conclusion in the following statements: “Water at sea level boils at 100 degrees Celsius” and “Water at an altitude of five thousand meters relative to sea level boils at 90 degrees Celsius." In this case we can say: “There is no contradiction here.”
• 4. B statement subject of knowledge evaluates the entity subject at the same time time, but in different relationships. For example, as a result of cognition, the researcher obtained the result contained in the following judgments: “The athlete A. Petrov provided the necessary assistance to his friend during the competition”; "Athlete A. Petrov violated the rules of the competition." The two judgments given above consider specific actions of a person at the same time, but in different respects. This means there is no contradiction.

Significant in substantiation truth or falsity the statements in question is use of justification with a level characterized as adequacy. The meaning of this formulation is that, in accordance with the law of sufficient reason, evidential thinking will be thinking in which not only the truth of some conclusion is asserted, but also the basis is indicated that allows us to recognize this position as true. The essence of this law lies in the following thought: “There is a consequence because there is a sufficient reason.” On the contrary, a judgment based on an insufficient basis cannot claim to be true. Validity is the fundamental difference between science and scholasticism, dogmatism and religion.

Why do they say "sufficient reason" and not just "reason"? The fact is that, as G. Hegel noted in his time, one and the same statement can be given an infinite number of reasons. However, only some of them can be considered sufficient to ensure the truth of the conclusion.

Practice as a generally accepted criterion of truth in knowledge allows us to determine the sufficiency of a basis, because in practical activity, i.e. in objective dialectics, and in our reasoning, i.e. in formal logic, there is always a source of development of either objective reality or thinking. For the latter, such a source becomes a thought from which another thought follows or on which another thought “rises.”

A sufficient reason may be reliable facts, axioms, laws of science. The main thing is that their truth be verified by the totality of social practice. In addition to them, in our life there are certain principles, rules and regulations that have been tested by experience and recognized as true. They are usually resorted to to ensure correct human behavior. This is, for example, " Golden Rule morality", "self-criticism", "love for mother", "laws that determine the life of society", "rights and freedoms of a citizen of society", etc.

As an example, take the following proposition: “If this person committed a crime, then he should be brought to justice and punished.” In the above statement, the fact of committing a crime is recognized as a sufficient basis, because this idea is confirmed by the practical activities of people, the previous experience of mankind, moral and legal norms embodied in the principles of justice, adequacy, and conformity. Obviously, there is no point in checking this position again. Hence, sufficient reason - it is any other thought that has already been tested and recognized as true, from which the truth of this thought necessarily follows.

Connection grounds And consequences is reflection in objective thinking, including cause and effect , connections that are expressed in the fact that one phenomenon gives rise to another, although this reflection is not direct.

True, sometimes the logical basis and logical consequence do not always coincide with the real cause and effect. For example, snow is the real reason why the roofs of houses will be covered with snow. If we see roofs covered with snow, we will say that it was snowing. However, in this conclusion, the logical basis and effect will be the opposite of the real cause and effect relationship.

Thus, the validity of thought is the most important property of logical thinking. This means that compliance with the requirements of the law of sufficient reason by the subject of knowledge is important for all specialists who are associated with the indispensable knowledge of natural phenomena, social life, and even man himself.

At the same time, in the process of thinking and practical activity, a person should be guided by the laws of logic in their interrelation. These laws are interdependent, because they consider thinking as an integral formation. No thought can be correct if at least one law of logic is violated, i.e. if the principles and rules of correct thinking are violated. All laws are regulations for the formation and functioning of a lawyer’s professional thinking, a unique means of searching for the truth and making qualified decisions.

Considering the process of forming professional thinking among students, which would be distinguished by clarity, persuasiveness and lapidaryness, we can say with confidence that the laws of logic introduce restrictions and standards, as well as tools as tools for drawing conclusions and making decisions.

Law of Identity , its observance form a culture of operating with synonyms and homonyms, deepen and expand students’ abilities to interpret regulatory legal acts. This law develops categorical discipline of thinking, clarity and conciseness of presentation, and at the same time full coverage of the topic or problem.

Associated with this law law of contradiction , which develops a sense that allows one to establish the logical incompatibility of different

judgments, the ability to operate with comparisons, in the process of which the similarities and differences of the objects under consideration are established. The law of contradiction forms the ability to use antonym words.

Law of the excluded middle not only contributes to the development of the ability to construct judgments and their choice, but also develops the ability to choose and use the necessary concept that would adequately reflect the essence of the problem and the subject of thought. This law is especially effective in developing the skills of dichotomous division, without which it is almost impossible to fully analyze any situation that is brought up for discussion and requires its resolution and the adoption of a qualified decision on it.

Law of Sufficient Reason is also closely related to other laws of logic. It guarantees the achievement of validity of conclusions, recommendations, and decisions in the practical activities of specialists. If you do not comply with this law, reasoning , which may be correct in form, may turn out to be not justified through their messages. As you know, a true conclusion can never be obtained from false premises. In order to guarantee the reliable truth of the conclusion, even with the correct construction of the reasoning, it is necessary to justify the truth of the premises. If the premises are true and the reasoning is correct, then the conclusion will be reliably true.

Future lawyers should also pay attention to this law because in court hearings there is an adversarial process, and the arguments of several parties are used. Since the argumentation contains not only rational, but also psychological aspects, reasoned reasoning can play a decisive role in the judge making the right decision. In this regard, the law of sufficient reason becomes the most important factor in argumentation.

It is obvious that understanding the provisions of logic and their use in life allows you to develop correct thinking, instills the skill of formulating a clear, harmonious and convincing thought, ensures independence in the course of reasoning, develops and disciplines mental abilities, and improves the formal apparatus of the human mind.

As a result, knowledge of logic is an integral part legal education. This is due to the specifics of the work of lawyers: judges, lawyers, legal advisers, legal scholars, etc. All of them have to constantly identify and classify conclusions as decisions, engage in argumentation and refutation, and ensure the accuracy and clarity of statements so that they are clearly interpreted and perceived by people.

A feature and defining feature of philosophical thinking is reflexivity, i.e. the ability for self-reflection - the ability to think about thinking - when, in the process of thinking or reasoning about anything, a person simultaneously realizes and analyzes the grounds and patterns of his reasoning, the degree of accuracy in drawing conclusions, the norms of truth to which these conclusions must correspond. In this sense, any reliable knowledge must include a philosophical justification for why we have the right to accept this or that theory, how exactly our knowledge and attitude to the world should be built. This explains the deep connection of philosophy with all human cognitive activity, which is reflected in the classical idea of ​​philosophy as the science of all sciences, but also extends to non-scientific forms of knowledge, such as religion and art. As a result of philosophical reflection, models and paradigms (from the Greek - example, example) of thinking are created, which form the rules and methods for solving a wide variety of problems, form various principles of worldview.
Knowledge that contains a reflexive principle or, as they say, is reflected, is contrasted with types of knowledge that lack such a beginning - this is pre-reflective and non-reflective knowledge, which is represented by mythologies of various types, cultural, social and individual stereotypes, codes of behavior, etc. All mythologies: from ancient to modern (for example, political myths, myths popular culture etc.) – play a fairly important role. Mythologies describe, or rather, construct reality through universal meanings and meanings, which are given sacred status. Mythologies and stereotypes create a structure and hierarchy of these meanings, in which the fundamental dependencies and constructions of the real world can be found and which can create necessary condition, an impetus for the development of human cognition and thinking.
However, mythologies and stereotypes of everyday thinking only name, indicate priorities in meaning, but never explain their foundations and consequences. Here it turns out that it goes without saying or should be clear to everyone why, for example, strength and not weakness, justice and not dictatorship are accepted as a general value priority; why, for example, does this group of people have advantages over other people, etc. – no explanations are given here, and the reasons, as a rule, are not realized. Therefore, when our mind discovers the insufficiency of unconscious postulation and distribution of meanings in relation to certain phenomena, it requires certainty and clarity of ideas and positions from the point of view of which we can analyze and explain phenomena and processes of the real world. At the same time, questions necessarily arise about how well our mind operates: what and how it is able to understand and explain, and what is beyond its capabilities. The philosophical mind strives to find the most accurate answers to questions about the possibilities of human thinking, where reflection becomes the defining “tool” that allows us to polish its attitudes, schemes and principles.
Reflexivity determines the pronounced critical, discursive nature of philosophical thinking. Criticality implies both internal self-criticism and a skeptical position in philosophy, and the ability to question, test with the help of criticism even the most reliable, at first glance, knowledge or worldview. Philosophy, devoid of reflection and criticism, turns into dogmatics or ideology. Therefore, it is important to note that constant discussions even on philosophical issues that have already been resolved long ago, on the one hand, indicate a healthy desire to maintain the activity and efficiency of the mind, and on the other hand, they allow one to fulfill one of the most important tasks of philosophy: to show the spectrum of all possible solutions certain problems.
In this context, another essential feature of philosophical thinking is revealed - it is called upon to “complete” the limited picture of what is given here and now, to a complete, comprehensive picture of the world, in which ideas about reality as a single whole, ideas about fundamental connections and relationships will be given that shape reality. This feature is characterized as symbolic thinking. In general, any other thinking can be called symbolic - religious, artistic, and scientific - if it is able to discern, “read” the full “text” from a “passage” or fragment (after all, we are never given a complete picture of reality). For example, artistic thinking is focused on the creation or search for symbolic images, where in a specific form the deep meaning and interconnectedness of what is happening is revealed, perhaps even the foundations on which the world “rests.” But the symbolic nature of philosophical thinking is manifested in the fact that the completeness of our ideas about the picture of the world is created with the help of concepts that in an abstract form express the properties and relationships of the most different aspects or elements of the real world. Therefore, the widest possible coverage of acceptable ideas about the true essence of things and phenomena is assumed here. For example, by paying attention to the fact that some phenomena are repeated or follow one another, or depend on each other, we create a generalized idea of ​​orderliness as such, abstracted from the specifics of these phenomena. Based on this idea, we can construct a picture of the world as a picture of order. But in order to form a strict concept of what order is, to figure out whether it can be considered that order is the basis of the existence of the world or not, a serious, in-depth analysis of many different aspects in which the existence of the world is manifested is required, and it also requires the ability connect these aspects into a holistic understanding of the essence of order.

So, philosophical thinking presupposes reflection, i.e. it is self-critical and discursive. The subject of philosophical reflection is always the quality of our thinking. What determines the quality or truth of thinking? First of all, it is necessary to determine what serves as the initial prerequisites, i.e. preconditions for mental and cognitive activity. Such prerequisites arise in many spheres of human existence: at the physiological, psychological, social, and cultural levels. As far as is generally accepted, full-fledged mental and intellectual activity is possible in the presence of a healthy psyche and provided that a person is “involved” in the social, general cultural context. However, in this regard, questions necessarily arise about what and how determines the norm, quality (truth) or productivity of thinking, etc.
Even the very ability to ask the question “What is this?” or “What does this mean?” or “Why is this happening?” does not appear out of nowhere, it reveals the ability to assume that there is something hidden, inaccessible to the direct perception of an object, something beyond the obvious, and this can only be “seen” from a certain angle of view - the mind's eye. Thought allows us to discover and highlight those meanings in which things, phenomena, their properties and relationships are defined. These meanings and meanings are usually expressed in concepts and ways of relating concepts to each other. The answer to any question, at a minimum, presupposes: what is the answer and why such an answer should suit us. Therefore, as necessary prerequisites for thinking and cognition, one should highlight: 1) conceptual and 2) theoretical prerequisites, which serve as two complementary supports and conditions for cognitive activity.
1) Conceptual prerequisites for thinking. In order for the process of cognition to be possible, it is necessary to establish a “point of view” on a particular object, which allows us to limit the range of permissible ideas or meanings of the object. (conceptus – (lat.) content of the concept). For example, if we state, “This person is my friend” or “acquaintance” or “enemy”, “The world is order” or “The world is information”, etc., then we thereby establish, highlight meanings, with the help of which we are going to describe this subject. But these meanings themselves arise thanks to the ability to imagine, to realize the meaning of what a friend, enemy, order or information is. And although people can use these words in their reasoning without realizing their true essence, the accuracy and correctness of any reasoning still depends on the ability to distinguish between the approximate and deep meaning of concepts. In this regard, a position even arose that the goal of philosophy is to create concepts and justify their accuracy, universality, etc.
2) Theoretical prerequisites for thinking. It is not enough to study thinking only from a content point of view. As has already been said, any conclusion must be satisfactory in terms of explaining why the conclusion can be drawn and why it can be considered true. This means that it is necessary to show how convincingly a given concept “works” to explain or draw conclusions. Theory (translated from ancient Greek - showing, presenting, considering) provides a clear demonstration of this work, and the theoretical premises of cognitive activity, accordingly, set the principles for choosing arguments and preferred schemes for drawing conclusions, i.e. determine on what basis and how exactly we draw conclusions. Therefore, analysis and criticism of the necessary theoretical prerequisites for thinking and cognition becomes one of the most important tasks of philosophy, and philosophical thinking is considered discursive (discursus - (Latin) reasoning, argument), because carries out this analysis and criticism, and also creates knowledge about regulatory framework thinking based on argumentation or deriving legitimate forms of justification.
Theoretical prerequisites can be considered, for example, preliminary settings for making decisions that arise on the basis of value choice, or these can be theoretical settings and principles determined by one or another paradigm in thinking, these can also be the rules according to which the validity of the conclusions is determined. Among the most typical presets we can highlight the so-called natural installation, the essence of which is the belief that we are able to understand what is happening in a “natural” way, i.e. if we perceive something, then it really exists, and it exists exactly as we perceive it, which allows us to understand what is happening. This attitude is typical mainly for everyday thinking and is sufficient only for a limited number of tasks.
You can also highlight the installation of symmetry in the construction of conclusions. The essence of this attitude is fully reflected in the well-known statements: “Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing disappears anywhere,” “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” etc. , which involves observing the requirement of complete balance or symmetry between, for example, cause and effect, action and reaction, etc. Such attitudes in thinking may seem quite adequate and even sufficient, but sooner or later we will be forced to determine whether this is really so. And here it will be impossible to do without substantiating the truth and reliability of our attitudes, which leads to the need to determine and formulate basic theoretical attitudes and principles, rules, according to which any reasoning will acquire legal status.
In particular, “symmetrical” thinking can receive a legitimate form in the form of such theoretical principles as monism, dualism, pluralism. An attitude or position is called monistic when reasoning is aimed at reducing the entire variety of phenomena under study to a single condition, one determining factor or basis (and this is the greatest temptation in knowledge - to find the key that can open all the doors). Within the framework of the monistic approach, it is assumed that a single beginning, which serves as the basis of everything that exists, must represent something absolute and universal (all-encompassing) in order to be identical to the entire volume possible values, describing reality (as a rule, such a beginning is represented by the idea of ​​​​God). You can also build your reasoning in such a way that the connection between various phenomena will be defined through binary oppositions or as the relationship of two opposite equal principles - this position is called dualism (for example, an explanation of the interaction physical bodies through the action of attractive and repulsive forces). The third possible option is pluralism, for which such voluminous generalizations are considered unacceptable, and therefore it is assumed that there is a variety of bases corresponding to different “blocks”, components of reality (this approach is characteristic of specialized thinking).
In the history of philosophy, there was also the experience of creating a system of unpremised knowledge - the phenomenology of E. Husserl (twentieth century), however, despite the justification of the idea and the subsequent productivity of this approach, this experience remained only a project, and the analysis of the idea itself led to the conclusion that it was impossible to create a system of unpremised knowledge .
Of course, disputes about conceptual and theoretical principles in cognition lead to the need to determine both fundamental and particular grounds that make it possible to accurately and clearly justify why a particular decision can be made or considered correct or true. What is truth? - becomes the most significant (if not the main) question that philosophy must answer and one of the most important goals towards which philosophical reflection is directed. The answer to this question is not obvious and therefore requires an investigation of the necessary and sufficient conditions and formal requirements for the truth of any reasoning or theory. On this path, differentiation of thinking models occurs, because these conditions and requirements can differ radically depending on the adopted goals, objectives, ways and possibilities of knowledge. The most characteristic models of thinking were rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and irrationalism, which we will talk about in more detail. Accordingly, we can distinguish between truth requirements rational thinking, empirical, mystical and irrational types of thinking.
Truth as the general goal and meaningful result of cognition represents the most accurate and perfect solution to a particular cognitive problem. And, of course, first of all, this is possible when the goals and objectives of cognition are formulated precisely and correctly. The question of what should be the goal of knowledge and what tasks follow from this is also a special topic of philosophical reflection. If to think is to establish, discover what is significant and identify connections between meanings, then to know (the goal of cognition) is to determine or be able to express, explain in concepts stable forms of connections between phenomena and processes of the real world (phenomena both homogeneous and heterogeneous). This goal is divided into a number of tasks or problems. For example, how to express or interpret these connections most accurately, i.e. what concept expresses these connections? Is it possible to find a universal (universal) principle of interpretation or not? Can we claim objectivity in the interpretation of these connections, or do we define them only subjectively, based on the ideas we establish? Concepts (conceptio – (Latin) grasping of content, understanding), which arise as a result of the analysis of these problems, form the basic principles and directions in cognition, and, as a rule, regardless of the subject area of ​​cognition. For example, the connections of everything that exists can be expressed and explained using a structural approach or using the principle of causality, the principle of expediency, and others. Accordingly, as a result of consideration and analysis of these principles, many clarifications and clarifications arise.
So, the study of the prerequisites, foundations and goals of thinking and cognition represents a wide range of problems that philosophy solves. The necessity, quality and methods of these decisions are determined by the specific features of philosophical thinking itself - reflexivity, criticality, symbolism.

I’ve been thinking for a long time about whether to write this post and whether to touch on this topic in general. I can’t say that I consider myself unworthy, much less incapable. But I don’t think it’s worthy either. As in some other cases, I take on this task only because others have not done it. Think of it not as a lecture, but as a conversation with yourself. Philosophy cannot be taught. But you can help anyone who wants to develop the skills of philosophical thinking. A philosopher, contrary to popular belief, is a master of thought, and not a master of words. You cannot achieve success in the theoretical field if you do not have a good command of words. However, mastery of speech, the art of defining concepts and building constructs from them is only an auxiliary means, a tool. A philosopher is not a talker, but a thinker. And the merits of a philosopher are not determined by his fame. You can be a philosopher for yourself if you are seriously concerned about understanding ideological issues. Therefore, I cannot call philosophical skill professionalism and put it next to art. Philosophy is always closer to “amateurism,” because without an internal inclination nothing can be achieved in this area. This is not a matter of choice, but a matter of “calling”. A philosopher thinks first of all for himself - in order to understand. So I won’t encourage anyone to become a philosopher. But if there are people who are inclined towards philosophy, they may be interested in what I consider to be the basics of philosophical thinking. These are not recipes or schemes, like magic spells or logical formulas, but rather outlines of methods of philosophical thinking, the result of reflection and self-reflection.
The first thing to start with is to realize that there is reality, and there is a picture of reality created by consciousness. There is a huge distance between them. All knowledge, words, thoughts relate to consciousness, not forming part of reality and not being connected with it. Without nominalism, genuine philosophy is impossible. When you feel the relativity of words, the relativity of language, only then do mental constructions acquire the character of genuine creative creativity. Too often there is a temptation to pass off wishful thinking as reality, non-existent as existing, property as phenomenon. The picture of the world in the mind does not appear out of nowhere, is not borrowed ready-made, it is created by the person himself. An aspiring philosopher is no different from any other person. He is not necessarily smarter, may know less or have less life experience. But he, unlike others, checks and double-checks what he creates inside his consciousness. Initially, the philosopher has many prejudices, stereotypes, and schemes. You can’t say “everyone thinks biasedly, but I think unbiasedly.” Skepticism, equally directed outward and inward, helps to identify these stereotypes. Whether what we start from is right or wrong is important, but first, something else is more important - to clearly understand what exactly we are starting from. I would call this primary desire of the philosopher the desire for clarity. The very opening of stereotypes helps to get rid of many of them.
From what has already been said, it follows that it is much better to start from yourself, from what you see and hear, than from some teaching, no matter how developed and even correct it may be. In science, you can simply repeat the correct formula and everything will work. In philosophy, the wheel needs to be reinvented every time. The finished bike, even if it works, is subdued. A philosopher who follows other people's schemes is not a philosopher. His conclusions may coincide with other people’s conclusions, but his thoughts cannot coincide in all nuances. An aspiring philosopher will achieve much greater success if he does not follow others - let's call them "predecessors." Even briefly studying the history of philosophy is a huge task. Isn't it better to direct this work towards understanding the problems and developing your own philosophical methods? If it is worth reading the works of famous thinkers, it is not as a role model, much less a textbook. It's better to start from scratch. Look how many people begin to talk about philosophy or philosophically about some problem, using mechanically reproduced words “idealism”, “materialism”, “objective”, “subjective”, etc., without any understanding of the meaning of what is being said. Philosophy is not a science and there is no terminology in it! If you feel inclined towards philosophy, but in your life you have been and are doing something completely different, you are not familiar with the history of philosophy and do not have the “arsenal” of philosophy - do not let this stop you. These are more pros than cons. Having philosophical “education” (including self-education) basically gives the illusion of mastery of philosophy. In fact, a person remains in the same place where he was, without moving forward.
Forget about knowledge. Focus on clarifying your own thinking. Remember children's questions “why?”, “why?”, “how?”. There are many things we take for granted. It is in this area of ​​the basics that you need to understand first. If someone makes a statement, we should not accept it without justification. “There is a material world, there is a spiritual world.” Why should I accept or not accept this statement? Most likely, the person who made this statement does not understand what exactly he is saying/writing. This means that there is simply no need to accept the statement or argue with it. Another thing is substantiated statements. Where to start? From the foundation on which the entire building will stand. If the foundation is not strong, it will no longer matter what is built on top of it. Some very talented people have been developing false theories for decades, building them on fragile foundations. Some of them become famous, for example Kant, Hegel, they are read and quoted abundantly. But the whole magnificent castle of cunningly linked words collapses when you start shaking it and testing the foundation. A completely ordinary person can be closer to the truth in his worldview than such a philosopher. Thinking can take you far, and the indicator is the truth of key statements, not the size of the verbal lock. A philosopher needs wisdom. Although the philosopher does not change the world directly, he changes the attitude towards the world, creating a different picture of the world. A philosopher can change the way other people think (not to mention himself). This is both the challenge and the danger.
The philosopher thinks, but all other people think - what is his peculiarity? The philosopher operates with concepts. Many people tend to confuse concepts with words of the language, with terms, etc. Concepts are not a special language. The basis of any person’s thinking is everyday speech, the familiar language acquired in childhood. Concepts are rethought words that are given a strictly defined meaning within the framework of the system of a given philosopher. Do not borrow concepts under any circumstances! A concept can only be used after it has been defined. Whether your definition matches or does not match others is completely irrelevant. Never believe those who talk about the “generally accepted” meaning of a concept. Philosophical concepts do not and should not have a generally accepted meaning. If there is such a thing, we have before us anything but a philosophical concept. Let's say we're talking about freedom. You cannot reproduce someone else's definition. We cannot ignore the need to give a definition based on the fact that we already “intuitively” understand what we are talking about. Clarity and precision. One definition may be more valuable than an entire treatise on the topic of freedom. If we have defined the basic concepts, it is much easier to move on. The main task is to create the primary frame. Note that this does not mean that up to a certain point thinking will be poor, since it operates with a meager set of concepts. We have the entire language at our disposal. But words only gradually become concepts, or new concepts are created. You don’t need a lot of concepts; it’s better to introduce them as needed.
As you understand, philosophy is original creativity from the very beginning. It is not the acquisition of mastery that then leads to creativity, but the acquisition of mastery in the process of creativity. And confidence in your abilities and in the correctness of your decisions. Skepticism does not hinder, but promotes confidence. There is the self-confidence of a dogmatist, and there is the confidence of a skeptic. The more rigorously I test myself, the less likely I am to make mistakes. A philosopher is a critic of his own constructions. However, a lot depends on what you start from. There are many options, and in the history of philosophy you can encounter several “turns” only during the period of the 19th and 20th centuries. Unfortunately, the tendency is to place the understanding of methods of cognition, analysis of language, etc. forward hit philosophy hard. They tell you: only naive people immediately begin to talk about the world. My advice to you: be such “naive” people! Any philosophy begins with ontology, with the doctrine of existence. True, in many systems the primary ontology is disguised. A philosopher cannot analyze language, science, methods of cognition, logic and psychology - and only then turn to the world. The philosopher has been exposed to the world for many years and knows it quite well to begin to comprehend it. All of these things (reflection on ways of knowing and thinking) are necessary, but not in the first place. The first is an orientation towards reality, the definition of “existence” and “essence” (existing). When there are criteria for existence, you can move on. Modern philosophers supposedly study philosophy all their lives, but never get to the main point. Why build houses without a foundation?
In the process of philosophical reasoning, you can use other people's ideas and phrases. But not mechanically, but by assimilating and digesting them, making them your own. When you can safely unlearn a phrase because you think the same way, then what is foreign can be considered learned. But this requires a lot of work. It is often easier to reach the same idea yourself. Therefore, do not rush to borrow other people's ideas. Maximum of your own and minimum of someone else's. There is another trick here: something alien may already be in your mind, assimilated, but not digested. Not even only as stereotypes, but as something heard/read and stored in memory. Therefore, the filter must be installed not only at the entrance, but also inside. It is best to rely first on direct perception, on what the senses report about the world. Believe me, this is not at all little. To this are added some ideological positions that have long been verified by us personally, or are generally known knowledge (for example, steam and ice are two states of one substance). simplicity is the key to success. The more complex the examples being analyzed, the greater the likelihood of error.
Finally, I would like to warn against dichotomy and conceptual dualism in general, as well as against playing “dialectics”. Dividing phenomena into two (for example, light and darkness) is convenient for thinking, but does not correspond to reality. Dual concepts must be used very carefully. By introducing opposite concepts, we begin to see duality and “struggle” in the world, although there is none. The most destructive dualism for a philosopher is ethical dualism, the separation of good and evil in the world. As soon as an assessment ceases to be an assessment and is tied to phenomena, philosophy turns into a heap of delusions. You can think about hot and cold, or you can think about temperature. How does hot turn to cold? But no way. Nothing is hot and cold, these are introduced characteristics. States and properties change. Reasoning using dual characteristics creates the appearance of an explanation when there is no explanation. It is no coincidence that dual categories are so often used by theologians and preachers. The philosopher must - if he wants to succeed - avoid dualism. Starting with the refusal to divide the world in two. I think it is unnecessary to remind you that philosophical thinking is incompatible with the pre-logical type of thinking, with superstitions.
Since this is an “introductory” conversation, much of it is given in a generalized form. If you are interested in a continuation, perhaps I will write how you can work with concepts and build an integral worldview system. I have some of my own “finds” in the field of methods of philosophical thinking, which I have been using for many years. What if they come in handy for you too?