Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal state budget educational institution higher professional education
"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University"
in the discipline "Philosophy"
Philosophy of knowledge of the world
Introduction
2. Subject and object of knowledge
Conclusion
Introduction
All people by nature strive for knowledge. Everything that extends before us and happens within us is known through our sense impressions and reflection, experience and theory. Sensations, perceptions, ideas and thinking, the degree of their adequacy to what is known, the delimitation of true knowledge from illusory, truth from error and lies - all this has been carefully studied since ancient times in the context of various problems of philosophy, but above all such a section as theory knowledge.
The theory of knowledge and “general metaphysics”, which examines the problems of being and consciousness, form the basis of all philosophy. More specialized sections devoted to issues of social philosophy, aesthetics, ethics, etc. are already based on them. There is a theory of knowledge general theory, which explains the very nature of human cognitive activity, no matter in what field of science, art or everyday practice it is carried out.
Humanity has always strived to acquire new knowledge. Mastery of the secrets of existence is an expression of the highest aspirations of the creative activity of the mind, which constitutes the pride of man and humanity. Over the millennia of its development, it has gone through a long and thorny path knowledge from primitive and limited to ever deeper and more comprehensive penetration into the essence of the surrounding world. On this path, an innumerable number of facts, properties and laws of nature, social life and man himself were discovered, one after another scientific paintings peace. The development of scientific knowledge occurred simultaneously with the development of production, with the flowering of the arts, artistic creativity. Knowledge forms the most complex system, which acts in the form of social memory, its wealth is passed on from generation to generation, from people to people using the mechanism of social heredity and culture.
1. Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis
The human mind, rising along the spiral of knowledge, at each new turn again and again tries to answer the question: how is knowledge possible, is the world knowable in principle? This is not a simple question. In fact, the Universe is infinite, but man is finite, and within the boundaries of his finite experience it is impossible to know what is infinite. This question has haunted philosophical thought in a variety of forms.
In an attempt to answer it, three main lines can be identified: optimism, skepticism and agnosticism. Optimists affirm the fundamental knowability of the world; agnostics, on the contrary, deny it. An example of an optimistic view of knowledge is the position of G. Hegel, expressed in the words: “The hidden and initially closed essence of the universe has no force that could resist the daring of knowledge; she must open up to him, show him her riches and her depths and let him enjoy them.”
However, isolating these three lines seems to be a serious simplification. Everything is much more complicated. After all, if agnostics deny the knowability of the world, then this is not a bare, unfounded denial. It is truly impossible to answer many of the questions they point out. The main problem that leads to agnosticism is the following: in the process of cognition, an object is inevitably refracted through the prism of our senses and thinking. We receive information about him only in the form in which it acquired as a result of such refraction. What objects really are, we do not know and cannot know. The world stretches out before us, beginningless and infinite, and we approach it with our formulas, diagrams, models, concepts and categories, trying to catch its eternity and infinity in the “net” of our ideas. And no matter how cleverly we tie the “knots” of concepts, categories and theories, is it not arrogant to pretend to comprehend the essence of the universe in this way? It turns out that we are closed in the world of our ways of knowing and are unable to say something reliable about the world as it exists on its own - this is the conclusion to which the logic of this reasoning inevitably leads under certain epistemological assumptions.
However practical conclusion agnosticism is refuted at every step by the development of science and knowledge. Thus, the founder of positivism, O. Comte, once declared that humanity is not destined to know chemical composition Sun. But before the ink with which these skeptical words were written had time to dry, spectral analysis The composition of the Sun was determined. Some representatives of science of the 19th century. confidently considered atoms to be nothing more than a mental function, although convenient for theoretical constructions, but not a real entity. But the hour struck, and E. Rutherford, entering the laboratory, could exclaim: “Now I know what an atom looks like!”, and half a century later the firmly established spatial chemical structure of genes was revealed. “The great miracle in the progress of science,” writes L. de Broglie, “is that a correspondence between our thought and reality opens up before us, a certain opportunity to sense, with the help of the resources of our mind and the rules of our mind, the deep connections that exist between phenomena.”
The essence of Kantian agnosticism, as is commonly believed, is the following: what a thing is for us (phenomenon) and what it represents in itself (noumenon) are fundamentally different. And no matter how much we penetrate into the depths of phenomena, our knowledge will still differ from things as they are in themselves. This division of the world into knowable “phenomena” and unknowable “things in themselves” excludes the possibility of comprehending the essence of things. What objects actually are, we do not know and cannot know: it is impossible to compare what is in consciousness with what lies beyond it, transcendental to it. After all, a person can only compare what he knows with what he somehow knows.
The external world, according to this idea, like a wanderer, knocks on the temple of the mind, excites it to activity, while remaining at the same time under the cover of the unknown: after all, it cannot, in fact, enter this temple without undergoing deformation upon entry. And the mind is forced to only guess what kind of wanderer this is, it comes up with an image of him, which turns out to be something centaur-like: something from the wanderer himself, and something from our human nature. From this consideration it is clear that the source of agnosticism is inevitably the hypothesis of the transcendence of knowledge.
So, firstly, Kant here raised the question of the fundamental limitations of human experience, and secondly, he recognized that reality always goes beyond the limits of any knowledge: in this sense, it is “more cunning” than any theories and infinitely richer than them. In addition, he stated that the world is always known only in the forms of its given to man. It was the latter circumstance that allowed him to assert that a thing is known in appearance, and not as it exists in itself. But this statement, being absolutized, tears out an impenetrable gap between consciousness and the world and leads to agnosticism, lowering, in the words of N.O. Lossky, the value of consciousness. We see that the root of agnosticism lies in the rupture of a certain coordinating connection between subject and object. Whatever the epistemological hypotheses about the nature of this connection, without its inclusion in the theory of knowledge, an agnostic conclusion is inevitable.
Skeptical thought goes back in part to the reasoning of ancient philosophers - Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Antiphon, Thrasymachus, who were predecessors and contemporaries of the pinnacle thinkers of antiquity - Socrates and Plato.
The great Aristotle noted: “Whoever wants to know clearly must first doubt thoroughly.”5 Ancient philosophers, as we know, tried to live in accordance with their teachings. The epistemological attitude of skeptics - epoche (abstinence from judgment) - corresponds in behavior to the ideal of ataraxia, i.e. deep calm and equanimity.
Agnosticism is an exaggerated form of skepticism. Skepticism, while recognizing the fundamental possibility of knowledge, expresses doubt about the reliability of knowledge. As a rule, skepticism blooms wildly during a period (or on the eve) of a paradigm shift, a change of values, social systems etc., when something previously considered true, in the light of new data from science and practice, turns out to be false and untenable. The psychology of skepticism is such that it immediately begins to trample not only what has become obsolete, but at the same time everything new and emerging. The basis of this psychology is not the research thirst for innovation and faith in the power of the human mind, but the habit of “cozy” principles, once accepted on faith. Bitterly regretting that some scientists actually have such a psychology, K.E. Tsiolkovsky said: they laugh and deny a lot, and it’s easy and pleasant. But what a shame lies on humanity, which strangles the great, beats and destroys what later turns out to be beneficial for itself. When will humanity finally get rid of this disastrous vice...
For a truly deep thinker, philosophical doubt takes the form of humility before the infinity and inaccessibility of existence. Humanity has learned a lot. But knowledge also reveals to us the abyss of our ignorance. Reality goes beyond any knowledge. Bad tone philosophical thinking is a tendency to categorical and final judgments. There is so much mystery in the world that obliges us to be modest and, within reasonable limits, cautious in our judgments. A true scientist knows too much to share exorbitant optimism; he looks at “over-optimists” with the same shade of sadness with which adults look at children’s games. We know for certain only relatively simple things. With full consciousness of the modesty befitting deep minds, I. Newton said well: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but to myself I seem only like a boy playing on the seashore, amusing myself by occasionally finding a more colorful pebble, than usual, or a red shell, while the great ocean of truth lies unexplored before me.”
Knowledge increases sorrow, says Ecclesiastes. The human mind, according to Rabindranath Tagore, is like a lamp: than brighter light, the thicker the shadow of doubt. According to legend, one day Zeno, in response to a question about why he doubted everything, drew two unequal circles and said: “This large circle is my knowledge, that small one is yours. Everything outside the circle is the realm of the unknown. You see that the limit of contact between my knowledge and the unknown is much greater. That’s why I doubt my knowledge more than you.”
F. Schlegel said this: “The more they know, the more they have to study. Along with knowledge, our knowledge grows evenly, or rather, our knowledge of the size of the not yet known.”
As for the relationship of materialism to the problem of the cognizability of the world, the main principle of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism is the principle of active reflection. Reflection is the activity of the human brain interacting with the outside world and responding to its influences. The essence of reflection is that what is felt, perceived, and thought is not the sensations, perceptions, and ideas themselves, but objects, their properties, connections, relationships that exist outside and independently of the consciousness of the subject. The thesis: “knowledge reflects the object” means that the subject of knowledge creates such forms of mental activity that are ultimately determined by the nature, properties, and laws of the object itself (and not the properties of the consciousness of the knowing subject). Therefore, the content of knowledge is objective. But the reproduction of the features of the reflected object in the images of consciousness occurs in accordance with the features of the reflecting system. And this means that the images of consciousness, being objective in content, are subjective in form, i.e. carry certain characteristics of the subject.
2 Subject and object of knowledge
Cognition presupposes a bifurcation of the world into an object and a subject. Whatever issues a person solves in his life, theoretical or practical, material or spiritual, personal or social, he, according to I.A. Ilyin, “must always take into account reality, the objective circumstances and laws given to him.” True, he may not take them into account, but by doing this he ensures, sooner or later, failure in life, and perhaps a whole stream of suffering and troubles. So consciousness is characterized by constant going beyond itself: it is constantly looking for an object, and without this it cannot live.
The world exists for us only in the aspect of its being given to the knowing subject. The concepts “subject” and “object” are correlative. When we say “subject,” we ask the question: the subject of what—cognition? actions? grades? When we say “object,” we also ask ourselves: the object of what—cognition? grades? actions?
The subject is a complex hierarchy, the foundation of which is the entire social whole. Ultimately, the ultimate producer of knowledge and wisdom is all of humanity. In its historical development, smaller communities stand out, which are individual peoples. Each nation, producing norms, ideas and values fixed in its culture, also acts as a special subject of cognitive activity. Bit by bit, from century to century, he accumulates information about natural phenomena, about animals, or, for example, about healing properties plants, properties various materials, about the morals and customs of various peoples. In society historically there are groups of individuals, special purpose and whose occupation is the production of knowledge that has a special life value. Such, in particular, is scientific knowledge, the subject of which is the community of scientists. In this community, individuals stand out whose abilities, talent and genius determine their particularly high cognitive achievements. History preserves the names of these people as symbols of outstanding milestones in the evolution of scientific ideas.
The true subject of knowledge is never only epistemological: it is a living person with his passions, interests, character traits, temperament, intelligence or stupidity, talent or mediocrity, strong will or lack of will. If the subject of knowledge is the scientific community, then it has its own characteristics: interpersonal relationships, dependencies, contradictions, as well as common goals, unity of will and actions, etc. But often by the subject of knowledge they still mean a certain impersonal logical clot of intellectual activity.
The subject and his cognitive activity can be adequately understood only in their specific historical context. Scientific knowledge presupposes not only a conscious attitude of the subject to the object, but also to himself, to his activity, i.e. awareness of the conditions, techniques, norms and methods of research activity, taking into account traditions, etc.
A fragment of being that finds itself in the focus of a searching thought constitutes an object of cognition and becomes, in a certain sense, the “property” of the subject, having entered into a subject-object relationship with it. In a word, the object in its relation to the subject is no longer just reality, but to one degree or another a cognized reality, i.e. one that has become a fact of consciousness - consciousness, socially determined in its cognitive aspirations, and in this sense, the object of knowledge becomes already a fact of society. From the point of view of cognitive activity, the subject does not exist without an object, and the object does not exist without a subject.
In modern epistemology, it is customary to distinguish between the object and the subject of knowledge. By object of knowledge we mean real fragments of existence that are being studied. The object of knowledge is the specific aspects to which the edge of the seeking thought is directed. Thus, a person is the object of study of many sciences - biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. However, each of them “sees” a person from its own point of view: for example, psychology studies the psyche, the spiritual world of a person, his behavior, medicine - his ailments and methods of treating them, etc. Consequently, the subject of the study seems to include the current attitude of the researcher, i.e. it is formed from the perspective of the research problem.
It is known that man is a creator, a subject of history, he creates the necessary conditions and the prerequisites for its historical existence. Consequently, the object of socio-historical knowledge is not only cognized, but also created by people: before becoming an object, it must be previously created and shaped by them. In social cognition, a person thus deals with the results of his own activity, and therefore with himself as a practically active being. Being the subject of knowledge, he is at the same time its object. In this sense, social cognition is the social self-awareness of a person, during which he discovers and explores his own historically created social essence.
knowledge philosophy optimism skepticism
Conclusion
Thus, in conclusion, the following conclusions can be drawn: Cognition is a socially organized form of human spiritual and creative activity, aimed at obtaining and developing reliable knowledge about reality.
Philosophers representing the position of epistemological optimism proceed from the thesis of the fundamental knowability of the world and believe that our knowledge adequately reflects the objects of the reality under study.
Skepticism does not deny the fundamental knowability of the world, but expresses doubt about the reliability of knowledge, or doubts the existence of the world itself.
Agnosticism denies (in whole or in part) the fundamental possibility of knowing the objective world, identifying its laws and comprehending objective truth. A representative of agnosticism was I. Kant, who argued that the world of objects is unknowable “things-in-themselves.”
Cognition is a complex and contradictory process, in which two stages (or levels) of cognition are traditionally distinguished: sensory and rational cognition. Both stages are closely related to each other and each of them has its own forms.
A person’s knowledge of the world around him begins with the help of his senses. By interacting with certain objects, we receive sensations, perceptions, ideas (forms of sensory knowledge). Sensation is a reflection of one property of an object using one of the five senses. Perception is a holistic image of an object, a reflection of its properties by all senses. A representation is a holistic image of an object, stored and reproduced in the mind as needed.
Sensory cognition states how an event occurs, rational cognition answers the question of why it occurs this way. Rational cognition is based on the ability of logical thinking.
The process of cognition occurs in the form of interrelation and interaction between the knowing subject and the cognizable object.
The subject of cognition is a person who reflects the phenomena of reality in his consciousness. This subject is active: he sets goals, determines the means to achieve them, and adjusts these goals based on practice. The object of knowledge is an object, phenomenon, process of the material or spiritual world, towards which the cognitive activity of the subject is directed.
The types of knowledge are: everyday, scientific, practical and artistic.
List of sources used
1 Alekseev, F.V. Theory of knowledge and dialectics /F.V. Alekseev. - M.: Young Guard, 1978. - 268 p.
2 Asmus, G.A. Essays on the analysis of philosophical knowledge / G.A. Asmus. - M.: Young Guard, 1979 - 205 p.
3 Vavilov, S.I. Social cultural studies / S.I. Vavilov. - M.: volume 2, 1994. - 340 s.
4 Mamardashvili, M.K. How I understand philosophy / M.K. Mamardashvili. - M.: Book, 1990, 245 p.
5 Naletov, I.Z. Concreteness of philosophical knowledge / I.Z. Air raids. - M.: Book, 1986, 230 p.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Sides of really existing knowledge. Problems of the nature and possibilities of knowledge, the relationship of knowledge to reality. Philosophical positions on the problem of knowledge. Principles of skepticism and agnosticism. Basic forms of knowledge. The nature of the cognitive attitude.
presentation, added 09/26/2013
The problem of knowledge in philosophy. The concept and essence of everyday knowledge. Rationality of everyday cognition: common sense and reason. Scientific knowledge its structure and features. Methods and forms scientific knowledge. Basic criteria of scientific knowledge.
abstract, added 06/15/2017
Epistemology as a branch of philosophy. A person’s cognitive attitude to the world as a subject of philosophical analysis. Dialectics of the sensory and rational levels of cognition. The problem of truth in philosophy, its properties and criteria. The essence and meaning of intuition.
abstract, added 08/12/2015
Scientificity and diversity of philosophical vision of the world. Method in philosophy - dialectics or metaphysics? The relationship between philosophy and private (concrete) sciences. Philosophy as a source of knowledge, methods and boundaries of knowledge. The problem of the essence of scientific knowledge.
lecture, added 04/12/2009
Scientism and anti-scientism as types of worldview. The specific scientific and philosophical limitations of the hypotheses of the spontaneous generation of life. The problem of sources of knowledge, ways of knowing. The unity of sensory and rational knowledge. The problem of truth in philosophy.
test, added 03/11/2010
The main solutions to the problem of the knowability of the world: epistemological optimism and agnosticism. Epistemological concepts, their essence. Forms of sensory and rational knowledge. Types and criteria of truth. Specificity of scientific and religious types of knowledge.
presentation, added 01/08/2015
Origin in philosophy of the term "theory of knowledge". The process of human comprehension of the surrounding world, interaction with material systems. Properties and concepts of intuition, the role of thinking. Absolute and relative truth. Principles of scientific knowledge.
presentation, added 04/27/2015
The concept of the scientific method of understanding the world. History of the formation of the scientific method of cognition. The role of hypothesis in natural science. Collection and accumulation of empirical data carried out through observation and experiment.
abstract, added 10/17/2005
Thinking as a process of human cognitive activity. Approaches explaining the nature of consciousness. Methods and levels of scientific knowledge, features of rational and sensory knowledge. The variety of forms of human knowledge. The problem of truth in philosophy.
abstract, added 05/17/2010
Cognition as an object of philosophical analysis. The variety of ways to comprehend the world. The essence and structure of cognition. Dialectics of knowledge. Problems of truth. Thinking and language. Forms, laws and means of correct thinking.
8.1. Philosophy of knowledge
Two terms
“Philosophical theory of knowledge” translated into Greek is called epistemology or, which is almost the same thing, epistemology. The term "epistemology" in comparison with the term "gnoseology" has a more clearly expressed scientific meaning, we're talking about about scientific knowledge. Both terms are widely used in philosophical literature.
Sensory 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...” This means that knowledge begins with feelings. It's hard to disagree with this; Nowadays, the vast majority of philosophers adhere to precisely this point of view. A person has sense organs, vision, touch, hearing, taste, smell. Thanks to them, a person gains feelings. Sensory cognition occurs in three forms: sensations, perceptions, and ideas. Feeling- this is the most elementary form feelings. 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). Performance is a feeling that is remembered or imagined (for example, I imagine my friend riding into the classroom on a blue horse).
So, knowledge begins with feelings. But what can I know through feelings? What is their role in the quest for knowledge? (Cognition is a journey for knowledge). It is clear to everyone that feelings connect us not only with the outside world, but also with imaginary phenomena. Let us first consider the sensory connection of a person with the outside world. Cognition is a process, therefore it makes sense to analyze feelings at various stages of this process.
Feelings “at the entrance” of the psyche. When assessing the cognitive content of feelings “at the input,” the psyche expressed different opinions, of which we present the three main ones.
The most simple point point of view is that the outside world is literally imprinted into our psyche. This is where the Russian “impression” comes from, 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 complex point of view: feelings are just approximate reflections of objects, original “copies”. Let's say someone tastes an unknown food product that evokes a feeling of sweetness. It can be assumed with a high degree of probability that the product contains glucose.
An even more complex point of view: feelings are signs objects whose meaning is to be deciphered. You cannot trust, as they say, impressions - feelings “deceive”. The simplest example in this regard: the refraction of a straight stick at the boundary of water and air. What about mirages? What about complex imaginary and suggestible feelings? Of course, they indicate something, but 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 entire secret of knowledge. Part of this secret lies in the fact that feelings “meet” at the entrance of the psyche. But what exactly do feelings meet at the entrance to the psyche? To this new question we again have three most common answers, all of which are well known to us from the history of philosophical ideas:
Locke: feelings fall under the control of a person’s ability to combine, connect, and compare them;
Kant: feelings fall under the power of extra-sensory a priori principles;
Husserl: feelings meet the human ability (thanks to imagination, memory and fantasy) to build chains of phenomena.
Now it becomes clear what happens to feelings “in the middle” of cognition:
By Locke: feelings are combined (complex feelings arise), compared (we gain knowledge about relationships), and the general thing (idea) is highlighted in them thanks to abstraction;
By Cantu: feelings are ordered on the basis of principles;
By Husserl, feelings are drawn into a stream of imagination that leads to eidos - a feeling much more complex than its source material.
“At the exit” from the psyche we have:
By Locke: ideas;
By Cantu: feelings ordered on the basis of a priori principles;
By Husserl: eidos, that is, an idea with rich sensory content.
But let's not forget that sensory knowledge began with some initial feelings, which are signs, real or imaginary phenomena. And this means that the feelings received “at the output” must be returned to the original sources of feelings, the original objects.
Thanks to the process of sensory cognition we received:
according to Locke,- the same knowledge that was contained in the original feelings, but was not clarified. Feelings provide comprehensive knowledge about objects (this is sensationalism);
according to Cantu,- new knowledge, which was contained in the original feelings and was obtained largely thanks 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 initial feelings and correlate these “interpreted” feelings with objects (if they ask me, pointing to a specific apple: “What is this?”, then I will not answer simply by pointing to the initial sensations - it is, they say, round, yellow, sweet and sour, but I will say: “This is an apple (i.e., a representative of the class of all apples), having 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 clear 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 allocate general comparison ideas), in others - according to Cantu(when, for example, the principles are already known and they do not need to be deduced or proven), thirdly - by Husserl(when they strive to comprehensively substantiate the rich sensory content of the psyche, without being captured by faded, devoid of sensuality reasoning). In terms of understanding the course of sensory cognition, the most thorough Husserl, and with him his supporters, phenomenologists.
Sensory 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 very sparingly in these philosophies. We analyzed the modern understanding of sensory cognition in connection with the views Locke And Kant.
Among the latest philosophical trends, the phenomenological understanding of sensory cognition is considered. What about hermeneuts, analysts, postmodernists?
Hermeneutics from the very beginning of their appearance on the philosophical stage 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 the matter Husserl. But he abruptly moved away from phenomenology. He was attracted by other landmarks.
Analysts also did not show any special attention to sensory cognition, they were primarily interested in words and facts, and not in the processing of feelings in the human psyche.
Postmodernists nor have they given any theory of sensory knowledge worth mentioning. They are primarily attracted to texts and the fight against totalitarianism.
So, thanks to sensory knowledge, a person receives information about everything that is capable of causing feelings. Man has a unique ability to empathize with the world, thanks to this knowledge is possible. But feeling, as is known, is associated in a person with thinking and explanation. Both relate to rational knowledge.
Rational cognition
Rational knowledge is carried out in the form concepts, judgments And inferences.
For what follows, it is very useful to distinguish between own And common name. A proper name means one object - this table, that book, Plato. The common name denotes the class of subjects - students of group A2, state employees, trees. Items of this class have common feature(property or relation). For example, students of group A2 are a common name, because they all have common feature- they study in a group with the code name A2. Until now, one must assume, the reader has not had any particular misunderstandings about his own and common name, all clear. But now we need to turn to central problem all rational knowledge. What is a concept?
Let’s try to understand this most difficult issue using the example of analyzing the concept “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 14-year-old teenager, a bank employee, an experienced teacher. Girl: “Students are young, cheerful uncles and aunts, they sometimes say bad words.” Teenager: “Students love to have fun.” Bank employee: “A student is someone who studies at 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 students are assessed unequally different people. A concept is a special thought, not just any thought, but the most effective one, which will allow one to explain a lot. There is a concept the main idea about something, generalization, interpretation. The teacher claims that the moral face of a student determines his attitude towards his studies, and this determines how much of a student there is in a student. Of course, the student does not only study. He has a lot to do, a lot of fun, but in this he is no different from other young people.
So, a concept is a generalization thought that allows one 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 an extremely effective form. The essence of all phenomena is explained on the basis of concepts. Concepts are also idealizations.
Once it is determined what a concept is, judgment comes next. Judgment is a thought that affirms or denies something. Let's compare two expressions: “Electrical conductivity of all metals” and “All metals conduct electricity" The first expression contains neither affirmation nor negation; it is not a judgment. In the second expression it is stated that metals conduct electricity. This is a judgment. Judgment is expressed in declarative sentences.
Inference there is a conclusion of new knowledge. An inference would be, for example, the following reasoning:
All metals are conductors
Copper - metal
Copper is a conductor
The conclusion must be carried out “cleanly”, without errors. In this regard, they use proof, during 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, inference - make up the content reason, which a person is guided by thinking. Philosophical tradition after Kant consists in distinguishing sanity And mind. Reason is the highest level of logical thinking. Reason is less flexible, less theoretical than reason.
Review: how we searched for the concept
It is undeniable that rational knowledge especially clearly expresses human nature. It is in the sphere rational person has 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 secret; intense debate continues to this day. Consideration of the essence of these disputes will allow us to better navigate the field of rational knowledge. Note also that the science of rational knowledge is called logic.
IN philosophy of antiquity the concept of ideas had the most important logical significance Plato. Above we discussed in detail how, according to Plato, a person experiences ideas. In fact Plato thought of concepts as ideas. He mistakenly believed that ideas existed somewhere on their own. Aristotle is rightfully considered the creator of logic, he gave it a theoretical form. He understood two most important circumstances: first, in logical judgments and conclusions there should not be contradictions; and secondly, the most important function of judgment is truth or falsity. The nature of concepts still turned out to be mysterious for him.
IN Middle Ages philosophy a centuries-old dispute broke out about 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. This is, for example, the position Thomas Aquinas. Nominalists believed that the general does not exist, names (noumena) should not be considered some kind of invented universals. There are individual things, people designate them with names, there is no need to invent any other entities (“Occam’s razor”). The nominalists were accused of “shaking the air” conceptualists(For example, Abelard). What was meant, and rightly so, is that nominalists consider concepts to be just words and thus do not reveal their nature. Conceptualists regarded universals as concepts - pre-experimental mental formations necessary for understanding the world. Conceptualists could not explain how a person receives concepts (universals) (in the Middle Ages, science was extremely poorly developed).
IN philosophy of modern times Along with the ever-increasing 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 proposed a new theory of knowledge, which was based on experimental and observational data, i.e. sensations. Bacon 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. The thought of the rationalists went to interesting direction. They deduced others from some ideas (deduction) and only final stage The resulting judgments were compared with the feelings with which cognition 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 imagine the path to concepts as movement along a river of feelings, which (a leap in thinking occurs) leads to concepts and all the logical components of our psyche. Concepts act as signs of feelings.
Analytical philosophers act in a manner that is foreign to phenomenologists. Most analysts are suspicious of speculation about what is going on in a person's head, about combinations of feelings or thoughts. They consider the human head to be something like a black box, into which it is better not to go. It is enough to limit ourselves to what is available “input” and “output”. Must be compared with facts words(not thoughts). No mysticism. Analysts, as a rule, are 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 proof.
Let us introduce the following definition: a word that denotes a concept is term. For analysts, the primary interest is precisely terms. It is enough to talk about terms; there is no need to look for thoughts behind them. The terms themselves are understood as hypothetical words, which, if true, correspond in content to facts.
So, a concept is a thought, a generalization thought, a hypothesis thought, an interpretation thought, which is denoted by terms and allows one to explain the content of facts (and feelings, and objects).
The unity of sensory and rational knowledge
The sensual and rational are interconnected with each other, many philosophers agree with this. Without the rational, the sensual will appear as diversity in which there is no unity. The rational without the sensory becomes something faded, devoid of life. Cognition has a sensory-rational character.
Let’s say 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 sensory forms by dots, then the mental image of any object acts as a certain center of intersection of lines and dots.
Memory and Imagination
Memory- this is a person’s ability to preserve and reproduce the sensory and rational forms he has mastered. There are 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 aid to human memory; the computer owner can always check the information contained in his database. And if you also connect to the Internet, then amazing opportunities open up. Computer owners, however, must keep in mind two unpleasant circumstances: firstly, the computer is not always at hand, and secondly, and this is the most important thing, understanding computer data depends on the level of sensory and rational development of the person himself. There are special techniques for developing memory, based, in particular, on 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 known to him previously or are new. Imagination, as a rule, always contains an element of novelty. If there is enough of this novelty, then they talk about creative imagination. Fantasy and dream are also forms of imagination.
Intuition
Intuition- This is direct, unconsciously acquired knowledge. Intuitive knowledge can be either sensory or rational.
There are philosophical schools that are classified as 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 they see nothing unworthy in subjecting this act to careful analysis; analysis highlights the structure of the whole. Intuition can be trained. It is very useful where you need to make a quick decision.
Creation. Talents and geniuses
“Creativity,” emphasized ON THE. Berdyaev,- there is always an increase, an addition, the creation of something new that was not 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 testing. Creative success don't fall from the sky. This is hard work, various tests, unsuccessful attempts, disappointments, surprises, accidents, exhaustion and... lo and behold! A persistent 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. It is not the gods who burn the pots.
Of course, not everyone succeeds in creativity to the same extent. This gives reason to introduce scale creativity. Geniuses- these are the ones who achieve maximum results. Talents inferior to geniuses, but superior to ordinary citizens. Of course, the best way to learn is from geniuses. If they are not nearby, then talents, and if they are absent, then capable people, but never lazy and mediocrity.
Structure of the psyche: unconscious, conscious, supraconscious
An animal has a psyche, in this it is similar to a person, but does not have consciousness (except in 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 clever dog is unlikely to reason as follows: “I am a dog. And they are people. Dogs must obey people's commands." The dog does not recognize itself as a dog; it is poorly oriented in the world. According to the observations of psychologists, young children only begin to talk about themselves “I” by the age of three. Two-year-old Lenochka says: “Give Lenochka some candy.” Only later will she say: “Give me some candy.” Now she has learned that she independent person, whose name is Lena, that adults love her and are unlikely to refuse to give it to their favorite if they have candy. Consciousness is the human psyche that has reached the stage of development at which he is aware of the processes occurring 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 consciousness and subconsciousness. K.S. Stanislavsky introduced the idea 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 understood simplistically. The brain does not produce a substance that could be called 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 familiar. The human brain, consisting of many nerve cells and fibers, has the unique ability to symbolically reproduce the wealth of the world, including its own.
What is truth?
According to the Gospel of Joanna, on the eve of execution Jesus his conversation took place with the Roman governor in Judea Pontius Pilate. Jesus: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth; everyone who is of the truth obeys my voice.” Pilate:"What is truth?" In question Pilate one can hear both bewilderment (at the hour of death a person does not ask, does not fawn, but speaks of the truth) and a certain contempt (what other truth is there 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 it’s not needed? What, strictly speaking, is the “nerve” of the problem of truth? In this regard, let us turn to the definition of truth. Its classical understanding goes back to To Plato:“...he who speaks about things in accordance with what they are speaks the truth, but he 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 receive peace directly on our side, the human side. Now another interest arises, an interest in the world as such. Do planets really move in ellipses, whales are mammals, and firms maximize their profits? To successfully navigate 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 attracted by the truth. Man needs the truth, so it represents for him value. But as a value, truth differs from beauty and goodness. Beauty and goodness are screaming values “for us”; they are anything, directly on the human side. Truth is also a value, but its addressee is not the person himself, but the correspondence of the human to what is presented in him. 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
IN modern philosophy Three concepts of truth stand out especially clearly: correspondence, coherence and pragmatism. Let's look at them.
According to the concept compliance, true are statements (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. At the same time, we must explain what “snow is white” means. It must be explained in such a way that even a colorblind person can check, for example, with instruments, whether the snow is white or not.
It turns out that establishing truth or error requires interpretation. Individual judgments acquire meaning only in a system of judgments. Where multi-link logical constructions are in use, it is necessary to take into account the consistency and systematic nature of judgments. In this regard, they talk about coherent concept of truth. Under coherence understand the clutch and consistency statements. The concept of truth coherence does not cancel, but enriches the concept of correspondence.
A concept in which practice is the criterion of truth is called pragmatic concept of truth(Greek word pragma means deed, action). The meaning of the new concept of truth is very simple: one must actually, in action, test judgments for truth and falsity, and not limit oneself to just theoretical reasoning.
The statement of the American philosopher seems very true 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, naturally, does not mean that they are equivalent in all cases of life. For a mathematician, the coherent concept 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 physical phenomena. This means that he will especially often refer to the concept of correspondence. For the technician great importance has practice; it must be assumed that the focus of his attention will always be a pragmatic concept of truth.
Truth scale
Everything in the world has its own quantitative gradations. Truth is no exception. Our knowledge, information as a body of information is constantly increasing. As the process of cognition develops, the previously unknown becomes known. Let us introduce a scale of truth - from the far left point, corresponding to absolute error, to the far right point, corresponding to absolute truth. The growth of knowledge means that humanity moves along the scale of truth from left to right (the opposite of truth is error; a lie is a deliberate distortion of the truth).
Theories replace each other, and it is on their basis that we interpret the concept of truth. This means that we have to admit that once again the absolute truth turned out to be unattainable. But under the conditions of the dominance of the previous theory, it seemed that the absolute truth had already been achieved. Neither in the smallest nor in the greatest does our spirit encounter an absolute boundary; everywhere it is on the way.
Review: how did you search for truth?
To expand the horizons of our understanding of the problem of truth, let's consider different interpretations of this problem.
IN antiquity invented the concept of compliance. The truth was seen in the fact that existing things were interpreted as manifestations of an idea (according to Plato) or shapes (according to Aristotle).
IN medieval Christian philosophy the truth was seen in God, in his revelation.
IN New time information contained in feelings was considered as true knowledge (Bacon, Locke) and also 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 and facts. Then they started talking a lot about mutual agreement of judgments (Carnap), that is, the concept of correspondence was supplemented by the coherent concept of truth. Finally, some analysts who support defining the meaning of a word as its use (according to Wittgenstein) actually develop a pragmatic concept of truth. Among modern philosophers, it is analysts who deal with the problem of truth most thoroughly.
Phenomenologists eidos and concepts are constructed from initial sensory impressions, and then the external world is assessed on their basis. They hardly use the pragmatic concept of truth.
Hermeneutics They consider as truth the successful contact of a thing with a person, the thing opens, and the merging of the horizons of the thing and the person occurs. Analysts attribute a sign of truth to judgments, hermeneuts to things themselves (compare: true friend).
Postmodernists treat the issue of truth without respect. Any text has many meanings, and meaning is understood as feelings, meaning outside world as a criterion of truth is actually refuted.
Feeling. Explanation. Understanding
The world is knowable due to its relationship with man and man’s unique abilities. A person operates with feelings, thoughts, commits actions, acts. A person experiences the world thanks to empathize. explanation, understanding. Already empathy gives a person extensive information: about cold, hot, fresh, spicy, dull. Even when communicating with another person, it is useful to feel into his situation and imagine yourself in his place.
Explanation is the accumulation of information about something based on thoughts. A deductive explanation is very often used: facts are assessed from the standpoint of the laws of theory. When a student solves a problem in physics, electrical engineering, or 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.
Multidimensionality of truth
In the search for truth, the ideal is the comprehensiveness of the cognitive process. The famous dispute between “physicists” with their focus on explanations and “lyricists” with their focus on feeling cannot reveal a winner. The same applies to the dispute between so-called theorists and practitioners, each of whom is strong in one area but weak in another.
Truth is multidimensional, and sensory, and conceptual, and practical. “You need to learn to imagine objects,” wrote P.A. Florensky,- from all sides at once, as our consciousness knows.” Saturated with many dimensions, truth loses its one-sidedness, dryness, and lifelessness.
So, as a conclusion to the entire philosophy of knowledge, we can state: truth is a versatile interpretation that provides us with information (knowledge) about the world.
Cognition - the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, conditioned by socio-historical practice, its constant deepening, expansion and improvement.
Types of knowledge:
Everyday knowledge . Everyday knowledge is based on observation and ingenuity, it is better consistent with generally accepted life experience than with abstract scientific constructs, and is empirical in nature. This form of knowledge is based on common sense and everyday consciousness; it is an important indicative basis for the everyday behavior of people, their relationships with each other and with nature. Everyday knowledge develops and becomes enriched with the progress of scientific and artistic knowledge; it is closely related to culture.
Scientific knowledge . Scientific knowledge presupposes an explanation of facts, their comprehension in the entire system of concepts of a given science. The essence of scientific knowledge is:
In understanding reality in its past, present and future;
In a reliable synthesis of facts;
The fact is that behind the random it finds the necessary, natural, behind the individual - the general and on this basis carries out the prediction of various phenomena. Scientific knowledge covers something relatively simple that can be more or less convincingly proven, strictly generalized, introduced into the framework of laws, causal explanations, in a word, something that fits into the paradigms accepted in the scientific community.
Artistic knowledge . Artistic knowledge has a certain specificity, the essence of which is a holistic, and not dismembered, reflection of the world and especially man in the world. Reflection of existing reality through signs, symbols, artistic images.
Religious knowledge - an explanation of the world based on belief in the real existence of supernatural forces. The object of religious knowledge in monotheistic religions, that is, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is God, who manifests himself as a Subject, a Personality. The goal of religious knowledge in monotheism is not the creation or clarification of a system of ideas about God, but the salvation of man, for whom the discovery of the existence of God at the same time turns out to be an act of self-discovery, self-knowledge and forms in his consciousness the demand for moral renewal.
Philosophical knowledge - Creation general concepts existence of the world and man. Philosophical knowledge is a special type holistic cognition peace. The specificity of philosophical knowledge is the desire to go beyond fragmentary reality and find the fundamental principles and foundations of existence, to determine the place of man in it. Philosophical knowledge is based on certain ideological premises. It includes: epistemology and ontology. In the process of philosophical cognition, the subject strives not only to understand the existence and place of man in it, but also to show what they should be (axiology), that is, he strives to create an ideal, the content of which will be determined by the worldview postulates chosen by the philosopher.
Everyday practical knowledge - information related to basic information about nature, about the people themselves, their living conditions, social connections, etc. Obtained on the basis of experience Everyday life, the practices of people of knowledge, although strong, are chaotic, scattered in nature, representing a simple set of information, rules, etc.
Social cognition - any knowledge, in the strict sense of the word, is social, since it takes place in society. It should be noted that man, who is the subject of cognition, is a social being; His cognitive activity is influenced by both social qualities and spiritual and psychological states. However, in philosophical literature the concept of “social cognition” is used to distinguish between knowledge about society and knowledge about nature, since social cognition has many features that distinguish it from cognition natural processes and phenomena. The following definition applies to social cognition: “Social cognition is people’s knowledge of the laws of the functioning of society and themselves, their goals, desires, needs, is called social cognition.”
If the immediate goal of science is to describe, explain and predict the processes and phenomena of reality that constitute the subject of its study, on the basis of the laws it discovers, then philosophy has always, to one degree or another, performed in relation to science the functions of a methodology of cognition and ideological interpretation of its results. Philosophy is also united with science by the desire for a theoretical form of constructing knowledge, for logical proof of its conclusions.
The European tradition, dating back to antiquity, highly valued the unity of reason and morality, at the same time firmly connected philosophy with science. Even Greek thinkers attached great importance to genuine knowledge and competence, in contrast to less scientific, and sometimes simply frivolous, opinions. This difference is fundamental for many forms. human activity, including for philosophy. So what are the results of the intellectual efforts of philosophers: reliable knowledge or just an opinion, a test of strength, a kind of mind game? What are the guarantees of the truth of philosophical generalizations, justifications, and forecasts? Does philosophy have the right to claim the status of science, or are such claims groundless? Let's see how science and philosophy interact with each other.
The scientific and philosophical worldview performs cognitive functions akin to the functions of science. Along with such important functions as generalization, integration, synthesis of all kinds of knowledge, the discovery of the most general patterns, connections, interactions of the main subsystems of existence, the theoretical scale, the logic of the philosophical mind also allow it to carry out the functions of forecasting, forming hypotheses about general principles, development trends, as well as primary hypotheses about the nature of specific phenomena that have not yet been studied by special scientific methods.
Based general principles rational understanding, philosophical thought groups everyday, practical observations of various phenomena, forms general assumptions about their nature and possible ways knowledge. Using the experience of understanding accumulated in other areas of knowledge and practice, she creates philosophical “sketches” of certain natural or social realities, preparing their subsequent concrete scientific elaboration. At the same time, speculative thinking through what is fundamentally permissible, logically and theoretically possible is carried out. Thus, philosophy performs the function of intellectual intelligence, which also serves to fill cognitive gaps that constantly arise due to incomplete, varying degrees of knowledge of certain phenomena, the presence of “blank spots” in the cognitive picture of the world. Of course, in a specific scientific sense, they will have to be filled out by specialist scientists of a different kind. common system worldview. Philosophy fills them with the power of logical thinking. There is an interesting point of view that these “blank spots” are not 100% filled by scientists using rational (scientific) methods. More precisely, “in extraordinary, revolutionary periods of development of scientific knowledge... each scientist uses them in his own way, putting into them (the criteria of rational choice) his own understanding. Rational considerations... are not of a generally valid nature." Those. the transition from one fundamental theory to another is carried out as a “switching” rather than as a rational choice.
Specialists who study all kinds of specific phenomena need general, holistic ideas about the world, the principles of its structure, general patterns, etc. However, they themselves do not develop such ideas - in specific sciences, universal mental tools are used (categories, principles, various methods cognition), but scientists are not specifically engaged in the development, systematization, and comprehension of cognitive techniques and tools. The general worldview and theoretical-cognitive foundations of science are studied, developed and formed in the field of philosophy.
So, philosophy and science are quite closely interrelated; They have a lot in common, but there are also significant differences. Therefore, philosophy cannot be unambiguously classified as a science and, on the contrary, its scientific nature cannot be denied. Philosophy is a separate form of knowledge that has scientific basis, manifesting itself in those moments and in those areas of scientific knowledge when the theoretical potential in these areas is either small or completely absent.
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 between consciousness and language
relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness
the role of consciousness and the unconscious in human life and activity
The essence and nature of knowledge
main approaches to solving the problem of world cognition
essence and nature of knowledge
relationship between understanding and explanation
Structure of cognitive activity
levels and forms of knowledge
relationship between knowledge and faith
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, and the conditions for the reliability and truth of knowledge are identified.
The term “gnoseology” comes from the Greek words gnosis - knowledge and logos - concept, doctrine and means “the concept of knowledge”, “the study of knowledge”. And although the term “theory of knowledge” itself was introduced into philosophy relatively recently by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrer (in 1854), the doctrine of knowledge began to be developed since the times of Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle.
Epistemology studies the universal that characterizes human cognitive activity. Within its competence is the second side of the main question of philosophy, most often expressed by the question “Is the world knowable?” In epistemology there are many other questions, the disclosure of which is associated with other categories and concepts: “consciousness”, “truth”, “practice” and “cognition”, “subject” and “object”, “material” and “ideal”, “man” ” and “computer”, “sensual”, “rational”, “intuition”, “faith”, etc. Each of these concepts, expressing spiritual or material phenomena, is autonomous and associated with a special ideological problem. However, in the theory of knowledge, they all turn out to be united among themselves through the concept of “truth”, with which they are somehow related.
The problematic and substantive specificity of the philosophical theory of knowledge becomes clearer when it is compared with non-philosophical sciences that study cognitive activity. And there are more and more sciences that study cognition. Currently, cognitive activity is studied by psychology, the physiology of higher nervous activity of humans, cybernetics, formal logic, linguistics, semiotics, structural linguistics, cultural history, history of science, etc. Thus, a new direction has emerged in psychology - cognitive psychology (from the Latin cognitio - knowledge, cognition). For her, analogies with a computer are important, and the primary goal is to trace the flow of information in the “system” (i.e., in the brain). Cognitive psychology studies cognitive activity associated, as U. Neisser notes, with the acquisition, organization and use of knowledge (see: “Cognition and reality. The meaning and principles of cognitive psychology.” M., 1981. P. 23).
All of the named disciplines (or sections) of psychological science are aimed, as we see, at the study of human cognitive activity. They relate to the relationship between the individual (or collective) psyche of people and the external environment, the consideration of psychological phenomena as a result of the influence of external factors on the central nervous system, changes in a person’s behavior or state under the influence of various external and internal factors.
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”. For psychology, sensations, concepts, intuition, doubt, etc. act as forms of the psyche associated with the behavior and life activity 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, important place philosophical issues are occupied with issues related to the knowledge of objects surrounding a person (things, relationships, processes). “Is the world knowable?” - this is the traditional question that arose in ancient times, when philosophy took its first steps, striving to be an evidence-based, rationally based worldview. But the traditional nature of this particular form of the question can lead to the idea that there were philosophers who believed that the world is not knowable at all.
In the history of philosophy there have been two positions: cognitive-realistic and agnostic, and the first was not always sensitive to 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 and doubted the existence of gods. The philosopher concluded that reliable, i.e., generally valid (“unambiguous”) knowledge of the essence of surrounding phenomena is impossible.
The school of sophists set a goal to substantiate any judgments and points of view, even resorting to logical distortions 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 statement about an object (its essence) can be countered with equal right by a statement that contradicts it. It was this line 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 her 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. Soch.: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1966. P. 35).
Without doubting, unlike D. Hume, the existence of material “things in themselves” outside consciousness, I. Kant, however, considered them in principle unknowable. Influencing a person, “things in themselves” evoke in him a multitude of diverse sensations, which turn out to be ordered through a priori forms of living contemplation. So, we cognize only the world of phenomena; things in themselves cannot be achieved by knowledge; they are elusive. “We know nothing,” Kant points out, “about what they (things - P.A.) can be in themselves, but we know only their appearance, i.e. the ideas they produce in us, acting on our feelings.”
The position of the so-called “physiological idealism”, presented in the works of the German physiologist I. Muller (1801 - 1858), is close to the Kantian concept. I. Muller put forward the thesis about the existence of specific energy of the sensory organs, which plays a decisive role in the specification of sensations. He emphasized that “sensation is the result of excitation of energy innate to the sense organ”, that color, for example, does not exist outside the sense organ; external factor“launches” the energy of the corresponding sense organ, which gives rise to the sensation of color in us. From all this I. Muller concluded: “We know neither the essence of external objects, nor what we call light, we know only the essence of our feelings.” What I. Müller said is not some kind of naive mistake, if we remember that color even today is considered the result of the influence of electromagnetic waves on the retina of the eye, which themselves are colorless. I. Müller came to the same idea, to the same scheme of cognitive interaction of the subject with the object, as I. Kant; the only difference was that I. Muller tried to prove the validity of this scheme using physiological data.
The “theory of hieroglyphs” or “theory of symbols” of 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 of I. Muller. The difference (from the concept of I. Müller) consists, firstly, in the concretization of this principle, in the establishment of 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 qualities even in the same sense organ). Secondly, the theory of hieroglyphs gave a more generalized epistemologically general idea of cognition than Müller’s interpretation of it. G. Helmholtz considered both sensations and concepts to be signs. As for sensations, he wrote: “Senses for us are only symbols of external objects; they correspond to them as much as a written word or sound corresponds to a given object. Sensory sensations inform us about the features of the external world, but they do this no better than we can communicate to a blind person through words the concept of colors” (Helmholtz G. “Popular Scientific Articles.” St. Petersburg, 1866. Issue I. P. 61 ). Sensory 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 the object” (ibid., p. 82).
At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Another type of agnosticism has 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 fact of 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 conditional propositions... One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient” (Poincaré A. “Science and Hypothesis”. M., 1904. P. 60 - 61). The pragmatic criterion, taken as the only guideline for reliability, led to doubt about the knowability of the essence of material systems and the laws of natural reality; scientific laws, in his opinion, are conventions, symbols.
Conventionalism as a system of ideological views and principles of scientific knowledge has become widespread in recent decades in Western philosophy, as well as in the logic and methodology of science. Conventionalist attitudes were advocated 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 “natural reality”, creates a new one according to the principles of reason through the objectification of ideas. In the process of transformative practice, the subject, however, 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 disagree with agnosticism on the issue of the knowability of phenomena (as phenomena, objects of sensory knowledge). They also do not differ in answer to the question: is it possible to know the world as a whole in all its connections and mediations? (The answer to this is negative.)
The difference lies elsewhere - on the question of whether the essence of material systems is knowable. Discrepancies - in the interpretation of the nature of the "phenomenon" - phenomena: do these phenomena have a direct relationship to the essence and is it possible through phenomena to obtain reliable knowledge about the essence of material systems?
When asked about the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about the essence of objects (or about the main thing in this essence), agnostics answer negatively, although in different ways, depending on whether they generally recognize the existence of the essence or not, and if they do, what kind of connection they see essences with phenomena.
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 divided on many grounds. Exist materialistic and idealistic agnosticism, sensualistic and rationalistic, Humean, Kantian, etc. agnosticism(if we take the names of the creators of the corresponding schools), agnosticism ethical, hieroglyphic, physiological, cybernetic and so on. (by means, nature of argumentation).